Pilots Cited in Asiana Crash
- Thread starter SeanD
- Start date
SeanD
Well-Known Member
My guess is that they werent confident with actually flying the airplane. Heck there was an incident not too long ago where another Asian airline had to divert to an alternate because their original destinations ILS was INOP and the conditions were VFR.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
It's super easy to set up a widebody in a very bad spot on a visual, as by the time you notice the pitch change, it's too late. Throw in fatigue and a relatively new crewmember, very easy to see how this can happen with a simple mistake caused by fatigue, missed due to expectancy error, at exactly the wrong time.
We played with the SIM a bit after this deal. Very easy to get in that bind. You can mock these guys, but doing this job everyday I can't say it can't happen to a top tier airline. It's like landing at the wrong field or taking off without gas. No one here would do that...
If you walk with the attitude that it's impossible, you might be next.
We played with the SIM a bit after this deal. Very easy to get in that bind. You can mock these guys, but doing this job everyday I can't say it can't happen to a top tier airline. It's like landing at the wrong field or taking off without gas. No one here would do that...
If you walk with the attitude that it's impossible, you might be next.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
It's basically what we discussed earlier in the thread: Visuals in the US are very common. Outside the US, they are the exception.
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
Okay, gotcha!
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Watch this space, I might be next!
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/ntsb-hearing-asiana-flight-214/index.html
The only new info I've seen that I found a little odd was the PF wasn't wearing sunglasses for cultural reasons that would make it rude with a senior pilot next to him. He says he had trouble seeing at some points on final. That being said, the sun shouldn't be visible at all from the cockpit landing on the 28s that time of day, it should be well above and behind them so I find that interesting.
One of the pilots was quoted on the delay of the go-around.
The only new info I've seen that I found a little odd was the PF wasn't wearing sunglasses for cultural reasons that would make it rude with a senior pilot next to him. He says he had trouble seeing at some points on final. That being said, the sun shouldn't be visible at all from the cockpit landing on the 28s that time of day, it should be well above and behind them so I find that interesting.
One of the pilots was quoted on the delay of the go-around.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Are we seriously trying to figure out whether or not this happened because some dude wasn't wearing Aviators? Ahahahhahahaha.
Primary Cause - Insufficient Sweet Eye Protection - PIC
Secondary Cause - Cultural Taboo against Fashionable Eyewear - Putative Entire Racial/Ethnic/Geographical/Political Construct
Tertiary Cause - Inability to land totally functional aircraft on enormous runway in perfect conditions -The Man.
Aahahhahahahah.
Primary Cause - Insufficient Sweet Eye Protection - PIC
Secondary Cause - Cultural Taboo against Fashionable Eyewear - Putative Entire Racial/Ethnic/Geographical/Political Construct
Tertiary Cause - Inability to land totally functional aircraft on enormous runway in perfect conditions -The Man.
Aahahhahahahah.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
New video just released from a camera that looks to be on top of the FAA tower. It's pretty intense, I wonder what that Frontier crew was thinking when they turned out of the alley and were looking straight at that.
\
\
That's why I couldn't believe that was mentioned on the news lol.
Flying with a guy named Dong....can't say his middle name because I will get banned. Lets just say he "Suk"s.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Sounds like they were expecting to always have alpha protection from the A/T. The 777 logic is very similar to "A. FLOOR" on the Airbus.
It's also inhibited below 100 feet, just like on the Airbus... plane's gotta land. The "Toulouse Lawnmower" pilot was trying to demo A. FLOOR, but was below 100 feet. You can hear him manually go to TOGA just before they hit the trees. Strangely similar.
Except the demo pilot said epic words later that "the plane wouldn't let me go around." This time apparently sunglasses were at fault... in neither case was a lack of knowledge of aircraft functionality to blame.
It's also inhibited below 100 feet, just like on the Airbus... plane's gotta land. The "Toulouse Lawnmower" pilot was trying to demo A. FLOOR, but was below 100 feet. You can hear him manually go to TOGA just before they hit the trees. Strangely similar.
Except the demo pilot said epic words later that "the plane wouldn't let me go around." This time apparently sunglasses were at fault... in neither case was a lack of knowledge of aircraft functionality to blame.
sweeps
Undercarriage Actuator
Sounds like they were expecting to always have alpha protection from the A/T. The 777 logic is very similar to "A. FLOOR" on the Airbus.
It's also inhibited below 100 feet, just like on the Airbus... plane's gotta land. The "Toulouse Lawnmower" pilot was trying to demo A. FLOOR, but was below 100 feet. You can hear him manually go to TOGA just before they hit the trees. Strangely similar.
Except the demo pilot said epic words later that "the plane wouldn't let me go around." This time apparently sunglasses were at fault... in neither case was a lack of knowledge of aircraft functionality to blame.
Would you mind explaining what is meant by that? I don't know how autothrottles work. Thanks.
Edit: I also don't know how this forum works
In many airports you're not given the choice. Generally, you're on the arrival, following the approach transition, ATC says "join the ILS" and generally the 10-1P pages dictate your speeds on the arrival. There isn't a lot of leeway or "English" you can throw on the arrival.
Visuals are more common in the US because then ATC can daisy chain arrivals together and place separation responsibility on the flight crew. Tighter spacing and lower workload. Hell, there are many airports that if you don't call the traffic in sight, they'll punitively send you around.
I don't think it matters that much in terms of visual versus ILS as my procedures dictate that if it's up and available, clear and a million, you're going to tune it and follow it. Besides, you don't want to drag-in a heavy jet or get close to messing with the requirement to be on glidepath, speed and configured at 1000' AGL in a world of FOQA. That airplane will snitch you out in an instant.
Hell, on the 330, maintenance control knows you have a problem even before you get an ECAM message.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Would you mind explaining what is meant by that? I don't know how autothrottles work. Thanks.
Edit: I also don't know how this forum works
A. FLOOR, which is actually "alpha floor" is an autothrottle protection build in for stall protection. In the Airbus, you enter A. FLOOR at a certain speed right around stall speed. The thrust goes automatically to TOGA power, and stays there after you exit the alpha floor condition. Then you have to match the thrust levers to the TOGA detent, disconnect the A/T and reduce the power manually. Alpha floor protection is always available unless the A/T system itself is inop/deferred, and of course below 100 RA.
On the 777, it is referred to as "autothrottle wakeup." The thrust comes up as you approach a stall condition, but not in the dramatic TOGA manner. I believe (staplegun and others can correct me) it's only just an increase in thrust to get it out of the condition, not straight to TOGA power. It's also not available below 100 RA.
"Recover from the recovery!Ahh yes, A. FLOOR.
"Why are we going so fast after we recov… OH…"
I got my first real A. FLOOR last summer when escaping from a windshear. I was quite thankful we do them so much in the sim! Made it much less of an event.
Well, I've demoed them on functional check flights, but that was the first time I've seen it in non-controlled conditions.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
It's still an IFR approach. Visual approaches are widely available and commonly used in the US. By seeing the airport or the traffic you are following, ATC can issue you a visual approach with a few conditions if needed. It also saves them some in-trail restrictions and a little baby sitting. Here's the thing though: even though you are shooting a visual approach you usually have all navajds available like an ILS or at least a localizer to reference. It's not all or nothing. If the Asiana guys were confused on a visual approach to 28L, they should of tuned in the 28L ILS and referenced the data all the way to landing. It still would have complied with a visual approach clearance.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
The G/S was out, but the PAPI and LOC were functional. It's quite simple to build and fly a "gomer glidepath" in all modern integrated airliners. They apparently just couldn't process it at that point, fixated on... something... and stopped flying the plane.. hoping it would save them.
genot
Well-Known Member
Completely off topic, but I'm wondering how the transition from the RNAV STAR to RNP/ILS works from a separation perspective. I've got em and I have to deny them 80% of the time because I'm mostly only asked only asked when there are conflicts. So I guess my question is do these RNP giving airports a) overseas airports have a ton of real estate to build runways b) have lower volume c) more technology or an earlier acceptance.
I'm a slowish Bravo controller, but LHR must have less capacity than we do. I'm clearly missing something here if its common to transition from oceanic to the RNAV arrival to the approach.
I'm a slowish Bravo controller, but LHR must have less capacity than we do. I'm clearly missing something here if its common to transition from oceanic to the RNAV arrival to the approach.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Hopefully no one is casting any stones here. Many times in aviation "It couldn't happen to me" ends up happening. All we can do is learn from it and fix the problem(s) to prevent it from happening again. I still believe current PC requirements need to be changed. 4 approaches, 1 RTO, 2 precision, 2 non-precision, and everything fully automated with the only approach required by law to be handflown is the single engine ILS to a full stop landing. Usually PCs are very predictable. The first takeoff is usually normal, because they want you to get used to the sim and its pitch sensitivity compared to the real plane. Maneuvers in the air and vectors back for an approach with AP on. Go around. Another approach, go around. Approach and land. Reset back to runway (gee, I wonder what's coming next?). Either a RTO or a V1 cut. Handflown single engine ILS to a full stop landing. Sounds familiar? PCs are what our jobs hang on every year when we hit the sim, and 98% of is fully automated, fully autopilot on, and manage the flight control (autopilot) panel. Remember, even the Capt of Colgan 3407 passed PCs. Any person can manipulate an autopilot panel and get the airplane to a runway when everything is working okay. But it's the overall monitoring required and speaking from a natural point of view, humans make bad monitors. There should be an emphasis on more hand-flying, both in sims and on the line.