Asiana 777 hard landing crash at SFO
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
robbedagain
Veteran
while im soo grateful for all those who made it out of the aircraft... my heart thoughts prayers and sympathies go out to the 2 teenage chinese women who tragically lost their lives in that accident. i cannot imagine the grief those families are going thru as all those who survived and all.. wonder how the united flight 885 crew felt as they radioed the tower to tell them there were survivors on or around the numbers of runway 28R or L
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,825
- 4,428
I am with you robbed. I can't imagine what those people on UAL 885 are going through after having a front row seat to this. (Of course nothing like the OZ214 pax)
I know the pilots of UA885 saw it coming and could do nothing.
I am very impressed with Debra Hersman again. She is a true professional. I was very happy to see that she was taking the lead on this rather than delegating.
She was the lead on the Colgan Air investigation.
I know the pilots of UA885 saw it coming and could do nothing.
I am very impressed with Debra Hersman again. She is a true professional. I was very happy to see that she was taking the lead on this rather than delegating.
She was the lead on the Colgan Air investigation.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
and now word that the PIC had minimal time on the 777 and was attempting his first landing at SFO in that type.
Very sad and apparently avoidable what has taken place....
Very sad and apparently avoidable what has taken place....
LD3
Veteran
robbedagain
Veteran
THE copilot had 3220 hrs accrding to www.cnn.com soo sad this sounds like it was completely avodiable may those 2 girls rip and may god help the survivors
Now, wait a second. Let's be fair to the PIC. EVERY pilot has to make a first landing at EVERY airport at which he/she lands. They don't come to the job fully experienced on every airport and with 1000's of hours on each a/c. Should they all just ferry empty 777's around the globe landing and taking off from every airport until they have done enough to satisfy you that they are now experienced enough to handle airplanes with passengers on them?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
The issue is not that this was the first landing but that there were several other experienced 777 pilots on the aircraft yet the situation deteriorated so badly that no one made the decision that they needed to increase power and then later do a go around until mere seconds before impact.
The investigators have to do their work and I am certainly not rushing to judgment but it surely seems that there are similarities to both the Air France crash off the coast of Brazil and Korean Air's string of crashes 15-20 years ago. In the KE situation, it was determined there was a cultural inability for a junior pilot to tell a senior pilot what needed to be done; KE went thru a serious pilot reeducation process to implement CRM. IN the AF case, there were indications that the pilots were not prepared to fly the plane w/o instruments and computers which had failed because of instrumentation issues. In this case, the instrumentation issues were on the ground - and the work SFO was/is doing will undoubtedly be brought into question as well as the processes of how that work is coordinated with airport users - but the expectation is that a commercial airline pilot should have been capable of landing a plane at that airport without the navaids that would have indicated he was too low.
Absolutely, everyone needs to have an environment in which they can learn but there needs to be a lot better systems in place when you have 300 lives and $150 million of assets under your control. It would seem that other airlines have already recognized the problems that can occur in this type of situation and have processes and training in place.
Again, it will take months for final conclusions to be known but I would find it hard to believe that the major causative factors will come out much different than what the NTSB has identified as major concerns even this earlier in the investigation.
There are pilots who are much more knowledgeable about the subject but there have been significant advances made in the science of pilot training over the past several decades and there is no doubt that there are successes because of it.
The investigators have to do their work and I am certainly not rushing to judgment but it surely seems that there are similarities to both the Air France crash off the coast of Brazil and Korean Air's string of crashes 15-20 years ago. In the KE situation, it was determined there was a cultural inability for a junior pilot to tell a senior pilot what needed to be done; KE went thru a serious pilot reeducation process to implement CRM. IN the AF case, there were indications that the pilots were not prepared to fly the plane w/o instruments and computers which had failed because of instrumentation issues. In this case, the instrumentation issues were on the ground - and the work SFO was/is doing will undoubtedly be brought into question as well as the processes of how that work is coordinated with airport users - but the expectation is that a commercial airline pilot should have been capable of landing a plane at that airport without the navaids that would have indicated he was too low.
Absolutely, everyone needs to have an environment in which they can learn but there needs to be a lot better systems in place when you have 300 lives and $150 million of assets under your control. It would seem that other airlines have already recognized the problems that can occur in this type of situation and have processes and training in place.
Again, it will take months for final conclusions to be known but I would find it hard to believe that the major causative factors will come out much different than what the NTSB has identified as major concerns even this earlier in the investigation.
There are pilots who are much more knowledgeable about the subject but there have been significant advances made in the science of pilot training over the past several decades and there is no doubt that there are successes because of it.
AFAIK, every long distance flight carries 4 pilots--or two complete cockpit crews however many that is. The same two pilots can not be on duty for 14-20 hours. We can always second guess that "because this was his first landing at SFO one of the experienced pilots (for this airport and this a/c) should have been on the jumpseat in the cockpit, despite having already worked the maximum number of hours, to direct the newer pilot in the landing. I doubt seriously that happens on any airline--maybe on a designated training flight, but I doubt it would be one of the other pilots who has already worked his/her shift. As I understand it, even when a pilot is getting a check ride, the check airman does not direct the PIC's actions, he simply observes and makes notes--unless he sees a serious deficiency.
And, I didn't see anyone mention (though I may have just missed it) that several news agencies reported that the ILS system at SFO was inoperative. I realize that pilots were landing planes at airports all over the world long before ILS systems were developed. Let's also remember that there used to be a lot more crashes than there are now. Perhaps if the ILS system was operative, the cockpit might have been made aware of the speed problem soon enough to correct. Airspeed is just one of the 14,000 things a pilot is supposed to be aware of at all times.
And, I didn't see anyone mention (though I may have just missed it) that several news agencies reported that the ILS system at SFO was inoperative. I realize that pilots were landing planes at airports all over the world long before ILS systems were developed. Let's also remember that there used to be a lot more crashes than there are now. Perhaps if the ILS system was operative, the cockpit might have been made aware of the speed problem soon enough to correct. Airspeed is just one of the 14,000 things a pilot is supposed to be aware of at all times.
LD3
Veteran
I believe the papi's and localizer were active, the glidescope was notamed out of service due to construction...
robbedagain
Veteran
jim i agree that the pilots have to land at airports but it appears in this case theyve been there multiple times but from what ive been reading is that this is the first time they flew a 777 into sfo. but new reports indicate the plane was a lot slower than normal
and one website mentioned it was around 85 knots which would be what around 105 mph? the quest is what is the stall speed for the plane or does it vary
and one website mentioned it was around 85 knots which would be what around 105 mph? the quest is what is the stall speed for the plane or does it vary
metopower
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2006
- 932
- 313
Lets be clear at one time or an other every Capt. Has 43 hr in command of a new airplane landing at a new airport Mine happened to be Mumbai . All airlines run ultra long haul crews differently . DL. Two crews. UAL one capt 3 f/o. CO one capt 3 f/o. Crew rotation and rest periods are also different in length and when which pilot rests. Problem may be in CRM and culture. If he only had 43 hrs thorn he was probably flying. Also Korean airline culture is very similar to cockpit cultures of the 1940's Capt is always right and f/o's do not speak up. Only at the very end did some one speak up but you can be sure that the problem had been noticed long before .As far as the ILS being inop that would only be a problem if he was unaware and didn't notice he had no glide slop. It is not as easy as you may think to fly a visual approach in a large airplane without references. Every year in recurrent it is one of the tasks that are asked to preform .Simple but something that you actually only do once a year.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
thanks Meto.
Yes the challenge is very much there to land a large aircraft without much of the automation that modern commercial aircraft use all of the time. However, this was landing on the same runway that other international aircraft normally use at SFO so it was not a unique situation to this flight, right. Since UA has a large international operation there, they have a lot of pilots who have done these types of landings since the navaids have been out for some time.
Also, can you give us some sense of what kind of guidelines various airlines might have regarding how complicated a landing or takeoff might be before there is a determination by someone - and who makes that call - that perhaps someone more experienced should be at the controls.
Please also explain some of the concepts of CRM and how they should have been used in a situation like this if they had been in place.... not second guessing but just going by the challenges we know from what the NTSB has said about the landing.
thanks
also interesting that according to some reports the co-pilot had more flying hours than the captain..... but both were very veteran pilots and there were 4 pilots onboard. Based on US carrier staffing, if one leg is 12 hours or more, the pilot staffing would be 4 total pilots. There might be other reasons for a 4th pilot even if the flight was less than 12 hours in either direction.
Are all pilots on the flight deck for all takeoffs and landings for most airlines, Meto
Yes the challenge is very much there to land a large aircraft without much of the automation that modern commercial aircraft use all of the time. However, this was landing on the same runway that other international aircraft normally use at SFO so it was not a unique situation to this flight, right. Since UA has a large international operation there, they have a lot of pilots who have done these types of landings since the navaids have been out for some time.
Also, can you give us some sense of what kind of guidelines various airlines might have regarding how complicated a landing or takeoff might be before there is a determination by someone - and who makes that call - that perhaps someone more experienced should be at the controls.
Please also explain some of the concepts of CRM and how they should have been used in a situation like this if they had been in place.... not second guessing but just going by the challenges we know from what the NTSB has said about the landing.
thanks
also interesting that according to some reports the co-pilot had more flying hours than the captain..... but both were very veteran pilots and there were 4 pilots onboard. Based on US carrier staffing, if one leg is 12 hours or more, the pilot staffing would be 4 total pilots. There might be other reasons for a 4th pilot even if the flight was less than 12 hours in either direction.
Are all pilots on the flight deck for all takeoffs and landings for most airlines, Meto
the times I saw listed for the Capt. was 9600 hours total. By U.S. standards that would be about the same as a new hire first officer for a major airline currently. Hardly a "very veteran" pilot by our standards. However it is not uncommon for European and Asian carriers. Having said that, the time I listed came from a news report...and we all know how accurate the media is when dealing with aviation stuff. As far as training in the US, new pilots go through ground and sim training, then are paired with a training Capt. for the first 25 to 50 hours of line operations. Some time during that period new captains also must have a line check performed by an FAA inspector. The FAA guy rides the jumpseat on a normal flight segment and evaluates the new captains performance. Typically on international augmented crew operations there will be a 3rd pilot up front for take off and landing sitting on the jumpseat as another pair of eyes.
Similar threads
