Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 30, 2014, 06:14:23 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO  (Read 53665 times)
dljone3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2013, 11:09:04 AM »

That must must have been a pretty frightening view for the United heavy holding short of 28L.
Logged
oktalist
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2013, 02:02:53 PM »

First responders press briefing live: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/live-video/

Expecting another NTSB briefing shortly.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 02:08:47 PM by oktalist » Logged
oktalist
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2013, 04:24:19 PM »

That NTSB briefing happened and is now available at http://www.c-span.org/Events/NTSB-Briefing-on-Asiana-Airline-Plane-Crash/10737440372-1/
Logged
oktalist
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #63 on: July 09, 2013, 07:56:11 PM »

http://www.c-span.org/Events/NTSB-Briefing-on-Asiana-Airline-Plane-Crash/10737440372-3/
Logged
mielsonwheals
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2013, 04:06:53 PM »



Another interesting thing: the headline on the CNN site says

NTSB: Pilots asked to do a 'go-around' 1.5 seconds before impact

No, the NTSB didn't say that.  The quote from the NTSB's Deborah Hersman says that they "called to initiate go-around", but this was in a section of the press conference where she was referring to CVR and FDR information.  So we all know that when she says they "called to initiate," she's probably referring to a pilot ordering it for the cockpit crew to carry it out.  But CNN turned that into a headline that makes it sound like they made a request, as if to ATC.  

And if that's not convincing enough, a paragraph farther down in the story says:

For example, she said, the increase of power in the engines appears to correlate with the cockpit crew's request to "go-around," a call to abort the landing and try it again.

Note, Hersman didn't call it a "request" to go-around, that's CNN's interpretation, and now also probably most readers' understanding of how things happened.  I hope people don't end up thinking "Gee, if ATC had only approved that request right away, they might have been OK..."  It very much skews one's understanding of the situation.

I'm not so naive that I'm shocked when the press gets technical details wrong (I'm an engineer, and I see science and engineering issues mangled all the time...) but it's still unfortunate.  The CNN story seems to be generating around a thousand comments per hour, so I'm not inclined to wade into that typically chaotic fray and get dragged into discussions of conspiracies, political parties, and the like.  

Just thought I'd vent with folks who would understand.



I saw that too and it made me cringe a bit, especially after listening to the audio. They definitely didn't request a go around to the tower, just to each other in the cockpit, obviously way too late. Big difference. I tweeted at CNN but, can you believe it, they didn't change the headline.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 04:08:46 PM by mielsonwheals » Logged
Jetblast1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113



« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2013, 02:37:55 PM »

Is it just me, or is it different with 3 people in the cockpit? Turkish at EHAM had a training captain, Asiana also (from AVHerald) is there more pressure on the pilots?

[Edit]
I also tried to imagine how things go when you do something the first time.

It appears the pilot was on his first landing in a 777 at SFO, which can be explaned as someone who is too focused on steering the airplane (frenetic) so he had (in his head) no time to check the other instruments, the way you would be able to when you have done something a couple of times (more relaxed flying)
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 07:27:24 PM by 757-rules » Logged
marc99
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2013, 02:46:39 PM »

What's missing is a simulation with time synched radio transmissions.
Logged
InterpreDemon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419



« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2013, 04:35:50 PM »

First landing? Nonsense. This was a classic example of the difference between the performance of real pilots and that of modern day "flight managers" who for some inexplicable reason are always trying to insulate themselves from direct control of the flight path by utilizing as much technology as possible at all times. They will fly the approach to touchdown on autopilot, and if there is a runway incursion on short final they will be found spinning heading and altitude hold knobs instead of grabbing the yoke and throttles. There is an excellent discussion of this including an excellent video on this other LiveATC thread:

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/aviation-incidents/crash-at-sfo/30/

One of my modest contributions to the fracas:

"Oktalist, even at 500' I doubt he "suddenly" saw three red and that in the minutes prior to that point he had been stabilized on the GS. Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count. It ain't like cracking the throttle on that IO-540 in front of you and getting instant torque. That's why turbine pilots must always be well ahead of the equipment if they are to be able to stabilize the flight path, and generally flight energy decisions and adjustments have to be made at least ten seconds in advance."

"You see, that's why I know this is all BS.... that plane was not stabilized on the glide path with everything hanging out because if it was the engines would have been already cranking at a good clip. No, the engines were probably at idle because he was porpoising the GS... indeed perhaps due to fixation on the PAPI ("chasing the needles") or maybe he was looking at something else. The two things he was definitely not looking at were airspeed and power. When the report is released the FDR and CVR will tell us "the rrrrrrrrrrrrest of the story", and it will not be pretty. I had to laugh when Asiana announced that they had grounded their 777 fleet for inspection, when they really should have grounded their pilot roster for re-examination."
Logged

Feed Purveyor:
KJFK ARINC
KHPN ATIS
(KJFK) NY DEP Liberty East
HF CAR-A  3455/5550/6577/8846/11396
HF ARINC LDOC  6640/8933
HF NY VOLMET  6604

Complaints should be addressed to: City Hall
ryannayr140
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2013, 07:22:07 PM »

Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count.

I'm not a real pilot, I only fly on a simulator.  I never use the auto-throttle on final because when I see three reds and pull up a bit I like to add power before the inevitable loss of speed, then adjust the throttles again moments later to stabilize the speed.  The auto-throttle does not know that you're going to pull up the stick until you do it.   On the other hand, I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes. 
Logged
martyj19
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2013, 10:15:24 PM »

Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count.

I'm not a real pilot, I only fly on a simulator.  I never use the auto-throttle on final because when I see three reds and pull up a bit I like to add power before the inevitable loss of speed, then adjust the throttles again moments later to stabilize the speed.  The auto-throttle does not know that you're going to pull up the stick until you do it.   On the other hand, I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes. 

(There's some discussion on this but) pitch controls airspeed, power controls rate of climb or descent.  If you are on airspeed, and you are low, the normal correction would be to add a little bit of power with no pitch change and fly level until you are back on glidepath.  I encourage you to take an intro flight where you spend an hour or two in a real airplane trying out how it reacts in real situations.

In this case they were both low and far below airspeed and the engines were at flight idle until a few seconds before the tail struck the seawall well short of the threshold.  InterpreDemon has it nailed.
Logged
Eric M
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110



« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2013, 10:20:10 PM »

If you'll pardon this slight course deviation, an (now-former?) NTSB intern today 'confirmed' the names of the four Asiana captains involved. Only trouble was that he was joking, but KTVU (Fox affiliate in San Francisco) didn't quite catch that before their noon newscast today. Major retractions ensued. Must see the included YouTube clip to fully appreciate.

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/07/12/1937/
Logged
flyflyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107



« Reply #71 on: July 13, 2013, 07:00:52 AM »


OMG!! No way did they broadcast this for real?  shocked
All involved lacked even basic common sense. No surprise they're blaming it on their "interns" now...
Logged
InterpreDemon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419



« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2013, 12:21:22 PM »

"I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes."

Ryan - What I find very disturbing over many years of experience and observation, is the number of accidents that have been instigated or facilitated by the inappropriate use of autopilot functionality. For example, aircraft that plunged to the ground needlessly in Indiana and Buffalo thanks to pilots remaining on autopilot in icing conditions and chatting away as the airframe got loaded up to the point where the AP disengaged and handed the clueless pilots an un-flyable machine. Even if a pilot is unaware of icing he will soon become aware that something is wrong if hand flying because he will detect and/or note the changes in trim or need for additional power, etc. Flight 401 went down in the Everglades because the entire cockpit crew was obsessed with a gear indicator light and nobody was in charge of flying the plane, so nobody noticed when a bump on the yoke by the captain disengaged the AP and they gradually flew down into the swamp.

I could go on and on with endless examples and, just like the single vs twin debate, somebody could cite the accidents that never happened due to the extra engine or give anecdotal stories about the pilot who but for the autopilot would have crashed after falling asleep, however thanks to being on autopilot when the engine started sputtering it woke him up and he was able to skillfully and expertly perform a dead-stick, off-airport landing. Wow! What a pilot!

I have my own rule for autopilot use, and that is to disengage and fly manually whenever more than one flight path parameter needs to be changed. For example, a change in heading during cruise... no problem. Change in heading and altitude and/or airspeed? I'm doing that myself because, frankly, I can do it better or sequence things optimally in a way that is far more difficult to do by telling the autopilot what to do, waiting to see what it does and then providing any required feedback. I also find that when I am "flying" the plane I am more engaged with the world outside the cockpit and have better overall situational awareness... I feel like I am part of the machine and it actually reduces my workload because in a high-load environment like flying into New York in IMC I find the flying part of the job (including the scan) is like riding a bike. It's hard to explain, but for me it's just easier to be firing on all cylinders than to be figuring out which ones I might not need at the moment.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 03:53:09 PM by InterpreDemon » Logged

Feed Purveyor:
KJFK ARINC
KHPN ATIS
(KJFK) NY DEP Liberty East
HF CAR-A  3455/5550/6577/8846/11396
HF ARINC LDOC  6640/8933
HF NY VOLMET  6604

Complaints should be addressed to: City Hall
cptbrw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139


« Reply #73 on: July 14, 2013, 07:34:36 AM »

Found the following animation video.  It's not an NTSB animation but is interesting nonetheless.

Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1579


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #74 on: July 15, 2013, 08:57:14 AM »

Pretty intense animation... shocked

Found the following animation video.  It's not an NTSB animation but is interesting nonetheless.


Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!