These pilots shoud've seen the (PAPI) lights red LONG before they were close to the runway. This should've been a go-around way earlier thn they decided too. Could have been avoided.

On a Flight Sim related note; KTVU just used a clip of the PMDG 737NGX landing on 28L @ KSFO as an example of a "normal landing."

 

KTVU: http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/ktvu-live-news/vtSfR/?updated

These pilots shoud've seen the (PAPI) lights red LONG before they were close to the runway. This should've been a go-around way earlier thn they decided too. Could have been avoided.

Not an excuse for the screw up but the PAPI was not functioning at the time of the accident.

Not an excuse for the screw up but the PAPI was not functioning at the time of the accident.

NTSB Press conference says the PAPI were operating...the NTSB went on to say that the NOTAM regarding their outage was issued AFTER the crash.

 

It was a bright sunny day, 10NM vis & light winds & 11000ft of tarmac ahead of them.

 

 

Just when you think the worst is over.

 

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1031076/391/Official-probes-if-rescuers-ran-over-crash-victim

 

A San Francisco-area coroner whose office received the bodies of two teenage victims of the Asiana plane crash says officials are conducting an autopsy to determine if one of the girls was run over and killed by a rescue vehicle.
    
San Mateo County Coroner Robert Foucrault says Sunday that senior San Francisco Fire Department officials notified him and his staff at the crash site on Saturday that one of the 16-year-olds may have been struck on the runaway.

 

Just when you think the worst is over.

 

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1031076/391/Official-probes-if-rescuers-ran-over-crash-victim

If that statement turns out to be true, then that is absolutely tragic!

Oh no :(

I've done 11 face palms in the last 24 hours watching the news trying to explain the situation.

I don't mind the speculation here because at least the folks commenting know what a stick shaker is for.

 

As uninteresting as it may be they probably got too slow and noticed too late .... maybe enjoying the view of San Fran.

Not every accident is started by the weight of a bug xxxxx landing on a sub-par rivet .... or something like that.

bob34, on 07 Jul 2013 - 9:36 PM, said:

 

I've done 11 face palms in the last 24 hours watching the news trying to explain the situation.

I don't mind the speculation here because at least the folks commenting know what a stick shaker is for.

 

As uninteresting as it may be they probably got too slow and noticed too late .... maybe enjoying the view of San Fran.

Not every accident is started by the weight of a bug xxxxx landing on a sub-par rivet .... or something like that.

It's the ratings machine.. Tragedy = Ratings and the producers just want nothing but to fill the schedule up with what is bringing in the ratings at the risk of losing any any all credibility while doing it. The `professional' talking heads run out of stuff to talk about and dumb guessing gets mixed in.. Add in dozens and dozens of retired persons and experts in every field known to man to add credible `guessing' to the broadcast. I haven't watched CNN or anything since yesterday.. Before that I stopped watching the MSM during the Boston Marathon tragedy when CNN went out and actually bought a pressure cooker to randomly hold up on air and explain "this is what was used to make the bomb".

Here is something new.. One of the pilots had 43 hours on type...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/asiana-says-pilot-crashed-plane-training-010133596.html

Here is something new.. One of the pilots had 43 hours on type...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/asiana-says-pilot-crashed-plane-training-010133596.html

If its true then its probably the most important piece of information known to them before recovering the black box

They had total of 4 pilots on the aircraft because of the 10 hour flight. Shouldint all 4 be in the flight deck during landing? Maybe not as a rule but because its a end of the flight type of thing.. 

 

 

Here is something new.. One of the pilots had 43 hours on type...
 
http://news.yahoo.co...-010133596.html

 

Everybody is going to be at there at some point, you have to start somewhere, that's why he is in the right seat learning, I don't really see it as a factor.

yeah, im sure he made a couple of landings by now, especially with the good weather it was a good time for him to do a manual landing. But with such low hours on type.. he still might have the "feeling" of flying the previous aircraft and be used to the other landing speeds etc.. so it could def play a big factor.

 

 

yeah, im sure he made a couple of landings by now, especially with the good weather it was a good time for him to do a manual landing.

 

My post came off too matter of fact I apologize, its certainly a factor, but really should not be an issue, I could see if it was a heavy system related malfunction, then inexperience would certainly show itself, but slow on approach is the same in a C-182, King Air, Regional Jet, 737, and 777, the Pilot Monitoring (Pilot Not Flying not sure of the correct civilian term) is tasked with that exact job, which brings into question the cultural obstacles.  The fact that the Co-Pilot did not call the Go-Around is troubling to me, there were certainly past the point of correcting there airspeed.  Just my opinion and certainly not fact but I think it's founded considering the evidence.  And you're exactly right, what better day to shoot a visual and get some stick time than the conditions they had Saturday.