I assume there was still plenty of fuel left? The rapid descent that others have suggested prior to final approach made me wonder whether they needed to get down quickly because of a lack of fuel, but it seems that this is a normal procedure for certain approaches into KSFO?

IAF747, on 08 Jul 2013 - 1:24 PM, said:

 

I think you underestimate the amount of manual flying that is conducted by pilots these days.

 

Also you probably don't realise that pilots do visual approaches almost all the time. Even night flying you can get a clearance for visual approach.

 

You got to remember though that you have passengers on board the aircraft and the AP is essential in cruise in keeping the flight smooth. The AP is one of the greatest inventions and has enabled long distance flight in a short amount of time to be as smooth as effectively possible.

No, I'm talking about a pure visual approach which is unsupported by any instrumentation. As in a visual approach to a runway with no ILS or visual glideslope. And I do realize we do visual approaches all the time. We do visual approaches much more often than we do an actual ILS. But even though we may be cleared for a visual approach, in almost all cases, unless a pilot is purposely trying to practice something, the visual approach is conducted like an instrument approach with the available guidance for the runway in order to ensure the safest possible approach.

I am the training department...  :mellow:  We put a very big emphasis on regularly doing visual approaches and if you're ever on frequency you'll often hear us requesting visuals over an ILS.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 Ró, classic reply.Priceless.

I assume there was still plenty of fuel left? The rapid descent that others have suggested prior to final approach made me wonder whether they needed to get down quickly because of a lack of fuel, but it seems that this is a normal procedure for certain approaches into KSFO?

 

Fuel problems have not been reported.

 

KSFO ATC want incoming traffic to stay higher first and descent quickly later which pilots usually manage. This particular flight was analyzed and said to perform its descent in an unstable way, being too high most of the time. When the 'too high' was corrected, descent rate increased into the 'unstable' area - about 1.300 fpm on short final, when only 600 ft AGL. That flight path uncorrected would have resulted in less than 30 sec until impact.

 

'Speed' was called only 7 sec before the crash, stick shaker activated 4 sec before and engine spool-up started 1.5 sec before impact. The 777 engines need about 5 sec to respond to the throttles and about another 5 sec to arrest the sink rate.

 

Too much precious time was lost before thrust was applied and a G/A initiated.

 

There are reasons behind this behaviour and causes behind the obvious events, which have to be analyzed as well during the investigation.

Jude Bradley, on 08 Jul 2013 - 1:49 PM, said:

Ró, classic reply.Priceless.

I hope though it is not true that he is the _entire_ training department because that would be quite the one man operation!

Christopher Low, on 08 Jul 2013 - 1:34 PM, said:

 

This is probably why I can't understand what happened during this approach. When I hand fly my simulated airliners, I always use power to control the rate of descent when on final approach. I don't touch the stick at all. That being the case, it is hard for me to understand why these guys couldn't have easily powered out of that "well below the glideslope" approach (and that's what it was, based on what I can see in the video). They presumably have the airliner on some kind of AUTO setup, but I am clueless in that department!

If his flight guidance was in FLCH mode, the throttles would not have powered up to hold airspeed when he pulled back on the stick to hold the glideslope. And if he was behind the plane, he may not have realized the mismanaged setup on the autothrottle and not realized that airspeed was bleeding off.

Rónán O Cadhain, on 08 Jul 2013 - 1:37 PM, said:

 

But that's just it, we have inspectors, if you don't meet the standard, you don't fly, that should be enough incentive to people to make sure they remain current because if they don't, they're out of their jobs. I'm not sure how the FAA does it, but the IAA will make you jump through hoop after hoop in their proficiency checks. You must make the cut. So even if they're not concerned about a time some day in the future, they should be concerned about their 6 monthly sim check and their annual line check, as well as any other spot checks done over the course of the year.

 

I will give you that I only know the culture in my airline, and that I'm not that exposed to other pilots ways of doing things, but as pilots we always need to be constantly at the top of our game, and anyone that thinks that that doesn't require practice is deluding themselves and should not be on a flight deck. We all have the odd lazy day where we'll leave the AP in till 500', I'm not denying that, that's perfectly fine, but to become complacent is not excusable.

 

Regards,

Ró.

If people were perfect, you wouldn't need inspectors.

 Ró, classic reply.Priceless.

I was thinking of adding an evil "Muhahaha" laugh at the end of "I am the Training Department.", but decided against it seeing as two people perished in the accident...  :blush:  :wink: 

 

 

I hope though it is not true that he is the entire training department because that would be quite the one man operation!

Nope, there's a whole team of us...  :blush:  

 

Regards,

Ró.

Some updated news:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/ntsb-data-airline-crew-got-stall-warning-just-before-crash-93798.html

 

Apolgies if it's been posted before.

Hersman said the flight data recorders also show that the throttles were at idle and airspeed was “slowed below the target” as the plane was on landing approach.

 

Throttles at idle on final approach???

I was thinking of adding an evil "Muhahaha" laugh at the end of "I am the Training Department.", but decided against it seeing as two people perished in the accident...  :blush:  :wink: 

 

 

Nope, there's a whole team of us...  :blush:  

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Oh, okay, I just thought that because you said you were "the training department."

 

I know it feels great to be The Airline Pilot on an internet message board for flight simmers, but let's try to maintain some humility.  I'm sure you have enough experience in airplanes to know that the day after you say that you're Awesome, the plane will slap you.  Always remember that after Tenerife, KLM tried to call Captain Van Zanten to send out there.

This is probably why I can't understand what happened during this approach. When I hand fly my simulated airliners, I always use power to control the rate of descent when on final approach. I don't touch the stick at all. That being the case, it is hard for me to understand why these guys couldn't have easily powered out of that "well below the glideslope" approach (and that's what it was, based on what I can see in the video). They presumably have the airliner on some kind of AUTO setup, but I am clueless in that department!

 

Strange way to do an approach, you're wasting half the capabilities of the aircraft by using just the throttles to control your descent rate. 

Strange way to do an approach, you're wasting half the capabilities of the aircraft by using just the throttles to control your descent rate. 

 

Not really, because that is actually how all aircraft behave naturally.  And if you ever had to get the most performance out of an aircraft on approach, that would be the only possible way to manipulate the controls.

Throttles at idle on final approach???

Yes, in other words no stable approach criteria was met. Ro, I just had a chat with a 777 captain that often flies ULH to the US & Asia, he mentioned the stable approach criteria within the company has been raised to 1000ft even when flying a non precision approach. Is that the same at your outfit or is still 500ft?

 

@ Christopher - It takes roughly 8 seconds to go from idle to TOGA, from the start of the amateur video they we're doomed.

Strange way to do an approach, you're wasting half the capabilities of the aircraft by using just the throttles to control your descent rate.

 

In essence, I let the aircraft do what it wants to do. I just guide it home :smile:

 

Yes, in other words no stable approach criteria was met. Ro, I just had a chat with a 777 captain that often flies ULH to the US & Asia, he mentioned the stable approach criteria within the company has been raised to 1000ft even when flying a non precision approach. Is that the same at your outfit or is still 500ft?

1,000' IMC

500' VMC.

 

Oh, okay, I just thought that because you said you were "the training department."

 

I know it feels great to be The Airline Pilot on an internet message board for flight simmers, but let's try to maintain some humility.  I'm sure you have enough experience in airplanes to know that the day after you say that you're Awesome, the plane will slap you.  Always remember that after Tenerife, KLM tried to call Captain Van Zanten to send out there.

That was an exageration for effect, Hyperbole.

 

Indeed, I'd hope I was a pretty humble guy, and am well aware of how aircraft seem to suddenly turn against you the moment you declare that you've mastered them, the 321 has done that numerous times I should have learnt at this stage. No offence intended, I'd hope I didn't come across as arrogant.

 

Regards,

Ró.

The latest FDR altitude/speed data as announced at 15:00 EST by the NTSB via live stream:
VREF: 137 kt
At 500 ft, speed 134 kt.
At 200 ft, speed 118 kt.
At 125 ft, speed 112 kt.
3 seconds before impact, speed 103 kt.
At impact, speed 106 kt.

 

I did not hear clearly, but I believe the spokesperson said that the throttles began advancing at approximately 125 ft and were at 50% three seconds before impact.