Asiana B-777 Reported Down At KSFO

[ichundu 10]

NTSB update is over. What have we learned?

Deborah Hersman is very hot   :wub:

[Captain Kevin 586]

something which just strikes me when I read this. The 747 is higher, I mean the cockpit. Right? When the PF used to land in a 747 before, could it possibly be that he had a wrong perception of his height and expected to be higher above ground? On the other there were for sure the call outs for height so the 777 told them their height. Plus the checkairman should be used to the 777 height. So take this as thinking loud and don't flame me ;-)

Irrelevant now seeing as he was type rated on the 737, 747, 777, and A320, and prior to flying the 777, he was flying the A320.

[FLEX1978 373]

NTSB update is over. What have we learned?

Not much, was hoping they would have already had some details from the FDR. This is one of those accident that really has me scratching my head, just like AF447

[Dillon 2,197]

As an aside from a human factors standpoint, I know modern displays attempt to provide additional cueing to the pilot, things such as speed or heading trend bars. How useful/effective are such aids in the context of final approach in visual conditions? We also hear from time to time about different military philosophy where providing AOA cueing apparently is favored. Is this something worth further consideration?

 

scott s.

.

 

I don't think a HUD would have helped this guy and the only good thing about this is he'll never fly again. The PFD in the 777 (just like all modern aircraft) lets you know when your flying the aircraft too slow. You'll see white and then red on the speed tape. There's no excuse for the stupidity of all in the cockpit of that 777 last Saturday.

 

After this crash the NTSB might start putting HUD's as standard equipment in all airliners. I'd rather write this off as an incompetent pilot at the helm that unfortunately took years to be discovered.

[KevinAu 441]

The NTSB briefing today was interesting.

 

Looks like both guys in the front seat were training department people.  The pilot flying, the trainee, in the left seat was also previously an instructor in the A320 and had decent experience.  The pilot monitoring, the checkairman and pilot in command, in the right seat.  It was also the checkairman's first time conducting IOE on the 777.  An interesting crm situation.

 

They were trying to get the plane down on a high and fast visual approach setup with ATC telling them to hold 180kts until 5 miles out.  With all eyes out the window, it was not until they were already 3 reds on the papi and airspeed well inside the hatches before the checkairman looked down and noticed, at which point he called it out.

 

Interestingly, the flight guidance was set to VS -1500fpm, which from my arms length understanding of Boeings, should have powered up the engines once they decelerated to the target speed.

[Rations 102]

Very surreal photo in many ways.. Flight 214 arrives at SFO

Wow. I must say, as nerve-racking as landing next to a wrecked B777 may be for passengers, that image was composed brilliantly.

[pilottj 198]

If there is any silver lining to this accident, for as bad as the CRM appears to be, the cabin crew's emergency response was above and beyond excellent.  I hope they are given the honor they deserve for their heroic actions. 

 

I've always have the highest respect for flight attendants, not only for the crap they put up with from unruly passengers, but to be able to save lives at a moments notice is very admirable.

 

My cousin is an FA for Horizon so maybe I am biased B)

[Wilbert 0]

In the end, we will all have to draw our own conclusion as to the reason/cause of this tragedy. Somewhere in a room, NTSB, FAA, Owners, and lawyers are making decisions. It will be interesting to find out what they eventually provide us with what they will call the facts - just as they have done so many times before with A/C accident investigations.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Very surreal photo in many ways.. Flight 214 arrives at SFO

 

 

Is this real and not Photo-shopped? Makes my skin crawl with it's other world un-realness.

 

Kind regards,

[Airbus Commander 563]

Very surreal photo in many ways.. Flight 214 arrives at SFO

That's an amazing pic, just goes to show how the world moves on... 

 

Regards,

Ró.

[styckx 1,870]

Is this real and not Photo-shopped? Makes my skin crawl with it's other world un-realness.

 

Kind regards,

 

Very real.. Source: http://sfist.com/2013/07/09/photo_du_jour_asiana_flight_214_lan.php (I should have linked to this originally)

 

And I agree with what you said...

[KevinAu 441]

Oh, no...not again please. :LMAO:

 

Daniel, you can control your Cessna any way you want (and it true that pitch for speed is the way a lot of FIs will teach you how to fly).

 

Just be advised that :

 

1 on a jet airliner like the 777,

 

2 in the LANDING mode,

 

3 if you are in full automatic mode,

 

your autothrottle will be controlling speed while pitch will be used to follow the glide slope.

 

Now for airliners landing in MANUAL mode, I THOUGHT most airlines would teach their pilots do do the same (ie throttle for speed and pitch for altitude) but, as we found out some time ago during a long, protracted exchange with Kevin, not all airline pilots on this forum agree... (basically Rón agreed while Kevin disagreed). I must say the two dozen airline pilots I happen to know in real life agree with the throttle for speed method when landing but of course, that's not the whole world.

 

So it is interesting to know that different organisations (the US NAVY beeing one but they have a good reason, they land on carriers on the verge of the stalling speed) will teach you to land using pitch for speed but that - I THINK  - most airlines will teach you throttles for speed.  

 

Apparently, as we learned in this thread, Boeing will let you fly manually with AT on (ie controlling speed if you are in the landing mode).

 

I think since this conversation took place Kevin changed employers so I would be interested in knowing the position of his current airline on the matter.

 

Rgds,

 

Bruno

 

 

I don't think my airline has any position at all on this pitch for speed or altitude.  You fly the plane moving the controls the most appropriate way for what the plane is capable of doing and what you want it to do.

 

The "pitch for speed vs pitch for altitude" is a battle of semantics over how to instruct student pilots.

 

I taught my students "pitch for speed" because that is what the elevator actually does.  I also taught that because if my student ever ended up in a critical situation, I wanted his primary instinctive actions to be the correct one.  No matter what flight regime the airplane is at, pulling or pushing on the elevators provide the same effect on airspeed, which means that airspeed is what the elevators truely control.  The same cannot be said for altitude.  Depending on the flight regime, pulling on the elvator will cause the plane to either climb or descend.  Which means that altitude is but a secondary effect after some other factor.......

 

There are however, airlines that do have a "stance" on this debate.  Those are the airlines with ab-initio programs for new pilots.  Why?  Cost.  By teaching "pitch for altitude" you can get a student through a training program quicker because you start right off the bat teaching them formulaically to fly an airplane.  By teaching them to fly by formula, they can rote memorize their way quickly to a passing checkride.  Unfortunately, the risk of this is that you produce a pilot who does not have an instinctual understanding of aerodynamics.  My problem with this was that should this pilot ever find themselves outside the bounds of normal flight, they have nothing to fall back on to save the plane.  And this has been shown true with the accidents at Colgan and Air France.

 

As to why airline pilots, even I, fly an airliner on approach by pitching for the glideslope and powering for speed, the simple reason is because we can.  Because the planes we fly are designed to be flown that way.  An airliner with all its slats and high lift devices, behave as if it is on the frontside of the power curve when at designated approach speeds.  That is by design because that makes an instrument approach, a lot easier to fly.  An ILS is nothing but level flight tilted down towards the ground at 3 degrees.  You are trying to hold an altitude. It's just that the altitude you are trying to hold is sloping towards the ground.  That is why you want to fly it with cruise like behavior.  In an airliner, at vref, you can safely pitch it around for altitude.  This doesn't change the fact that the power setting still determines her potential to hold altitude and that whatever speed you trim her tail for, is the speed she wants to stay at.  It just means you can pull back on the stick without the plane starting a descent at approach speed.

 

For the same reasons on GA aircraft, when doing an ILS approach, the little Cessnas and Pipers wil fly the ILS at 90kts.  Why?  So that they can be flying on the frontside of the powercurve in a state similar to cruise so that they can use the elevators for up and down adjustments on the glideslope.

 

So that is why the airlines that train their own pilots from scratch like to use pitch for altitude, because it means their focus is on getting that guy to doing an ILS as soon as possible.  They don't want to waste time and money teaching them the fundamentals of flight.

[Mazo 40]

Very real.. Source: http://sfist.com/2013/07/09/photo_du_jour_asiana_flight_214_lan.php (I should have linked to this originally)

 

And I agree with what you said...

Sorry, but this is clearly Photoshopped! Look at the left wing of the "supposedly" landing 777-- it is OVER the fuselage - in fact the wing is IN part of the wreckage. Also, 28R must be several hundred feet to the back of 28L so the image of the "fake" would be smaller, not larger, than the fuselage in the forefront. Nice try but no cigar!

Lyn

[styckx 1,870]

Sorry, but this is clearly Photoshopped! Look at the left wing of the "supposedly" landing 777-- it is OVER the fuselage - in fact the wing is IN part of the wreckage. Also, 28R must be several hundred feet to the back of 28L so the image of the "fake" would be smaller, not larger, than the fuselage in the forefront. Nice try but no cigar!

Lyn

 

It's really not and quite a popular photography style in aviation.  Nevermind the fact there are numerous ways to verify the flight and time the photo was taken..  

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

<p>If it's not real, I could take a picture for you tomorrow that would look just like that. I've viewed the airport from that vantage point many times, it's probably real.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The CEO of Asiana was on that flight today ...wonder what he felt.</p>