Asiana B-777 Reported Down At KSFO

[Gabriel Teles 172]

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

 

Actually, this isn't always true... 

If you take a picture from a certain distance with a telephoto lens, the distortion caused by perspective is reduced.

See this gif, it explains the concept:

 

[styckx 1,871]

Actually, this isn't always true... 

If you take a picture from a certain distance with a telephoto lens, the distortion caused by perspective is reduced.

See this gif, it explains the concept:

 

 

Couldn't ask for a more better example of the photography technique in action..  I'm actually saving that as it explains that exact visual illusion perfectly..

[ateh1 5]

Actually, this isn't always true... 

If you take a picture from a certain distance with a telephoto lens, the distortion caused by perspective is reduced.

See this gif, it explains the concept:

 

 

This effect is actually called Vertigo, I think ...

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Whoa there!

 

I can't watch it without really feeling quite ill, almost Instantly.

 

Weird!

 

I took out the extra copies as it hogs resources. Please don't copy it in your replies.

 

Kind regards,

[Gabriel Teles 172]

Whoa there!

 

I can't watch it without really feeling quite ill, almost Instantly.

 

Weird!

 

I took out the extra copies as it hogs resources. Please don't copy it in your replies.

 

Kind regards,

 

Oh, sorry about that! Could you please edit my post, leaving just a link for that gif?

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

National Transportation Safety Board chairman Deborah Hersman said the training captain who was instructing the pilot flying the Boeing 777 has told investigators he thought the auto throttle was programmed for a speed of 137 knots - the target speed the pilots had selected for how fast they wanted the plane to be flying when it crossed the runway threshold.

 

The pilot told investigators he realised the auto throttle, similar to a cruise control, was not engaged just seconds before they hit. Their last-second efforts to rev the plane back up and abort the landing failed, although numerous survivors report hearing the engines roar just before impact.

I will admit to making this mistake before too....in Microsoft Flight Simulator

[IAF747 8]

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

Thanks Bruno.

 

I'm pretty sure I have observed pilots fly 777-300s on the FD with Cathay without the A/T.

 

Daniel

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Deborah Hersman is very hot   :wub:

 

 

I don't encourage this kind of remarks but I have to admit: There are not too many links in D.H.'s CV to aviation - she seems to have been pursuing mainly a political career.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

 

I will admit to making this mistake before too....in Microsoft Flight Simulator

 

 

 

That leaves a lot to be researched as far as 'human factors' are concerned: Three experienced pilots, two of them monitoring an approach/a pilot flying.

 

Plus, the report about an armed A/T, combined with a V/S mode used before disengaging the A/P: Where was that B777 FBW speed/stall protection?

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

 

 

That leaves a lot to be researched as far as 'human factors' are concerned: Three experienced pilots, two of them monitoring an approach/a pilot flying.

Plus, the report about an armed A/T, combined with a V/S mode used before disengaging the A/P: Where was that B777 FBW speed/stall protection?

 

The difference of course is when I fly in MSFS, I am flying alone and managing as much as I can alone, To access that A/T switch I need to use a mouse and line the arrow up on my screen with my mouse. In real world with three of them there is no comparison. We make many mistakes in MSFS but we are flying at home alone with make shift flight controls and for entertainment purposes. For these guys this is what they are trained to do and so no wonder the investigation has pointed out to a lack of experience so far.

 

I am just really impressed on how well that 777 held together and that it didn't break apart in other areas. If it was an older aircraft I am sure it would have torn into two or three more pieces and the fire would have spread much faster. The 777 seems like the toughest commercial airliner ever built after watching that footage of it bounce.

[fencer 16]

 

I am just really impressed on how well that 777 held together and that it didn't break apart in other areas. If it was an older aircraft I am sure it would have torn into two or three more pieces and the fire would have spread much faster. The 777 seems like the toughest commercial airliner ever built after watching that footage of it bounce.

Hi Matthew,

 

I agree but your point makes me wonder whether a longer fuselage (777-300ER) would have behaved so well.

 

One can also wonder about a 787 with its carbon fiber fuselage (probably stronger?)

 

 

Thanks Bruno.

 

I'm pretty sure I have observed pilots fly 777-300s on the FD with Cathay without the A/T.

 

Daniel

Hi Daniel,

 

Hmmm, I have flown in 777 cockpits with two different companies but I must admit I didn't pay attention to this detail at the time.

 

 

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.

Hi Kevin,

 

Point taken...

 

Rgds,

 

Bruno

[Jimm 437]

Personally, i am none too happy with the accounts and tesitmony the pilots of the B777 made concerning the A/T.  It is as if they are blaming mechanical failure but as any experienced pilot would know, there is no excuse for what happened.  You cannot tell me that ALL three pilots in the cockpit could not tell they were flying too slow.  There are indicators right in front of them that would prove what is happening.  Heck, at 500 feet, they should have referenced their guages and they would have seen that their airspeed was much too slow and should have immediately taken over the throttles and contacted the tower for a go-around.

 

i am no expert, but I blame the pilots out of shear ignorance.  The PIC has 747 experience and I cannot imagine there being such a huge difference with the controls and procedures for landing between the 747 and the 777.

 

Just my opinion here.

[horani 43]

Personally, i am none too happy with the accounts and tesitmony the pilots of the B777 made concerning the A/T.  It is as if they are blaming mechanical failure but as any experienced pilot would know, there is no excuse for what happened.  You cannot tell me that ALL three pilots in the cockpit could not tell they were flying too slow.  There are indicators right in front of them that would prove what is happening.  Heck, at 500 feet, they should have referenced their guages and they would have seen that their airspeed was much too slow and should have immediately taken over the throttles and contacted the tower for a go-around.

 

i am no expert, but I blame the pilots out of shear ignorance.  The PIC has 747 experience and I cannot imagine there being such a huge difference with the controls and procedures for landing between the 747 and the 777.

 

Just my opinion here.

 

There is certainly no difference in the fact that you have to watch your speed and reference instruments on approach. They were not stabilized at 1,000 ft so that they had to execute GA while they could. No excuse for such an irresponsible behavior.

[yyzflier 11]

 

 

There is certainly no difference in the fact that you have to watch your speed and reference instruments on approach.

 

I agree. Sure, there will be differences in technology, visual perspective between the B777 and what he had flown previously. But speed management through all flight regimes -- and especially the approach -- is hammered home from a pilot's first days at the controls. That's a lesson a pilot can never forget.  

[KSATRoadWarrior 91]

_{SF probe brings questions over auto speed controls:}

 

_{http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SAN_FRANCISCO_AIRLINER_CRASH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-10-09-24-46}

 

_{a few more details released by NTSB and reported by AP.}