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

If it works, it works i guess! I'd like to know how effective it is during inclement weather, and steep approach paths etc. During a steep approach would you not have to drop the IAS below the Vapp to get enough descent? I am struggling to see the link between holding a specific airspeed (Vapp) and changing the rate of descent without changing this airspeed. I am not saying you are wrong, just i find it an odd way to do it.

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.

 

As a non pilot, reading this board I noticed this: pilots argue about anything, and agree about everything. :smile:

 

(On a lighter note, and to have a smile: "A male pilot is a confused soul who talks about women when he's flying, and about flying when he's with a woman.").

James,

 

I don't fly my planes like you guys, so my comments are generally irrelevant in real world terms. However, I still think that controlling the descent with the throttle is a decent way of doing it, provided that you set up the aircraft properly for the required glideslope and airspeed. I just see it as allowing the aircraft to settle into a state of equilibrium, so that it is nice and stable.

I'm guessing this crash was caused by pilot error?!

 

An NTSB official has confirmed the aircraft was moving too slow on approach. Pilot in command was probably not paying attention to his speed until 3 seconds before impact. Such a simple mistake that caused such a devastating crash!

I'm guessing this crash was caused by pilot error?!

 

An NTSB official has confirmed the aircraft was moving too slow on approach. Pilot in command was probably not paying attention to his speed until 3 seconds before impact. Such a simple mistake that caused such a devastating crash!

 

Well, considering that the pilot only had 44 hours in the 777, there's a high possibility of that being the case.  I'm just wondering where the PM was when all this was happening? (Or did they both just have 44 hours in the 777?).

Good lord.. These people had nearly every odd against them.. 

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-asiana-flight-attendant-20130708,0,3708058.story

 

 

As the crew scrambled to get passengers off the plane, the evacuation slide on the first exit to the right side of the plane inflated inward, pinning a flight attendant and nearly suffocating her, Lee said. One of the pilots rushed into the cockpit to get a “crash ax” to deflate the slide, as Lee led passengers off the plane through doors on the left.

 

It was then that flames erupted around row 10 on the right side of the plane, and she heard screams from a colleague asking her to save her life. A second slide had inflated inward near the flames, pinning a flight attendant's leg.

 

We have analyzed the last 150 seconds of data from flight ‎#OZ214. It looks like the ADS-B transponder continued to transmit data for about 10 seconds after the first impact. You can also see that the altitude increased after the first impact, when the aircraft bounced up in the air. The ground speed in the last seconds of the flight was only 112 knots.

You can download the Flightradar24 Google Earth kml-file if you want to see the last 150 seconds of flight in Google Earth

 

http://ge.tt/45Z3VGl/v/0?c

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.

Whatever your knowledge or opinion you must crosscheck and also you still need to monitor your Primary Instruments (which even VFR pilots MUST monitor) which are the Airspeed Indicator, Altitude indicator, Heading Indicator, Engine RPM and the Attitude Indicator.

 

If you think that you should not monitor these Primary Instruments on a visual approach you are very deluded indeed. You should do some real life flying or watch some videos on YouTube to inform yourself on student flying.

 

Whether you are in a 747 or a Cessna 152, you still need to have essential airmanship skills. Conducting a visual approach without monitoring your instruments is not only stupid and dangerous, but it contradicts the workflow of safe flying. If you get the good habits early and the workflow right you will have good success in the air.

 

If you think there is a different way than that then stick to your PC and when commenting please inform the crowd that it is your opinion and not experienced airmanship that you are basing your comments on. No insult here, but unless you get the facts right first on basic flying everything else is skewed and will never be understood correctly.

Whats the possibility of either pilot not cross checking instruments? Isnt that standard? Dont they have to do callouts?

Whats the possibility of either pilot not cross checking instruments? Isnt that standard? Dont they have to do callouts?

Yes there are supposed to be callouts. Whether they get done is another question. However, since there was supposed to be a checkairman aboard, you would think some attention would have been paid to ensuring that things were done by the book in that cockpit. Which begs the question again of where was the checkairman?

 

 

Dont they have to do callouts?

 

Aren't altitude callouts automatic on the 777?

Aren't altitude callouts automatic on the 777?

Yeah, GPWS calls out altitude but I dont think the airspeeds are called out. I think the nonflying pilot  is sopposed do that. Please correct me if Im wrong.

 

Yes there are supposed to be callouts. Whether they get done is another question. However, since there was supposed to be a checkairman aboard, you would think some attention would have been paid to ensuring that things were done by the book in that cockpit. Which begs the question again of where was the checkairman?

Yes, where were the other 2 pilots during landing. There was 4 of them total. I would imagine during landing they would be in the jumpseats.

Aren't altitude callouts automatic on the 777?

There are, but the one that matters is the one along the lines of 'stabilized' and that is not automatic. That one is human.

Yeah, GPWS calls out altitude but I dont think the airspeeds are called out. I think the nonflying pilot is sopposed do that. Please correct me if Im wrong.

 

Yes, where were the other 2 pilots during landing. There was 4 of them total. I would imagine during landing they would be in the jumpseats.

Yes they were in the cockpit jumpseats according to Debbie Hersman during this afternoon's briefing. But where was the checkairman's mind while his student was about to land is what I am getting at.....because his airplane ended up doing a cartwheel on landing.

We will know in time once cockpit voice recorders transmissions are released.