Looks like it shows the general idea of what happened immediately before the crash.

 

But some key events before the CGI starts include

 

- Asiana kept at high altitude by KSFO ATC for an extended period ("normal" for KSFO ATC)

- Asiana conducting an unstable approach from that altitude into the situation covered by the CGI.

 

These events may have led to an automatic thrust reduction to idle during descent in which thrust seems to have 'stuck' for whatever reason - manual thrust control not conducted by the PF, failure of wake-up mode, FLCH trap, whatever ...

Is this how it happened??

 

Found this CGI.

 

 

Interesting find Denis.  The animation is a little spooky to watch.

The original version is at :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JhoAfgYhhs0

 

with explanation of speed discrepancy between Asiana 214 and its blue replica following a correct flight path.

 

Asiana was around 110 knots and the correct flight path speed would be 137 knots.

 

Pierre

. . . Koreans and other culturally similar (read deprived) oriental races . . . .

Hmm, is that word choice really necessary? 

 

Found this CGI.

 

http://alexfeldstein...nstruction.html

Very insightful animation.

 

Regarding ultra-highly developed automation in commercial aviation, a system similar to the one suggested by Kevin (advanced ground control of aircraft with single on-board monitoring/redundant "pilots") could soon be viable. Because of artificial intelligence limitations, human creativity will always be required. With reliable communications technologies, humans could still manage and, when necessary, provide creative input to flights from the ground, thus eliminating fatigue, saving costs, and utilizing human resources more effectively.  

Koreans and other culturally similar (read deprived) oriental races . . . .

 

Hmm, is that word choice really necessary?

 

No it wasn't, although I intended it as an obvious tongue in cheek condemnation for what could be taken as barely concealed scathing statements based on nationality or race. 

 

As a long time member of these forums, let alone an authority as senior AVSIM staff, a better definition of my intent and meanings of my statements were required.

 

Kind regards,

 

I am very sorry if what I wrote appeared to mean otherwise. I was perhaps trying to be too clever in my obtuse and oblique sense of ironic commentary. <----- Another example of same.

That is horrible :( A tragedy that should have clearly been avoidable....I also read that the pilot mentioned something about a bright light obscuring his view during the approach but nothing else was mentioned after that and they were still investigating.

That bright, blinding light was the captain's "career dissipation" light...

 

Regards

Company rules, regulating body, union rules, currency reasons, training reasons, examining reasons and more.

 

Likely in this case there was a crew of 3, but with the monitoring FO there as the third pair of eyes while the Training Captain taught the Captain, so effectively the crew consisted of Capt, Training Capt, Relief Capt and then a FO to monitor the Captain when he was being taught.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

There were 4 pilots and the 777 has 4 jumpseats, why would one fly in the cabin for the landing?

 

 

 
I am very sorry if what I wrote appeared to mean otherwise. I was perhaps trying to be too clever in my obtuse and oblique sense of ironic commentary. <----- Another example of same.

No worries. I pointed it out not because I was offended, but because I could imagine others misunderstanding and taking offense. 

NTSB upsets South Korea:
South Korean officials are not happy with the NTSB's presentation of that information, or its disclosure that the pilots ordered the passengers to remain seated for 90 seconds after the plane came to a halt, until the cabin crew noticed a fire.  
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-asiana-crash-investigation-20130712,0,1413037.story
 

Looks like South Korea is not happy with a little criticism? Hmmmmm

Daniel

 

 

The auto throttles where in the "Armed" position. I suspect the pilots assumed the auto throttles were on, and the aircraft would maintain the dialed in speed and failed to watch their speed

 

Yes, but surely checking your airspeed should be mandatory, whether you are using auto throttles or not? What if the auto throttles malfunctioned? As for fatigue, weren't all four pilots on the flight deck at the time? Are we suggesting that all of them were having a quick nap before touchdown??

No, it was established last week that the fourth pilot was not in the cockpit during the approach and landing.

 

Even so, that did still leave three sets of eyes that apparently were overly fixated on the outside view and failed to keep up the necessary panel scan.

The general consensus is that the autothrottles must have been armed but not engaged. Am I correct in assuming that the autothrottles would normally be engaged for the entire flight? If so, how could they have become disconnected for the approach?

The general consensus is that the autothrottles must have been armed but not engaged. Am I correct in assuming that the autothrottles would normally be engaged for the entire flight? If so, how could they have become disconnected for the approach?

 

 

Would like to know this also

 

Michael Moe

General airline sop on the 777 is to leave the autothrottle on for landing due to the unique handling of the FBW and trimming. That doesn't mean you cannot disengage when hand flying the approach and landing.

 

If they we're flying a non precision approach in VMC I see no issue with disconnecting all the automatics, a simple case of click, click and the aircrafts yours.

Has the NTSB already published what is likely to have caused the crash?