Asiana Crash Landing At Sfo Saturday

[rudder]

Here is footage of the actual crash:

http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes

[props2you]

On one of the videos posted earlier, you can see them being turned around by a tug at the button of 28L. They would have had a REALLY close up view of the initial impact.

Yep, not too often you get a front row seat of a 777 billowing smoke, breaking up and sliding toward your a/c! They must have felt like sitting ducks.

[Don Hudson]

So, another Amsterdam?

Stalling a B777 on approach; Wow.

Rich, yes it is surprising to see such a "heavy" piece of machinery "launch" like that, which tells us it was still flying without the substantial weight of the engines. Reminded me of Sioux City UAL DC10 behaviour after initial impact.

[Trader]

Interesting take:

http://flyingprofessors.net/what-happened-to-asiana-airlines-flight-214-2/

On the other hand, AAR214 was never on a stabilized approach. Until about 30 sec before touchdown, it was high and fast. Only 3 miles out, it's 20 or 25 knots too fast, and 500 feet high. As a result, the pilot no doubt reduced power to intercept the glideslope from above. 1.5 nm out (nominally less than 40 sec from touchdown), he's finally on glideslope and at Vref , but with a high sink rate on low engine power.

[AAS]

. It will be interesting to see how the aircraft seats reacted to that force.

They got soiled.

[Mitch Cronin]

I was already a fan of the triple seven.... but now.... What a machine! To have gone through that kind of punishment, and stayed together well enough that only two people died??!!?? Wow! The basic structure of the whole pressure vessel stayed together! Truly an awesome truck of an airplane.

Though tragic for some, this could so easily have been much, much worse.

[Fido]

I can see now why some witnesses thought that the airplane 'cartwheeled'.

[Airband]

.
Plane that crash-landed in San Francisco tried to abort landing, was traveling slower than normal, NTSB official says

Sun Jul 07, 2013 - Fox News

A National Transportation Safety Board official says a preliminary review of recordings taken from the black boxes of an Asiana Boeing 777 flight that crash-landed into San Francisco International Airport Saturday showed that the plane was traveling “significantly” slower than normal on its descent before the crew called for more acceleration and another chance to land.

The crash killed two people and injured at least 182. The plane, traveling from South Korea slammed into the runway on Saturday morning, breaking off its tail and catching fire before slumping to a stop that allowed some passengers to flee down emergency slides into thick smoke and a trail of debris. Firefighters doused the flames that burned through the fuselage with foam and water, and police officers on the ground threw utility knives up to crew members so they could cut the seat belts of those who remained trapped as rescue crews removed the injured.

NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said during a press conference Sunday afternoon that flight crew on Asiana Airlines Flight 214 had a visible approach to the runway and put the plane’s landing gear down, according to communications heard in the cockpit voice recorder.

Hersman said the plane’s target speed for a landing was 137 knots (158 mph), and the crew had no discussion of anomalies or concerns with the way the plane was coming in for the landing.

But seven seconds before the plane hit into a seawall, one of the crew members called on the pilots to increase speed. Information from the flight data recorder said the plane was going below the target landing speed, and the engine throttles advanced.

Four seconds before impact, a “stick shaker” – a device that emits an oral and physical warning to the crew that the plane is about to stall – sounded off, Hersman said.

'The crew then asked to avert the landing and make another attempt 1.5 seconds before impact.'

.

[Jumpy]

But at a reported 85 kts ground speed it wasn't travelling too fast....very reminiscent of Amsterdam, slow small impact area, mostly survivable, engine momentum forward of the fuselage.....higher than normal descent rate until path is recovered with a decay of speed. We've been doing REF -10kts in the sim missed approach and it requires almost full elevator inputs. I can't imagine 30 knots below ref (plus) with such a long A/C with such high thrust engines.

[Trader]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/usa-crash-asiana-vehicle-idUSL1N0FD0DJ20130707?feedType=RSS&feedName=financialsSector

Emergency vehicals may have run over one of the killed.

[blues deville]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/usa-crash-asiana-vehicle-idUSL1N0FD0DJ20130707?feedType=RSS&feedName=financialsSector

Emergency vehicals may have run over one of the killed.

Holy crap.

[Guest ACSideStick]

In the video you see the right side coming up leading the sudden yaw and lift to the left. As reported, they may have firewalled the engines just before to crash.

The post crash pictures show the engine stayed with the aircraft until it finally settled. It is possible that engine spooled for a moment causing the sudden yaw.

[inchman]

From the Flying Professors: "Note that UAL852 is on a nearly constant 3.2 deg glideslope. The PAPI for 28L is nominally 2.85 deg, but because a 777 is a large aircraft with a large cockpit to wheel height, it would be typical to fly the approach a tad steeper than the standard glideslope."

Does anyone else agree with this?

No... everyone should be on the same glideslope, but that only applies for the electronic glideslope or if everyone used the same 2 red, 2 white PAPI indications. The angle of descent would be greater if, to ensure a higher wheel threshold crossing height, the pilot decided to use a 3 white, 1 red configuration... a throwback to the VASI days.

This procedure is not recommended in PAPI systems as the systems are normally installed far enough upwind to allow for the size of aircraft using the runway. At any US airport, the glideslope of the PAPI "must provide the proper TCH for the most demanding aircraft height group using the runway" according to FAA docs, so pilots should only use the 2 red/ 2 white glideslope. In Canada, the PAPI Eye-to-Wheel height category is actually spelled out on the runway information page of the Jepps (and I assume the CAP). YYZ shows up to 45 feet, while Deer Lake shows a height of 25 feet.

So No, I don't agree with the statement. In theory, unless the pilot was using the PAPI incorrectly, all aircraft would fly the same glideslope .

[dagger]

Confirmed from Seoul that the crewmember with the fewest hours (43) on the 777 was landing the plane.

[blues deville]

Confirmed from Seoul that the crewmember with the fewest hours (43) on the 777 was landing the plane.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/us-asiana-korea-idUSBRE96701620130708

[Maverick]

Confirmed from Seoul that the crewmember with the fewest hours (43) on the 777 was landing the plane.

You're fired.

[blues deville]

You're fired.

The PIC on this flight would be the training Captain sitting in the right seat. He's going to have to explain how this approach and landing, under his supervision, ended up in crashing short of the runway. According to Air law in Korea, he could be going to jail.

[Guest pikachu]

Foreign Captain might see jail time, local Captain will return to the line.

[blues deville]

Foreign Captain might see jail time, local Captain will return to the line.

Might be true if only a minor incident, but after two fatalities with others in serious condition (spinal injuries, paralyzed) and a complete hull loss, this CNN front page story from a major US city will end his career.

[Jaydee]

Flying into SFO was always a rushed procedure in the last 10 minutes, made only doubly worse by the usual visual approach where you had to literally dive to the runway because ATC always keeps you high on the approach. To make matters worse you are always on the look out for the other inevitable aircraft 800 feet slightly behind or in front of you on the parallel approach.

Another usual distraction is being on the look out for the departing traffic from TWO runways crossing your landing path.

Once you had done it several times, one knew what to expect and prepared appropriately.

If this airplane had been guided by at least a GS, this accident would most likely not have happened, but precision approaches slow down arrival numbers.

While the pilots will no doubt ultimately take the blame for this, the contributing factors outside their control played an equal part in this accident, but those factors will probably get lost in the shuffle.

JayDee

[blues deville]

If this airplane had been guided by at least a GS, this accident would most likely not have happened, but precision approaches slow down arrival numbers. While the pilots will no doubt ultimately take the blame for this, the contributing factors outside their control played an equal part in this accident, but those factors will probably get lost in the shuffle.

JayDee

You may be right but fortunately the seawall holding up 28L only collected one 777 that day.

The GP has been u/s for several days. The crew knew this fact before leaving Seoul. I think this will come down to a human factors issue involving the training flight dynamic and fatigue. If you were doing your first (visual) landing as captain into SFO on a type you had never flown before, how much sleep would you have gotten on your 5 hour rest before landing? If they did set up a VNAV approach it appears to me that they never got established on the VNAV path. At some point the A/T was disconnected possibly after selecting an incorrect auto flight mode (FLCH) allowing them to fly below Vref to stick shaker.

Accidents are never the result of one event. It's always a chain. Change one thing and the results will probably change too.

[Seeker]

Accidents are never the result of one event. It's always a chain. Change one thing and the results will probably change too.

Sure, it's a chain but in the end it comes down to basic flying skills. If this was a PA-31 I'd say it was a direct result of not having a proper scan, since it's a 777 I'd say it was not understanding and using the information displaced on the FD along with either a disregard or absence of a "stable" gate decision point. I can almost guarantee that the speed error trend information along with airspeed trend tape (or whatever it's called on the 777) would have alerted someone who knew how to use it, or where to be looking to the unsafe state of the aircraft with more than enough time to correct it.

[Mitch Cronin]

Three seconds later came a warning that the engines were about to stall.

Good grief. Well that shoud help Joe Public understand nothing at all.

[thor]

Flying into SFO was always a rushed procedure in the last 10 minutes, made only doubly worse by the usual visual approach where you had to literally dive to the runway because ATC always keeps you high on the approach. To make matters worse you are always on the look out for the other inevitable aircraft 800 feet slightly behind or in front of you on the parallel approach.

Another usual distraction is being on the look out for the departing traffic from TWO runways crossing your landing path.

Once you had done it several times, one knew what to expect and prepared appropriately.

If this airplane had been guided by at least a GS, this accident would most likely not have happened, but precision approaches slow down arrival numbers.

While the pilots will no doubt ultimately take the blame for this, the contributing factors outside their control played an equal part in this accident, but those factors will probably get lost in the shuffle.

JayDee

I agree, and this could be a major contributing factor.

[Mitch Cronin]

While the pilots will no doubt ultimately take the blame for this, the contributing factors outside their control played an equal part in this accident, but those factors will probably get lost in the shuffle.

Absolutely..... The reality is that anyone who can't successfully hand fly a visual approach in CAVU conditions without aids, has no business occupying either front seat. .... and a check pilot sitting beside him that allows this to happen? What, I wonder, qualified him as a check pilot? Time spent in the left seat while on autopilot? Wasn't he sitting beside the 48 hrs. fella precisely for the purpose of correcting any potential errors? Who is usually responsible for checking the check pilots? The chief pilot? What's his role?

How do you wind up with 300 hapless people at the mercy of two folks unqualified for their positions? What must have gone wrong at Asiana to allow such a situation to have developed?

Is it possible that there's a young generation of MBA's out there running airlines (or acting as "regulators") who actually believe the line, "flying is easy these days, pilots just push buttons and the airplanes fly themselves"?