Asiana 777 Crash at SFO

[arg]

Hope not. I always thought instructors running EPs on the ground were joking about trying to avoid fire trucks after emergency ground egressing and such.

I've been teaching that for years and no I'm not joking. I almost got run over by a fire truck after an egress. Almost stepped on a snake once too.

[Maverick77]

So evidently this was a pilot in training for the 777 and this was his first landing. This isn't going to end good for Asiana Airlines.

[JarheadBoom]

Hope not. I always thought instructors running EPs on the ground were joking about trying to avoid fire trucks after emergency ground egressing and such.

I was trained to ALWAYS brief to make ourselves as visible as possible after the egress.

[itsokimapilot]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/

Did they fly 17's in a previous life? At least they found the right runway, my condolences to the 2 that didn't survive.

But seriously... ITS A FUCKING RUNWAY!!! LAND ON IT!

Ah good one. Hercs haven't had any pilot error landing or takeoff incidents incidents in the last twenty years. Oh wait, you have. GFY!

[Recut]

My theory:

ILS glideslope AND PAPI were NOTAM'd out. Probably a visual illusion involved since the runway is right at the water. The pilots bit on the illusion and flew a drug in approach (as noted by some witnesses on the ground). They realized they were gonna land short, tried to go around then stalled/struck the tail.

I make dudes/dudettes click off the damn automation and fly a real visual approach. As a few have said, "aimpoint/airspeed". I've seen said new copilots freak out that they are flying without the automation........ Anyway, I have a pretty good feeling that over-reliance on automation (as in when it's out of service and your pilot skills aren't so great) might be a named a factor.

edit: I didn't pull any pubs to see if 28L has any remarks about illusions but I can imagine there is one w/out any electronic vertical guidance.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Recut

[DC]

So evidently this was a pilot in training for the 777 and this was his first landing. This isn't going to end good for Asiana Airlines.

First landing at SFO. Though he wasn't swimming in 777 hours. <50 total.

[HerkFE]

My theory:

ILS glideslope AND PAPI were NOTAM'd out.

The PAPI shouldn't have been out. It was returned to service on July 2. It is NOTAM'd out now due to the fact that it was destroyed by the crash.

[Rmarsh]

But seriously... ITS A ######ING RUNWAY!!! LAND ON IT!

All things considered, this is stil true. I heard someone say recently that hand-flying is becoming a lost art, and that's a total cop-out. It may not be the best approach or landing, but you shouldn't need a "glide path" to tell if you are in a dangerous position on a VMC day with a healthy jet.

Edit to add: Obviously this appears to be a clear case of pilot error, but shit happens in this business, condolences to the victims.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Rmarsh

[JarheadBoom]

Tail ripped off right at the aft pressure bulkhead...

[FallingOsh]

It kills me there's this much discussion on PAPIs and glideslopes. The weather was literally clear and a million with nearly calm winds.

[HercDude]

Well clearly, if the 777 had a flight engineer they wouldn't have crashed.

[Jaded]

Here's a good roundup, including some 777 discussion (like why the auto throttle might not have kicked in to prevent a stall) :

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/professional-pilots-on-the-san-francisco-crash/277563/

[Recut]

The PAPI shouldn't have been out. It was returned to service on July 2. It is NOTAM'd out now due to the fact that it was destroyed by the crash.

didn't realize it was taken out by the crash. In that case, if it was working they should have been using it to verify their approach path.

FallingOsh: I know what you're saying w/regards to all the talk about the electronic glidepath/over-reliance. I agree with that. Still, I think those systems will be relevant for the fact that pilots are humans and subject to human factors issues. If there is an illusion on that approach, you'd better verify your approach path w/whatever means is available. If this was the case, that the pilots didn't use the PAPIS if they were operational.....and being human they can F up, those available electrons might have saved 2 lives.

Add: my theory is speculation and could be wrong. I respect the NTSB because they will turn over every leaf and probably find a bunch of links in the accident chain that might have been broken. We will all be safer if we look at whatever recommendations they determine.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Recut

[TreeA10]

The hand flying a visual approach is a basic skill. There has been some discussion on another airline forum as to the proficiency of the wide body pilots because they log very few landings, maybe two a month in some cases. This guy probably just came out of the sim not to long ago so currency shouldn't be an issue but I doubt he did any visual only approaches in the sim. Why did the others on the flight deck let that situation develop? Could this be another one of those Asian cultural issues regarding deference shown to authority. We will see.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

"Don't accept being low". "Don't accept being slow". "Don't accept being off centerline". I say this EVERY DAY and it matters.

[TheGuardGuy]

Inside the jet /around the site

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5a3_1373277593

[TarHeelPilot]

"Don't accept being low". "Don't accept being slow". "Don't accept being off centerline". I say this EVERY DAY and it matters.

Comm brevity:

Aimpoint. Airspeed. Centerline.

[Spur38]

This: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20130706-0 Aviation Safety Network

[B52gator]

Man...just looking at the pics and video...while only two died and many will have life-long issues (physical and mental) this could have been a lot worse.

[pintail21]

First landing at SFO. Though he wasn't swimming in 777 hours. <50 total.

It was his first triple 7 landing at SFO, but he had thousands of 747 hours and had been to SFO previously. I wonder if the difference in view from the cockpit from the 747 to the 777 and maybe some negative transfer played a role. It will also be interesting to see if the training standards change. I talked to a lot of comm dudes whose first landing in the plane was with pax in the back.

[Royal]

It was his first triple 7 landing at SFO, but he had thousands of 747 hours and had been to SFO previously. I wonder if the difference in view from the cockpit from the 747 to the 777 and maybe some negative transfer played a role. It will also be interesting to see if the training standards change. I talked to a lot of comm dudes whose first landing in the plane was with pax in the back.

I'm very hesitant to levy an indictment against this guy, not knowing all the circumstances, but there's not much of an excuse for being both low AND slow. I haven't flown the 74, but I'm fairly certain their flight manual doesn't state that flying in the stick shaker on visual approaches is procedurally correct.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Royal

[NKAWTG]

I curious as to what the relative level of experience was among the 4 pilots on board. Take media reports with a grain of salt, but the oft quoted "43 hours in type" pilot was also very experienced 747 captain. He may have been the senior ranking pilot of the 4 on board. However, there was an instructor on board because of his lack of time in type. From the armchair quarterback perspective, it seems this was more of a failure of the instructor/check pilot to intervene in an unsafe situation. Getting IPs to intervene in a timely manner is one of the hardest skill to teach, and typically unpleasant for non assertive types when they come through CFIC. Was this lack intervention a product of that airline culture, or a dynamic particular to that crew? The media's light is shining bright on this one, so the answers will be fairly quick in coming

[Tank]

I curious as to what the relative level of experience was among the 4 pilots on board. Take media reports with a grain of salt, but the oft quoted "43 hours in type" pilot was also very experienced 747 captain. He may have been the senior ranking pilot of the 4 on board. However, there was an instructor on board because of his lack of time in type. From the armchair quarterback perspective, it seems this was more of a failure of the instructor/check pilot to intervene in an unsafe situation. Getting IPs to intervene in a timely manner is one of the hardest skill to teach, and typically unpleasant for non assertive types when they come through CFIC. Was this lack intervention a product of that airline culture, or a dynamic particular to that crew? The media's light is shining bright on this one, so the answers will be fairly quick in coming

This and the Asian culture of saving face for the highest ranking/senior member might have something to do with it.

[disgruntledemployee]

It doesn't matter how many hours in the specific plane. Approach airspeed must still be flown to keep the plane in the sky. Unless he was flying an F-777, I'm confident there was another pilot in the seat that should have intervened.

Just another reminder that this is a very serious job and if you're not on top of your game, bad shit can happen.

Out

[GearDownNoGreen]

Didn't expect the LA Times to bite off on what should be a non-factor (lack of GS guidance).

It was pilot Lee Hang-kook's first time landing a Boeing 777 at San Francisco International Airport, and with a key part of the airport's automated landing system not working, he was forced to visually guide the massive jetliner onto the runway.

I just wish they would more clearly delineate between what constitutes a challenging or even emergency situation and what is literally the building block of every pilots career, VFR flight.

Source