777 crash at SFO

Back in the mid 90's you could see JAL crews training in 747's at Moses Lake WA. They'd be out there doing touch and go's all day. Gas was a lot cheaper then. Not discounting simulation, but there is realism and then there is real.

 

This is why you can't trust the news.

 

I'd want to know how many landings without the auto-pilot in visual conditions. I suspect very, very few. Again, lack of experience in these conditions. Three people in the cocpit: the guy was 30 knots slow, and below the VASI (would be showing three reds [red means you're dead was the phrase we used]) Gross negligence.

Art

 

Lou is the man to ask about this since I'm not a heavy bird pilot. All I know is that the airplane is set up with nose up stab trim and lower power settings to establish a stabile and consistent rate of descent to match the profile on approach plate and to get to the runway at the desired point. In the mid eighties I did drawings to determine the RVR for the 767 and later for the 777 to get them the same for both airplanes. I can't remember the angles, sorry.

 

It's sounding more and more like poor airmanship...

Don't want to get too far ahead of the investigation, but I'm going to guess what happened.

Some reports have it that he started his approach high, and pulled power to idle, got the nose pointed at the runway and then he came down through the glideslope..

At that point he saw he was short, and to correct he pulled back on the stick and since he came from a higher speed, he may well have been a bit fast..... Then the nose came up and the runway looked better, but at that point he had sacrificed speed for AoA, and the as the speed decayed, the sink rate went up as he got below the best glide speed, and "behind the power curve". Unfortunately, he just sat there and did nothing as the airspeed went down further and, of course, the nose was coming up at the same time so the threshold, from his perspective may well have been pretty close to being stationary in the windscreen, even though the airspeed was falling and the sink rate was going up.

By the time he realized he was in big trouble and asked for more power, it was way too late, and it takes those big motors some time to accelerate, most likely in 7 seconds he wasn't going to get any real help from the engines. Had he firewalled it a few seconds sooner he might have saved it and managed to pull it out, and none of this would have happened.......

When I was learning to fly my instructor drilled one thing into me as "LESSON #1" .. That was, those handles in the middle the airplane control your altitude, that thing right in front of you controls your airspeed, and if you don't watch your airspeed, the ground will come up and smite you...

Seems like this guy forgot lesson #1

 

the part I don't get is why the engines were still at idle on short approach that was failing... they could have easily spooled up the engines for min thrust just in case they were needed...reports indicate that all the numbers were going away well in advance of touchdown allowing for time to make corrections or go around

first landing at SFO has nothing to do with it, a first landings at any airport deal with the visual enviornment, nothing with piloting correctly

gross negligence coupled with arrogance of making a landing without adding power...is their culture that misguided that misjudgement in power settings trumps safety... this was totally unavoidable, with warning signs well in advance to make corrrections...

 

I've never flown a large jet, but in every small jet I've flown, it was SOP to have the engines spooled up a bit on short final just to avoid this. I'd be surprised if they didn't have an SOP like this as well.

 

Well, I think that we have a consensus that this was horrible pilot error.

What keeps coming back to my mind is that at least two people died - and dozens more are in critical condition.

Monumental screw up.

 

Read this:

777 FLCH in climb and a/t going into HOLD, no low speed prot - PPRuNe Forums

Not sure if FLCH mode was on, but at least a few people have identified it as a potential issue. If the throttles are at idle, and are in hold mode, they will not auto throttle up when target speed is reached, no matter the altitude.

 

Don't you mean "avoidable"?

 

ooops, I must have a word with my fingers, they will type anything :=)

 

If the 777 is like the 400, then even if using FLCH (Flight Level Change), low speed protection should be active . I don't remember the altitude (maybe 100 ft), low speed protection is no longer active. It would be hard to land if the autothrottles kept adding power!

Low speed protection should keep stall +5 kts. If the approach speed was supposed to be 140 kts (VREF +5), VREF would have been 135 kts. VREF is 1.3 stall speed. So stall speed would be around 103 kts. Low speed protection wouldn't allow speeds below 108kts (until below 100 AGL).

Throttle HOLD becomes active shortly after pushing FLCH. The throttles aren't being held, the autothrottle is. So you can adjust the power to whatever you want. Again, it's the autothrottle that is held. At no time are the throttles being held. Also, it's easy to overpower the autothrottle at anytime by just pushing or pulling them, even if the autothrottle is active. You can always get the power you want by pushing the throttles where you want and holding them there.

 

Again, assuming the 777 is like the 400. Once landing flaps are selected, the EECs (Electronic Engine Controls) increase the engines idle speed for approach. Engine spool up time is rather quick on the 400. A little slower on the -8.

That said, most airlines prescribe an altitude to be stabilized by. In VFR conditions, it's typically 500. On glide path, on airspeed.

 

Every airline has a SOP altitude when you must be fully configured for landing (at target speed, correct altitude, engines stable with power, basically stable).

For some airlines it happens over the "Middle marker" others at 1000' and the really progressive ones at 500' but NO LATER. I think the Korean airlines they would require the aircraft to be stable, on speed, on glide path by at least 1000'. If you are not stable by altitude required by your airline you are required to "go around" and try it again.

You should be over the lead in lights at 200', over the end of the runway at 50' at REF speed and touch down at 1,000 down the runway.

 

I'm sure it doesn't happen often at big airports but doesn't anyone do "go arounds" anymore?

Out of what has to be well over 250 commercial flights I don't remember ever having one done, but at some point well before impact someone on that 777 or on the ground had to have known they were significantly off the normal descent path.

Sure it has to be embarrassing to need a "do over" especially in fine weather, but it sure beats the alternative....

So far the most impressive thing to me is how the fuselage remained almost entirely intact after such a great impact and rough slide on the ground. That 777 is built Ford tough!!!

 

After getting your type rating (in a sim) you go straight to flying the line. Initial flights are with an instructor. You don't get to practice landings in the real airplane. In my experience (I'm an instructor), the new Captain is obviously in the left seat and the instructor is in the right seat. At our airline, the instructor is the PIC(in the right seat). I'm not sure about other airlines. It's possible the instructor was in the jumpseat.

IF the instructor was in the jumpseat, it's difficult to see both the airspeed on the PFD and to see outside. There are 2 jumpseats. The one in the center is typically used. As its located behind the pedestal, the Captains body blocks view of the PFD. It's actually easier to look at the FOs side. Also being further aft, the view out the windows on approach isn't great. The body angle makes it hard to see down towards the runway. And the center divider between the front 2 windows makes it hard to see straight ahead.

So, was the instructor in the jumpseat? If so, he would have had a difficult time.

 

During type rating training, the only visual training done is a circling approach. A non precision approach to a runway, with a circle to land the other direction. You are typically around 600 ft AGL on the circle. There is always a VASI or PAPI on the landing runway.

So there really isn't any training for a straight visual approach with no guidance.

I'm definitely not making excuses for the pilots. I'm just pointing out that it isn't normally practiced......

 

Go arounds happen every day at every airport. Some are initiated by ATC some by the PIC.

BTW, if you listen to the SFO tower tapes they seem to have 10 GAs in the first few minutes.

 

All those go arounds were because of the crash....

 

in terms of 'go around' frequency, at london heathrow it's apparently once a day. a tad embarassing yet but by no means exceptional.

I have not seen statements confirming there was an instructor in the cockpit. If they went down after a non stabilised descent which seemingly was outside the accepted landing procedure, all this under the supervision of an instructor, this becomes extremely grave as no-one has performed to vaguely aceptable standards in the cockpit.

won't fly asiana again. this is simply highly deficient. For the record, I am French and truely un impressed by Air France pilots training or behaviour that has cost many lives over the years. I try to avoid flying with AF. At the end, it's all about the skills of the guys in front, that's why I fly BA.

 

As always Lou, thanks for the insights. Much appreciated.

Sweet! So glad to read that!

Reading this forum plus a few others that are referenced on occasion was beginning to lead me to suspect that;

- airmanship was dead.
- the computers fly the thing and there's little the jockey can do.

Nice to know that it actually remains under your control and you can give it some power if needed!

FWIW, in hundreds of commercial flights I experienced a go round twice. If it hadn't been LHR and I was 'interested', I probably wouldn't have even noticed.... We were close, but it wasn't 'right' from where I was looking. Power came up, and we tried again..... The second time was into JFK and the PIC came back later and apologized for the plane ahead not clearing the runway in time.

Cheers,
Ian

 

In the last 15 years or so, I can only remember 2. One ATC initiated, the other was windshear. I'll never forget the windshear one. We lost 35 kts around 1000 ft. During the go around (severe turb), my wife's picture flew out of my flight case and landed on the radar display (747-200).

 

I can only remember 2 or 3 myself (while operating) maybe 3 or 4 as a pax. Many times though with closes spacing I was ready, hoping the guy in front would clear the runway before we had to make a decision.

 

I'm sure that a veteran 777 pilot would know that A/T would be disabled below 100 feet, and that manual throttle would be avail at any time. But, I'm concerned that this pilot may have thought he was under A/T protection from low speed, after having held the throttles closed during the earlier part of the appr where he was high and fast. This would inhibit A/T and put them in the HOLD or manual mode while the PF thinks he has A/T protection.

Please note, I don't fly the big iron either, so I'm out of my depth with much of the advanced technology available but I'm pretty well versed in Human Factors as I worked with it often in the Nuclear eng field.

 

Funny but all accidents are "totally avoidable". I've never heard of one where someone says "well, there was no way to avoid that one".