777 crash at SFO

I'm thinking the crushing seat supports probably absorbed a lot of energy. May have save a lot of spine injuries.

 

Really? That would be a new low for Clay Lacy!

I would expect to see that at some of the sleazier operators at VNY or south Florida, but Lacy historically was above that sort of thing...

 

Security footage of the crash.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj_vK4wj-84]Asiana passenger jet crash seen on surveillance video - YouTube[/ame]

 

Lou- Can't you feel when the aircraft is getting that slow? No heavy experience, but with all the fighters I have flown (as a WSO with a lot of stick time), the aircraft starts feeling like it is on a teeter totter when you get really below the airspeed she wants to fly. Are the inputs too damped in the heavies to feel that?

 

I'm not Lou but I've flown big planes. The quick answer is no. On the approach you really don't have a feeling of "speed" you need the airspeed indicator and as a pilot you are constantly monitoring this instrument.

bob

 

I was surprised by my friends comments as well, but like he said, hey its a business at the end of the day, and if someone is will to pay to sit in the seat, with all other things being equal why would the operator pay someone to sit there..

The economy seams to have blown out most of the suspicious people I used to see around VNY, the ones there now all look pretty classy. NetJets just opened up a nice new FBO next to Clay's place.

 

There are a lot of reasons why quality operators don't do that. Mainly, they come down to safety, customer service, and employee retention.

What sort of customer service do you think a low time Korean pilot is going to provide to your high end clients? What is the effect on safety? What is the client, who is paying a *lot* of money for the charter, going to think about this?

And, where are your next generation of captains going to come from?

These are all the reasons why this sort of behavior is severely frowned upon, and generally the domain of extremely sleazy operators-- are you sure that Lacy is actually doing this?

 

One pilots story as told to me...

 

I'm not really too sure as I've never flown that slow. But I'm sure the 777 is like the 747-8 in that it keeps the plane in trim for you to a certain point. Again, I'm not sure what point that is. A good indicator of speed is pitch. I'm sure Asiana's pitch was quite high. While the new Captain may not have picked up on it, the check Captain and FO sure should have. If I had to fly an approach without an airspeed indicator, I'd use pitch to judge speed.

Even as a passenger you can tell when a planes slow and power is coming soon based on the windows outline against the horizon. Typically a descent is at a faster speed, slowing to approach speed while on the glideslope. So the windows outline will show a negative pitch. This should gradually flatten out and eventually show a slight pitch up. You'll see the power come in as this happens. Try it sometime if you have a window seat.

Again, I don't know how anyone can get below the selected approach speed.

I have an "unofficial" video of me on a visual approach into LAX. Shot with a GoPro from the left side of my head so you can see outside, the panel, and the side of my face. I shared it with my father whos retired from MD/Boeing and into aviation. He commented that I rarely looked outside. It's true. I'm almost always looking at the PFD, with occasional glances at the EICAS for power (N1) and outside, mainly for traffic. It's not until about 200 ft that I go totally outside and don't look inside anymore. Of course, that's with a working GS. Without it, I'd spend more time looking outside at the VASI or PAPI. Without those, I'd spend about half the time looking outside, with the other half looking at airspeed, vertical speed, and power.

But a typical visual approach in a 747 (it's the only jet one I've flown so can't compare) is flown just like an ILS, with most of the time spend looking inside the cockpit.

There's never an excuse for flying slow.

 

Lou- We flew mostly AoA instead of pitch, but same idea at low speed. If either (or both) is in good shape, she is flying fine. Our stall was AoA or AoA plus pitch rate, but you are correct, hard to get slow if you have any situational awareness at all. Fighters actually fly more pure visual approaches than instrument approaches in clear weather to normal runways, so it is hard for me to conceive someone running out of airspeed on a CAVU day with a perfectly good aircraft.

 

It's not you, it's them.

I fly Lears and Helicopters. You monitor airspeed on both, all the time. Your taught to look at airspeed every beat of your heart.

If your not stalling, you could be settling with power. Airspeed matters on every type of aircraft and is as fundamental as it gets.

Those that cannot manage airspeed, and are in command, are criminal to be in a cockpit.

 

So even on the big heavy fast stuff its still, pitch for speed and power for altitude on final ?? I would imagine you have to have a pretty accurate landing weight calculation before setting up for final.

 

No, it's actually pitch for GS or glidepath, and power for airspeed. But as you're coming down the glideslope at say idle, you'll be slowing. And in order to keep the GS you'll be pulling the nose up, and therefore slowing more. Finally the airspeed will get where you want it and you'll add power.

The description I gave about looking out the passenger window makes it seem the opposite, like you said.

The 2 really go hand in hand. (Pitch and Power)

Say you're low. You can pitch up to join the GS. Doing so will make you slow, so you have to add power.

Say you're low. You can add power which will increase airspeed. Doing so will make you fast, so you pitch up to keep the same speed.


Both have the same result.


In bigger planes, adding power tends to increase the airspeed without too much affect on pitch. So power doesn't work well for GS control.

In smaller airplanes, adding power tends to pitch the nose up with it. So you really don't have to pitch up much if any. But the plane does pitch up, or else it increases speed


I'm probably making this more confusing.

 

LOL....I could never be "more" confused....

What you are describing sounds more like what I did in training when practicing slow flight, lots of power, and lots of pitch but not much speed.. When I first started lessons my instructors would have me just fly as slow as the plane would go, then they got word that my particular DPE would ask for "slow flight at 50kts" or what ever he decided, then I had to slow down by pitching up, (then trim) then as we came down through 54-55kts start adding power back in to maintain 50 when we got there. Obviously I was not loosing altitude but im guessing if you "just aimed for the numbers" like I do, you would not be able to slow down...

Can you fly straight and level at the speeds you have on final, or are you constantly descending (glide slope), I'm assuming you can but it just would require a lot of power and a lot of pitch up ?

 

Lou- Very interesting and again different for at least the F-111. There you set up for a green light AoA (10 degrees) and then controlled glide slope and airspeed with power. If you maintained 10 deg AoA, airspeed was pretty much spot on. Too slow and AoA increased. Too fast and it decreased. Adding power at 10 deg AoA would climb you back up to GS and vice versa.

AoA was very important for heavy maneuvering because you can be at 45 degrees of pitch and still carrying 10-14 degrees AoA. Max g maneuvering was done by pulling until you just got the horn beeping in and out at 14 degs AoA plus pitch rate to equal 18 deg AoA. Fighters with lighter wing loading could pull much higher AoAs than we could.

Interesting contrasts between the techniques for flying GA, fighter-bomber, and heavy aircraft.

 

In 1962 I was riding jump seat on a 720B test flight and on final to 16 we were dragging over the Georgetown section north of Boeing Field. All had eyes glued to the airspeed indicator and hands on the thrust levers and there was a constant adjustment to power settings as the buildings whizzed by just feet from the main gear (it seemed). This was a hyper-active situation and NO ONE WAS SITTING BACK and watching the panel, it was a constant scan of things inside and things outside. You did not utter one word while we were on approach and on final. Clayton Scott was the pilot. Correction: The runway is 13 not 16. Mixed up with PAE, I think.

 

Um, I think that's what I mentioned about 20 pages back.

 

Asiana Pilot Set Throttles He Didn?t Understand to Idle - Bloomberg


Good old Bloomberg thinks it might be a Boeing shortcoming.

 

My apologies. I was just referencing your last quote....."However, I was surprised that the autothrottle did not maintain the selected target airspeed."

Again, I'm only familiar with the 747. Maybe other Boeings are different. Although that would be strange to have a mode (FLCH) that functions totally different but is called the same.

Anyways, in the 747, the autothrottle never maintains the selected speed in Flight Level Change. Never. The autopilot uses the elevator to fly the speed.

Maybe that's what you were saying earlier. My apologies. Nothing personal. Just trying to point out what is confusing to many. Possibly something the Asiana crew experienced.

 

it seems to me that,we're not training pilots to fly by the seat of the pants?,just let the electronics do most of the work,alot like cars with ABS-just stand on the brakes -no real foot control [i know im over simplifing it] every pilot [mil/com/private] i know can stick and rudder anything they fly,sad

 

this is sad/scarry,dont most US pilots step up [single eng prop/sml jet/com jet/etc] or military cargo/airlift,or is that old school and now everythings in a sim?,after all this i think i'll drive myself everywere

 

It is different overseas, especially east, from here. Just about all our pilots come up through the ranks or through the military and have lots of stick and rudder experience. Overseas, sometimes straight from a light aircraft with little time into an airliner.

Not much difference between West European pilots and ours, I thought, until the Airbus went in off Brazil due to insane pilot error.

 

No prob, but it wasn't me. You were quoting me, who referenced captain Kim, in HIS testimony on docket 23 of the NTSB findings(see link in my post to orig material). I already knew the FLCH mode wouldn't hold speed. Captain Kim - not so much I guess.

 

That has to be one of the most amazing crashes in aviation history. That flight crew flew the airplane into the sea.

-F

 

^ any links?