777 crash at SFO

The threshold was never in the water and that's where it would have to be if the above scenario was valid.

 

As always, great story Bob.

Jedi

 

From another site I learned, the plane could be configured in FLCH (FL change) mode which would inhibit auto-throttle. If it were in FLCH mode, and the throttles were set to idle on appr, it would remain that way unless commanded otherwise(which happened just before the crash).

 

Right, but if they had caught it earlier it was fixable.

Art

 

CNN reporting that the PIC had 43 hours in type and this was his first flight to SFO.

 

I asked my BIL who used to the be Chief Pilot for a Fortune 100 company, and he said that initial pictures showed the top to be intact. So when the fire started at the bottom, it just burned through the top.

He also backed up what many of you are saying. Namely, that airmanship is a declining art in this age of automation. So if somebody decided to be a hero and fly hands on, this can be a recipe for disaster.

Amazing that only two people died.

 

43 hours in type and no landings at SFO. That kind of sums it up.

 

Russ, I didn't want to upstage your correct statement, only to re-inforce it.

 

Not to be questioning the experts, but couldn't this exact situation happen to any pilot? I mean, every pilot has to have low hours in type and a first landing somewhere right?

Now, I'd be more curious to know how many hours / landings the other pilot had. I'd put more blame on him at this point.

GT

 

The other pilot had many hours in type. He was supposed to be the senior pilot on the flight but he was junior to the pilot with 43 hours(in this type). This is where cockpit resource management failure comes into play. In the US, we are not as bent on following normal hierarchy culture. In Korea, the captain is the captain and anyone speaking out critically, even in a situation like this would not be tolerated.

Now it looks like maybe the crash trucks ran over one of the girls. Yikes...

Official probes if rescuers ran over crash victim

 

43hrs in a 777,,,9,900 in 747,and over 10 landings at SFO,,this guy should have been able to fly the plane by himself/with-out auto anything

 

From what I know, a pilot IN TRAINING would have an instructor pilot flying with him, one who has the experience in type to instruct the trainee AND TO TAKE OVER WHEN THE TRAINEE IS FAILING TO PERFORM. Iv'e been there as a trainee. I can't imagine this guy being a pilot in training and turned loose with only 43 hours in a 777 and flying one loaded with 304 people without an instructor. I don't know if that is the scenario in this incident but a competent pilot should have been on the flight deck , right seat or left, and someone should have taken control when things got out of shape. The facts coming to surface so far don't sound too good to me. Okay, I read the Asiana statement regarding the pilots on 214 and I can't grasp the situation where the pilot has a total of over 9,000 hours and the instructor has over 12, 000 hours, many in the 777. What in the world was he doing?

 

That's what I was thinking Mr Parks.
Comes back to the level of training and the "order of business" in Asian cultures, and questioning authority. Not a good thing in a cockpit.

The training and building hours has been mentioned many times here, and I can share a first hand account of a friend who was/is a flight instructor who was trying to build hours for his ATP, got accepted at a very well know "jet operator" as a FO, he did a flight from A to B, cleaned the plane and came back, and was offered $50 for his trouble, (nearly an 8 hour day). When he questioned the $$ amount and time etc, he was told take it or leave it, the Asian airlines pay us to put people in the right seat, why would we 'Pay" you for the privilege to do the same. He never cashed the check, moved out of his apt, rented a room close to the airport, sold his car, instructed students as much as he could, got his hours, got his ratings and is now happy in the right seat with Alaska.

Bottom line if you can "buy" your rating why put the work in, with the way the Asian region is expanding its airlines this was bound to happen eventually, training matters most when some thing does not go to plan. Glide slope out, VASI out, G1000 fails, you name it.

As always I know enough about the subject to make my self dangerous, but stereo types are around for a reason I think everyone can see the elephant in the room but very few are prepared to call a spade a spade.

 

Curious, how different does a 777 glide than a 747? I would have thought that: if you can land one, you can basically land the other with few adjustments for the various differences.

It's a rare day in San Francisco when the weather is perfect, especially at the airport. Yesterday was one of those days - you could not have prescribed better weather. Ironically, perhaps if it had been a foggy day at SFO, the pilot might have paid closer attention.

 

Everybody has to have a first landing somewhere, there is nothing wrong with that. As you point out, the issue really is with the check airman, who should have prevented this from happening.

 

I can't let go of being that far off airspeed.

 

My thoughts exactly. speeds/distance/heights might be different, but a 3% glide slope is a 3% glide slope right ??, Mr Parks, Lou747 correct us here

 

Yeah but the first one shouldn't be with 300 people on board

 

Well, you have to consider a few things. First of all, it wasn't his first landing ever in a 777, just his first landing in a 777 at SFO. Now, it's entirely possible (but unlikely) that it was his first landing in a REAL 777, as opposed to a simulator.

However, you should't discount modern simulation technology. It's very good, and more than adequate for teaching you how to fly the airplane. Furthermore, it isn't really that different from one transport category airplane to another. Very few professional pilots crash on their first landing of a new type in the simulator, either.

And, he had an experienced instructor sitting next to him, who should have kept him out of trouble.

 

Not really. Most if not all airlines use the sim to train pilots. A typical airline pilot (at least in the USA) will get his training in the sim then the very first flight will be on a live pax flight. He will have a line check airman with him for a month or less.

Any airline pilot, or student pilot, would learn how to fly a visual approach. Just because it's a new aircraft to the pilot doesn't mean they don't know how to fly.

 

They "glide" the same. The best speed for a glide for the most mileage is L/D (lift over drag) and at landing weight for a transport aircraft is usually about 220-250 knots.

 

You kind of made my point. I sure as hell hope it wasn't his first "real" landing in a 777, and while modern simulators are beyond realistic, I pray that this is not their only training environment.
I've watched many a video, of BA sending Concorde pilots to Shannon to practice real landings and "heavy" crews to Manston for the same reason.
Of course my limited aviation experience makes more dangerous than smart, but surely once you are on final, a runway is a runway is a runway. To much reliance on automation and not the necessary training to figure out whats wrong and how to correct it.

 

There is no remembering, because it isn't part of the briefing to begin with. It should be.

 

I read in the Journal that 7 of the 12 cabin attendants fainted during the landing. All kidding aside, that seems like a high number The other five were apparently extreme professionals who executed very well.

The Story Behind a San Francisco Crash Survivor?s Photo - Korea Real Time - WSJ