News Asiana 777-200 Crash on landing at SFO

[Urwumpe]

They are now saying it may have been a laser but that shouldn't have affected the PNF who should have been 'head down' watching the speed.

Laser from where? There is only water and airport for miles in the hemisphere around the cockpit.

 

[Quick_Nick]

They are now saying it may have been a laser but that shouldn't have affected the PNF who should have been 'head down' watching the speed.

It sounds like 'they' are saying anything now. (honestly don't know if 'they' is the pilots, the company, investigators, or just media)
In the original story I read, only the pilot in control of the aircraft was blinded.

And indeed, lights and laser pointers aren't going to do jack to distract you from stick shakers.
I feel like the pilots should have noticed something, given that the passengers seemed to think they were low with at least some credibility of their accounts. There's overconfidence in your pilot, but the speed seems way too low for the other, at least as experienced, pilots to not speak up.

---------- Post added at 05:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 AM ----------

And blinded from where? Also blinding does not explain the systematic errors. The stick shaker would have been felt and heard even if Motörhead would have been playing in the cockpit.

Also note that the cockpit switch configuration was everything but normal after the crash. Both autothrottle switches had been set to "armed" not "on" or "off", and one flight director
was disengaged.

Image looks like a sharp drop in speed right when speed usually levels off. (and that may happen to be that 34 second mark?)

 

[Urwumpe]

The NTSB version says: The commanding pilot has called for more speed, while the flying pilot was already throttling up.

I am sure, even if you would fly that way in something as "unrealistic" as FSX, you would have problems preventing a crash when you have only ten seconds of time left to the crash.

 

[garyw]

I feel like the pilots should have noticed something, given that the passengers seemed to think they were low with at least some credibility of their accounts. There's overconfidence in your pilot, but the speed seems way too low for the other, at least as experienced, pilots to not speak up.

Fully agreed. They should have noticed the nose heading upwards which is a classic sign that the plane is going to slowly. They should have either added power at that point or carried out a go around. The plane got ahead of them and the passengers are paying the price.

 

[Screamer7]

Laser from where? There is only water and airport for miles in the hemisphere around the cockpit.

I did a survey on Google Earth.
Pointing a laser straight at the plane is ruled out.
But from other locations it is possible.
There is a small park at about 11 o clock from the plane position.
It is alongside Bayshore highway and is only about 1800 to 2000 meters from where the plane was landing.
Then there is high rise building about 10 o clock which is 1500 meters from where the plane crash.
Other locations starting from the 1 o clock to 2 o clock positions is much further away, starting from 8500 meters.

 

[Urwumpe]

I did a survey on Google Earth.
Pointing a laser straight at the plane is ruled out.
But from other locations it is possible.
There is a small park at about 11 o clock from the plane position.
It is alongside Bayshore highway and is only about 1800 to 2000 meters from where the plane was landing.
Then there is high rise building about 10 o clock which is 1500 meters from where the plane crash.
Other locations starting from the 1 o clock to 2 o clock positions is much further away, starting from 8500 meters.

Remember, that the important errors happened 8 seconds before crash, which at that speed means about 8*75 = 600 m to the sea wall.

That means the Airport Boulevard can be ruled out as origin, the laser would have had to point into the cockpit from the left quadrant.

1800 meters away (about 20 seconds before impact, due north of the restaurant "The Sherman"), they failed to stabilize the approach already, but that point is pretty far away from the coast and the non-airport coast is also all in the left quadrant of the cockpit.

Also it happened during noon. It is very hard to blind somebody with a small portable laser whose eyes are adapted to daylight conditions.

 

[garyw]

It's more effective at night, yes but the beam can still cause a distraction.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's more effective at night, yes but the beam can still cause a distraction.

Only if close enough. I doubt that a laser at noon would (forcingly) distract you from more than 400 meters distance, but would have to do some tests myself there. at night, such a laser can distract easily over multiple kilometers distance, about twice the distance of the far-lights of a car at night. And such a car can't distract you with its lights during noon from more than 50 meters away, I have tested it already. It is even less powerful than using a mirror to deflect sunlight into somebodies face... (which would be better to distract a plane maybe)

 

[Andy44]

Sounds to me like the pilot was making stuff up to try and look less guilty. The "light" was that sudden realization that he was about to wreck a jetliner. Just my opinion.

 

[Screamer7]

Sounds to me like the pilot was making stuff up to try and look less guilty. The "light" was that sudden realization that he was about to wreck a jetliner. Just my opinion.

My thoughts too.
Maybe he Google it......
Some interesting reports I Google up.

http://www.alpa.co.za/communication/newslatest/59-captain-margie-viljoen-reports-laser-incident.html

http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/l...-off-pose-serious-threat-to-aviation-security


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-damaged-laser-attack-plane-landing-JFK.html

Etc....

 

[dbeachy1]

Like Gary said, if the pilot really was "momentarily blinded" by a laser or anything else at 500 ft altitude he would have performed a go-around, not to mention he would have said something when it happened.

All this "laser" stuff sure sounds like BS to me.

 

[RisingFury]

This looks more and more like a rookie mistake:

They blew approach altitude and speed, but were determined to land. 4 miles out they tried to correct everything, but overdid it. Once they detected that, it was too late.

 

[RGClark]

The latest reports suggest the autothrottle was "armed" but may not have been engaged, as apparently it is a two step process in the 777:

San Francisco probe brings questions over auto speed controls.
By Martha Mendoza
Associated Press
Published: Thursday, July 11 2013 10:13 a.m. MDT
Updated: 1 hour ago
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765633733/SF-probe-brings-questions-over-auto-speed-controls.html

Anyone know of how autothrottle works in the 747? Both pilots were more experienced in the 747. Is it possible in the 747 simply arming the autothrottle is sufficient for it to protect against dropping below the safe speed?
The training pilot should have known about the two step process in the 777 though the pilot undergoing training may not have been. One possibility is that since this was the training pilots first training mission, when the pilot at the controls said he armed the autothrottle the trainer did not check to see it was also engaged.

Bob Clark

 

[Screamer7]

The Aircraft Investigation series do have a lot of material to work on lately.

 

[N_Molson]

The "blind" could come from an health (physical or psychological) problem too...

 

[Urwumpe]

Anyone know of how autothrottle works in the 747? Both pilots were more experienced in the 747. Is it possible in the 747 simply arming the autothrottle is sufficient for it to protect against dropping below the safe speed?

It is much different in the 747-400 since it does not have fly-by-wire.

Also, the 747-400 only knows OFF and ARM position.

Look here for some information:

http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/BOEING/B747.html

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

The pilot said, he was blinded by a bright light in about 150m altitude, that means 3000 meters away from the touchdown point.

 

[Quick_Nick]

They're still suggesting one death may have been from an emergency vehicle - firetruck.
And it seems others may have been ejected from or with the tail section, but survived.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-plane-crash-911-tapes-reveal-chaos-4659338.php

 

[ADSWNJ]

The latest reports suggest the autothrottle was "armed" but may not have been engaged, as apparently it is two step process in the 777:

I still think it's going to be this FLCH mode, or at least a misunderstanding of the mode of the A/T. Basically (from PPrune.org) this FLCH mode is useful in the cruise but should not be used on approach, as it locks out the A/T.

It looks like the plane got away from them... high and fast entrance to base ('slam dunk' vectors from ATC as they are calling it ... think basketball) - two active parallel landing runways, minimal airport electronic assistance, a trainee PF with almost no time in the triple-7 (but maybe falsely confident from his 747 experiences), a rookie training captain on his first outing as trainer (and clearly not supervising the landing to safety), and a catastrophic mistake somewhere between the PF and his landing configuration.

Multiple slices of Swiss cheese all lining up to find an alignment of problems right through to the disaster...

 

[garyw]

I agree with ADSWNJ it's stuff that has been seen before:

• Regression to "older" skills under times of stress.
• No clear agreement of who is in charge (poor CRM).
• A late change of procedure.
• Unfamiliarity with the airport.
• Maybe some management pressure to cut fuel costs and so no go-arounds(?)
• Playing 'catch up' with the plane rather than being ahead of it.
• Over reliance on the automation.

 

[statickid]

And blinded from where? Also blinding does not explain the systematic errors. The stick shaker would have been felt and heard even if Motörhead would have been playing in the cockpit.

Also note that the cockpit switch configuration was everything but normal after the crash. Both autothrottle switches had been set to "armed" not "on" or "off", and one flight director was disengaged.

looking at this graph, i feel like i know exactly what happened since i've done this before in flight sims. coming in at a pretty good angle but didn't slow down, so going way too fast. Horizontal motion due to speed, not lift, then cut the engine to keep angle good, lose airspeed and start falling, but still going to fast so the "correct angle" is an illusion created by falling but trying to gain back the angle with lift then realizing the speed is too slow and you're actually stalling because you slowed down too much to keep the right "angle". Well, that might all sound confusing, but i swear i've made this mistake in sims... the main difference is that i'm not a professional responsible for human lives with hundreds of hours of flight time :facepalm: