Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would seem the first thing they should have done was firewall the throttles and then tell the tower they were going around, not ask.
Yeah - aviate, navigate, communicate. In that order.
But as has been pointed out, media can't do technology to save their life - there was an extra flight crew in the cockpit, it could have been one of them clearing his throat and saying "Ehm - perhaps you ought to look at your airspeed like NOW?" Apparently in the past, some aircrews had a hard time with overcoming authority issues in the cockpit - nobody liked to contradict the senior guy, and it cost valuable seconds. Korean Air specifically hired US consultants to work on breaking that mold, so it could be a cultural thing.
According to eyewitnesses, engine thrust was advanced at the last second in an attempt to pull up and go around. That should, for all practical purposes rule out engine failure. The only other remotest of all possibilities is that the auto-throttle (if being used) stuck at idle and prevented pilot override. But that possibility, too, would seem to be ruled-out by the last minute throttle advance.
All indicators point to pilot error and, early as it is, there is no reason to attempt to deflect from that likelihood.
And yes, for anyone familiar with SFO's physical layout, the plane appeared way too low. He should have had 64 feet of altitude crossing the threshold.
I said that it didn't "look" too low in the video. What it looked like to me is that the nose up position was started way too early. I think that made the descent rate increase. However, I'm not an expert on that. I still think it's too early to determine pilot error, although, yes, it does seem to be pointing that way right now. We don't have all of the details yet. Don't get me wrong. I see what you're saying, but it's' just right to not rush to judgment in a situation like this.
My point is I doubt the pilots "asked" to go around like the article quoted stated.
RTFQ
The media is horrible at aviation reporting. They may be able to get some facts right, but even then they stretch it and over dramatize it. Unfortunate really, as it leaves the general public even more clueless and needlessly scared (IMO).
I never trusted most media sources and what they report, especially when it comes to anything related to aviation.
I know it's early to make conclusions, but from everything I've seen so far, it appears the captain and the first officer tried desperately to recover from a stall but they didn't have enough altitude. With a heavy 777 , you'll need about 2,000 feet of altitude to safely recover from a stall.
They're saying that one of the crew members had only about 45 hours on the 777, but I'm sure he, or another crew member would have seen the stall coming long before it occurred. We'll have to see what the FDR and CVR reveal.
People casually walking off a burning, just crashed aircraft carrying their bags?!!!
Whats up with the criticism of the people carrying their bags off the plane, every time there is an incident like this? Who in their right mind would deliberately leave their bags on a burning plane, if they had the opportunity to take them and take them with them? Many of the people probably had their passports in their bags. Having that with them could be the difference between spending the next few days in a hotel, instead of in a immigration holding cell.
The people would still have had to wait in line to get to the escape slides. There is no reason not to use that time to pick up their personal belongings.
Also reports are that most of the bags had fallen out of the overhead bins in the crash. If the people had not taken their bags with them, all that stuff would have been blocking other peoples escape routes.
Terrible accident but worse I just heard oen of the young woman who died may have actually been run over by a first responder vehicle.
Talk about bad luck. That is like something you see in those "Final Destination" movies.
That poor girl and her family.
Whats up with the criticism of the people carrying their bags off the plane, every time there is an incident like this? Who in their right mind would deliberately leave their bags on a burning plane, if they had the opportunity to take them and take them with them?
With each second literally counting, people can damn well leave their sh.t behind. Airlines and aircraft designers don't dream up this sort of stuff because they like watching their passengers' stuff go up in flames. They actually do test evacuation scenarios under controlled circumstances. Including, btw., carry-on luggage in the aisles.
If each of the first 100 passengers futz around with their bags for 0.6 of a second, that's a full minute of aggregate lost time.
Airline pilots are capable of making landings with or without glide slope indicators (ILS), or VASI. It's a very simple technique of aiming for the 1500 foot touch down marker. If the runway begins to visually flatten out, then the plane is getting low. If the runway begins to appear shorter, then the plane is getting too high on the approach path.
The Kai Tac airport at Hong Kong, approach to runway 13, was the most difficult airport runway in the world to land because of it's location and proximity to buildings and mountains. The approach was a curved approach so there was no glide slope. It only had a VASI, but in case the VASI is inop, every pilot has to know how to land without any glide slope guidance. I describe the Kai Tac approach in my book.
The pilot was new in this aircraft, 44 hours, according to the NTSB. However, he had 747 experience. Also, the simulators of today, and even 25 years ago, are so realistic that after the training and passing the simulator check ride, getting into the aircraft is a very easy transition. So, his lack of time in this particular aircraft should not be a factor.
The NTSB stated that the approach speed over the runway for this aircraft, (I have to assume they're using the speed for the estimated weight at landing) was 137 knots. She said that according to the flight data recorder, the airplane slowed to 103 knots, and then increased to 106 knots with 50% power at the time of hitting the edge of the runway at the waterline.
At some point after slowing below 137, someone in the cockpit called out to increase airspeed.
A passenger said that before impact, the airplane began shaking. That would indicate to me that a stall had begun. First a stick shaker should have gone off in the cockpit. That vibrates the yoke and wheel to alert the pilots that they are approaching the stall speed.
It is too early to speculate that this is pilot error. The NTSB has said that everything is on the table. No longer do they see something like this and close the books by calling it pilot error. They will examine everything before they make a determination, and they expect it to take about one year.
The questions I have are:
Why was the airspeed decreasing below the approach speed?
Did the aircraft stall?
Did the stick shaker work?
Why was the co-pilot not more aggressive in calling out the speed is low?
Why was the decision to go around delayed to the point where it was impossible?
Why was the power only increased to 50%?
Those are questions the NTSB will have also, and when they interview the pilots they will probably have some of those answers.
Here is the procedure that Pan Am had:
On approach, the pilot not flying will immediately call out if the speed is below or above the approach speed, or if the airplane is above or below, the glide path, and the pilot flying will immediately make a correction. If the pilot not flying believes the airplane is getting into a dangerous situation, he is to call out, "Go Around", at which time the pilot flying is to immediately apply full power and execute a go around.
I don't know the procedures for Asiatic Airlines.
I was an airline pilot for 35 years, 28 of those were with Pan Am, and I flew the 707,747, A300 and A310. I worked in Pan Am's training department for 4 years training pilots on the 707, and giving the 6-month proficiency check to our pilots.
I would suggest that people wait for the NTSB to make the determining cause of the accident. While the initial information may give the impression that it was pilot error, there may have been things going on in the cockpit that no one is aware of at this time. It's just too early to tell.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill
The questions I have are:
Why was the airspeed decreasing below the approach speed?
Did the aircraft stall?
Did the stick shaker work?
Why was the co-pilot not more aggressive in calling out the speed is low?
Why was the decision to go around delayed to the point where it was impossible?
Why was the power only increased to 50%?
Those are questions the NTSB will have also, and when they interview the pilots they will probably have some of those answers.
Just curious if there are any international regs in place regarding time at the controls in any given 24 hour period or is that up to the individual carrier?
I flew in one of the very first 777s years ago. That plane is SO HUGE! I think our pilot was learning too. We bounced up and down the runway when we landed in Denver. That was a "white knuckle" moment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whats up with the criticism of the people carrying their bags off the plane, every time there is an incident like this? Who in their right mind would deliberately leave their bags on a burning plane, if they had the opportunity to take them and take them with them? Many of the people probably had their passports in their bags. Having that with them could be the difference between spending the next few days in a hotel, instead of in a immigration holding cell. 
