|
|
| Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing (1079588) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1079588) | |
Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013 InB4Luch |
|
|
| (1079589) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sat Jul 6 15:37:27 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. in after WMATAGMOAGH |
|
|
| (1079590) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Jul 6 15:37:50 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. But not before there was already a thread on the topic |
|
|
| (1079595) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 6 15:43:34 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. It's really sad what is apparently important to you. |
|
|
| (1079638) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 17:39:24 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 6 15:43:34 2013. No it isn't. Everyone here, except for you apparently, knows why things like that get said. Since it has nothing to do with you, why are you getting involved? |
|
|
| (1079640) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jul 6 17:52:44 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. Wow ... even the derpette squad got InB4Luch! :) |
|
|
| (1079641) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 17:54:37 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Jul 6 15:37:50 2013. We all have the internets to thank for that. The message was written as the APalert hit my phone. |
|
|
| (1079643) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 17:56:42 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jul 6 17:52:44 2013. Apparently so. :-{ |
|
|
| (1079644) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jul 6 17:58:32 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 17:56:42 2013. Well laid trap, my dear! Usual suspects danced as predicted. :) |
|
|
| (1079691) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Jul 7 01:19:50 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 17:54:37 2013. We all have the internets to thank for that. The message was written as the APalert hit my phone.What is that supposed to mean? Most of the 10 posts before you started your new thread, including the top 3, were about the crash. You couldn't be bothered to make even the most cursory of glances to see if there was already an existing thread, and now that you've been called out for it, you are making your usual excuses? Give us a break... |
|
|
| (1079692) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 01:49:15 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Jul 7 01:19:50 2013. Stop being such a dick. Others have already figured out that it was a friendly busting of chops on Luch. Now go spot some Muslims, eh? |
|
|
| (1079700) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Jul 7 03:03:40 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 01:49:15 2013. I might come across as less of a dick if you were to try manning up and admitting that you're wrong about some things every so often. It really won't hurt. |
|
|
| (1079702) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 03:22:17 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Jul 7 03:03:40 2013. Heh. Dewd ... we're not here to feed your ego. We're here to observe your malfunction. Carry on then ... |
|
|
| (1079705) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 04:06:15 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Jul 7 03:03:40 2013. Aha! Didn't realize you were the OP with the scoop in the other thread ... I guess that explains the misguided butthurt. :) |
|
|
| (1079710) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jul 7 10:41:40 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Jul 7 03:03:40 2013. Don't blame the front of the horse for what the other end does! |
|
|
| (1079719) | |
Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 13:16:14 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/2-killed-182-hospitalized-as-s-korean-jet-crash-lands-in-san-francisco/2013/07/07/4d8c5e9c-e705-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html |
|
|
| (1079722) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 13:32:04 2013, in response to Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 13:16:14 2013. Seems likely. But how can the airline "rule out" mechanical problems? |
|
|
| (1079723) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Jul 7 13:39:20 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 13:32:04 2013. Flight Data Recorder data, perhaps |
|
|
| (1079724) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 13:44:50 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by RockParkMan on Sun Jul 7 13:39:20 2013. The airline doesn't have possession of it at the moment.I suspect bad journalism. |
|
|
| (1079727) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jul 7 13:55:34 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 13:32:04 2013. It sounds like they talked to the pilot and have already figured out where he screwed up. |
|
|
| (1079728) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Jul 7 13:58:55 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 13:44:50 2013. OK, NTSB has the CVR and the FDR. They should be in good condition so their data will be released in a few days and there are eyewitnesses who saw the plane coming in low. Furthermore, the cockpit crew survived the crash and may have owned up to blowing the landing. |
|
|
| (1079735) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jul 7 14:13:32 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by Easy on Sun Jul 7 13:55:34 2013. Based on the debris field, some experts were already sure what happened.I'll wait for cortelyounext to comment on this incident. |
|
|
| (1079739) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jul 7 14:15:23 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jul 7 14:13:32 2013. If you read back in the other thread, experts on CNN were strongly suggesting pilot error soon after the first images. |
|
|
| (1079743) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 14:19:07 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by Easy on Sun Jul 7 13:55:34 2013. Yeah, he might have already admitted he made a mistake. |
|
|
| (1079746) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jul 7 14:22:20 2013, in response to Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 13:16:14 2013. i wonder if the pilot will commit suicide? |
|
|
| (1079750) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jul 7 14:25:03 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jul 7 14:22:20 2013. Suicide is painless. |
|
|
| (1079807) | |
Video of crash Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 17:02:18 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. |
|
|
| (1079809) | |
Re: Video of crash Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 17:05:46 2013, in response to Video of crash Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 17:02:18 2013. the video reminds of the video from the sioux city crash |
|
|
| (1079810) | |
Re: Video of crash Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 17:06:54 2013, in response to Re: Video of crash Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 17:05:46 2013. here's what i'm talking about |
|
|
| (1079840) | |
Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 18:35:12 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/us-usa-crash-asiana-idUSBRE9650E220130707 |
|
|
| (1079854) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jul 7 19:00:50 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. Can anyone figure out why the plane caught fire ?Jet fuel is supposedly stored in the wings, yet the wings look intact and not fire damaged. The fire damage looks forward of the wings. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1079862) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Jul 7 19:10:09 2013, in response to Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 18:35:12 2013. There was no distress call given before the crash, but the recorder indicated that there was a "stick shaker activation" four seconds before the crash, indicating the plane was about to stall, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said in a Sunday news conference.Seven seconds before the crash, there was a call by one of the crew members to increase speed. The target speed for an approach is 137 knots, and the speed of Flight 214 was "much lower, and not by a few knots, Hersman said. |
|
|
| (1079867) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jul 7 19:15:41 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by Dave on Sun Jul 7 19:10:09 2013. It's becoming very obvious that it was pilot error. According to the CNN experts the plane was "low and slow" which is an extremely basic aviation error. It's almost coming across as incompetent or negligent. |
|
|
| (1079875) | |
Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 19:22:35 2013, in response to Re: Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by Newkirk Images on Sun Jul 7 19:00:50 2013. Bottom of the plane got scraped and crushed. The fuel lines from the wings are right where the flames were. Mr. Science strikes again! :) |
|
|
| (1079880) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 19:33:09 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by Easy on Sun Jul 7 19:15:41 2013. Evidently the automatic airport system that keeps you on the right glide path was shut off. But they did have 2 pilots on duty - should be enough to deal with the on-board computer and supplement with a visual approach. |
|
|
| (1079881) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 19:35:51 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 19:33:09 2013. my understand is that on these long-haul flights the pilots start the flight take a nap in the middle(a relief takes over) then the original crew wakes up and lands the plane. |
|
|
| (1079885) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 19:39:44 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by AlM on Sun Jul 7 19:33:09 2013. They're also saying now that the red/white glide slope warning lights were ALSO off. :(Still ... once should know their airspeed and altitude nonetheless, it wasn't an ILR approach. |
|
|
| (1079889) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 19:41:38 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 19:39:44 2013. yesterday dave said the crash was not related to the ILS being down in any way. |
|
|
| (1079894) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jul 7 19:44:37 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 19:41:38 2013. That's what the CNN expert said as well. He said that "low and slow" is such basic aviation that there's really no excuse. |
|
|
| (1079899) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 19:46:54 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 19:41:38 2013. On VFR, you don't need ILS. You need that when it's fogged in, clouded over or otherwise can't see the runway. The red/whites are lights on the runway that let you know if you're over or under the glide slope. Five lights - white or red. You're "on the beam" when they show white-red-white-red-white. Those were apparently not working either, along with the glide slope radio signal also being down.Visual flight rules in effect though, and the pilot could SEE. The other stuff is merely additional ways to win, but in this case not absolutely necessary on a clear day. |
|
|
| (1079950) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Jul 7 21:18:31 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 19:46:54 2013. You don't need the ILS for an IFR approach and landing, either. There are alternatives with higher landing minimums (ceiling and visibility) like a Localizer or VOR approach.The lights you're referring to are the visual slope indicator lights. There are different variations; Runway 28L at KSFO has a 4-light precision approach path indicator (PAPI) system. PAPI uses light units installed in a single row of either two or four light units. These lights are visible from about 5 miles during the day and up to 20 miles at night. The visual glide path of the PAPI typically provides safe obstruction clearance within plus or minus 10 degrees of the extended runway centerline and to 4 SM from the runway threshold. Descent, using the PAPI, should not be initiated until the aircraft is visually aligned with the runway. The row of light units is normally installed on the left side of the runway and the glide path indications are as depicted. Lateral course guidance is provided by the runway or runway lights. In certain circumstances, the safe obstruction clearance area may be reduced due to local limitations, or the PAPI may be offset from the extended runway centerline. It looks like this: 
|
|
|
| (1079959) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 21:40:43 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by Dave on Sun Jul 7 21:18:31 2013. Thanks for the extra detail! Didn't want to get too technical here. The talking head networks were insisting that KSFO had a five-lighter, so I went with that. :) |
|
|
| (1079966) | |
Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training |
|
|
Posted by daNd124 on Sun Jul 7 21:47:55 2013, in response to Asiana Airlines crashes in San Franscisco upon landing, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 6 15:36:34 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/us-asiana-korea-idUSBRE96701620130708Asiana Airlines Inc said the pilot in charge of landing the Boeing 777 that crash-landed at San Francisco's airport on Saturday was training for the long-range plane and that it was his first flight to the airport with the jet. "It was Lee Kang-kook's maiden flight to the airport with the jet... He was in training. Even a veteran gets training (for a new jet)," a spokeswoman for Asiana Airlines said on Monday. The plane was travelling "significantly below" its intended speed and its crew tried to abort the landing just seconds before it hit the seawall in front of the runway, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said on Sunday. "He has a lot of experience and previously flown to San Francisco on different planes including the B747... and he was assisted by another pilot who has more experience with the 777," the spokeswoman said. Lee, who started his career at Asiana as an intern in 1994, has 9,793 hours of flying experience, but only 43 hours with the Boeing 777 jet. Co-pilot Lee Jeong-min, who has 3,220 hours of flying experience with the Boeing 777 and a total of 12,387 hours of flying experience, was helping Lee Kang-kook in the landing, the spokeswoman said. National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said Sunday that it was too early to say whether pilot error or mechanical failure were to blame. But she said there was no evidence of problems with the flight or the landing until 7 seconds before impact, when the crew tried to increase the plane's speed and the plane responded normally. The control tower was not alerted to any plane issues. Witnesses said the plane on Saturday appeared to be too low as it approached the runway, hit the ground before the runway started and the impact sheared off part of the tail of the plane and possibly landing gear as well. Asiana's chief executive said on Saturday that he did not believe the fatal crash was caused by mechanical failure, although the carrier refused to be drawn on whether the fault laid with pilot error. |
|
|
| (1080009) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Jul 7 22:44:45 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 21:40:43 2013. Runway 19L has MALSF, a medium intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashers. The MALSF system usually is a 1400-foot-long array of lights but can be longer or shorter depending on local terrain and requirements.A typical MALSF system consists of the following light fixture components: a) 9 light bars each with 5 steady burning white PAR38 fixtures b) 5 sequence flashing white PAR56 fixtures c) Threshold bar of 18 steady burning green PAR56 fixtures. It looks like this:  The MALSF on 19L is non-standard, having a length of 1,115 feet with 3 sequenced flashers. Runway 28R uses ALSF2. It provides visual information on runway alignment, height perception, roll guidance, and horizontal references for Category II/III instrument approaches. ALS are a configuration of signal lights starting at the landing threshold and extending into the approach area a distance of 2400 feet for precision instrument runways. A typical ALSF-2 system (High Intensity Approach Lighting System With Sequenced Flashing Lights) consists of 247 steady burning lights: including green threshold lights (49 lights), red side row-bar lamps (9 rows, 54 lamps), and high intensity steady burning white lights (144), plus an additional 15 flashing lights commonly referred to as strobes. The strobes flash in sequence starting with the strobe farthest from the runway and ending with the strobe closest to the runway threshold. The lights are spaced at 100' intervals from the runway threshold outward to 2400'. It looks like this:  |
|
|
| (1080012) | |
Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 7 22:50:57 2013, in response to Re: Crew tried to abort landing before San Francisco air crash, posted by Dave on Sun Jul 7 22:44:45 2013. Cool beans! Thanks, bro! :) |
|
|
| (1080184) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Mon Jul 8 16:56:38 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jul 7 14:13:32 2013. I arrived in Seattle around 0100 this morning after flying from Chicago O'Hare to San Francisco last evening. I landed on 28R and saw the wreckage. I work Seattle to Newark this evening. I will adhere to my policy of withholding comment re. causal factors until sufficient preliminary details are released. |
|
|
| (1080198) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Mon Jul 8 17:24:56 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by cortelyounext on Mon Jul 8 16:56:38 2013. To be clear, I refer to the cause of the cause; that is, the reason(s) for the airplane being 35 knots below approach speed at impact. |
|
|
| (1080202) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Jul 8 17:29:50 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by cortelyounext on Mon Jul 8 16:56:38 2013. I sent my neighbor (retired AA 777 captain) an e-mail asking a question. This was his answer:On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Dave wrote: << Reports are that the engines were at idle prior to the crash. Is that normal in the 777? I thought in jets, power was carried until over the numbers in order to minimize spool-up time in the event of a go-around? >> His response: http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-1231/P-12310081.htm One of the big buggaboos in the airline business is a thing called a "stabilized approach". What that means, in a nutshell, is constant airspeed, constant thrust, constant vertical speed. None of these factors are changing as the A/C approaches the runway. Airspeed is set by AOA or pitch angle, and vertical speed is controlled by thrust. Most non-aviation types have this concept backwards; they think changing the pitch changes vertical speed, and while it does to some extent, pitch is AS and thrust is VS. So to properly fly a stabilized approach, the aircraft has to be fully configured for landing by a certain point, 1000' AGL or the outer marker for example, and after that it is just maintaining the same airspeed all the way to touchdown at a constant rate of descent. Reference the above link it takes lots of power to fly this way, as opposed to a gliding, decelerating approach. Southwest were the biggest cowboys when it came to charging up to the final approach point with their hair on fire, idle thrust, pitch down the glide slope and configure and decelerate as you went down the glide slope until you were on speed for touchdown and then power was added to hold that speed and an acceptable descent rate. As you can probably surmise, this is a crap shoot, as each approach conditions would be different. I'm really surprised that they didn't have more landing accidents in their early years. It's like waiting to cross the threshold to take out the crab and hope you get it right as opposed to taking the crab out ala forward slip at about ¼ mile so you have time to adjust your lineup for centered touchdown, only decelerating approaches are a factor of 10 more dangerous. Procedure in the B777 was to carry power until the flare was established, which means a pitch change of about 4 degrees to minimize the descent rate, and then the throttles were retarded to idle. In a crosswind, I didn't retard the throttles until I felt the first gear touch. So if Capt Kim had the engines at idle, then he totally pissed in the kimchi. The investigation is most likely going to conclude that this was totally pilot error on both the Capt and the check airman or whoever the other person in the cockpit was. And yes, it does increase spoolup time for G/A if the thrust is somewhere above idle when you "cobb 'em" |
|
|
| (1080312) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jul 8 20:24:06 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by cortelyounext on Mon Jul 8 16:56:38 2013. I landed on 28R and saw the wreckage.words I will remember for the rest of my life. |
|
|
| (1080411) | |
Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Tue Jul 9 12:55:01 2013, in response to Re: Investigation focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane, posted by Dave on Mon Jul 8 17:29:50 2013. Good discussion. The only thing I respectfully take umbrage or hubris whichever one of those words means issues with is with respect to airspeed and attitude control . The pitch controls airspeed, power controls descent rate is more related to propeller aircraft. Airspeed as a function of power and descent of pitch is a more accurate aerodynamic model when related to turbine powered aircraft. Without getting into detail, the reasons have to do with prop wash, inertia, and other factors. As an aside, the 737NGs fly faster on final than most if not all airliners to include the wide bodies. The landing technique in terms of power reduction sounds similar to 777 particularly with crosswinds. There are a couple three techniques to land in crosswinds but the one I prefer is to kill the drift or crab on final and align the aircraft down the centerline once "over the numbers" entering ground effect. At that point, the flight spoilers are actuated so lift as well as airspeed, albeit to a lesser extent, are destroyed so if you retard the throttles at the "normal" point you are going to hit hard. To better illustrate my point, here is a picture of a crab, and thanks. |
|
|