Announcement

Collapse

The GaijinPot Forum Is Closed

Please join us on our new Facebook Group.
See more
See less

Top

Collapse

Booing Boeing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by edin日本 View Post
    Taking off or landing a heavy using VFR rules is not an impossible task. If the ILS is off there is still a lot of information available, the beacon markers are still functioning and the the tower controllers are still giving prompts concerning course, altitude, speed and systems based on their profile data received from the aircraft's transponder and GPS systems.
    I know landing using VFR is not impossible. I do it all the time. But I suspect that these 777 pilots almost always land using ILS, which basically lets the computer fly the plane on the correct glide slope until it's just about time to land.

    In this case, the ILS was out of order.

    When I fly, I rely on the VASI (visual flight slope indicator) if it's available, but I approach at 65 miles per hour. A 777 approaches at 150 miles per hour. The pilot has to locate the VASI, see if he is high or low, and then adjust. At 150 miles per hour, it seems like he would have very little time between when he can physically see the VASI lights and when he lands.

    Why was the ILS out of order?

    The pilots have thousands of hours experience. But exactly how many landings have they made with a 777 using visual flight rules (VFR) at airports without a working instrument landing system (ILS)? My guess, and this is purely a guess, is the number is very low.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by ruserious View Post
      I know landing using VFR is not impossible. I do it all the time. But I suspect that these 777 pilots almost always land using ILS, which basically lets the computer fly the plane on the correct glide slope until it's just about time to land.

      In this case, the ILS was out of order.

      When I fly, I rely on the VASI (visual flight slope indicator) if it's available, but I approach at 65 miles per hour. A 777 approaches at 150 miles per hour. The pilot has to locate the VASI, see if he is high or low, and then adjust. At 150 miles per hour, it seems like he would have very little time between when he can physically see the VASI lights and when he lands.

      Why was the ILS out of order?

      The pilots have thousands of hours experience. But exactly how many landings have they made with a 777 using visual flight rules (VFR) at airports without a working instrument landing system (ILS)? My guess, and this is purely a guess, is the number is very low.
      Yeah, computers run these planes and do everything from takeoff, fly, navigate to land these beasts. Pilots are by FAA rules required to learn how to fly using all the bells and whistles-VASI, VFR, ATAC, ILS They are also required to lean how to fly these aircraft manually-possibly they had a lot of simulator time doing manual flight training but, pilots know simulators are a poor substitute for actual in ____pit flight training. That's why the USAF and USN bust their pilots a/sses doing touch and go landings under a variety of nasty conditions.


      And now let R2D2 fly you safely to your destination "Welcome to Drone Air" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-trial.html

      Comment


      • #78
        "The (actual) speed was significantly below" the 137-knot rate the crew had reported to air traffic controllers, Hersman said. "We are not talking about a few knots here or there."
        The flight data and ____pit communications show that the plane's engines were actually set at idle when someone in the crew sought to accelerate the aircraft 7 1/2 seconds before impact, she said.

        "It's like taking your foot off the gas," said Barry Schiff, a former pilot for Trans World Airlines who has written extensively about aviation safety.

        If a pilot throttles up an idling plane, it can take a few seconds for the engines to respond.


        "If you do that prior to impact," Schiff said, "you're not going to have enough time to advance the throttles. That's why you never have the engines idled at such a low altitude. You should always make an approach with power, and they didn't do that."

        He added, "These pilots have a lot of explaining to do."

        http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...990.php#page-1

        Comment


        • #79
          I heard a snippet on NHK news this morning suggesting that the fire was not nearly as bad as it could have been because there was almost no fuel on board. Apparently, Asiana load their aircraft with the absolute bare minimum.

          Perhaps it's unrelated but could that, plus a stronger headwind than usual explain why the pilots had the engines set to idle on final approach even to the point they were near to stalling speed? They were simply scared of running out of fuel?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by ruserious View Post
            The pilots have thousands of hours experience. But exactly how many landings have they made with a 777 using visual flight rules (VFR) at airports without a working instrument landing system (ILS)? My guess, and this is purely a guess, is the number is very low.
            I read something this morning which said that one of the pilots was still a 'trainee' on 777s. He did have almost 10 thousand hours of experience in other palnes but only 43 hours in a 777. This, in fact, was his first time flying this route in such a plane and the first time he ever attempted to land in SFO while at the controls of a 777.

            "Lee Kang-kook, the second most junior pilot of four on board the Asiana Airlines aircraft, had 43 hours' experience flying the long-range jet, it said on Monday. The plane's crew tried to abort the descent less than two seconds before it hit a seawall, bounced along the tarmac and burst into flames."

            Asiana pilot in SFO crash was in training for 777


            I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hands. Walking through the streets of Soho in the rain. He was looking for a place called Lee Kang-kooks. Gonna get a big dish of beef chow mein.
            Last edited by Shimi; 2013-07-08, 02:23 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Brown Cow View Post
              I heard a snippet on NHK news this morning suggesting that the fire was not nearly as bad as it could have been because there was almost no fuel on board. Apparently, Asiana load their aircraft with the absolute bare minimum.

              Perhaps it's unrelated but could that, plus a stronger headwind than usual explain why the pilots had the engines set to idle on final approach even to the point they were near to stalling speed? They were simply scared of running out of fuel?
              Well, there would obviously be less fuel at landing than at takeoff, if that's what they mean. (That's why the 9/11 hijackers seized planes soon after takeoff that had been fueled up for long transcontinental trips -- more fuel to inflict more destruction.)

              I would also say that most airlines, if not every airline, are not in the business of carrying more than the necessary amount of fuel -- more fuel = more weight = more fuel burn = higher cost. There are strict guidelines about the minimum fuel required, based on the distance, diversion airport distance, and a buffer (at least 45 to 60 minutes, depending on jurisdiction) in case of circling, delays, etc. The pilot in command can also request additional fuel above and beyond that amount, if he/she desires. For long intercontinental trips, many of these aircraft are just about fueled to the maximum amounts, anyway.

              At no point did the crew declare a fuel emergency. And given that they had no arrival delays, diversions, or go-arounds, I think it is quite safe to say that of whatever factors contributed, lack of fuel was not one of them.

              Rationally,
              A.

              Comment


              • #82
                Hmmm, so the question remains. Why did they have the engines set to idle even though they must have known their speed was dangerously low?

                Comment


                • #83
                  It appears one of the dead girls may have been run over by an emergency vehicle. I hope that's wrong. I know it would have been chaos but they train for that.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by twelvedown View Post
                    It appears one of the dead girls may have been run over by an emergency vehicle. I hope that's wrong. I know it would have been chaos but they train for that.
                    I think her corpse may have made impact with the vehicle. The other passenger seated next to her was ejected some distance when the tail separated from the plane.... Still pressurized as it came in for a landing. Others are wondering why the steep angle as well as the slow speed... The black box and recorder indicates a plan to abort just seconds before the crash.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Anyone think that it's strange that on 7/7 in Japan, a 777 had such an accident?
                      Creepy.
                      Or not.

                      Has the reason been disclosed yet? Is it pilot error?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        There are crew jump seats behind the last row of passenger seats. The notion that passenger seats got sucked out while the crew remained in tact seems kind of unlikely. I haven't seen any seats on the runway in the photos and video of the crash scene.

                        The engines were at idle because the initial altitude was much too high. The pilot needed to scrub off altitude quickly, but didn't want to push the nose down. He successfully got his altitude down, but was coming up short and was "significantly" under the target landing speed of 137 knots. He pulled the nose up and tried to go around, but may have partially stalled the wing (lost lift), resulting in the tail being the lowest part of the aircraft, and clipping the end of the runway.

                        He increased power just seconds before impact, but those big engines take several seconds to react to the throttle. Too little, too late.

                        He had about eight landings in a 777. This was his first at SFO, so certainly his first VFR landing at SFO. (My guess is this was his first landing in a 777 without the help of an instrument landing system)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by ruserious View Post
                          The notion that passenger seats got sucked out while the crew remained in tact seems kind of unlikely.
                          As tactless as he is, thefg is right about the fact there was no cabin pressurisation at the time , isn't he?

                          Thanks for the rest - So he was way too high and overcorrected.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by ruserious View Post
                            There are crew jump seats behind the last row of passenger seats. The notion that passenger seats got sucked out while the crew remained in tact seems kind of unlikely. I haven't seen any seats on the runway in the photos and video of the crash scene.
                            I suppose that the ejected PAX hadn't bothered to fasten their lap belts, while the crew were locked in place. Looks like it cost them their lives.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Definitely a lot of questions that need to be answered. I have to agree on RU's assumption, the pilot punched the fuel mix to rich, pushed the throttles full forward and pulled up on the yoke. So, instead of shearing off his landing gear and ripping the belly and engines off the plane, he separated the APU and tail section from the plane and then sheared off his landing gear and ripped the belly and engines off the plane.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Brown Cow View Post
                                As tactless as he is, thefg is right about the fact there was no cabin pressurisation at the time , isn't he?

                                Thanks for the rest - So he was way too high and overcorrected.
                                Too low, tried to put power to the engines and bring the nose up. As a result he stalled and made a bad situation worse.

                                thefg is partially right, at altitude the cabin pressure is greater than the outside air pressure but, once landed and up until the doors are actually opened there is a slight negative pressure in effect inside the cabin.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X