Alternative news sources

[snyprrr]

No conspiracies really and MishaK's notes make a highly informative read, but a double crew on a colossal 777 can't land it under normal conditions? What? These guys seriously need boots in their behinds or there must be a bit more to the story.

Doesn't it seem like....


no, nevermind


Someone said CEO Sandberg was supposed to be on the plane? eh, where did this happen, California?


Isn't there supposed to be an earthquake??



...caffeine headache morning...



"Every night I tell myself, I Am the Cosmos"

[Sean]

MishaK Idling engines to drop rapidly sounds quite alarming enough but if this is anything like standard practice you're indeed going to be 110% sure about getting up to speed the moment you're on that glideslope.

I still find it all very hard to believe as it stands at the moment- how to land a plane is an extremely well understood process...

And how many accidents these days are actually down to pilot error rather than some other factor?

Those characters we're supposed to have faith in and with more training than doctors as I read it must be on $3000/ week or so. I assume they weren't all just blind drunk.

And I wonder what the price tag is in on a 777...

I'll find out about the recent Air France crash, again in a highly reliable aircraft- can you say when and where it was?

snyprr

Are you okay?

[kishnevi]

[

I'll find out about the recent Air France crash, again in a highly reliable aircraft- can you say when and where it was?

snyprr

Are you okay?

I believe the Air France crash is the plane that crashed into the South Atlantic for what seemed at first glance no reason at all.  That one there were,  unfortunately, no survivors.

Apparently you don't have enough experience of snyprr.  That's normal for him (apart from the headache).

[Parsifal]

I believe the Air France crash is the plane that crashed into the South Atlantic for what seemed at first glance no reason at all.  That one there were,  unfortunately, no survivors.

The final report was not entirely conclusive.  The airspeed gauge iced over and the autopilot switched off.  The pilots were so disoriented that they immediately stalled the plane and sent it into free-fall.   Had they simply done nothing they would probably have been fine.  I believe the last thing on the cockpit voice recorder was the pilot looking at the altitude gauge, which was rapidly going to zero, and saying "that can't be right."

[Sean]

Thanks guys. I'm most interested in the psychology of accidents and how they develop from a series of small errors.

In my Indian philosophy there's a very old analogy of walking at dusk and seeing an long slender object ahead of you. It's a snake!! You run off, slip and fall and sprain your ankle badly or worse.

It was only a rope though.

Is it correct to run of from what might be a snake? More philosophy some other time...

[ibanezmonster]

"Every night I tell myself, I Am the Cosmos"

"No, I am."

[mc ukrneal]

Here is an article that tries to summarize what is known so far (and I'd be interested to hear any comments): http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-happened-cockpit-asiana-flight-001233881.html

[Sean]

mc

Thanks, I had a look.

The big problem for me is that I absolutely don't believe a word or a comma that any mainstream media prints or flickers at you. It's just mindless sick trash.

They don't really know anything but they know that their audience and consumers also don't really want to know, so they all get along quite nicely.

Investigative journalism packed up and wrote its memoirs many many years ago.

[Parsifal]

mc

Thanks, I had a look.

The big problem for me is that I absolutely don't believe a word or a comma that any mainstream media prints or flickers at you. It's just mindless sick trash.

They don't really know anything but they know that their audience and consumers also don't really want to know, so they all get along quite nicely.

Investigative journalism packed up and wrote its memoirs many many years ago.

You're right, it is a big problem for you. 

[North Star]

No thinking person disagrees.

A quote for the ages.

[Karl Henning]

You're right, it is a big problem for you. 

A quote for the ages.

That's the one on Sony now? If so, I agree with every word you said.

Surgically (and mercifully) done, gents.

[North Star]

Surgically (and mercifully) done, gents.

That last quote is much too sensible for this thread.

[Karl Henning]

Oops!

Let it stand . . . .

[Parsifal]

Here is an article that tries to summarize what is known so far (and I'd be interested to hear any comments): http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-happened-cockpit-asiana-flight-001233881.html

The article is consistent with other accounts I've read and highlights an interesting detail.  The pilot said that the auto-throttle was on and he expected it to maintain speed as he adjusted the rate of descent.   Its failure to do so was a major contributing cause of the accident.  The article also mentioned that the auto-throttle was found switched on, but that it may or may not have been active depending on the setting of other controls.  This suggests that unfamiliarity with the 777 may have led to pilot to believe that the auto-throttle was function when in fact it was not.

It is ironic that sophisticated safety system can sometimes have the effect of making a system more fragile.

[Karl Henning]

In this case (not that you mean to suggest at all otherwise), the irony is bitter.

[Sean]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html

This article makes links with the BA 777 crash a few years ago and a similar inability of the aircraft to find thrust moments before landing. Looks to be more on the right lines than pilot error theories. Is there something too complicated about 777s...?

[MishaK]

The article is consistent with other accounts I've read and highlights an interesting detail.  The pilot said that the auto-throttle was on and he expected it to maintain speed as he adjusted the rate of descent.   Its failure to do so was a major contributing cause of the accident.  The article also mentioned that the auto-throttle was found switched on, but that it may or may not have been active depending on the setting of other controls.  This suggests that unfamiliarity with the 777 may have led to pilot to believe that the auto-throttle was function when in fact it was not.

NTSB says autothrottle was "armed". Unfortunately simply arming the autothrottle on a 777 doesn't do anything. You also have to engage one of the autopilot flight modes that actually engages that autothrottle. This, btw, is the same also on a 747-400 or 737NG, which were the other types with which these pilots had familiarity. So, simple lack of familiarity with the 777 is still a poor explanation, as virtually all other modern jetliners would have done the same thing under these circumstances. And none of this excuses four pilots from (a) failing to monitor speed (and ergo whether the autothrottle was indeed doing what they though they were doing) (b) looking out the window and seeing well in advance of the crash that they completely botched the approach, are too low, too slow, have too high of an angle of attack and are well below glideslope. You don't need any instruments at all besides your eyes for that.

The final report was not entirely conclusive.  The airspeed gauge iced over and the autopilot switched off.  The pilots were so disoriented that they immediately stalled the plane and sent it into free-fall.   Had they simply done nothing they would probably have been fine.  I believe the last thing on the cockpit voice recorder was the pilot looking at the altitude gauge, which was rapidly going to zero, and saying "that can't be right."

The pilot at the controls kept pulling the yoke back. Whatever systems issues you may or may not have. Constantly pulling the yoke back and expecting the plane to continue flying and not bleed of speed is wrong. It's simply the wrong reaction to whatever he may have thought was going on. Doing nothing might have been better. But the proper reaction in any case would have been to increase thrust a bit. There is a mode on the autopilot for turbulence penetration, which makes the plane fly a little faster than you would normally, specifically in order to avoid the possibility of a stall due to an unexpected strong gust or change of wind direction. Even without a functioning speed indicator, with the right instincts, the proper reaction would have been to at least increase thrust a little.

MishaK Idling engines to drop rapidly sounds quite alarming enough but if this is anything like standard practice you're indeed going to be 110% sure about getting up to speed the moment you're on that glideslope.

Steep descents with idle engines and airbrakes out are completely normal and nothing scary. Like with anything else in flying you just need to keep your eyes on the ball as you transition to the next phase.

And I wonder what the price tag is in on a 777...

List price is around $250 million. But no airline with any bargaining power (and one that buys whole fleets of 737NGs, 777s of three variants, 744s and 763s as Asiana does certainly has lots of barganing power) pays anything close to that. This was a seven year old plane. Not sure what exactly the residual value would have been, but I'm guessing mid to high eight digits.

I'll find out about the recent Air France crash, again in a highly reliable aircraft- can you say when and where it was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_447

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html

This article makes links with the BA 777 crash a few years ago and a similar inability of the aircraft to find thrust moments before landing. Looks to be more on the right lines than pilot error theories. Is there something too complicated about 777s...?

Completely different cases. The BA flight had a fuel issue. Ice crystals from condensation in the fuel lines to the engines caused the engines to starve of fuel while on short final, leading to loss of thrust in a critical phase of flight. This was an issue found to be particular to the type of Rolls Royce engines on BA's 777s. The 777 is available with engines from three different manufacturers. I'm not sure which type Asiana used, but the fix for this fuel issue was mandated and impletented shortly after on the RRs. It didn't affect the other types and if Asiana had RR engines the fix for this issue would have been implemented long ago.

The Asiana crash was entirely different as the only reason the engines didn't deliver enough thrust was because the pilots failed to command enough thrust in a timely manner. The engines worked just fine. They spooled up pretty quickly and powerfully, too, when the pilots belatedly went to takeoff power seconds before impact. You can see that on the amateur video of the crash that was on CNN and youtube which shows a spray of water being kicked up by the engines behind the plane as they increase power. The problem was that with that steep of an angle of attack, the wings are generating an unbelievable amount of drag, so in the absence of the ability to drop the nose and lose some altitude, it would have taken them an extremely long time to pick up speed even with the engines running at full blast.

Really the only similarity between the BA and Asiana crashes are that they showed that the 777 is an extremely well built plane with high crash survivability.

[Parsifal]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html

This article makes links with the BA 777 crash a few years ago and a similar inability of the aircraft to find thrust moments before landing. Looks to be more on the right lines than pilot error theories. Is there something too complicated about 777s...?

The 777 has been in service for nearly 20 years with more than 1000 planes delivered and there were two accidents in which a total of 2 people were killed.   You conclude that there is something wrong with the plane?

The accident at Heathrow occurred because unusual conditions caused the fuel heat exchanger to get plugged with ice, causing a loss of power.  (The unit was redesigned).  The NTSB has reported that the engines were operating normally on the plane that crashed at SFO. 

The accident at SFO is a demonstration of the law of averages.  Given the number planes in service, there have likely been millions of uneventful 777 landings.  But with enough repetitions, even a very improbable event is likely to occur eventually.

[Parsifal]

The Asiana crash was entirely different as the only reason the engines didn't deliver enough thrust was because the pilots failed to command enough thrust in a timely manner. The engines worked just fine. They spooled up pretty quickly and powerfully, too, when the pilots belatedly went to takeoff power seconds before impact. You can see that on the amateur video of the crash that was on CNN and youtube which shows a spray of water being kicked up by the engines behind the plane as they increase power. The problem was that with that steep of an angle of attack, the wings are generating an unbelievable amount of drag, so in the absence of the ability to drop the nose and lose some altitude, it would have taken them an extremely long time to pick up speed even with the engines running at full blast.

One of the things mentioned at the NTSB press conference is that the decision to abort the landing was taken only 1.5 seconds before impact, which would be 75 meters from the point of impact, given the speed.  Raising the vertical elevators would have pushed the tail down just as the plane approached the sea wall without giving it any substantial time to gain altitude.  Maybe if the pilot had not tried to abort the landing the plane would have skimmed the sea wall and flopped on the runway without ripping the tail off.

[MishaK]

One of the things mentioned at the NTSB press conference is that the decision to abort the landing was taken only 1.5 seconds before impact, which would be 75 meters from the point of impact, given the speed.  Raising the vertical elevators would have pushed the tail down just as the plane approached the sea wall without giving it any substantial time to gain altitude.  Maybe if the pilot had not tried to abort the landing the plane would have skimmed the sea wall and flopped on the runway without ripping the tail off.

Even without elevator input just revving up the engines to takeoff power on a plane with underwing engines will (and apparently did) result in a pitch up of the nose. It's an academic point. I think even before the go around command his angle of attack was so high that the tail would have impacted first. The more important thing is that he never should have been that low, that nose high and that slow all at the same time.