Asiana Airlines 777 crash at SFO

[Peter T.]

According to a witness, around 11:30 a.m. the plane was just about to land -- its landing gear had come down -- when the tail of the plane came off.

 

After wobbling for a minute, the aircraft flipped upside down, coming to a stop on runway on it's back, according to witness Kathy Muhler.

 

When it came to a halt, smoke was pouring from the aircraft. Fire crews responded minutes later, Muhler said.

 

According to Redwood City Fire Department, three alarms have been called and responding crews are reporting passengers in need of burn treatment.

 

The plane, reportedly a Boeing 777, was identified as Asiana 214 and was coming from South Korea, according to flight tracking information.

 

I'm surprised that a 777 crashed....

[Jordan P.]

"coming to a stop on runway on it's back,"

Well it doesn't look like it is on its back  Apparently 2 died so the first 2 fatalities from a crash on a b777 ever.

[Nicola_M]

 

According to a witness, around 11:30 a.m. the plane was just about to land -- its landing gear had come down -- when the tail of the plane came off.

 

After wobbling for a minute, the aircraft flipped upside down, coming to a stop on runway on it's back, according to witness Kathy Muhler.

 

Uh, no.

1.  The tail came off because they descended at 1,300fpm, undershot the threshold, with throttles at flight idle, and stalled it, striking the tail on the sea wall.  The tail didn't just fall off.

2.  It also did cartwheels, according to one "eyewitness."  Flipped and cartwheels are things that the thick public mistake ground loops for.

 

Of note, ILS, PAPI and glideslope were turned off at SFO yesterday, according to posters on PPrune. 

Edited July 7, 2013 by Nicola_M

[BWolf7]

Right by me, this was on the news all day! Mostly pilot error, I would assume.

[Nicola_M]

Mostly pilot error, I would assume.

 

The NTSB is due to make a preliminary report tonight, but not really fair just to assume pilot error.

 

It's sort of clear what the 777's landing sequence was, but we don't know why.

[Andyrooc]

I assume there was a technical problem. You don't accidentally land short of a runway (especially where it's water) and not know you're short well beforehand.

 

http://flightaware.com/news/article/story/182

The aircraft seems to lose a lot of altitude within spitting distance of the runway. Prior to that moment, the entire track looks spot on.

[Nicola_M]

Whatever the cause, it's very sad two children died.  Just thankful it wasn't far, far worse.

[eaglewing7]

Quite an accident for sure.  My theory has something to do with the fact that the ILS was NOTAM'd INOP or U/S, but the PIC followed in the phantom signal from it anyway (which can easily appear to be a good signal), but obviously that phantom signal was a bit out of tolerances so, the aircraft ends up short of the runway...

 

I've been reading some interesting comments on aviation forums about Asian airlines CRM procedures, which could also have contributed to a bad approach being carried into a very bad landing...

[Nicola_M]

I saw the same CRM stuff too, but I'm keeping an open mind until the NTSB speaks. Those on a certain pp forum are bashing them just because their experience of that country's pilots is less than ideal.  Doesn't mean they're all like it.

For all we know, these particular pilots could well be US-trained and just unfortunate recipients of a technical/mechanical issue. 

 

I definitely want to ask which plank thought it was a great idea to remove all the landing aids at a busy international passenger airport. It may not have been the cause, but it certainly didn't help.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Nicola_M

[cessna729]

I assume there was a technical problem. You don't accidentally land short of a runway (especially where it's water) and not know you're short well beforehand.

Unfortunately "CFIT" and "Short of runway" have turned up in accident reports together for many many years   and in most of those reports it wasn't a technical problem that was the primary cause.

cessna729.

[eaglewing7]

I saw the same CRM stuff too, but I'm keeping an open mind until the NTSB speaks. Those on a certain pp forum are bashing them just because their experience of that country's pilots is less than ideal.  Doesn't mean they're all like it.

For all we know, these particular pilots could well be US-trained and just unfortunate recipients of a technical/mechanical issue. 

 

I definitely want to ask which plank thought it was okay to remove all the landing aids at a busy international passenger airport. It may not have been the cause, but it certainly didn't help.

 

 

It could certainly be a biased view of the cultural differences, but lets face it, time and time again the same CRM related issues have popped up in some pretty high profile incidents and accidents involving Asiatic airlines, that there certainly is a trend emerging.

 

I don't think we should be pointing the finger at anyone for having the ILS offline (and NOTAM'd out), and having visual aids also offline.  Odds are, the ILS was out of limits, and needed to be re-calibrated, or it could be a maintenance issue...

 

I personally hate to think that "highly qualified" airline pilots are unable to land a jet without the use of an ILS, and multiple visual aids (PAPI, VASI, what ever else you can think of).  That's basic ab initio stuff right there, and if your so out of practice because you've been letting the A/P run the show, you should be forced to get into a light trainer and show that you can actually get the aircraft on the ground in one piece...

[Nicola_M]

eaglewing

 

All I'm saying is let's not jump to conclusions.  Yes, pilots should be able to land at a given runway without use of any visual aids.  No, the withdrawal of PAPI, ILS and G/S shouldn't have any bearing on the outcome either, but like I said earlier - it certainly didn't help.  Which is why I'm saying, for all we know these guys could be US trained - not led by the CRM stuff like their chums - and have just had a mechanical/technical issue.

We could tar them with the same brush as the rest of their country, like the ppruners are doing.  Or we could be intelligent, say "let's not lynch them," and wait to see what the official version is.

 

I have my own suspicions as to the cause, but I'm waiting to see what the NTSB come up with.

[Nicola_M]

I personally hate to think that "highly qualified" airline pilots are unable to land a jet without the use of an ILS, and multiple visual aids (PAPI, VASI, what ever else you can think of).  That's basic ab initio stuff right there, and if your so out of practice because you've been letting the A/P run the show, you should be forced to get into a light trainer and show that you can actually get the aircraft on the ground in one piece...

 

Personally, I agree with you and if pilots aren't up to the task they shouldn't be in the job. 

The CRM procedure stuff and the ethos of that region do make a compelling argument as to the cause........... in the absence of facts.

[Nicola_M]

Just curious - considering we've all got a pretty damn decent flight sim - anyone tempted to try a landing on SFO 28R CAVOK without ILS, G/S and PAPI in a heavy?  Wouldn't mind knowing if anyone screws the pooch.

 

I'm going to give it a go in an hour or so. The only jet "heavy" I've got with a 3D pit is the AN-148.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Nicola_M

[cessna729]

Hi Nicola, as requested: KSFO Rwy 28L approach in B777-200, No ILS, G/S, DME,  A/T, FD, or FMS (didn't even align the ADIRU). All I did was set X-Plane to load and start 10nm Rwy 28L at KSFO). The only things I couldn't turn off were the Rwy PAPI lights. I did review the approach plates beforehand though. And I had the advantage that by letting X-Plane load at 10nm the aircraft was relatively stable at that point, so I needed to do very little to land it.

cessna729.

[Nicola_M]

I've just seen the video of the crash in full. Quite sobering. Very sad that lives were lost, young lives too.

Just hope whatever cause the NTSB identifies helps prevent this happening again.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Nicola_M

[eaglewing7]

I'm starting to think that this had less to do with a phantom glide path, and more with a 10,000 hour wonder, being totally unable to hand fly an approach...

 

Stick and rudder skills are absolutely PPL ab initio skills, get these airline pilots to go up at least once a year in something with a gross weight of 3000 or less pounds, preferably an underpowered, or maybe overpowered tube and fabric taildragger.  If they can't accurately takeoff, cruise, perform basic PPL level exercises, descend, approach, land, and taxi, pull their PPC, and make them get recurrent training.

[Nicola_M]

NTSB still haven't released (tweeted) anything more than basic cockpit facts that most of us knew from the videos anyway.

 

I just hope the cause of the crash isn't what it actually looks like, because the end result could be most of that region's airlines barred from entering European and US airspace, like certain substandard African airlines have been.

[greggerm]

I'm starting to think that this had less to do with a phantom glide path, and more with a 10,000 hour wonder, being totally unable to hand fly an approach...

 

Holy cow, you're not far from it...

 

"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."

 

Article link...

[Nicola_M]

Holy cow, you're not far from it...

 

 

Article link...

 

BUT, as I've said a couple of times, right now that's indeed what it looks like, but so far there are no cold hard facts to say for sure it was pilot error. 

 

I'm not overly concerned at 43 hours out of 9,793 on the 777. Most of us are able to fly planes here with considerably less time.  I'm more concerned at how many/few of those 9,793 hours were spent hands on or as a passenger.

[eaglewing7]

Additional time on type makes you a better pilot, at least when your hand flying regularly.  That especially goes for GA flying, or smaller commercial operations, no AP sort of thing...

 

Having 10,000 hours used to mean that you had moved up the ranks, hand flying all the way, and you had amazing stick and rudder skills, or you were a lucky SOB who survived that long, or both.

 

Nowadays, ten thousand hours can mean you've gone from your PPL, to CPL, hand flying, working hard, or you graduated from a college type program, went straight into an airline training, and spent close to 9,500 hours on autopilot....

 

My opinion, as greggerm will be able to read over on the FSE forums, is that I now feel that this crash is entirely due to what has become a cancer on the system, the loss of hand flying ability and a loss of stick and rudder skills.  

[Nicola_M]

I agree. It's been said elsewhere that it's all well and good to rely on automation, but when said automation fails, the basics go to pot.

[X-Plane Australia]

The PIC for the landing only had 43 hours on the 777. If some of this time had been in the simulator this could have been his first time landing at San Francisco in the 777. 

[ptru]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/

[Nicola_M]

The PIC for the landing only had 43 hours on the 777. If some of this time had been in the simulator this could have been his first time landing at San Francisco in the 777. 

Yes and no. The man sat in the captain's seat was F/O Lee Kang-gook. He's the one with 9,763 hours, 43 of which on the 777.  He had previously flown to SFO 29 times on different aircraft. (Reuters).

It was, though, his first attempt at landing at SFO. 

And was being supervised by:

Capt Lee Jeong-min, who was sat in the co-pilot's seat, and had 12,387 hours, 3,220 on the 777.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-crash-asiana-20130706,0,54068.story

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/

 

 

Does make me wonder about the term Pilot in Command. Is that by definition the one with the stick, or the senior one who is supervising?

Edited July 8, 2013 by Nicola_M