Tweet
PAPI was inop. There was no visual/electronic glideslope available. Only option would have been VNAV in the aircraft's FMC - takes time to configure and I doubt this was used.
-
The world's too large a place not to go wandering. -
What about other runways? Were they available for landing? Shouldn't the pilot request from ATC to use another operational runway?Originally posted by viraj735 View PostComment
-
HUGE ALComment
-
There's been concern voiced in various forums about pilots being unable to fly without aids.
AF447 and now this flight makes me worry that this may not be far from the truthComment
-
Only the 28's were being used for landing at the time. I don't think they anticipated any incident, there was no mayday call as milehighj mentioned and the runways were operating without incident all day so I don't really see why they'd request another runway.Originally posted by FSJZ View PostThe world's too large a place not to go wandering.Comment
-
from the news today - it looks like the pilot flying was still "under training on the 777"! -
"SEOUL (Reuters) - Asiana 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.
"Comment
-
Real worry way of live training this way.Comment
-
"Boneheaded." Interesting.Originally posted by HUGE AL View PostYeah, one thing that hasn't made the news at all (and that Sully Sullenberger brought attention to today) is that SFO made the bonehead decision to close THREE of the FOUR runways Saturday, Sunday, and Monday from late May until September!
But I didn't know until today that many features of the runway systems were shut down as well. 
Um, sorry to disappoint you, but your information is wrong. All four runways were operational at the time (takeoffs from the 1s, landings on the 28s), as can be easily ascertained from the ATC tapes. And even if only one runway was operational, what would that have had to do with the crash?
And having the ILS out of service on a clear weather day really is not a major issue whatsoever; all of the planes landing at that time were on visual approaches (which is utterly *normal,* by the way). The NTSB has confirmed that the PAPI was in operation at the time, but the crash took out the lights and it is now out of service. Regardless, a professional airline pilot should be easily capable of landing the plane in good weather conditions without any external or technological aids.
The information now being released sure makes it sound like the guy got behind the power curve (i.e. low and slow) and didn't have time to get the engines spooled up for a go-around. It's early in the investigation but it is sounding very much like human error at this point.Comment
-
Still does make sense, surely the training officer/s would have realised the approach was too low. Could it be a simliar fuel stavation issue the BA777 expericenced? Maybe the PW engines could suffer from the same fuel icing issue.Comment
-
Nope.Originally posted by Sethor View Post
According to the NTSB, both engines were functioning normally at the time of the crash. Besides, the specific problem related to the Rolls engines has been fixed and flight/operational procedures are now in effect to prevent it from recurring.
It's an active investigation, and all of this could end up being wrong in the end, but this is what it is starting to sound like: Airspeed was allowed to drop well below the target approach speed, plane got low and slow, pilot was instructed by the Captain to take corrective action (but jet engines take a few seconds to spool up), plane starts to stall (stick shaker activated), tail hits the seawall short of the runway. If that's what happened, it is human error.Comment
-
Your comment shows your absolute lack of of knowledge of airline operationsOriginally posted by cscs1956 View PostMy SQ and flying Videos: Youtube My Travel Blog: AussieFlyer.netComment
-
...along with airport operations, infrastructure......Originally posted by sqdazz View PostComment
-
Or anything for that matterOriginally posted by MAN Flyer View Post
Life's A Bitch,
Love It
If GOD created me for only 1 reason. That reason would be to the love of my wife. If there was any other reasons involved, that would be for the love of Singapore Airlines
Flown with me? - http://my.flightmemory.com/inixComment
-
some times for some unexplained reasons, things just don't add up or run against conventions. More news emerged from Asiana - and now it just added that the Supervising pilot (check pilot) was also his first time as a check pilot - who was supervising a PIC who was also doing his first landing in SFO and as a "Training" pilot in the 777.
Further to that apparently there's another set of pilots (normally referred to as cruise pilots) for this long flight - making it a total of 4 pilots in the flight deck.Comment
-
I hope they renumbered their ICN-SFO flight...
Comment
Comment