Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Asiana Flight 214 flight data
FlightAware ^ | 2013-07-08 | JustLurking

Posted on 07/08/2013 7:37:00 PM PDT by justlurking

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

1 posted on 07/08/2013 7:37:00 PM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Die Hard

Change the reading to the altimeter and the pilot won’t be able to recover at the last minute


2 posted on 07/08/2013 7:49:22 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
That seems to be the consensus. Too low, too slow. plane stops flying at a certain speed, BAM! tears tailplane off on the seawall, shears off the gear and the #1 engine and scrapes along the runway for approx 400 yards. Comes to rest with the #2 engine hard against the forward fuselage which starts the ensuing fire.

CC

3 posted on 07/08/2013 7:50:43 PM PDT by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Sounds like he screwed the whole approach up, starting 12 miles away.


4 posted on 07/08/2013 7:54:20 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Just wanted to say I hope you great NSA folks are enjoying my posts here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Oldeconomybuyer; SkyDancer; ALPAPilot; reg45; oldtimer; oxcart; Mark17; IFly4Him; ...

Ping for your info, review, and commentary.


5 posted on 07/08/2013 7:58:13 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Should have “gone around” at 3nm ?


6 posted on 07/08/2013 8:03:53 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Over-compensated for the altitude and airspeed, and followed later with an “oh sh!t” moment, probably. That second increase in descent rate happens at the same time as a sharp drop in airspeed. Is that possible? And then finally it looks like a serious pulling up on the stick.


7 posted on 07/08/2013 8:05:07 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland
Sounds like he screwed the whole approach up, starting 12 miles away.

It was still recoverable at that point. But, the closer they got to the runway, recovery became more and more difficult.

In a smaller aircraft, it's easier to correct. But, a 777 has a lot of inertia, so you must anticipate, rather than react.

Compare a jet ski vs. an oil tanker. The difference between a Boeing 777 and a Cessna 150 isn't as large, but the principle is the same.

8 posted on 07/08/2013 8:10:30 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Excellent presentation of the pertinent data to show a story as old as the Wright Brothers: running out of airspeed and altitude combine to become non-optimal career disintegration factors.


9 posted on 07/08/2013 8:12:28 PM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I would be interested in how far he was behind a heavy and what his flight profile was in relation to the aircraft he was following.

If he was slow and if he allowed the aircraft to get below the flight path of the heavy ahead, wake turbulence could have been a factor.

I am surprised that a cockpit full of highly experienced pros got caught in this trap. Too high too close is one of the oldest traps.

Instrument pilots know very well that if the aircraft is not in proper configuration four miles from touchdown: Power settings, aircraft config, speed and rate of descent stabilized, the landing will not be a good one.

Much has been made of the fact that the ILS was out, as was the VASI.

I quit flying quite a few years ago, so I no longer subscribe to Jepps, but I suspect that LAX has a GPS approach. Even if it does not, a prudent pilot with GPS or an inertial nav system would set up the touchdown point in the GPS and have from that a “glideslope” that would allow him to set up an approach that was proper.

That would have made landing at an unfamiliar airport much easier.

In other words, xx miles out at xxxx altitude would require a rate of descent of xxx.

Depending on aircraft type and how “slick” it is, one would pick a point 3 to 5 miles outside of the point at which he wished to start the final descent and at that outside point slow the aircraft, set approach flaps and power and have all check lists completed.

In a recip engine aircraft, which is all I ever flew, one would only have to pop the gear and slide down the proper path.


10 posted on 07/08/2013 8:15:06 PM PDT by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
“And then finally it looks like a serious pulling up on the stick.”

He was already at stall with nose high trying to maintain altitude.

W the throttles, instead of giving it forward yoke the engines kicked the nose up further and he stalled out!

Actually he should have executed a missed at least 4 miles out when he couldn't even come close to captuering the glide slope.

I used to fly a single into LAX twice a week and they always had me keep my approach speed to 150k minimum until crossing the numbers.

11 posted on 07/08/2013 8:15:37 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
That second increase in descent rate happens at the same time as a sharp drop in airspeed. Is that possible?

Remember that is ground speed, not air speed. Now, consider what happens if the aircraft is maintaining roughly constant velocity, but that velocity vector suddenly points down at a steeper angle, rather than forward and down. As if someone were diving for the glide slope... Vertical decent rate goes up while horizontal ground speed decreases. The aircraft was traveling more down than forward. Or at least the proportions of forward and down changed significantly. Dirtied up though the aircraft wouldn't have gained much actual airspeed to trade back for altitude later. Just scrubbing off energy...

12 posted on 07/08/2013 8:16:09 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
That second increase in descent rate happens at the same time as a sharp drop in airspeed. Is that possible?

Yes, if they reduced power and raised the nose.

Fortunately, the new digital flight controllers record all that information, and the NTSB will be able to recreate every action (and the change in aircraft attitude/speed) during the approach.

And it will be a lot more accurate than this data.

13 posted on 07/08/2013 8:18:15 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

So you think that second dip in vertical speed was the actual stall?


14 posted on 07/08/2013 8:20:17 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon
Much has been made of the fact that the ILS was out, as was the VASI.

There is no question the glideslope was out of service. The localizer was operating.

However, there is some dispute whether the PAPI was operational. The posted NOTAM is a few hours after the crash.

I went through a thread about flight 214 on a professional pilot's forum, and one pilot reported the PAPI was working the night before the crash, and another reported it was working only a few hours before the crash. But, it had been out of service earlier, which I think is confusing the issue.

15 posted on 07/08/2013 8:22:15 PM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative

what was the data entered re: elevation of SFO. I remember back in 2004/5 a 767 plowed into the ground b/c the elevation of destination was entered 40’ or so above actual. Fly by wire is good as long as data entered is accurate


16 posted on 07/08/2013 8:23:13 PM PDT by slapshot ("Were not gonna take it anymore" Twisted Sister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

As bad as it was, at least this pilot MADE it to the runway! I recall a commercial jet in the late 60s or early 70s that ended up landing in SFO bay about 1/4 mile short of the same runway that the Asiana Airways jet smacked.

The earlier jet spent a week or two in the water before a barge was brought in to lift it out and take it the last 1/4 mile to the asphalt!


17 posted on 07/08/2013 8:23:56 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for the American politburo!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Way past bedtime for a look-see...will ping tomorrow, PM. Thanks much.


18 posted on 07/08/2013 8:24:04 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Friends and I have been chatting this last couple of days. With all the pilots on the deck nobody said “too low” until the last minute when nothing could be done? Even going max power the plane doesn’t accelerate like the old prop jobs did. There’s sink rate involved and inertia to overcome before anything happens. A couple seconds to recover???? Good Grief!!! What did they say? “Gee that’s pretty water down there and oh my, look how close we are to it - hey lookit! A shark/whale/tsunami debris”


19 posted on 07/08/2013 8:24:42 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

He was already in trouble and trying to save it from a stall is my guess.

At that point, he’s lost it and should execute a mised and try another approach.

He doesn’t have to ask for a missed, it’s his decision and all he has to do is announce it and execute it.


20 posted on 07/08/2013 8:25:39 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson