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

Skip to comments.

Airport landing system off when plane crashed in San Francisco
Reuters ^ | July 07, 2013 | Peter Henderson and Dan Levine

Posted on 07/07/2013 8:11:12 AM PDT by george76

A navigation system that helps pilots make safe descents was turned off at San Francisco airport on Saturday when a South Korean airliner crashed and burned after undershooting the runway ...

The system, called Glide Path, is meant to help planes land in bad weather. It was clear and sunny, with light winds, when Asiana

...

San Francisco International has turned off the system for nearly the entire summer on the runway where the Asiana flight crashed, according to a notice from the airport on the Federal Aviation Administration's Web site

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Japan; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: airport; asiana; asiana214; faa; fl214; flight214; ils; sanfrancisco; sfo; southkorea
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-167 next last
To: Yosemitest; ops33
I've done a bit of digging, and I'm not sure the PAPI was off.

In two different places:

Of course, I can't corroborate either of these. But, I just wanted to caution you there is conflicting info on the PAPI.

81 posted on 07/07/2013 9:30:39 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

I was noticing the same thing - maybe there was something that didn’t happen when it was supposed to happen. The whole story is strange.


82 posted on 07/07/2013 9:30:58 AM PDT by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
"Besides, if the ILS was off then they wouldn’t be able to make evening and night landings after dark at that airport."

If that's true, then my ghost is writing this post.

83 posted on 07/07/2013 9:33:01 AM PDT by mikey_hates_everything
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Actually Mr. A$$hole from one A$$hole to another I found your knowledge and insight into the whole thing very informative and interesting.

I never let someone else's lack of situation knowledge drag me to their level.

84 posted on 07/07/2013 9:33:58 AM PDT by Newbomb Turk ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

This will end up as a Situational Awareness/Pilot Error situation, in the end. They lost track of where they were, until it was too late to do anything about it.


85 posted on 07/07/2013 9:34:07 AM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“Repairs?

Electricity usage “brownout” to conserve energy for air conditioning around the region?”

Obviously the blame is on the Sequester and the Republicans.


86 posted on 07/07/2013 9:40:06 AM PDT by CapnJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: boomop1

Beeecawze. They are constantly hugging eucalyptis trees? /s


87 posted on 07/07/2013 9:42:51 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: george76

My first thoughts were that an entire aft section which makes me think of how a plane structures sections are put together was torn off. Something happened to make such an apparent ‘clean’ separation. From what I hear data recorders should be able to go back all kinds of possibilities. No matter the cause we can be thankful for lives saved but still mourn the dead and injured.


88 posted on 07/07/2013 9:48:59 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

To all the armchair pilots aboard this thread, I’d love to see you land a heavy at SFO any day of the year. calm, stormy, whatever.. ..

I thought technology was a good thing.. except when it’s turned off.

Any pilot can make an error .. any pilot.


89 posted on 07/07/2013 9:49:24 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; dalereed; webstersII
My experience: CFII (that's Instrument Instructor for Mr. Webster, who clearly isn't a pilot); corpjets (Sabreliner type); Aerospace Engineer (that's what it says on the diploma), 35 years in flight/aeronautical/aerospace industry.

I have NEVER heard of a "computerized system" called Glide Path.

There IS an element of the ILS called the GLIDESLOPE and it was OTS as the NOTAM noted - pretty normal for the summertime, so you can do maintenance.

For 28L the usual gig is to get the Quiet Bridge Visual Approach.

No glideslope required. Just your eyes, and like others have noted, the Radar Altimeter callouts that every CAT II/III qualified aircraft has (see CAT II minimum equipment search, click on Subpart D link at FAA.gov) can be helpful. Also, the PAPI is noted as having a different angle (VGSi) then the GS, but that shouldn't matter since the GS is OTS!!!

So maybe in the last few years I missed out on some Momentous Development within the traditional ILS that digitized some of it's old analog functionality, but I can find no evidence of that.

But maybe a couple of non-flying Jorno majors at Al-Reuters understands these things better then I do.

Or the other people here who are skeptical of this little piece of Fiction that the reporters are trying to use to whip up some hype.

What WILL be of interest is whether this guy read the NOTAM and understood that the GS element was out - and if not, was he using GS information to fly the approach? (he'd be flying to a symbol that has the little "out of service" barber pole next to it, sort of a dead give away that somethings um, Wrong).

There's a lotta working ATPs on this forum, maybe one of them could jump in here, but I suspect its going to be the same comment: clueless "reporters" misinterpreting FAA reports and trying to fluff it up into something bigger then it is.

It is ALWAYS bad to speculate early in an aircraft accident about what happened. Every accident in a Transport Category environment like this has multiple issues in the chain leading to an actual accident. The accident itself is the result of the confluence of all the issues. There is NEVER any one glaring mistake, not when you have a guy with X thousand hours flying. Even the worst of them don't screw up that bad. If the guy didn't want to fly the Visual approach he had his choice of LOC/DME, RNAV, etc. See this page: LOC DME Y RWY 28L approach. Note ALL the approaches in the list!

Dealing with an OTS GS is no big deal. So the truth will probably lie somewhere else.

And right about now, some of the more experienced NTSB guys already know it. But they won't say for quite some time.

90 posted on 07/07/2013 9:51:55 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: george76

Whaza NOTAM?


91 posted on 07/07/2013 9:51:56 AM PDT by GladesGuru (Islam is antithetical to, and Islam is irreconcilable with, America. Therefore - Islam Delenda Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Some stupid, brain dead, libtard reporter thinks he / she has the smoking gun at the roots of a scandal so that the crash can be somebody else’s fault. Typical, find blame somewhere else. It was the pilot who was flying the airplane in clear weather. Maybe turbulence but that is what pilots are supposed to manage.


92 posted on 07/07/2013 9:53:57 AM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

ILS has two parts: Glideope and Localizer. Most ILS approaches are set up to use with glide slope out of service. There are just different minimums required to see the field.

Unless there was a serious malfunction of the aircraft systems, this is worse than pilot error. It was gross incompetence.

At UAL we are required to have stabilized approach criteria by 1000 feet: gear down flaps down on glide path, engines spooled up. Without that a missed approach is REQUIRED.

The 777 can calculate and display its own calculated glide path so glides lope out is not a big deal. There had to be all sorts of oral warnings going off prior to landing. EGPWS, GPWS radar altimeter call outs.

No excuse for ut


93 posted on 07/07/2013 9:54:08 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest; ops33
More from the same pilots forum:

I went into SFO r28L last week, no glide slope, and no papis visual approach only and the DME doesn't read 0dme at the threshols!

Emphasis is mine. This appears to corroborate the PAPI being OTS.

But, immediately following it:

Conducted LOC approach into SFO last night, glideslope out of service for both 28R & L due construction (until August 22nd) , PAPI was working last night. Departed this morning in relatively calm winds, visual approaches were in use for the 28's.

This is a more recent report, so I'd put more credence in it.

It was followed by:

Confirm no G/S on both 28L and 28R. PAPI only

and:

Departed SFO yesterday, no VASIS, PAPIS or ILS at KSFO. Only G/S available according to NOTAMS is what's in your FMS.

A number of people posted the NOTAM saying the SFO 28L PAPI is OTS, but others followed up and pointed out that it was date/time'd AFTER the crash.

The entire thread is here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco-26.html

So, it's looking like there is some confusion about whether the PAPI was actually OTS. If these reports are accurate, its status was changing, right up until the crash.

94 posted on 07/07/2013 9:58:25 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest; ops33
I forgot to add to my last posting:

A number of posters to that thread added an interesting claim: PAPI/VASI was required for a visual approach. They had various qualifiers: air carrier, night, over water, etc.

It wasn't clear to me if it was a government regulatory requirement (not the US: UK, Italy, etc.) or a company requirement. There were some challenges to their statements, and I didn't try to sort through all of them.

95 posted on 07/07/2013 10:03:03 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
Yosemitetest posted a link to the flight track log at FlightAware:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog

I thought you might find it interesting, especially this part:

02:22PM 37.4333 -122.0800 43° Northeast 248 285 5,900 -1,620 Descending FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4397 -122.0740 37° Northeast 249 287 5,700 -1,140 Descending FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4431 -122.0710 35° Northeast 249 287 5,700 -900 Level FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4471 -122.0690 22° Northeast 248 285 5,600 -900 Descending FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4513 -122.0680 11° North 247 284 5,600 -900 Level FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4549 -122.0670 12° North 246 283 5,500 -900 Descending FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4583 -122.0670 360° North 246 283 5,500 -900 Level FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4628 -122.0670 360° North 245 282 5,400 -1,500 Descending FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4675 -122.0680 350° North 244 281 5,300 -900 Descending FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4709 -122.0700 335° Northwest 243 280 5,300 -1,020 Level FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4741 -122.0720 334° Northwest 242 278 5,200 -900 Descending FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4774 -122.0740 334° Northwest 242 278 5,200 -1,020 Level FlightAware
02:22PM 37.4854 -122.0810 325° Northwest 243 280 5,000 -1,740 Descending FlightAware
02:23PM 37.4909 -122.0850 330° Northwest 243 280 4,800 -1,200 Descending FlightAware
02:23PM 37.4941 -122.0880 323° Northwest 244 281 4,800 -780 Level FlightAware
02:23PM 37.4973 -122.0920 315° West 243 280 4,700 -1,740 Descending FlightAware
02:23PM 37.4999 -122.0960 309° West 242 278 4,600 -900 Descending FlightAware
02:23PM 37.5026 -122.1010 304° West 240 276 4,600 -540 Level FlightAware
02:23PM 37.5066 -122.1100 299° West 237 273 4,500 -840 Descending FlightAware
02:23PM 37.5145 -122.1280 299° West 228 262 4,300 -540 Descending FlightAware
02:23PM 37.5192 -122.1390 298° West 221 254 4,300 -240 Level FlightAware
02:24PM 37.5266 -122.1570 297° West 212 244 4,200 -720 Descending FlightAware
02:24PM 37.5351 -122.1760 299° West 208 239 3,900 -960 Descending FlightAware
02:24PM 37.5414 -122.1910 298° West 204 235 3,700 -1,080 Descending FlightAware
02:24PM 37.5481 -122.2070 298° West 203 234 3,400 -1,200 Descending FlightAware
02:25PM 37.5548 -122.2230 298° West 195 224 3,100 -1,140 Descending FlightAware
02:25PM 37.5614 -122.2390 297° West 190 219 2,800 -1,500 Descending FlightAware
02:25PM 37.5669 -122.2520 298° West 187 215 2,400 -1,320 Descending FlightAware
02:25PM 37.5730 -122.2660 299° West 187 215 2,200 -1,080 Descending FlightAware
02:26PM 37.5785 -122.2790 298° West 186 214 1,900 -1,020 Descending FlightAware
02:26PM 37.5847 -122.2940 298° West 178 205 1,700 -1,020 Descending FlightAware
02:26PM 37.5900 -122.3070 297° West 169 194 1,400 -1,380 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.5988 -122.3270 299° West 145 167 800 -1,380 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6016 -122.3340 297° West 141 162 600 -1,320 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6045 -122.3410 298° West 134 154 400 -900 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6073 -122.3480 297° West 123 142 300 -840 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6103 -122.3550 298° West 109 125 100 -120 Descending FlightAware
02:28PM 37.6170 -122.3740 294° West 85 98 200 120 Climbing FlightAware
Does that look like a stabilized descent to you?
96 posted on 07/07/2013 10:12:18 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Don't worry, the news media reports all their other stories accurately. It is only aviation stories they get glaringly wrong.

Another story I read said the 777 was safer because it was built to evacuate it in 90 seconds. Of course that is an FAA and industry requirement.

97 posted on 07/07/2013 10:12:54 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

“You have made statements that you thought made you seem informed, but in fact did the opposite. “

[Yawn]


98 posted on 07/07/2013 10:13:46 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Repairs?

Electricity usage "brownout" to conserve energy for air conditioning around the region?

Hmmmmm. Good questions. Just why was it turned off? Isn't it foggy a lot around San Francisco?

99 posted on 07/07/2013 10:15:25 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (If America is a nation of immigrants, where's my free stuff?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

The media learns everything about aviation and guns from movies.


100 posted on 07/07/2013 10:21:20 AM PDT by jughandle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-167 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