Posted on 07/07/2013 6:01:04 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 that crashed at San Francisco's airport on Saturday was traveling "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.
Information collected from the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder indicated that there were no signs of trouble until seven seconds before impact, when the crew tried to accelerate, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said at a news conference at the airport.
A stall warning sounded four seconds before impact, and the crew tried to abort the landing and initiate what's known as a "go around" maneuver just 1.5 seconds before crashing, Hersman said.
"Air speed was significantly below the target airspeed," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I remember landing at Logan many years ago. We broke out of low overcast, there was water, and then a few seconds later, runway. Phew!
According to Captain Chesley “Sulley” Sullenberger, the FAA has classified San Francisco International as a “special airport: “It is surrounded by water, and of course water is a featureless terrain where depth perception can be difficult. There is shifting winds, low visibilities—so there is many things that make it special. Plus there is high terrain, just past it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57592529/plane-crash-at-san-francisco-airport/
There were two pilot crews (two people each) and each had a shift during the flight.
Well no, but this is a very sophisticated aircraft. There were other approaches to the same runway that give precision vertical guidance. Are you aware of any reason not to have been flying one of them?
There were “four” crews that alternated during the trip.
All airlines had been notified months ago that the glide path thingy was not working on that runway.
I remember landing on Wake Island on a C5A Galaxy and I swear the wheels touched down about two feet from the water. At least that’s what it felt like.
I suppose it would be the same as “Sleep Walking”
Tower switched the plane from Runway 28R to 28L during approach. This cost airspeed in complying, and the pilot didn’t add power until too late.
Special, yes. Like Vail, or to a lesser degree Grand Junction, and many others (even Midway) they present their own challenges. If you closed down all the airports with a special “hazards” you’d be left with Mid-continent and even then you’d be contending with the occasional dust-devil.
Besides, being classified as a special airport by the FAA isn’t that big of deal. For many reasons, I’m not going to get into that with you here, though.
I’m not thinking of closing San Francisco International at all. In fact, they are making improvements to make it safer. No matter how safe they can make these airports, it is the pilots who make the difference. And I am not going to second guess what happened with Asiana Airlines Flight 214. We will wait for the experts to give their report.
He did. He had 3000+ hours... most recent in 747s. He only had 43 hours in the newer 777 and was going into SFO for the first time.
CoPilot had lots of time in 777...guess he let the Captain get too far behind the power curve.
You apparently have never seen what happens to planes (even fighter jets) that are too close to the ground when stalled
It should be noted that the act of landing involves the decrease of speed and a stall at the precise moment before the wheels are touching down. The object is to quit flying.
It would seem to me the error was in not aiming further down the runway. Rather than landing on the numbers, he could have extended his point a little for a first attempt in that aircraft. The runway is long to allow for that specific event
Of course not, how could I, after all, being a certified and experienced mishap investigator.
But you have to admit, alleging the pilot(s) were all asleep and only woke up just moments before impact is amusing, especially given the fact the aircrew was in radio contact and was talking to ARTCC, local and the tower.
;-)
“It takes an eternity for those big PW 4090’s to spool up and produce thrust required to initiate a go around.”
Longer than the Hogs engines?
;-)
“There were other approaches to the same runway that give precision vertical guidance. Are you aware of any reason not to have been flying one of them? “
Severe clear weather.
You do not know what the whole crew was up to. Pilot was in training on this bird.... plane was obviously stalled (photos and speeds indicate that). You have to be DEAF or sound asleep to have not heard the stall squawks.....or as some other airlines have done the alerts and alarms were disabled because they are ‘annoyting’
Their is not an indication of contact after getting final clearance and the panic setting in as the plane stalls just before crashing
“Investigators said that the weather was unusually fair for foggy San Francisco. The winds were mild, too. During the descent, with their throttles set to idle, the pilots never discussed having any problems with the plane or its positioning until it was too late.
Seven seconds before the Boeing 777 struck down, a member of the flight crew made a call to increase the jet’s lagging speed, National Transportation Safety Board chief Deborah Hersman said at a briefing based on the plane’s cockpit and flight data recorders. Three seconds later came a warning that the plane was about to stall.
You act as if local contact would have been constant....it never is at SFO. There is a lot of traffic and you are never in constant contact with any of the towers.
You know better is you are a ‘mishap’ investigator and it is dishonest of you to suggest otherwise
And yet, according to you, they were asleep until just before the mishap.
Funny.
Thanks for playing.
Have a nice day.
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.