Jet crash-lands at San Francisco airport
- Thread starter Johnbr
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
Animation of the crash:
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/07/11/animation-re-creates-saturdays-sfo-crash/
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/07/11/animation-re-creates-saturdays-sfo-crash/
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
An article from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Asiana 'go-around' rate at SFO raises concern
By MATIER & ROSS
6:58 AM
Asiana Airlines has an unusually high rate of aborted landings at San Francisco International Airport - something that has become an issue for officials from here to Washington, D.C., since one of the carrier's planes crashed at SFO.
Asiana's number of aborted landings, or "go-arounds," is six to eight times greater than would be expected given the airline's total number of flights into SFO, according to sources familiar with the numbers.
The pilots on the Asiana flight that crashed July 6 called for a go-around seconds before the Boeing 777 slammed into a seawall short of the runway, apparently because the plane was flying too slow. Three passengers died and about 180 were injured.
After the crash, airline industry officials went through six weeks of records and found a "considerably higher" number of aborted landings by Asiana than would be expected, said our sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not cleared to make the information public.
The South Korean airline accounts for only about 0.5 percent of SFO's 600 daily landings. Its go-around total, however, is well above that.
One such aborted landing happened July 19, just days after SFO reopened the runway where Flight 214 crashed. The Asiana jet pulled out of its early-afternoon landing just 14 seconds from touchdown.
Sources tell us the plane appeared to be coming in too low and too fast. The plane landed without incident 18 minutes later.
"Thank God nothing happened," said Larry Mazzola, president of the Airport Commission.
Airport Director John Martin has told commissioners that the rate of aborted landings raised concerns about whether Asiana pilots are properly trained. "I believe that John has been pushing with Asiana because there have been previous issues with them not being able to land properly," said Commissioner Eleanor Johns.
She said Martin has "gone above and beyond" what's needed to keep the Federal Aviation Administration briefed about Asiana's problems.
"John is proposing that Asiana no longer allow novice pilots to land and only have experienced pilots," Johns said. The pilot at the controls of Flight 214 had never flown a Boeing 777 into SFO before and was being supervised by a trainer pilot, federal investigators say.
Martin also wants "to have some other experienced pilot - like an FAA official or a United pilot - on board as well," Johns said. United Airlines is a U.S. partner of Asiana under an international grouping called the Star Alliance.
Johns said Asiana's pilots appear to be overly reliant on instrument-guided landings and lack the training to touch down manually. It's unclear how Flight 214's pilots were trying to land.
Back in Washington, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been meeting with officials from the aviation agency and National Transportation Safety Board about Asiana's problems. She's even touched base with South Korea's U.S. ambassador.
"I was assured that they are on top of it and taking action," Feinstein said.
When we asked Martin about Asiana, he told us in a statement Friday that his "top priority at SFO is safety."
With the airport's instrument landing system out of service for repairs until Aug. 22, Martin said he has reached an agreement with Asiana and the Federal Aviation Administration to allow pilots to rely on a GPS system "as a suitable alternative" to help guide their landings.
"I am also pleased with the Korean Civil Aviation Authority's commitment to evaluate additional measures," he said.
The Federal Aviation Administration declined to immediately release Asiana's complete statistics on aborted landings, asking that our request be put in writing.
Asiana 'go-around' rate at SFO raises concern
By MATIER & ROSS
6:58 AM
Asiana Airlines has an unusually high rate of aborted landings at San Francisco International Airport - something that has become an issue for officials from here to Washington, D.C., since one of the carrier's planes crashed at SFO.
Asiana's number of aborted landings, or "go-arounds," is six to eight times greater than would be expected given the airline's total number of flights into SFO, according to sources familiar with the numbers.
The pilots on the Asiana flight that crashed July 6 called for a go-around seconds before the Boeing 777 slammed into a seawall short of the runway, apparently because the plane was flying too slow. Three passengers died and about 180 were injured.
After the crash, airline industry officials went through six weeks of records and found a "considerably higher" number of aborted landings by Asiana than would be expected, said our sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not cleared to make the information public.
The South Korean airline accounts for only about 0.5 percent of SFO's 600 daily landings. Its go-around total, however, is well above that.
One such aborted landing happened July 19, just days after SFO reopened the runway where Flight 214 crashed. The Asiana jet pulled out of its early-afternoon landing just 14 seconds from touchdown.
Sources tell us the plane appeared to be coming in too low and too fast. The plane landed without incident 18 minutes later.
"Thank God nothing happened," said Larry Mazzola, president of the Airport Commission.
Airport Director John Martin has told commissioners that the rate of aborted landings raised concerns about whether Asiana pilots are properly trained. "I believe that John has been pushing with Asiana because there have been previous issues with them not being able to land properly," said Commissioner Eleanor Johns.
She said Martin has "gone above and beyond" what's needed to keep the Federal Aviation Administration briefed about Asiana's problems.
"John is proposing that Asiana no longer allow novice pilots to land and only have experienced pilots," Johns said. The pilot at the controls of Flight 214 had never flown a Boeing 777 into SFO before and was being supervised by a trainer pilot, federal investigators say.
Martin also wants "to have some other experienced pilot - like an FAA official or a United pilot - on board as well," Johns said. United Airlines is a U.S. partner of Asiana under an international grouping called the Star Alliance.
Johns said Asiana's pilots appear to be overly reliant on instrument-guided landings and lack the training to touch down manually. It's unclear how Flight 214's pilots were trying to land.
Back in Washington, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been meeting with officials from the aviation agency and National Transportation Safety Board about Asiana's problems. She's even touched base with South Korea's U.S. ambassador.
"I was assured that they are on top of it and taking action," Feinstein said.
When we asked Martin about Asiana, he told us in a statement Friday that his "top priority at SFO is safety."
With the airport's instrument landing system out of service for repairs until Aug. 22, Martin said he has reached an agreement with Asiana and the Federal Aviation Administration to allow pilots to rely on a GPS system "as a suitable alternative" to help guide their landings.
"I am also pleased with the Korean Civil Aviation Authority's commitment to evaluate additional measures," he said.
The Federal Aviation Administration declined to immediately release Asiana's complete statistics on aborted landings, asking that our request be put in writing.
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,439
- Reaction score
- 735
I would assume that if there were a lack in proficiency of Asiana pilots, this would show up in higher than normal go around statistics at other airports as well.
Is there something particularly difficult in landing at SFO? or maybe nothing's surfaced because there haven't been accidents in other places?
Is there something particularly difficult in landing at SFO? or maybe nothing's surfaced because there haven't been accidents in other places?
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
AeroFranz said:
I made today's post because it tended to confirm and validate the statements of those I quoted on Jul 19. SFO is not the easiest airport to land at, but in good weather, it's not particularly hard, just requires precision, so long as you know how to fly the plane.
A related note is something else Hobbes and I talked about: the modern interface. Some things, like quantities or specific information, are improved with the digital interface. Other things, such as rates or relationships are actually worse. Quoting a poster to Aviation week:, "Our aircraft with their "steam driven" instruments were simple, on finals if the ASI needle was at 10 O'clock I was going to land successfully, if it went to 9 O'clock I said 3 Hail Mary's and 2 Our Fathers, because I was going to stall and die. If it got to 11 O'clock I was going off the end of the runway. In a modern airliner to ascertain your speed from the digital read-out you have to take in 2 or three pieces of data rather than just looking at the needle position".
Speed tapes as part of flight displays aren't as informative as the old round dials. Only a portion of the range is visible, and it's hard to tell how you're doing as fast as you could the "old" way. On Asiana 214 on final they were more than 20% slow! With the round dial, that would be obvious as part of your scan even from a glance of only a fraction of a second. With a speed tape you've got to actually read it, interpret it, and then determine what it means to you. This takes a lot more time and when busy, especially when something else is happening you don't expect, can easily be missed.
shedofdread
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 14 November 2009
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 378
Also, 'rate of change' is instantly apparent from a 'clock' - something else that can be taken in very rapidly.
Considering it must be at least 20 years since I first heard this argument against digital guages, and I believe that some glass-cockpit equiped aircraft have synthetic representations of 'clocks', I'm surprised that for the critical outputs (ASI etc) this isn't more widely done..?
Considering it must be at least 20 years since I first heard this argument against digital guages, and I believe that some glass-cockpit equiped aircraft have synthetic representations of 'clocks', I'm surprised that for the critical outputs (ASI etc) this isn't more widely done..?
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
shedofdread said:
"Clocks" aren't cool and "modern". They're so 20th Century (don't laugh; you don't think that doesn't get into engineers' consensus thinking?). Plus, IMO people who design MFD and PFD displays are really working from an IFR/cruise flight bias. For that particular type of flying you're concentrating heavily on the glass displays and not changing much. Plus the glass does offer superior information management for navigation. So, the tendency is to try and put everything there.
I always thought the best GA cockpit I ever saw was that of the early to mid Cirrus'. Glass for navigating and IFR, steam gauges for flying the plane.
Interestingly, when Southwest Airlines was moving from Classic 737s to NGs it wanted its pilots to be certified to fly both types depending on trip assignment and so they went to Boeing for help. Now on the 737, when Southwest talks, Boeing listens. So, their Baby Boeings for a while had glass displays that showed computer generated imagery of steam gauges.
circle-5 said:
Err...what happen to the rule of not having any electronic devices operating during this phase?
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
A development:
Starting today, foreign air carriers will no longer be allowed to approach SFO's parallels flying side by side in good weather. ATC will stagger their position. Not sure if this is permanent.
Starting today, foreign air carriers will no longer be allowed to approach SFO's parallels flying side by side in good weather. ATC will stagger their position. Not sure if this is permanent.
How the bloody hell does one blame Boeng for this? Unless of course it is simply a case of where does one's lawyer think the biggest payoff will potentially be. Bloody leech!!!
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/lawsuits-target-boeing-in-asiana-crash/story-e6frfkui-1226694612299
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/lawsuits-target-boeing-in-asiana-crash/story-e6frfkui-1226694612299
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
GTX said:
Further details on this idiotic lawsuit:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_23825730/three-lawsuits-by-asiana-crash-victims-target-boeing
Maybe next he'll sue because the controller (as I opined in a previous post) failed to say, "Cleared to land. Don't crash". Don't forget Boeing got sued over Tenerife.
Q: Why don't sharks attack Lawyers when they're swimming or surfing?
A: Professional courtesy
Similar threads
-
-
-
Air Force C-17 Globemaster III makes surprise landing at Peter O. Knight Airport- Started by Graham1973
- Replies: 3
-
National Day to Remember Victims of Air Disasters: 8 January, 2021
- Started by riggerrob
- Replies: 0
-
