SFO accident

[gotyacovered]

Tower audio: sounded like the tower controller did a great job

http://soberbuildengineer-com.s3.amazonaws.com/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3

[Flying Razorback]

Looks close to identical to the one at Heathrow a couple years ago.  I believe the auto-throttles got them on the back half of the power curve and they flamed out or something. 

This one definitely hit short and they are probably thanking higher powers that they made the underrun and didn't hit in the water or at that sea wall.  They hit with enough down VVI to shear the tail in the underrun area...

Lots could have happened, but it was either a flame out, back half of the power curve, or a bad approach.

[GoHogs1091]

I am not a licensed pilot, but I have flown the 777 on the Microsoft Flight Simulator.  Here are some 777 flights I have flown on the Microsoft Simulator.

Dallas Fort-Worth to London Gatwick

Numerous Kansas City to Dallas Fort-Worth

Los Angeles (LAX) to JFK in New York City

Chicago O'Hare to Atlanta Jackson Hartsfield

Dallas Fort-Worth to Mexico City

Amman Jordan to Baghdad Iraq

The 777 is awesome.  Someone mentioned on the T.V. that he looked at the Flightaware information for the last moments of the Asiana flight, and he stated that the Descent Rate was 1,400 feet towards the final moments.  The person on T.V. before he stated that information stated that they may have been too high initially, and that would explain that Descent Rate. 

I went over to the Flightaware site and looked at an article about the incident, and in the comments section under the article a person posted that someone said that the aircraft was high and on a steeper than normal approach.  Another person in the comments section under the article posted that the flight tracking data log shows a sudden gain in altitude (100 ft to 200 ft) and simultaneous loss of air speed (to below 100 kts) in the last entry before the crash.  That person also posted that assuming these data are accurate, this seems consistent with a stall right before landing.       

 

[Flying Razorback]

I haven't listened but I read somewhere else that you can hear on the tower audio that they were landing with a declared emergency.

[PEtrader]

Talking to my father in law who flys for southwest,  he had heard as well that they has declared inflight emergency.

[PEtrader]

I am not a licensed pilot, but I have flown the 777 on the Microsoft Flight Simulator.  Here are some 777 flights I have flown on the Microsoft Simulator.

Dallas Fort-Worth to London Gatwick

Numerous Kansas City to Dallas Fort-Worth

Los Angeles (LAX) to JFK in New York City

Chicago O'Hare to Atlanta Jackson Hartsfield

Dallas Fort-Worth to Mexico City

Amman Jordan to Baghdad Iraq

The 777 is awesome.  Someone mentioned on the T.V. that he looked at the Flightaware information for the last moments of the Asiana flight, and he stated that the Descent Rate was 1,400 feet towards the final moments.  The person on T.V. before he stated that information stated that they may have been too high initially, and that would explain that Descent Rate. 

I went over to the Flightaware site and looked at an article about the incident, and in the comments section under the article a person posted that someone said that the aircraft was high and on a steeper than normal approach.  Another person in the comments section under the article posted that the flight tracking data log shows a sudden gain in altitude (100 ft to 200 ft) and simultaneous loss of air speed (to below 100 kts) in the last entry before the crash.  That person also posted that assuming these data are accurate, this seems consistent with a stall right before landing.       

Could be,  but did you really just give us your flight log from flight sim?  It is a good tool,  but that is pretty funny.

[GoHogs1091]

What is contradictory is that if they were indeed too high, and if they had that 1,400 feet Descent Rate while trying to lose altitude, then there shouldn't have been an issue in regards to low speed and a possible stall, unless, the pilot made too large of a pitch up correction after quickly losing the altitude, and then that could have led to a low speed and a possible stall.  The person on the T.V. who stated that the Descent Rate was 1,400 feet stated that the pilot probably powered down while losing the altitude, but for some reason, the pilot may have not got it powered back up while trying to do the opposite correction after losing the altitude.   

I would be shocked if there was something wrong mechanically with the plane.  The 777 is just a great plane both in regards to flyability and mechanically.  Not only is this a very sad day for the passengers, crew, and family of everyone, it is also a very sad day because of an accident involving a great model of aircraft.         

[GoHogs1091]

Could be,  but did you really just give us your flight log from flight sim?  It is a good tool,  but that is pretty funny.

I actually have stopped flying on the Microsoft Simulator.  I haven't flown on the Microsoft Simulator in a couple of years.  When I did spend a lot of time flying on it, I just didn't start out by flying the 777.  I first spent a lot of time flying a Cessna 182, then I spent a lot time flying a King Air 350, and then I spent a lot time flying the 777.   

[PEtrader]

What is contradictory is that if they were indeed too high, and if they had that 1,400 feet Descent Rate while trying to lose altitude, then there shouldn't have been an issue in regards to low speed and a possible stall, unless, the pilot made too large of a pitch up correction after quickly losing the altitude, and then that could have led to a low speed and a possible stall.  The person on the T.V. who stated that the Descent Rate was 1,400 feet stated that the pilot probably powered down while losing the altitude, but for some reason, the pilot may have not got it powered back up while trying to do the opposite correction after losing the altitude.   

I would be shocked if there was something wrong mechanically with the plane.  The 777 is just a great plane both in regards to flyability and mechanically.  Not only is this a very sad day for the passengers, crew, and family of everyone, it is also a very sad day because of an accident involving a great model of aircraft.         

Don't get me wrong,  keep posting your opinions because this is a board for pilots and now pilots, but man come on don't act like you have flown a 777.  Great flyability and mechanically?  That is like saying you can throw a football 90 yards in real life because you can on Xbox. 

That being said,  interesting analogy.

[GoHogs1091]

Don't get me wrong,  keep posting your opinions because this is a board for pilots and now pilots, but man come on don't act like you have flown a 777.  Great flyability and mechanically?  That is like saying you can throw a football 90 yards in real life because you can on Xbox. 

That being said,  interesting analogy.

Of course, I haven't actually flown a 777, but I have spent a lot of Microsoft Simulator time flying a 777.  That DFW-London Gatwick flight I did took 8 hours and 53 minutes. 

I wouldn't knock the Microsoft Flight Simulator.  I once talked with a real-life Regional Airline Regional Jet Captain, and he stated that he had tried the Microsoft Simulator before and he stated that he got lost (lost while flying to a destination on the Microsoft Simulator).   

That Microsoft Simulator forces someone to become proficient at flying just by using instrumentation.       

[PEtrader]

Of course, I haven't actually flown a 777, but I have spent a lot of Microsoft Simulator time flying a 777.  That DFW-London Gatwick flight I did took 8 hours and 53 minutes. 

I wouldn't knock the Microsoft Flight Simulator.  I once talked with a real-life Regional Airline Regional Jet Captain, and he stated that he had tried the Microsoft Simulator before and he stated that he got lost (lost while flying to a destination on the Microsoft Simulator).   

That Microsoft Simulator forces someone to become proficient at flying just by using instrumentation.     

Interesting....brb I need to go talk to Wocraig about some tips i have for him on air to ground support.  I have been playing a lot of call of duty.

[GoHogs1091]

Interesting....brb I need to go talk to Wocraig about some tips i have for him on air to ground support.  I have been playing a lot of call of duty.

Yeah it was interesting.  I was shocked when that Regional Jet Captain told me that he had got lost while flying on the Microsoft Sim.  He had tried that Microsoft Sim after he had become a Regional Pilot. 

Kind of scary to think about the fact that a real-life Regional Jet Captain had got lost while flying on a personal computer flight simulator.   

 

[gotyacovered]

What is contradictory is that if they were indeed too high, and if they had that 1,400 feet Descent Rate while trying to lose altitude, then there shouldn't have been an issue in regards to low speed and a possible stall, unless, the pilot made too large of a pitch up correction after quickly losing the altitude, and then that could have led to a low speed and a possible stall.  The person on the T.V. who stated that the Descent Rate was 1,400 feet stated that the pilot probably powered down while losing the altitude, but for some reason, the pilot may have not got it powered back up while trying to do the opposite correction after losing the altitude.   

I would be shocked if there was something wrong mechanically with the plane.  The 777 is just a great plane both in regards to flyability and mechanically.  Not only is this a very sad day for the passengers, crew, and family of everyone, it is also a very sad day because of an accident involving a great model of aircraft.         

It's pretty tough to stall an airplane in a controled (even if its aggressive) descent. I think flyingrzbckaf nailed it. He was shooting a visual approach with no glidepath info (NOTAM'd inop) and had excesdive sink... By the time the correction was needed, and realized, it was too late.

[gotyacovered]

Of course, I haven't actually flown a 777, but I have spent a lot of Microsoft Simulator time flying a 777.  That DFW-London Gatwick flight I did took 8 hours and 53 minutes. 

I wouldn't knock the Microsoft Flight Simulator.  I once talked with a real-life Regional Airline Regional Jet Captain, and he stated that he had tried the Microsoft Simulator before and he stated that he got lost (lost while flying to a destination on the Microsoft Simulator).   

That Microsoft Simulator forces someone to become proficient at flying just by using instrumentation.       

Let me get this straight... Did you fly the route(s) in real time? That's intense.

[Flying Razorback]

What is contradictory is that if they were indeed too high, and if they had that 1,400 feet Descent Rate while trying to lose altitude, then there shouldn't have been an issue in regards to low speed and a possible stall, unless, the pilot made too large of a pitch up correction after quickly losing the altitude, and then that could have led to a low speed and a possible stall.  The person on the T.V. who stated that the Descent Rate was 1,400 feet stated that the pilot probably powered down while losing the altitude, but for some reason, the pilot may have not got it powered back up while trying to do the opposite correction after losing the altitude.   

I would be shocked if there was something wrong mechanically with the plane.  The 777 is just a great plane both in regards to flyability and mechanically.  Not only is this a very sad day for the passengers, crew, and family of everyone, it is also a very sad day because of an accident involving a great model of aircraft.         

The steep approach doesn't necessarily mean the increase in VVI was rekated to the pilot attempting to return to a normal 3 degree glide slope.

Another theory I would put out is if you look at your L/D power charts.  Your approach speed typically is ewual to the speed that corresponds with L/Dmax on the Power vs Speed charts.  The same point on the Angle of Attack charts is at the top of the curve.  As you increase AOA beyond L/Dmax your angle of attack increases while your Lift decreases.   The same spot on the speed vs power chsrt is at the bottom of the bathtub.  As you slow below the speed associsted with L/Dmax, more power is required to hokd that slow speed and stop the rapidly decreasing airspeed.  You add power but stay slow and if you dont add it fast enough then you will continue to decelerate and increase your AOA towards a stall.  Your VVI increases the whole time.

You are making an approach with only one of your two turbofan engines then you have an even bigger power problem.   It's even easier to get on the back half of the power curve and harder to get back out of it.

It'll be interesting to find out what their initial emergency wss and how it contributed if it did.

[GoHogs1091]

Let me get this straight... Did you fly the route(s) in real time? That's intense.

Yes, I flew the routes in real time.  For navigation purposes, the Microsoft Sim has moving map GPS, in addition to the VOR-to-VOR navigation.  Before I learned that I could make the route of the flight show up as a line on the moving map GPS screen (I would always have the moving map GPS screen in the lower right portion of the computer screen), I flew that DFW-London Gatwick route by memory (it was an 8 hours 53 minute flight).  I studied the route for around 30 minutes and then flew it by memory.  After I had done that DFW-London Gatwick flight, then I learned how to get the route to show up on the moving map GPS.  I later ended up flying a return flight from London Gatwick to DFW with the route showing on the GPS, but my computer messed up and froze when I had just crossed over into Arkansas up just around north of Harrison, and that flight abruptly ended due to my computer messing up, so I didn't finish the London Gatwick to DFW flight.  If I had finished that flight, it would have probably ended up being around an 8 hour 25 minute flight (quicker than flying the route by memory). 
     
That Microsoft Sim has it where you can download real time weather and fly on the sim in the actual weather that is actually occurring, but I never did download real time weather when I flew on the sim.  Perhaps, I should have downloaded the real time weather to make it more realistic.   

[RNC]

Yeah it was interesting.  I was shocked when that Regional Jet Captain told me that he had got lost while flying on the Microsoft Sim.  He had tried that Microsoft Sim after he had become a Regional Pilot. 

Kind of scary to think about the fact that a real-life Regional Jet Captain had got lost while flying on a personal computer flight simulator.   

The sim has no ATC and no discernible ground reference points.  If I get lost IRL I can find a lake, find one on the map that looks like it, and go from there.  Replace lake wih whatever other large landmark.

Apples/oranges.  It's easier to get lost on MS flight sim than in real life.

Either way don't be scared off, questions/comments welcome, it's not like this forum is so teeming with traffic that it can't handle a non pilot or three posting in it.

[gotyacovered]

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-07-07T003835Z_1147506799_GM1E9770NWQ01_RTRMADP_3_USA-CRASH-ASIANA.JPG

[gotyacovered]

Red board info, whoever posted over there took it from blue board.

[Flying Razorback]

Listening to the audio I can't tell if they were sending emergency vehicles to Asiana before or after the crash.  Now I believe they were telling them that emergency vehicles were responding after it crashed.  That makes more sense to me because you would have emergency vehicles pre-positioned if it was a pre-declared emergency and all the pictures of the accident scene don't show anything and they had the 747 taxiing to the end to takeoff and they wouldn't have let them down there.

[Flying Razorback]

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-07-07T003835Z_1147506799_GM1E9770NWQ01_RTRMADP_3_USA-CRASH-ASIANA.JPG

I tell you what, whoever told me to plant it in on a short runway to dissipate energy was right.  I bet there's nowhere else a 777 could land in 2000' (counting the 500' of underrun since they used it) probably without thrust reversers.  I know it was light weight, but still, that's a lot of energy gone at once.  Probably lends credence to the being slow at touchdown.

[Flying Razorback]

Yeah, just listened again, I guess I just didn't realize the pilots were staying on the radio that long after crashing.  We train to egress real quick, maybe they do things different.

[99toLife]

I'm no pilot, but I have flown in and out of that airport several times. It always seemed like a slam on the brakes when you land and stomp on the gas when you take off kind of place.

[Flying Razorback]

I'm no pilot, but I have flown in and out of that airport several times. It always seemed like a slam on the brakes when you land and stomp on the gas when you take off kind of place.

I've only been in once as a passenger but don't really remember it since it was 10 years ago.  However, Runway 28L is 11,381 feet long with what looks like a displaced threshold of what looks to be about 300' for landing so I'll round down and give it 11,000' of usable runway for landing. 

Its PCN is 80 with only a 0.1% gradient.  The elevation there is only 13' MSL and San Francisco has relatively cool weather compared to here, Southern California, Texas, Arizona, and other places that get hot in the summer.  So there should be no climb performance issues.  The Trouble T is 351 feet/NM to 1300 MSL.

All of this to say, performance is far from an issue there.  The Pressure Altitude is always low, the temperatures are mild, and there is a ton of usable concrete for both landing and takeoff.  Takeoff planning could be a little tougher while planning a One Engine Inoperative climb to 1300' at 351'/NM, but with how low the PA is and the temperatures are normal plus the long runway, I would doubt this would be a problem for anyone except the heaviest/oldest jets on the hottest days with a low altimeter setting.

The only reason I would think of for getting the jet whoa'ed up and clear of the runway as fast as possible is the fact that it's a Class B airport and taking an earlier taxiway will get you to the terminal faster without having to keep stopping and waiting for other traffic.

[99toLife]

I've only been in once as a passenger but don't really remember it since it was 10 years ago.  However, Runway 28L is 11,381 feet long with what looks like a displaced threshold of what looks to be about 300' for landing so I'll round down and give it 11,000' of usable runway for landing. 

Its PCN is 80 with only a 0.1% gradient.  The elevation there is only 13' MSL and San Francisco has relatively cool weather compared to here, Southern California, Texas, Arizona, and other places that get hot in the summer.  So there should be no climb performance issues.  The Trouble T is 351 feet/NM to 1300 MSL.

All of this to say, performance is far from an issue there.  The Pressure Altitude is always low, the temperatures are mild, and there is a ton of usable concrete for both landing and takeoff.  Takeoff planning could be a little tougher while planning a One Engine Inoperative climb to 1300' at 351'/NM, but with how low the PA is and the temperatures are normal plus the long runway, I would doubt this would be a problem for anyone except the heaviest/oldest jets on the hottest days with a low altimeter setting.

The only reason I would think of for getting the jet whoa'ed up and clear of the runway as fast as possible is the fact that it's a Class B airport and taking an earlier taxiway will get you to the terminal faster without having to keep stopping and waiting for other traffic.

Thanks, Like I said I'm no pilot, and maybe that's the reason. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it because visually that runway sticks out in the bay and my mind just freaks out a little. I fly all the time and it always seems like that happens there.

[Flying Razorback]

Was on the tread mill while the NTSB spokeswoman was giving the initial statement of facts based on the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder. 

Sounds a lot like what I said above.  They slowed below approach speed, increased pitch which led to more decreased airspeed and subsequent increase in angle of attack.  They ended up on the back side of the power curve and continued to slow.  It was noticed that they were slowing while increasing VVI and they called for an increase of power.  Power was brought up but not enough to bring them back and they hit short before they could initiate a full go around.

This is almost the exact sequence of events that we taught to every single flight as a multi-turbofan instructor.  When you get on the back half of the power curve with turbofan engines you might not be able to re-engage the engines and get back to speed at low altitude.  As you slow on the backside, you notice it and you add power.  Increasing power just keeps you slow so you have to keep adding power to try to get back to the front side.  More often than not, you finally catch it and send yourself to a condition of being too fast as the ball rips the other way in the bath tub.



Your normal approach speed sits just to the right of the bottom of the power curve.  L/Dmax sits at the very bottom of the power curve where endurance airspeed is.  Your approach speed is right above your L/Dmax on most aircraft.  You can see that on the back side of the power curve, the amount of power required to maintain a slow speed is the exact amount as required to hold too fast a speed.  As you slow, you get to a point where increasing power is leading to you being slower until you increase it enough to reverse the trend.

Bad place to be on an approach.  "Aimpoint, airspeed, aimpoint, airspeed..."  Keep that crosscheck up guys.  Let's hope those still in the hospital are able to make fast recoveries.

Another L/Dmax curve showing the backhalf as past L/Dmax on the rapidly decaying lift section to the right.  The stall occurs at the sudden end of the curve.  L/Dmax is at the very top of the curve.  The normal approach speed will be slight left of L/Dmax.

[PEtrader]

So fairly rookie mistake.  They just flew the thing into the ground.  Was there an in flight emergency like has been rumored?

[Flying Razorback]

So fairly rookie mistake.  They just flew the thing into the ground.  Was there an in flight emergency like has been rumored?

I don't think there was an emergency.  I think the confusion came from the tower audio.  The pilots were talking to tower after the crash asking for emergency assistance.  I believe that's what you hear.

[PEtrader]

I say rookie,  because I basically did the exact same thing when I was just starting out in flight school.  Bounced right over the lights at the end of the runway,  but I learned from it.  Hard to believe four pilots with what you would presume to be a good bit of flight time would make that type of mistake.

[Flying Razorback]

I say rookie,  because I basically did the exact same thing when I was just starting out in flight school.  Bounced right over the lights at the end of the runway,  but I learned from it.  Hard to believe four pilots with what you would presume to be a good bit of flight time would make that type of mistake.

People still make mistakes.  The most common occurence I've seen of this happening comes from being too high.  Guys pull the power and dump the nose to get down fast and then pull the nose to match the 3 degree glide slope they were seeking.  However, when they pull the nose up, they leave the throttles behind or bring them up slower than the rate you bring the nose up.  You very quickly get on the back side of the power curve. 

The next most common time I see people get behind is when they get too far drug in below glide slope.  They pick the nose up to try to stretch it to the runway or fly it back in to the glide slope.  They leave the throttles behind when they do this.

I fly tons and tons of patterns and when I was an instructor in the T-1 I flew thousands of patterns and approaches with students.  We keep our proficiency a lot higher than a lot of the airlines who don't take their 777 or A330 in to the pattern for a few hours of touch and goes a couple times a week.  Instead all flights are almost one ILS (coupled) to a full stop.  You get an exhausted crew with minimal currency/proficiency then it can happen very quick.  Especially when they are flying a visual with the ILS out.  It looks like it took just 7 seconds in this case to go from "your slow" to impact.

[GoHogs1091]

The NTSB press conference stated their preliminary investigative information shows that the target approach speed was 137 kts.  That 137 kts target approach speed was already on the low end to begin with anyway because I have read where someone has stated that the Boeing reference chart shows an approach speed for the 777-200 at 136 to 140 kts depending on the configuration. 

I just personally looked at the Boeing chart, and for the 777-200ER the Boeing chart shows 139 kts for approach speed.  The Asiana 777 was a 777-200ER.  Therefore, they had a target approach speed that was already 2 kts lower than what Boeing specifically shows for the 777-200ER.

The NTSB Chairwoman stated in her press conference that they got significantly lower than the 137 kts target.  That is a compounded aspect to go on top of the already having a target that was 2 kts lower than what it should have been to begin with.

Someone posted on another site that the FA log shows that they came in high at the outer marker at twice the altitude (2,200 feet) when they should have been at 1,180 feet, and then they increased the sink rate to 1,380 feet per second - twice the normal rate, killing the air speed in the process, so instead of overshooting the runway they had trouble making it to the threshold.

Even though I am not a licensed pilot, to me if you are too high it would be better to declare a missed approach than to sink at a reckless rate.  Of course, I was not there and was not privy to what was going on, and also I have the luxury of using hindsight (which hindsight is always 20-20).     

[FaytownHog]

I just flew (as a passenger) into SFO on Thursday and it felt like we were really low and close to the water on approach to landing, then out of no where we just make the end of the runway and all as it was suppose to be but then to see this happen literally 48 hours after we were there and felt like we were quite going to make it to land, was a little unnerving.

[FaytownHog]

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes.html

[Flying Razorback]

to me if you are too high it would be better to declare a missed approach than to sink at a reckless rate.  Of course, I was not there and was not privy to what was going on, and also I have the luxury of using hindsight (which hindsight is always 20-20).     

Again, it all depends.  I've recovered two bad approaches in the past couple of weeks.  The first was up at Fort Campbell on recovery from the drop zone.  I entered a high speed downwind and perched a little too early trying to beat in a couple of helicopters.  (Helicopters always make me nervous).   I made the turn at 200 knots and slowed and configured level in the turn.  It was a 1500' pattern and I perched too early so I was way too high coming around to final.  I left the throttles back at idle, dropped the nose to about 15 degrees nose low to trade altitude for airspeed and rode it straight down.  Around 100' pulled the nose up to meet a normal 3 degree glide path to the thousand foot markers and brought the throttles to match and let the aircraft slow to threshold and then touchdown speed.  It was all coordinated and it saved the approach.  Had a similar deal last week on a night line after removing NVGs for an unaided pattern and landing where I perched too early and too tight to the runway with overshooting winds.  I was already configured so I just added airspeed to give myself bank to work with and bottom rudder to return to the runway centerline.  Kept my airspeed with pitch and then brought throttles up with the nose as I returned to a normal glide path. 

I expect most pilots of the caliber of the airline pilots to be able to save a steep or low approach.  However, the nature of the job can lead to degradation of some skills.  I don't know which 777s have a HUD but if they did then they have even more/better tools to help recover a bad approach.

Goes to show for the instrument rated pilots that you need to vary your training and really know what your aircraft is capable of. 

We don't know all the facts yet so I won't call judgement yet.  For all we know they could have been at min fuel already and a go around would have put them at emergency fuel.  There could have been a problem with the engine when they made the pitch change/power change and it stayed in a low power state or stalled or something.  Hopefully we find out and we all learn a little something.

[Flying Razorback]

Also, the approach speed is going to be based on weight, configuration, temperature, and PA.  We don't know enough to know exactly what the approach speed should have been besides the 137 that was bugged.  I assume that was the correct approach speed.  Even a couple knots around that aren't going to be bad.  A lot of knots above or below that will cause a problem though.

[GoHogs1091]

Also, the approach speed is going to be based on weight, configuration, temperature, and PA.  We don't know enough to know exactly what the approach speed should have been besides the 137 that was bugged.  I assume that was the correct approach speed.  Even a couple knots around that aren't going to be bad.  A lot of knots above or below that will cause a problem though.

The manual that came with the Microsoft Flight Sim, in the section with operating procedures for the 777, stated to have an approach speed of 140 kts.  When I flew on the Microsoft Sim (which I haven't done in around 2 years), all the times I flew the 777 I always tried to stick by that 140 kts approach speed guideline.  Since all the approaches that I did on the Microsoft Sim was manual hand flying, it was very tricky to keep on that 140 kts while manual hand flying the 777 on approach. 

I could never figure out how to properly do an ILS approach on the Microsoft Sim.  I tried several times on my own.  I did notice late last year on YouTube that there is some good tutorials with the procedures for flying an ILS approach on the Microsoft Sim, but I didn't know about those tutorials on YouTube back when I was flying on the Microsoft Sim.           

[Flying Razorback]

I can't get in to their online manuals site through Boeing.com since I don't have a log in.  But an approach speed is never the same.  Weight, temp, PA, and wind conditions are all going to change the approach speed.  It decreases as you reduce your weight, get colder, and lower PA fields.  The opposite increases speed and gusty wind conditions increase the speed.  Landing configuration changes speed as well.

Flight Sim probably couldn't include all performance data so just gave a single speed.

[GoHogs1091]

I can't get in to their online manuals site through Boeing.com since I don't have a log in.  But an approach speed is never the same.  Weight, temp, PA, and wind conditions are all going to change the approach speed.  It decreases as you reduce your weight, get colder, and lower PA fields.  The opposite increases speed and gusty wind conditions increase the speed.  Landing configuration changes speed as well.

Flight Sim probably couldn't include all performance data so just gave a single speed.

I was able to see the Boeing chart because someone on another site had direct linked the chart.  Here is it is (it is a 2 page PDF, and when I opened it up, I had to zoom it out in order to be able to read the chart).

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf

[Flying Razorback]

I was able to see the Boeing chart because someone on another site had direct linked the chart.  Here is it is (it is a 2 page PDF, and when I opened it up, I had to zoom it out in order to be able to read the chart).

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf

That's a reference for Airport operations.  That gives a single average speed.  However, approach speed is going to be based on Weight, temperature, PA, configuration, and winds as applicable.

Here it says that at Max Landing Weight, with full flaps, and gear down the approach threshold speed will be somewhere between 138 and 145 knots. 

We have a 777 pilot on here, he might weigh in in a few days.  There might be a standard speed that commercial airliners normally finish a sortie at because they normally plan for them all to land around the same weight.  However, temperature, PA, and configuration are still going to determine the actual approach speed for the jet on that day at that moment.

[GoHogs1091]

That's a reference for Airport operations.  That gives a single average speed.  However, approach speed is going to be based on Weight, temperature, PA, configuration, and winds as applicable.

Here it says that at Max Landing Weight, with full flaps, and gear down the approach threshold speed will be somewhere between 138 and 145 knots. 

We have a 777 pilot on here, he might weigh in in a few days.  There might be a standard speed that commercial airliners normally finish a sortie at because they normally plan for them all to land around the same weight.  However, temperature, PA, and configuration are still going to determine the actual approach speed for the jet on that day at that moment.

That is cool that there is a 777 pilot on here.  It will be very interesting to see what he says.

The 777 is flat-out awesome.  I really enjoyed spending time flying it on the Microsoft Sim.  The 777 Avionics were laid out very well, and the useability of the Avionics was very, very good. 

That is in stark contrast to the Learjet 45.  I found the Learjet 45 to be very tricky and very difficult to fly when I flew it some on the Microsoft Sim.  The 777 was just way better. 

I personally feel that the Boeing 777 may go down as one of the best engineering/design/manufacturing achievements in the history of the United States.  It is an engineering marvel.           

[Flying Razorback]

I'll echo the praise for the 777 though I have never flown one or ridden in one.  There's a great PBS documentary on the design and build of the 777 that I recommend to people.  We studied the 777 design in a class in my Aerospace engineering program.

[arkmark]

This may turn out to be critical to the findings.  Just read a new article, sorry best reference I have is Yahoo.com, it's on their home page, that stated that according to Korean authorities the pilot conducting the landing was an experienced commercial pilot with 9k+ hours but that he had only 43 hrs in the 777.  In fact this was his first landing in the 777 and he was considered a pilot in training for 777 purposes.  His co-pilot was 3k+ hours in 777 time.  If the FAA chairs information today of the cockpit conversation over the last minute or so of conversation was accurate I would say the lack of conversation between the right to left seat was a bit chilling.

[GoHogs1091]

This may turn out to be critical to the findings.  Just read a new article, sorry best reference I have is Yahoo.com, it's on their home page, that stated that according to Korean authorities the pilot conducting the landing was an experienced commercial pilot with 9k+ hours but that he had only 43 hrs in the 777.  In fact this was his first landing in the 777 and he was considered a pilot in training for 777 purposes.  His co-pilot was 3k+ hours in 777 time.  If the FAA chairs information today of the cockpit conversation over the last minute or so of conversation was accurate I would say the lack of conversation between the right to left seat was a bit chilling.

I noticed the article also.  A couple of aspects from the article.

"Pilots normally try to land at the target speed, in this case 137 knots, plus an additional five more knots, said Bob Coffman, an American Airlines captain who has flown 777s. He said the briefing raises an important question: "Why was the plane going so slow?"

"Asiana spokeswoman Lee Hyomin said that Lee Gang-guk, who was at the controls, had nearly 10,000 hours flying other planes but only 43 in the 777, a plane she said he still was getting used to flying. Another pilot on the flight, Lee Jeong-min, had about 12,390 hours of flying experience, including 3,220 hours on the 777, according to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in South Korea. Lee was the deputy pilot, tasked with helping Lee Gang-guk get accustomed to the 777, according to Asiana Airlines."

http://news.yahoo.com/pilot-sf-crash-had-little-experience-777s-051816493.html;_ylt=AvexaszYUhWxeiHoFir9vZkJVux_;_ylu=X3oDMTI5MHJiMGMzBG1pdANBVFQgMyBTdG9yeSBKdW1ib3Ryb24gSG9tZSBDYWNoZWQEcG9zAzUEc2VjA01lZGlhQXR0V2lkZ2V0cm9uQXNzZW1ibHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTFkcW51ZGliBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA--;_ylv=3

That aspect about an additional five more knots on top of the target approach speed of 137 kts (which would utlimately make it 142 kts) stated by that American Airlines Captain (Bob Coffman) is interesting.  On all of the 777 flights I flew on the Microsoft Sim, I did my darnest to have an approach speed of 140 kts (per the operating guideline for the 777 in the manual that came with the Microsoft Sim).  To me, that 140 kts. approach speed guideline was a "set in stone" guideline that I wanted absolutely no deviation on (I am a "stickler" when it comes to operating guidelines).  Yes, it can be difficult, particularly while manual hand flying, to not get off of that guideline by 1 or 2 kts., but I definitely did not start out by wanting an initial target of 142 kts (137 kts. + 5 more knots).

Also, another aspect is why did the deputy pilot (Lee Jeong-min), who was tasked with helping the pilot who was at the controls, not realize that something was not correct/right before they got to the point of unrecoverability?  A passenger who was interviewed by the Media stated that he could tell when they were still out some from the airport that something was not right.           

[Flying Razorback]

This may turn out to be critical to the findings.  Just read a new article, sorry best reference I have is Yahoo.com, it's on their home page, that stated that according to Korean authorities the pilot conducting the landing was an experienced commercial pilot with 9k+ hours but that he had only 43 hrs in the 777.  In fact this was his first landing in the 777 and he was considered a pilot in training for 777 purposes.  His co-pilot was 3k+ hours in 777 time.  If the FAA chairs information today of the cockpit conversation over the last minute or so of conversation was accurate I would say the lack of conversation between the right to left seat was a bit chilling.

That's crazy but your first flight in a specific jet has to happen sometime.  They don't just have 777s at your local FBO to get time in.  The dude had plenty of hours, landings, and experience to not screw this up though.  At a certain point a landing is a landing.  If you look at his times he probably has plenty of time in other jets like 767s or 737s so he should be able to land a wide body twin engine jet. 

I also read that it wasn't his first landing in a 777 just his first landing at SFO.  And that can mean something too if there are runway illusions or something.

I'll have to wait until our 777 and wide body experts get on here and weigh in, but doesn't the 777-200ER have a HUD on the pilot side?  If you have a HUD you have no excuse to not be able to land the jet.  Just put the CDM on the spot you want to land, center your acceleration and speed cues, and flare at a normal point.  Some HUDs even give you flare cues, ours only does during CAT II ILS's though.

[gotyacovered]

just got a chance to catch up a bit.

its insane they/he was that far behind the airplane. also i think maybe the bay/open water may have contributed a bit... unless there is a good point of reference then it is hard to judge spatial relationships.

they requested/initiated a go around 1.75 secs prior to tail striking the sea wall. cant it take close to 3 seconds for a turbo fan to make full power? just goes to show you as well... he knew he was in trouble so he pulled back--wonder if, in the end, that helped or hurt. may have been more of a glancing blow had he been able to resist the urge to pull back--it aint gonna fly, just could resist it.

the worst of all kinds... pilot error. bummer.

did you guys see where (unconfirmed) one of the fatalities was from a emergency response vehicle hitting/running over the person? wow--if true. survive a terrible plane crash only to get hit by a vehicle.

[Flying Razorback]

did you guys see where (unconfirmed) one of the fatalities was from a emergency response vehicle hitting/running over the person? wow--if true. survive a terrible plane crash only to get hit by a vehicle.

I've heard that as well.  Brings up some good points.  At the end of every single flight with students in pilot training we did intensive "table top emergency procedures" where we required specific verbiage and a thorough analysis and walk through the checklist and chairflying of the procedures for all manner of emergencies.  It would salways be something like "You're flying in the MOA practicing traffic pattern stalls when you hear a loud bang and the aircraft begins to veer to the right..."  They would then ask their altitude, airspeed, and all that jazz and have to "Maintain aircraft control, analyze the situtation, take the proper coordinated action, and land as soon as conditions permit."  It would normally take a 30 minutes to an hour to get through the whole exercise.  We also did this standing up in front of the whole class a few times a week.

Anyway, alll that to say, the final statement we always wanted to hear at the conclusion was "We will egress the aircraft (explaining every step along the way) exit through the crew entrance door, and egress away from the aircraft at a 45 degree angle watching out for all responding emergency vehicles and fire trucks..."

It's a chaotic scene and it has happened more times than it should have.  That's terrible for all involved.

[Flying Razorback]

Also, for when you travel, please please 'dress to egress'.  Many times I have sat in airports in Chicago and Cleveland while there was snow coming down, temps were below 20 degrees F, and people are dressed to go to Florida, or wearing thin clothes, or high heels.  Conversely, you see women wearing nylons, high heels, flip flops, tiny shorts and skirts, and so on.  You see men in flip flops, shorts, or not dressed for conditions. 

You should always dress for the worst conditions.  I bring my coat with me on to the plane and always wear sturdy shoes.  I made my wife start wearing athletic shoes or boots when she travels instead of high heels or flip flops.  I also have told her not to wear nylons.  The best is to dress in 100% cotton, jeans, and have heavy coats in the winter.  You never know when something like this will happen or even if they make you egress at the end of the runway before takeoff or something.  You don't want to be standing in 20 degree temps in the snow waiting for a ride in shorts and flip flops because you were going to Florida.

Finally, there are pictures of passengers carrying their luggage off the plane.  You never know when the plane will engulf itself after an emergency.  It's a ticking time bomb.  If you are able to egress yourself healthy enough that you are grabbing luggage, then help an injured person with their baby, an elderly person, or anyone else that needs help.  The flight attendants and crew should be doing most of this but they could be injured or killed.  Worst case, just get yourself off the aircraft in the most expeditionary way, without your luggage.  The airline will replace what you lost and even if they don't you can't replace your life or the lives of people you jam up behind you while you are digging out your laptop and souvenirs from the overhead bin.  Egress quickly, it may take a full minute for the aircraft to engulf in flames, do not waste any of that time or anyone elses time digging your luggage out.

Sorry for the rant, that really really made me mad when I saw that and saw how quickly the plane caught fire after the passengers got off.

[gotyacovered]

Just wow.

Cell phone video of crash.

http://m.ktvu.com/videos/news/sfo-crash-cell-phone-video-of-plane-crashing-at/v53zR/

[Old Tusk]

Clear pilot error. The last tick on the black box at idle. Old school  has the en.gines at 80% at outer maker. Very little more thrust than idle b.ut spool up.is quick

[dc10x1103]

airspeed that far below vref   high rate of descent    excessive nose high attitude = exactly what happened