Asiana 777 hull loss at SFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Asiana Pilots Flew Slow, Steady Descent


By Sean Broderick [email protected],
John Croft [email protected]

Source: AWIN First


AsianaCrash-JustinSullivan.jpg
July 08, 2013
Credit: Justin Sullivan

Investigators probing the July 6 crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) are working to understand what caused the Boeing 777-200ER to make a slow, steady descent into a sea wall just short of its assigned runway, and why the flight crew did not detect a problem until just seconds before the plane hit.

While it is too soon to draw firm conclusions, information released by NTSB officials paints a clear picture of what happened just before the accident. The aircraft slowed below its minimum safe landing speed well before touchdown, and hit a sea wall just short of the airfield. The crew did not indicate any trouble with the plane or the approach until seconds before the plane hit, and investigators have not revealed anything that points to a mechanical malfunction.

Based on what investigators have confirmed, all seemed normal as Flight 214 approached SFO following a routine flight from Incheon International Airport. The crew, cleared for a visual approach, verified that the 777’s landing gear was down and the flaps set to 30 deg., says NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman explained. The pilots set 137 kt. as a target speed for crossing the runway threshold, Hersman confirmed today at a media briefing. A “very early read” of flight data recorder (FDR) information shows the aircraft’s airspeed declined steadily as it approached the airfield. Airspeed dropped below the targeted landing speed to 134 kt. when the plane was about 500 ft. above ground at 34 sec. before impact, she says. Airspeed continued to decline until just before impact, reaching a minimum speed of 103 kt. 3 sec. before the plane hit. Airspeed was 105 sec. when the plane hit the sea wall, she says.

Based on the coughpit voice recorder (CVR), Hersman says at 7 sec. before impact, one crewmember called for an increase in speed, and at 4 sec. before hitting the sea wall, the stick shaker—indicating an imminent stall—is heard. At 1.5 sec. before impact, Hersman says a crewmember called for a go-around, and both Pratt & Whitney PW4090 engines “appear[ed] to respond normally.”


Follow the link for the rest of the story.
 
The three things I'm interested in is
- how did the passengers die and not the crew (although they may have been seriously hurt).
- where did that other engine go.
- why are there only a few escape slides deployed.

My last question has been answered. The slides were deployed inside the cabin crushing two crew members. Which is something I've never thought of. How do you get out of a plane if the door is blocked by a giant inflatable slide?

Asiana flight attendant, last person off jet, describes ordeal - latimes.com

Btw, my first question does sound heartless, but its more a question of physics and where I choose to sit on the plane. There is a lot of speculation that they were thrown out the back. I can't think of anything more horrific then the suggestion that they will killed by someone coming to rescue them. Could it have been as teenagers they just didn't fasten their seat belts (tightly enough)?
 
Last edited:
- where did that other engine go.

Debris locations are overlaid on this image from AvHerald. Both engines are accounted for.
View attachment 16968

How do you get out of a plane if the door is blocked by a giant inflatable slide?

By using one of the other doors. Or, as the article you linked to stated, you puncture the slide with either a knife or the crash axe.
 
Last edited:
Jso - check the information on http://www.avherald.com as it has a map of the debris. The engine is actually ahead of the fuselage.

Am I the only one who find the fact that the media only referring to the 42 hours the captain had on the 777 as misleading as it makes it out he was new to the job full stop?
 
Am I the only one who find the fact that the media only referring to the 42 hours the captain had on the 777 as misleading as it makes it out he was new to the job full stop?

It is looking a little like that, but then I read that even though he's landed to SFO on a 747 before, the last time was in 2004. I'm sure the runway hasn't moved, but that's almost 10 years ago! I'd have expected if he's new to the type his first landing at SFO would be as co-pilot, then perhaps his second landing he could be in charge, but maybe that's the case, I don't know.
 
It is looking a little like that, but then I read that even though he's landed to SFO on a 747 before, the last time was in 2004. I'm sure the runway hasn't moved, but that's almost 10 years ago! I'd have expected if he's new to the type his first landing at SFO would be as co-pilot, then perhaps his second landing he could be in charge, but maybe that's the case, I don't know.

I am sure he has done a sim landing recently!
 
Thanks both. I gave up looking through hundreds of the same image on the news sites. That is incredibly impressive to hurl an engine that far considering the strength of its mounting brackets.

mannej - no you are not alone, but I feel the more oxygen given to these statements allows them to grow. I prefer to discuss what things can be improved upon.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

I am sure he has done a sim landing recently!

Mmm, but these don't count as official hours? Would be nice if they revealed how many sim hours he has on the type. Could dispel a lot of the "only 44 hours!" fluff on the internet. I'm sure there's a lot more to it, but the way it's being reported right now isn't helping show that.
 
Yes, I picked up on that, but it follows it up with he had a total of 43 flight hours on the 777, which led me to the conclusion he was new to the aircraft, not just at SFO.

Is that 43 hours on a 777 as a Captain or 43 hours on type?

If you had a command on the 744 then you change type are you automatically given the left hand seat or do you have to get x hours in the right hand seat first?

I'm now thinking that booking the folks on OZ LHR/SEL/SYD on a US DM ticket wasn't such a great idea after all.
 
It is looking a little like that, but then I read that even though he's landed to SFO on a 747 before, the last time was in 2004. I'm sure the runway hasn't moved, but that's almost 10 years ago! I'd have expected if he's new to the type his first landing at SFO would be as co-pilot, then perhaps his second landing he could be in charge, but maybe that's the case, I don't know.
Does it really matter if it's his first landing at SFO? One big flat slab of concrete is much like any other, surely.

And the key factor seems to be the airspeed. I would imagine that landing speed is going to be much the same at any airport and the fact that they were at only 75% of that speed was the problem, not any hassles with landing on the correct runway or missing the ATC freq or being distracted by the scenery.
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Agree there certainly doesn't appear to have been much support for the pilot from the airline...
No comments on experience, SIM time, or indeed check pilot.
And a very quick statement that no mechanical issues.
 
LOL LOL

Well all factors are already pointing to a rookie pilot error

Perhaps, but lets not jump to conclusions just yet... There is a reason why investigators go into these investigations with an open mind and check every possible aspect, sometimes the popular theory turns out to be false... (QF72 "turbulence" anyone?)

That is incredibly impressive to hurl an engine that far considering the strength of its mounting brackets.

From what I've heard, those mounting brackets are not as strong as you'd think. There are only 4 bolts and they are designed to sheer off if something goes wrong rather than ripping off a wing or at least part of one. I don't remember which doco that was from, either BA doing a service on a 744, or boeing building a 748, granted neither is a 777, but I can't imagine that this sort of safety feature would have been removed.
 
It is not clear to me who was actually the Captain (i.e. who signed for the aircraft and is ultimately responsible). Based on the information at hand, it would appear that the pilot in the right hand seat was a Check captain, and who most probably signed for the aircraft. There is no mention of the other two pilots - perhaps they were junior FO or SOs or in fact it could have been another check captain. Interesting...
 
It is not clear to me who was actually the Captain (i.e. who signed for the aircraft and is ultimately responsible). Based on the information at hand, it would appear that the pilot in the right hand seat was a Check captain, and who most probably signed for the aircraft. There is no mention of the other two pilots - perhaps they were junior FO or SOs or in fact it could have been another check captain. Interesting...

So who was the pilot in command of the aircraft at the time ie the one responsible for the landing - Captain or F/O?
 
I'm thinking there's a strong potential that the PIC (branded as a "rookie" by some) may commit suicide.

The Koreans have a strong honour belief like the Japanese, who are not adverse to doing as such when their actions have severe impacts on the lives of others.

It will be even more crushing if they pin the principle blame on the airline, and hitherto the PIC / crew.

But we shall see...
 
So who was the pilot in command of the aircraft at the time ie the one responsible for the landing - Captain or F/O?

From what I have read I believe it was the FO... Although I wouldn't call any "news" website an authoritative source on the crash. They care more about getting words printed to the web than actually fact checking.
 
As always, I read what JB747 says in 'Ask the Pilot' thread with great interest. The initial response from him suggests that a perusal of this page, in particular the third paragraph may give food for thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

Back
Top