Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Asiana 777 Crash
- Thread starter InTransit
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
GINCHBLASTER
Registered Abuser
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 223
Pattern-Master
so get outta my way
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Posts
- 378
ultrarunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,322
Aerial shots showing most of the tail-section debris right at the seawall and at the beginning of the pavement.... I'm thinking they'll need to go fishing for the main gear. If not, it was that close...
Update...main gear can be see at and slightly before the threshold....
They're fishing allright....looks to be tail debris in the water..
That big fuselage skid mark a good 20 feet right of CL....
Maybe similar circumstances to the 777 in Europe a year or so ago??
But no doubt it hit the ground really hard and really short...
Update...main gear can be see at and slightly before the threshold....
They're fishing allright....looks to be tail debris in the water..
That big fuselage skid mark a good 20 feet right of CL....
Maybe similar circumstances to the 777 in Europe a year or so ago??
But no doubt it hit the ground really hard and really short...
Last edited:
ultrarunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,322
BUDDHA145
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Posts
- 498
jetpig32
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Posts
- 261
Ice crystals in fuel filter. Full power commanded, but not avail.
Dumb Pilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2006
- Posts
- 1,570
Hummm! Not the same engines and not the same exposure to extreme low temperature. I'm not too convinced that there are similarities here!
BTW: in the BA crash, the ice crystals formed at the oil/heat exchanger, not the filter.
homerjdispatch
Gods gift to dispatch
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 1,250
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25894511&ni...nd-outside-jet-&fm=home_page&s_cid=featured-1
great reporting by the AP "
San Francisco is one of several airports around the country that border bodies of water that have walls at the end of their runways to prevent planes that overrun a runway from ending up in the water."
WTF???
great reporting by the AP "
San Francisco is one of several airports around the country that border bodies of water that have walls at the end of their runways to prevent planes that overrun a runway from ending up in the water."
WTF???
TMMT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Posts
- 21,656
BuckMurdock1
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Posts
- 476
BuckMurdock1
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Posts
- 476
TMMT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Posts
- 21,656
Coupled... fatigued, distracted, etc...
With the airframe gone, I'd say there are several excess overseas crews....
BuckMurdock1
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Posts
- 476
I wonder if Asiana may be uninsurable now, with 3 accidents since 1988 (and therefore done operating). Getting IOE or not, any airman who lets any airplane (be it 777 or King Air) stall on short final under normal, visual conditions should not be flying airplanes; period.
We'll see if there were other factors involved (ie d*ckhead check airman yelling at him over minutia the whole time, etc.)...but it certainly seems to be clear-cut pilot error.
We'll see if there were other factors involved (ie d*ckhead check airman yelling at him over minutia the whole time, etc.)...but it certainly seems to be clear-cut pilot error.
agrrlpilot
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Posts
- 12
Wasn't it United or Delta a long while back who had an incident climbing out of SFO? I know it's not the same as the Asiana crash but the reason I bring it up is because NTSB found that the crew, all really long haul pilots, weren't getting the continuous familiarity with actually flying the plane. At 25 hours of flight time per trip, most of these crews get 3, maybe 4, trips a month, and that's assuming no removals for quals, check rides, etc. Throw in a pilot who needs the experience of actually handling the controls during take off and landing in order to prepare for recurrent, some of these long haul guys and gals were getting zero actual practice for months. After that incident, I believe the airline included more sim time for these guys.
I would venture to guess something like that happened here....
I would venture to guess something like that happened here....
More INexperienced pilots flying big planes, or at least one inexperienced pilot not being supervised properly by the other pilot.
Wonderful.......
When will the rules change so only pilots with 2,000 hours of jet time can get a job on any size or type of turbojet/fan powered plane. So stupid. There's plenty of pilots to fill the demand with jet time like that.
Wonder when the next crash will be.....and for a stupid reason.
Wonderful.......
When will the rules change so only pilots with 2,000 hours of jet time can get a job on any size or type of turbojet/fan powered plane. So stupid. There's plenty of pilots to fill the demand with jet time like that.
Wonder when the next crash will be.....and for a stupid reason.
Flying Illini
Hit me Peter!
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2003
- Posts
- 2,291
Sounds like all were plenty experienced (TT wise).
paid4training
Missing my family
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Posts
- 503
From CNN.....
The investigation into the cause of the crash has noted that the pilot in charge of the flight was in his ninth training flight on the Boeing 777 and was 11 flights short of the worldwide standard to get licensed, company officials said.
Pilot Lee Kang-kook had 43 hours of flight experience on the Boeing 777 and Saturday was his first time landing at the airport with that kind of aircraft, Asiana Airlines spokeswoman Lee Hyo-min said today at a news conference in Seoul, South Korea.
"He is a veteran pilot with almost 10,000 hours on other aircrafts like the 747," she said. "He was in the process of getting a license for the new 777.
"He has flown the new 777 nine times before to Narita [in Tokyo], London, L.A., and more. But, yes, to San Francisco, with that specific 777 type, it was his first," she added.
Lee flew with an experienced Boeing 777 pilot mentor, in accordance with world standards, the spokeswoman said. Lee's trainer Saturday was Lee Jung-min, who has more than 3,000 hours flying the 777, and a total of 12,387 hours flying experience, according to the airline.
The investigation into the cause of the crash has noted that the pilot in charge of the flight was in his ninth training flight on the Boeing 777 and was 11 flights short of the worldwide standard to get licensed, company officials said.
Pilot Lee Kang-kook had 43 hours of flight experience on the Boeing 777 and Saturday was his first time landing at the airport with that kind of aircraft, Asiana Airlines spokeswoman Lee Hyo-min said today at a news conference in Seoul, South Korea.
"He is a veteran pilot with almost 10,000 hours on other aircrafts like the 747," she said. "He was in the process of getting a license for the new 777.
"He has flown the new 777 nine times before to Narita [in Tokyo], London, L.A., and more. But, yes, to San Francisco, with that specific 777 type, it was his first," she added.
Lee flew with an experienced Boeing 777 pilot mentor, in accordance with world standards, the spokeswoman said. Lee's trainer Saturday was Lee Jung-min, who has more than 3,000 hours flying the 777, and a total of 12,387 hours flying experience, according to the airline.
Do you know how to read? Research the guys experience level first, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
People in glass houses.....
Sparse
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Posts
- 510
The conduct of the NTSB chairman and self appointed spokesperson for the agency has been a disservice to professional accident investigators. She seems more interested in demonstrating to the media her aviation knowledge than getting the real truth discovered. She should tell the media to go away and then sit down and shut up. Let the investigators do their job and the truth will be known at the appropriate time.
BS. She is reporting factual information and making it very clear that no conclusions are being made at this time and warning the media to be very careful of drawing any conclusions from what she says.
gearjockey
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Posts
- 134
Jeff Lebowski
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Posts
- 15
countbat
Alea Jacta Est
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2002
- Posts
- 3,486
From someone with Asian experience.
Probably not politically correct, but he has a point.
Passed as received. I'm NOT the author, just the messenger.
No comment.
What happened to the B-777 flight is quite simple.
1. They are Asian.
2. They are Asian .
3. They are Asian.
They cannot, nor will they ever be capable of a visual approach. Not in their skill set. They are totally directed in how to do every thing. Free thought is not allowed. Add the culture; not losing face, and the flight was doomed as soon as they were cleared for the visual.
The landing speed of 137 kts better know as Vref is 1.3 above stall. All airplanes fly this speed. So dividing 137 by 1.3 = 105 or Vs (stall). Stick shaker is 1.07 Vs or in this case 112 Kts. So they slowed 25 kts or 25x1.151=28.7 Mph.
When they finally play the cockpit voice recorder, you will find nobody said a word as the aircraft slowed. NOBODY! That is because to do so would have caused a loss of face. Many problems.
It does not matter at all the guy only had 43 hrs in type. Not at all.
He had plenty of time in 74's. An airplane is an airplane. They ALL fly the same way. (Except the piece of junk airbus)
I have watched time after time Asian carriers cleared for visual approaches miss the runway, either to high or get low and miss. I have gotten on the radio and have told the controller, send them out for the ILS or they are not landing today. Needless to say have been in trouble many times because of it.
The fact they waited til 1 or two kts above stick shaker to say something says volumes about the cockpit culture.
When I was a check airman, doing the exact thing he was doing, I allowed abt 5 kts either side of Vref before correcting. You have to see if they will correct. Part of the learning curve. Was more tolerant if fast than slow. If they did not correct the situation in a timely manner than I did. It's your Job!!
The fact that all four pilots in that cockpit allowed that aircraft to slow to stick shaker and say nothing is beyond belief by western culture standards!!!
They, the Faa and NTSB will dance around this fact, not want to offend anyone. This will also be tragic.
So if the airline sounds Asian DO NOT get on it!!!
We have been discussing over the last couple of years, that pilots being trained today with all the automation, lack basic flying skills. Both western and foreign.
We see it in the Sims every day. It is a guarantee , if they are Asian, and you take away the automation, it will not end well. Never does. But, by the same token, we have just as much failure with the new breed of American pilots.
Have had many a discussion with our FAA reps and they know it to.
This problem will only get worse over time. I would take a train but an Airplane would probably crash into it.
Have a great day!
Probably not politically correct, but he has a point.
Passed as received. I'm NOT the author, just the messenger.
No comment.
What happened to the B-777 flight is quite simple.
1. They are Asian.
2. They are Asian .
3. They are Asian.
They cannot, nor will they ever be capable of a visual approach. Not in their skill set. They are totally directed in how to do every thing. Free thought is not allowed. Add the culture; not losing face, and the flight was doomed as soon as they were cleared for the visual.
The landing speed of 137 kts better know as Vref is 1.3 above stall. All airplanes fly this speed. So dividing 137 by 1.3 = 105 or Vs (stall). Stick shaker is 1.07 Vs or in this case 112 Kts. So they slowed 25 kts or 25x1.151=28.7 Mph.
When they finally play the cockpit voice recorder, you will find nobody said a word as the aircraft slowed. NOBODY! That is because to do so would have caused a loss of face. Many problems.
It does not matter at all the guy only had 43 hrs in type. Not at all.
He had plenty of time in 74's. An airplane is an airplane. They ALL fly the same way. (Except the piece of junk airbus)
I have watched time after time Asian carriers cleared for visual approaches miss the runway, either to high or get low and miss. I have gotten on the radio and have told the controller, send them out for the ILS or they are not landing today. Needless to say have been in trouble many times because of it.
The fact they waited til 1 or two kts above stick shaker to say something says volumes about the cockpit culture.
When I was a check airman, doing the exact thing he was doing, I allowed abt 5 kts either side of Vref before correcting. You have to see if they will correct. Part of the learning curve. Was more tolerant if fast than slow. If they did not correct the situation in a timely manner than I did. It's your Job!!
The fact that all four pilots in that cockpit allowed that aircraft to slow to stick shaker and say nothing is beyond belief by western culture standards!!!
They, the Faa and NTSB will dance around this fact, not want to offend anyone. This will also be tragic.
So if the airline sounds Asian DO NOT get on it!!!
We have been discussing over the last couple of years, that pilots being trained today with all the automation, lack basic flying skills. Both western and foreign.
We see it in the Sims every day. It is a guarantee , if they are Asian, and you take away the automation, it will not end well. Never does. But, by the same token, we have just as much failure with the new breed of American pilots.
Have had many a discussion with our FAA reps and they know it to.
This problem will only get worse over time. I would take a train but an Airplane would probably crash into it.
Have a great day!
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
