|
One of the fatalities may have been killed by a firetruck. http://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...+Top+Stories%29 quote:SAN FRANCISCO – An autopsy is scheduled Monday to determine whether one of the two 16-year-old girls killed in the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 died of injuries sustained when she was run over by arriving emergency vehicles or from the plane crash itself.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
I'm curious to see the cockpit transcipts. It looks like nothing was said until a few seconds prior to impact, but how two pilots could be that oblivious to airspeed on a visual approach is dazzling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
The news outlets are still playing up other possibilities, seemingly because noone wants to admit that a couple of idiots flew a perfectly good 777 into a seawall in CAVOK conditions. The lack of ILS, LOC, VASI, PAPI, whatever is a red herring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:The news outlets are still playing up other possibilities, seemingly because noone wants to admit that a couple of idiots flew a perfectly good 777 into a seawall in CAVOK conditions. Don't forget  "THE PILOT ONLY HAD 43 HOURS IN A 777"
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:One of the fatalities may have been killed by a firetruck. Heard that on the radio this AM. Absolutely heartbreaking if true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:The news outlets are still playing up other possibilities, seemingly because noone wants to admit that a couple of idiots flew a perfectly good 777 into a seawall in CAVOK conditions. Yeah, Charlie Brooker got this right: for modern 24 hour news networks, the only real message is "look", "look here" "keep looking." Really, the event is over and further developments are going to come out of the various bodies involved. It's kinda like CNN is a detective, but instead of getting answers he bills by the hour, and his only interest is getting as many hours as possible. So he asks an endless series of stupid questions as follows up as many go-nowhere leads as he can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:The news outlets are still playing up other possibilities, seemingly because noone wants to admit that a couple of idiots flew a perfectly good 777 into a seawall in CAVOK conditions. Seriously this. There is a reason pilots learn to fly visual approaches and then learn instruments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
What really irks me is that the general public sees this event as a demonstration of how unsafe aviation is when, in reality, two people died out of 305 in a catastrophic mishap and one was potentially a Final Destination-esque event. This is a triumph of aeronautical engineering and speaks highly of the safety of flying. A lot of luck also helped out immensely here as well. But then again I'm seeing this as a previous aircrew guy and many of us in this thread aren't stupid about airplanes. The media would never take the story that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The media, and general public, is very airplane stupid. GBS is a perfect example. That loving thread gave me nightmares.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:A lot of luck also helped out immensely here as well. That's not exactly reassuring? I mean, triumph of engineering or not, if the plane had rolled all the way over, there'd be a lot of dead people. I just wouldn't use this particular incident to argue how safe airline travel is. Except in the sense that "even if the crew is terrible, you are still probably ok." smackfu fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
^^^^ edit: that's pretty much what I was attempting to say but with less brevity. It's the truth though. A well-engineered and built jet can do a lot to save lives but without a bit of luck the fatalities would've been higher. Like I'm not typing this out expecting every large aircraft mishap to lose less than 1% of the passengers--that's just spectacular for something like this crash. Imagine if the entry doors were jammed up. The body count would've been much higher. bloops fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Imagine if the entry doors were jammed up. The body count would've been much higher. Also that crew had to cut some seatbelts off the paxs with utility knives thrown up by rescue crews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I was unaware.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Can't find a cite for the cutting the seatbelts, but did find this http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/08/asiana-san-francisco-crash-pilot.html quote:She said that during the evacuation, two inflatable slides that were supposed to inflate toward the outside instead inflated toward the inside of the plane, hurting two Asiana flight attendants. Pilots came to rescue the flight attendants but even after getting injured, she said that the crew did not leave the plane until after the passengers evacuated. She said she was the last one to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:What really irks me is that the general public sees this event as a demonstration of how unsafe aviation is when, in reality, two people died out of 305 in a catastrophic mishap and one was potentially a Final Destination-esque event. What's worse is that there was over 10000 hours worth of experience on the flightdeck that day, including a training captain! To me, the problem is clear. We have these multi-million dollar machines called "full flight simulators" which province a training experience so immersive it manages to fool even the most experienced of pilots and what do we use them for? Initial candidates spend nearly half of the 32 hours required with their head down programming that magic box of tricks called the FMS, seeing how to adjust the seats and how the oxygen masks work. Most of the flying is done IFR on autopilot. And once you pass your skilltest and are deemed fit to be let loose on the real thing, in Asiana at least you get to move the gear and flap levers and sit there while the captain does all the flying. Training is too much about ticking the boxes and too little about actually learning how to fly your type. People pay good money for their training, so they should demand they get their money's worth. You can use a PC to learn how to program an FMS. What would help massively is if students are given the opportunity to fly the sim in pairs without an instructor breathing down their necks. A chance just to fly the machine for a couple of hours and freely explore it without the constant "what if I gently caress it up" in the back of your mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
If that's how the airlines train then please elaborate more. I can speak to how the E-3 guys train and it's vastly different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:If that's how the airlines train then please elaborate more. I can speak to how the E-3 guys train and it's vastly different. In most places in civil aviation, the minimum amount of hours required will do. If all the boxes are ticked at the end, it's all good. Legacy carriers like KLM and Lufthansa do tend to do a lot more than strictly required by regulations as they have a reputation to uphold for excellence (and it shows), a lot of their pilots tend to be ex-military and they make a point of owning their own simulators as part of their flight operations department. The problem is with the people who have 200 hours and an fATPL, pay €10000 to do the absolute bare minimum required to get a 737 TQ and hope to be hired by an airline. This is still not really a problem in Europe or North America where there is some semblance of a safety culture, but applying the same bare minimum standards to countries like Indonesia or South Korea? Not a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Seriously this. There is a reason pilots learn to fly visual approaches and then learn instruments. Remember that "stupid pilot did a stupid thing" is never an acceptable explanation for an accident, the system should be as resist as possible to single failures, especially human ones. In this particular case, the Pilot Monitoring should have been calling for a go around long before the approach was unrecoverable. Even Air France 447, a great example of lovely airmanship bringing down an airplane, is more correctly understood as a flight control system design defect as it trained pilots not to fly the aircraft (rather operating the flight control system in normal law). Bonus Edit: Even Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, which was an egregious case of unprofessional behavior, may not have occurred if the pilots had received adequate training in the high-altitude performance of their aircraft so they knew exactly how stupidly dangerous what they were about to attempt is. In short, you can call out the pilots for doing something stupid, but you need to call out their airline for not making sure they knew how stupid it was. Alereon fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Guess that's what happens when you're in the business to make money. I know there's a few of us who are current or former flyers, so are you an active pilot?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Guess that's what happens when you're in the business to make money. Not a pilot by the way... my card says "engineer" and I work in the civil aviation training industry 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Alereon posted:There is also a reason that commercial pilots (or at least passenger transport) are generally required to use navigational aids like the glide slope if they're available. While it's not impossible to safely complete a flight without them, it is less safe. I'm also mystified at the low level of importance people are placing on the Pilot Flying's level of familiarity with the aircraft. He certainly SHOULD have been able to land safely, but the low familiarity means every step of the approach was harder and took longer than it otherwise would have, and if you don't think that was a major factor in this accident then I don't know what to tell you. The pilots of Pinnacle 3701 didn't know how airplanes worked full stop. What exactly are you saying should be the standard for a VFR approach? Should all aircraft have a HUD with a TVI and a giant 3 degree line like a 787? This aircrew probably would have flown that TVI indicator right into the loving seawall. edit: by tvi I meant total velocity vector indicator but what is it actually called on a Boeing? edit2: flight path indicator hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Even if the PIC was low hours and inexperienced and everything was harder for him &c, there's a pretty big fuckup on the other guy with the zillion hours that he wasn't like "Dogg you are crashing the plane" a little bit earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
I'm super eager to hear just how hilariously inept the crew was. Anyone got an idea of what South Korea's role is in the investigation? Kind of curious to see if the NTSB heads it up or if it's a joint thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
118 knots at 200 feet, 106 upon impact. What the gently caress was going on in the cockpit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:118 knots at 200 feet, 106 upon impact. How the hell was that thing still even in the air 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I'm super eager to hear just how hilariously inept the crew was. Since the accident happened in the US, the NTSB are legally in charge of the entire thing, and they'll head up the investigation. Typically, the NTSB will ask the airframe and engine manufacturers as well as the airline to be parties to the investigation (if they agree to certain conditions), since they can answer questions about specific areas easier faster than the NTSB alone could. Since the foreign investigative agencies can be biased at times (Egypt Air 990), the NTSB may cooperate with a foreign government, but it'll be the NTSB who writes the final report and determines the probable cause.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:How the hell was that thing still even in the air There's got to be more to this. I refuse to believe that crew was twiddling their thumbs until a few seconds before impact. If so, they are the dumbest of the dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:There's got to be more to this. I refuse to believe that crew was twiddling their thumbs until a few seconds before impact. If so, they are the dumbest of the dumb. I wish I could say that no flight crew is that dumb but....flight crews can be really loving dumb. edit: This was one of the local paper's cover. 
bloops fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:How the hell was that thing still even in the air I don't believe it was. The airplane was just in the process of falling out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Falling very, very slowly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What exactly are you saying should be the standard for a VFR approach? Should all aircraft have a HUD with a TVI and a giant 3 degree line like a 787? This aircrew probably would have flown that TVI indicator right into the loving seawall. I feel like I should make explicit the difference between what happened in an accident versus why it happened. In this accident we seem to have a pretty clear what: the pilot flying continued with an unstabilized approach and ultimately allowed airspeed to decay below stall speed. We could just say that a stupid pilot hosed up, but the reality is that this guy could fly 747s competently, so we need to know why this accident flight was different from the other flights. The answer is almost always a combination of factors, one major mistake, something else that amplifies it to dangerous proportions, and several checks that should have fixed it not happening. In this case, the major mistake was somehow allowing airspeed to drop below stall speed, an amplifying mistake may have been being below the glide slope, and the missing checks perhaps the inoperative glide slope and the pilot monitoring getting caught up trying to salvage the approach and failing to call for a go-around or take control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:How the hell was that thing still even in the air Well, it was crashing. efb
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:118 knots at 200 feet, 106 upon impact. Everything but airmanship. The lowest Vref I can find for that aircraft is at 310,000 lbs and flaps 30... 122 knots
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
In most instances, many of us here can kinda guess semi-accurately how it happened. With this one, all I got is  .
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
This may be a cultural issue. CRM is still a foreign concept to many Asian carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:In most instances, many of us here can kinda guess semi-accurately how it happened. With this one, all I got is According to GBS, you can only speculate if you know nothing about the industry. If you have an inkling of the practices of air travel, you're just a sperg and your opinion isn't worth anything more than the average poster. That ATC audio plus the initial camera shots of the debris field led me to speculate that there was no declared emergency, the plane came in too low and too slow, and this might end up as pilot error. All within a few hours of the story breaking. Too bad I'm just a nerd. e- I think it's safe to say this was a human malfunction, now we just need to learn what exactly the malfunction was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
^^^^ But how do you get that low and that slow?! I mean, the jet is screaming at you. Speaking of, what training do you get in terms of CRM? Is there a full-motion sim for training use as well?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the million dollar question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Also, how hosed is that crew going to end up from this? Just run of the mill hosed? Or soooooo fuuuuuucked?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Aren't a lot (most?) of the alarms off when you're set up for final though? Although I can't imagine airspeed being that low at any time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:51
|
|