Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5813561/

Topic: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: moderators
Posted 2013-07-10 10:43:04 and read 56698 times.

Hello all,

Part 7 has become quite long and will subsequently be locked in favor of part 8. This is in order to make it easier for members to find new information and to continue the discussion of this unfortunate event.

OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 7 (by moderators Jul 9 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Thanks and regards,

The Moderators

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: thesultanofwing
Posted 2013-07-10 11:06:24 and read 56497 times.

Thread 8! Wow!

Question, what will happen to the remains of the plane, once the NTSB has finished with it?
I know it's up to the insurer......I am just curious whether they will go ahead and sell usable parts?
Will the Korean "apologetic culture" allow this or will they be picking up "the tab" to prevent that from happening?

And where will the wreckage end up, after it has been stripped?
Our respected fellow member SOON7X7 seems to be the scrapyard expert.......he apparently knows where the TWA800 and other jets ended up......
Would this be of any interest to a museum or aviation enthusiasts perhaps?

I was curious about the BA038 777 too, and that ended up at a local scrapyard I believe.


Just curious, thanks!

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-07-10 11:10:09 and read 56419 times.

From frmrcapcadet in previous thread :

Quote:
res automation, hands on flying. Are there any small one or two piston engine planes which are almost entirely fly-by-wire? It could be interesting if the settings were available to duplicate the responses of a large commercial jet. An hour or two in such a plane even once a year could give a commercial pilot a lot of experience hands on experience. It obviously would not be the same, but trainers may find it a very useful tool.

Diamond is developing a fly-by-wire DA42.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-07-10 11:19:01 and read 56272 times.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, from 2010 :

FAA study finds serious flaws in pilot training for handling automation

About AF447 :

Quoting tozairport (Reply 173):
How you can hold full back stick and think the airplane will fly forever is beyond belief. Reliance on automation and lack of proper stick and rudder flying skills has cost many lives, but none more than in AF 447.

An Airbus in normal law should indeed fly forever with the stick full aft.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-10 11:37:08 and read 55946 times.

Quoting jollo from previous part: "SOPs *mandating* A/P to be engaged at all times are a disgrace and a safety hazard."

I'm sure there is no SOP anywhere mandating AP on for 100% of the flight. Also, I think that in areas where RVSM is enforced, AP use is required except in very unusual circumstances. Manual flying would present too much of a risk.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: WNbob
Posted 2013-07-10 11:41:22 and read 55903 times.

Does the 777 have real-time diagnostic reporting back to HQ?

I ask because Asiana CEO seemed to know very quickly there was no MX problem.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 747-600X
Posted 2013-07-10 11:45:13 and read 55772 times.

hivue, are there any areas left where RVSM is not enforced?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-10 11:50:55 and read 55654 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 202):
I see your argument. However the United States has the great luxury of having a comparatively gigantic general aviation community plus a large amount of air travel with tons of airports. No way a country like Indonesia can support this sort of thing. The average income is just too low.

Yes, we have been trying to kickstart our GenAv sector so many bloody times.. and unsuccessful so far (especially when having Cessnas for flight training is seen as a luxury item and is therefore taxed extra).

Passedv1 may be interested to know that the airline here with zero accident rate (and zero pilot error incident rate) is on an airline that has NB FOs with less than 500hrs total time.

It's about how one matches the training to the aircraft, and environment.

As you (or someone said), the Europeans don't seem to have a problem with putting guys with less than 500hrs total time as NB FOs...

And for the "stick and rudder" fanatics, one aspect on why these guys here aren't turning their aircraft into flying lawnmowers is because of the amount of non-precision approaches we have here.

And I agree with Aaron747, just have a look at some of the approaches Koreans do domestically, and also some of the stuff they do into Japan (no, not Narita or Kansai... the other airports, some with interesting approaches).

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 242):

A pilot should be able to fly a visual approach on a clear day without PAPI lights. Anyway they were there and the pilot should have seen them just fine.

Well, one may screw up the vertical path without PAPI, BUT one should be able to avoid a crash/mishap in such a situation.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 258):
Ultimately in this crash, irrespective of understanding auto throttle functionality, I want to know where the PF's hands were: one on the yoke, most likely, but where was the other? If it was on the throttles why didn't the PF (or eventually the training pilot) simply push the darn things forward? If it wasn't on the throttles then WHY NOT? Problem solved. Reliance on a *system* to do the job for him? This has nothing to do with systems mastery, rather it demonstrates an abdication of essential flying skills to systems designers sitting in an office somewhere wondering why the pilot didn't follow the auto throttle procedures set forth in the instruction manual.

This is a very valid question. Even on the Bus FBW (non-moving thrust levers under autothrust), when handflying, it's one hand on the stick, the other on the thrust levers...

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 259):
they were confused about just what armed vs. activated implied.

What I want to know is what the FMA showed, did it show SPD mode was on, or not. If it showed SPD mode or another A/T active mode, then we have a malfunction.

Quoting WNbob (Reply 5):
Does the 777 have real-time diagnostic reporting back to HQ?

Yes it does, provided it's within ACARS and/or SATCARS coverage, or other comms range (such as data over SatCom that can use other software negating/replacing the need for feeding these info through ACARS/SATCARS)... provided it's activated.

(edited... error noticed)

[Edited 2013-07-10 12:23:08]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rc135x
Posted 2013-07-10 12:07:24 and read 55325 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 7):
The thing with the 777 is that it has trim to speed due to the FBW, not conventional trim. This makes the aircraft less flyable on all automation off... unless one is in direct law.

Perhaps you could clarify this---in the 777 does one not trim for airspeed on approach and use power to adjust sink rate?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-10 12:21:15 and read 55077 times.

Quoting 747-600X (Reply 6):
hivue, are there any areas left where RVSM is not enforced?

From this month's "Flying" magazine article on the Pilatus PC-12: "The airplane we were flying, the factory demonstrator, was not yet RVSM certified, so we weren't able to head up to 290..." They flew at FL270.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-10 12:28:02 and read 54904 times.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 8):
Perhaps you could clarify this---in the 777 does one not trim for airspeed on approach and use power to adjust sink rate?

Oh bummer! I just saw what I wrote! (I'll use my "it's 2am over here" excuse). Unbelieveable!
The basic logic of 'trim for airspeed and power for adjusting sink rate' is still valid for the 777 under the trim to speed trim system, and is valid even for other regimes of flight. The interrelation between trim, power and speed remains. Unfortunately, a lot of 'newbies' don't appreciate that once they get to nice shiny toys... I wonder what they teach in (the bad) flying schools these days? (not really worried about the good ones).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-10 12:30:53 and read 54856 times.

Quoting 747-600X (Reply 6):
hivue, are there any areas left where RVSM is not enforced?

Russian airspace (metric non-RVSM) and Africa if I remember correctly.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: peterjohns
Posted 2013-07-10 12:58:31 and read 54361 times.

The whole thing now reminds me of the TK 737 accident at AMS . There are some similarities.
It is quite inconprehendable however, how three or even four pilots failed to notice the decreasing speed at such a vital part of the approach. The increasing angle of attack would be a second hint.
Perhaps a bit more stick and rudder flying would help...

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-10 13:15:09 and read 54046 times.

I have not seen any discussion yet on the possibility of a highly un-sterile cockpit. We have had a lot of discussion about all sorts of Korean cultural impacts, automation reliance, time on type etc. But it seems to me that the obvious question if neither pilot bothered to look at the air speed indicator is: what were they doing? What were they joking and talking about? I think awesome Chairwoman Hersman is also an awesome poker player and is very very precise is what she says and, more importantly, what she does not say. She said no-one in the cockpit commented on the situation until 7 seconds and didn't even mention going around until 1.5 seconds. She did NOT say that they were just sitting there silently admiring the view! She has pointedly talked multiple times about needing to understand how the flight crew were working together and how both pilots should be involved. For her to say more at this stage would not be a simple "fact that will not change during the investigation" so she is not going to say it, probably not until the final report. But I think she knows - she has listened to the CVR, and asked the translator: what the hell's going on?!

What is the experts experience of good sterile cockpit adherence on Asiana or other Korean airlines? Good? Bad? I note that sterile cockpit is a section 121 regulation, so do foreign carriers adhere to it very well? Interesting that Chairwoman Hersman is already putting the "why different for section 129 carriers?" question up in the air with her drug/alcohol test statement yesterday. I can already see some of the recommendations being written in the air above her head...

I will leave the culture warriors to comment on the possible un-sterile bombast-level of a confident, all-male, Korean, two ex-air-force, flight crew flying into an exciting city on a beautiful calm day where nothing can go wrong.

* Long time reader, new poster, ianap

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-10 13:28:02 and read 53763 times.

Is being that far to the right of center, that late in the approach, normal?

I haven't heard much discussion of that error except that the pilots were trying to correct it.

Is that a big error or a normal variation?

If you look at the impact point, which is off to the right, and try to backtrack, it seems like they might have been pretty far to the right of the center line, but it's hard to judge.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-10 13:32:28 and read 53711 times.

The PF was actually transferring from being a 9 year A320 captain to becoming a B777 captain. His B747 experience seems to have been over 9 years ago. Most recently he was on the A320 and was also an instructor and presumably very confident on the A320/A321. So are there possible transition issues from A320 to B777 especially with regard to A/Th engagement and use behavior? Yes I know he would have studied/simmed this, but this was probably the first time it mattered!

* Long time reader, new poster, ianap

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-07-10 13:47:08 and read 53416 times.

OZ214 Flight Crew press conference to begin shortly. CNN says Flight Crew could be Cabin Crew.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: dank
Posted 2013-07-10 13:59:10 and read 53204 times.

Quote:
Quote:
Ideally, arriving flights from the north or the Pacific fly south from Point
Reyes to the bay, where they take a sharp right turn onto SFO. Called the ?slam
dunk? approach, this is the quietest flight pattern.

Can anybody comment on this particular approach pattern?

My experience is that some of my flights from Europe come in down the bay and a take a clockwise turn into the landing pattern like described here. However, all my flights from Asia have come in directly over SFO and made a counterclockwise turn into the landing pattern as was described for this flight (presumably the former for 28R and the latter for 28L).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-07-10 14:18:22 and read 52786 times.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 16):
OZ214 Flight Crew press conference to begin shortly. CNN says Flight Crew could be Cabin Crew.

Now they're saying that the PILOTS are going to be speaking.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: airkas1
Posted 2013-07-10 14:43:49 and read 52172 times.

I've been following these threads since the first one and find it very interesting, not in the last place because of the know-how displayed on this forum. Keep up the good work!  Smile

I just read an article about this crash on the main Dutch news website for aviation. I'm not sure if it has been posted already, but I thought I'd try to contribute. The article states the following:

"South Korean media reports that the pilot on the jumpseat called "sink rate, sink rate" about 54 seconds before impact. They base their info from the CVR recording. The article suggests that one of the reasons that the 2 pilots up front didn't listen could be because of the hierarchy structure; both pilots were older, had more hours and were higher in rang."


Article (in Dutch and for members only): http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nl-NL...e_piloot_Asiana_zag_het_gevaar_wel

[Edited 2013-07-10 14:44:43]

[Edited 2013-07-10 14:45:30]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-10 14:47:51 and read 52045 times.

Wednesday NTSB briefing currently live with Chairwoman Hersman deciding to deliver an extensive teaching session about automation levels and sophistication to the media there  . She tells them it's not as simple as cruise control... but I don't know if this will improve the reporting. So now waiting for Wolf Blitzer to break in and say something stupid.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-07-10 14:54:17 and read 51727 times.

So I've been sitting here waiting for the crew press conference then they show up and don't say a word. Someone must have forgotten to inform them that in a 'Press Conference', one is expected to speak.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cjg225
Posted 2013-07-10 14:56:16 and read 51636 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 20):
Wednesday NTSB briefing currently live with Chairwoman Hersman deciding to deliver an extensive teaching session about automation levels and sophistication to the media there . She tells them it's not as simple as cruise control... but I don't know if this will improve the reporting. So now waiting for Wolf Blitzer to break in and say something stupid.

Aahhhhh!

What channel or where online?

EDIT: Nevermind. Found a stream.

EDIT #2: What. The. Hell. Stream changed to stuff about the Zimmerman trial. Looking for another one...

EDIT #3: Here's CNN's one.



[Edited 2013-07-10 14:58:35]

[Edited 2013-07-10 15:02:37]

[Edited 2013-07-10 15:03:00]

[Edited 2013-07-10 15:04:20]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-07-10 15:01:37 and read 51507 times.

Updates via Twitter:

> Two flight attendants sitting on right-hand side of #Asiana214 were pinned by evacuation slides inside. Three at back of cabin were ejected.
> After crash, #Asiana214 attendant asked crew whether an evacuation should start. Crew said no; announcement made over PA to stay in seats.
> Per NTSB: After announcement, a flight attendant saw fire outside the right-hand side of #Asiana214. Told crew. Then evacuation began.

http://twitter.com/laura_nelson

> From @NTSB: Unknown why slides inflated inside the aircraft #Asiana214
> From @NTSB: Initially the flight crew said not to evacuate and passengers were told to stay in their seats.
> From @NTSB: FA reported fire and the pilots asked for an evacuation of the aircraft. #Asiana214
> From @NTSB: 1.5min after the plane came to a stop, then first doors were opened and slides deployed.
> From @NTSB: About 2min after the crash, first emergency veh arrived. 3min after, first extinguishing agent put on aircraft.

http://twitter.com/AirlineReporter

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: FlyingGoat
Posted 2013-07-10 15:02:03 and read 51499 times.

Hersman mentioned that 3 of the 4 FAs in the rear were ejected from the aircraft. It's amazing that they survived.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cjg225
Posted 2013-07-10 15:05:22 and read 53549 times.

What flash of light is she talking about? When was this revealed?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 15:11:27 and read 53649 times.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 19):
"South Korean media reports that the pilot on the jumpseat called "sink rate, sink rate" about 54 seconds before impact.

This just got brought up during the Q&A. Mentioning of 'sink rate' was confirmed but not the 54 second mark. This could be an interesting development.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2013-07-10 15:12:16 and read 55789 times.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 24):
Hersman mentioned that 3 of the 4 FAs in the rear were ejected from the aircraft. It's amazing that they survived.

Proximity to the ground may have contributed to that. All that tells me is that the remaining FAs did a yeoman like job to get all but 2 people out alive with some of the crew missing/injured.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cjg225
Posted 2013-07-10 15:13:10 and read 55640 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26):
This just got brought up during the Q&A. Mentioning of 'sink rate' was confirmed but not the 54 second mark. This could be an interesting development.

I wonder who asked the question and where the South Korean media got that from. You'd think that something like that would've come out in the interview... unless she was avoiding that subject on purpose.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AA94
Posted 2013-07-10 15:14:51 and read 55493 times.

If anyone is going to set the media straight, it seems like Hersman.

On a related note, I propose CNN be banned from covering this event any further, attending future press conferences, or inviting another "expert" to provide commentary on live TV.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-07-10 15:16:54 and read 55356 times.

CNN had a video square for the live feed for the pilot's press conference..... but when I hit refresh....it was gone. Guess the pilots suddenly decided not to talk after all.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cjg225
Posted 2013-07-10 15:18:40 and read 55156 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 29):
If anyone is going to set the media straight, it seems like Hersman.

On a related note, I propose CNN be banned from covering this event any further, attending future press conferences, or inviting another "expert" to provide commentary on live TV.

Funny thing, just a few years ago I considered them to be one of the better sources of news amongst the mainstream US TV media. Now they are laughably bad at their coverage.

I watch them pretty much only at the gym now since a few of the TVs are permanently tuned to CNN...

HLN is getting awful, too. When I was a kid, HLN was a really good news source. Now they are trying to be some hip, trendy news source and it is driving me insane. You'd think they'd try to differentiate CNN and HLN from each other somehow.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 30):
CNN had a video square for the live feed for the pilot's press conference..... but when I hit refresh....it was gone. Guess the pilots suddenly decided not to talk after all.

I tuned into CNN when someone mentioned above that there would be a crew presser. When I first tuned in, there was a box in the lower right saying that there'd be a presser soon. When I tuned into the live feed for the NTSB presser, I saw nothing.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 15:21:53 and read 55085 times.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 28):

I would like to review the video again because her word usage was very deliberate at that point. Not unlike any other moment really, but she seemed to hone in on that 54 second figure as the basis for her response rather than discounting the statement itself.

It could be very significant that someone in the cabin acknowledge one of the potential causes of the crash nearly a minute before with no appropriate response/adjustment.

CNN's coverage has been pretty poor. Some of the written articles on CNN.com have been poor as well. It is unfortunate considering their other recent problems.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-10 15:27:19 and read 54764 times.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 19):
"South Korean media reports that the pilot on the jumpseat called "sink rate, sink rate" about 54 seconds before impact. They base their info from the CVR recording. The article suggests that one of the reasons that the 2 pilots up front didn't listen could be because of the hierarchy structure; both pilots were older, had more hours and were higher in rang."


The media does not have access to the CVR and the NTSB has not released information like this in any briefing. So the purported information is coming from somewhere else. They made it up? Or FO comments to Asiana relayed to media (I assume flight crew is not talking directly to media)?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-10 15:30:08 and read 54887 times.

This is pretty stunning stuff ... 54 seconds out ... and no call for evacuation initially ... not good.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cjg225
Posted 2013-07-10 15:31:13 and read 54747 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):

I would like to review the video again because her word usage was very deliberate at that point. Not unlike any other moment really, but she seemed to hone in on that 54 second figure as the basis for her response rather than discounting the statement itself.

I think that's appropriate, though.

She was pointing out that, whatever the guy was saying (and we only heard what she repeated, at least if you were watching the CNN feed), it was extremely specific, and the question did seem to take a long time. The specificity might make it difficult to answer.

I mean, we know that EVENTUALLY someone said something. The only way you'd get something like, "at 54 seconds out, the relief FO said they were descending too fast" is from the CVR, because even if you've talked to the FO personally, I'm sure the FO is unable to say, "yeah, at exactly 54 seconds before the crash I said, 'hey, we're gonna crash if you don't reduce our sink rate.'". You're right that she homed in on the 54 seconds part and that could be why; no CVR info is out, right? No one should be able to put a number like that to whatever is said at this point.

Maybe she knew what the reporter was getting at but it's not something she was prepared to discuss at that moment.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-10 15:36:59 and read 54478 times.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 14):
Is being that far to the right of center, that late in the approach, normal?

I haven't heard much discussion of that error except that the pilots were trying to correct it.

Yesterday afternoon's briefing said that the interview with the PNF that the crew was trying to correct their lineup.

It did not say where the aircraft was at that time. Based on the way she described the information - it appears to me that was in the last 15 seconds or so.

With the aircraft in that low of an energy state, the controls would be sluggish - and correcting the lineup would be difficult. If it was in the last 15 seconds, they would have quite trying to line-up and started their attempts to increase power.

Again - my guess from the information presented - no one actually said that was the timing/ sequence.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cjg225
Posted 2013-07-10 15:37:35 and read 54357 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 33):
Or FO comments to Asiana relayed to media (I assume flight crew is not talking directly to media)?

But, like I said, that still might not explain it because the 54 seconds number would have to be totally made up. I find it extremely unlikely that the FO was looking at his watch for the entire final minute of the flight and knew that at the time of the crash he said, 54 seconds ago, "sink rate, sink rate." You can only get that kind of info off the CVR at this point and that hasn't been released.

I haven't been following this quite as tightly as others have; has the NTSB even transcribed the CVR yet and sent a copy to Asiana or South Korea's version of the NTSB? That'd be the only way I could see this being possible. Hersman either had no idea what this guy was talking about or the NTSB does have something like this and she was not prepared to discuss it (and was kinda peeved that it was leaked).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-07-10 15:37:46 and read 54285 times.

OK..... where is the press conference with the crew?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 15:39:32 and read 54330 times.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 35):
Maybe she knew what the reporter was getting at but it's not something she was prepared to discuss at that moment.

Of course this is just speculation but I think you may be right. I would like someone to confirm but I have to believe that she does have CFR information.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-10 15:47:28 and read 54143 times.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 35):
Maybe she knew what the reporter was getting at but it's not something she was prepared to discuss at that moment.

She has been trained, and is very good, at not letting the reporters set the agenda or tone of the briefings.

It is a briefing, not a press conference. There is a difference.

She starts with a written script which the technical staff has helped develop. It is carefully worded to be very specific about what they do know. She stays on that script. She will not say anything which is not on her script.

She purposely stays away from allowing reporters to put things like "54 seconds" into her mouth. That is a technique public relations professionals teach people who will be in her position. Do not allow the media to make you quote their spin on the events - focus on a specific point which is wrong, or appears to be speculation - and point out that it is not correct.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 39):
I would like someone to confirm but I have to believe that she does have CFR information.

On Sunday - she said the DCVR had been listened to. That it was a preliminary scan of the voice information.

She mentioned some specific things that were on the CVR - such as 137 knots - that was what was mentioned on the CVR as the target speed. She was very specific that she could and would not confirm that 137 knots was the correct air speed for landing that airplane at that weight on that day.

She also said the complete CVR and FDR data would not be available for release until it had been correlated with data from other sources. She did not say so - but from past practice - we can expect that information only when an Interim or Final Report is released.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 37):
has the NTSB even transcribed the CVR yet and sent a copy to Asiana or South Korea's version of the NTSB?

Again from Saturday, there had been an initial scan of the voice information.

As far as a transcript, since some of it is obviously in Korean - that will take time. I'm sure, but have not heard any confirmation, that Korean investigators have been able to listen to that first read. It would only make sense in trying to put statements in cultural perspective.

The investigators have to plot the CVR timeline against the FDR timeline, and the ATC tape timeline, and any other sources of data.

We've seen too often that just a CVR transcript can be misleading.

[Edited 2013-07-10 15:56:11]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-10 15:54:14 and read 53674 times.

Where to find previous NTSB briefings:

http://www.c-span.org/Events/NTSB-Br...a-Airline-Plane-Crash/10737440372/

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 16:00:00 and read 53520 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 40):
She did not say so - but from past practice - we can expect that information only when an Interim or Final Report is released.

And if I am not mistaken that will only appear in transcript form. I think the conversations with ATC can be made public but the actual conversations between pilots in the cockpit is not something for public distribution. A transcript will work just fine for these purposes though.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-10 16:00:01 and read 53555 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 41):
Where to find previous NTSB briefings:

This link also has briefings plus B-rolls. Go to the 'Recent uploads' section.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NTSBgov

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: HeeseokKoo
Posted 2013-07-10 16:08:02 and read 53767 times.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 38):
OK..... where is the press conference with the crew?

6 out of 10 Korean flight attendants are taking OZ213 today and go back to Korea. They may have some press conference before leaving, but it will be again about how brave and how cool they were, and how much they tried to save more passengers, which cannot hear without tears. I'm not trying to undermine their efforts, but according to some other news article in Korea, NTSB told to Asiana not to have anymore press conference because it won't help for unbiased investigation. Obviously some information that NTSB didn't know yet came out of one of Asiana's press conferences. And more and more people will have sympathy to the airline due to the conferences.

Asiana did many things like this whenever it had accidents. Mass media covers more about how brave pilots were and how dramatic the situations were which fillet out critical voices and make us focus on something else.

Edit: news article says there was no press conference before they left and some reporters complained for wrong announcement made by Asiana. Obviously, Asiana told them there will be a press conference.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: reality
Posted 2013-07-10 16:29:14 and read 52648 times.

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 44):
I'm not trying to undermine their efforts, but according to some other news article in Korea, NTSB told to Asiana not to have anymore press conference because it won't help for unbiased investigation. Obviously some information that NTSB didn't know yet came out of one of Asiana's press conferences. And more and more people will have sympathy to the airline due to the conferences.

Asiana did many things like this whenever it had accidents. Mass media covers more about how brave pilots were and how dramatic the situations were which fillet out critical voices and make us focus on something else.

Very interesting post. Please let us know from time to time how people in Korea are reacting and what information is being distributed there....especially if there is a different slant in the coverage. Thanks.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-10 16:36:52 and read 52335 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 36):
It did not say where the aircraft was at that time. Based on the way she described the information - it appears to me that was in the last 15 seconds or so.

If I remember correctly it was between 500' to 200'.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Klaus
Posted 2013-07-10 16:43:31 and read 52145 times.

Quoting rc135x:
Turns OFF the auto throttle = less confusing and safer.

If you're always confused by automation, you a) have not tried very hard to understand it, b) it is actually an implementation mess or c) you may not be in the right decade for flying transport aircraft.

Quoting rc135x:
I am a pilot, not a systems operator or user.

As long as human beings don't suddenly sprout wings and native flying instincts, human pilots have always been systems operators and users and will always remain that too.

Quoting rc135x:
In this thread we have seen highly experienced heavy jet airline pilots explain the complexities of auto throttles and even amongst this august group there is uncertainty or confusion about how they work under certain conditions.

Quite possible that it's just not a good implementation if there are indeed too many interrelated state transitions to safely keep track of.

Bad usability in a specific system implementation has little to do with the fundamental merits of automation as a concept, however, particularly compared to a proper implementation.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2013-07-10 16:45:12 and read 52115 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 29):
inviting another "expert" to provide commentary on live TV.

One of those experts is our (A.net) own Patrick Smith (aka 'Aviateur').

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-10 17:05:04 and read 51713 times.

Regarding the relief F/O yelling "sink rate", I think it is too early to automatically attribute this to cultural issues. It might well be tunnel vision instead.

Compare to AF447 when the F/O kept pulling back and ignoring information, including being spoken to by the other crew members.



Quoting frmcapcadet from previous thread:
Are there any small one or two piston engine planes which are almost entirely fly-by-wire? It could be interesting if the settings were available to duplicate the responses of a large commercial jet. An hour or two in such a plane even once a year could give a commercial pilot a lot of experience hands on experience. It obviously would not be the same, but trainers may find it a very useful tool.

As mentioned, Diamond is developing a FBW DA-42. However there is no reason to require the plane to be FBW. Stick and rudder skills can be developed just fine in a Duchess or Seneca and be applicable to large jets. Of course there will be differences, but as mandala499 mentions, the relationships between speed, thrust/power, weight, lift and drag do not change just because the plane is 200x heavier. Yes, a 777 has more inertia, but it still reacts in a similar way, albeit with more "lag".

Having said that, I have thought of it overnight, and am thinking perhaps a better solution might be to do what rc135x has mentioned about the USAF. Put the guys in the 777 sim and have them fly an two or three hours of visual traffic patterns and visual approaches every six months or so. Make it part of recurrent training.

Quoting shrike (Reply 13):
* Long time reader, new poster, ianap

Welcome to a.nut!

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-07-10 17:12:03 and read 51443 times.

I am stunned that the cockpit crew initially announced there was no need to evacuate. Regardless of what caused the crash, this is simply unbelievable and inexcusable, mind-boggling really. Evacuation order was given only after one of the FAs reported fire breaking out - wow!

[Edited 2013-07-10 17:27:02]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: robertm46
Posted 2013-07-10 17:35:08 and read 50640 times.

I guess I don't think a visual approach is that complicated, even considering the complexity of the aircraft. I did them in Cessna 150's in training and in much larger aircraft. Once you turn final for a visual approach you primarily watch your airspeed, the PAPI and your target landing point. Sure you have to manage the gear, flaps, etc and the power, but if the touchdown point is moving up and the PAPI by all reds shows you are low, your correct or go around. This crew did not do that. And on top of that the photos show they were not on the runway centerline when then made contact! My guess is that they were not really using primarily visual cues, and maybe not even paying enough attention to the inside instrument cues like sink rate....and at some point any realization was too late. And there were three of them watching this approach! Only other thought I have is that when I looked at the airspeeds and descent rates on Flight Aware (not a great sample I admit) it appeared that the airspeed smoothly moved down from about 160 knots through 137 knots and right on down to less than 110 knots. If they expected the autothrottle to kick in at some point and it did not for whatever reason, and they were not monitoring the power with ready hands, then they might have just cooked their own goose with the particular descent and airspeed made on their approach. Here in the US you constantly drill on approaches in simulators. I have a hard time believing that guys with 10,000 total hours or more find themselves in situations like this. But it happens. In the Colgan Air case in Buffalo they were flying with autopilot in altitude hold and without autothrottle (none on this type aircraft) and did not get the power up before they stalled the aircraft. So go figure. Things are usually more simple than they look at first, but they are set up by a number of small issues that explode into a big one.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: bonusonus
Posted 2013-07-10 18:15:24 and read 48848 times.

I'd definitely like to see a better explanation of how the autothrottle works in various flight modes in the 777. Does the fact that the autopilot was disengaged matter to the A/T operation? If this had been an ILS approach, would the A/T have stayed activated?

Also, in this situation, would any pilots consider using RNAV/GPS for an instrumented approach? Do we know how rare visual approaches really are for crews of this type of A/C, esp for Asian carriers?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: XJET
Posted 2013-07-10 18:51:57 and read 47798 times.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 47):

I wanted to address your question from the previous locked thread. Sorry for the delay, but I just came off a 13 hour flight.

The auto throttles could have been disengaged as the pilot was hand flying. That part hasn't been covered in any reports I have seen so far. If the AT's were never disengaged via the auto throttle disconnect switch (located n the thrust levers to the AT arm switch on the glare shield) then they should have stayed on. Since. The plane was off centerline, etc I have a hunch that the pilot was hand flying. But that's purely speculative at this point.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-07-10 19:11:16 and read 47217 times.

About the press conferences, the NTSB doing one every day since the crash is pretty unusual too, so you have to expect people at Asiana, pilot union and the like, to respond.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2013-07-10 19:13:53 and read 47193 times.

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 52):
Do we know how rare visual approaches really are for crews of this type of A/C, esp for Asian carriers?

They are not rare for arrivals to US airports, and as has been covered here already, non-precision approaches are by no means a rarity in their local flying environment.

Quoting robertm46 (Reply 51):
I guess I don't think a visual approach is that complicated, even considering the complexity of the aircraft.

Perhaps not on the face of it, but factor in a PVG-ICN-SFO duty day, the ATC environment on arrival into SFO, and any number of additional CRM factors and aircraft unfamiliarity factors - and it does get more complicated. We know they forgot how to fly for a moment here, so again, the question is: why and how?

Quoting robertm46 (Reply 51):
Things are usually more simple than they look at first, but they are set up by a number of small issues that explode into a big one.

Absolutely so.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: ozark1
Posted 2013-07-10 19:14:55 and read 47246 times.

I am completely baffled about the cockpit request to remain seated after the plane stopped. If I had been a F/A on that flight, I would have initiated an evacuation immediat

Quoting sankaps (Reply 50):
am stunned that the cockpit crew initially announced there was no need to evacuate. Regardless of what caused the crash, this is simply unbelievable and inexcusable, mind-boggling really. Evacuation order was given only after one of the FAs reported fire breaking out - wow!

You took the words right out of my mouth. I just don't get that at all. Maybe it's a culture thing again. If it had been a U.S. carrier the flight attendants would have initiated the evacuation as soon as the plane stopped. Ideally we need to communicate with the cockpit before we initiate, but my god, I would have skipped over that step in this instance. Not blaming the f/a's in the least, but you would think that between 4 pilots, one of them would have immediately hit the evac signal. Could the impact have been that significantly different in the front than in the back? I know turbulence can definitely be worse in the back, but to have the cockpit tell them to remain seated?? Any pilots out there who can justi

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: ORDFan
Posted 2013-07-10 19:20:53 and read 47147 times.

Thought this CNN video below was 'interesting' to say the least. Having a hard believing these journalists chartered this GA flight trying to 'recreate' the landing at SFO - they even land right next to the debris. How common are GA aircraft at SFO, in general?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...-vercammen-landing-at-sfo.cnn.html

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-10 19:26:46 and read 46887 times.

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 52):
I'd definitely like to see a better explanation of how the autothrottle works in various flight modes in the 777.

According to published information, bonusonus, the pilots used both the autopilot (set initially to 1,500 feet per minute down) and the auto-throttle (set at 137 knots) to fly most of the approach. If I'm allowed to post a link to a 'rival' aviation chat site, this post (although pretty complicated/technical) explains how one type of auto-throttle more or less 'defers' to the autopilot in descent mode, and that deference takes the form of it providing less power:-

"On the aircraft I instruct on, there's a trap we've known about since we started. If you are on autopilot and autothrottle, descending in FLCH (Flight Level Change) mode, the speed is controlled by pitch, and the autothrottles go to a passive mode, called "speed on elevator."

---------------------

"HOWEVER, (this is the trap) as I said, if you are descending on autopilot and autothrottle in FLCH, AND DISCONNECT THE AUTOPILOT, the autothrottle does NOT revert to "speed on thrust". but stays in "speed on elevator". The pilot must SELECT another pitch mode, to get the autothrottles to control speed again...if not, the autothrottles stay at idle when the pilot, say, levels off and, he expects the autothrottles to advance the throttles to maintain speed. He must either control the throttles manually, or choose another pitch mode."


http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...-san-francisco-44.html#post7929151

(Scroll down to the post by 'Semaphore Sam')

If that is correct, and the auto-throttle on the 777 operates the same way, it appears to go a long way towards explaining why the OZ 777 lost so much speed on the approach, and (assuming that the pilots disconnected the autopilot as they tried to line up with the runway) why the engines appear to have gone right down to 'idle' on final?

[Edited 2013-07-10 19:40:14]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: XJET
Posted 2013-07-10 19:52:36 and read 46117 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 58):

I think this is likely. The pilots were high and off centerline. Manual flying was then selected as the most efficient way to get the plane stabilized. However once the proper glide path was reached and the nose was pitched up to maintain that and airspeed decreased. At this point it is a fairly simple mistake to make at some level. The improper cross check by the other three pilots then becomes the more egregious error.

Again just speculation.... Just spitballing on some of the conceivable scenarios.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 19:54:32 and read 45994 times.

The video of today's update has been posted to youtube.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVQ-F...view&list=UUe5dWbxxvQqDAHmyMrEF7Kw

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-10 19:58:23 and read 45862 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 54):
About the press conferences, the NTSB doing one every day since the crash is pretty unusual too, so you have to expect people at Asiana, pilot union and the like, to respond.

Not really. The NTSB has a long history of providing daily press briefings at accident sites. They did so for eight or nine straight days after a pipeline explosion near Dallas 15-20 years ago.

Their policy is to hold daily press briefings as long as their is new factual information to release, and as long as the on-site investigation continues.

I'll go back to something I said Sunday.

This crash is relatively unique in crash history in the amount of factual data available so quickly. A combination of the newest DFDR and DCVR technology on the aircraft. The survival of the flight crew and the cabin crew without serious injuries in most cases. The survival of the passengers, and the swift work of the SF PD and FBI in gathering initial interviews from passengers before they had a chance to filter and modify their memories based on news media coverage.

Even the somewhat slow news week has helped - there is really not a competing major story in the US.

Not the deaths of 10 people in a commercial aircraft crash in Alaska Sunday, nor the tragic runaway train that killed between 20 and 50 people in Quebec near the US border with Maine.

So the media has been all over the story, and hilighting the daily briefings.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Mark2fly1034
Posted 2013-07-10 19:59:22 and read 45823 times.

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 57):

I guess if he was on an IFR flight plan that can't really deny you. I am sure they have an FBO at the airport. I am sure it would be a pain for ATC to fit you in like that.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-07-10 19:59:56 and read 46020 times.

Even though Deb kept her composure, you could tell that she was disturbed about the whole waiting 90 seconds before ordering an evacuation thing.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-10 20:10:55 and read 45539 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 58):
If that is correct, and the auto-throttle on the 777 operates the same way,

Earlier posts in previous parts of this thread indicate that the 777 A/Th operates this way.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 58):
assuming that the pilots disconnected the autopilot

The NTSB has said they did, at the 1500 ft mark I think.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 20:27:48 and read 45273 times.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 28):
I wonder who asked the question and where the South Korean media got that from.

The question comes at 45:30. You can vaguely hear the question in the background. Some may be able to guess this reporter's home region. I could guess but choose not to  .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVQ-F...view&list=UUe5dWbxxvQqDAHmyMrEF7Kw

We may have to wait until the cabin recorder transcripts come out. It could be incorrect information or maybe it was not announced loud enough or possibly a number of other complications.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-10 20:33:32 and read 44898 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 55):
a PVG-ICN-SFO duty day,

This is incorrect - the crew started their day at ICN.

-Mir

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: airtechy
Posted 2013-07-10 20:41:42 and read 44727 times.

If the duty day is like the US, each of the pilots spent part of that day in the crew rest area. There is an 8 hour time zone change, obviously, but they did have a rest period.

AT

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-10 20:44:54 and read 44878 times.

Swedish tabloid (not quite as bad as The Daily Mail but close) reports the pilot said he was "blinded by a bright light".

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article17112981.ab

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: dank
Posted 2013-07-10 20:59:22 and read 44353 times.

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 57):

Thought this CNN video below was 'interesting' to say the least. Having a hard believing these journalists chartered this GA flight trying to 'recreate' the landing at SFO - they even land right next to the debris. How common are GA aircraft at SFO, in general?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi....html
http://www.flysfo.com/web/export/sit...ws/pressres/stats/pdf/as201305.pdf

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-10 21:08:26 and read 44310 times.

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 56):

I am completely baffled about the cockpit request to remain seated after the plane stopped. If I had been a F/A on that flight, I would have initiated an evacuation immediat

We are trained not to commence an evacuation when engines are still running, when the engines came off, there would be no cockpit indications from the engines as the wires are not connected to anything.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2013-07-10 21:16:58 and read 43902 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 70):
We are trained not to commence an evacuation when engines are still running, when the engines came off, there would be no cockpit indications from the engines as the wires are not connected to anything.

True, but surely, there would be no familiar hum from the PWs that were detached from the aircraft either.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-07-10 21:27:54 and read 43721 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 70):
Quoting ozark1 (Reply 56):

I am completely baffled about the cockpit request to remain seated after the plane stopped. If I had been a F/A on that flight, I would have initiated an evacuation immediat

We are trained not to commence an evacuation when engines are still running, when the engines came off, there would be no cockpit indications from the engines as the wires are not connected to anything.

You do not want passengers evacuating into another or more dangerous situation. Say fuel or gases or sharp debris or another aircraft that followed. All these passengers survive only to be overcome by fumes and die outside.... that would be bad. Appraise the situation, then take the appropriate action.

Tugg

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: flood
Posted 2013-07-10 21:30:50 and read 43738 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 50):
I am stunned that the cockpit crew initially announced there was no need to evacuate.

They never announced "there was no need to evacuate". As far as I'm aware, a pilot told the FA "not yet" - there's a big difference as they may very well have seen the need but were trying to ascertain the state of the engines (as Zeke pointed out) or other external hazards. Not defending their actions, we just don't know the circumstances or their reasoning behind the decision.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 68):
Swedish tabloid (not quite as bad as The Daily Mail but close) reports the pilot said he was "blinded by a bright light".

It was mentioned by the NTSB here:
http://youtu.be/JVQ-F9mcHrM?t=33m54s

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-10 21:35:41 and read 43555 times.

You surely wouldn't want about 300 people swarming around in the open anyway, given that the airport was in full operation? I'm sure that normal practice is to keep people in their seats until rescue crews and ambulances arrive?

Also, the pilots on the flight deck didn't know about the fire at that stage? I believe that, in any case, as soon as the cabin crew told them about that - within a couple of minutes, I gather - evacuation was authorised, so it's a bit of a 'non-issue' really?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Dan23
Posted 2013-07-10 21:41:27 and read 43618 times.

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 57):

Whats more disturbing is the second video in the CNN video playlist (the one after the video you highlighted) where it appears that a clearly distressed group of the Asiana crew were wheeled out to stand in front of the media for photos. What is the reasoning behind that? To me a very strange thing to do.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: airtechy
Posted 2013-07-10 21:50:04 and read 43357 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 70):

We are trained not to commence an evacuation when engines are still running, when the engines came off, there would be no cockpit indications from the engines as the wires are not connected to anything.

I'm sorry....I just find that hard to believe. One engine is laying beside the plane smoldering and another is across the runway in full view of the cockpit which itself was almost on the ground. Plus....only a small part of the cockpit should have been powered as it was running on batteries. Surely it should have been obvious that the engines were dead/gone.

Remains me of the L1011 where everyone died because the pilot did not stop and evacuate the airplane.

AT

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mach92
Posted 2013-07-10 21:57:16 and read 43206 times.

Koreans trying to save face, that's all it was.

Quoting Dan23 (Reply 75):
Quoting Dan23 (Reply 75):
Whats more disturbing is the second video in the CNN video playlist (the one after the video you highlighted) where it appears that a clearly distressed group of the Asiana crew were wheeled out to stand in front of the media for photos. What is the reasoning behind that? To me a very strange thing to do.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 22:09:22 and read 42883 times.

I find it hard to believe that people listened to the request to stay in your seats. Not sure if a plane full of people from another culture would obey this authority in the same way. I would assume at least some people would start to open the emergency doors as soon as the plane came to stop regardless of there being an announcement to do so. But then again I take off my 'seat belt before coming to a complete stop at the gate'. I understand the risks but I just don't think many people think in these situations, they just react. Tough to say for sure though.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-07-10 22:31:49 and read 42396 times.

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 44):
Edit: news article says there was no press conference before they left and some reporters complained for wrong announcement made by Asiana. Obviously, Asiana told them there will be a press conference.

I don't blame the media for complaining, I sat here for 45 minutes waiting for the press conference only to get a 'picture opportunity'. Granted I don't understand why they were doing a news conference in the first place but the wait was a waste of time for a lot of people. One of the crew members was balling throughout which was actually pretty sad, they're obviously still very affected by the whole thing and who can blame them.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 50):

I am stunned that the cockpit crew initially announced there was no need to evacuate. Regardless of what caused the crash, this is simply unbelievable and inexcusable, mind-boggling really. Evacuation order was given only after one of the FAs reported fire breaking out - wow!
Quoting ozark1 (Reply 56):

I am completely baffled about the cockpit request to remain seated after the plane stopped. If I had been a F/A on that flight, I would have initiated an evacuation immediat

Chill out folks, I don't blame the pilots for wait for 'dust to settle' - so to speak and also in the literal sense. There was no evidence of fire and it makes sense the crew wanted to figure out where they were before ordering evacuation. When you really think about it, worked out pretty well in the end as far as the evacuation goes.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 58):

That would make a whole lot of sense really.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: HOONS90
Posted 2013-07-10 22:35:33 and read 42432 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 79):
I don't blame the media for complaining, I sat here for 45 minutes waiting for the press conference only to get a 'picture opportunity'. Granted I don't understand why they were doing a news conference in the first place but the wait was a waste of time for a lot of people. One of the crew members was balling throughout which was actually pretty sad, they're obviously still very affected by the whole thing and who can blame them.

How disgusting of OZ. Shouldn't the FAs be given some rest???

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-07-10 22:46:18 and read 42104 times.

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 80):
How disgusting of OZ. Shouldn't the FAs be given some rest???

What's worse was I am not sure they knew that they were even supposed to be there. There was a lot of confusion around the elevators and it looks like they were just pulled out of bed to appear in front of a camera. It really was sad to watch.

Someone mentioned they were supposed to be on AAR213 back to ICN today. Were they heading to the airport after that 'news conference'? If not, they were cutting it pretty close since I see it took off at 3:58PM local time and they were on TV around 2:45-3PM.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-10 22:53:03 and read 41946 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 79):
That would make a whole lot of sense really.

I think so, Norcal773. I usually argue strongly against people assuming that all or most accidents are the result of 'pilot error' - but it does appear that the apparent failure of this aircrew to check the Air Speed Indicator regularly in the descent, and then (once again apparently) failing to switch to manual throttle control until (literally) the last few seconds, were the direct (and only) causes of this accident?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LLA001
Posted 2013-07-10 22:59:18 and read 41990 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 78):

I had few friends who have been in car accidents and even a helicopter accident, they all told me that they dont hear anything after the accident. They described a silence with a ringing or buzzing sound in the background. I dont know if it is an isolated case for them or if it is a general human behavoir after a traumatic event but i assume the passengers did not hear much or couldnt hear much after a few seconds or longer following the accident.

So i wonder how much audio warning prompted them to take any action, i guess the visual signs were enough.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-07-10 23:15:22 and read 41619 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 82):
I think so, Norcal773. I usually argue strongly against people assuming that all or most accidents are the result of 'pilot error' - but it does appear that the apparent failure of this aircrew to check the Air Speed Indicator regularly in the descent, and then (once again apparently) failing to switch to manual throttle control until (literally) the last few seconds, were the direct (and only) causes of this accident?

I agree with you 100%. The more facts that we know, the more it looks like they dropped the ball on this one big time. having gone to flight school myself, I just don't understand how one can miss altitude and airspeed indications for so long to the point where it was too late when one of the pilots did something about it, especially the PNF. Having flown OZ 6 times on this particular route, I've been a huge advocate of the airline over the years but this worries me. BTW- Long time no 'see' on this forum! Hope you're doing alright.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-10 23:26:11 and read 41260 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 13):

I remain interested in whether strictly maintaining a sterile cockpit (no distractions or other conversions) is normal for Korean and perhaps other International carriers and whether noisy un-sterile conditions might be a factor here. The evidence is clearly that they were not paying attention, regardless of compounding A/Th misunderstandings. What were they doing instead?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-10 23:47:23 and read 40796 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 85):
I remain interested in whether strictly maintaining a sterile cockpit (no distractions or other conversions) is normal for Korean and perhaps other International carriers and whether noisy un-sterile conditions might be a factor here.

Sterile cockpit is definitely the international norm.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: garpd
Posted 2013-07-11 00:23:21 and read 40148 times.

Quoting LLA001 (Reply 83):
I had few friends who have been in car accidents and even a helicopter accident, they all told me that they dont hear anything after the accident.

Been is a pretty serious car accident myself.
I can tell you I head everything all the way through.

Must be down to the individual and the cause and effects of the accident I guess.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-11 00:23:53 and read 40127 times.

Good to see you, Norcal773 - yes, OK so far, but not getting any younger! Hope you're well?

Just (hopefully) to put this 'evacuation' thing to bed once and for all, our radio (ABC Newsradio) just reported that 'evacuation of the aircraft did not commence until 90 seconds after it had skidded to a halt.'  

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-07-11 00:27:44 and read 40126 times.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 24):
Hersman mentioned that 3 of the 4 FAs in the rear were ejected from the aircraft. It's amazing that they survived.

They survived but are at critical condition in the hospital.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 00:46:43 and read 39747 times.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 76):
I'm sorry....I just find that hard to believe. One engine is laying beside the plane smoldering and another is across the runway in full view of the cockpit which itself was almost on the ground. Plus....only a small part of the cockpit should have been powered as it was running on batteries. Surely it should have been obvious that the engines were dead/gone.

Remains me of the L1011 where everyone died because the pilot did not stop and evacuate the airplane.

To me it sounds like they followed the on ground emergency evacuation checklist to the letter. The call to remain seated is directed to the passengers, where I work it is also to inform the cabin crew to be ready at their stations for an evacuation. The next call is to either stand down or evacuate once the situation has been evaluated.

The situation is evaluated, if necessary the engine masters turned off, fire bottles exercised, ATC notified of the evacuation, and the command given to the cabin to evacuate.

You may not recall a while back a QF 744 departed BKK and water leaked from the galley into the forward avionics bay, they lost a lot of the cockpit indications, the engines were still running. Likewise with the QF A380 evacuation in SIN, they could not shut one engine down (that is also not a first, some have run for hours after an accident).

I do not think the NTSB will be that critical of this, you are probably only talking about 10-15 seconds while they action the checklist.

EDIT : I should have added, when I heard the ATC feed on an earlier thread, I head multiple attempts by the crew to contact ATC. It is possible that the antenna on the aircraft was damaged during the event that prevented them from hearing the ATC reply. It also sounded as if a number of other aircraft stepped on the transmissions made by the aircraft in distress.

[Edited 2013-07-11 00:55:45]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 00:46:53 and read 39795 times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ash-probe-20130711,0,1307277.story

Shame on you OZ for putting these heroes through this for your supposed PR benefit.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 01:10:30 and read 39264 times.

Something doesn't add up.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
> From @NTSB: About 2min after the crash, first emergency veh arrived. 3min after, first extinguishing agent put on aircraft.

But:

Quoting shrike (Reply 91):
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ash-probe-20130711,0,1307277.story

Says:

Quote:
The evacuation of more than 300 people aboard the Asiana Airlines jetliner that crash-landed in San Francisco did not begin until 90 seconds after the aircraft came to rest and only when fire was spotted by a flight attendant, federal investigators said Wednesday.

...

Federal investigators determined that no fire reached the cabin while the passengers were inside. According to the NTSB, crew members fought the spreading blaze with extinguishers before firefighting units arrived.

Asked whether delays in evacuations occur after crashes, Hersman said that flight crews sometimes do not evacuate passengers right away. "Fire is serious," she added. "When it was seen, the evacuation was started."

When you add the minutes up and include evacuation time, the story from the NTSB doesn't make sense.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: thaiflyer
Posted 2013-07-11 01:24:15 and read 38911 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 90):
To me it sounds like they followed the on ground emergency evacuation checklist to the letter. The call to remain seated is directed to the passengers, where I work it is also to inform the cabin crew to be ready at their stations for an evacuation. The next call is to either stand down or evacuate once the situation has been evaluated.

The situation is evaluated, if necessary the engine masters turned off, fire bottles exercised, ATC notified of the evacuation, and the command given to the cabin to evacuate.

I'm sorry but in this case it was obvious that an evacuation was required.
If the plane lost it engines etc you don't have to wait until the engines are switched of.
I can understand completely that the passengers did not wait until the captain gave the evacuate command.
If i was in this plane and had those kind of experience i also would be eager to get of the plane regardless what the captain says.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 01:29:07 and read 39122 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 92):
When you add the minutes up and include evacuation time, the story from the NTSB doesn't make sense.

This raw video shows pax getting off well before the equipment started to arrive. First fire truck arrives at 90 seconds after the start of the video. Using the NTSB number of 120 seconds for the first vehicle arrived, and 90 from this video, it would follow we are talking about 30 seconds from the crash, aircraft coming to rest, to the start of the evacuation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WczPnDDipKw&feature=player_embedded

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: keegd76
Posted 2013-07-11 01:30:07 and read 38830 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 90):
Quoting airtechy (Reply 76):
I'm sorry....I just find that hard to believe. One engine is laying beside the plane smoldering and another is across the runway in full view of the cockpit which itself was almost on the ground. Plus....only a small part of the cockpit should have been powered as it was running on batteries. Surely it should have been obvious that the engines were dead/gone.

Remains me of the L1011 where everyone died because the pilot did not stop and evacuate the airplane.

To me it sounds like they followed the on ground emergency evacuation checklist to the letter. The call to remain seated is directed to the passengers, where I work it is also to inform the cabin crew to be ready at their stations for an evacuation. The next call is to either stand down or evacuate once the situation has been evaluated.

Going by the information revealed earlier the evacuation started when the F/A informed the pilots of the fire. That suggests that whatever checklist they were going through (if that is indeed the case) wasn't completed.

On a side note, if the engines are ripped off and you have no indications in the cockpit, how do you confirm whether or not its safe to evacuate? Can the engines be seen from the cockpit on a T7?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 92):
Quote:
The evacuation of more than 300 people aboard the Asiana Airlines jetliner that crash-landed in San Francisco did not begin until 90 seconds after the aircraft came to rest and only when fire was spotted by a flight attendant, federal investigators said Wednesday.

...

Federal investigators determined that no fire reached the cabin while the passengers were inside. According to the NTSB, crew members fought the spreading blaze with extinguishers before firefighting units arrived.

Asked whether delays in evacuations occur after crashes, Hersman said that flight crews sometimes do not evacuate passengers right away. "Fire is serious," she added. "When it was seen, the evacuation was started."

When you add the minutes up and include evacuation time, the story from the NTSB doesn't make sense.

If the fire didn't reach the cabin then what were the crew members fighting with extinguishers?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 01:32:43 and read 38795 times.

Quoting thaiflyer (Reply 93):
I'm sorry but in this case it was obvious that an evacuation was required.
If the plane lost it engines etc you don't have to wait until the engines are switched of.

Nothing is obvious at all in these sort of situations, think about this in real time where the crew are not expecting an evacuation, not with the benefit of hindsight.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 01:37:45 and read 38787 times.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 95):
On a side note, if the engines are ripped off and you have no indications in the cockpit, how do you confirm whether or not its safe to evacuate? Can the engines be seen from the cockpit on a T7?

The engine masters are turned off, and fire the bottles activated. Order the evacuation. It is then up to the cabin crew to evaluate outside to see if it is safe to open the door. If it is not safe to do so, the door remains closed, and the passengers are are directed to an alternative exit

I would say no to being able to see the engines unless the cockpit windows are opened to lean out.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: upperdeck
Posted 2013-07-11 01:41:53 and read 38595 times.

I don't think it's fair to assume the flight crew knew the engines had fallen off. There would have been a lot of shock and confusion in the cockpit and one would hope that their training meant that they had to consider if it was safer for the passengers to stay onboard or evacuate (On QF32 the passengers were kept onboard for an hour I think).

The captain is responsible for all lives onboard and he has to make what he thinks is the right decision at the time. Whether he was wrong or not isn't the point, he just needs to demonstrate his thinking based on the facts he had at the time.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 01:43:45 and read 38641 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 94):
it would follow we are talking about 30 seconds from the crash, aircraft coming to rest, to the start of the evacuation.

While the NTSB says 90 seconds.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 95):
If the fire didn't reach the cabin then what were the crew members fighting with extinguishers?

I've been asking myself the same question. The more info we get from the NTSB, the more confusing the timeline and what was going on inside the aircraft it becomes.

It's not supposed to work that way. We're supposed to have more clarity with each release.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 01:58:32 and read 38267 times.

How would the crew know if the engines were there and running? They can't see them from the cockpit and the engine instrument lines were severed.

Quoting zeke (Reply 96):
Quoting thaiflyer (Reply 93):
I'm sorry but in this case it was obvious that an evacuation was required.
If the plane lost it engines etc you don't have to wait until the engines are switched of.

Nothing is obvious at all in these sort of situations, think about this in real time where the crew are not expecting an evacuation, not with the benefit of hindsight.

As Zeke says, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, we now know that evacuation could have started immediately. However they did not know that.

Following the checklist is in the vast majority of cases the right course of action. In aviation if you make the wrong call based on your gut in an emergency you are likely to end up dead. If you follow the appropriate procedure you are likely to make it.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: moriarty
Posted 2013-07-11 02:04:10 and read 38169 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 68):
Swedish tabloid (not quite as bad as The Daily Mail but close) r

I'd say anything that's written by them is unverified information from other papers at its best. They haven't got a clue about most things they write about, seldom verifies information it seems and their spelling and grammar is easily matched by any teen blogger. Until other sources say the same I'd take that information as less accurate speculation than most entries in this thread. Far less.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-07-11 02:06:14 and read 38174 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):
Quoting zeke (Reply 94):it would follow we are talking about 30 seconds from the crash, aircraft coming to rest, to the start of the evacuation.
While the NTSB says 90 seconds.

Enough time for some of the pax to gather their hand baggage and duty-free bags! These people (the pax who did this) should be court-martialled for putting others' lives at risk!

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 02:14:32 and read 38047 times.

Quoting moriarty (Reply 101):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 68):
Swedish tabloid (not quite as bad as The Daily Mail but close) r

I'd say anything that's written by them is unverified information from other papers at its best. They haven't got a clue about most things they write about, seldom verifies information it seems and their spelling and grammar is easily matched by any teen blogger. Until other sources say the same I'd take that information as less accurate speculation than most entries in this thread. Far less.

Still not as bad as The Daily Mail. 
Quoting sankaps (Reply 102):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):
Quoting zeke (Reply 94):it would follow we are talking about 30 seconds from the crash, aircraft coming to rest, to the start of the evacuation.
While the NTSB says 90 seconds.

Enough time for some of the pax to gather their hand baggage and duty-free bags! These people (the pax who did this) should be court-martialled for putting others' lives at risk!

First off, court martials are for military personnel. Secondly, they were likely in shock. The fault is more with lack of knowledge and less than incisive safety briefings than admittedly clueless passengers.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: moriarty
Posted 2013-07-11 02:34:26 and read 37622 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 103):
Still not as bad as The Daily Mail. 

Other source.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ht-214-ntsb-pilot-blinded/2507059/

Personally I think the most important question is, no matter what automation and/or other factors (sun) contributed, why the pilots did airspeed get that low. As with the AF447, I guess there won't be a single, simple answer.

[Edited 2013-07-11 02:36:35]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-07-11 02:37:26 and read 37482 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 103):
First off, court martials are for military personnel

Yes, I know that, it is just an expression.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 103):
The fault is more with lack of knowledge and less than incisive safety briefings than admittedly clueless passengers

Don't know if any amount of safety briefings would help such clueless or self-centered passengers.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 02:42:36 and read 37487 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 94):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WczPnDDipKw&feature=player_embedded

Wow - this and its Part 2 are pretty amazing, quite apart from the "real life" audio overlay. Well done PWNDTROLL! It shows a full 12 minutes of time without major cabin fire, very fortunately giving a lot of time for the evac. It is clear that there are two fire sequences: The first is the right engine burning next to the fuselage starting at final impact which was seen by cc and drove evac order. This was burning throughout the evac, while being fought by first firetrucks to arrive, and NTSB said this was visible and maybe partially impacting into cabin and may have been fought by cc as reported in some way along the hull or through the 2R door. Smoke probably entering through 2R too, and final exits by fire/police/Lee talked about increasing smoke. But the main cabin does not appear to be significantly on fire at that point. Sometime later a fire reignites or expands significantly or was already cooking within the cargo areas below and it is this second fire sequence that consumes the cabin and burns out the roof. Whether the fire service should have contained this is an interesting question - but the evac was complete at that point.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):
The more info we get from the NTSB, the more confusing the timeline and what was going on inside the aircraft it becomes.

The time sequence remains confusing but I am not seeing all this inconsistency you have with the limited statements of fact briefed by NTSB, which they don't claim is complete.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 03:11:36 and read 36888 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 106):
The time sequence remains confusing but I am not seeing all this inconsistency you have with the limited statements of fact briefed by NTSB

Is the timeline becoming more clear to you with each release?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 03:11:58 and read 37058 times.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 95):
If the fire didn't reach the cabin then what were the crew members fighting with extinguishers?

The NTSB briefing in the 30/31 min mark said fire did get in the cabin, cabin crew, pilots, and the ARFF were fighting it internally. Then later when describing the removal of the pinned cabin crew at R2 at the 32 min mark makes a slightly different statement.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):
While the NTSB says 90 seconds

The NTSB briefing in the 25-30 min mark describes this, they said around 90 seconds for the slides L1/L2 to deploy, the video I linked in reply 94 shows passengers off the aircraft before that time on the RHS. They also said the times are preliminary.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 100):

The NTSB in their briefing at the 44 min mark talks about this, and not to judge the evacuation based upon hindsight.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 03:16:46 and read 36988 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 105):

The NTSB briefing did say the PF did convey to them he was temporarily blinded at approximately the 500 ft point by a flash of light. A question was asked if this light was a laser, they did not want to confirm or deny that, they are still looking into it.

They also said each interview with each pilot lasted about 4 hours, and they all were cooperative.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: skywaymanaz
Posted 2013-07-11 03:18:37 and read 36829 times.

Quoting thaiflyer (Reply 93):
I'm sorry but in this case it was obvious that an evacuation was required.

Once the fire was visible yes it was required period. That said before it was spotted the crew would have been irresponsible not to assess the situation. They could have evacuated people right in front of an engine stuck at full thrust they had no control over. (Or evacuate passengers into the path of emergency vehicles.) If there was no fire that is not a risk you want to take. Of course once the fire was spotted anywhere else was likely safer.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 03:20:23 and read 37016 times.

I call BS on this evac as well. What was really going on in that cockpit?!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 74):
You surely wouldn't want about 300 people swarming around in the open anyway, given that the airport was in full operation? I'm sure that normal practice is to keep people in their seats until rescue crews and ambulances arrive?

Yes let's all sit in our seats like good little boys and girls.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 74):

Also, the pilots on the flight deck didn't know about the fire at that stage? I believe that, in any case, as soon as the cabin crew told them about that - within a couple of minutes, I gather - evacuation was authorised, so it's a bit of a 'non-issue' really?

Huh, a few more minutes and they could have all been dead.

Quoting flood (Reply 73):
They never announced "there was no need to evacuate". As far as I'm aware, a pilot told the FA "not yet" - there's a big difference as they may very well have seen the need but were trying to ascertain the state of the engines (as Zeke pointed out) or other external hazards. Not defending their actions, we just don't know the circumstances or their reasoning behind the decision.

I'm wondering how the cockpit crew is supposed to assess the outside conditions, when they can't even see the engines from their position anyway...

Quoting airtechy (Reply 76):
I'm sorry....I just find that hard to believe. One engine is laying beside the plane smoldering and another is across the runway in full view of the cockpit which itself was almost on the ground. Plus....only a small part of the cockpit should have been powered as it was running on batteries. Surely it should have been obvious that the engines were dead/gone.

Remains me of the L1011 where everyone died because the pilot did not stop and evacuate the airplane.

  

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 78):

I find it hard to believe that people listened to the request to stay in your seats. Not sure if a plane full of people from another culture would obey this authority in the same way. I would assume at least some people would start to open the emergency doors as soon as the plane came to stop regardless of there being an announcement to do so. But then again I take off my 'seat belt before coming to a complete stop at the gate'. I understand the risks but I just don't think many people think in these situations, they just react. Tough to say for sure though.

As they say, I would have been ghost.

Quoting thaiflyer (Reply 93):
I'm sorry but in this case it was obvious that an evacuation was required.
If the plane lost it engines etc you don't have to wait until the engines are switched of.
I can understand completely that the passengers did not wait until the captain gave the evacuate command.
If i was in this plane and had those kind of experience i also would be eager to get of the plane regardless what the captain says.

   This might not be PC on such a forum as this... But if I were a passenger on that plane, forget flight crew and cabin crew, I would have commenced evacuation myself. After the landing gear collapse and a half somersault, there was no other way to get off the plane...

Quoting shrike (Reply 106):
Wow - this and its Part 2 are pretty amazing, quite apart from the "real life" audio overlay. Well done PWNDTROLL! It shows a full 12 minutes of time without major cabin fire, very fortunately giving a lot of time for the evac. It is clear that there are two fire sequences: The first is the right engine burning next to the fuselage starting at final impact which was seen by cc and drove evac order. This was burning throughout the evac, while being fought by first firetrucks to arrive, and NTSB said this was visible and maybe partially impacting into cabin and may have been fought by cc as reported in some way along the hull or through the 2R door. Smoke probably entering through 2R too, and final exits by fire/police/Lee talked about increasing smoke. But the main cabin does not appear to be significantly on fire at that point. Sometime later a fire reignites or expands significantly or was already cooking within the cargo areas below and it is this second fire sequence that consumes the cabin and burns out the roof. Whether the fire service should have contained this is an interesting question - but the evac was complete at that point.

To me, the fire department seems horribly slow to do anything. They could have had foam and water into the right engine much earlier. But they didnt even do anything...they just sat there for a time before any sort of action.

What if there were more people paralyzed as a result of the crash in their seats, or trapped under debris.

Doesn't look all that good to me.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 03:26:14 and read 36850 times.

So... The experienced pilots are saying that evaluating the situation before an evacuation is the right call, while non-pilots are saying they should have just gone for it immediately, and basing that judgment on information the pilots did not actually have at the time...

As so often the case on this forum, a gap in understanding between the layman and the experienced professional.

[Edited 2013-07-11 03:27:18]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zkokq
Posted 2013-07-11 03:42:14 and read 36545 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 111):

I love how you disagree with several Pilots and First officers. I hope for your sake if you ever get stuck in an emercency that you dont evacuate into an engine stuck at full thrust ala QF32.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 03:48:41 and read 36423 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 111):
But if I were a passenger on that plane, forget flight crew and cabin crew, I would have commenced evacuation myself. After the landing gear collapse and a half somersault, there was no other way to get off the plane...

Emergency evacuations are something that crew do not do consider lightly, people almost always get hurt during the process. My guess is that the crew were following procedures not being able to assess the outside condition of the aircraft to contact ATC to see if they could tell them what they could see.

Once they received news from D2 that they saw an external fire around row 10, I think the evacuation was ordered.

Please do not forget, that the slides in R1/R2 both inflated inside the cabin after the second major impact. It is also apparent from the NTSB briefing that no crew were available at the rear of the aircraft to open the doors, 3 out of the 4 being ejected from the aircraft during the impact, the 4th being injured.

Crew are trained on how to evaluate the aircraft outside to determine if it is safe to open a door (fire, engine running, aerobridge etc), door R3 looks to have had debris right outside the door in the scene photos. Crews are also trained on how to manually inflate the slide if the automatic mechanism does not work, and how to direct passengers to the available exits.

There has been a lot of talk on here about poor CRM being a cultural issue in airlines in Korea. I have heard the exact opposite from the NTSB todays briefing. It would appear the relief FO did speak up and called the sink rate on final, as well as for a go-around. It would also appear the door primary at L2 after hearing the order not to evacuate, sent their assistant at L2 to the cockpit to inform the cockpit of the external fire. Both are examples of GOOD CRM.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-07-11 03:49:37 and read 36458 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 74):
You surely wouldn't want about 300 people swarming around in the open anyway, given that the airport was in full operation? I'm sure that normal practice is to keep people in their seats until rescue crews and ambulances arrive?

How many passengers have ever been run over by a rescue crew compared to the number who have died of smoke inhalation in the cabin ?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 74):
Also, the pilots on the flight deck didn't know about the fire at that stage? I believe that, in any case, as soon as the cabin crew told them about that - within a couple of minutes, I gather - evacuation was authorised, so it's a bit of a 'non-issue' really?

Its only a bit of a "non issue" due to the fire not penetrating the cabin until after the passengers evacuated. If the fire had took hold whilst they were still inside it would have been a major issue.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 111):
To me, the fire department seems horribly slow to do anything. They could have had foam and water into the right engine much earlier. But they didnt even do anything...they just sat there for a time before any sort of action.

To me it usually seems that the fire crews have 5 years supply of foam to use up, I clearly remember BA 38 being doused in the stuff even with no fire. On this occasion however the fire seems to have took them by surprise.

Some have said that the flight crew need to ascertain of the engines are still running before authorising the evacuation. As the plane was sitting on its belly they couldn't possibly still be attached   

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: garpd
Posted 2013-07-11 03:52:32 and read 36241 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 111):
This might not be PC on such a forum as this... But if I were a passenger on that plane, forget flight crew and cabin crew, I would have commenced evacuation myself. After the landing gear collapse and a half somersault, there was no other way to get off the plane...

And in doing so, possibly create panic and cause people to run in front of a running engine perhaps?
Dear god man, you're sitting in front of a PC in calm surroundings with 20/20 hindsight and you are still being irrational and irresponsible?!
I sincerely hope I am never on an emergency craft with you on board. And I also hope that if you ever were to ignore instructions and cause deaths, that you are prosecuted to the full extent the law will allow.

[Edited 2013-07-11 04:47:32]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 03:52:43 and read 36271 times.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 115):
Some have said that the flight crew need to ascertain of the engines are still running before authorising the evacuation. As the plane was sitting on its belly they couldn't possibly still be attached  

The fact that the center of the plane is sitting on its belly might not be obvious to the crew at the pointy end.

It's not only running engines. It is fire, debris, etc...

Again, easy to say what they should have done with 20/20 hindsight.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: type-rated
Posted 2013-07-11 03:52:49 and read 36334 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
> After crash, #Asiana214 attendant asked crew whether an evacuation should start. Crew said no; announcement made over PA to stay in seats.
Funny this pops up again....

I mentioned this several thread iterations ago and even provided a news story link but everyone said "Naw, couldn't be, it was only the automated recording playing, forget it, it didn't happen."

Well, here is yet another story that indicates it DID happen and the pilots are credited with telling the f/a's to keep people in their seats.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50150631n

What ya' say now? .. Naw, didn't happen, couldn't have happened, we at a.net know better than this!!!

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 03:53:31 and read 36307 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 112):

So... The experienced pilots are saying that evaluating the situation before an evacuation is the right call, while non-pilots are saying they should have just gone for it immediately, and basing that judgment on information the pilots did not actually have at the time...

As so often the case on this forum, a gap in understanding between the layman and the experienced professional.

How were the experienced pilots supposed to evaluate the situation?

There is a gap, if you the pilot can't see what's going on in the cabin or outside, and I the passenger can...I would GTFO. You know as well as I do that you can't see the engines from a 777's flight deck. So what's next to know? The flight crew is possibly incapacitated? The pilots could have very well been dead...crushed. Yes, let me wait for their instruction.

Quoting zkokq (Reply 113):
I love how you disagree with several Pilots and First officers. I hope for your sake if you ever get stuck in an emercency that you dont evacuate into an engine stuck at full thrust ala QF32.


I kind of do disagree. QF32 didn't lose the landing gear, crash land, do a half somersault in the air, and crush the whole lower fuselage. Flame me all you want. Yes I am saying what I would have done, take the lead and GTFO.

It actually looks like some of the pax and cabin crew did just that. And I would have been one of them, kicking your ass down that damn chute.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 03:55:33 and read 36302 times.

Quoting garpd (Reply 116):
And in doing so, possibly create panic and cause people to run in front of a running engine perhaps?
Dear god man, you're sitting in front of a PC in calm surroundings with 20/20 hindsight and you are still being irrational and irresponsible?!
I sincerely hope I am never on an emergency crash with you on board. And I also hope that if you ever were to ignore instructions and cause deaths, that you are prosecuted to the full extent the law will allow.

Now now, I'd never run in front of the engine. I might be brash but I ain't stupid.  

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 03:58:12 and read 36213 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):
There is a gap, if you the pilot can't see what's going on in the cabin or outside, and I the passenger can...I would GTFO. You know as well as I do that you can't see the engines from a 777's flight deck. So what's next to know? The flight crew is possibly incapacitated? The pilots could have very well been dead...crushed. Yes, let me wait for their instruction.

The flight and cabin crew have extensive training in emergency procedures. The pax do not. Who do you think knows better?

Yes, certainly the flight crew could have been dead or some other special circumstance. There are tons of different possibilities. However the crew is following procedures developed on the basis of dozens of accidents, computer models, human behavior models. They won't always be the best thing, but most likely they are.

If you want to GTFO, so be it. There have been accidents where cabin crew have tried to stop people using exits with a fire outside and been shoved aside. The people who exited didn't make it. Who was right in that case?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 120):
Now now, I'd never run in front of the engine. I might be brash but I ain't stupid.

Fair enough, but lots of people might. Group think leads to people doing irrational things all the time, especially when panicked.

[Edited 2013-07-11 04:00:12]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: garpd
Posted 2013-07-11 04:00:08 and read 36107 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 120):
Now now, I'd never run in front of the engine. I might be brash but I ain't stupid.

You might not, but the people who you just drew into a panic by ignoring instructions and as you put it "GTFO", might just do that.

People do silly things in a panic.
That is why it is important to assert authority in an emergency situation. Panicked people will tend to listen to someone who sounds like they are in charge.

Having someone then run past saying they're going anyway and opening a door will just make them all rush for that door.
Cue crush injuries, injuries from falling, injuries from sliding down a chute into fire or sharp debris, etc.
All because YOU decided to ignore instructions.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 04:10:33 and read 35903 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):
How were the experienced pilots supposed to evaluate the situation?

By using all available resources, internal and external. Instruments, front window, smell, sounds, ATC, and then they had the crew from D2.

Don't forget, R1/R2 slides inflated inside the cabin pinning crew down, and 3 out of the 4 crew in the back were ejected during the impact. By my simple maths, only 6 crew were in a position to get the passengers off.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):
There is a gap, if you the pilot can't see what's going on in the cabin or outside, and I the passenger can...I would GTFO. You know as well as I do that you can't see the engines from a 777's flight deck. So what's next to know? The flight crew is possibly incapacitated? The pilots could have very well been dead...crushed. Yes, let me wait for their instruction.

Very soon after coming to rest the cabin crew established face to face communications with the cockpit, this is good CRM. If the cabin crew could not establish communication with the cockpit, we call this a catastrophic event, and they are then trained to make their own assessment to commence a evacuation or not.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: quiet1
Posted 2013-07-11 04:11:47 and read 36056 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 91):
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ash-probe-20130711,0,1307277.story

Shame on you OZ for putting these heroes through this for your supposed PR benefit.

Even more shameful is CNN who has a *video* of that exhibition of the cabin crew.

Asian cabin crew in particular seem to take extreme pride in their appearance. Have you ever noticed them in the airport after a flight? Perfect posture and comport, not a hair out of place and makeup is perfect. Can you imagine the discomfort these six F/As felt being forced to pose in somewhat sloppy casual clothes, still in their roles as cabin crew professionals? Two of them, including the male F/A, are in flip flops. I wonder if they still had no access to even their cabin luggage and what they were wearing was provided by Good Samaritan efforts of the teams supporting the crash survivors?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: liquidair
Posted 2013-07-11 04:17:40 and read 35926 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):

it's interesting... The bbc interviewed one of the passengers as they came off, an indian looking guy.

he amazed me by saying he didn't realise how bad it was, that it just felt like a hard landing...

I'm just relaying what was said- any one else see that interview?

if the passenger was that oblivious, it may be down to seating plan... The rear would've known, but the front?

a good call yo assess things first IMO. The fire was obviously a red line however.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-11 04:18:41 and read 35737 times.

If the timing of the video is correct, the evacuation began well within 1 minute of the plane coming to rest.

It also seems that the pilots must be able to see that one of their engines is across the runway in front of them.

I notice that the slides are almost a hindrance with the fuselage so close to the ground. People are having to walk/run on the slides.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: keegd76
Posted 2013-07-11 04:25:23 and read 35658 times.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 125):
he amazed me by saying he didn't realise how bad it was, that it just felt like a hard landing...

I'm just relaying what was said- any one else see that interview?

if the passenger was that oblivious, it may be down to seating plan... The rear would've known, but the front?

If that's his idea of a hard landing...   

Not matter where you were sitting on that plane, that was a crash.

He could be a Brit, we have a knack for understatement  

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 04:35:38 and read 35320 times.

I think the lack of enough medics in crash response teams and plans is more significant than whether the ~90 second situation assessment prior to evac order was too long or not. These 911 calls report waiting around for any medical attention for 20+ minutes on the tarmac. If crashes are now much more survivable then more medics and ambulances are needed in the response teams, not just fire trucks.

http://news.kron4.com/video/raw-vide...-tapes-of-asiana-flight-214-crash/

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2013-07-11 04:44:23 and read 35132 times.

Quoting garpd (Reply 116):
And in doing so, possibly create panic and cause people to run in front of a running engine perhaps? Dear god man, you're sitting in front of a PC in calm surroundings with 20/20 hindsight and you are still being irrational and irresponsible?!I sincerely hope I am never on an emergency crash with you on board. And I also hope that if you ever were to ignore instructions and cause deaths, that you are prosecuted to the full extent the law will allow.

Say your a passenger that has just endured a similar event...are you going to sit there till all the blood in your head gets flowing normally again a wait to be told what to do by the crew. If your all the way in the rear, you have no way of knowing if the cockpit is still intact. In a "perfect crash", should you survive, the entire roster of passengers and crew has 90 seconds...you just wasted 60...Of course there will be panic, confusion...the alternative is not acceptable.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: liquidair
Posted 2013-07-11 04:51:44 and read 34922 times.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 127):

it seems incredible to me too...

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: type-rated
Posted 2013-07-11 04:51:57 and read 34980 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 120):
Now now, I'd never run in front of the engine. I might be brash but I ain't stupid.

People usually somehow involved with aircraft know this, but the general public at large hasn't a clue. Has there ever been a case of a passenger running into a running engine after a crash?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: garpd
Posted 2013-07-11 04:58:45 and read 34800 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 131):
Has there ever been a case of a passenger running into a running engine after a crash?

No, probably because most listen to the crew.  Wink

[Edited 2013-07-11 05:04:41]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-07-11 05:12:41 and read 34482 times.

Quoting zkokq (Reply 113):
I hope for your sake if you ever get stuck in an emercency that you dont evacuate into an engine stuck at full thrust ala QF32.

QF32 was very different, as Pellegrine notes below

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):
I kind of do disagree. QF32 didn't lose the landing gear, crash land, do a half somersault in the air, and crush the whole lower fuselage. Flame me all you want. Yes I am saying what I would have done, take the lead and GTFO.

Fully agree with Bongodog as well:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 115):
How many passengers have ever been run over by a rescue crew compared to the number who have died of smoke inhalation in the cabin ?
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 115):
Its only a bit of a "non issue" due to the fire not penetrating the cabin until after the passengers evacuated. If the fire had took hold whilst they were still inside it would have been a major issue.

As to Starlion's comment below: this training did not prevent the Saudia L1011 or the British Airtours 737 Flight 28M on-the-ground fire catastrophes from occurring. Both occurred because evacuation was delayed because the cockpit crew did not realize the seriousness of the situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airtours_Flight_28M

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 121):

The flight and cabin crew have extensive training in emergency procedures. The pax do not. Who do you think knows better?

Bottom-line: In a crash situation (as opposed to an emergency landing), the difference between 30 seconds and 90 seconds is huge, and can make the difference between life and death. 90 seconds is an eternity to wait for evacuation clearance for a crashed aircraft. The Indian pax may have not realized how serious it was, the cockpit crew would or should have known by just seeing the debris (including a detached engine) around them.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: upperdeck
Posted 2013-07-11 05:24:54 and read 34159 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 111):
I'm wondering how the cockpit crew is supposed to assess the outside conditions, when they can't even see the engines from their position anyway...

Umm, you open the cockpit side window and look out???

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: aaexecplat
Posted 2013-07-11 05:26:01 and read 34194 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 84):
I agree with you 100%. The more facts that we know, the more it looks like they dropped the ball on this one big time. having gone to flight school myself, I just don't understand how one can miss altitude and airspeed indications for so long to the point where it was too late when one of the pilots did something about it, especially the PNF. Having flown OZ 6 times on this particular route, I've been a huge advocate of the airline over the years but this worries me. BTW- Long time no 'see' on this forum! Hope you're doing alright.

It wasn't just the airspeed and altitude indications they missed. How about the aural warnings and relief pilot call put for sink rate? And how about the visual cues like the PAPI and the deteriorating visual cue of the runway while sinking further and further below the glidepath? Or how about the state of their AP/AT settings? Or the unusually high pitch angle they were coming in at? And they were nearly 35kts below vref at one point shortly before impact.

They missed everything on this approach. I don't even know that there was a CRM issue...from what we know now, this looks like unbridled incompetence. Pure and simple. There are experienced flight simulator pilots that would be able to assess this situation more competently. And I don't care if the AT wasn't behaving like they expected. You just don't bleed nearly 60 kts off the speedtape after Flaps 30 and are sporting a 10 degree pitch angle a few hundred feet out with vs rates over -1000 and the stick shaker going off before you notice that something is off.

And once you let that marinate for a little, the bit that Mach92 posted becomes believable (as unbelievable as it sounds). And while I get that ROK is on paper the safest country in the world for aviation, it wouldn't be the first time that an international body/entity would have been fooled into thinking more highly of a country's level of proficiency than was really true.

For the record...as incompetent as the landing was handled, it seems that post crash, the pilots functioned very professionally by assessing the situation before ordering evac and then helping the pax get out of the aircraft before it burnt out.

Unfortunately, I would rather my pilots were skilled airmen first so I don't have to worry about how good they are at assessing damage before orring evac....

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Gatorman96
Posted 2013-07-11 05:27:50 and read 34127 times.

It is pretty hard to fault the flight crew and their call to evacuation when 99.3% of the passengers survived a major accident.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-11 05:43:29 and read 33775 times.

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 136):
It is pretty hard to fault the flight crew and their call to evacuation when 99.3% of the passengers survived a major accident.

Yes.

The two fatalities had already been ejected, apparently. One may have been hit by a vehicle.

Plus, several F/A's had also been ejected or were unable to do their job due to the crash.

Basically we had a 100% successful evacuation of the pax that could be evacuated, with less than a full complement of F/A's.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 05:57:49 and read 33318 times.

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 134):

Was that done in this case?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: garpd
Posted 2013-07-11 06:01:51 and read 33302 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 138):
Was that done in this case?

Pictures from pax show the windows as closed.
I would imagine the reports of fire came in before the pilots got as far as opening the windows.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-11 06:03:11 and read 33427 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 109):
The NTSB briefing did say the PF did convey to them he was temporarily blinded at approximately the 500 ft point by a flash of light. A question was asked if this light was a laser, they did not want to confirm or deny that, they are still looking into it.

Was it a "blinding flash of light of culture"?
This needs to be looked at and is more pertinent to the investigations than the talk of the alleged "obedient/autocratic cockpit serfdom of Korea" culture.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 115):
Some have said that the flight crew need to ascertain of the engines are still running before authorising the evacuation. As the plane was sitting on its belly they couldn't possibly still be attached
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):
How were the experienced pilots supposed to evaluate the situation?
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):
So what's next to know? The flight crew is possibly incapacitated? The pilots could have very well been dead...crushed. Yes, let me wait for their instruction.

The procedure is there for a reason. It's not made up for no reason. The procedure also allow for a common flow with adequate flexibility to meet the situation requirements.

I have seen the crew emergency procedures (some for FAs, some for flight crew, and some on a common documentation) for various airlines in various countries. All, have a common procedure flow:

1. After a crash, PA for everyone to remain in seats. (Alert Phase)
2. Flight Crew to assess situation, complete checklist and QRH as applicable (to allow for a safe evacuation).
3. Cabin crew immediately standby their exits, ready to act immediately upon next PA, and also to allow for their own assessment (see obstacles outside, fire risk, presence/absence of crew at other station, visibility of damage).
4. Flight Crew will announce alert cancellation, precautionary disembarkation or evacuation.

Alert Phase:
This provides a common procedure to prevent evacuation until engines are shut down and/or to allow time to assess situation.
Cabin crew is to immediately standby their exits, check outside the aircraft, control passengers, and be ready to act in response to further PA.
(Note: Alert Phase can take several minutes).
Cabin crew are to report information about abnormal condition in the cabin and outside the aircraft which is essential information to the Flight Crew during this phase.
All information are to be relayed immediately to the flight deck, and only ONE communication attempt to be made.
Alert can be cancelled, or phase move on to precautionary disembarkation, or evacuation.

Emergency Considerations:
Captain has prime responsibility for initiating evacuation.
If Cabin Crew consider that an evacuation is necessary they must attempt to advise the captain of the situation and await instructions.
Cabin crew must not initiate an evacuation without attempting this communication.
If it is obvious that evacuation is imperative and contact with flight crew is not possible, only then will cabin crew assume responsibility for initiating an evacuation.
Captain should attempt to keep the cabin crew and passengers fully informed of his/her intention when any situation develops which may require an emergency evacuation or precautionary disembarkation.

Note:
Unprepared emergency evacuation is more common than a prepared evacuation. It requires extreme urgency.
Whenever possible, if contact with flight deck cannot be established then report to next in command according to the cabin chain of command (first point of contact would be Cabin Services Manager/Purser), and CSM (or next in cabin command) shall coordinate the evacuation.
If a cabin call in Alert Phase is unanswered due to more pertinent duties, flight crew must call CSM as soon as workload permits to obtain the information.

Pellegrine, do note the procedure require cabin crew to act as extra eyes to monitor the situation inside and outside the aircraft. It is not just the cockpit crew trying to determine the situation. If the cabin crew sees an immediate need to evacuate, they tell the cockpit. If the cockpit seems to unable to comprehend the situation, the cabin crew CAN initiate the evacuation themselves.

The flow above is applied to airlines around the world, from the good to the bad.
Feel free to GTFO when you feel you need to and screw what the crew says... but you may say you won't walk in front of a running engine... but you may jump into fuel awaiting to burn, or maybe forced to jump from a door at some height because the slide didn't work and you were pushed by panicked passangers who are also in the same mindset as you (the GTFO mentality), who'd then jump off pushed by others behind them... so you land break your foot or something unable to walk, and others land on top of you... next to a growing fire... Sure... FEEL FREE TO DO THAT and kill yourself.

So you won't walk in front of the engine... sure, walk to the back and open the door and deploy the slide... behind a running engine perhaps? Do you know how much damage has "GTFO I'm outta here" pax have caused ? In the past 5 years alone I recall half a dozen slides, several beaten/punched up cabin crew, etc.
One incident here there was a runway overrun, airplane was undamaged, but one GTFO passenger wants to GTFO fearing it had crashed. Cabin crew told them to sit down... the guy just ran to the CSM, screaming 'you wanna kill us all?', punched the CSM and knocked her out for a few minutes, opened the front left door and jumped, LUCKILY just as the engines were being shut down. Result? Total mess of an evacuation, numerous injuries, the CSM was "thrown out" by the flow of the pax, etc... Cockpit crew saw the evacuation, and unable to contact the cabin crew thought there was a fire with immediate danger to the aircraft and so that they won't disturb the pax evacuation flow, exited through the cockpit windows only to see there was no damage. A dozen pax injured needing hospitalized, 1 knocked out CSM (which messed up the post evac command and control in coordinating with rescue services), and the elderly and disabled left in the aircraft with a panic attack one of which needed treatment in hospital for a suspected heart attack.

If you say "No, that case was a silly one...", my question is, where do you draw the line?
Sorry, but "GTFO am outta here" panic passengers are just as bad as those pax who evacuated with their big backpacks! They cause UNNECESSARY RISK!

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):
QF32 didn't lose the landing gear, crash land, do a half somersault in the air, and crush the whole lower fuselage. Flame me all you want. Yes I am saying what I would have done, take the lead and GTFO.

Enjoy some countries' prisons if you do that!   

By the way, do you think that the above procedure is just limited to 'bad/incompetent airlines'?

Quoting garpd (Reply 122):
You might not, but the people who you just drew into a panic by ignoring instructions and as you put it "GTFO", might just do that.

I guess he's gonna say, "their fault! There is NO way I am liable for that, if I am charged, then the legal system sucks!"

Quoting zeke (Reply 114):
It is also apparent from the NTSB briefing that no crew were available at the rear of the aircraft to open the doors, 3 out of the 4 being ejected from the aircraft during the impact, the 4th being injured.
Quoting zeke (Reply 114):
Crews are also trained on how to manually inflate the slide if the automatic mechanism does not work, and how to direct passengers to the available exits.
Quoting zeke (Reply 114):
There has been a lot of talk on here about poor CRM being a cultural issue in airlines in Korea. I have heard the exact opposite from the NTSB todays briefing. It would appear the relief FO did speak up and called the sink rate on final, as well as for a go-around. It would also appear the door primary at L2 after hearing the order not to evacuate, sent their assistant at L2 to the cockpit to inform the cockpit of the external fire. Both are examples of GOOD CRM.
Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
Very soon after coming to rest the cabin crew established face to face communications with the cockpit, this is good CRM. If the cabin crew could not establish communication with the cockpit, we call this a catastrophic event, and they are then trained to make their own assessment to commence a evacuation or not.

Pellegrine may not realize that the procedure is part of the lessons learnt from past cases of aircraft fire resulting in fatalities. The accidents he or others mentioned, actually resulted in the above procedure flow.

Part of the assessment in the alert phase is also to determine amongst the crew, who's there, who's not there, who's able, who's not able. I guess some will forever think that this phase is used by the FAs to redo their make-ups and forget the emergency at hand.

Oh, Good CRM, on a Korean carrier? (insert picture of disbelief by some)...

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 124):
Can you imagine the discomfort these six F/As felt being forced to pose in somewhat sloppy casual clothes, still in their roles as cabin crew professionals?

Naaah! they know they're in America... the land where grandmothers and the ugly works as flight attendants, so they'll still look better than a lot of American FAs...    And yes... I AM JOKING!

Quoting liquidair (Reply 125):
The bbc interviewed one of the passengers as they came off, an indian looking guy.
he amazed me by saying he didn't realise how bad it was, that it just felt like a hard landing...

This is what "I'd GFTO and to hell with hindsight" proponents forgot... they have no idea!.

Mandala499

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: peterinlisbon
Posted 2013-07-11 06:08:44 and read 33035 times.

I can't understand why they didn't immediately evacuate and just sat there in the burning wreckage for a minute and a half before it occured to them that it was probably a good idea to get out. I also saw that Indian guy say something like "it was quite a hard landing". No kidding! I saw the video of the plane spinning around in a cloud of debris and losing it's tail, engines and wings.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-11 06:10:32 and read 33037 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 133):
this training did not prevent the Saudia L1011 or the British Airtours 737 Flight 28M on-the-ground fire catastrophes from occurring. Both occurred because evacuation was delayed because the cockpit crew did not realize the seriousness of the situation.

The procedure I mentioned in the preceding reply, which is in use in Asiana, was the result of evacuaton studies into evacuation improvements based on those two accidents (plus others).
Those two accidents were crucial in introducing flightdeck-cabin CRM that is prevalent today, and resulted in the procedure stated in the previous reply.
Prior to BA028M, there were a lot of airlines who did not allow cabin crew to initiate evacuation regardless of the circumstances... and the carriers that had those old procedures/policies, were... errr... shocking (but unsurprisingly, included north Asian carriers, before they changed to the current procedures).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: travelavnut
Posted 2013-07-11 06:15:28 and read 32845 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):

Thank you for bringing some sense into the thread Mandala!



Sorry if it was already mentioned, but was it confirmed that the relief pilot called "sink rate" 54 seconds before impact?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-07-11 06:15:50 and read 32867 times.

You have a landing hard enough that it causes the emergency slides to inflate INSIDE, but let's wait here for a bit, anyway, we'll be fine!!

What incompetence.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: travelavnut
Posted 2013-07-11 06:20:54 and read 32647 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 144):
What incompetence

You'd rather have an uncontrolled evacuation into possible fire hazards?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-11 06:20:59 and read 32711 times.

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 135):
It wasn't just the airspeed and altitude indications they missed. How about the aural warnings and relief pilot call put for sink rate? And how about the visual cues like the PAPI and the deteriorating visual cue of the runway while sinking further and further below the glidepath? Or how about the state of their AP/AT settings? Or the unusually high pitch angle they were coming in at? And they were nearly 35kts below vref at one point shortly before impact.

They missed everything on this approach. I don't even know that there was a CRM issue...from what we know now, this looks like unbridled incompetence. Pure and simple.

Thanks for another post 'on topic,' talking about the crash, aaexecplat. I guess the thread is averaging about one post about the crash to thirty or so about the evacuation?  

I think the point you make about the effect of the extremely-low airspeed causing a nose-high attitude is very important/relevant. It's entirely possible - even probable - that, late on in the approach, the pilots couldn't even see the runway - or the PAPI - because the instrument panel was blocking their view............

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 06:23:24 and read 32701 times.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 137):
The two fatalities had already been ejected, apparently. One may have been hit by a vehicle.

All we know there have been two fatalities, and the NTSB confirming today that all passengers remained in the aircraft during the crash. No passengers were ejected, 3 crew were from the rear of the fuselage.

The NTSB have been very careful not to say the cause or time of death, they have said that is a matter for the coroner.

For all we know all passengers and crew survived the event, and it was other related circumstance which resulted in loss of life.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 06:24:31 and read 32575 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 146):
Thanks for another post 'on topic,' talking about the crash, aaexecplat. I guess the thread is averaging about one post about the crash to thirty or so about the evacuation?

The NTSB is investigating the circumstances surrounding the evacuation. That alone should make it fair game for a thread on the crash.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cloudboy
Posted 2013-07-11 06:29:48 and read 32463 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):

Do you really think a passenger did not realize that they had just done some unbelievable pitching, half somersault, lost passengers out the back, and ended up lying at an unconventional angle on the ground and not realized there was a crash? Do people from India not understand the concept of sarcasm?

I understand your concern about an orderly evacuation and not getting in front of engines. But how much risk are you also taking by not recognizing a dangerous cabin fire? in this case you were lucky that it didn't consume the cabin for some time - but in most cases you are going to have a cabin fire much more quickly. I would rather run the risk of getting hurt on a slide then perishing in flames in a cabin because the evacuation started too early and no one was able to get out in time. Once that fire breaks loose there IS no orderly evacuation. If the engines are a major concern, then one of the answers may be to look at how the evacuation routes function in reference to the engines.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-11 06:35:55 and read 32351 times.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 143):
Sorry if it was already mentioned, but was it confirmed that the relief pilot called "sink rate" 54 seconds before impact?

The NTSB was asked that question today, they replied they have not been that specific about such information, the comment was not endorsed by the NTSB. They were not in a position to confirm it or not at this stage.

They did confirm from his interview he called sink rate, and go around, just not when in the sequence. I am thinking they are trying to see where this pops up on the CVR transcript before being specific.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sprout5199
Posted 2013-07-11 06:42:22 and read 32083 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 128):
I think the lack of enough medics in crash response teams and plans is more significant than whether the ~90 second situation assessment prior to evac order was too long or not.


My god, really? you want a hundred EMTs sitting around an airport waiting for a crash? And people here in South Florida complain about how EMTs just sit in there lazyboy chairs sucking up tax dollars.

I can believe some people here. From "the duty free booze" made the plane burn, to "the pax should have departed the plane as soon as it came to a stop" to "why didn't the firemen get there faster, spray foam as soon as they left the firehouse" to "the NTSB is having too many presser and are giving out too much info"

I will wait for the NTSB report before I complain about any of the responses by all in involved. In the the mean time I will enjoy all the "opinons" here on A-net.

Dan in Jupiter

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: liquidair
Posted 2013-07-11 06:46:08 and read 32055 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):

does any one know the circumstances of the death, if confirmed, of the girl hit by an emergency vehicle?
maybe she too decided to GTFO... panicked and afraid.

i have a feeling it's going to be likely - separation from the main group.

i can only pray for the deceased's parents... They must feel so so tortured.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: legacyins
Posted 2013-07-11 06:52:26 and read 31880 times.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 152):

The San Mateo County Corner's Office estimated it will be approximately two weeks before the cause of deaths will be released, persumely to the public.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 06:54:34 and read 31786 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 79):
Granted I don't understand why they were doing a news conference in the first place

The NTSB is not doing news conferences. They are doing press briefings IAW their standard process.

The press conference is an Asiana idea. The airline is looking for heros in the crash to identify for their primary flying customers. The flight attendants of the heros of this crash.

Asiana might not understand the vicious feeding frenzy nature of the US media. Where there is no respect for victims of major accidents or aircraft crashes.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 71):
there would be no familiar hum from the PWs that were detached from the aircraft either.
Quoting LLA001 (Reply 83):
So i wonder how much audio warning prompted them to take any action, i guess the visual signs were enough.

They might have been able to hear the ATC radio calls for fire trucks and the start of the emergency response. Or they might not have been able to hear. Either not receiving ATC radio, or confusion, or simply being rattled by the movements of the airplane might have made them a little unsure of exactly what was happening in those first few seconds.

Not everyone recovers and responds at the same speed after a major shock to their system in a crash.

Quoting zeke (Reply 94):
First fire truck arrives at 90 seconds after the start of the video.

The video is not sufficient enough for me to agree that the first fire truck arrives at 90 seconds. The first VISIBLE fire truck arrives at 90 seconds.

Did the NTSB head say the first truck arrived XX seconds after the crash or XX seconds after being dispatched?

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
The engine masters are turned off, and fire the bottles activated. Order the evacuation.

Per the NTSB all three fire bottles were activated in the cockpit when the investigators examined the cockpit. So it appears they were correctly following the procedure. I haven't seen anything about the position of the engine master switches.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):
The more info we get from the NTSB, the more confusing the timeline and what was going on inside the aircraft it becomes.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):
It's not supposed to work that way. We're supposed to have more clarity with each release.

You are confusing press briefings of factual information with Interim and Final Reports with analysis and conclusions. The NTSB says at the start of each briefing that the information is what they have discovered. It is preliminary and has not been correlated into a timeline where all elements are combined.

The NTSB is trying to be as transparent as possible.

No one here expects, or rather should expect, a complete timeline crossed checked. The purpose of these briefings is to put the information out there. There can well be conflicts between information from different sources.

The full investigation will include identifying such conflicts and resolving the correct timeline.

Quoting zeke (Reply 108):
They also said the times are preliminary.

Correct.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 111):
I call BS on this evac as well.

Please don't do that. It makes you look very uninformed about aviation and procedures.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 06:55:58 and read 31798 times.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 141):

I can't understand why they didn't immediately evacuate and just sat there in the burning wreckage for a minute and a half before it occured to them that it was probably a good idea to get out. I also saw that Indian guy say something like "it was quite a hard landing". No kidding! I saw the video of the plane spinning around in a cloud of debris and losing it's tail, engines and wings.
Quoting jreuschl (Reply 144):
You have a landing hard enough that it causes the emergency slides to inflate INSIDE, but let's wait here for a bit, anyway, we'll be fine!!

What incompetence.

I refer you guys to several posts by Zeke in this thread, plus the excellent reply 140 by mandala499.

As I said earlier, there seems a knowledge to be a gap between the experienced pilots and the laymen. I guess I'm getting old but I have learned to listen to those with experience and education in their fields when it comes to their fields.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-07-11 06:57:34 and read 31719 times.

The initial responders to the crash should have done a quick count of injured around the plane and made their own call for a Trauma Code to dispatch requesting all available area EMTs to the airport. SFFD's initial response time along with how they handled the crash will be evaluated along with everything else about this crash.

I would be really surprised if the on-scene SFFD commander didn't contact dispatch to request any/all available EMTs to come to the scene immediately. On a plane this size with the number of injuries, I would've thought this would be SoP.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-11 06:59:29 and read 31819 times.

Quote:
Hersman did confirm that the two Chinese teenagers that died after the crash were seated toward the rear of the aircraft, in a section that was "structurally significantly damaged."


http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/07/ntsb_asiana_flight_214_came_in.html

I think Hersman was just being her typically guarded self.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2013-07-11 07:00:02 and read 31875 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 154):
Asiana might not understand the vicious feeding frenzy nature of the US media. Where there is no respect for victims of major accidents or aircraft crashes.

Ain't that the truth. I threw up in my mouth a little when I saw them post the photos of the Chinese parents of the young girls that were killed. No respect whatsoever.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 155):
I guess I'm getting old but I have learned to listen to those with experience and education in their fields when it comes to their fields.

I'm a few years behind ya, so you're not the only one.  

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: katekebo
Posted 2013-07-11 07:03:55 and read 31611 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 144):
You have a landing hard enough that it causes the emergency slides to inflate INSIDE, but let's wait here for a bit, anyway, we'll be fine!!

What incompetence.

I'm not an aviation expert, but I am an engineer who has some experience with fire protection and dealing with safety system in general.

If there is a fire outside and the fuselage is structurally not compromised, it is actually safer to keep people inside with the doors closed and wait for the emergency services to arrive. Opening the doors would allow smoke and fire inside the airplane, creating a much more dangerous situation. The flight and cabin crew are trained to assess the situation and make a decision based on specific situation. Of course, they can make mistakes (they are humans and have to make a quick decision based on limited information), but they are 100 times more competent than average passenger.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 07:04:32 and read 31607 times.

I didn't wish to hijack the thread but...

Quoting garpd (Reply 139):
Pictures from pax show the windows as closed.

The answer is no.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):
The procedure is there for a reason. It's not made up for no reason. The procedure also allow for a common flow with adequate flexibility to meet the situation requirements.

Procedure doesn't always go according to plan does it?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):
Enjoy some countries' prisons if you do that!

Let me see...prison...death...prison...death. I know good lawyers, no one can bring you back from six feet under.

I respect the pilots, their professionalism, and the informed posters whose posts I very much enjoy reading: zeke, mandala499, starlionblue, and I could consider it a privilege to be on-board an aircraft piloted by them. Now if you crash...I am sure I am not the first pax to think what I have put into words previously.  

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 07:11:22 and read 31357 times.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 149):
in most cases you are going to have a cabin fire much more quickly.

And that fire is going to start externally just like this one apparently did.

The fire is going to be outside the cabin first, and then get into the cabin. Passengers will hopefully avoid running into the fire if they take time to follow the flight crew instructions.

In this crash -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_1141 - I knew two of the people onboard. They were parents of a high school classmate. After hearing / seeing the father on TV in the triage area at Parkland Hospital, I called the radio station in my hometown, who called up my classmate and gave him the first word his parents were alive. (Small town, they don't do 'shock/ surprise' calls in interviews, thankfully. I also knew the radio station owner - he was one year behind us - and he is a hunting buddy of my high school classmate).

I went to Parkland hospital and sat with the father for several hours until his son arrived.

Anyway - to add to that long setup.

The two parents were seated four rows behind the aft wing exit on the right side of the aircraft. When the plane stopped moving - they were stunned for a few seconds, despite being able to see the fuselage was broken and sunlight streaming in.

They got up and started moving. One passenger stopped another from opening the right forward overwing exit - because there was fire outside the window. The passenger trying to open the exit could not comprehend/ recognize the fire, and that opening that exit would allow the fire into the cabin. He has to be physically restrained, and pushed out of the left side exits.

My classmate's father was not badly injured with some second degree burns. After leaving the wing, they ran through pools of fuel, and some of it ignited when they were almost clear. The arriving fire trucks doused them with water/ foam. They were 'on fire' just a few seconds.

His wife had 3rd degree burns over most of her legs. She wore nylon stockings and they melted. Despite being doused and the fire put out, the thermal effect of the melted plastic continued until her legs were immersed in a pool of water.

Rushing to and opening the nearest exit without taking the time to check can be more deadly than waiting a few seconds while the crew makes sure it is safe.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: travelavnut
Posted 2013-07-11 07:14:19 and read 31243 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 150):
The NTSB was asked that question today, they replied they have not been that specific about such information, the comment was not endorsed by the NTSB. They were not in a position to confirm it or not at this stage.

They did confirm from his interview he called sink rate, and go around, just not when in the sequence. I am thinking they are trying to see where this pops up on the CVR transcript before being specific.

Thank you zeke!

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 151):
I can't believe some people here. From "the duty free booze" made the plane burn, to "the pax should have departed the plane as soon as it came to a stop" to "why didn't the firemen get there faster, spray foam as soon as they left the firehouse" to "the NTSB is having too many presser and are giving out too much info"

Hear hear!

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 07:15:42 and read 31298 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 156):
The initial responders to the crash should have done a quick count of injured around the plane

I'm sure you've seen the pictures and video. How on earth could anyone make a count with people all over the place? Besides the fire was beginning to start when the first folks got there - that had to be their priority.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 156):
I would be really surprised if the on-scene SFFD commander didn't contact dispatch to request any/all available EMTs to come to the scene immediately.

I think when the investigation report is released that will be what actually happened.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 07:20:14 and read 31109 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 120):
Now now, I'd never run in front of the engine. I might be brash but I ain't stupid.

You might not do it on purpose, but you could easily get pushed into a bad situation by the people behind you.

Do this trick (as in do not under any circumstances try this): next time you're at a shopping mall, or a subway platform, take the escalator, then stand at the end of the escalator. Don't move. Just stand at the end of the escalator. I guarantee you that the people behind you on the escalator will push you out of their way because there is no place for them to go but through you.

What do you think an escape slide is like?

Escape slides injure people. I think I heard that every certification test of a new plane injures someone when they do the escape slide testing. The PA 747 accident at SFO in the 70's had a lot of spinal injuries from people coming down the escape slide hot. This jet had likely already injured several passengers in the impacts, a great many of whom had spinal breaks or stretched ligaments. The best thing for these people would have been careful extraction by first responders so as to prevent paralysis. As soon as the evacuation order was given, some of those survivors were doomed to paralysis once they hit that slide and injured their spines further.

If you don't HAVE to evacuate, you don't evacuate. I praise the crew for only evacuating when it was termed necessary.

(Also, any comparisons to the L1011 that burned everyone are misplaced, since obviously, almost every survived this crash.)

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):
Now now, I'd never run in front of the engine. I might be brash but I ain't stupid.

Thank you for this very informative post. Hopefully that's the end of this discussion w/r/t the captain holding before evacuating.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 144):
You have a landing hard enough that it causes the emergency slides to inflate INSIDE, but let's wait here for a bit, anyway, we'll be fine!!

What incompetence.

Actually, let me ask this:

Respectfully, what is your hurry? If the plane is not on fire (which at that moment it was unknown) why do you need to be out of the plane so fast?

Even in a building fire drill, they teach you to walk NOT RUN to the exits. In an earthquake drill, they teach you not to exit at all (and for the same reason - there are perils outside).

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 149):
but in most cases you are going to have a cabin fire much more quickly.

Most cases?

A crash on landing does not usually result in a fire, especially after a long haul flight. There's not much fuel to burn. Avianca over Long Island, AA in Jamaica, AA in Little Rock, AA in Cali, etc. Hell even US in the Hudson, no fire though it crashed on takeoff.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 155):
As I said earlier, there seems a knowledge to be a gap between the experienced pilots and the laymen.

Some laymen. Definitely not all.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 158):
Ain't that the truth. I threw up in my mouth a little when I saw them post the photos of the Chinese parents of the young girls that were killed. No respect whatsoever.

Actually, I believe that it was Chinese media that had taken those photos of the parents because they included photos of the parents checking in at the Asiana counter in Shanghai. (At least, the ones I saw were that.)

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 07:31:33 and read 30841 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 94):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WczPnDDipKw&feature=player_embedded

In this video you can see just how far away the ambulances go to treat the people who were ejected from the plane. (Second vid, same poster)

Also, I can't see a flashing red light on the UA 744 when it appears in this video. Am I correct that this means they had shut the engines down by then?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-11 07:35:51 and read 30788 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 160):
Procedure doesn't always go according to plan does it?

The evacuation of OZ214 based on the info we know, went according to the procedure. As soon as the flight crew was informed of the nature and extent of the fire, it's evacuate without a doubt. If the fire was inside already when stopped, the procedure does allow for immediate evacuation.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 160):
Now if you crash...I am sure I am not the first pax to think what I have put into words previously.

I'll leave that to the cabin crew to deal with. It's their job   
They should also be taught to know the difference when to follow, and when to say, "oh heck! evacuate"... (eg: Fuselage split open or aircraft ends up on its side). The good news for you is that before each duty cabin and cockpit crew can/would brief each other on this and agree on when it would be OK to just "oh heck get everyone out", as you said, sometimes, there's no way to apply the procedure, but that takes an extremely different situation to what happened to OZ214 (and yes, the FAs can come up with all sorts of 'what ifs' on this issue    ).

Interestingly, we've had several "GTFO" pax panicking after hearing a compressor stall or even seeing it and a tailpipe fire... In each case, an injury occured (usually not limited to the panicking passenger).

Mandala499

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: RL757PVD
Posted 2013-07-11 07:36:41 and read 30850 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 109):
The NTSB briefing did say the PF did convey to them he was temporarily blinded at approximately the 500 ft point by a flash of light.

Am I the only one that saw this an instantly coughed out the word "bull$h!t" ?

Probably saw that as their best out liability wise since lasers and airplanes have been a hot topic here in the US.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 07:41:41 and read 30650 times.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 115):
As the plane was sitting on its belly they couldn't possibly still be attached

See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BA38_Crash.jpg

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 07:47:21 and read 30397 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
Also, I can't see a flashing red light on the UA 744 when it appears in this video.

Does it meet regulations to have a plane full of passengers and crew sitting on a taxiway with no strobe or beacon on, engines running or not?

[Edited 2013-07-11 07:48:49]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2013-07-11 07:51:17 and read 30201 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 164):
If you don't HAVE to evacuate, you don't evacuate. I praise the crew for only evacuating when it was termed necessary.

However, in most crashes, it will be difficult to know when you should or should not evacuate. Even the crew is only making a guess at best. For all you know had some people stayed on the plane longer they would have succumbed to smoke inhalation instead of paralysis.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 07:52:55 and read 30191 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
Am I correct that this means they had shut the engines down by then?

If the post we are assured is real from a relief pilot on that plane is accurate - no the engines were not yet shutdown.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 07:56:21 and read 30111 times.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 167):
Am I the only one that saw this an instantly coughed out the word "bull$h!t" ?

Considering that the sun was probably behind them at that time of day, we don't know what it might have reflected off of on the field. A vehicle moving about perhaps? Another plane? I'm not saying there was anything there, or that it'd be bright enough to cause temporary blindness, but his statement didn't make me cough out the word it did for you.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: garpd
Posted 2013-07-11 07:57:08 and read 30058 times.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 167):

Am I the only one that saw this an instantly coughed out the word "bull$h!t" ?

Nope, that was my reaction too.

However, we can't just claim it to be untrue. Even though it does seem to be extraordinary.

Laser? Please. It's hard enough to train a laser on a moving target 100M away. The final approach to the 28s is a good kilometre off.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 08:00:57 and read 29974 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 172):
A vehicle moving about perhaps?

We can see from the videos that there were at least two vehicles down the runway area near the embankment. Likely maintenance workers between the runways.

A vehicle windshield can reflect a bright light a long way in bright sunlight.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-11 08:01:28 and read 29940 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 164):
If the plane is not on fire (which at that moment it was unknown) why do you need to be out of the plane so fast?

After a crash where there is potentially fuel and sparks and flames and oxygen tanks and oil leaks and hydro fluid all encompassed by fabric/foam of 350 seats and flame retardant carpet all of which that I cannot really see through my 17" seat or through my 1'x1' window the last place I would want to be is in my seat with 350 frantic people around me. I do not think many people need to see flames to know that it is not the safest place to be. I will take the door on the left please, thanks. Keep an eye out for the engine on the right, got it.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-07-11 08:03:34 and read 30223 times.

From the relief F/O on the United 744:

Quote:
On July 6, 2013 at approximately 1827Z I was the 747-400 relief F/O on flt 885, ID326/06 SFO-KIX. I was a witness to the Asiana Flt 214 accident. We had taxied to hold short of runway 28L at SFO on taxiway F, and were waiting to rectify a HAZMAT cargo issue as well as our final weights before we could run our before takeoff checklist and depart. As we waited on taxiway F heading East, just prior to the perpendicular holding area, all three pilots took notice of the Asiana 777 on short final. I noticed the aircraft looked low on glidepath and had a very high deck angle compared to what seemed “normal”. I then noticed at the apparent descent rate and closure to the runway environment the aircraft looked as though it was going to impact the approach lights mounted on piers in the SF Bay. The aircraft made a fairly drastic looking pull up in the last few feet and it appeared and sounded as if they had applied maximum thrust. However the descent path they were on continued and the thrust applied didn't appear to come soon enough to prevent impact. The tail cone and empennage of the 777 impacted the bulkhead seawall and departed the airplane and the main landing gear sheared off instantly. This created a long debris field along the arrival end of 28L, mostly along the right side of 28L. We saw the fuselage, largely intact, slide down the runway and out of view of our cockpit. We heard much confusion and quick instructions from SFO Tower and a few moments later heard an aircraft go around over the runway 28 complex. We realized within a few moments that we were apparently unharmed so I got on the PA and instructed everyone to remain seated and that we were safe.

We all acknowledged if we had been located between Runways 28R and 28L on taxiway F we would have likely suffered damage to the right side aft section of our aircraft from the 777.

Approximately two minutes later I was looking out the left side cockpit windows and noticed movement on the right side of Runway 28L. Two survivors were stumbling but moving abeam the Runway “28L” marking on the North side of the runway. I saw one survivor stand up, walk a few feet, then appear to squat down. The other appeared to be a woman and was walking, then fell off to her side and remained on the ground until rescue personnel arrived. The Captain was on the radio and I told him to tell tower what I had seen, but I ended up taking the microphone instead of relaying through him. I told SFO tower that there appeared to be survivors on the right side of the runway and they needed to send assistance immediately. It seemed to take a very long time for vehicles and assistance to arrive for these victims. The survivors I saw were approximately 1000-1500' away from the fuselage and had apparently been ejected from the fuselage.

We made numerous PAs to the passengers telling them any information we had, which we acknowledged was going to change rapidly, and I left the cockpit to check on the flight attendants and the overall mood of the passengers, as I was the third pilot and not in a control seat. A couple of our flight attendants were shaken up but ALL were doing an outstanding and extremely professional job of handling the passenger's needs and providing calm comfort to them. One of the flight attendants contacted unaccompanied minors' parents to ensure them their children were safe and would be taken care of by our crew. Their demeanor and professionalism during this horrific event was noteworthy. I went to each cabin and spoke to the passengers asking if everyone was OK and if they needed any assistance, and gave them information personally, to include telling them what I saw from the cockpit. I also provided encouragement that we would be OK, we'd tell them everything we learn and to please relax and be patient and expect this is going to be a long wait. The passenger mood was concerned but generally calm. A few individuals were emotional as nearly every passenger on the left side of the aircraft saw the fuselage and debris field going over 100 knots past our aircraft only 300' away. By this point everyone had looked out the windows and could see the smoke plume from the 777. A number of passengers also noticed what I had seen with the survivors out near the end of 28L expressing concern that the rescue effort appeared slow for those individuals that had been separated from the airplane wreckage.

We ultimately had a tug come out and tow us back to the gate, doing a 3 point turn in the hold short area of 28L. We were towed to gate 101 where the passengers deplaned. Captain Jim Abel met us at the aircraft and gave us information he had and asked if we needed any assistance or hotel rooms for the evening. Captain xxxxx and F/O xxxxx went to hotels and I went to my home an hour away in the East Bay.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 08:04:16 and read 30015 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 170):
However, in most crashes, it will be difficult to know when you should or should not evacuate.

Sounds like a good reason to evaluate first.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 170):
For all you know had some people stayed on the plane longer they would have succumbed to smoke inhalation instead of paralysis.

And if the fire is on the outside of the plane's cabin (like where the engines and fuel are), opening the door will ensure smoke inhalation. That's why they evaluate first.

Again, what is the reason that people would prefer the crew not take a moment to determine if evacuation is necessary, given the knowledge that evacuation WILL cause and exacerbate injuries?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-11 08:07:50 and read 30102 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 150):
They did confirm from his interview he called sink rate, and go around, just not when in the sequence. I am thinking they are trying to see where this pops up on the CVR transcript before being specific.

One press report that says that it was in 'the final minute,' Zeke:-

"One of the pilots of Asiana Flight 214 that crashed in San Francisco shouted warnings that were ignored, according to South Korean media.

"Sources in the country's transport ministry confirmed Bong Dong Won - who was in the cockpit jump seat - repeatedly yelled "sink rate" in the final minute before the crash, it was reported.

"If the sink rate - the rate of decrease in altitude - was checked when Mr Bong raised the alarm, it may have prevented the plane from hitting the seawall as it landed at San Francisco Airport, reports said.

"But the two pilots at the controls - Lee Kang Kuk and his instructor Lee Jung Min - apparently did not respond to Mr Bong's shouted warnings, the respected Joongang Daily newspaper said."


http://news.sky.com/story/1113782/sa...cisco-crash-pilot-warnings-ignored

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 08:24:28 and read 29577 times.

Well the top story on CNN today is: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/asi...irlines-calls/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

No ambulances...pretty damning. I'd like to see the report on the first responders. Eh, I guess there won't be.

Quote:
"First responders were on the scene two minutes after the crash to tend to the injured, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said Wednesday. About a minute later, there were firefighters equipped to douse the flames."

Then what happened that some people were left on the runway or taxiway 20 minutes???

Quoting D L X (Reply 164):
Do this trick

I'll pass. I'm usually the first one off...walking briskly on my way, lol.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 166):
If the fire was inside already when stopped, the procedure does allow for immediate evacuation.

Hmmmmmmmm........................................................................................................................

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-07-11 08:27:21 and read 29375 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 154):
. I haven't seen anything about the position of the engine master switches.

Why would it matter where the switches are in this instance? The APU was sheared off with the tail section and both engines were separated in the crash. You can flip those switches all day long and it would change a thing with what is going on with the separated parts.

After such a dramatic crash there is no reason for the FA's to not begin an immediate evacuation. For all they know the cockpit crew is incapacitated and the situation was obviously dire inside. Smoke, flames and seeing daylight would be enough of a cue to get out of the plane.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 08:36:25 and read 29068 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 180):
For all they know the cockpit crew is incapacitated

The captain came on the PA and told everyone to remain in their seats.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Dogbreath
Posted 2013-07-11 08:41:33 and read 28994 times.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 167):
Am I the only one that saw this an instantly coughed out the word "bull$h!t" ?

You're not alone on that analysis of his excuse. I quite agree.

If you lose sight of the runway (lights in your eyes, laser beam in your face, or low cloud or fog) then you go-around. Simple!! But how on earth does that even attempt to explain the loss of airspeed?

Whatever happened to basic airman skills. Aimpoint, Aspect, Airspeed. T'was drummed into me countless times during initial days of flight training. Truly unbelievable and negligent to allow airspeed to decay so much on final, without anyone on the flightdeck monitoring. Reminds me of the Turkish B738 at Schiphol. Who's flying the airplane?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 08:50:51 and read 28705 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 180):
After such a dramatic crash there is no reason for the FA's to not begin an immediate evacuation.

Honestly, I am getting the impression from people posting comments such as this that people generally do not believe that evacuations are very dangerous, but rather believe that being on a plane after a crash inherently is.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: moo
Posted 2013-07-11 08:51:23 and read 28652 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 180):
Why would it matter where the switches are in this instance? The APU was sheared off with the tail section and both engines were separated in the crash. You can flip those switches all day long and it would change a thing with what is going on with the separated parts.

The systems in question are more than just what is hung on the wings and in the tail cone - flipping the master switches may kill power to pumps, close valves, disable hydraulics and oil flow etc etc which all could be done through battery power rather than requiring the engines still to be attached and generating power.

This may restrict fuel flow in various ways, limiting spillage and the spread of fire on the ground etc.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 08:52:27 and read 28670 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 180):
Why would it matter where the switches are in this instance?

Because it is the checklist. And the pilots in the cockpit had no knowledge at that point that any of those were detached from the aircraft. If those switches are in the off position it indicates they followed the CORRECT procedure - not just making something up to deal with the emergency.

That all three fire suppression systems indicates they likely followed the checklist.

When pilots ignore checklists - we have situations like AF447.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-11 09:02:33 and read 28399 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 164):
(Also, any comparisons to the L1011 that burned everyone are misplaced, since obviously, almost every survived this crash.)

Not only that, but there were several other factors in the L1011 incident that make it very different to this one (for one, they knew they were on fire long before landing, and the cabin remained pressurized after landing which would have made it difficult to open doors).

Quoting hivue (Reply 169):
Does it meet regulations to have a plane full of passengers and crew sitting on a taxiway with no strobe or beacon on, engines running or not?

It can. Our beacon light can be MELed if it's not working. There's no legal requirement to have it.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 180):
After such a dramatic crash there is no reason for the FA's to not begin an immediate evacuation. For all they know the cockpit crew is incapacitated and the situation was obviously dire inside. Smoke, flames and seeing daylight would be enough of a cue to get out of the plane.

If they'd tried calling the flight crew and got no answer, then it's their decision to evacuate or not. But they did get an answer.

-Mir

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-07-11 09:11:46 and read 28062 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 111):
I call BS on this evac as well. What was really going on in that cockpit?!

Maybe the pilots were dazed, and wondered if they were still alive. Or flying through the pearly gates, waiting to be reunited with God.


David

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-11 09:11:46 and read 28143 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 178):
"If the sink rate - the rate of decrease in altitude - was checked when Mr Bong raised the alarm, it may have prevented the plane from hitting the seawall as it landed at San Francisco Airport, reports said.
"But the two pilots at the controls - Lee Kang Kuk and his instructor Lee Jung Min - apparently did not respond to Mr Bong's shouted warnings, the respected Joongang Daily newspaper said."

I am not sure why this is not being talked about more in US domestic media. If this is true, I think this is a big statement that cabin resource management did not function as intended and the other Korean crashes in Guam and other with similar circumstances in the late '90s did not cause the lessons to be learned. This may indeed be a key point.

Quoting D L X (Reply 183):
Honestly, I am getting the impression from people posting comments such as this that people generally do not believe that evacuations are very dangerous, but rather believe that being on a plane after a crash inherently is.

I'll take a 100% chance of a broken arm or a leg over a 10% chance of being dead. Maybe others prefer to gamble.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-07-11 09:13:21 and read 28057 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 184):
The systems in question are more than just what is hung on the wings and in the tail cone - flipping the master switches may kill power to pumps, close valves, disable hydraulics and oil flow etc etc which all could be done through battery power rather than requiring the engines still to be attached and generating power.



I thought in a previous reply (way up line) or NTSB comment that the "Fire Handles" had been pulled which I guess would be what you are calling "master switches". However, I don't think any of the functions you're talking about are available when you're down to battery power.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: frmrcapcadet
Posted 2013-07-11 09:16:28 and read 27896 times.

res: Is the timeline getting clearer? answer NO. It is getting more complex and complete

There are a lot of timelines
The two recorders on the plane are the most accurate
The spotter video provides a lot on info, is objective and likely very accurate
Every passenger and crew member has their own timeline. There will be inaccuracies, but still valuable
Rescue people will have their timeline

NTSB is putting these timelines together. A very difficult and complex task.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cloudboy
Posted 2013-07-11 09:16:28 and read 27894 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 183):
Honestly, I am getting the impression from people posting comments such as this that people generally do not believe that evacuations are very dangerous, but rather believe that being on a plane after a crash inherently is.

I think most people think that both are inherently very dangerous situations and no matter what there is very likely to be some injuries involved. Yes there are a few cases where everything is fine on the aircraft, and no fires break out. but fires come from more than just engine fuel, and the problem isn't that there is a fire at all, its that a fire in a metal tube heats up fast, burns quick, and fills the cabin up with toxic smoke so that even if one does not get burned by the fire, one may be incapacitated. Even in this case the lead flight attendant could not check to see if everyone got out OK because of the smoke.

I don't have a problem with a very quick assessment. But a minute and a half is far too long - you need a judgement call, not an analysis. And again, if the engines are the problem, then address THAT issue, not avoiding having people exit the plane.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-07-11 09:18:09 and read 27881 times.

Everybody getting their panties caught in a bunch- In hindsight, the evacuation worked as it should and everybody made it out of the plane before the fire so chill the eff out folks!

Quoting liquidair (Reply 125):
it's interesting... The bbc interviewed one of the passengers as they came off, an indian looking guy.

he amazed me by saying he didn't realise how bad it was, that it just felt like a hard landing...

I'm just relaying what was said- any one else see that interview?

if the passenger was that oblivious, it may be down to seating plan... The rear would've known, but the front?

a good call yo assess things first IMO. The fire was obviously a red line however.

I actually agree with you. There was the other guy seated in Business class with a shoulder strap who kinda said the same thing (Mr Rah was his name). He said he braced for impact and before he knew it, they were sitting still. I think the folks up-front didn't get the blunt of it.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-11 09:33:43 and read 27453 times.

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 98):
I don't think it's fair to assume the flight crew knew the engines had fallen off. There would have been a lot of shock and confusion in the cockpit and one would hope that their training meant that they had to consider if it was safer for the passengers to stay onboard or evacuate (On QF32 the passengers were kept onboard for an hour I think). The captain is responsible for all lives onboard and he has to make what he thinks is the right decision at the time. Whether he was wrong or not isn't the point, he just needs to demonstrate his thinking based on the facts he had at the time.

I have a lot of respect for many of you that are trying to justify the failure to evacuate immediately. I just don't agree in this situation. The plane hit the sea wall and flipped around, almost completely in midair, nearly 360 degrees. Evacuation should have begun immediately. As a passenger, I would have been heading to the exit with passengers around me in tow (unless I needed to assist someone near me). To say that the pilots were in shock is a red herring. They didn't even know they were flying an airplane into the ground until seconds before. Their behavior after the crash is germane especially since it APPEARS, at this point, that this may ultimately be an example of CRM and training.

There is a reason the certification of evacuating an airplane must be 90 seconds, and why F/As are taught to assess the situation immediately after a MAJOR incident. We're not talking about an emergency landing or a blown tire here. This plane was a horror-show-of-destruction inside the cabin AND the plane, flipped in the air, and the sound alone of the destruction of the tail cone and landing gear certainly must have been enough to realize that getting out the plane immediately was of upmost priority. There could very well have been a much bigger and faster fire - they were very lucky.

IMO the F/As should have been opening the doors immediately after assessing there was no fire outside their particular exit. Whether they didn't do it immediately because they were frantically trying to puncture the two slides that inflated inside the cabin, would to me, be completely understandable. In addition, clearly several doors should not have been opened and were not, which is critical. I heard that one F/A had to prevent an evacuation from one door because it would not have been safe. That is also impressive and how they are trained. But, could we have some cultural factors at place that may have played a role in waiting for direction from the pilots in this particularly rough crash landing? Whether it turns out to be a factor or not, you can certainly bet the NTSB will look into it, as it will everything. Overall, however, the F/A crew did an OUTSTANDING job, and I was horrified to see them at the press conference. It was very sad and unnecessary.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: DUSdude
Posted 2013-07-11 09:35:58 and read 27541 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 164):
Hell even US in the Hudson, no fire though it crashed on takeoff.

IIRC, in the US Hudson incident there was some genius passenger who fought a flight attendant and managed against her resistance to partially open one of the rear doors which was partially submerged, thereby allowing the plane to unnecessarily take on more water more quickly, endangering everyone on board. Another reason why pax should not self-initiate evacuations.

As to the reports of the "sink rate" call by one of the jump seaters, 54 seconds before impact would seem to coincide with that period of rapid descent, when the crew was trying to correct for being above glideslope and too fast, earlier in the approach. I think this is a red herring, as it seems well before they completely botched the approach. The issue is rather why nobody in the jump seats alerted the PF about the decaying airspeed *after* he had recovered from the excessive sink rate.

[Edited 2013-07-11 09:48:30]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AirCalSNA
Posted 2013-07-11 09:48:50 and read 26997 times.

Is anyone else skeptical of the pilot's claim that he was momentarily "blinded" by an unidentified "flash of light"? It sounds so much like after-the-fact grasping at excuses--very disappointing.

Also disappointing to me, as an SF resident, were the passengers' 911 calls complaining about how long it was taking emergency personnel to get there. It just seems so representative of the entitled, impatient mentality of the typical Bay Area resident.

This whole crash is becoming a bad soap opera.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 09:53:56 and read 26808 times.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 195):

Is anyone else skeptical of the pilot's claim that he was momentarily "blinded" by an unidentified "flash of light"?

Read from reply #167 downwards. There were a few posts discussing both sides of that question.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-07-11 09:58:19 and read 26685 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):QF32 didn't lose the landing gear, crash land, do a half somersault in the air, and crush the whole lower fuselage. Flame me all you want. Yes I am saying what I would have done, take the lead and GTFO.Enjoy some countries' prisons if you do that!

A prison bunk is far preferable to a mortuary slab.

Quoting hivue (Reply 168):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 115):As the plane was sitting on its belly they couldn't possibly still be attachedSee this:

Exactly the BA plane with engines still on has the cockpit way above ground level. Your photo just proves my point.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-07-11 10:02:37 and read 26582 times.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 167):
Am I the only one that saw this an instantly coughed out the word "bull$h!t" ?

He just said he was blinded by "a light" (or at least this is how it was translated), not necessarily a laser. Haven't you ever been driving around in the sun and been temporarily blinded by a reflection off another car's mirror, a street sign or something else?

Who knows if it had any effect on the accident, but it's not so unbelievable. And it is possible that it could have caused an afterimage that would have made it difficult for him to see whatever instrument he was looking directly at for 20-30 seconds.

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 151):
My god, really? you want a hundred EMTs sitting around an airport waiting for a crash?

It's actually an FAA requirement that airports have provisions for medical services for the maximum number of passengers carried on the largest commercial transport that the airport could reasonably be expected to serve. If an airport serves A380's, then it needs to have a plan to provide emergency response medical services for 500 or more passengers at the same time. That doesn't mean 500 EMT's sitting around at the airport waiting for a crash, but there has to be a plan to get medical response teams from *somewhere* to the crash site to treat every single passenger within a certain reasonable time frame considering the types of injuries a person might suffer in an accident. No one should be waiting 20 minutes on the runway at a major airport for an ambulance (if that did happen), especially when there really weren't all that many critical injuries relative to the size of the aircraft.

One caveat is that the regulation says "to the extent practicable", however I don't believe anyone would accept SFO saying it wasn't "practicable" to have a proper emergency response (if the response turns out to have been flawed, which I'm not implying is fact). That caveat is thrown in there for remote airports that are capable of but don't regularly handle very large airplanes, which wouldn't apply to SFO. SFO expects and gets 777's and larger aircraft every day, and it is in the middle of a well developed area and serves a large city.

The response will definitely be looked at by the NTSB.

Quoting D L X (Reply 177):
Again, what is the reason that people would prefer the crew not take a moment to determine if evacuation is necessary, given the knowledge that evacuation WILL cause and exacerbate injuries?

Not only the evacuation itself, but just standing around outside an airplane on the runway is not a safe place to be, especially when you've got massive fire trucks and other vehicles speeding around, not to mention other planes. The safety cards and briefings in airplanes always say to just "run away from the aircraft" in an evacuation, but to where? There's nowhere you can run to that's safe.

*Unless there is a fire*, the safest place to be is inside the airplane. And in this case, the pilots evacuated when they saw the fire developing, which sounds right to me.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-11 10:13:24 and read 26172 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 121):
The flight and cabin crew have extensive training in emergency procedures. The pax do not. Who do you think knows better?

I think most cabin crew would have commenced evacuation immediately in this instance, and if I had been seated in an exit row, I would have assisted, as I would have been asked before the flight, to get passenger the f**k out of the airplane, provided there was no fire outside the exit. This plane was crushed, and as an experienced flyer who has been in the industry for 25 years, it would have been obvious (unless I were injured or in major shock) to evacuate immediately.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-07-11 10:19:56 and read 26029 times.

Quoting DUSdude (Reply 194):
As to the reports of the "sink rate" call by one of the jump seaters, 54 seconds before impact would seem to coincide with that period of rapid descent, when the crew was trying to correct for being above glideslope and too fast, earlier in the approach. I think this is a red herring, as it seems well before they completely botched the approach. The issue is rather why nobody in the jump seats alerted the PF about the decaying airspeed *after* he had recovered from the excessive sink rate.



I agree, maybe he should have been calling "airspeed, airspeed". Interesting to note there has been no mention of the GPWS announcing "sink rate, sink rate" yet, which would indicate that the GPWS sink rate conditions were never met and no "excessive" sink rate occurred.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2013-07-11 10:22:51 and read 25859 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 198):
No one should be waiting 20 minutes on the runway at a major airport for an ambulance (if that did happen), especially when there really weren't all that many critical injuries relative to the size of the aircraft.

Not really true. Even in the best case scenario, it's unlikely that more than about 50 ambulances would be mobilized to handle such a mass casualty situation. There simply aren't enough resources around to mobilize more. Keeping in mind that you can't pull all ambulances off of their regular duties...some may already be on calls and cannot abandon their existing patients while others are needed if new calls come in.

Standard mass casualty triage routine applies in this case. First responders try to identify all those involved and tag them either black (dead or very close to it), red (severely injured), yellow (moderately injured) and green (minimal or no injury). My ballpark guess puts this accident at about 50 red tags, 100 yellow tags and 150 green tags. Given those numbers and assuming 50 ambulances, only those with red tags would have gotten quick care (less than 10 minutes after accident). Many of those with yellow tags would have gotten care in the 10-20 minute timeframe. However some of the yellow and the green would likely have to wait more than 20 minutes, however that is ok given that people in those categories generally don't have life threatening injuries (or any injuries at all).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-07-11 10:26:33 and read 25809 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 184):
The systems in question are more than just what is hung on the wings and in the tail cone - flipping the master switches may kill power to pumps, close valves, disable hydraulics and oil flow etc etc which all could be done through battery power rather than requiring the engines still to be attached and generating power.

Do you know where those Hyd valves are closed? In THIS case the switch flipping and fire handle pulling did nothing to alleviate any potential fire. Even IF the valves were closed inside the fuselage there is no guarantee they would actually work in this case and with separation of the engine you have fluid between your mysterious switches in the airframe and engine itself. What you guys are doing is making a big deal about switches that make little difference in a situation such as this. If the plane hasn't been pulled apart as it was in this situation those are perfectly good answers.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 185):
Because it is the checklist. And the pilots in the cockpit had no knowledge at that point that any of those were detached from the aircraft. If those switches are in the off position it indicates they followed the CORRECT procedure - not just making something up to deal with the emergency.

If you want to talk about following procedures, how about a procedure to NOT get slow and slam into the seawall? There is probably a mandatory go around in their book also. There is probably guidance to call for a go around at REF vent the need to use that checklist. I get the impression you want to herald these guys are heroes because they followed a checklist after crashing.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-07-11 10:26:49 and read 25793 times.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 195):
Also disappointing to me, as an SF resident, were the passengers' 911 calls complaining about how long it was taking emergency personnel to get there. I

There seems to be a feeling that the emergency services should have predicted the crash and been rolling while the plane was still in the air... Further I don't know how many ambulances and aid cars are at the airport, but having dealt with airport area traffic it's going to take a few minutes to get them to the scene.. on the other side the adrenaline makes time seem slower than it is so 20 minutes waits may have only been 5 minutes.

RE jumping up and leading the charge to the exits, considering that the FA's are instrumental is evacuations, I would allow them to get in position first if they're able.. of course sitting in a recliner at home we always have much clearer self expectations than if we were sitting in that plane.

RE engines .. once was a passenger on an F-27 that made an emergency landing and was told to pop the emergency door .. looking out the props were still turning at what appeared in our panic to be inches away from the door.. needless to say we exited to the rear.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rbgso
Posted 2013-07-11 10:30:00 and read 25709 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 198):
He just said he was blinded by "a light" (or at least this is how it was translated), not necessarily a laser. Haven't you ever been driving around in the sun and been temporarily blinded by a reflection off another car's mirror, a street sign or something else?

In which case wouldn't the proper course of action be to inform the FO that you have a vision problem and it's his airplane?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Highflier92660
Posted 2013-07-11 10:32:01 and read 25697 times.

Re: The 90 second delay for evacuation was because the cockpit was coordinating with SFO tower? Aside from the astonishing lapse in judgement, is anyone else amazed that this Boeing 777-200ER still had any electrical power left (albeit on the 28v DC battery and hot battery buses) for radio and PA cabin communication? They sure weren't getting any 120 KVA power from the engines, one sheared off and one laying by the fuselage. I believe you can also see what looks like an APU sitting at the approach end of 28L. Boeing sure builds tough birds.

This hapless delay for evacuation also harkens back to the JAL flight 2 landing in 1968. After the DC-8-62 landed in San Francisco Bay the passengers sat in a coal black cabin. A JAL purser attempted to quell the panic by loudly announcing, "everybody remain calm! We are at the bottom of the ocean!!"

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-11 10:37:03 and read 25530 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 160):
I respect the pilots, their professionalism, and the informed posters whose posts I very much enjoy reading: zeke, mandala499, starlionblue, and I could consider it a privilege to be on-board an aircraft piloted by them. Now if you crash...I am sure I am not the first pax to think what I have put into words previously.

I agree ....

Quoting D L X (Reply 164):
Respectfully, what is your hurry? If the plane is not on fire (which at that moment it was unknown) why do you need to be out of the plane so fast?

This is a bit illogical. If you believe this, then taking your hand luggage with you (especially if its lying in the aisle blocking people) would be fine?

I'm a bit perplexed at the people who eviscerate passengers for being in shock (and apparently too stupid to assess a crash and get out of the plane) with crew members who are in shock and therefore should be given some slack. Crew members are trained to follow certain procedures, and they may have done it here, but as others have pointed out, this was not an emergency landing, it was a crash landing where pieces of the aircraft were strewn 1,500 feet down the runway and into the dirt, after an airborne 320 degree tea-cup ride. Crew members are also trained that some of the SOPs cannot be followed exactly as written. They are trained to assess the situation immediately and take appropriate action. Those who had clear exits and not assisting the trapped cabin crew should have had those doors opened very quickly.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: thesultanofwing
Posted 2013-07-11 10:47:26 and read 25196 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):

I would say no to being able to see the engines unless the cockpit windows are opened to lean out.

At least one of the cockpit windows are open......wonder who opened these?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-11 10:49:16 and read 25162 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 183):
Honestly, I am getting the impression from people posting comments such as this that people generally do not believe that evacuations are very dangerous, but rather believe that being on a plane after a crash inherently is.

Sorry bud, but I think that is a silly remark. Of course, evacuations are dangerous, but I just did an airborne 320 degree spin after hitting a rock wall in an airplane that now is a complete disaster inside. My most immediate concern is getting out of a potentially burning aircraft that has over 300 people that need to get out of three or four doors. This is the first time I've ever disagreed with some of the people I most respect on this site. However, you guys are pilots and tech guys, I'm a marketing and analyst guy. My analysis says, "make sure there is no fire outside the exit, and get the door open and get people out." We did just crash and, btw, there was fire immediately. Whether it engulfed the cabin in 20 seconds or 20 minutes is irrelevant here. Just because no one burned to death or died of smoke inhalation is more luck that SOP. As a trained professional and a frequent flyer, I would have certainly expected fire or smoke to be my biggest obstacle to remaining alive after living through flipping down runway. I'll take my chances outside and I'll encourage others around me to as well.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: aztrainer
Posted 2013-07-11 10:49:53 and read 25133 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 179):
No ambulances...pretty damning. I'd like to see the report on the first responders. Eh, I guess there won't be.

Really, I do not think that that is the case as there is only a limited about of EMS available at any airport. Then you have to have other called and transfer via traffic and specific locations of the airport to get to the scene. They also had to transition taxiways and other areas that are controlled to get to the scene.

I have worked with EMS before and it has taken 10 - 15 minutes for them to roll up to the scene when their station due to traffic.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 179):
Then what happened that some people were left on the runway or taxiway 20 minutes???

Triage, You deal with the most significantly injured first and then move down from there. If there is a limited amount of paramedics you can only do and see so many people. just because a person is a FF dose not mean that they are a paramedic. Again, due to the location (end of a runway at SFO) I think a 20 minute response time is good. Also the fact that there are so few casualties is a testament of the response also.

When arriving at the scene you do not simply rush into the location without scouting and reading the scene. The safety of the first responders is/are a priority as if something happens to a the paramedics they cannot assist anyone else.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: martinair50
Posted 2013-07-11 10:52:44 and read 25108 times.

Quoting Norcal773,topic 7:

Jesus- These idiots on CNN are re-enacting the landing with some type of High wing small airplane! WTF!

Hahaha a Cessna 172, very clever, CNN! They could have better used this existing footage of a KL 772 landing on 28L:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQGpYY8Omz4

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: RottenRay
Posted 2013-07-11 10:53:59 and read 25123 times.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 205):
This hapless delay for evacuation also harkens back to the JAL flight 2 landing in 1968. After the DC-8-62 landed in San Francisco Bay the passengers sat in a coal black cabin. A JAL purser attempted to quell the panic by loudly announcing, "everybody remain calm! We are at the bottom of the ocean!!"

Urban myth much? Photos don't support you or your alleged quote. http://www.dc-8jet.com/Images/jal-dc862-in-sf-bay1.jpg

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2013-07-11 10:57:28 and read 24964 times.

Quoting dank (Reply 17):
My experience is that some of my flights from Europe come in down the bay and a take a clockwise turn into the landing pattern like described here. However, all my flights from Asia have come in directly over SFO and made a counterclockwise turn into the landing pattern as was described for this flight (presumably the former for 28R and the latter for 28L).

Most flights from Asia landing on the 28s come from the north down over the airport or the coast and swing over the bay for landing.

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 57):
How common are GA aircraft at SFO, in general?

As common in any other major US airport.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 179):
No ambulances...pretty damning. I'd like to see the report on the first responders. Eh, I guess there won't be.

The location of the crash was pretty far away from the terminals. Also the airport doesn't have a fleet of ambulances, it relies on San Mateo County to assist with that.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: nutsaboutplanes
Posted 2013-07-11 10:58:27 and read 24987 times.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 63):
Even though Deb kept her composure, you could tell that she was disturbed about the whole waiting 90 seconds before ordering an evacuation thing.

I just got a chance to watch the brief and noticed the same thing. While she is extremely professional, she does drop some hints.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-11 10:58:37 and read 24932 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 202):
I get the impression you want to herald these guys are heroes because they followed a checklist after crashing.

No, just not blame them for more than they did wrong.

-Mir

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-11 10:59:20 and read 25062 times.

Quoting garpd (Reply 173):
Laser? Please. It's hard enough to train a laser on a moving target 100M away. The final approach to the 28s is a good kilometre off.

I've had hand held lasers been pointed and tracked me for several continuous seconds whilst climbing at 6000ft or so... and it was at night. Such a feat is not impossible or too hard to someone who's 'used to doing it'. Whether someone did blind the crew or not is a separate issue. Thence...

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 195):
Is anyone else skeptical of the pilot's claim that he was momentarily "blinded" by an unidentified "flash of light"? It sounds so much like after-the-fact grasping at excuses--very disappointing.

As ridiculous as it sounds, it needs to be seen and investigated. While it does not provide an excuse for the departure from stable approach profile, it can provide explanations as to the delays or ineffective timing of the crew's reaction in the situation.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 193):
and why F/As are taught to assess the situation immediately after a MAJOR incident.

Yes, as per the procedure, which includes follow instructions from the cockpit, and assess while waiting for further instructions, make one attempt at contacting the cockpit if there is a need for immediate evacuation, initiate if unable to contact... inform the cockpit that the cabin is being evacuated if the cockpit seems to not understand the situation at the back.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 193):
But, could we have some cultural factors at place that may have played a role in waiting for direction from the pilots in this particularly rough crash landing?

No. The procedure is, wait for instructions, assess, if immediate evacuation is required, make ONE attempt at contacting the cockpit, if that is unsuccessful, initiate evacuation...
This is NOT a cultural issue, it is written in the cabin evacuation procedure for the FAs in airlines around the world (haven't seen the manuals for US airlines though, so maybe US isn't on that list).

The training follows that procedure.

Anyone care to guess the procedure I stated above is from which airline?

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 193):
Overall, however, the F/A crew did an OUTSTANDING job,

By following the evacuations procedure and their training.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 199):
I think most cabin crew would have commenced evacuation immediately in this instance

Not necessarily. But, if there's a crack in the fuselage that is visible from the cabin crew's position (excluding those who were ejected from the aircraft during the crash... evacuation would be immediate as it became apparent the structure has been compromised therefore fire risk is significantly higher than otherwise. At the time there was no way of knowing that the FAs at the back had been thrown out of the aircraft, or injured (and those at the back that remained were injured if I remember correctly). So it appeared to the cockpit and the top end of the cabin chain of command that the fuselage was in tact, hence the alert phase remained. Seeing the fire develop saw an end to that.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 202):
In THIS case the switch flipping and fire handle pulling did nothing to alleviate any potential fire.

It is standard procedure for crashes...

Quoting mcdu (Reply 202):
What you guys are doing is making a big deal about switches that make little difference in a situation such as this. If the plane hasn't been pulled apart as it was in this situation those are perfectly good answers.

They are not made up procedures. It came from the manufacturers and/or had manufacturer approval.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 202):
If you want to talk about following procedures, how about a procedure to NOT get slow and slam into the seawall?

What do you expect them to do then? Just screw everything and not follow the evacuations procedure just because they didn't follow the procedure of "don't crash"?

Mandala499

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 11:05:43 and read 24880 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 202):
I get the impression you want to herald these guys are heroes because they followed a checklist after crashing.

I really get a kick out of that sentiment.    It's like some of the posters on here will be on the flight deck for 30 minutes reading through their checklists burning up, whilst all the passengers are long gone.   

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 205):
This hapless delay for evacuation also harkens back to the JAL flight 2 landing in 1968. After the DC-8-62 landed in San Francisco Bay the passengers sat in a coal black cabin. A JAL purser attempted to quell the panic by loudly announcing, "everybody remain calm! We are at the bottom of the ocean!!"

  

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2013-07-11 11:08:34 and read 24770 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 203):
There seems to be a feeling that the emergency services should have predicted the crash and been rolling while the plane was still in the air... Further I don't know how many ambulances and aid cars are at the airport, but having dealt with airport area traffic it's going to take a few minutes to get them to the scene.. on the other side the adrenaline makes time seem slower than it is so 20 minutes waits may have only been 5 minutes.

Exactly...the fire station was about a mile away an they trucks were there within a few minutes of the alert going out.

SFO Superbay ARFF Station

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-07-11 11:15:26 and read 24736 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 102):
Enough time for some of the pax to gather their hand baggage and duty-free bags! These people (the pax who did this) should be court-martialled for putting others' lives at risk!
Quoting sankaps (Reply 105):
Don't know if any amount of safety briefings would help such clueless or self-centered passengers.

I've wanted to comment on this for a few days - but have not been able to find the time. As a fireman, I can tell you that people at the scene of emergencies/crashes are often not rational or aware of what they are doing. These people may be grabbing stuff because that is what they do when the disembark from an a/c.

Trust me - I've seen plenty of cases where people simply do not have a handle on what just happened and what they should do. It can range from panic to acting like nothing happened - getting off the plane with your carry-on because you always get off the plane with your carry-on (trained by messages to 'check your seat and make sure you have all your personal belongings).

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 111):
I'm wondering how the cockpit crew is supposed to assess the outside conditions, when they can't even see the engines from their position anyway...

They look at what they have in the way of instrumentation and also communicate with the cabin crew. As has been noted the cabin crew can initiate evacuation if need be.

Emergency scenes are chaotic, frightening, confusing and dynamic. The ONLY way we, who respond to them, manage is by training. Say what you will - but those who are not trained will react, generally, poorly. Yes - there will be an individual or two who can step up to the plate - but they often have some kind of background in emergency response.

Quoting zeke (Reply 114):
Emergency evacuations are something that crew do not do consider lightly, people almost always get hurt during the process. My guess is that the crew were following procedures not being able to assess the outside condition of the aircraft to contact ATC to see if they could tell them what they could see.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 117):
It's not only running engines. It is fire, debris, etc..

Accident scenes are dangerous. The FIRST thing we do as emergency responders arriving is determine - is the scene safe enough for us to approach/enter. If not - what do we need to do make it safe. Of course - what is "safe" is relative - what is safe for a fire fighter in gear is deadly for a person in street clothes.

Quoting garpd (Reply 122):
People do silly things in a panic.
That is why it is important to assert authority in an emergency situation. Panicked people will tend to listen to someone who sounds like they are in charge.

I run a volunteer fire department. One of the things we train on is that you gear up before you respond - even if you are responding in a personal vehicle (which is often the case), for 2 reasons. 1) safety. 2) authority.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 144):
You have a landing hard enough that it causes the emergency slides to inflate INSIDE, but let's wait here for a bit, anyway, we'll be fine!!
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 154):
Not everyone recovers and responds at the same speed after a major shock to their system in a crash.

  

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 11:26:31 and read 24416 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 206):
This is a bit illogical. If you believe this, then taking your hand luggage with you (especially if its lying in the aisle blocking people) would be fine?

Actually, that is the strange leap to a conclusion.

But you did not actually answer the question. Why do you need to be out of the plane so fast? Do you believe the plane is going to explode?

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 206):
but as others have pointed out, this was not an emergency landing, it was a crash landing where pieces of the aircraft were strewn 1,500 feet down the runway and into the dirt, after an airborne 320 degree tea-cup ride.

Same question. Why do you need to be out of the plane so fast? The plane is not crashING, it has crashED -- and the event is over unless there is a fire. Evacuation _adds_ to the event, it does not take away from it. All those people with crush injuries (100+) should only be moved if staying put is dangerous.

Maybe an analogy is in order. What if you got into a wreck on an expressway. Do you immediately get out of your car... and stand in the middle of the expressway? Or do you stay put and wait for assistance? Chances are, unless your car was on fire, you will stay put and wait for assistance. That's what happens every day, and it makes sense because after the wreck, the wrecking event is over -- unless a fire is present requiring additional action. But you and I both know that getting out of the car and standing on the freeway would *increase* your exposure to danger.

Why different for planes?

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 208):
Of course, evacuations are dangerous, but I just did an airborne 320 degree spin after hitting a rock wall in an airplane that now is a complete disaster inside.

Unless there is a fire or you just ditched, what is going to happen to the people sitting on a plane on the ground that is not in motion?

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 208):
My most immediate concern is getting out of a potentially burning aircraft that has over 300 people that need to get out of three or four doors.

POTENTIALLY burning! That's why a crew checks for fire before evacuating. If fire then evacuate.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: dfanucci
Posted 2013-07-11 11:31:52 and read 24413 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 201):
Standard mass casualty triage routine applies in this case. First responders try to identify all those involved and tag them either black (dead or very close to it), red (severely injured), yellow (moderately injured) and green (minimal or no injury). My ballpark guess puts this accident at about 50 red tags, 100 yellow tags and 150 green tags. Given those numbers and assuming 50 ambulances, only those with red tags would have gotten quick care (less than 10 minutes after accident). Many of those with yellow tags would have gotten care in the 10-20 minute timeframe. However some of the yellow and the green would likely have to wait more than 20 minutes, however that is ok given that people in those categories generally don't have life threatening injuries (or any injuries at all).

Exactly.

As a former Firefighter/EMT, I think another quick thing to note is, most personnel on Firefighting apparatus are cross-trained as EMT or EMT/Medic's. Just because no Ambulance is on scene, it does not mean that EMT's are not as well.

The amount of processing a Firefighter/EMT has to do responding to a situation like this is staggering...

[Edited 2013-07-11 11:33:26]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-11 11:32:13 and read 24303 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 215):
Yes, as per the procedure, which includes follow instructions from the cockpit, and assess while waiting for further instructions, make one attempt at contacting the cockpit if there is a need for immediate evacuation, initiate if unable to contact... inform the cockpit that the cabin is being evacuated if the cockpit seems to not understand the situation at the back.

Just because they were lucky and an evacuation did not have to be done in 90 seconds does not mean that they did what they were suppose to. I understand completely why we have the procedures, and I understand why they are in place and why they have been perfected over the decades. They work. However, everyone knows that professionals are also trained to make decisions under very difficult circumstances that may be critical to life and death, regardless of the SOP. I think most people on this site who disagree with Mandala, Zeke, et. al., people I respect most on this site when getting information about what has actually happened, understand that after a crash as severe as this one, getting out of the aircraft as quickly and safely as possible was utmost.

The perfect evacuation procedure may have been done, but we'll see. I would not be surprised if the NTSB ultimately suggests improvements that should be made in determining how quickly the evacuation should have begun under the circumstances which occurred here.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 11:49:05 and read 24005 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221):
Just because they were lucky and an evacuation did not have to be done in 90 seconds does not mean that they did what they were suppose to.

But isn't it the case that if the evacuation HAD to be done in 90 seconds, they would have?

You're talking about a hypothetical situation that did not occur, and complaining that the crew didn't react to the hypothetical situation.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221):
I think most people on this site who disagree with Mandala, Zeke, et. al., people I respect most on this site when getting information about what has actually happened, understand that after a crash as severe as this one, getting out of the aircraft as quickly and safely as possible was utmost.

You respect them for a reason -- they are pilots of large airliners, expected to be the most knowledgeable of all of us on this subject -- and they are all speaking in unison on this issue.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221):
I would not be surprised if the NTSB ultimately suggests improvements

If the NTSB suggests improvements, that does not suggest that the crew got it wrong.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-07-11 11:53:57 and read 23981 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 119):
So what's next to know? The flight crew is possibly incapacitated? The pilots could have very well been dead...crushed. Yes, let me wait for their instruction.

They made an announcement from the cockpit. Perhaps you weren't listening?

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 141):
I also saw that Indian guy say something like "it was quite a hard landing". No kidding! I saw the video of the plane spinning around in a cloud of debris and losing it's tail, engines and wings.

With the number of people that walked away unhurt, it clearly could have been perceived as less serious than it was by some.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 154):
Not everyone recovers and responds at the same speed after a major shock to their system in a crash.

I think it'd be interesting to take some of us posters here, put us in a crash simulator, and shake and spin the hell out of us - unexpectedly - and then see what happens. I'd think there'd be some who'd struggle to scratch their nose, let alone assess the situation properly.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 155):
I guess I'm getting old but I have learned to listen to those with experience and education in their fields when it comes to their fields.

I agree, but I will also say that I personally have a concern of sitting and doing nothing and having it turn out that the people I was counting on to "save me" either didn't make the right choices or were knocked senseless or something. It's the chance you take by deferring to authority, but it's certainly something that plays in your head when thinking about being in such a situation.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 167):

Am I the only one that saw this an instantly coughed out the word "bull$h!t" ?

Probably saw that as their best out liability wise since lasers and airplanes have been a hot topic here in the US.

It struck me as odd, but who knows? Hopefully on the CVR there will be some comment by him of it happening. It still seems like sort of a sideshow to what was going on, though.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 180):
After such a dramatic crash there is no reason for the FA's to not begin an immediate evacuation. For all they know the cockpit crew is incapacitated and the situation was obviously dire inside. Smoke, flames and seeing daylight would be enough of a cue to get out of the plane.

THE COCKPIT CREW MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT! They KNEW they weren't incapacitated. You have 100 people UNINJURED. The fire is OUTSIDE the aircraft (where you want to be). There was plenty of bad going on, but there was also plenty of clues saying that waiting for a better assessment was not only doable, but perhaps preferable, to starting a panicked evacuation.

Quoting hivue (Reply 181):
Quoting mcdu (Reply 180): For all they know the cockpit crew is incapacitated
The captain came on the PA and told everyone to remain in their seats.

THANK YOU!

Quoting mcdu (Reply 202):
If you want to talk about following procedures, how about a procedure to NOT get slow and slam into the seawall? There is probably a mandatory go around in their book also. There is probably guidance to call for a go around at REF vent the need to use that checklist. I get the impression you want to herald these guys are heroes because they followed a checklist after crashing.

WTH are you talking about? I think you are shooting from the hip here a pinch. Nobody is calling the cockpit crew heroes. Does the term "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" mean anything to you?

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 208):
Sorry bud, but I think that is a silly remark. Of course, evacuations are dangerous, but I just did an airborne 320 degree spin after hitting a rock wall in an airplane that now is a complete disaster inside.

Plenty of people were uninjured or only lightly injured. There was no internal fire. The aircraft was sitting upright and relatively intact. Taking time to assess the situation (and perhaps get FA's better positioned given their own situations) might have been the better outcome. We'll know after the investigation is complete, I'm sure.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 208):
This is the first time I've ever disagreed with some of the people I most respect on this site. However, you guys are pilots and tech guys, I'm a marketing and analyst guy.

And we've seen what happens when amateurs try to come up with their own marketing plan to save a few bucks.   There's a reason you listen to those with training and experience.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 208):
I'll take my chances outside and I'll encourage others around me to as well.

Enjoy the blood on your hands IF you make the wrong choice. I'd hate to die in a post-crash fire, but I'd hate to lead soemone else to their death by my not following directions from those trained to make those calls.

I do agree - we are all ultimately responsible for our own lives. Do what you gotta do. But taking others with you or perhaps making a bad situation worse is not necessarily preferable to the alternative.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 216):
I really get a kick out of that sentiment. It's like some of the posters on here will be on the flight deck for 30 minutes reading through their checklists burning up, whilst all the passengers are long gone.

I was once told privately by a prominent and respected poster on this thread that they would not want to be in a cockpit with me for still-inexplicable reasons (meant more as a personal insult than anything), but I'd understand if they PM'd you right now with a similar chastisement based on your reckless attitude illustrated above.

You do understand that these "checklists" are there for a reason? They come from YEARS of experience analyzing accidents and outcomes. It doesn't mean that everything will turn out rosy or that every situation can be planned for. Clearly, though, this was not one of those situations where it was worse than normal or otherwise required them to screw the checklists and throw caution to the wind.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 218):
I've wanted to comment on this for a few days - but have not been able to find the time. As a fireman, I can tell you that people at the scene of emergencies/crashes are often not rational or aware of what they are doing. These people may be grabbing stuff because that is what they do when the disembark from an a/c. Trust me - I've seen plenty of cases where people simply do not have a handle on what just happened and what they should do. It can range from panic to acting like nothing happened - getting off the plane with your carry-on because you always get off the plane with your carry-on (trained by messages to 'check your seat and make sure you have all your personal belongings).

I have ALWAYS struggled (and still do) with the pictures/notion of people disembarking with their carryon's in an emergency evacuation. Having said that, I agree with what you say, and it reminds me of the movie about the crash of Eastern flt 401 - maybe "The Ghost of Flight 401" but I can't remember if it was that version or not. Anyhow, immediately after the crash (in the movie), one of the flight attendants is just sitting there casually complaining to another that she broke a nail, and the other one has to implore to her to realize what happened and sort of snap her out of her shock. I realize it was probably a dramatization, but in reality it is likely what happens in many situations. I guess it's people's way of coping?

-Dave

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 757gb
Posted 2013-07-11 11:54:03 and read 23897 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 180):
Why would it matter where the switches are in this instance? The APU was sheared off with the tail section and both engines were separated in the crash. You can flip those switches all day long and it would change a thing with what is going on with the separated parts.

How are they supposed to know that the APU and the engines are gone? What if they weren't?
It seems to me the question from rfields5421 referred as to whether proper procedure was followed.

Quoting moo (Reply 184):
This may restrict fuel flow in various ways, limiting spillage and the spread of fire on the ground etc.

Exactly.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: DUSdude
Posted 2013-07-11 12:02:43 and read 23835 times.

Re: the pilot's "blinded by light" claim, it is entirely possible that he was blinded by a sun reflection off e.g. the cockpit windows of the UA 744 that was holding on the taxiway. But... wouldn't a pilot want to wear sunglasses when making a visual landing on a bright sunny day???? I wear my shades *every time* I even drive my car on a sunny day, exactly for the reason that I don't want to be blinded when I need to be paying attention to what's outside the window.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 757gb
Posted 2013-07-11 12:10:21 and read 23579 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 202):
Do you know where those Hyd valves are closed? In THIS case the switch flipping and fire handle pulling did nothing to alleviate any potential fire.

That's easy to say AFTER the fact. Again, how are they supposed to know?

Quoting mcdu (Reply 202):
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 185):
Because it is the checklist. And the pilots in the cockpit had no knowledge at that point that any of those were detached from the aircraft. If those switches are in the off position it indicates they followed the CORRECT procedure - not just making something up to deal with the emergency.

If you want to talk about following procedures, how about a procedure to NOT get slow and slam into the seawall? There is probably a mandatory go around in their book also. There is probably guidance to call for a go around at REF vent the need to use that checklist. I get the impression you want to herald these guys are heroes because they followed a checklist after crashing.

There are many cases in which screwing up and doing something right are part of the same story. Air Canada's "Gimley Glider" comes to mind. The pilots are likely responsible for the accident. It sounds as if they might also be responsible for correctly following procedures after the accident.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 12:11:10 and read 23778 times.

Quoting 757gb (Reply 224):
Quoting moo (Reply 184):
This may restrict fuel flow in various ways, limiting spillage and the spread of fire on the ground etc.

Exactly

  
IIRC, in the case of BA038 the captain and FO went through an emergency checklist that, for convenience, was printed on plates on the control columns. At one point there were two sequential steps for cutting off some sort of major fuel valves, in the wing spars I think. The steps got done out of order because the crew were doing them independently and one item was on one list and one on the other. The result was a lot of extra fuel spill until they finally got to the the item that powered down the plane. The people on that plane were very lucky the whole thing didn't immediately go up in flames.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: airtechy
Posted 2013-07-11 12:14:29 and read 23584 times.

I'm all in favor of following procedures.....if you have time to follow them, but is this case following a procedure to determine the need "to evacuate" flies in the face of common sense. It is hard to argue that following procedures has saved many lives, but if the inside of an aircraft is basically destroyed...as the NTSB pic shows and smoke is outside the cabin...seconds to follow a procedure count against getting people off the plane safely. Look at your watch, imagine you are on a crashed plane with smoke outside, and see how long it takes to travel 30 seconds.

I have always had a mental picture of the PNF of AF447 frantically searching for "in case of bad airspeed procedure" in the flight manual as the plane plummeted to the ground.

Procedures have to be generated in advance and can't be expected to cover all possible cases. To expect people to remain strapped in their seats in the face of possible death by fire or smoke is unreasonable. Clearly a procedure partially designed to prevent people from walking into running engines did not apply in this case.

It's not clear if the announcement to "stay in your seats" was an automatically generated one or not, but clearly in this case it should have been ignored by the flight attendants and an evacuation started.....at least by the ones still on the airplane and able to do so...by my count only half.

AT

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: JetBlueGuy2006
Posted 2013-07-11 12:14:38 and read 23665 times.

Here is a question, with the pics showing OZ flight landing past the wreckage...why hasn't the airline changed the flight number? It always seemed to me, if there is an accident, an airline will remove the flight number from use.

Apologies if this has been asked, but I am behind on the thread.

Thanks
JetBlueGuy2006

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-07-11 12:15:28 and read 23604 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221):
, understand that after a crash as severe as this one, getting out of the aircraft as quickly and safely as possible was utmost.

Severity is all relative . . . in this case isn't it? At the top of the thread there was an interview from a passenger that originally didn't think the crash was that bad at first.

It will be interesting to see when all this analyzed, how many g's the passenger actually felt as the plane did the maneuver. The folks at the tail probably felt the most, but maybe the folks at the front didn't feel anything exesively greater than a barrel roll.

bt

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 12:15:28 and read 23739 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 223):
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 216):
I really get a kick out of that sentiment. It's like some of the posters on here will be on the flight deck for 30 minutes reading through their checklists burning up, whilst all the passengers are long gone.

I was once told privately by a prominent and respected poster on this thread that they would not want to be in a cockpit with me for still-inexplicable reasons (meant more as a personal insult than anything), but I'd understand if they PM'd you right now with a similar chastisement based on your reckless attitude illustrated above.

You do understand that these "checklists" are there for a reason? They come from YEARS of experience analyzing accidents and outcomes. It doesn't mean that everything will turn out rosy or that every situation can be planned for. Clearly, though, this was not one of those situations where it was worse than normal or otherwise required them to screw the checklists and throw caution to the wind.

What a strange reply   , are you a pilot? I hope not on my flight. Anyway, you are welcome to PM me anytime, my door...or button...is always open.  

Thank you Dave.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-11 12:19:22 and read 23524 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221):
I think most people on this site who disagree with Mandala, Zeke, et. al., people I respect most on this site when getting information about what has actually happened, understand that after a crash as severe as this one, getting out of the aircraft as quickly and safely as possible was utmost.

Only if it's safer outside the aircraft than inside. Which it might not be - that's why it's important to take a bit of time to get help evaluating conditions on the outside.

There are very few situations in which you should be evacuating the moment the plane stops moving. If you're landing with an emergency that you know will require an evacuation, then obviously the moment the wheels stop it should be commanded (and, time permitting, the FAs will have been briefed and will be expecting it). If there's a fire onboard then the evacuation should be immediately commanded. But otherwise, you can find yourself sending your passengers from a bad situation into a worse one, and the rush to get out of the plane could make the whole process more disorderly than it might otherwise be.

-Mir

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: legacyins
Posted 2013-07-11 12:21:02 and read 23537 times.

Quoting JetBlueGuy2006 (Reply 229):
Here is a question, with the pics showing OZ flight landing past the wreckage...why hasn't the airline changed the flight number? It always seemed to me, if there is an accident, an airline will remove the flight number from use.

Asiana President stated they will keep the flight numbers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2.../asiana-to-keep-flight-number-214/

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 12:28:33 and read 23342 times.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 228):
but is this case following a procedure to determine the need "to evacuate" flies in the face of common sense.

Well... to be quite sure, "common sense" is the cause of many an accident in aviation. Checklists are there to make crews follow the correct, but counter-intuitive, procedure. (The simplest example is a stall, pulling the yoke back to go up, which common sense would suggest, causes you to go down.)

Quoting airtechy (Reply 228):
It is hard to argue that following procedures has saved many lives, but if the inside of an aircraft is basically destroyed...as the NTSB pic shows and smoke is outside the cabin...seconds to follow a procedure count against getting people off the plane safely.

Check out this video posted by airline pilot zeke, in Reply 94. As you can see, at least 12 minutes goes by before fire enters the cabin:

Quoting zeke (Reply 94):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WczPnDDipKw&feature=player_embedded

You can see that at 11:50, the fire crews have stopped spraying the jet, and the roofline is intact. A fire developed destroying the roof after everyone was out of the plane.

Also, if the comment from the uploader is to be believed, the film starts running 4 seconds after the impact, and the chutes open just seconds after that. The reported 90 second delay to evacuate might have been closer to 10 seconds.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 757gb
Posted 2013-07-11 12:32:00 and read 23302 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 227):
The people on that plane were very lucky the whole thing didn't immediately go up in flames.

That is very interesting and makes for a very clear example.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-07-11 12:33:55 and read 23259 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 219):
Same question. Why do you need to be out of the plane so fast? The plane is not crashING, it has crashED -- and the event is over unless there is a fire. Evacuation _adds_ to the event, it does not take away from it. All those people with crush injuries (100+) should only be moved if staying put is dangerous.
Quoting D L X (Reply 219):
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 208):
My most immediate concern is getting out of a potentially burning aircraft that has over 300 people that need to get out of three or four doors.

POTENTIALLY burning! That's why a crew checks for fire before evacuating. If fire then evacuate.

History has proved time and time again that crashed planes have a habit of combusting as indeed this one did. The fortunate factor is that the fire took quite a while to break into the cabin. Its fairly logical that the friction from sliding across the airfield could easily produce sufficient heat to cause a fire.

Whilst it could be said that the front of the plane was still intact, the rear had the pressure bulkhead ruptured, the left hand rear door literally hanging off if not already missing and numerous seats broken away from their mountings. Even with only one crew member left at the back with the other three having been ejected through the broken bulkhead it should have been immediately obvious to that one crew member that they should initiate an immediate evacuation.

If the plane is still on its wheels that's a very different scenario (or maybe not with memories of the BA 737 at MAN) but a broken aircraft on its belly that's immediate evacuation territory.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mcg
Posted 2013-07-11 12:35:57 and read 23218 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 198):
It's actually an FAA requirement that airports have provisions for medical services for the maximum number of passengers carried on the largest commercial transport that the airport could reasonably be expected to serve. If an airport serves A380's, then it needs to have a plan to provide emergency response medical services for 500 or more passengers at the same time. That doesn't mean 500 EMT's sitting around at the airport waiting for a crash, but there has to be a plan to get medical response teams from *somewhere* to the crash site to treat every single passenger within a certain reasonable time frame considering the types of injuries a person might suffer in an accident. No one should be waiting 20 minutes on the runway at a major airport for an ambulance (if that did happen), especially when there really weren't all that many critical injuries relative to the size of the aircraft.

I've always wondered about the small airports in Colorado that see seasonal air service. What sort of emergency resources are available in a place like Hayden or Montrose to deal with potentially 150 casualties?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 757gb
Posted 2013-07-11 12:40:34 and read 23098 times.

I know that so far there is no firm information on the cause of death, but given the probabilities for one and the other, it would be a very tragic irony that one of the passengers survived and aircraft accident only to be killed by a ground vehicle. Hard to get my head around that...

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-07-11 12:44:22 and read 23090 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 231):
are you a pilot?

No. Why do you ask? From what I've been reading, the well-respected pilots in this thread apparently don't meet your criteria for being in the cockpit either. I base that on your assertion that - despite their clear explanations of what and why these procedures are followed - you disagree with them.

Feel free to PM me.  

-Dave

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-07-11 12:47:04 and read 23018 times.

Quoting legacyins (Reply 233):
Asiana President stated they will keep the flight numbers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2...-214/

I actually like this, shows continuity and steadfastness in the face of temporary adversity. Nothing wrong with a simple number anyway.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 135mech
Posted 2013-07-11 12:48:10 and read 23054 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 234):

Quoting zeke (Reply 94):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WczPnDDipKw&feature=player_embedded

You can see that at 11:50, the fire crews have stopped spraying the jet, and the roofline is intact. A fire developed destroying the roof after everyone was out of the plane.

Also, if the comment from the uploader is to be believed, the film starts running 4 seconds after the impact, and the chutes open just seconds after that. The reported 90 second delay to evacuate might have been closer to 10 seconds.



That's good footage and thanks for sharing! As was stated a few times before, and I have seen on medical shows where the med experts talk about the sensationalism of time during an emergency, this would back it up!

So grateful so few people were hurt/dead compared to what "could have been".

135Mech

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 135mech
Posted 2013-07-11 12:55:39 and read 22929 times.

Quoting 757gb (Reply 238):
I know that so far there is no firm information on the cause of death, but given the probabilities for one and the other, it would be a very tragic irony that one of the passengers survived and aircraft accident only to be killed by a ground vehicle. Hard to get my head around that...



Remember the Tenerife incident, some of the people to include flight attendant were killed/injured by the disintegrating engine after they escaped that tragedy! Sad!

135Mech

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-07-11 12:56:21 and read 22858 times.

Quoting legacyins (Reply 233):
Asiana President stated they will keep the flight numbers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2.../asiana-to-keep-flight-number-214/

Very bad move, IMO.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: quiet1
Posted 2013-07-11 13:07:03 and read 22623 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 181):
The captain came on the PA and told everyone to remain in their seats.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 223):
They made an announcement from the cockpit. Perhaps you weren't listening?

What is the source of that information that the cockpit made PA announcements to remain seated? I read that the Cabin Manager sent the F/A sitting by her at Door 1 to the cockpit to inquire about an evacuation, and the cockpit advised her (who advised the Cabin Manager) not to evacuate (yet?) and it was the *Cabin Manager* who made the PA announcements to remain seated.

Also, someone in the aft cabin (Mr. Levy?) said that they never heard the announcements and forum speculation was that the PA was no longer functioning in that cabin. In that case, wouldn't the F/As (had they not been incapacitated and/or ejected from the plane) initiate an evacuation being unable to contact the cockpit (assuming the cabin interphone was also inop)? If so, when they would open a door it would initiate the evacuation alarm, which even if it were disconnected from the planewide system, might be heard by the FAs farther forward in the aircraft. Would those FAs then initiate an evacuation at their door based on the fact that they knew the aft cabin was evacuating? Hard to say, but since speculation seems to be the favored sport of the day, I thought I would toss out those ideas.

Also, some posters above who are well-intentioned and well-informed about their airilne's procedures should not assume that those procedures are identical at carriers worldwide. I'm not about to get into a p*ssing match, but can say unequivocally that evacuation responsibilities and procedures DO vary.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-07-11 13:14:51 and read 22491 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 234):
The reported 90 second delay to evacuate might have been closer to 10 seconds.

If the delay was 30 seconds or less while they took stock, it sounds reasonable. 90 seconds is 3x as long, and those extra 60 seconds have meant the difference between life and death. I guess we have to wait to see how long actually the delay was before evacuation commenced. Seemed long enough for some pax to gather their carry-ons and duty free bags!   

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 135mech
Posted 2013-07-11 13:17:57 and read 22483 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 245):
Quoting D L X (Reply 234):
The reported 90 second delay to evacuate might have been closer to 10 seconds.

If the delay was 30 seconds or less while they took stock, it sounds reasonable. 90 seconds is 3x as long, and those extra 60 seconds have meant the difference between life and death. I guess we have to wait to see how long actually the delay was before evacuation commenced. Seemed long enough for some pax to gather their carry-ons and duty free bags!



If you watch that video that Zeke shared, the slides are open and people escaping at 10 or so seconds.

135Mech

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cptkrell
Posted 2013-07-11 13:26:56 and read 22220 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 230):

Yes, a lot would depend on where this passenger was seated. The closer to centerline of the spin, the far less loads he/she would experience.

Also, exsisting physical/mental condition of the pax when the event occurred. Sleepy after long flight hours, not totally sober, on meds, pre-occupied with something else? Many factors. regards...jack

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 13:27:37 and read 22204 times.

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 244):
and it was the *Cabin Manager* who made the PA announcements to remain seated.

That may be correct, but the fact remains that the flight deck crew issued the order and so was not incapacitated to the point where they could not issue an evacuation order.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-07-11 13:29:40 and read 22205 times.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 246):
If you watch that video that Zeke shared, the slides are open and people escaping at 10 or so seconds.

135Mech

If it was just 10 seconds, then that turns the debate on its head, in that why didn't they follow their checklists prior to evacuation as so many pilots here have said is a must do? Or does the checklist take only 10 seconds?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 757gb
Posted 2013-07-11 13:36:24 and read 22021 times.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 242):
Remember the Tenerife incident, some of the people to include flight attendant were killed/injured by the disintegrating engine after they escaped that tragedy! Sad!

I sure do... I was re-reading some stuff about that just the other day. In fact, I was thinking about it again today when they mentioned that some people had to wait 20 minutes for help in this accident. Tenerife was such chaos and visibility was so bad that firefighters were concentrating on the KLM aircraft, in which there were no survivors IIRC, while unknown to them the PanAm jumbo burned some distance away with people to be rescued.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cloudboy
Posted 2013-07-11 13:52:24 and read 21740 times.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 247):

Yes, a lot would depend on where this passenger was seated. The closer to centerline of the spin, the far less loads he/she would experience.

Also, exsisting physical/mental condition of the pax when the event occurred. Sleepy after long flight hours, not totally sober, on meds, pre-occupied with something else? Many factors. regards...jack


I still say, when you are in a plane that has landed, and you find yourself in your seat at greater than a 35 degree angle spinning, I think it is a pretty good assumption that it is more than just a hard landing. True, he may be confused or on medication or something else, but even if the movement didn't disturb you, the fact that daylight is flooding through a hole at the back of the plane, seats are turned over, luggage and luggage bins are lying in the aisles, and you plane is lying at an odd tilt, I have a hard time accepting he didn't think anything was wrong at first.

A question - are there indicator lights at the flight attendants seats that indicate if the engines are still running or not? What could be done to give flight attendants more information to make a quick and well informed decision?

[Edited 2013-07-11 14:00:38]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: wnbob
Posted 2013-07-11 13:55:13 and read 21866 times.

Holly Molly, after 7 theads of well-factuals exchanges, thread#8 comes all the emotional releases no doubt aided by the 24 hours news cycle, and we are sitting here, in our air-con rooms making the judging.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-07-11 14:12:33 and read 21479 times.

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 244):

What is the source of that information that the cockpit made PA announcements to remain seated? I read that the Cabin Manager sent the F/A sitting by her at Door 1 to the cockpit to inquire about an evacuation, and the cockpit advised her (who advised the Cabin Manager) not to evacuate (yet?) and it was the *Cabin Manager* who made the PA announcements to remain seated.

Well, in fairness, I might be mistaken from reading the multiple threads. I understand that an announcement was made. I understood it to be from the cockpit. It may very well have been on the direction of the cockpit. In the end, an announcement by the trained staff was made.

-Dave

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-07-11 14:19:44 and read 21462 times.

The youtube videos make for interesting viewing, three things I've noted, firstly the fire trucks do an awful lot of manoeuvering to little effect, particularly the one on the port side, it reverses a number of times which seems to be a potentially dangerous manoeuvre with a lot of passengers escaping from the plane, often it moves away from the plane does a 360 and returns to almost the same spot. Secondly the fire fighting seems to consist of only using the roof mounted monitors, tv footage I've seen of Uk airport firefighters show them running out hand lines almost immediately and any firefighters entering the cabin as ones appear to do here would definitely be backed up by hose parties. Thirdly no foam at all was laid on the port side until about 8 minutes after the crash,.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 135mech
Posted 2013-07-11 14:20:47 and read 21342 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 249):
If it was just 10 seconds, then that turns the debate on its head, in that why didn't they follow their checklists prior to evacuation as so many pilots here have said is a must do? Or does the checklist take only 10 seconds?

Good question, I do not personally know, but was sharing that to help share Zeke's better info for the thread.

135Mech

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-07-11 14:21:14 and read 21350 times.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 243):
Very bad move, IMO.

Why?

Superstitions about numbers?

The flying public does not know anything about the numbers 800, 111, 232 and 447.

And a few weeks after a crash, the numbers will soon be forgotten. With people who would read books like "How Airbus killed innocent passengers on flight 447", all hope is lost anyway.



David

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 14:22:05 and read 21309 times.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 228):
but is this case following a procedure to determine the need "to evacuate" flies in the face of common sense.

Since all this discussion about evacuation is based on assumptions and no real facts at this time - how about this assumption.

After such a violent impact and spinning movement - the pilots and/ or flight attendants were concerned that the wings had broken off and there was a lot of fuel spilled around the aircraft?

Do you have people go ahead and evacuate before you determine if they will be running into pools of fuel which could ignite any second?

That is of course not what happend here. But if you read Saturday's and Sunday's threads on this crash - the idea that the wings stayed attached to the aircraft is not understandable for most folks.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 246):
If you watch that video that Zeke shared, the slides are open and people escaping at 10 or so seconds.

The slides come out about 10 seconds into that video. But the plane has been stopped for a short while when that video starts. The video with the full crash sequence shows a huge cloud of dirt obscuring the whole aircraft from view at that angle. It has to take 10-20 seconds at a minimum for that cloud of dirt to dissipate before the video from that angle can clearly show the aircraft.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 251):
A question - are there indicator lights at the flight attendants seats that indicate if the engines are still running or not? What could be done to give flight attendants more information to make a quick and well informed decision?

I've never heard of any indicator lights in the cabin for engine status. And they wouldn't be appropriate.

As mentioned above, if the cabin crew believes an evacuation is necessary - the contact the cockpit once.

If no response to that contact - evacuate

If told not to evacuate - do not evacuate. If the flight attendants believe no evac is the wrong decision - tell the cockpit why - what they see.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2013-07-11 14:40:14 and read 20950 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 256):
Why?

Superstitions about numbers?

I've always thought that unless it was a highly publicized catastrophic accident, very few people know or care outside of aviation circles. It's not like they're renaming a boat like the Titanic.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 257):
The slides come out about 10 seconds into that video. But the plane has been stopped for a short while when that video starts. The video with the full crash sequence shows a huge cloud of dirt obscuring the whole aircraft from view at that angle. It has to take 10-20 seconds at a minimum for that cloud of dirt to dissipate before the video from that angle can clearly show the aircraft.

I thought the same thing. You would think it took the person shooting the video some time to find, turn on and start shooting with the camera. I don't think he was using a cell phone camera. If that happened in front of me it would have taken at least a minute for me to find my video camera.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 14:40:39 and read 21002 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 257):
Quoting 135mech (Reply 246):
If you watch that video that Zeke shared, the slides are open and people escaping at 10 or so seconds.

The slides come out about 10 seconds into that video.

Right, he's basing this on the videographer's claim that he started shooting 4 seconds after impact.

Whether it is in fact 4 seconds or not is in need of verification.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 14:43:20 and read 21002 times.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 258):
I don't think he was using a cell phone camera.

It's probably a DSLR with a video capability. The fact that the camera was trained on the plane before the slides open suggest it was already on hand, or very nearby when the accident occurred. (Also, the witness may have started reaching for his camera when he saw the plane first hit the seawall.)

In any event, it is plausible because the area from which the video seems to have been taken is a spotter haven. I've spotted there myself, if it's the place I think it is.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 14:46:51 and read 20874 times.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 197):
It's actually an FAA requirement that airports have provisions for medical services for the maximum number of passengers carried on the largest commercial transport that the airport could reasonably be expected to serve. If an airport serves A380's, then it needs to have a plan to provide emergency response medical services for 500 or more passengers at the same time. That doesn't mean 500 EMT's sitting around at the airport waiting for a crash, but there has to be a plan to get medical response teams from *somewhere* to the crash site to treat every single passenger within a certain reasonable time frame considering the types of injuries a person might suffer in an accident. No one should be waiting 20 minutes on the runway at a major airport for an ambulance (if that did happen), especially when there really weren't all that many critical injuries relative to the size of the aircraft.

Great information. I was never suggesting that fleets of ambulances line up doing nothing waiting for the day a once-in-several-decades crash happens in front of them. I am more asking whether there are effective procedures for getting more medics (not necessarily ambulances, medics) out to far flung parts of an airport in an age where major air crashes are much more survivable, as has been discussed here. There are plenty of police, air crew, and other EMT staff around the airport and maybe the many TSA staff could be cross trained  . But I don't see that there are any procedures for mobilizing rapid response teams (like you see in hospitals every day) - instead the current plan seems to be to wait for any free external ambulances to get through freeway traffic. As has been said - most of the fire staff are EMT trained so there is also a triage question of when to rotate some amount of resources from fire fighting to medic activity.once an evac is complete, and I don't know how that happened in this case.

The particular issues highlighted by news reports of the Stone family were exacerbated by the confusion about people having been ejected a long way back on the runway - the rear flight attendants and possibly one of the deceased - where these passengers were trying to save lives without training or much help it seems. To his credit, the young Elliot Stone says he is now motivated to get some level of emergency medical training - as should we all.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-07-11 14:52:36 and read 20721 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 249):
If it was just 10 seconds, then that turns the debate on its head, in that why didn't they follow their checklists prior to evacuation as so many pilots here have said is a must do? Or does the checklist take only 10 seconds?

I think the bigger point (for me, personally) is not how long it takes to go through a checklist, but rather that they follow procedures, including a checklist. If there's a fire, checklists likely go out the window. However, you don't just ignore checklists and procedures because of the crash - they exist specifically for such an occurance, and are based on what's been learned from past events.

I'm no expert, and I'm not trying to dispute what you are saying, but rather talk around it as I don't see the timespan of completing a "checklist", in and of itself, as important. The first thing on that checklist may very well be "If there's a fire, evacuate immediately". They don't necessarily need to work through an entire checklist before ordering any sort of evacuation, but there are procedures in place to help insure that the passengers are led out in the best possible fashion.

I stand to be corrected.

-Dave

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 14:53:19 and read 20725 times.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 246):
If you watch that video that Zeke shared, the slides are open and people escaping at 10 or so seconds.

You cannot tell how long this is from final impact because you don't know how long it took for PWNDTROLL to set up his camera - although he did it pretty quickly. What is most impressive about the whole clip is how long it is before the major cabin fire starts. (Turn off the sound if you are easily distracted by real people).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WczPnDDipKw

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 14:55:31 and read 20716 times.

Breaking News banner on usatoday.com: "Asiana pilot: Flash of light didn't affect vision"

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 14:57:07 and read 20637 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 259):
the videographer's claim that he started shooting 4 seconds after impact

The plane hadn't even stopped moving 4 seconds after impact.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 14:59:39 and read 20726 times.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 258):
You would think it took the person shooting the video some time to find, turn on and start shooting with the camera.

The video of the complete crash impact sequence was shot by a spotter. Probably made a good chunk of money from that video.

The day of the crash there were four or five 'teaser' photos posted taken from almost the same angle. A couple more photos the next day. Then the crash video surfaced.

Other than the passenger shot video - all the pictures and video we have seen appear to be from one angle - the same angle for all of them.

Which leads me to believe that the person who shot this video was part of the spotters. Maybe just in the same place, not necessarily a 'group' as in working together, but a group of people with a common interest.

The evacuation video was likely shot by someone who just missed the crash, and was already in shooting mode which his camera out when he saw the crash happen. Had we not had all the cell phone videos from the passengers, this piece of video would have been worth a fair amount of money also.

Just my opinion.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-07-11 15:00:40 and read 20583 times.

NTSB briefing going on now.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 15:01:23 and read 20734 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 264):
Breaking News banner on usatoday.com: "Asiana pilot: Flash of light didn't affect vision"

Yes, Chairwoman Hersman in today's briefing just shot down the significance of any bright lights and aliens theories. I am going to miss her daily chats (today is her last one on site).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2013-07-11 15:05:50 and read 20559 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 266):
Which leads me to believe that the person who shot this video was part of the spotters. Maybe just in the same place, not necessarily a 'group' as in working together, but a group of people with a common interest.
Quoting D L X (Reply 260):
It's probably a DSLR with a video capability. The fact that the camera was trained on the plane before the slides open suggest it was already on hand, or very nearby when the accident occurred. (Also, the witness may have started reaching for his camera when he saw the plane first hit the seawall.)

In any event, it is plausible because the area from which the video seems to have been taken is a spotter haven. I've spotted there myself, if it's the place I think it is.

I went back and listened to it again. Hard for me to tell that it was a group of spotters, but I don't have any real knowledge of the area like DLX. I thought it might actually be in someone's house or apartment. Seems like at one point it sounds like a home phone rings.

Either way, my point wasn't to criticize any of the crew or their reaction, only that it seemed like the timeline for the video starting might be off some. We are talking less than 60 seconds.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-07-11 15:06:29 and read 20509 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 261):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 197):It's actually an FAA requirement that airports have provisions for medical services for the maximum number of passengers carried on the largest commercial transport that the airport could reasonably be expected to serve. If an airport serves A380's, then it needs to have a plan to provide emergency response medical services for 500 or more passengers at the same time. That doesn't mean 500 EMT's sitting around at the airport waiting for a crash, but there has to be a plan to get medical response teams from *somewhere* to the crash site to treat every single passenger within a certain reasonable time frame considering the types of injuries a person might suffer in an accident. No one should be waiting 20 minutes on the runway at a major airport for an ambulance (if that did happen), especially when there really weren't all that many critical injuries relative to the size of the aircraft.

I never said that !

You've got my header from post 197 and spacecadets quote from post 198. I wouldn't have a clue about FAA requirements  

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-07-11 15:07:53 and read 20554 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 249):
If it was just 10 seconds, then that turns the debate on its head, in that why didn't they follow their checklists prior to evacuation as so many pilots here have said is a must do? Or does the checklist take only 10 seconds?



The checklist provided by Boeing only has 9 items. The airlines can modify it with agreement with their regulatory authority. Normally it's found on the ECL (Electronic Checklist-777/787) and has to be selected which takes a few seconds -- some airlines (BAB is one) have it displayed in the cockpit for quick reference -- using a paper QRH it's on the back cover for the same reason. If they didn't have a QRH handy, I'm guessing they did it by memory or the delay was getting it up on the ECL. Once there it would take 15 seconds +/- to complete.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 15:08:42 and read 20619 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 266):
Which leads me to believe that the person who shot this video was part of the spotters. Maybe just in the same place, not necessarily a 'group' as in working together, but a group of people with a common interest.

No. Wrong. Listen to the audio of both parts and look at the account he posted to. PWNDTROLL is a young gamer guy who was fast and effective with picking up a camera and capturing a critical perspective. Yes, he does say "fuck" a lot. He and family/friends were in a hotel room overlooking the airport (there are many) and you can hear them working on checking out in the background. They do not sound like regular spotters. I think he did good work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WczPnDDipKw

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: bradmovie
Posted 2013-07-11 15:09:26 and read 20511 times.

I shall make an attempt to get back on topic! Haven't seen this brought up earlier.

Regarding the plane being to the right and off the centerline when it struck the rocks and runway: to me this is likely a symptom of their trouble managing mushy controls during an incipient stall. I've only flown small planes and am familiar with how several of them react approaching stalls -- generally the flight controls become less effective, the plane can start to wallow, both up and down and side to side, and it becomes difficult to track straight and level. It takes more and more control response to get the plane to react.

I think that is the cause of being off centerline -- and only makes imagining what was going on in that cockpit even more frightening. In the end they couldn't worry about mushy ailerons -- they were losing control. So it doesn't appear to me there is any other significance to their being off center.

Any thoughts from the pros?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-07-11 15:16:10 and read 20377 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 201):
Standard mass casualty triage routine applies in this case. First responders try to identify all those involved and tag them either black (dead or very close to it), red (severely injured), yellow (moderately injured) and green (minimal or no injury). My ballpark guess puts this accident at about 50 red tags, 100 yellow tags and 150 green tags. Given those numbers and assuming 50 ambulances, only those with red tags would have gotten quick care (less than 10 minutes after accident). Many of those with yellow tags would have gotten care in the 10-20 minute timeframe. However some of the yellow and the green would likely have to wait more than 20 minutes, however that is ok given that people in those categories generally don't have life threatening injuries (or any injuries at all).

As a FF/EMT, let me add that these triage priorities are not based on pain level or gruesomeness of injury. You can have some excruciatingly painful traumas or very bloody or gruesome injuries that may get people's attention but are not immediately life threatening and therefore have to wait. The unfortunate reality of a mass casualty incident is that some people will not end up as well off as they would had they been an individual victim.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cjg225
Posted 2013-07-11 15:19:18 and read 20399 times.

The :54 seconds question has come up twice in the briefing already. Hersman giving the same answer she gave yesterday. Like I said yesterday, she just said, "I don't know how [the first officer] remembers [the time]; we need to match that up with the voice recorder."

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rikkus67
Posted 2013-07-11 15:30:10 and read 20092 times.

I am not sure if this has been questioned:

What is the typical approach angle for the 777 versus the 747?

With the PIC still in transition to the 777, could he have placed the 777 accidentally into the 747 approach angle? Perhaps there is little difference, and it's pure speculation on my part.

Could someone more in the know on approach angles be able to address this?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 15:31:48 and read 20464 times.

I just love how cleanly and beautifully Deborah Hersman says "FU" to ALPA, the Korean media, and anyone else with dumb or speculative questions  !

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-07-11 15:33:26 and read 20305 times.

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 276):
I am not sure if this has been questioned:

What is the typical approach angle for the 777 versus the 747?

With the PIC still in transition to the 777, could he have placed the 777 accidentally into the 747 approach angle? Perhaps there is little difference, and it's pure speculation on my part.

Could someone more in the know on approach angles be able to address this?

I'll respond to your question with a round-about statement that I believe the PF was a 747 captain 9 years ago, but has been flying the A320 in the interim.

-Dave

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-07-11 15:38:18 and read 20154 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 155):
I guess I'm getting old but I have learned to listen to those with experience and education in their fields when it comes to their fields.

This is a really good idea. Hence, I have some questions since I just can't understand a few items that are mentioned earlier.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):
the talk of the alleged "obedient/autocratic cockpit serfdom of Korea" culture

Three pilots managed to fly this aircraft into the ground! I'm not sure why you get so upset when Korean cockpit culture is mentioned. If you delete "of Korea" in that sentence you wrote (we had a fairly recent Turkish example as well), would you still say that they did a good job by letting the plane fly itself instead of being at the controls for which they are paid?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 140):
Part of the assessment in the alert phase is also to determine amongst the crew, who's there, who's not there, who's able, who's not able. I guess some will forever think that this phase is used by the FAs to redo their make-ups and forget the emergency at hand.
Oh, Good CRM, on a Korean carrier? (insert picture of disbelief by some)...

Is the "good" CRM even relevant after you crash a plane like this? Where was the CRM when they were still supposedly flying this aircraft? I have a follow up below...

Quoting zeke (Reply 114):
There has been a lot of talk on here about poor CRM being a cultural issue in airlines in Korea. I have heard the exact opposite from the NTSB todays briefing. It would appear the relief FO did speak up and called the sink rate on final, as well as for a go-around. It would also appear the door primary at L2 after hearing the order not to evacuate, sent their assistant at L2 to the cockpit to inform the cockpit of the external fire. Both are examples of GOOD CRM.

If the relief FO called for sink rate almost a minute before the crash, and if there was any trace of "good" CRM, wouldn't they have avoided the crash? I thought that visual approach meant you check your instruments, especially speed, attitude, and altitude, and not having a sightseeing tour which ended with 2 dead and a destroyed airframe.

Had the cabin crew known what led to the accident, would they have obeyed the flight crew's orders? I know this is a hindsight talk, but just imagine you comply with orders of someone who's just almost killed you. I know it's the cabin crews' job to comply with flight crew's orders and the evacuation succeeded, but can we assume those two away for a minute? What would you do if you saw what happened? Would you follow the orders or punch lights out of the genius who almost killed you?

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
Very soon after coming to rest the cabin crew established face to face communications with the cockpit, this is good CRM.

Yes, post crash when it's kinda not really relevant any more.

As much I respect the experience and knowledge of zeke and mandala499, I have no reason to not believe the words of that UA captain who trained Korean pilots. I would fly in a trash can with wings because I always had endless confidence in pilots' skills thinking they go through a very strict training regimen, but after reading all this, I would really think twice before flying Asiana again.

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 135):
They missed everything on this approach. I don't even know that there was a CRM issue...

This best summarizes my above questions.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 15:45:38 and read 20144 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 277):
I just love how cleanly and beautifully Deborah Hersman says "FU" to ALPA, the Korean media, and anyone else with dumb or speculative questions

We are going to miss her when she leaves the NTSB soon.

For a Democratic politician with an interest in transportation and aviation - she has done an excellent job since President Bush appointed her to the NTSB in 2004.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-07-11 15:45:51 and read 20082 times.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 279):
Yes, post crash when it's kinda not really relevant any more.

With all of the attention paid to the post-crash actions of the crew, I beg to differ. Just because they screwed the pooch on landing doesn't in any way mean that they aren't absolutely focused and on task knowing what they just had happen to their landing.

I don't think a lot of people would disagree with your assertions about their CRM during the flight (though I think we need to wait to get the real info before assuming too much), but that doesn't mean that the post-crash actions of the team were incorrect or inappropriate out of hand.

Just my thoughts on it.

-Dave

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 15:47:56 and read 20046 times.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 270):
I never said that !

You've got my header from post 197 and spacecadets quote from post 198. I wouldn't have a clue about FAA requirements  

My apologies to both you and spacecadets - for different reasons I suppose  .

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: type-rated
Posted 2013-07-11 15:51:43 and read 20047 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 272):
He and family/friends were in a hotel room overlooking the airport (there are many) and you can hear them working on checking out in the background. They do not sound like regular spotters. I think he did good work.

Looks like he was in the Marriott hotel lobby right across the water from the runways. I've been there before and if you are a spotter the upper floor rooms have spectacular views. But the hotel itself was rather dumpy.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-11 15:51:55 and read 20109 times.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 279):
Is the "good" CRM even relevant after you crash a plane like this?

Yes - it can be very important.

The crew of the BA B777 at LHR managed to dump a lot of raw fuel out onto the ground by accident by not cross checking their checklists.

Had there been an ignition source - it would have been bad.

Some people have criticized the LHR fire department for pouring all the foam on the BA aircraft 'with no engines running'.

What are they supposed to do when they arrive on scene and see fuel on the ground and fuel running out of the aircraft?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: wingman
Posted 2013-07-11 15:57:06 and read 20037 times.

I'd say that You Tube video from the young kid just became the #1 firefighting training video for airport crews worldwide. I don't know anything about that profession but damned if those guys aren't onsite inside of 90 seconds and then the planes erupts in flames 12 minutes later?? How does that happen? I guess they must be worried about hosing people as they escape and possibly thinking a fire is not going to break out.

I hate to say it but it's not hard to see how one of those responders may have hit the young girl. People are running all over the place and I imagine those guys are driving like bats out of hell staring at the plane itself instead of watching the actual ground in front of them. I wonder if the training they do includes dummies placed all around the wreckage and they have to keep that in mind while approaching the wreckage.

What a terrible thing to survive something like that and then perish in the aftermath (if that's in fact what happened).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 16:46:43 and read 19240 times.

Quoting wingman (Reply 285):
What a terrible thing to survive something like that and then perish in the aftermath (if that's in fact what happened).

Unfortunately I think there may be more unpleasantness to learn here and I suspect it's not as simple as walking off the plane to get run down. Her seatmate was ejected out the back and died way back on the runway somewhere. IF she was also ejected, paths to ending up next to the plane as it spins may not be pleasant and may or may not end up with her being alive or very visible. We shall see from the coroner. RIP young woman.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-11 17:03:23 and read 18973 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 222):
If the NTSB suggests improvements, that does not suggest that the crew got it wrong.

Ok, so you are right no matter what and we are wrong. I respectfully disagree. You are pilots, not sociological experts. There are situations where SOPs are not to be followed for many reasons. We'll see what the NTSB says, and you can twist it to make your right and me completely and totally wrong. Feel better?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 17:12:43 and read 18801 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 286):
Her seatmate was ejected out the back and died way back on the runway somewhere.

Do you have a source for this? I embarrassed myself in a previous part of this thread by claiming something similar on no good authority.

BTW, I saw a wire report on yahoo -- which I cannot find now, so take it as strictly rumor only -- that was worded to suggest that both deaths are being investigated as due to injuries inflicted by emergency vehicles.

[Edited 2013-07-11 17:13:40]

[Edited 2013-07-11 17:15:06]

[Edited 2013-07-11 17:20:49]

[Edited 2013-07-11 17:21:37]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 17:17:16 and read 18729 times.

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 276):
What is the typical approach angle for the 777 versus the 747?

With the PIC still in transition to the 777, could he have placed the 777 accidentally into the 747 approach angle? Perhaps there is little difference, and it's pure speculation on my part.

Could someone more in the know on approach angles be able to address this?

Two different angles at work here.

The flight path angle, known as the glidepath, approaching a particular runway is the same for any airliner. In this case the ILS (inoperative) has a 3 degree glide angle and the VGSI (Visual Glide Slope Indicator AKA PAPI lights) has a glide angle of 2.85 degrees.

The pitch angle (angle of aircraft's longitudinal axis vs horizontal) may well be slightly different between 747 and 777. Certainly the sight lines are different as in the 747 the pilots sit higher. However if the pilot pitched up so much that speed decayed the more or less automatic reaction should have been to pitch down in order to increase speed.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 17:25:39 and read 18611 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 288):
re: seatmate ejected: Do you have a source for this? I embarrassed myself in a previous part of this thread by claiming something similar on no good authority.

Not great - only media supposedly quoting the coroner:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...r-ejected-20130707,0,2789256.story

I have no source for whether the second young woman was or was not ejected or how she ended up where she did. So that information yet to come.

I certainly found the information that three cabin crew were ejected new and unexpected when it came out yesterday. It did explain the severe road rash hospital reports which were not well explained previously by just "dragging" people away.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-07-11 17:34:18 and read 18449 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 286):
Her seatmate was ejected out the back and died way back on the runway somewhere.

I thought I was said up thread by someone (Zeke?) that the three flight attendants were ejected but that all passengers remained in the aircraft.

-Dave

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-07-11 17:39:49 and read 18348 times.

Trying to find a video of the briefing. Not on C-Span.org

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 17:41:25 and read 18494 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 290):
only media supposedly quoting the coroner

The LA Times story has the coroner saying, "'The other one was lying where the aircraft came to rest, about a mile or so from impact," so I don't know how much credence you attach to that. 28L would be about 30K ft long. (Maybe the coroner and the local pol who said the runway was 3000 ft long should compare notes.)

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-07-11 18:03:12 and read 18067 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 284):
The crew of the BA B777 at LHR managed to dump a lot of raw fuel out onto the ground by accident by not cross checking their checklists.



The is only one evacuation checklist but it's presented on both control columns -- just a comment in case some people thought they were going through two different checklists. They pulled the "Fire Handles" before putting the "Fuel Control Switches" were put to "Cutoff". Had a 2005 AD been incorporated this wouldn't have been an issue.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-11 18:14:39 and read 17895 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 294):
just a comment in case some people thought they were going through two different checklists.

But I think the captain and the FO were doing different parts of the check list. That's how they got out of sync.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-07-11 18:34:50 and read 17570 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 295):
But I think the captain and the FO were doing different parts of the check list. That's how they got out of sync.

Yep. probably in a bit of a hurry and didn't realize there was a glitch in the system.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-11 19:07:57 and read 17121 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 287):
There are situations where SOPs are not to be followed for many reasons.

Problem with that position is that if you do and good things happen you are still held liable for violating procedures, if things go bad you are still held liable.
SOP's are benchmarks which can be changed, accidents usually create such changes, unfortunately, violations for expediency are always punished as someone will always be negatively affected.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 19:09:59 and read 17201 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 291):
I thought I was said up thread by someone (Zeke?) that the three flight attendants were ejected but that all passengers remained in the aircraft.

Listening to Chairwoman Herman's Tuesday briefing, and you have to parse what she says very carefully: three rear seats and three flight attendants were ejected and those three were hospitalized. One rear flight attendant was "found in her seat" and was hospitalized. No passenger SEATS were ejected - ALL passenger SEATS stayed inside the aircraft. She did NOT say that no passengers were ejected. The coroner and media evidence seems to be that at least one of the young women was ejected and found down the runway. I don't want to rub salt in, but the question for the report will then be whether there was any evidence of seat-belt breakage or not in her seat. How the second deceased young woman got outside to the side the plane has not, to my knowledge, been explained anywhere yet.

(The two other flight attendants still hospitalized on Tuesday were the 1R one pinned under a slide there and the 3R one, injuries unknown. The 2R attendant also pinned under a slide had a broken leg but was out and interviewed as of Tuesday. I think we saw her shamefully paraded in the show by OZ management.)

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-11 19:19:51 and read 17041 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 286):

Unfortunately I think there may be more unpleasantness to learn here and I suspect it's not as simple as walking off the plane to get run down. Her seatmate was ejected out the back and died way back on the runway somewhere. IF she was also ejected, paths to ending up next to the plane as it spins may not be pleasant and may or may not end up with her being alive or very visible. We shall see from the coroner. RIP young woman.

I think we would see her near the evac slide in the pics and vids we have if your speculation was accurate. Or, we would see people checking on her.

http://i.imgur.com/EUbb6Ej.jpg

We can see something on the ground next to the paved path, in the approximate same spot as what has been called an "equipment bag", and we can see tire tracks already there.

[Edited 2013-07-11 19:23:54]

http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conte.../uploads/2013/07/wn20130708a1a.jpg


[Edited 2013-07-11 19:26:54]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Kirkseattle
Posted 2013-07-11 19:21:42 and read 16989 times.

I was having trouble finding the last briefing video, but finally found it. Here's the link.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/ntsb-...-crash-hfsnLLlGTxWNnvsZ6hD~qA.html

Regards,
KirkSeattle

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 19:32:16 and read 16877 times.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 299):
http://i.imgur.com/EUbb6Ej.jpg

This is the early David Eun twitter picture which I think is before any trucks arrived - certainly on this left side. If so, the tracks must be old tracks - otherwise we would see the truck there. I do agree that this is worth studying to see if anyone is visible. Do we know where relative to the wing she was found?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-11 19:36:18 and read 16879 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 301):
This is the early David Eun twitter picture which I think is before any trucks arrived - certainly on this left side. If so, the tracks must be old tracks - otherwise we would see the truck there. I do agree that this is worth studying to see if anyone is visible. Do we know where relative to the wing she was found?

I have only heard "near an evacuation slide" and "in front of the wing".

I earlier thought the object to the left of the front of the fire truck might be a tarp over a body, and there does appear to be something in that approximate spot in the evac pic. But it's just a guess.

http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conte.../uploads/2013/07/wn20130708a1a.jpg

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-11 19:41:09 and read 16801 times.

My theory is that whatever is to the left of the front of the fire truck, apparently covered, next to the paved path, is already there in the evac pic. But I really can't give it any degree of certainty.

[Edited 2013-07-11 19:42:46]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 19:44:20 and read 16753 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 287):
Quoting D L X (Reply 222):
If the NTSB suggests improvements, that does not suggest that the crew got it wrong.

Ok, so you are right no matter what and we are wrong. I respectfully disagree. You are pilots, not sociological experts. There are situations where SOPs are not to be followed for many reasons. We'll see what the NTSB says, and you can twist it to make your right and me completely and totally wrong. Feel better?

Airline pilots may not be sociological and psychological experts, but they do have a not insignificant knowledge of psychology compared to the layman. In EASA examinations one whole exam is dedicated to "Human Performance and Limitations", with about half being psychology. Couple that with extensive training in emergencies and regular drills in emergency procedures, and I think it is safe to say that flight (and cabin) crew know more about how a group of passengers will react to an accident than the average passenger.

As for situations where the SOP should not be followed, yes of course there are, but history has shown time and again that if you follow the appropriate checklist you are almost certain to get it right. Conversely, if you don't follow the checklist, you are quite likely to miss something crucial.

As D L X says, this accident may well lead to changes in how emergencies are handled. This does not mean the pilots were wrong to follow the procedure. Again, following procedure is a proven method to make a good outcome very likely. Why else would we have checklists?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-11 19:44:56 and read 16736 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 297):
Problem with that position is that if you do and good things happen you are still held liable for violating procedures, if things go bad you are still held liable.
SOP's are benchmarks which can be changed, accidents usually create such changes, unfortunately, violations for expediency are always punished as someone will always be negatively affected.



USER PROFILE

Fair enough. I, however, have concerns that the evacuation process did not go as "mandated," but I may be wrong.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: dfambro
Posted 2013-07-11 19:45:05 and read 16768 times.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 302):
I earlier thought the object to the left of the front of the fire truck might be a tarp over a body

I would hope they wouldn't leave a presumed dead individual there like that, unattended, with a tarp hastily tossed over them. I think it's probably something else.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-11 19:51:20 and read 16650 times.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 306):

I would hope they wouldn't leave a presumed dead individual there like that, unattended, with a tarp hastily tossed over them. I think it's probably something else.

Yes, that's what makes me think it can't be a body.

However, there does appear to be something there already in the evac pic.

But then you have people casually walking by...

At the angle of the evac pic, the object appears to be in line with the big defect in the wing.

[Edited 2013-07-11 19:52:44]

[Edited 2013-07-11 19:53:57]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: f14artist
Posted 2013-07-11 20:00:02 and read 16523 times.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 279):
Three pilots managed to fly this aircraft into the ground! I'm not sure why you get so upset when Korean cockpit culture is mentioned. If you delete "of Korea" in that sentence you wrote (we had a fairly recent Turkish example as well), would you still say that they did a good job by letting the plane fly itself instead of being at the controls for which they are paid?

It's because
1. we don't know exactly yet if OZ 214 went down because there was an issue with cockpit "culture", flying skill, lack of situational awareness, OR misunderstanding of systems. I guess it could be a combination of those.
2. Posts like the Op-Ed created a lot of fuss due to one person's experience PLUS a lot of opinion on the 3000 year old habit of Koreans (which I just ignored since it comes from ignorance).

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but many posts are pointing fingers beyond the scope of this forum which encourages discussions and maybe speculations. We're not NTSB and nobody here has enough information to come to a conclusion. Judgmental comments especially on cultural issues beyond CRM doesn't add anything.

hope that explains it.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 20:01:39 and read 16522 times.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 302):
I earlier thought the object to the left of the front of the fire truck might be a tarp over a body, and there does appear to be something in that approximate spot in the evac pic. But it's just a guess.

I think it is implausible at this late stage shown in the pic (fire out, foam gone, crew having a meeting) that they would leave a body lying there - it would have been long gone. However, it might mark the spot for future examination.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-11 20:13:04 and read 16328 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 309):
However, it might mark the spot for future examination.

Good point.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-07-11 20:17:11 and read 16321 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 305):
I, however, have concerns that the evacuation process did not go as "mandated," but I may be wrong.

We all have concerns even while being grateful that the outcome could have been much worse, the investigation will reveal exactly how things went with suggestions on changes if deemed appropriate. It should also be noted that inspite of government regulations airlines themselves may implement internal changes.

One aspect that may be looked at is the increased number of carry on baggage, not a simple topic but is worthy of discussion, certainely the warnings to leave all baggage during an emergency could be as frequent as the warnings to ensure that you secure all your belongings, but then we would have pax focusing too much on a negative than a positive flight experience.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: dakota123
Posted 2013-07-11 20:21:46 and read 16288 times.

Quoting ,reply=:

I really get a kick out of that sentiment. It's like some of the posters on here will be on the flight deck for 30 minutes reading through their checklists burning up, whilst all the passengers are long gone.

I removed the poster and reply No. because the quote I selected could have been one of any number in a similar vein...

As someone in a real-time industry not dissimilar from aviation (the technical aspect, not necessarily the business side) where checklists and procedures are expected to be used (and also as a private pilot), I have to say that some of you are coming at this all wrong. Checklists, which are simply the memory aids backing up a pre-thought out procedure, may cause a short delay at the outset, but almost always save far more time (and are far safer and/or more effective) in the long run as opposed to going off half-cocked. It's a simple fact proven time after time in aviation, shipping, medicine, power generation and other real-time industries. In the case of an emergency, where even authority figures may be experiencing overload, checklists help restore order and clear thought -- and order is proven time and again to save more lives than a cowboy mentality and panic. Yes, it's a law of averages. For every occasional incident where panic and short-cut saves the day, there are dozens where following an orderly process works out far, far better.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the folks that have gone through the training any day as compared to some yahoo who has never given it a second thought before that moment.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 20:33:47 and read 16171 times.

Going back to a much earlier question (although I think our pilots may have given upon us as we GTFO'd the thread) - what are the possible transition "muscle-memory" issues from A320 to B777 wrt A/Th activation and use? I would imagine the whole set of complex flight modes are quite different? How would an experienced A320 pilot set up A/Th on a descent like this?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Skydrol
Posted 2013-07-11 21:06:50 and read 15774 times.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 149):
I would rather run the risk of getting hurt on a slide then perishing in flames in a cabin because the evacuation started too early and no one was able to get out in time. Once that fire breaks loose there IS no orderly evacuation.

It wouldn't be the fire you perish from. One or two breaths of toxic smoke and super-heated air would destroy your lungs and end your life long before being roasted. Pellegrine is right... when there is a cabin fire, you get out - yesterday. You may get hurt if you evacuate, but you WILL die if you stay put.




LD4

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 21:14:57 and read 15688 times.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 314):
It wouldn't be the fire you perish from. One or two breaths of toxic smoke and super-heated air would destroy your lungs and end your life long before being roasted. Pellegrine is right... when there is a cabin fire, you get out - yesterday. You may get hurt if you evacuate, but you WILL die if you stay put.

If I'm not mistaken, the fires in the cabin started after evacuation started, but my memory is hazy on that point.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Skydrol
Posted 2013-07-11 21:20:30 and read 15683 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 219):
Same question. Why do you need to be out of the plane so fast? The plane is not crashING, it has crashED -- and the event is over unless there is a fire. Evacuation _adds_ to the event, it does not take away from it. All those people with crush injuries (100+) should only be moved if staying put is dangerous. Maybe an analogy is in order. What if you got into a wreck on an expressway. Do you immediately get out of your car... and stand in the middle of the expressway? Or do you stay put and wait for assistance? Chances are, unless your car was on fire, you will stay put and wait for assistance. That's what happens every day, and it makes sense because after the wreck, the wrecking event is over -- unless a fire is present requiring additional action. But you and I both know that getting out of the car and standing on the freeway would *increase* your exposure to danger.Why different for planes?
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 236):
History has proved time and time again that crashed planes have a habit of combusting as indeed this one did. The fortunate factor is that the fire took quite a while to break into the cabin. Its fairly logical that the friction from sliding across the airfield could easily produce sufficient heat to cause a fire.

An excellent example was the AF340 which ran off the end of the runway in YYZ... the rain was torrential... yet the crew evacuated all safely - immediately, before the plane BURNED TO THE GROUND... IN HEAVY RAIN no less...

Never underestimate the power and speed of fire, and it's even more nasty by-product, smoke. The smoke will kill you right now. The fire will consume you much later.



LD4

[Edited 2013-07-11 21:34:48]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 21:26:39 and read 15619 times.

Pretty good reconstruction here, except as noted in its comments that the fire effect at the end is incorrect. Much better than CNN's various attempts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shF_2neUyFM

Nobody gets the left engine detachment correct though - somehow it ends up on the right hand side of the runway in the grass on that side slightly ahead of where the plane ends up on the left side. Markings on the runway suggest it detaches shortly after seawall impact probably as the right wing/engine digs in and flings the left side forward, and maybe its ongoing momentum allows the left engine to stay ahead of the plane as it crosses the runway in front of it?

[Edited 2013-07-11 21:45:30]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: quiet1
Posted 2013-07-11 21:30:54 and read 15535 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 257):
After such a violent impact and spinning movement - the pilots and/ or flight attendants were concerned that the wings had broken off and there was a lot of fuel spilled around the aircraft?

Do you have people go ahead and evacuate before you determine if they will be running into pools of fuel which could ignite any second?

If you were on a crashed aircraft and knew there were "pools of fuel which could ignite any second," would you not evacuate for that reason? If those pools ignite, how protected is the aircraft interior by the fuselage?

Wouldn't it be better to evacuate -- and the sooner the better -- passengers though that fuel before it ignites so that they have a chance of survival, than hold them captive in the fuselage where they would be likely to die from the fire/heat/smoke?

Or, if there are pools of fuel, the preferred action might be to evacuate where no fuel was visible from a particular exit, but what if fuel totally surrounds the aircraft, when it might be preferred to just proceed with hopes to get the most folks away from the fuel pools as possible? But, how can that analysis be achieved by anyone in the heat of the moment? So, all-in-all isn't it best to just evacuate everyone ASAP except from doors where debris could cut a slide and render it unusable and/or fire is in that evacuation path?

It can be a tough call, I guess. But, I am uncertain about the idea of "pools of fuel which could ignite any second" is a valid reason to delay/prevent an evacuation.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-11 21:32:50 and read 15534 times.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 283):
Looks like he was in the Marriott hotel lobby right across the water from the runways.

Agreed. That's exactly where I think he was. I used to spot on the rocks in front of that hotel 10 years ago when I lived there.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 280):
For a Democratic politician

I think transportation is (or has become) pretty nonpartisan in the last 15-20 years.

Quoting wingman (Reply 285):
I'd say that You Tube video from the young kid just became the #1 firefighting training video for airport crews worldwide.

Spotters are kinda awesome, aren't we?

But on a serious side, I've seen a lot of criticism levied against the SFO crew, particularly in contrast to the NRT crew in its handling of a fire. I don't have a dog in that fight, but I am curious as to how the review of their work judges them.

Quoting wingman (Reply 285):
I hate to say it but it's not hard to see how one of those responders may have hit the young girl.

no, not hard at all. If you look at part two of the video, you can see the ambulances rolling up on the people on the runway near the UA 744. That's a LONG debris trail, and I can bet that it was easy to assume that all of the survivors were in the plane or at least near it, not 1500+ feet away.

Also, nice to see you, wingman! one of the a.net originals.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 287):
You are pilots

Not a pilot. I'm a scientist/engineer/lawyer with an aviation enthusiast hobby, one that helped me earn my engineering degree. But the prior three professions definitely color how I see aviation. I only want to look at things scientifically.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 287):
We'll see what the NTSB says, and you can twist it to make your right and me completely and totally wrong.

Well, the NTSB and its worldwide counterparts are the primary impetuses for the checklists and procedures, so, it's not me twisting anything.

I do quite firmly believe that you (and others) are wrong about the number one priority after a crash being exiting the crashed vehicle. And I honestly believe that if you think back and look at it objectively, realizing that once the plane comes to a stop, the immediate threat is over (absent a fire or a ditching) then you'll also see that conducting an evacuation (which WILL and ALWAYS HAS CAUSED INJURIES) is very dangerous should only be partaken if necessitated by immediate continuing threats. So, it should make sense to check for immediate continuing threats before causing further injury by evacuation is absolutely and always the correct course of action.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 287):
Feel better?

I really wish that you didn't see my comments as a personal attack. They are not, so no need to make it personal here.

Quoting f14artist (Reply 308):
we don't know exactly yet if OZ 214 went down because there was an issue with cockpit "culture"

"Culture" is probably a red herring. Always beware the article that could have been written before the accident actually happened. They are often the classic case of going in a pope and coming out a cardinal.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 21:34:31 and read 15542 times.

Quoting Kirkseattle (Reply 300):
I was having trouble finding the last briefing video

The NTSB has their own channel on YouTube, where they post the briefings along with B-rolls:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NTSBgov

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-07-11 21:43:01 and read 15480 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 281):
With all of the attention paid to the post-crash actions of the crew, I beg to differ. Just because they screwed the pooch on landing doesn't in any way mean that they aren't absolutely focused and on task knowing what they just had happen to their landing.

I agree, they sure were. They were trying to save their a**es after the crash, so all of a sudden the CRM and checklists kicked in. I wonder where were these prior to the crash. Not knowing your speed is too basic of a thing to miss and it's also their job to know the aircraft systems. These guys are professional pilots, not some kids who just hopped on a plane and are in the process of getting their PPL.

The reason why I wrote that original message was that I find it unacceptable to justify this crew's screwed up performance that led to the crash using their "by the book" actions after the crash. Yes, they followed the procedures post crash, but that does not change the fact that they crashed this aircraft.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 284):
The crew of the BA B777 at LHR

This was a very different situation and I wouldn't compare the two even for the purpose of discussing post crash OZ crew actions. BA captain's flying skills saved lives of BA38 passengers, whereas the crew of OZ214 almost killed 300 people. Let's keep the discussion on this accident and not water it down.

Quoting f14artist (Reply 308):
hope that explains it.

Sorry but no, it doesn't. And for the record, I'm not trying to undermine 3000 years of Korean culture. I am concerned that things are brushed under the rug and, being on the risk averse side, I will look closely what OZ does about this, which will help me decide if I will step on their aircraft in the future. I had the exact same feeling after each dumb crash including a very similar accident which involved Turkish at AMS.

Finally, why would I put more weight on what's written by pilots who post here on A.net vs. what was published by another (UA) pilot who might be equally, if not better trained and more experienced. They are all anonymous and I take their opinions equally. Now when I compare stories about good CRM and this horror story where pilots lack basic flying skills, I tend to err on a safe side and not fly OZ for now.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2013-07-11 22:01:29 and read 15280 times.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 321):
I am concerned that things are brushed under the rug and, being on the risk averse side, I will look closely what OZ does about this, which will help me decide if I will step on their aircraft in the future.

In fairness, when all is said and done, there may be more to this story than only what OZ does about this. Loss of situational awareness is certainly unacceptable, but nothing happens in a vacuum. Change any number of things in the sequence of events that day, and things may have turned out different.

It bears repeating ad nauseum that pilots, no matter where they come from, know what they're doing or they wouldn't be in the job, especially with the regs and monitoring in any country. Pilots, Korean or otherwise, are not simply 'just lucky' the 99.9% of the time these events do not occur.

More and more international pilots with international operators familiar with SFO are commenting on Norcal Approach's habit of asking international arrivals to do a 180-5/6 onto the 28 visuals. Many have commented it is demanding to get properly stabilized when you're crossing the bridge 6 out and still getting down in a hurry because ATC said so. I would take these concerns seriously - between nonstandard ATC chatter, poor English skills, a tired crew, busy airspace, a demanding descent profile, and probable lapse of CRM, we've already got plenty of holes lined up in the layers of swiss cheese, no?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: wncrew
Posted 2013-07-11 22:04:33 and read 15239 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 319):
I do quite firmly believe that you (and others) are wrong about the number one priority after a crash being exiting the crashed vehicle. And I honestly believe that if you think back and look at it objectively, realizing that once the plane comes to a stop, the immediate threat is over (absent a fire or a ditching) then you'll also see that conducting an evacuation (which WILL and ALWAYS HAS CAUSED INJURIES) is very dangerous should only be partaken if necessitated by immediate continuing threats. So, it should make sense to check for immediate continuing threats before causing further injury by evacuation is absolutely and always the correct course of action.

Those are easy things to say "now"... now that we can see the fire didn't take over as fast as it could've. But that is perhaps the very reason you would evacuate right away after such horrendous cabin-structural damage and violent crash forces. I can say, having trained with several carriers, that THIS crash met all of the criteria on multiple levels warranting an immediate evacuation.

I don't know Asiana's specific cabin-evacuation procedures, nor do I know all other carriers' procedures but I do know what I've been taught and what I've learned from my FAA Cabin Safety Training and I would've initiated evacuation right away. You're missing both engines.. it's not as if you can't tell they're no longer running, you likely smell fuel, smoke, there's damage to the aircraft structure, ceilings have fallen in. I could go on but yes, I'd agree with what seems to be the unpopular opinion here, as a cabin crew... I'd have initiated an evacuation right away as well.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-11 22:06:14 and read 15223 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 322):
a tired crew,

I thought these kinds of flights carried a relief crew precisely to avoid that situation.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2013-07-11 22:22:59 and read 15053 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 324):
I thought these kinds of flights carried a relief crew precisely to avoid that situation.

Regardless, at the time of arrival it is still 4 am Seoul-time on their circadian clocks, the backside of the mental performance curve. Yes, crews can sleep on longhaul flights with a relief crew, but how much of that sleep is of sufficient quality to be restorative?

I know a few longhaul pilots and privately they will tell you that unless they are lucky and their own body has very minimal rest demands, the gig itself is much more tiring than people realize.

This is why NTSB will also look exhaustively at various human factors elements of this case as a rule.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: bioyuki
Posted 2013-07-11 22:48:09 and read 14876 times.

Didn't seen this posted earlier, but a great animation of the crash vs the expected flight path for a normal landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: bioyuki
Posted 2013-07-11 22:51:47 and read 15027 times.

Very good overhead shot of the fuselage and debris field to get a sense of perspective taken by busting_bravo from Reddit:

http://imgur.com/upxTLrW

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-11 23:21:10 and read 14726 times.

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 326):
a great animation of the crash vs the expected flight path for a normal landing:

Thanks for finding that, bioyuki, shows that the aeroplane was effectively stalling. I can add this, which is also relevant:-

"The flight crew of the Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 which crash landed at San Francisco Airport could not see the runway just seconds earlier, given how far the plane was out of position, US investigators have said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sh-pilot-could-not-see-runway.html

Inevitably, if an aeroplane has inadequate power, the nose will tend to rise. Ordinarily, an alert pilot can remedy that by adding power and/or applying nose-down trim. But it's pretty clear that none of that was done. Instead they relied on the autothrust, which, as the NTSB has already reported, was 'armed' but not 'activated.'

I've been wondering why the decision to 'go around' was made so late - literally in the last few seconds. But we know now - the pilots simply couldn't see the runway (or, indeed, any OTHER relevant part of the airport) and were completely disoriented.

It further looks as if, besides not checking the speed by looking at the Air Speed Indicator, the pilots weren't checking their height by use of the altimeter?

I can't recall ever before hearing of an accident which was 100% caused by 'pilot error.' But this one almost certainly was?

[Edited 2013-07-11 23:28:59]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-11 23:42:50 and read 14453 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
"The flight crew of the Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 which crash landed at San Francisco Airport could not see the runway just seconds earlier, given how far the plane was out of position, US investigators have said.

You have to take all this media stuff with a lot of salt because they are all getting the details wrong. The NTSB (Deborah Hersman) did NOT say the pilots couldn't see the runway. In fact quite the reverse - the PNF/PI reported seeing the PAPI going full red so he could clearly see the runway. What she reported was that the relief FO in the jump seat reported that HE (and just he) could not see the runway from where he was. The Telegraph article says this in the body of the article but then they go wild and get it all wrong in their heading. More poor journalism.

We are all generally better off watching replays of the NTSB briefings than reading any of the media, and certainly watching any CNN. More facts, less filling.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-11 23:52:11 and read 14349 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
Inevitably, if an aeroplane has inadequate power, the nose will tend to rise. Ordinarily, an alert pilot can remedy that by adding power and/or applying nose-down trim.

Incorrect. The nose only rises if nose up trim is applied.

What happens when a plane loses power depends on the aerodynamic characteristics of the plane, FBW logic (if any), autoflight mode(s) engaged and autotrim or not.

If a "conventional" plane is flown completely without automation ("Cessna 172 mode"), the nose will sink if you decrease power. This is because as the plane decelerates lift decreases. The wing sinks but the trim setting is for higher speeds so the downforce from the stabilizer is no longer enough to counter the movement. This can be countered by increasing the angle of attack by trimming up.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
I can't recall ever before hearing of an accident which was 100% caused by 'pilot error.' But this one almost certainly was?

There are quite a few: Air France 358 at Toronto, Pan Am 845 at SFO, TAM 3054 at Sao Paolo, Lion Air 904 at DPS (at least preliminary findings indicate this), Adam Air 574 in Indonesia, Singapore Airlines 006 at TPE, China Airlines 605 at Kai Tak, Turkish 1951 at AMS, UA 173 in Oregon, Eastern 401 in the Everglades.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
I've been wondering why the decision to 'go around' was made so late - literally in the last few seconds. But we know now - the pilots simply couldn't see the runway (or, indeed, any OTHER relevant part of the airport) and were completely disoriented.

It was probably instinct. Better call the go around late than never. Unfortunately at that speed raising the nose just changed the pitch angle and the angle of attack, not the flight path.

[Edited 2013-07-11 23:54:13]

[Edited 2013-07-12 00:05:50]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-11 23:57:14 and read 14286 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 329):
In fact quite the reverse - the PNF/PI reported seeing the PAPI going full red so he could clearly see the runway.

Fair enough as far as it goes, shrike - but he raised that point quite a lot earlier, when they were still some distance out. Thing is, none of them DID anything about it, beyond (presumably) hauling the nose up? They certainly didn't do what they should have done, add power? And the fact that they only did that, finally shoving the throttles forward and attempting to 'go around' when they were only seven seconds from crashing, strongly suggests that, by that time, they couldn't see how close in they were?

Sorry, StarlionBlue, crossed with your reply. We know that the aeroplane was too low because the engines were at 'idle' - and the speed was down too. My guess is that hauling the nose up to try get some white on the 'PAPI put the aeroplane on the brink of a stall; and maybe it actually DID stall close in?

[Edited 2013-07-12 00:20:48]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-07-12 00:11:48 and read 14404 times.

First cabin shot released:

http://twitter.com/NTSB

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-07-12 00:17:41 and read 14166 times.

Holy Cannoli! That just looks ... bad.

-Dave

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-12 00:24:58 and read 14066 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 331):
Sorry, StarlionBlue, crossed with your reply. We know that the aeroplane was too low because the engines were at 'idle' - and the speed was down too. My guess is that hauling the nose up to try get some white on the 'PAPI put the aeroplane on the brink of a stall; and that it actually DID stall close in?

Definitely on the verge of, or even fully into, a stall. If you're that slow it doesn't matter how much you pull. The only solution is more power and/or nose down. Of the two responses, nose down is by far the more important one. Engine power takes longer and besides with underslung engines it will temporarily make things work by pitching the plane up.

I suspect the pilot pulled up instinctively. It is an understandable response (pulling up almost always means changing flightpath up) but it is incorrect for a near-stall or stalll scenario. As a parallel, the pilot of AF447 also pulled up when he should have pushed. It is an instinct that good flight training works hard to weed out.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rampart
Posted 2013-07-12 00:29:02 and read 14065 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 333):
Holy Cannoli! That just looks ... bad.

The NTSB briefing mentioned that this happened all after any passengers had left. A fire fighter/rescuer entering that part of the plane prior to the fire, after evacuation, said that it looked "pristine", as if nothing had happened, while the cabin was in much worse shape farther aft.

-Rampart

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-12 00:44:47 and read 13892 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 331):
Fair enough as far as it goes, shrike - but he raised that point quite a lot earlier, when they were still some distance out. Thing is, none of them DID anything about it

Hey, I am certainly not disagreeing with YOU  . I am just pointing out that the latest media meme now spreading to multiple pubs that "the pilots could not see the runway" is just false media sensationalism that we should avoid referencing!

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: thesultanofwing
Posted 2013-07-12 02:08:06 and read 13285 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 330):

There are quite a few: Air France 358 at Toronto, Pan Am 845 at SFO, TAM 3054 at Sao Paolo, Lion Air 904 at DPS (at least preliminary findings indicate this), Adam Air 574 in Indonesia, Singapore Airlines 006 at TPE, China Airlines 605 at Kai Tak, Turkish 1951 at AMS, UA 173 in Oregon, Eastern 401 in the Everglades.

Although I am not familiar with the details of all of these accidents, I disagree with calling a few of the above "a 100% pilot error"; I will give you some examples:

TAM 3504: Adverse weather, a notoriously bad runway surface and an inop thrust reverser were contributing factors.
SQ006: Runway lights were not switched off, runway was not blocked, ATC did not check / correct the pilots.
Turkish 1951: Faulty Altimeter.

An accident is normally a chain of events including factors which, if they would not have been present; the accident would not have occurred.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-12 02:12:50 and read 13247 times.

Quoting thesultanofwing (Reply 337):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 330):

There are quite a few: Air France 358 at Toronto, Pan Am 845 at SFO, TAM 3054 at Sao Paolo, Lion Air 904 at DPS (at least preliminary findings indicate this), Adam Air 574 in Indonesia, Singapore Airlines 006 at TPE, China Airlines 605 at Kai Tak, Turkish 1951 at AMS, UA 173 in Oregon, Eastern 401 in the Everglades.

Although I am not familiar with the details of all of these accidents, I disagree with calling a few of the above "a 100% pilot error"; I will give you some examples:

TAM 3504: Adverse weather, a notoriously bad runway surface and an inop thrust reverser were contributing factors.
SQ006: Runway lights were not switched off, runway was not blocked, ATC did not check / correct the pilots.
Turkish 1951: Faulty Altimeter.

An accident is normally a chain of events including factors which, if they would not have been present; the accident would not have occurred.

We could split hairs about many of them. However stuff is broken on planes and at airports all the time and pilots are expected to deal with it. At what point is it 100% pilot error? For example Adam Air 574 had issues with the inertial navigation system, but this is no excuse for crashing the plane.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-07-12 02:29:09 and read 13138 times.

Is there an unwritten "don't go around" order at airlines? What I mean is, a go around can cost you 15 minutes or more and it will impact flight performance, use additional fuel, cascade into delay, etc.. Do airlines frown upon it? Do pilots get in trouble for doing them?

I know that the last go around I experienced at MCO because an aircraft hadn't cleared the runway meant we had to fly well north, then 180, then double all the way back, then reenter the pattern, and that was later at night when MCO isn't busy. We were already late and were close to 20 minutes later due to it. Can't imagine what the SFO delay is on a go around when ILS is off.

In the MCO case, there was no way the pilots could do anything but go around, but for some flights I've been on, we landed very long in windy conditions and the pilots then hit the brakes extremely hard (everyone forced forward hard in their seats) and we were almost at the end of the runway, and these were smaller planes on longer runways. Part of me thinks a go around might have been warranted but was avoided for the sake of just getting the plane down faster.

Compare that to my first ever go around when we were coming into LGA long on a windy day and the pilot pulled up. Simply explained that he wanted to avoid the water at the end of the runway and nobody was upset by that. Customers don't tend to get mad about pilots being safe, in fact we appreciate it. But do the airlines themselves appreciate it?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: thesultanofwing
Posted 2013-07-12 02:29:29 and read 13131 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 338):

We could split hairs about many of them. However stuff is broken on planes and at airports all the time and pilots are expected to deal with it. At what point is it 100% pilot error? For example Adam Air 574 had issues with the inertial navigation system, but this is no excuse for crashing the plane.

Fair enough, this is going off topic anyway.
Apologies....I do feel however that for instance in the TAM accident there were many contributing factors.

Back on topic....
I believe they are cutting the airframe in pieces today.....earlier on I posted this:

Quoting thesultanofwing (Reply 1):


And where will the wreckage end up, after it has been stripped?

Still wondering about this too:

Quoting thesultanofwing (Reply 207):
Quoting zeke (Reply 97):

I would say no to being able to see the engines unless the cockpit windows are opened to lean out.

At least one of the cockpit windows are open......wonder who opened these?

Did the pilots check the engines or were the windows opened at a later stage?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-07-12 02:34:07 and read 13109 times.

Quoting thesultanofwing (Reply 340):
Did the pilots check the engines or were the windows opened at a later stage?

Well one engine was hard to miss as it was very close to the cockpit and on fire. It's the engine that caused the first class cabin to go up in flames when it was not even damaged on landing.

The other engine was in the line of sight of the pilots, but quite a distance away. You night not logically believe what you were seeing though as it was so far away and ahead of the airframe.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: keegd76
Posted 2013-07-12 02:48:02 and read 13007 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 330):

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
I can't recall ever before hearing of an accident which was 100% caused by 'pilot error.' But this one almost certainly was?

There are quite a few: Air France 358 at Toronto, Pan Am 845 at SFO, TAM 3054 at Sao Paolo, Lion Air 904 at DPS (at least preliminary findings indicate this), Adam Air 574 in Indonesia, Singapore Airlines 006 at TPE, China Airlines 605 at Kai Tak, Turkish 1951 at AMS, UA 173 in Oregon, Eastern 401 in the Everglades.

To say that the accident was 100% pilot error implies that:
a) the plane is fully functional with no defects
b) the airport is fully functional with no hazards/obstructions
c) the weather is such that it plays no part in the incident (calm, clear, etc.)

Nearly all the incidents you've referenced had additional factors contributing to the accident with the exception of Lion Air 904 (still under investigation), China Airlines 605 and Eastern 401.

One you didn't mention which 'could' qualify is EgyptAir 990 (although the ECAA disputes the NTSB's findings).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-07-12 02:48:15 and read 12995 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 338):
We could split hairs about many of them. However stuff is broken on planes and at airports all the time and pilots are expected to deal with it. At what point is it 100% pilot error?

I agree... if the crash is the result of pilots not being able to deal with less than perfect (but not in themselves dangerous) situations they have been trained to deal with, situations that other pilots are dealing with just fine (in this instance, all of the pilot who landed safely before this crew stalled and hit the seawall), the eventual responsibility, despite the contributing factors, lies with the pilots.

On a separate note, this report hear, based on emergency calls, paints a less than flattering picture of the emergency response... http://news.yahoo.com/emergency-call...ts-aftermath-asiana-190913860.html

Quote: "One woman called to say she had been on the ground for 20 or 30 minutes without seeing an ambulance.

"There are people laying on the tarmac with critical injuries, head injuries. We are almost losing a woman here. We're trying to keep her alive . ... Not one ambulance here on the tarmac," she said."

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-12 02:54:55 and read 12956 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 339):

Is there an unwritten "don't go around" order at airlines? What I mean is, a go around can cost you 15 minutes or more and it will impact flight performance, use additional fuel, cascade into delay, etc.. Do airlines frown upon it? Do pilots get in trouble for doing them?

This is always a tricky one. Of course safety is paramount but airlines are about making money and go-arounds cost. In a 747 going around can mean 4-5 tons of extra fuel burn.

I would say that at major reputable airlines going around is completely accepted and encouraged, as it should be. At some airlines and in some cultures, however, going around is still seen as a failure. As a pilot, you want to nail that landing, and it can be hard to accept that a go-around is not a failure. The "ready to go around" mentality is drilled into you in flight school, or at least it should be.

Quoting thesultanofwing (Reply 340):
I do feel however that for instance in the TAM accident there were many contributing factors.

In a sense I agree with you. You could also argue that the TAM pilots should not have attempted the landing at all given the inop reverser and the conditions. Much of piloting is about judgment.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 342):
To say that the accident was 100% pilot error implies that:
a) the plane is fully functional with no defects
b) the airport is fully functional with no hazards/obstructions
c) the weather is such that it plays no part in the incident (calm, clear, etc.)

Nearly all the incidents you've referenced had additional factors contributing to the accident with the exception of Lion Air 904 (still under investigation), China Airlines 605 and Eastern 401.

One you didn't mention which 'could' qualify is EgyptAir 990 (although the ECAA disputes the NTSB's findings).

The problem with that logic is that airliners, navaids and airports very frequently have something not working, and the weather is more often than not less than perfect. This is everyday stuff.

Pilots are trained to deal with less than perfect equipment and situations. Sure, the weather can be challenging, and at that point the pilots have to both make a judgment call about continuing an approach or not, and if they do use their skills to deal with the weather. So if they crash because they made a bad decision and went ahead in bad weather, and then couldn't handle a landing in conditions they were well trained for, can we really say that the pilots are not 100% at fault?

You could argue that Eastern 401 was not 100% pilot error because the landing gear indicator light bulb was burned out. But you shouldn't...

Shades of gray.

[Edited 2013-07-12 02:59:37]

[Edited 2013-07-12 03:04:43]

[Edited 2013-07-12 03:06:15]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: keegd76
Posted 2013-07-12 03:13:16 and read 12797 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 344):
Pilots are trained to deal with less than perfect equipment and situations. Sure, the weather can be challenging, and at that point the pilots have to both make a judgment call about continuing an approach or not, and if they do use their skills to deal with the weather. So if they crash because they made a bad decision and went ahead in bad weather, can we really say that the pilots are not 100% at fault?

  

Don't disagree with any of that.

The point I wanted to make was that the pilot will always be influenced by internal & external factors. Therefore the notion of the pilot being 100% at fault is far less clear cut as some might think.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-12 03:46:07 and read 12625 times.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 228):
I have always had a mental picture of the PNF of AF447 frantically searching for "in case of bad airspeed procedure" in the flight manual as the plane plummeted to the ground.

Sorry, they never called for the unreliable airspeed procedure. They just identified it and didn't do anything about it. AF447 is a classic case of bad outcome for not following procedures. Even under the principle of "aviate, navigate, communicate", they failed the aviate... and the rest too... All thanks to poor CRM too.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 228):
Procedures have to be generated in advance and can't be expected to cover all possible cases. To expect people to remain strapped in their seats in the face of possible death by fire or smoke is unreasonable. Clearly a procedure partially designed to prevent people from walking into running engines did not apply in this case.

I guess you misunderstood the procedure. It systemizes crowd control, situational awareness, and quick action when required.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221):
understand that after a crash as severe as this one, getting out of the aircraft as quickly and safely as possible was utmost.
Quoting airtechy (Reply 228):
It's not clear if the announcement to "stay in your seats" was an automatically generated one or not, but clearly in this case it should have been ignored by the flight attendants and an evacuation started.....at least by the ones still on the airplane and able to do so...by my count only half.

As far as I know, "stay in your seats" is not automatically generated. It may be recorded, but I doubt it is automatically generated. With hindsight, sure, this does appear like it should have been ignored by the FAs and immediate evacuation was needed. Despite damaged seats etc, inside the aircraft should appear roughly intact. There is no gaping hole at the back as some have suggested.

Quoting Mir (Reply 232):
But otherwise, you can find yourself sending your passengers from a bad situation into a worse one, and the rush to get out of the plane could make the whole process more disorderly than it might otherwise be.

What many here fall for is the hindsight analysis trap.

Here's one case:
One accident here where a propeller aircraft had a runway excursion and its landing gear was thought to have collapsed (it merely sunk), cabin crew and several passengers immediately evacuated the aircraft, before the engine was shut down. While they evacuated via the rear exit, the propeller broke and went everywhere, and almost decapitated one passenger.

We had cases of passengers hearing a bang, or seeing a tailpipe fire (quite a long one), or seeing smoke arising from "below the wings" and ran towards the exits causing evacuations... with injuries (several severe injuries). In more that one occasion, the trigger was followed by an abrupt halt by the airplane on the ground. Several of the cases the cockpit did announce everyone to remain in their seats (we have jittery passengers here) which was ignored by the pax.

Well the bang was a simple compressor stall, the tailpipe fire was a non-event, the smoke rising from below the wings was a Ground Air Start cart that's a bit old. We were lucky not to have pax being sucked by engines or blown away by jetblast onto something that can cause them more damage.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 236):
History has proved time and time again that crashed planes have a habit of combusting as indeed this one did.

Anyone got a nice percentage and in the categories as to the severity/characteristics of the crash?

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 244):
What is the source of that information that the cockpit made PA announcements to remain seated? I read that the Cabin Manager sent the F/A sitting by her at Door 1 to the cockpit to inquire about an evacuation, and the cockpit advised her (who advised the Cabin Manager) not to evacuate (yet?) and it was the *Cabin Manager* who made the PA announcements to remain seated.
Quoting quiet1 (Reply 244):
Also, some posters above who are well-intentioned and well-informed about their airilne's procedures should not assume that those procedures are identical at carriers worldwide. I'm not about to get into a p*ssing match, but can say unequivocally that evacuation responsibilities and procedures DO vary.

Anyone care to guess that the procedure I posted is from what airline?
I have seen cabin emergency manuals, safety and emergency procedures, evacuation briefings, etc (as they come in various forms) from roughly 20 different airlines (includes some major global airlines) spread over 3 continents and they have the same flow.

And yes in some of those procedure flows, the initial remain seated announcement can be made by the flight deck or the CSM (after in contact with the flight deck). If no contact with the flight deck can be made, one attempt (or attempts within a deficed brief time period) only by intercom OR actually going to the cockpit, whichever is practical, is to be made failing that than the cabin crew can initiate evacuation. If the situation assessed by the cabin crew determine that immediate evacuation is required then they can do so. The procedure is flexible enough to allow for an immediate evacuation should it be deemed necesssary.

As this case shows, it may just be as short as a few seconds.

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 244):
In that case, wouldn't the F/As (had they not been incapacitated and/or ejected from the plane) initiate an evacuation being unable to contact the cockpit (assuming the cabin interphone was also inop)? If so, when they would open a door it would initiate the evacuation alarm, which even if it were disconnected from the planewide system, might be heard by the FAs farther forward in the aircraft. Would those FAs then initiate an evacuation at their door based on the fact that they knew the aft cabin was evacuating?

If they did not hear the order to remain seated, assessed the situation, determined that evacuation is necessary, and cannot obtain contact with the flight deck, then they can initiate evacuation according to the procedure.

Cabin crew are trained that if they cannot ascertain whether or not an evacuation has been ordered, and they see an evacuation has been initiated, they are to continue the evacuation (observe situation outside, determine, open or redirect).

Quoting sankaps (Reply 249):
If it was just 10 seconds, then that turns the debate on its head, in that why didn't they follow their checklists prior to evacuation as so many pilots here have said is a must do? Or does the checklist take only 10 seconds?

It does not turn it on its head.
The procedure was followed. The assessment can be as simple as going to the cockpit and the captain decides "Oh cr4p... this ain't good, yeah, let's evacuate while we continue with the evacuation procedure", or "wait... oh hang on, did someone scream fire? OK evacuate"... or even "oh cr4p, the cockpit crew is out of it and are not in a position to make a sound judgement call... OK, hey girls! Commence evacuation!"

My emphasis was on the procedure and the flow, which can be as quick as immediate, or 10 seconds to initiate the evacuation, or longer, depending on the circumstances.

If it was just 10 seconds, it shows to those who says "I got no time for procedures in these situations, I'd risk a broken leg and/or prison rather than a risk of dying", that following the procedure CAN be quick and reduce the chances of screwing in the evacuation which can cause more injuries and maybe death.

No, the flightdeck crew does NOT have to do the whole QRH/evacuation shutdown checklist prior to giving the OK for an evacuation. That is a common misconception amongst the "I'm GTFO here now regardless" crowd.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 251):
the fact that daylight is flooding through a hole at the back of the plane,

Can you tell me, where and how is the "daylight flooding through a hole at the back of the plane" is apparent in this photo?

Ignore the large gaping hole on top, look towards the rear aisle and see a person obstructing the aisle, any signs of "flooding daylight" shining on him from the back? Please enlighten me on how one can determine that "daylight is flooding through a hole at the back of the plane"? Can you?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 257):
As mentioned above, if the cabin crew believes an evacuation is necessary - the contact the cockpit once.

If no response to that contact - evacuate

If told not to evacuate - do not evacuate. If the flight attendants believe no evac is the wrong decision - tell the cockpit why - what they see.

I'll add:
If then cockpit disagree, if you deem cockpit crew is "mentally/judgementally incapacitated", then initiate evacuation.   
Over here cabin crew (or at least at some airline) are trained to also determine if the call to not evacuate is based on mental/judgement incapacitation or not. If yes, ignore flight deck, coordinate with the other FAs on initiating evacuation. This is part of the Flightdeck-cabin CRM recurrent training.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 271):
The checklist provided by Boeing only has 9 items. The airlines can modify it with agreement with their regulatory authority.

Well, for the others who are thinking how long the bloody checklist is... this is from one airline:

Quote:
1. Parking Brake... Set
2. Outflow Valve switches (both)... MAN
3. Outflow Valve Manual switches... Push to OPEN and hold for 30 seconds.
4. Fuel Control Switches (both)... CUTOFF
5. Advise the cabin to evacuate/
6. Advise the tower/
7. Engine fire switches (both)... PULL
8. APU fire switch... Override and pull
9. If an engine or APU fire warning light is illuminated: Illuminated fire switch... Rotate to the stop and hold for 1 second.

The "GTFO crowd" may want to note that #2 and #3 are to depressurize the aircraft so that if the pressure hull was not compromised, one can open the doors... It also removes the risk of vessel remaining pressurized if the outflow valves were in the stuck position.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 279):
Three pilots managed to fly this aircraft into the ground! I'm not sure why you get so upset when Korean cockpit culture is mentioned. If you delete "of Korea" in that sentence you wrote (we had a fairly recent Turkish example as well), would you still say that they did a good job by letting the plane fly itself instead of being at the controls for which they are paid?

Simple, regardless of the nationality of the crew, an accident is an accident, and needs to be investigated thoroughly and objectively. They can be martian for all I care, but to jump on the "culture problem" bandwagon is prejudicial.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 279):
Would you follow the orders or punch lights out of the genius who almost killed you?

If the genius who almost killed me can still function and perform his remaining duties properly, yes. However, I am closer to call him/her "incapacitated", once he/she shows incapability of performing the remaining duty/duties, declare incapacitation and go with the contingency authorization for the evacuation.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 284):
Some people have criticized the LHR fire department for pouring all the foam on the BA aircraft 'with no engines running'.
What are they supposed to do when they arrive on scene and see fuel on the ground and fuel running out of the aircraft?

Well aren't some people smarter and more right than others because they're sitting in an armchair behind a wall of anonymity?   

Quoting f14artist (Reply 308):
It's because
1. we don't know exactly yet if OZ 214 went down because there was an issue with cockpit "culture", flying skill, lack of situational awareness, OR misunderstanding of systems. I guess it could be a combination of those.

Correct. There is no doubt that the guys in front of the plane messed up. Just saying they're messed up, blame the culture, and stuck in their demi-god status, gets nowhere except for blowing steam... and it does nothing to deconstruct the culture of steep authority curve and demi-god status of 'seniors', in fact, it may serve to consolidate such behaviour out of defensiveness... and then we're not back to square one, we end up further back than square one.

Understand what they did, what they thought, and why they did it and why they thought it. That way we can deconstruct the error behaviour (and error culture).

Great strides at improving CRM at Asiana are thanks to the expats who are not the whiners and simply badmouth them for their behaviour, the efforts and patience of those who spent time persuading, convincing, through engagement yielded results. The last thing we want in aviation is to brand them as having made no improvement (out of prejudice and "holier than thou" attiude), because it will push the old guard into coming back with a vengeance, and we're all worse off.

Quoting dakota123 (Reply 312):
It's a simple fact proven time after time in aviation, shipping, medicine, power generation and other real-time industries. In the case of an emergency, where even authority figures may be experiencing overload, checklists help restore order and clear thought -- and order is proven time and again to save more lives than a cowboy mentality and panic.

THANK YOU! That rings blissful music in my ears!

Quoting shrike (Reply 313):
Going back to a much earlier question (although I think our pilots may have given upon us as we GTFO'd the thread) - what are the possible transition "muscle-memory" issues from A320 to B777 wrt A/Th activation and use? I would imagine the whole set of complex flight modes are quite different? How would an experienced A320 pilot set up A/Th on a descent like this?

"Previous type habit rentention"? First, the pilot had to be able to perform according to the 777 procedure before being let out of the SIM and onto the real aircraft... but I guess that's blatantly obvious...   
Next, is, setting the A/T like an Airbus? Well, he can set it up like an Airbus in Selected Mode (instead of Managed mode), which would be no different except with the Bus you pull the speed selector to get into the select mode, instead of pushing a separate button for the A/T mode.
Where "retention" maybe a problem is that he may have accidentally slipped into thinking that the thrust levers not moving or being in a fixed position was not a problem as the Bus FBW has non-moving Thrust Levers in AutoThrust.

The other difference is that in a Bus FBW, initiating the go-around one would just slap the thrust levers to the forward most stop and autothrust (or manual thrust if they were in manual thrust) would give go-around thrust and the flight directors would go into go-around mode. With the 777, on a Go-Around, you would have to press the TOGA button (as long as A/T is armed, it'll then engage Go-around thrust), it'll give go-around thrust and the flight directors go into go-around mode. If you do not press the TOGA button, then thrust would always adjust to the selected mode (idle in FLCH with a selected altitude below, climb thrust in FLCH with a selected altitude above, or selected speed in SPD mode, and then there's the FMC related modes).

How this may have affected the outcome of the chain of events needs to be looked into. We don't know if it is significant or not until the FDR data and/or CVR data becomes known. However, I can tell you that from experience, this has caught out MANY pilots in the sim when training from Airbus to Boeing. And while it may not be related whatsoever, it has caught up some to end up in a situation much like OZ214 in the SIM (erroneous assumption of A/T mode, erroneous G/A procedure due to retention). A good instrument scan is key and vigilance on the FMA is also key, but even the not-careless have been caught out in the sim. I don't know if this is a factor or not, it's just too early to tell. I'll have to look back at the notes explaining the retention issues in those sim cases.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 322):
More and more international pilots with international operators familiar with SFO are commenting on Norcal Approach's habit of asking international arrivals to do a 180-5/6 onto the 28 visuals. Many have commented it is demanding to get properly stabilized when you're crossing the bridge 6 out and still getting down in a hurry because ATC said so. I would take these concerns seriously - between nonstandard ATC chatter, poor English skills, a tired crew, busy airspace, a demanding descent profile, and probable lapse of CRM, we've already got plenty of holes lined up in the layers of swiss cheese, no?

I'm quite concerned at this, 180 until 5-6NM out is errr... a risk. As far as I know the busy airports outside the US would ask for 160 until 5-6NM...
Did this add stresses to the crew? Added stress to the crew increases risk of lapses in energy management and CRM as some would inadvertently corner themselves into tunner tasking.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
I can't recall ever before hearing of an accident which was 100% caused by 'pilot error.' But this one almost certainly was?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 331):
and maybe it actually DID stall close in?

137kts selected speed, that means Vref is no more than 132kts indicated airspeed (approach selected speed is Vref+5+(0.5 headwind component).).
Vref is 1.3*stall speed, hence stall speed is 101.5kts... well make it 102kts indicated airspeed. As far as I remembered, they never went below 103kts, and I cannot remember if the 103kts is groundspeed or indicated airspeed.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 345):
Therefore the notion of the pilot being 100% at fault is far less clear cut as some might think.

Correct. Pilot error must have an additional question... WHY...
As in the case of Adam Air 574, the crew did make a fatal error, for safety improvements one must ask why did they make the error. It turns out that the crew made the error because their training was grossly inadequate (Adam Air crew were not trained in upset recovery, IRS troubleshooting, and in some cases had no training on the background of the IRS). There's always something hidden behind the pilot error pebble...

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-12 03:55:36 and read 12512 times.

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap...3dad124baf5017370f6a70670001e4.jpg

Pic of the debris field near the impact point, just to give perspective on what they are dealing with.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: timbuk
Posted 2013-07-12 04:04:01 and read 12444 times.

don't know if this has been postet yet:

collection of impressive photos of the accident:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...asiana-airlines-flight-214/100551/

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Bongodog1964
Posted 2013-07-12 04:14:15 and read 12282 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):
There is no gaping hole at the back as some have suggested.

It depends on your definition of "gaping" to me a hole large enough for crew members to have been ejected through falls in that category.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-12 04:24:10 and read 12220 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):
There's always something hidden behind the pilot error pebble...

I'm loving this expression.

mandala499, as ever you bring well-written and well-informed stuff to the discussion.

[Edited 2013-07-12 04:35:09]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: type-rated
Posted 2013-07-12 04:36:42 and read 12114 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 331):
My guess is that hauling the nose up to try get some white on the 'PAPI put the aeroplane on the brink of a stall; and maybe it actually DID stall close in?

That's called "trying to stretch the glide". It only acts to bleed off airspeed. If you still have some distance to go you will need to add power to compensate to maintain altitude or slow the sink rate. If the engines were at flight idle then there was no time to respool them up for the power needed to make the runway.

To tell you the truth, I have done and observed that the engines are normally kept spooled up until right before touchdown. Usually you hear the engines despool only a few seconds before the wheels touch. There is a reason for that. In case you get a go around you have the power immediately available to you.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-12 04:48:44 and read 12115 times.

There is certainly a gaping hole in the pressure bulkhead.

http://www.bt.dk/sites/default/files.../600/6/6600963-usa-crashasiana.jpg

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-12 05:27:03 and read 11726 times.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 279):
Is the "good" CRM even relevant after you crash a plane like this?

Yes. Very. You can have screwed up everything up to that point, but you've still got a job to do in an evacuation, and it's your responsibility to do it right. You don't get to throw CRM out the window just because you made a previous error.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 279):
I know it's the cabin crews' job to comply with flight crew's orders and the evacuation succeeded, but can we assume those two away for a minute? What would you do if you saw what happened? Would you follow the orders or punch lights out of the genius who almost killed you?

How exactly is punching the lights out of the pilots going to help the passengers?

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 344):
You could argue that Eastern 401 was not 100% pilot error because the landing gear indicator light bulb was burned out. But you shouldn't...

Why not? The burned out bulb contributed to the situation. By excluding it as a factor you're eliminating the possibility that improvements could be made to reduce the likelihood of bulbs burning out.

-Mir

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: propilot83
Posted 2013-07-12 05:30:20 and read 11699 times.

WOW, when I first heard the news about this accident, I kind of thought that the fatalities aboard the aircraft of the Boeing 777 of Asiana Flight 214 would have been at least 50-100. Amazing that only 2 people died, this shows how safe the aircraft really is. I also knew that this might have been pilot error for sure, one reason because now a days, mostly since after 09-11-2001, there has been more oversight, transparency, and more tight federal air regulations from the FAA regarding maintenance checks, etc. (besides TSA). So I believed that this crash was most likely human error. The aircraft is too sophisticated and complex since 1994 when Boeing first came out with this nice beautiful airliner. I did my own research on this aircraft, and although every new aircraft that first rolls out of Boeing always has some kind of defect, is that defect minor or major? For example the worst case with Boeing, was the Power Control Unit of the two Boeing 737 crashes of United and US Airways back in the early 90's. This Asiana flight 214 crash was pretty embarrassing, because it could have easily been avoided. First of all, you dont train a "rookie" pilot without proper flight instructors who actually know what they are doing. Auto throttle disengaged??? Pilot flying too low and slow?? I mean come on, please give me a break! And what really made me kind of mad is why the hell does the FAA not test international pilots from foreign carriers for a drug test right away. I dont care what airline or country your coming from, the laws should apply to everyone regarding FAA and IACA. There should not be any injustice. I heard on CNN that had this crash been an American carrier, the pilots would have automatically been sent to a drug test. People should not be so sensitive and lenient, mostly the US. This is sad, really embarrassing disaster, thats why they have million dollar simulators to train in and also by the way, the guy should have been "test flying" the plane back at home in his own country in a desert or safe secluded area like Boeing does here in America without any passengers for Gods sake. You never ever take any chances or risks with passengers on board making a stupid decision to land a plane with a new airline pilot, I dont care how many PhDs, or master degrees he has. I have no college degree, and I bet I could have landed that plane with auto land way better than the pilot himself, because I know that the "auto throttle" should have been engaged and I've learned a lot of experience flying Flight Simulator 98, (I know its only a simulation, but I know how the flight operations and procedures are supposed to work you know), I mean its common sense nowadays. There is no room for error, on the Boeing 777 aircraft. Asiana's gonna be sued heavily, fined by the FAA for negligence, and I hope the South Korean government fires all the pilots of that airline and take away their pilots license forever and have them change careers, and I am hoping that South Korea prosecutes the pilots for dumb flying and charge them with manslaughter, because of the 2 human fatalities. This is just ridiculous, it was very shameful and embarrassing like no aircraft accident that I've seen before. This could have easily been prevented. I hope everyone learns their lessons from crashes like this. $220 million plane down the drain, 2 fatalities, injured passengers, the fines are gonna cause havoc on Asiana Airlines and Justice will be served. We aint living in the 90's anymore folks.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-12 05:50:57 and read 11474 times.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 345):
Therefore the notion of the pilot being 100% at fault is far less clear cut as some might think.

Agree in general, keegd76. There are almost always 'contributing factors' - weather, mechanical malfunctions, poor visibility etc.

My earlier point was that none of that applies in this case. They had perfect visibility and light winds. The airline president has already said that there were no mechanical malfunctions. They even had the advantage that they were landing at sea level, they really would have been able just to 'zero' the altimeter and know that the height shown was their actual height above the runway - no 'arithmetic' required!

On present evidence the cause (you can actually say the only cause) of this accident was that the pilots relied too much on the auto-systems - particularly the auto-throttle. And failed to set them up properly - in particular, by setting up the auto-thrust but not activating it.

They then compounded those errors by apparently failing to check the 'basic' instruments (especially the ASI) all the way down. And, one has to add, apparently not noting and interpreting the unusual nose-high attitude that the aeroplane will undoubtedly have adopted all through the descent.

So, in my view, this appears to be one case in which the pilot(s) were indeed '100% at fault'?

[Edited 2013-07-12 05:54:03]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: N328KF
Posted 2013-07-12 05:57:40 and read 11433 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 343):
Quote: "One woman called to say she had been on the ground for 20 or 30 minutes without seeing an ambulance.

"There are people laying on the tarmac with critical injuries, head injuries. We are almost losing a woman here. We're trying to keep her alive . ... Not one ambulance here on the tarmac," she said."


There were at least two (probably just two) groups of passengers -- those who exited out one side and were met right away by first responders, and then another group that went out the rear, who were perhaps not noticed immediately. This includes the ejected FAs.

Note that this is just my impression from the videos I have seen and what the NTSB has said.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: CaptainKramer
Posted 2013-07-12 06:00:11 and read 11393 times.

I will never be able to fathom, as long as I live the idea that there may be management of airlines out there that place emphasis on schedule over safety which may seep subconsciously into the flight crews judgement calls while flying those schedules.

If you presented management with two choices, a Go-around that creates a 30 minute delay and burns 5 to 6 tonnes of fuel, or a plane written off with multiple injuries or deaths of your fare paying customers, and a tarnished reputation, which one makes more financial sense long term. Nor does a plane crash soley affect the one plane or airline, but it disrupts the schedules of all those airlines that fly into the airport where the crash occurred.

It is easy for management sitting behind a desk to make that decision as emphasis is always placed on profit margin which is normally arrived at via cost cutting measures in economically testing times.

I hope and prey that "Landing or Schedule Fever", does not seep into the subconscious of a crew, worried about the repurcussions a Go-around may have on schedule and their subsequent judgement at a crtitcal moment during a landing and also their long term employment prospects with said airline, should they perform one to many Go-arounds for managements liking.

For instance there are numerous examples of airliners crash landing during severe weather in the past, which could have been avoided by simply holding till the weather passes. Airlines may complain about the cost of placing aircraft in a holding pattern, but they never seem to get the irony that if a plane crash lands because of bad weather all the other aircraft behind are immediately put into a holding pattern or diverted to another airport, so go figure.

A Go-around in the overall scheme of things is always the cheapest option.

Also a question for those in the know (sorry if it has already been asked!), would a crew member who is flying into an Airport on a new type of aircraft, in this instance a B777 versus a B744, would they not be required to fly this approach in a simulator first. I know the pilot had previous experience flying a B744 into SFO, but how current would that have to be?

Thanks in advance.

[Edited 2013-07-12 06:15:52]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-12 06:01:25 and read 11370 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 353):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 344):
You could argue that Eastern 401 was not 100% pilot error because the landing gear indicator light bulb was burned out. But you shouldn't...

Why not? The burned out bulb contributed to the situation. By excluding it as a factor you're eliminating the possibility that improvements could be made to reduce the likelihood of bulbs burning out.

That's fair, but my point was that sometimes the contributing factors are so minor as not to absolve the pilots in any significant way.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2013-07-12 06:01:57 and read 11394 times.

Quoting dfanucci (Reply 220):
The amount of processing a Firefighter/EMT has to do responding to a situation like this is staggering...

Agreed. That's why I'm not too worried about the people complaining about going 20 minutes without being seen. Of course, we'll see what the NTSB has to say.

While there's almost always room for improvement, if triage is done right, there are bound to be people who wait and that's ok. You want your resources going to the most seriously injured first.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 274):
You can have some excruciatingly painful traumas or very bloody or gruesome injuries that may get people's attention but are not immediately life threatening and therefore have to wait. The unfortunate reality of a mass casualty incident is that some people will not end up as well off as they would had they been an individual victim.

Yup. I've seen some scalp lacerations that looked terrible with lots of blood, but in reality were very minor and posed no threat to life.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SavannahMark
Posted 2013-07-12 06:06:23 and read 11345 times.

Not sure if this piece had been posted before but I thought it was quite an interesting read:

After I retired from [Carrier redacted] as a Standards Captain on the –400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for five long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.

For the rest -

http://tinyurl.com/kgza7x9

Thoughts?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-07-12 06:20:21 and read 11192 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 359):

Yup. I've seen some scalp lacerations that looked terrible with lots of blood, but in reality were very minor and posed no threat to life.

scalp lacerations (as well as an extremity impalement) are two of the injuries I had in mind with that statement as far as being dramatic looking but not life threatening.

I remember one of my MCI instructor or courses mentioning that in an MCI, as cruel as it sounds, the person you need to be worried about is not the person screaming in pain. That person is acting normal and appropriately which is a good sign as to their current condition. The patient who is not talking to me, who is acting out of it, who should be in pain but isnt, etc are the ones I'm worried about. A broken ankle or forearm or a partial thickness burn to an extremity are agonizingly painful injuries, and the person will likely be (justifiably) voicing that fact and drawing a lot of attention, but I'm not nearly as worried about them as I am the guy sitting down quietly with a soft spot on his skull, clear fluid and blood draining out of his ear, and one pupil dramatically bigger than the other.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: cloudboy
Posted 2013-07-12 06:21:16 and read 11218 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):

Can you tell me, where and how is the "daylight flooding through a hole at the back of the plane" is apparent in this photo?

Ignore the large gaping hole on top, look towards the rear aisle and see a person obstructing the aisle, any signs of "flooding daylight" shining on him from the back? Please enlighten me on how one can determine that "daylight is flooding through a hole at the back of the plane"? Can you?

Where was that picture taken from? I am assuming the middle cabin?

I am assuming that they must have work lights installed in the back at this point. Something is lighting the back cabin, and from that angle you wouldn't be able to see the back wall. BUT, if there in deed was a fire IN the cabin, the whole thing would have been filled with smoke and everything would be dark as night. But the back section is clean, if a total mess and quite visibly twisted. Also note that it is really the center section of the seats that is gone, and it almost stops at the galley wall. Looking at this, and this is pure speculation, the fire may have started in the overhead bins. I wondered if there might have been something someone had in their carry-on that started the fire?

i will say that if yeah, I saw that much of a twist in the back of the cabin, I think there was definitely something wrong there.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: wncrew
Posted 2013-07-12 06:25:10 and read 11152 times.

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 326):
Didn't seen this posted earlier, but a great animation of the crash vs the expected flight path for a normal landing:

Why do none of them show the aircraft pivoting counter-clockwise on it's nose before slamming back down as seen in the actual video footage?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-12 06:34:03 and read 11062 times.

Quoting SavannahMark (Reply 360):
Not sure if this piece had been posted before but I thought it was quite an interesting read:

Yep, been posted here in one of the threads, plus posted as an Op-Ed, that's been taken down.

Op-Ed: "My Flight Training Experience In Korea" (by eksath Jul 10 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SavannahMark
Posted 2013-07-12 06:41:14 and read 10931 times.

Searched for key words in the article, no luck. Well thank you - mods please remove my previous post when you get a chance.

[Edited 2013-07-12 06:42:08]

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-07-12 07:18:36 and read 10573 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):
The "GTFO crowd" may want to note that #2 and #3 are to depressurize the aircraft so that if the pressure hull was not compromised, one can open the doors... It also removes the risk of vessel remaining pressurized if the outflow valves were in the stuck position.

Can anybody enlighten me about the reason why A/C are depressurized on ground, but not during approach? Can one set the pressure differential to zero when one passes through 2000 ft, for example? Or does a little (but sufficient) pressure differential remain, which forces the doors closed, so the outflow valve must be opened manually anyway?


David

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-07-12 07:26:57 and read 10446 times.

Quoting thesultanofwing (Reply 340):
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):
Quoting dakota123 (Reply 312):It's a simple fact proven time after time in aviation, shipping, medicine, power generation and other real-time industries. In the case of an emergency, where even authority figures may be experiencing overload, checklists help restore order and clear thought -- and order is proven time and again to save more lives than a cowboy mentality and panic.
THANK YOU! That rings blissful music in my ears!

How long should a checklist take after a crash landing, esp to look around and de-pressurize the aircraft (assuming it is not already split open). 10 seconds? 30 seconds? 90 seconds?

I don't think most reasonable people would have an issue with the pilots / crew taking a few moments to assess the situation and do some basic stuff like de-pressurize the aircraft. But it does seem 90 seconds of waiting inside a crashed aircraft before getting the go-ahead to evacuate is excessive; even the NTSB seems to think so, otherwise they would not keep referring to this.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2013-07-12 07:50:56 and read 10152 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 366):
Can anybody enlighten me about the reason why A/C are depressurized on ground, but not during approach? Can one set the pressure differential to zero when one passes through 2000 ft, for example? Or does a little (but sufficient) pressure differential remain, which forces the doors closed, so the outflow valve must be opened manually anyway?

If memory serves pressure is typically equalized at the latest when the wheels touch the ground. However the emergency checklist will include pressurization items because if something malfunctioned you don't want the doors to be impossible to open.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-12 07:55:13 and read 10122 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 319):
I think transportation is (or has become) pretty nonpartisan in the last 15-20 years.

As a decade-long aviation policy analyst at the DOT, I would agree that it is very non-partisan when it comes to aircraft incidents and accidents.

Quoting D L X (Reply 319):
Not a pilot. I'm a scientist/engineer/lawyer with an aviation enthusiast hobby, one that helped me earn my engineering degree. But the prior three professions definitely color how I see aviation. I only want to look at things scientifically.

I've been in the aviation field my entire life, and come from a family of pilots and aviation professionals, but I am a strategic planner, so that has also colored how I view aviation. I have followed crashes very closely since the early 1970s, but I am no expert in the field.

Quoting D L X (Reply 319):
I really wish that you didn't see my comments as a personal attack. They are not, so no need to make it personal here.

I apologize. In no way was I completely disagreeing with you experts on checklists, etc. In the vast majority of cases, you all spot on. My only point was that after a certain point, the severity of a crash may create a situation where a cabin crewmember may have to begin an evacuation almost immediately. While the fire, thank god, was limited initially, there may be situations where they must begin aiding in an evacuation after only assessing the conditions outside their exit. Certainly, the more violent the crash, the more likely this may happen. I'm concerned there may have been an unnecessary delay here, but in this situation, it worked out. Therefore, at worst, I suspect we may learn some new things about evacuation procedures from this accident.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-12 07:58:21 and read 10060 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
I've been wondering why the decision to 'go around' was made so late - literally in the last few seconds. But we know now - the pilots simply couldn't see the runway

Why would no longer being able to see the runway cause an experienced pilot to delay going around?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 355):
And failed to set them up properly - in particular, by setting up the auto-thrust but not activating it.

It's possible that, due to the way they used the AP, the A/Th was inhibited; but I don't think there's been any evidence presented that the A/Th wasn't "activated" (in the sense of the crew not actively making it functional it a some point).

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-12 08:21:17 and read 9783 times.

Quoting wncrew (Reply 323):
Those are easy things to say "now"... now that we can see the fire didn't take over as fast as it could've. But that is perhaps the very reason you would evacuate right away after such horrendous cabin-structural damage and violent crash forces. I can say, having trained with several carriers, that THIS crash met all of the criteria on multiple levels warranting an immediate evacuation.

I don't know Asiana's specific cabin-evacuation procedures, nor do I know all other carriers' procedures but I do know what I've been taught and what I've learned from my FAA Cabin Safety Training and I would've initiated evacuation right away. You're missing both engines.. it's not as if you can't tell they're no longer running, you likely smell fuel, smoke, there's damage to the aircraft structure, ceilings have fallen in. I could go on but yes, I'd agree with what seems to be the unpopular opinion here, as a cabin crew... I'd have initiated an evacuation right away as well.

This is basically the point I was trying to make initially. Thanks for the post.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-12 08:23:35 and read 9773 times.

Quoting shrike (Reply 313):
I would imagine the whole set of complex flight modes are quite different? How would an experienced A320 pilot set up A/Th on a descent like this?

The way the planes systems react is somewhat different.

However, the PF - the pilot with A320 experience - did NOT setup the A/T on this descent. It was the PNF/PM trainer - with extensive recent experience in the B777 who said he setup the A/T.

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 318):
Wouldn't it be better to evacuate -- and the sooner the better -- passengers though that fuel before it ignites so that they have a chance of survival,

As you said - the cabin crew should try to find an exit where evacuating pax could avoid fuel.

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 318):
is a valid reason to delay/prevent an evacuation.

This really wasn't a delayed evacuation. It was a quickly initiated proper evacuation. Because it wasn't instantaneous doesn't make it was delayed.

Quoting D L X (Reply 319):
I think transportation is (or has become) pretty nonpartisan in the last 15-20 years.

The NTSB is one of (possibly the only) part of our political structure in DC that works correctly. Now DOT and the FAA are too political.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
I've been wondering why the decision to 'go around' was made so late

Was a decision to go around actually made? I haven't heard that in any of the NTSB briefings. What I have heard is that someone in the cockpit called Go Around. Not that the crew said they were going around.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 328):
I can add this, which is also relevant

It is really not relevant - because again you have quoted an article which distorts what was said into a lie - and gives a false impression. You really need to quote the actual statements of the investigators - rather than the untrustworthy articles you seem to always quote.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 333):
Holy Cannoli! That just looks ... bad.

No - it looks pretty good to me. The seats are in their correct position. I don't see any sign of many seats broken lose from their mounts on the floor. I don't see but the remains of a few bags. I don't see any remains of bodies.

What I see is a burned out cabin AFTER a successful timely evacuation.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 339):
Is there an unwritten "don't go around" order at airlines?

Officially, NO.

Practically - maybe.

The only place that go arounds are expected that I know of is USN carriers. Pilots should go around at least 15-20% of the time. The culture is that no one can be so perfect to hit the carrier perfectly 100% of the time.

Some 'macho' cultures still consider go arounds a black mark. There are also reports of some European and American airlines accountants keeping track of pilots go around rates - and possible negative career impact for the pilots with the highest rates. All of this is officially denied.

However, a "don't go around" doesn't seem to be relevant in this case. Distraction and not understanding how the A/T works seem to be bigger factors. Being focused on trying to get the aircraft manually lined up with the runway, and not watching the speed - seems to be the focus of the crew in my opinion from the very preliminary data available.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 355):
My earlier point was that none of that applies in this case.

Actually it is very important and does apply to this case. Pilot understanding of automation is increasingly looking like a major factor. And not just the new B777 pilot - but the very experienced B777 pilots.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-12 08:38:11 and read 9559 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 355):
So, in my view, this appears to be one case in which the pilot(s) were indeed '100% at fault'?

I would add that "100%" at fault is a relative term, but carries a certain amount of hyperbolic truth, i.e. even if there were other issues, in many of the cases mentioned above, the pilots should have been able to deal with them and not "crash." So, while it may not be "100%" it is off the charts in the "they completely f**ked up category," which suggests to me the "100% fault" is pretty damn close to what happened in a lot of these incidents.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-07-12 08:43:53 and read 9484 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 367):
But it does seem 90 seconds of waiting inside a crashed aircraft before getting the go-ahead to evacuate is excessive; even the NTSB seems to think so, otherwise they would not keep referring to this.

Based on what I have seen, I'm not sure that is a conclusion one can draw

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 369):
I apologize.

No worries, mate!

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-12 08:44:51 and read 9503 times.

Apparently the aircraft wreckage is bring/ has been removed from the crash site.

From KGO TV in San Francisco - Friday morning

Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (KGO) -- Overnight, thick smoke could be seen from site of the Asiana Airlines plane wreckage at San Francisco International Airport. The thick white smoke could be seen as crews worked to move debris from the plane. ABC7 News is now being told there was no fire, just heavy smoke caused by metal friction as crews cut the plane into smaller pieces.

Earlier this week an SFO spokesperson discussed that hazards crews would face in the cleanup. "We expect that there is going to be a lot of hazardous materials, jet fuel and hydraulic fluid that needs to be cleaned up in the area," said SFO Spokesperson Doug Yakel.

The fuselage of the plane was removed from the runway and work has started on repaving the runways and fixing the light system damaged in the crash.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...on=news/local/peninsula&id=9170280

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2013-07-12 08:45:54 and read 9491 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 372):
The NTSB is one of (possibly the only) part of our political structure in DC that works correctly. Now DOT and the FAA are too political.

Spot on! Hence why I left DOT.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 757gb
Posted 2013-07-12 08:53:38 and read 9417 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 334):
The only solution is more power and/or nose down. Of the two responses, nose down is by far the more important one.

Starlionblue, your comment made me think of something. I think the opinion that the pilots erred is pretty unanimous in this forum. I don't dispute that and don't mean to say that they did the right thing on purpose, but once they were that low, by raising the nose the way they did only the tail impacted the sea wall. If they hadn't raised the nose maybe the whole fuselage would have impacted, disintegrating and killing a lot more people...

Just a thought...

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-12 09:09:07 and read 9212 times.

Quoting wncrew (Reply 323):
I'd have initiated an evacuation right away as well.

Even if the captain told you to have everyone remain in their seats?

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-07-12 09:09:43 and read 9203 times.

Quoting 757gb (Reply 377):
but once they were that low, by raising the nose the way they did only the tail impacted the sea wall. If they hadn't raised the nose maybe the whole fuselage would have impacted, disintegrating and killing a lot more people...

I don't think we will ever know the answer to which would have resulted in fewer deaths and injuries. Staying relatively flat or pulling back. It was going to be a pretty hard hit if they had cleared the embankment before the gear ht.

The NTSB does say the first impact was the main gear hitting the embankment, not the empennage.

I think the DFDR will show that control input was responsible for the sharp pitch up at the end. And I also think it was not a conscious move by the pilots - but instinctive reaction to seeing that they going to hit.

In the Mulhouse crash - the FEP not pitching up the aircraft did save lives.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: 757gb
Posted 2013-07-12 09:16:21 and read 9105 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 379):
The NTSB does say the first impact was the main gear hitting the embankment, not the empennage.

You are correct, I guess I didn't express myself right. My point was that the tail was disintegrated, not the whole fuselage.
I agree that the pitch up looks like instinctive reaction, a lucky one IMO since it seems to have saved lives.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: whiteguy
Posted 2013-07-12 09:22:58 and read 9057 times.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 352):

There is certainly a gaping hole in the pressure bulkhead.

http://www.bt.dk/sites/default/files.../600/6/6600963-usa-crashasiana.jpg


From the outside it looks like it, from the inside on the other side would be the galley and washrooms then the passenger area!

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 366):
Can anybody enlighten me about the reason why A/C are depressurized on ground, but not during approach? Can one set the pressure differential to zero when one passes through 2000 ft, for example? Or does a little (but sufficient) pressure differential remain, which forces the doors closed, so the outflow valve must be opened manually anyway?

A/C are depressurized as the aircraft is in the descent. By the time you land the cabin would be depressurized. The outflow valves are forced open in case any residual pressure is still in the aircraft, could happen with an emergency situation. In the cabin is still pressurized it can prevent emergency exits from being able to open.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-07-12 09:32:55 and read 8935 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 355):
On present evidence the cause (you can actually say the only cause) of this accident was that the pilots relied too much on the auto-systems - particularly the auto-throttle. And failed to set them up properly - in particular, by setting up the auto-thrust but not activating it.

This is not so much too much reliance on auto-system, but to me it begins to point at lack of adequate monitoring of the automation. The mode in which the Autothrottle is on should be presented on the Flight Mode Announciator. If the A/T was off, the FMA should have the had the A/T part of the FMA blank.
This is the first net... did they monitor the FMA, and if the A/T was on, the question then becomes, why didn't the A/T respond properly. HOWEVER, this does not absolve the crew from having erred as the probable cause, because...
The second net is, monitoring the of the primary flight instrument should have indicated that the speed was low, and the trend arrow should have shown a decreasing speed trend. The question then becomes, did the PF see this? Did the PM see this? If yes, why didn't they react (adding thrust (possible under Boeing A/T) or initiating go-around, or disconnect A/T (if on) and add thrust)? Were their eyes outside at this critical few seconds?

The chain of events needs to be constructed, and currently everyone seems to be using different versions of "descriptions of the events"... eg:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 355):
And, one has to add, apparently not noting and interpreting the unusual nose-high attitude that the aeroplane will undoubtedly have adopted all through the descent.

Are you sure you mean they went nose high through the descent? Well, how can you have the nose that high and descend with speed above target approach speed in landing flap config? The physics just don't work. Now, if you say they went on a nose-high attitude once they got below the approach slope, then it would make some sense.

Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 357):
Also a question for those in the know (sorry if it has already been asked!), would a crew member who is flying into an Airport on a new type of aircraft, in this instance a B777 versus a B744, would they not be required to fly this approach in a simulator first

Not unless the airport is unique/risky enough to warrant that. Simulators are busy too...

Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 357):
A Go-around in the overall scheme of things is always the cheapest option.

I don't think this is a case of management wanting to penny pinch and prevent crew from going around... However, the question of why so late to commence the go-around, remains.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 362):
i will say that if yeah, I saw that much of a twist in the back of the cabin, I think there was definitely something wrong there.

So where's that "daylight is flooding through a hole at the back of the plane" ???
http://www.bt.dk/sites/default/files.../600/6/6600963-usa-crashasiana.jpg
The rear bulkhead is ruptured, and while it does look like a big gaping hole, note where the cabin floor line is.
Note also that the rear galley is there, on the bulkhead wall, and to the sides. I wouldn't be surprised if the roofing had also collapsed over there, and the galleys on the side if still there, collapsing to the center. The center seats in front of the galley would have the rear lavatories and on some of OZ's 777s another part of the galley, and on some of their 777s, there would also be lavatories in front of the rear exits. If the damage is such that some people were ejected, then there would have been some collapsing internal structure to obstruct an already obstructed view between the nearest FA seats from the rear galley (Doors L3 and R3), and the gaping hole.
Currently I have no info on how many FAs from the rear were still able to perform evacuation duties or communicate that there's a gaping hole at the back. The crew from L3 and R3 in my opinion may have seen some light coming through the back, but they wouldn't see it as "daylight flooding through"....

I guess we'll know more on this soon.

And on "that much of a twist", there has been worse twists/structure snaps without holes allowing daylight to flood through on other accidents... but that's another discussion.   

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 366):
Can anybody enlighten me about the reason why A/C are depressurized on ground, but not during approach?

Because pressurization is supplied from the engine bleeds, and regulated by outflow valves.

My memory is a bit rusty on this, but if I remember correctly the rate of change of the cabin altitude on the 777 is a function of: 8000ft max cabin altitude, and a max pressure differential of I forgot how much pounds per square inch; Elevations of departure airport and destination airport.

On descent, the cabin altitude is linerarly lowered from 8000ft at cruise altitude, to landing elevation upon touchdown, where the system depressurizes, but the system will maintain a slight positive pressure differential upon touchdown. The slight differential is there because of the bleed system set up, and prevents bleed air pressurization runaways (if I remember correctly) which can be painful for some, and prevents nuisance "DOOR OPEN" warning if a door isn't pressed tight against the door sensor (doors are automatically unlocked below 80kts on the 777). This, if everything functions normally, should enable doors to open without additional force.

Perhaps those who are fresher in memory than me can give a better answer...

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 366):
Can one set the pressure differential to zero when one passes through 2000 ft, for example? Or does a little (but sufficient) pressure differential remain, which forces the doors closed, so the outflow valve must be opened manually anyway?

Yes, you can set the landing altitude on the pressurization control manually to 2000ft... but then... why?

In the old days of less automation, the flight engineer or F/O controls the pressurization (depending on type of aircraft)... One day, an airplane with a cabin fire landed, and didn't depressurize for some reason, and everyone inside died (after rescue crew couldn't get near the aircraft as engines remained running... and by the time they could get to the door, the aircraft remained pressurized and the doors couldn't be opened).

In the evacuation procedure, the crew is to manually override the outflow valves to fully open to ensure full depressurization.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 367):
How long should a checklist take after a crash landing, esp to look around and de-pressurize the aircraft (assuming it is not already split open). 10 seconds? 30 seconds? 90 seconds?

Well, read the checklist I wrote above... it does call for 30 seconds outflow valve selection to OPEN...
But, that takes 1 crewmember only, if the situation is urgent, one can always allow the other to do the rest of the checklist. Apart from the manual valve selector and fire bottle discharge (end of checklist, if an engine/APU fire light is on), the whole checklist should be able to be done in 10 seconds... and if there are no injuries to the flight crew or other effects from the crash.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 368):
If memory serves pressure is typically equalized at the latest when the wheels touch the ground. However the emergency checklist will include pressurization items because if something malfunctioned you don't want the doors to be impossible to open.

Ah, there's the better answer coming already!

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-07-12 09:46:15 and read 8724 times.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 368):
If memory serves pressure is typically equalized at the latest when the wheels touch the ground. However the emergency checklist will include pressurization items because if something malfunctioned you don't want the doors to be impossible to open.

Thank you, that makes it clearer to me. However, is there a reason not to include the manual opening of the valves on the landing checklist?

Or is there a more reliable way of equalizing pressure in case of emergency? Huh, for example the crash axe?


David

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: whiteguy
Posted 2013-07-12 09:55:15 and read 8613 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 383):
Thank you, that makes it clearer to me. However, is there a reason not to include the manual opening of the valves on the landing checklist?

No need to. If everything works properly the cabin will be depressurized upon landing. The Weight on Wheels dumping is again only if there is a problem with the system.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-07-12 10:00:32 and read 8506 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):
Just saying they're messed up, blame the culture, and stuck in their demi-god status, gets nowhere except for blowing steam.
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):
Great strides at improving CRM at Asiana are thanks to the expats who are not the whiners and simply badmouth them for their behaviour, the efforts and patience of those who spent time persuading, convincing, through engagement yielded results. The last thing we want in aviation is to brand them as having made no improvement (out of prejudice and "holier than thou" attiude), because it will push the old guard into coming back with a vengeance, and we're all worse off.

Your second thought contradicts the first. You basically confirm that to change the attitude of the trainees you need to exert a lot of effort and patience and spend time persuading and convincing them to change their ways. This looks like you acknowledge the existence of strong cultural issues in the training, but then call a guy who spent 5 years training these guys a whiner. This is not fair. I'll keep it at that although I'm struggling to stay politically correct on this one.

Quoting Mir (Reply 353):
How exactly is punching the lights out of the pilots going to help the passengers?

OK, read that as "ignore". Would you ignore their commands if you just witnessed they screwed up? Cabin crew of OZ 214 didn't know what happened, so this wouldn't apply to them.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: shrike
Posted 2013-07-12 10:19:48 and read 8302 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 372):
However, the PF - the pilot with A320 experience - did NOT setup the A/T on this descent. It was the PNF/PM trainer - with extensive recent experience in the B777 who said he setup the A/T.

Thanks. Yes you are right, NTSB said that PNF set the speed. But I assume that since he is NF he is not also adjusting flight modes? Which leads one to wonder about flight mode confusion between the B777 experienced PNF setting the speed and the A320 experienced PF flying the plane.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):
Where "retention" maybe a problem is that he may have accidentally slipped into thinking that the thrust levers not moving or being in a fixed position was not a problem as the Bus FBW has non-moving Thrust Levers in AutoThrust.

Well this is a very interesting point from mandala499! So he could even have had his hand on the throttles but mistakenly felt OK with where they were - and in this posture PNF might assume PF was clearly in control. Still no excuse for PNF/PM/PI not monitoring the ASI and calling it much much earlier.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 346):
The other difference is that in a Bus FBW, initiating the go-around one would just slap the thrust levers to the forward most stop .... with the 777, on a Go-Around, you would have to press the TOGA button .... If you do not press the TOGA button, then thrust would always adjust to the selected mode....

This would have been way late but may have further constrained recovery if the PF's gut reaction was to simply to slam the throttles forward and not press the button. NTSB did not say whether or not TOGA had been initiated, only that someone called for it, and I think she would have said if it had?

This is all speculation I know, and as mandala499 says it will all come out in the final report wash. Deborah Hersman did spend a lot of time talking about the principles of flight modes and saying that they went through multiple modes during the descent - so she is signaling more to come in this area.

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-12 10:29:51 and read 8238 times.

Suhr: SF plane crash victim hit by fire truck

San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr confirmed Friday that a 16-year-old girl who died in the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was run over by a fire truck, but says it is still unclear whether she was alive at the time.

Ye Meng Yuan was flying from China to visit Stanford University and then attend a three-week summer camp at a Christian school in Southern California. Her body was found amid foam that firefighters were spraying on the Boeing 777 after it crashed Saturday at San Francisco International Airport, Suhr said.

Speaking to The Chronicle’s Phil Matier on KPIX-TV’s morning news show, Suhr said a video indicated that Ye was run over by an emergency vehicle rushing to the scene.

“We know for sure she was at least run over one time, but at the time she was under foam, so nobody could have seen her,” Suhr said. “And the question is whether or not she was still alive at the time. So the coroner in San Mateo County will be determining that.”

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross...ne-crash-victim-hit-by-fire-truck/

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: LTC8K6
Posted 2013-07-12 10:30:39 and read 8216 times.

SF plane crash 911 tapes reveal chaos

San Francisco firefighters who responded to the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 at San Francisco International Airport didn't reach the most severely injured occupants - ejected far from the fuselage during impact - until some passengers called 911 and begged for help, officials acknowledged Thursday...snipped

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...911-tapes-reveal-chaos-4659338.php

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: moderators
Posted 2013-07-12 10:34:36 and read 8187 times.

Hello All,

Part 9 has been created and can be found here OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 9 (by moderators Jul 12 2013 in Civil Aviation)

All posts made after the lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.

Regards,

The Moderator Crew

Topic: RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-12 11:24:36 and read 7699 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 382):
Now, if you say they went on a nose-high attitude once they got below the approach slope, then it would make some sense.

Yes, mandala499. As I understand it, they'd intended to program the speed at 137 knots, and the rate of descent at 1,500 feet per minute. But the speed 'command,' due to them not setting the A/T up right, didn't take effect, and power remained at 'idle.'

Due to which, the aeroplane systems (again, just my understanding, on present evidence) were 'unable to adhere to the programmed rate of descent.' The aeroplane was in fact going down a whole lot faster. But the systems 'went on trying' - which, as far as I can tell, meant trying to reduce said 'rate of descent' - basically hauling the nose up.

That's something any of us who have flown anything have done many times. But I'll 'bet the farm' that all of us who ever did that ALSO added power?

However, given that the auto-throttle on the OZ aircraft appears to have been incorrectly set, the required engine power to 'support' the aeroplane returning to the desired flight level/descent rate just wasn't available - the engines remained at 'idle.'

I can't be certain of any of that - but nor can anyone else.......... I'll just say that in my view, in about 18 months' time, when the report comes out, it will basically say that 'pilot error' was the main (or possibly even the only) cause of this accident?


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/