Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EVA Descended Below Safe Height At SFO 28L  
User currently offlinemusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1098 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 21167 times:

Folks

Please see this link: http://avherald.com/h?article=465e38db&opt=0

Quite scary to me, same kind of aircraft, same airport, same runway, well, different outcome, any insights anyone?

musapapaya


Lufthansa Group of Airlines
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2485 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20815 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

At least they didn't let airspeed get too slow......


"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2776 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 20743 times:

Wow.. Interesting! I had just arrived on UAL1474 and was waiting to deboard, and saw this 77W do a go-around. Had no idea why, though, as I just saw it climbing back up..  Wow!


View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineflydeltajets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1937 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 19755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Part of my job I listen to the tower at work all day and I have noticed more low altitude alert call-out since OZ than before. Maybe its just me listening out for them more.


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 19241 times:

Quoting musapapaya (Thread starter):
same kind of aircraft, same airport, same runway, well, different outcome, any insights anyone

Experience, the pilot flying the aircraft, had likely landed this type of aircraft at SFO before, and was familiar with the approach, and the jet he was flying.



AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlineCaptCufflinks From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 18231 times:

Firstly, the aircraft didn't descend below "safe height" - the title of this thread is sensationalist. The aircraft descended below the glideslope, or was just too low if flying a visual with no gideslope.

Secondly, the reaction of the crew was perfect. If you're not happy with an approach - throw it away and start again. Simple.

Go around procedures are conducted each and every day all over the world.

Quoting musapapaya (Thread starter):
Quite scary to me,

Scary is what happens when the crew don't have the good sense to set up another approach and "force" the one they're on to work.

Let's move on, shall we?


User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 585 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 17114 times:

CaptCufflinks

...Firstly, the aircraft didn't descend below "safe height"...

In my opinion, being around 600 feet below the normal approach path in a heavy jet, with less than 4 miles to run to touchdown, qualifies as descending to an unsafe height, even if, as in this case, it was over water.


...Secondly, the reaction of the crew was perfect....

Their reaction to ATC might be described as perfect.

What they were doing - and might have continued to do - prior to ATC's intervention, is unlikely to be described as perfect.


It would be appropriate to learn what the various other flight parameters were (IAS, RoD, lateral alignment, approach stability, equipment failure, etc) during this approach before passing further comment.

However, in the meantime, it appears that this was an excellent "catch" by SFO ATC.

Best Regards

Bellerophon


User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 16975 times:

Would be interested to know from flight crew or those with SFO experience, what would the PAPI view be at 3.8nm and on a 1.5 degree glide slope? Three or four reds?

Good days work by the chaps in the tower



L1011 - P F M
User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 16841 times:

This happens every day, multiple times a day, around the world for various reasons. The only reason it's remotely news worthy is because it happend at SFO for 28L. Let's move on.


"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlineCaptCufflinks From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 16411 times:

Bellerophon,

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 6):
descending to an unsafe height, even if, as in this case, it was over water.

If you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I was pointing out that the aircraft had not descended below a safe height (MSA etc) as the topic title implies.

I'm not arguing that being at that height at that point on the approach was safe. Indeed, as you point out, the situation was probably a little less "hairy" owing to the fact that they were in fact approaching from over the water.

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 6):
What they were doing - and might have continued to do - prior to ATC's intervention, is unlikely to be described as perfect.

You speak as if you know this to be fact, when you go on to state:

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 6):
It would be appropriate to learn what the various other flight parameters were (IAS, RoD, lateral alignment, approach stability, equipment failure, etc) during this approach before passing further comment.

You have absolutely no idea, as do any of us, as to why the aircraft was low and therefore you have no basis to asses whether or not the approach was "perfect", there could have been countless factors as to why the aircraft was in the position it was as I am sure a man of your knowledge is only too aware.

Again, by reading carefully, you would have discovered that I called the crew's reaction to the situation perfect - namely, making the decision, calling a go around and executing it properly.

Regards,

Cufflinks


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 16310 times:

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 6):
In my opinion, being around 600 feet below the normal approach path in a heavy jet, with less than 4 miles to run to touchdown, qualifies as descending to an unsafe height, even if, as in this case, it was over water.

I agree with your sentiments for a nice stable approach, I believe 28L is around 2.85 deg, not 3 deg as stated by Avherald.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 585 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 13569 times:

CaptCufflinks


...I'm not arguing that being at that height at that point on the approach was safe...

Good, then it appears we agree. It wasn't safe. The aircraft had descended too low.

The reasons why it descended to an unsafe height are not relevant in deciding whether that height was, or was not, unsafe.

I trust we will learn of those reasons in due course. They could vary from one extreme of a sudden and total loss of thrust on both engines which was well handled by the crew to the other extreme of a badly planned and poorly managed approach that was allowed to continue well beyond the point at which a go-around should have been initiated by the crew, with all sorts of variations of circumstances in between.

Let me be clear, I am not casting any doubts on the crew or imputing any blame to them. I do not know whether they had any options to avoid this situation or whether they had lots of options to avoid this situation.

I am saying that, given how far out on approach it was, the aircraft had descended to an unsafe height.


...You have absolutely no idea, as do any of us, as to why the aircraft was low...there could have been countless factors as to why the aircraft was in the position it was...

Good, again, we agree, and I have never stated otherwise.


...therefore you have no basis to asses (sic) whether or not the approach was "perfect"...

I believe I do.

With around 4 miles to touchdown, the aircraft was very low, around 600 ft low, and I believe that is ample basis to say the approach ...is unlikely to be assessed as perfect....

Why and how it got so low remains to be discovered. The crew may well have been doing a magnificent job with a damaged aircraft or they may possibly have been in severe windshear, who knows, we must wait and see.


...I called the crew's reaction to the situation perfect - namely, making the decision, calling a go around...

From the information in the quoted report, it would appear that the crew did not make the go-around decision. It appears that they reacted to an ATC instruction.

Perhaps you have better information on this point?


Best Regards

Bellerophon


User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1451 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 11864 times:

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 11):

Haha, I've always liked how you handle folks making assumptions on A.net over the years. Always good to read your posts  



If you're going through hell, keep going
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9694 times:

As I understand the purported facts so far, the aircraft in question was at about 600 feet while at about 4 miles from the TDZ. Looking at the localizer chart, the conditional MDA for the localizer is 460'. The last altitude constraint prior to the MDA is 1800' at DUYET intersection (7.7 DME). While he was low on what would be an RNAV or ILS path, if he was doing an old fashioned Dive and Drive localizer, he was above the MDA (assuming he met the conditional MDA) and in a perfectly safe piece of airspace. The only story here is that the approach looked different than the way an approach looks 99% of the time with the advent of modern avionics.

User currently offlinewingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 653 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9329 times:

Deleted.....same point as above but beaten by 3 minutes about the LOC 28L approach criteria.

Wingnut

[Edited 2013-07-26 12:22:57]


Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20341 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9085 times:

Wait a minute.

An aircraft had a poor alignment on final approach, aborted the landing, and then landed safely on the second attempt.

What happened here that merited a thread?


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 372 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8969 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
What happened here that merited a thread?

You seem to be working under the mistaken belief that for a thread to be on a.net, it needs to have merit.  


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8969 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
What happened here that merited a thread?

Seemingly a sensible question as to whether the current setup at SFO is encouraging approaches lower than what had normally been experienced. I don't quite get why people are commenting that the OP's interest represents a fail at starting a thread. At least he opened it with a topic for discussion.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8032 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 17):
Seemingly a sensible question as to whether the current setup at SFO is encouraging approaches lower than what had normally been experienced. I don't quite get why people are commenting that the OP's interest represents a fail at starting a thread. At least he opened it with a topic for discussion.

If you are going to do a dive and drive vice a VNAV path approach then yes, the approach will be lower than "normal". That said, this guy went around from a point in space that he really didn't have to. If the distances and altitudes cited are correct, EVA was in a perfectly safe piece of airspace, and got to that piece of airspace in an acceptable fashion. Doing some math shows a decent rate from DUYET (assuming he crossed at the minimum 1800) to that point would be a decent rate of about 800 feet a minute. About the same as any ILS or VNAV. The only difference is on a constant rate decent such as an ILS or VNAV DUYET would be crossed between 2200 and 2400 feet.

I'll state it, EVA never descended below a safe height.


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7954 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
An aircraft had a poor alignment on final approach, aborted the landing, and then landed safely on the second attempt.

What happened here that merited a thread?

Nothing. I'll go one further and suggest that a go around was not even needed if he was at that distance and altitude (assuming he didn't bust the MDA which he was above)


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20341 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7345 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 17):
Seemingly a sensible question as to whether the current setup at SFO is encouraging approaches lower than what had normally been experienced.

Are flights at SFO doing go-arounds for this issue more often than at other airports? I don't know, but the answer to my question will answer yours.

Quoting DualQual (Reply 19):
Nothing. I'll go one further and suggest that a go around was not even needed if he was at that distance and altitude (assuming he didn't bust the MDA which he was above)

Probably not, but given recent events at SFO, I don't blame him for not wanting his name mis-represented on KTVU, either.


User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7263 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 19):
I'll go one further and suggest that a go around was not even needed if he was at that distance and altitude (assuming he didn't bust the MDA which he was above)

Kind of depends on where the glideslope indicators would have been had he been following the ILS - if he was in a full deflection below the glidslope, then he was in a very unsafe position and should have been undertaking a go-round on his own. However, if he still had a dot to go, then he should have been showing some kind of sign to correct.

The guys in the tower apparently didn't think he was doing enough to deviate from his low altitude, so (having seen an aircraft crash, three people die with hundreds of injuries barely three weeks ago in a very similiar situation) they made the very sensible call out to let him know and to correct. The fact that the pilots initiated a go-round makes it seem like they weren't prepared for the warning and were surprised by it - otherwise they should have already been making a correction.

I'm wondering if those of you chiding the original poster on making a thread about this event would be the same people wondering why the tower didn't let the Asiana 777 know they were too low a few weeks ago?



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6975 times:

Quoting planespotting (Reply 21):

Except there is no glide slope in this case as it is out of service. So it's VNAV if you have it and are trained on it or dive and drIve non precision. In any event, assuming the posted distances and altitudes are accurate, he was never below ANY published altitude. A tower advisory about altitude is just that, an advisory. Again, he was in a perfectly safe piece of airspace according to the charted LOC procedure. Further, if you are below glide slope as long as you don't bust LOC mins you can descend to LOC mins.

[Edited 2013-07-26 14:35:12]

User currently offlineaaexecplat From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 636 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6913 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 22):
Except there is no glide slope in this case as it is out of service. So it's VNAV if you have it and are trained on it or dive and drIve non precision. In any event, assuming the posted distances and altitudes are accurate, he was never below ANY published altitude. A tower advisory about altitude is just that, an advisory. Again, he was in a perfectly safe piece of airspace according to the charted LOC procedure.

You are comical. If everything was so safe and the pilots had everything under control, why did they go around? Do you have any idea how little height 600 ft is in a 77W? To make a normal landing, he should have been 1.8nm from the threshold at that point. Instead he was more than 2 miles further away from it....


User currently offlinegolfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 829 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6881 times:

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 23):
You are comical. If everything was so safe and the pilots had everything under control, why did they go around? Do you have any idea how little height 600 ft is in a 77W? To make a normal landing, he should have been 1.8nm from the threshold at that point. Instead he was more than 2 miles further away from it....

1.8 nm is 2 miles. Many airlines' SOP is any abnormal call from any one during approach whether valid/invalid is to go around. Get to a safe height and then decide if the call was valid or not.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7045 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
Are flights at SFO doing go-arounds for this issue more often than at other airports?

Obviously, no one yet knows, which reinforces the validity of the OP's question. Again, I don't understand why all of the negative commentary and attempts to quantify whether the OP has the right to open a topic for discussion in a discussion forum.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6994 times:

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 23):

You keep thinking ILS. If you choose to ignore the math and explanation above I can't help you.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7015 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 22):

The other plausible reason is they were using the runway threshold or SFO DME for the distance to go, instead of ISFO which is at far end of the runway.

I have not listened to the ATC conversation, I think they would have been cleared the visual, not the LOC to increase the capacity.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6695 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 22):
Further, if you are below glide slope as long as you don't bust LOC mins you can descend to LOC mins.

Probably not true...

They were probably VMC, if so, they would have been required to maintain a path at or above that of the PAPI. 14CFR91.129


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6639 posts, RR: 55
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6522 times:

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 6):
CaptCufflinks

...Firstly, the aircraft didn't descend below "safe height"...

In my opinion, being around 600 feet below the normal approach path in a heavy jet, with less than 4 miles to run to touchdown, qualifies as descending to an unsafe height, even if, as in this case, it was over water.

This is subjective. What is safe? Is there a recogno]ised meaning of the word applied in this case? Lets say it was a cessna 172 coming in low. Is that safe or unsafe? how about a business jet? A DHC8 or something? or maybe a 737? Where do you draw the line? If the weather was IMC and they were well below glideslope then thats 'more' unsafe than doing it on a nice day when you are visual for sure. How far so you have to be away from glide slope for it to be unsafe? One dot? two dots? One dot at 10 miles is a lot further away from the glideslop than being one dot off at 2 miles final....I could go on all day.

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 6):
...Secondly, the reaction of the crew was perfect....

Their reaction to ATC might be described as perfect.

What they were doing - and might have continued to do - prior to ATC's intervention, is unlikely to be described as perfect.

It is hard to say at what point they would have gone around. They went around to an ATC request but who is to say they were not about to do that anyway? Its like being reminded to do something just when you were about to do it. It appears bad but you know that you were about to do it anyway.


As others have said, approaches get screwed up all the time, and pilots go around all the time. I'd say probably every minute of every day there is a plane, big or small going around somewhere because of a badly handled approach. Its not ideal but its life...it happens. A safe go-around is the perfect conclusion to a mishandled approach.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6226 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 13):
As I understand the purported facts so far, the aircraft in question was at about 600 feet while at about 4 miles from the TDZ. Looking at the localizer chart, the conditional MDA for the localizer is 460'. The last altitude constraint prior to the MDA is 1800' at DUYET intersection (7.7 DME). While he was low on what would be an RNAV or ILS path, if he was doing an old fashioned Dive and Drive localizer, he was above the MDA (assuming he met the conditional MDA) and in a perfectly safe piece of airspace.

   There's no reason the aircraft couldn't have safely been there if they were flying based off of the localizer-only approach (as opposed to the RNAV approach).

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 28):
They were probably VMC, if so, they would have been required to maintain a path at or above that of the PAPI. 14CFR91.129

That's for operations in Class D airspace, so it doesn't apply here.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 585 posts, RR: 59
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6039 times:

CX Flyboy

...This is subjective. What is safe?...

Yes, I agree, it is subjective, which is why I used the words "...in my opinion..."! Others may disagree.

Your comments about other aircraft types may also be valid, but again, I made it clear I was talking about a heavy jet.


...It is hard to say at what point they would have gone around. They went around to an ATC request ...

If the facts in the report are correct, they went around following an ATC instruction - not an ATC request - to "...Climb Immediately...Altitude Alert...".

When, or if, the crew would have initiated a go-around themselves we must wait to find out, along with the reasons that the aircraft found itself so low on approach. It appears that they had not initiated a go-around of their own volition up to the point they were instructed to by ATC.

The ATC controller saw a B777 at around 600 ft whilst roughly 4 miles out on approach and appears to have had doubts - whether rightly or wrongly we have yet to learn - about the safety of allowing that approach to continue, and issued an instruction to resolve the situation.

In my view, an appropriate action.

Best Regards

Bellerophon


User currently offlinetommy525 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5829 times:

EVA has a good safety record. I am surprised if they disregarded procedures here or mis-handled the approach to the point of jeopardizing the aircraft. One would like to think NOT.. Unlike many airlines, EVA has full level D flight simulators for each type they fly. They are also known as a training airline. That is many junior pilots start their heavy jet flying with EVA, then move on to other airlines.

That has been their MO, to hire young pilots with no big jet experience and train them to fly as CoPilots on a big jet.. They pay them less money , but train them and give them a chance to qualify for big jets.

EVA gets cheaper pilots and pilots get qualification and time in the big ones. Then after their 3 year contracts are up, a lot of them (most of them) go to other airlines for much higher pay. You can find former EVA pilots all over the world..

EVA is known to be a tough airline, with constant training and refresher courses. They usually hire experienced Captains to command their jets.

That said, they are not without mistakes. I wonder if a CoPilot was allowed to get just a bit too low by a Captain giving him a bit more leeway or what?

But you can be sure, this incident/situation is being discussed at EVA headquarters to assess any fault.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5710 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommy525 (Reply 32):
EVA gets cheaper pilots and pilots get qualification and time in the big ones. Then after their 3 year contracts are up, a lot of them (most of them) go to other airlines for much higher pay. You can find former EVA pilots all over the world..

They leave as most expat first officers have minimal to zero chance of getting promoted to captain and they often get screwed on their contract terms!


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5389 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
There's no reason the aircraft couldn't have safely been there if they were flying based off of the localizer-only approach (as opposed to the RNAV approach).

Not sure how either the RNAV or LOC fits in with the Quiet Bridge Visual. In my view this was clearly a undesired aircraft state.

Quoting tommy525 (Reply 32):
That has been their MO, to hire young pilots with no big jet experience and train them to fly as CoPilots on a big jet.. They pay them less money , but train them and give them a chance to qualify for big jets.

They hire pilots with little experience as airlines as the entry level job for a pilot in Taiwan is on an airliner. GA does not really exist.

Quoting tommy525 (Reply 32):
EVA gets cheaper pilots and pilots get qualification and time in the big ones. Then after their 3 year contracts are up, a lot of them (most of them) go to other airlines for much higher pay. You can find former EVA pilots all over the world..

Not sure where you get this from. I would not say their pay is that low, a lot worse around. Conditions are not that bad, TPE is modern, good transport to other parts of the country. Aircraft are maintained well, fleet is modern, training facilities are good.

Expat FOs will be overtaken by locals when it come to promotion, happens in a lot of airlines.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6639 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5373 times:

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 31):
The ATC controller saw a B777 at around 600 ft whilst roughly 4 miles out on approach and appears to have had doubts - whether rightly or wrongly we have yet to learn - about the safety of allowing that approach to continue, and issued an instruction to resolve the situation.

In my view, an appropriate action.

I agree that a go-around was very appropriate. The approach was clearly not ideal. What I am trying to counter is the sensationalism around this whole thing. I realise that SFO is of interest to the media, especially a 'low' approach and with a 777 as well. However in my opinion there is nothing sensational about this in the slightest. Yes they got low then they went around. It happens to the best of airlines....approaches get screwed up, planes go-around. Sometimes they salvage an undesireable approach instead of going around and continue to an eventual safe landing. I'm not condoning that in the slightest but just saying it happens everywhere....all airlines. This EVA flight shouldn't even be news.


User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5328 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 18):
I'll state it, EVA never descended below a safe height.

And what was the aircraft state when the tower ordered the missed approach?

As an approach controller I would be telling tower to instruct the traffic to abandon the approach. 600 feet at 4nm for me is a no-go to continue the approach.

My job is to catch the snafu's and make sure there are no flop lobs short of the threshold. I've had it before and I am sure I will have it again.

Why the tower controller is being second guessed here is beyond me. ITS OUR JOB TO ENSURE SAFETY.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5181 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 28):They were probably VMC, if so, they would have been required to maintain a path at or above that of the PAPI. 14CFR91.129

That's for operations in Class D airspace, so it doesn't apply here.

-Mir

I was trying to save you a step...they were required to follow the rule.

91.131 (operations in Class B Airspace) states that you shall follow 91.129.


§ 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.

(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with § 91.129 and the following rules:...

§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace

...

(3) Each pilot operating an airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator must maintain an altitude at or above the glide path until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.


User currently offlinetommy525 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4947 times:

Good job on the tower to wave them off. It appears, the EVA jet was not at a desirable altitude and had busted the proper descent angle. They were headed for possible danger if they had continued in that manner. Not sure if the EVA crew had realized it or not, but they were not at the correct altitude for the distance to the threshold. One wishes the tower had been as alert for the Asiana crew. Would likely have prevented the crash from happening.

I hear that most EVA cadets are happy to get the experience and rating on the big jets. At that stage in their careers they normally would not be able to fly big jets. They are usually paid more then their then current jobs as regional jet or prop pilots when they were hired. But after three years, with the ratings and experience in hand, they are often able to earn double to triple their EVA salaries so they leave. That is the foreign co-pilots leave. The Taiwan nationals are different. They were hired by EVA completely green to aviation. IF they passed a series of tests they are sent , usually to America, for an 18 month intensive flight training . IF they pass that they are trained as co-pilots at home base in Taiwan. And if they pass that, they are finally line flying as co pilots for EVA. AFter about ten years they may earn their Captain bars.

Foreign co-pilots rarely make it Captain with EVA, far as I hear. One has to go in as a Captain. But they dont have the 20 year bond the local pilots have with EVA.

I like EVA and like flying with them. But this incident is worrisome because it shouldn't happen at EVA. I hope they will up their game.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6639 posts, RR: 55
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4842 times:

Quoting tommy525 (Reply 38):
I like EVA and like flying with them. But this incident is worrisome because it shouldn't happen at EVA. I hope they will up their game.

Things like this happen everywhere....the media only hears about a very very small % of 'incidents' of this magnitude....I would say less than 1%.


User currently offlineB747400ERF From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

Quoting tommy525 (Reply 38):
I like EVA and like flying with them. But this incident is worrisome because it shouldn't happen at EVA. I hope they will up their game.

Will you stop flying Southwest because of all the accidents they have had, unable to properly land an airplane?


User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4164 times:

Quoting tommy525 (Reply 38):
One wishes the tower had been as alert for the Asiana crew. Would likely have prevented the crash from happening.

I wouldn't go that far just yet. The energy state of their aircraft was different from Asiana. In a nutshell it was still flying at 500', where the Asiana was apparently on the edge of a stall and unspooled. If you are in a 777 under 500', below glide path, close to a stall, with the engines unspooled, it is not going to end well no matter what anyone says or does at that point.

I would also like to say that it is not, nor should it be the controllers job to monitor the approach of the incoming aircraft. The controller should be paying attention for runway incursions, wind shifts, etc.


User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3743 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 41):
I would also like to say that it is not, nor should it be the controllers job to monitor the approach of the incoming aircraft. The controller should be paying attention for runway incursions, wind shifts, etc.

As an ATC I believe that it is - I am responsible for everything on my frequency. I always drilled into every student of mine that aircraft on approach are just as important as aircraft taxiing. Just as important making sure a departure doesn't get up to funky stuff either. Every major tower has a radar screen with Mode-C readouts, and as in this case at SFO, a potential problem is nipped in the bud. Exactly as I would teach an ATC to be "on-the-ball".

I always scan my final to make sure no funky stuff is going on - it just takes a glance.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinewowpeter From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2006, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 36):

And what was the aircraft state when the tower ordered the missed approach?

As an approach controller I would be telling tower to instruct the traffic to abandon the approach. 600 feet at 4nm for me is a no-go to continue the approach.

My job is to catch the snafu's and make sure there are no flop lobs short of the threshold. I've had it before and I am sure I will have it again.

Why the tower controller is being second guessed here is beyond me. ITS OUR JOB TO ENSURE SAFETY.

To be honest, I agree with CX Flyboy, this shouldn't be in the news in the first place... But I understand 600ft at 4nm is way low to a lot of people / pilots in here, especially when you consider the fact that if they are on a 3 degree glidepath they should be at around 1200ft... but on the other hand, is it really appropriate for the ATC to tell the aircraft to abandon the approach? Personally, I don't think so, they have the right to question them, but telling them to break off and making twitchy decision like this is not entirely approperiate either... personally, I donno what is the stabilization criteria at Eva for a Visual Approach, but for all we know, the Eva flight could be flying level at 600ft to try to re-intercept the desire 3 degree glide path? So who is the ATC to say what is appropriate or what is not and to say when is a good time to tell someone to go-around? What happen if someone is 1200ft at 6nms (they should be 1800ft)? What about 1000ft at 5nm (they should be 1500ft)? They are all approximately 500-600ft below an ideal 3 degree glide path, so if another aircraft is that low in profile, will the ATC say the same thing, if they did, then is it appropriate? It is hard to say really, but I think it is hard to blame Eva for all this and personally I think this could simply be a case of overly sensitive ATC... For all we know the EVA flight could have been flying level to reintercept their profile... So we donno what exactly is happening unless we are in that cockpit really.


User currently offlinetommy525 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

Long thread on this at pprune.org. Everyone seems to think EVA is in the wrong. And apparently because of the recent Asiana crash even the FAA is looking into this. I should imagine they are having a discussion about this at EVA headquarters as well.

User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3399 times:

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 43):
but on the other hand, is it really appropriate for the ATC to tell the aircraft to abandon the approach?

Appropriateness and etiquette go out the window in a safety situation, especially if a similiar situation RESULTED IN A FATAL ACCIDENT mere weeks before.

The controller made a judgement call to notify the approaching aircraft on final that they were too low. Which means it was appropriate.

Also, the controller didn't explicit say "EVA Go Around" - according to avherald.com, it said "climb immediately, altitude alert, altimeter 29.97." It was the EVA crew that initiated the go-around.

THIS IS A RIDICULOUS DISCUSSION



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3366 times:

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 43):
It is hard to say really

Yes. It is very hard - and we err on the side of caution, not the side of risk. And if I had to make a snap decision regarding a 77W at or heading under 600 feet at 4nm final, a missed approach instruction it is.

This is my professional opinion. I would do it in a heartbeat if I was uncertain of the safety of the flight. Sure I would get flamed on A.net (but I wouldn't care less) and could go to bed knowing that I did my best.

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 43):
What happen if someone is 1200ft at 6nms (they should be 1800ft)?

As I have done many times, I would enquire with the pilot if he has the runway in sight - there is time to work that out. I would find out *why* he is low and advise him. But if a plane is heading under 600ft nowhere near the threshold Iwould send him around, just like that ATC at SFO did. Good work to that man.

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 43):
is it really appropriate for the ATC to tell the aircraft to abandon the approach?

Damn straight. I would rather vector him for another approach stabalised this time than deal with a smoking crater.

But everybody is entitled to have an opinion. If it is yours that the ATC was wrong, then I am happy to accept and respect that. But also see it from our side - we are there as a safety net, to catch things when they go wrong and get out of hand. Sure we're not perfect, but if for a moment we believe the safety of a flight is compromised, we will take action to restore it. If its something as simple as a go-around so be it. Hardly a twitchy manoeuvre - being a pilot myself (admittedly only hobby PPL stuff), I know every approach is a missed approach with a landing as a possibility. Having seen the situation from both ATC and pilot side (granted I haven't flown a 77W), I don't see the outrage at the tower controller looking out for the planes on final.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinewowpeter From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2006, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3311 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 46):
Quoting wowpeter (Reply 43):
It is hard to say really

Yes. It is very hard - and we err on the side of caution, not the side of risk. And if I had to make a snap decision regarding a 77W at or heading under 600 feet at 4nm final, a missed approach instruction it is.

This is my professional opinion. I would do it in a heartbeat if I was uncertain of the safety of the flight. Sure I would get flamed on A.net (but I wouldn't care less) and could go to bed knowing that I did my best.

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 43):
What happen if someone is 1200ft at 6nms (they should be 1800ft)?

As I have done many times, I would enquire with the pilot if he has the runway in sight - there is time to work that out. I would find out *why* he is low and advise him. But if a plane is heading under 600ft nowhere near the threshold Iwould send him around, just like that ATC at SFO did. Good work to that man.

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 43):
is it really appropriate for the ATC to tell the aircraft to abandon the approach?

Damn straight. I would rather vector him for another approach stabalised this time than deal with a smoking crater.

But everybody is entitled to have an opinion. If it is yours that the ATC was wrong, then I am happy to accept and respect that. But also see it from our side - we are there as a safety net, to catch things when they go wrong and get out of hand. Sure we're not perfect, but if for a moment we believe the safety of a flight is compromised, we will take action to restore it. If its something as simple as a go-around so be it. Hardly a twitchy manoeuvre - being a pilot myself (admittedly only hobby PPL stuff), I know every approach is a missed approach with a landing as a possibility. Having seen the situation from both ATC and pilot side (granted I haven't flown a 77W), I don't see the outrage at the tower controller looking out for the planes on final.

Sorry if I come across the wrong way on my previous reply, it wasn't my intention to make my reply sound like I think the ATC is wrong... in fact, it is good for the ATC to point things out... after a long flight, I am sure the crew were tired as hell, and a heads up and a watchful eyes from the ATC is probably appreciated by the pilot anyhow... Anyway, I am simply trying to point out what is the threshold before a warning be given to a pilot, maybe EVA have a stabilize criteria of 500ft in visual approach? I donno... Just something for everyone to think about that's all... Maybe this is also the relevant authority should start thinking about as well...


User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3250 times:

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 47):

Not a problem!

I will advise the crew when they are even a couple hundred feet below glideslope. I will just caution by saying "I observe that you are 300 feet below glideslope" and ask if runway is in sight. If its vmc I'll let them continue and give a point out to tower they are off profile. If its IMC then I will usually keep them til they are on profile, then send them to tower frequency.

It is concerning that although they were still above minimums, they were so low below profile. At 500 feet most airlines have their vmc stabalised approach criteria. None of us know if they had levelled off or were descending at the time of the missed app instruction.

On another angle (pardon the pun), do crews not normally set up the rnav approach (or ils) even when cleared for a visual approach. On all my experience flights with airlines I remember the crews did this, just as a backup to reference the approach... I just don't understand how this flights got so far off profile.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 794 posts, RR: 5
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 37):
I was trying to save you a step...they were required to follow the rule.91.131 (operations in Class B Airspace) states that you shall follow 91.129.§ 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with § 91.129 and the following rules:...§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace...(3) Each pilot operating an airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator must maintain an altitude at or above the glide path until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.

If we are going to split hairs, let's take it a step further. VASI and PAPI systems only guarantee obstacle clearance to 4 statute miles from the runway threshold. If the EV flight was at 4 nautical miles, they technically weren't in violation of 91.129(e)3 as they weren't under the guidance of the PAPI yet. That's not to say that they wouldn't be shortly there after, but we are splitting hairs are we not? { }

There is too much that we don't know about this flight. We weren't there and didn't listen to the brief. We they flying the step downs of the ILS GS inop procedure using the CANPA technique or dive and drive? Maybe they were falling into the same trap as the OZ flight, we simply don't know with the information we have.

727forever



727forever
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 10 posted Wed Jul 17 2013 21:44:51 by moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 9 posted Fri Jul 12 2013 10:33:07 by moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 8 posted Wed Jul 10 2013 10:43:04 by moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 7 posted Tue Jul 9 2013 10:13:35 by moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 6 posted Mon Jul 8 2013 09:16:18 by Moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5 posted Sun Jul 7 2013 15:48:03 by moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 4 posted Sun Jul 7 2013 07:13:51 by Moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 3 posted Sat Jul 6 2013 18:52:31 by moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2 posted Sat Jul 6 2013 13:21:22 by moderators
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 1 posted Sat Jul 6 2013 11:34:05 by FlyDeltaJets