Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
polnebmit
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:10 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:45 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 239):
Unless there's a fueling truck or something on the runway and the other aircraft clearly does not see it, I don't think a pilot would ever comment on another pilot's approach no matter how bad it looked. If nothing else, there's no way a comment from an onlooker would make the situation better. In fact, such a distraction might well make things worse.

After the crash they would probably have said something only if Tower had not promptly responded.

UA 747 pilots did the correct thing... keep the airwaves open for any last second instructions from the tower to aircraft coming in for a landing at 28 R & L after the OZ 777. It was only after an extended period of radio silence that they radioed in notifying the tower of crash victims walking away from the crash site, including some by the piano keys of 28L.

I wonder if the UA 747 pilots shut their engines off in case some crash victims walked too close to the UA 747.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:46 pm

Quoting kellmark (Reply 205):

Information indicates that the pilot flying was highly experienced on the B747 but new to the B777. He also had been to SFO on the B747 but not the B777. The cockpit sight line for landing on the B747 is much higher than the B777, with the cockpit on the upper deck. It may have contributed to a perception by him that he was higher than he actually was.

This still wouldn't explain the significantly lower speed reported, but might have had an effect.

It seems to me that one possibility is that the A/C this pilot was trained on, 747 and 737, have smaller engines that are quicker to turn as well as possibly lower landing speeds.

This pilot, instinctively perhaps, felt he had time to course correct the altitude of his jet based on his previous experience, but at low speeds, the 77A was slow to respond to throttle up. Missed target.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6224
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:47 pm

Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 248):
it seems the pilot flying had NOT flown into SFO before.

Yes he had flown into SFO many times before.

But in a B747. This was to be his first landing at SFO in a B777.

( I would give him a FAIL grade for this landing.)

I can't help but think the 'instructor' in the left seat kept thinking the PF would fix his mistakes, and waited too late to correct the problems.

I wonder if the CVR will come out to be the 'instructor' saying "Add more power" at -7 seconds, and "Go Around" at -1.5 in normal conversational instructor terms.

Reminds me somewhat of teaching a kid to drive/ park a car. "Brake now", "More brake" Crunch....
Not all who wander are lost.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:50 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 245):
The aircraft should be at 50 feet height (not altitude) at the threshold. Moving back from that on a 3 degree glideslope and using the 1 in 60 rule, it is 50 more feet of height/altitude for every 1000 feet back from the threshold. I'm too lazy to look up the distance from the threshold to the seawall but it must be at least 500 feet and in that case the aircraft should be at 75 feet of height (not altitude). If the distance is greater, obviously the plane should be higher.

Note that the elevation of the runway is 13 feet so you need to add that to the numbers above in order to get altitude. In any case a small difference since the runway is practically at sea level.

500ft looks about right. How they did not see the three or probably 4 red PAPI I don't understand. What were they looking at? I think perhaps others comments on prior aircraft types might have some bearing on this. Do 747 or 737 engines spool up appreciably faster than 777 engines? That said, still no excuse for continuing an unstable approach, irrespective of airplane characteristics.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:52 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 231):

Really? Do you have a good right-side picture at hand? The pictures I've seen didn't look like it.

I have seen an overhead shot, showing a small fire between the engine and the fuselage. Billowing black smoke tells me it is fuelled by either kerosene or oil.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:52 pm

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 251):
It seems to me that one possibility is that the A/C this pilot was trained on, 747 and 737, have smaller engines that are quicker to turn as well as possibly lower landing speeds.

Interestingly, some of the 737s can have approach speeds above 145kt if heavy enough. Small does not always equate to slow!
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19823
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:53 pm

Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 248):
Actually, it seems the pilot flying had NOT flown into SFO before.

On a clear day that shouldn't really matter. Very few airports that serve large aircraft require special training. SFO is not defunct Kai Tak or Insbruck.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 251):
It seems to me that one possibility is that the A/C this pilot was trained on, 747 and 737, have smaller engines that are quicker to turn as well as possibly lower landing speeds.

The certification requirements for spoolup times from flight idle to go around thrust are the same.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
aaexecplat
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:49 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:56 pm

Quoting art (Reply 206):
If the witness report of her landing is at all accurate conditions were not benign round about the time of the crash.

If you look at the video, you can clearly see that Asiana 214 DID NOT have a large drop in either wing attitude or altitude...it was flying consistently pitched more than it should and descending at greater VS than it should have been. They had also been low and slow for some time, not like speed dropped right before hitting the seawall. Red herring.

Quoting CptRegionalJet (Reply 210):
Flying Long Haul 43 hours would give you about 2 landings,3 if your instructor is One of the kind bunch and none of the additional Crew members would get a landing....

Bingo.

Quoting cchan (Reply 215):
IMHO the crew would not be in the position to avoid the UA 744 at all. If you lose control of the aircraft, you cannot do anything to prevent it from hitting something. The UA 744 is "saved" just because it happens not to sit in the path the crashed plane.

Bingo. To say that Asiana 214 was trying to avoid UA885 is insane.

Quoting 77West (Reply 217):
While I agree with the rest of that post, this bit raises a flag, if they pulled up hard to avoid landing short, (which appears to be the case) they would probably have stalled and or collapsed the gear and led to a crash anyhow. The sea wall seems to just be a contributing factor to the whole situation. If we could imaging the landing sans sea wall, I wonder what the rate of descent would be and what the damage threshold is for the 777 gear.

I am not an engineer, but I think there is a chance that if the landing gear was sheared off at the seawall, that this may have helped the plane skid across the ground more evenly. If they had landed on the runway with a very high VS rate, the plane might have tipped over sideways, cartwheeled, and flipped over (like FEDEX M11 at NRT), leading to a much worse outcome. I am sure that there are plenty of smart folks at Boeing that can actually predict pretty accurately what the scenarios could have been.
 
1400mph
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:59 pm

I still don't understand this. None of it makes any sense. This isn't some tin-pot airline we're talking about.

I have not read the entire thread but is the general consensus that the pilots were simply not up to the task of manually landing the aircraft ?

There must have been someone up there that knew what they were doing ?

Surely they would have just taken over the SPLIT SECOND the aircraft was out of position / at the wrong speed ?

[Edited 2013-07-08 07:01:12]
 
Klaus
Posts: 21538
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:04 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 258):
I have not read the entire thread but is the general consensus that the pilots were simply not up to the task of manually landing the aircraft ?

The PF may have made a mistake in that situation – which is not saying the exact same thing.
(According to the preliminary NTSB statements.)

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 258):
Surely they would have just taken over the SPLIT SECOND the aircraft was out of position / at the wrong speed ?

Apparently not early enough, considering the inertia of the engines.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:04 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 258):
I still don't understand this. None of it makes any sense. This isn't some tin-pot airline we're talking about.
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 258):

Surely they would have just taken over the SPLIT SECOND the aircraft was out of position / at the wrong speed ?

Don't be so sure. Just watch a few episodes of Air Crash Investigation to see what rational, professional people sometimes do. During training flights, sometimes the aircraft might get slightly out of desired envelope, but usually the training pilots gently assist or nudge the PF back into the required config, not jump up and wrest the controls out of his or her hands. (which probably would lead to a crash.) It seems in this case until we hear the CVR we won't know.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:04 pm

Quoting 77West (Reply 232):

I agree with Klaus, if the 777 is 'overbuilt' then so must be the A340 AF358 in Toronto

Last I checked, the AF A340 didn't cartwheel after smashing into a sea wall.

But, lets not argue semantics here.
Both aircraft remained remarkably intact which no doubt contributed to the survivability.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Gatorman96
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:22 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:04 pm

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 201):
I was wondering, did the United pilot realize the asiana plane was coming too low ?

Sure, if they were actually watching AAR214 land. Chances are they were busy with their own pre-flight checks though and not focusing on any outside distractions.

[Edited 2013-07-08 07:06:08]
 
Klaus
Posts: 21538
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:06 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 261):
Last I checked, the AF A340 didn't cartwheel after smashing into a sea wall.

Neither did the 777.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:08 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 261):
Quoting 77West (Reply 232):

I agree with Klaus, if the 777 is 'overbuilt' then so must be the A340 AF358 in Toronto

Last I checked, the AF A340 didn't cartwheel after smashing into a sea wall.

But, lets not argue semantics here.
Both aircraft remained remarkably intact which no doubt contributed to the survivability.

I believe it went down an embankment or ditch into a ravine - arguably almost as bad as a small cartwheel, given the stresses on the fuselage, at those speeds. I do agree though that they both remained pretty much in one, albeit broken, piece long enough for escape. Hence, neither were overbuilt, but were built correctly.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
Gatorman96
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:22 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:11 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 254):
I have seen an overhead shot, showing a small fire between the engine and the fuselage. Billowing black smoke tells me it is fuelled by either kerosene or oil.

And the 1000's of pounds overhead lining and luggage bins that are comprised of plastic. Let's also not forget the luggage itself...
 
AA94
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:13 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 114):
Why not? If he was a 747 Captain previously moving to another airplane (down the ladder?) he wouldn't go back to the copilot's seat -- he'd get rated, a couple of flights under "observation" and turned loose. How many hours did the ANA Captain's have in 787's when they were turned loose? Not many initially.
Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 107):
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. However, before becoming a 757/767 Captain, I had not flown either aircraft as an FO; the same was true when I became a 737 Captain. And my situation was not that uncommon.

Thanks for the explanations. I think I had things confused in my head. Makes sense now.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 117):
I think this comment is out of line and distracts from the issue. It has less to do with "vaunted Asian" carriers and more to do with the crash happening in an outstation where any airline would be dependent on third parties for support.

  
 
1400mph
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:14 pm

Quoting 77West (Reply 260):
During training flights, sometimes the aircraft might get slightly out of desired envelope, but usually the training pilots gently assist or nudge the PF back into the required config, not jump up and wrest the controls out of his or her hands.

Well yes. Increase your speed / watch your altitude etc etc

(sorry if my terminology is a bit schoolboy but I imagine that's what goes on ? )

There's so much time to make corrections.

Surely the training pilot didn't think -F**K - seconds before they crashed into the sea wall ?

Maybe he did.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19823
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:16 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 258):
Surely they would have just taken over the SPLIT SECOND the aircraft was out of position / at the wrong speed ?

It's seldom that clear cut to start with. Small deviations which require small corrections become large deviations which require large corrections.

If the other pilot takes over at a late stage this has risks as well. Besides, the pilot monitoring may not have realized the situation was deteriorating so much, or convinced himself the pilot flying was going to make the needed corrections "any time now".

As 77west says above, you'd be amazed what rational, experienced professionals sometimes do under stress. While this may turn out to be pilot error, and this seems like a "simple" explanation, cockpit dynamics are complex. It is easy for us to sit here and say what they should have done, but we weren't there. The pucker factor when things start going south affects different people differently.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:18 pm

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 262):
Sure, if they were actually watching AAR214 land. Chances are they were busy their own pre-flight checks though and not focusing on any outside distractions.

In theory they should have had all their checks done as they were holding for take off and not just taxiiing along.

There are reports that they saw it all and even took photos
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:19 pm

Quoting polnebmit (Reply 250):
I wonder if the UA 747 pilots shut their engines off in case some crash victims walked too close to the UA 747.

I would think that it would be SOP to do an immediate engine shutdown in this case as a precaution against debris ingestion given that large volume of dirt and other particles that were spewed up into the air (its not like the engines are going to do you any good at that point considering you would have to go over a debris field to get to anywhere with self power). I would be shocked if they didn't do a preventative maintenance check of the engine before they fly that 747 again, just to be sure.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:25 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 267):
Surely the training pilot didn't think -F**K - seconds before they crashed into the sea wall ?

To be blunt, everyone in the cockpit probably thought this seconds before impact. Thats why that phrase is pretty common on the CVR, in whatever language.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 268):
It's seldom that clear cut to start with. Small deviations which require small corrections become large deviations which require large corrections.

This is very true. I have seen quite a few trainees with a pretty good approach get all messed up under 1000ft when they sort of have a mini panic and over-correct.

Quoting garpd (Reply 269):
There are reports that they saw it all and even took photos

And I am pretty sure we won't hear from them directly until well after this has blown over and NTSB has its interviews. If they took pics, how did they have cameras ready so quickly right before takeoff? (when does sterile cockpit begin?)
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:28 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 263):
Neither did the 777

While a plane cannot in fact do a cartwheel, this 777 did a pretty good impression of one or at least a hand stand with a spin.
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:29 pm

Quoting 77West (Reply 264):
I believe it went down an embankment or ditch into a ravine - arguably almost as bad as a small cartwheel, given the stresses on the fuselage, at those speeds. I do agree though that they both remained pretty much in one, albeit broken, piece long enough for escape. Hence, neither were overbuilt, but were built correctly.

I live in Toronto, let me preface, and I'm pretty sure I remember passengers who were interviewed who said they had no idea they had even left the runway, let alone in the ravine.

The slope they went down initially off the runway and across the public-access road was not terribly too steep.. however, where they came to rest is certainly more steep, but not very.

Regardless, the forces were enough to cause the co-pilots seat to snap.

I think 358 was completely intact when it came to rest tho - the wings fell off after the fire.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:29 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 263):
Quoting garpd (Reply 261):
Last I checked, the AF A340 didn't cartwheel after smashing into a sea wall.

Neither did the 777.

Yes it did, the eyewtitnesses were correct on this one. It did not land on its top.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...ash-moment-of-impact-spotlight.cnn
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:30 pm

Quoting 77West (Reply 271):
If they took pics, how did they have cameras ready so quickly right before takeoff?

Why do people always think pilots have absolutely zero time on their hands when on the flight deck?
It's a long taxi to the threshold of that runway at SFO. All checklist items up to the "cleared to take off" list were more than likely completed well before the plane got to the hold point. Nothing left for the pilots to do than park the plane on the hold line and watch traffic come in until they get the go ahead to enter the runway and take off.
It is possible, if photos exists at all, the crew saw the unusual attitude of the incoming 777 and one of then grabbed their phone/camera to take pics for a "Hey guys, check this numpty out!" session later.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3544
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:33 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 258):
I have not read the entire thread but is the general consensus that the pilots were simply not up to the task of manually landing the aircraft ?

No... the general consensus is that they were too low, for some reason. The most likely reason is that they made a mistake of some kind, or a series of them.

"Not up to the task" is a whole other thing. I think this thing about the pilot flying having 43 hours in the 777 is kind of a red herring, at least as it's being presented by the media - he also had more than 10,000 hours in the 744. He should be perfectly well trained and experienced. Dropping below target speed on landing is kind of a rookie mistake, but it's not like 777's have target speeds on landing but 744's don't.

It's possible there's some piece of automation or something else that significantly differs between the two planes that the pilot was momentarily confused by at exactly the wrong moment, but "not up to the task" is taking it too far IMO. In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a "muscle memory" component to this. I'd be interested to hear any differences in the landing procedures between the 744 and 777, including anything small like switches that go the opposite way or knobs that are in a similar spot but do different things.

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 262):
Sure, if they were actually watching AAR214 land. Chances are they were busy with their own pre-flight checks though and not focusing on any outside distractions.

I would think that they would have been finished running their checklists at that point. Sometimes pilots do only finish once they're on the runway, but not generally when they have to wait for other traffic. At a busy airport like SFO, you also want to be ready to get out there and go as soon as you have clearance.

My guess is that they had a front row seat to the whole thing.

btw sorry for the double post earlier - forum was acting up, didn't show it after I submitted and still had the post in my comment field.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:34 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 275):
Quoting 77West (Reply 271):
If they took pics, how did they have cameras ready so quickly right before takeoff?

Why do people always think pilots have absolutely zero time on their hands when on the flight deck?
It's a long taxi to the threshold of that runway at SFO. All checklist items up to the "cleared to take off" list were more than likely completed well before the plane got to the hold point. Nothing left for the pilots to do than park the plane on the hold line and watch traffic come in until they get the go ahead to enter the runway and take off.
It is possible, if photos exists at all, the crew saw the unusual attitude of the incoming 777 and one of then grabbed their phone/camera to take pics for a "Hey guys, check this numpty out!" session later.

The issue here is that I don't believe they are allowed to engage in non-essential activities including iphones and cameras once under sterile cockpit rules. No matter how long they have to wait for landing or departing traffic. I don't know, however, when this rule comes into play under UA rules.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:35 pm

Quoting AA94 (Reply 103):
It doesn't make sense that someone would immediately jump to captain after only 43 hours on a type.

It's perfectly normal, at least in the U.S. I've been captain on three jetliner types (Fokker F-28, Boeing 737 and E-190) without spending one minute as co-pilot. It's been done for decades.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:37 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 256):
The certification requirements for spoolup times from flight idle to go around thrust are the same.

Do you know what that time is?
 
polnebmit
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:10 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:39 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 275):
Why do people always think pilots have absolutely zero time on their hands when on the flight deck?It's a long taxi to the threshold of that runway at SFO. All checklist items up to the "cleared to take off" list were more than likely completed well before the plane got to the hold point. Nothing left for the pilots to do than park the plane on the hold line and watch traffic come in until they get the go ahead to enter the runway and take off.It is possible, if photos exists at all, the crew saw the unusual attitude of the incoming 777 and one of then grabbed their phone/camera to take pics for a "Hey guys, check this numpty out!" session later.

Didn't UA 747 pilots request extra time since they still needed to complete unfinished tasks before takeoff?
 
jreuschl
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:04 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:44 pm

Props to Airbus USA for posting on Facebook that their hearts were in San Francisco that day.

(Though there were a couple of idiots that followed that said must have been a Boeing!)
 
Gatorman96
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:22 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:45 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 269):
In theory they should have had all their checks done as they were holding for take off and not just taxiiing along.

There are reports that they saw it all and even took photos

OK, they completed their pre-flight checks then, but that doesn't mean they are sitting there twittling their thumbs. They still have to monitor their instruments to ensure normality. Do we even know they were at a stop when AAR214 was approaching? Or were they still taxiing to the hold point?

As for the photos, the only "report" I saw was on Reddit and they surely would've been post crash, not during or before...
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:48 pm

Quoting 77West (Reply 277):
The issue here is that I don't believe they are allowed to engage in non-essential activities including iphones and cameras once under sterile cockpit rules. No matter how long they have to wait for landing or departing traffic. I don't know, however, when this rule comes into play under UA rules.

Understood.

We as human being are not "supposed" to do a lot of things, but they are done daily.
Speeding, parking where you shouldn't and I doubt that US crew sat in silence after the last check list item was completed. I'm willing to bet they were talking to one another and if not immediately to hand, they had access to a camera/phone.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
asetiadi
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 5:05 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:48 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 278):
It's perfectly normal, at least in the U.S. I've been captain on three jetliner types (Fokker F-28, Boeing 737 and E-190) without spending one minute as co-pilot. It's been done for decades.

Wow From Fokker to Boeing to E-190... That's like 3 different manufactures with 3 different kind of systems. I thought you have to spend at least a few amount of hours being a co-pilot first! before taking the captain seat due to different manufactures of aircraft.

Unless if you are switching thru same aircraft manufactures, for instance, boeing 737 to 767 to 777, at least they are all running with the same/similar systems and layout.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19823
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:54 pm

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 279):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 256):
The certification requirements for spoolup times from flight idle to go around thrust are the same.

Do you know what that time is?

I believe six seconds. Note, however, that turbines have a far from linear thrust curve in relation to N1/EPR. Most of the power is at the upper end of the N1/EPR range. In other words after two seconds you don't have a third of the go around thrust but less than a third.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:54 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 258):
is the general consensus that the pilots were simply not up to the task of manually landing the aircraft ?

They may not have been "manually landing the aircraft" in the sense that the A/P and A/Th were both disengaged.

Quoting spink (Reply 270):
I would think that it would be SOP to do an immediate engine shutdown in this case as a precaution against debris ingestion given that large volume of dirt and other particles that were spewed up into the air

With a 747 full of pax in a potentially very hazardous location? I think not.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:54 pm

Quoting 77West (Reply 277):
The issue here is that I don't believe they are allowed to engage in non-essential activities including iphones and cameras once under sterile cockpit rules. No matter how long they have to wait for landing or departing traffic. I don't know, however, when this rule comes into play under UA rules.

The FAA interpretation is on the ground with the parking brake set, sterile cockpit does not apply. UA may choose a more restrictive approach, but I doubt it.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:58 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 283):

Understood.

We as human being are not "supposed" to do a lot of things, but they are done daily.
Speeding, parking where you shouldn't and I doubt that US crew sat in silence after the last check list item was completed. I'm willing to bet they were talking to one another and if not immediately to hand, they had access to a camera/phone.

Fully in agreement. However, in commercial aviation, there are very few grey areas like this. You either stick to the rules, or find another career. At most decent airlines that is.

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 287):

The FAA interpretation is on the ground with the parking brake set, sterile cockpit does not apply. UA may choose a more restrictive approach, but I doubt it.

Assuming they would not be using the parking brake just before being given line up and wait clearance, I would assume they were sterile. (Lots of assumptions I know!)
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:02 pm

Quoting 77West (Reply 288):
Assuming they would not be using the parking brake just before being given line up and wait clearance, I would assume they were sterile. (Lots of assumptions I know!)

That's exactly when you use the parking brake. Anytime you are stopped; to make sure you stay that way.

[Edited 2013-07-08 08:05:08]
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 960
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:11 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 289):

That's EXACTLY when you would use the parking brake. Anytime you are stopped; to make sure you stay that way.

Sorry, I didn't realize using the parking brake right before takeoff clearance was normal. Perhaps for a wait of several minutes, so you didn't need to hold your feet on the toe brakes. But I was under the impression their line up and wait would have come just after OZ214 touched down. (depending on the other approaching aircraft) Perhaps you can elaborate though weather they should have been using a camera at this point or not? (Which was where the sterile cockpit parking brake thing came up)
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:28 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 286):
With a 747 full of pax in a potentially very hazardous location? I think not.

Where are they going to go? They cannot go forward through a debris field, that would surely cause engine issues and potentially made a bad situation much worse. They cannot go backwards because they have no idea what is behind them. and with people running about and ARFF likely going around them...
 
avek00
Posts: 3241
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:32 pm

BTW, in case anyone thought I was exaggerating in my thoughts on Asiana's weak corporate reponse, here's an excerpt from the airline's most recent release indicating they've sent all of 20 people from Seoul to help:

"The special charter flight dispatched by Asiana Airlines yesterday at 13:33 (Korea Time) carrying twelve support staff, eight government inspectors and members of the Korean media has arrived on location in San Francisco."
Live life to the fullest.
 
RightRudder
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:04 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:34 pm

Quoting AgnusBymaster (Reply 159):
Anyone have a guess as to why the top of the plane burned so much? Looking at the photos, the sides of the fuselage look relatively unscathed, but then the top is almost completely burned out. Some speculated duty free booze in the overhead compartments.

I was noticing the same thing. The fire on the 777 burned out two fairly uniform oval holes on top of the fuselage. My guess is all the entertainment system wiring.

Also, a video after the accident indicated the wind sock with no wind which appears to have prevented moving air from feeding the fire. Such as the Manchester accident with the British Airtours 737-200.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana".
 
Klaus
Posts: 21538
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:39 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 292):
BTW, in case anyone thought I was exaggerating in my thoughts on Asiana's weak corporate reponse, here's an excerpt from the airline's most recent release indicating they've sent all of 20 people from Seoul to help:

"The special charter flight dispatched by Asiana Airlines yesterday at 13:33 (Korea Time) carrying twelve support staff, eight government inspectors and members of the Korean media has arrived on location in San Francisco."

Exactly how is that a "weak response"?

Which and exactly how many people would actually be required for which concrete tasks at hand in your view?

You really sound a bit obsessive across all your posts to the matter thus far.
 
hivue
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:50 pm

Quoting spink (Reply 291):
Where are they going to go?

Nowhere fast if the engines are shut down. I would think it's an option they would want to retain for as long as possible (e.g, until ATC told them to shut down or whatever).
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:51 pm

Quoting spink (Reply 270):
I would think that it would be SOP to do an immediate engine shutdown in this case as a precaution against debris ingestion given that large volume of dirt and other particles that were spewed up into the air (its not like the engines are going to do you any good at that point considering you would have to go over a debris field to get to anywhere with self power).

When I worked in flight ops publications, I don't recall a checklist in the QRH that dealt with an airplane crashing right in front of you. The pilots are smart enough to figure out what to do - no need to have an "SOP" on every situation.



Quoting 77West (Reply 271):
I have seen quite a few trainees with a pretty good approach get all messed up under 1000ft when they sort of have a mini panic and over-correct.

Yeah - it's amazing how dumb you can get when everything is going right. I remember on one checkride of mine I was performing some kind of instrument approach and had everything perfect when I realized I had forgotten to start the timer after crossing the outer marker. This was probably .5 miles past the outer marker, and the type of approach I was flying also had DME so I didn't even need to start the timer, but I remember almost freezing up for like 5 seconds trying to think about what to do and came perilously close to busting an altitude limit.

I passed the rest of the checkride overall but had to go up and do another instrument approach with the examiner before getting my ticket.

I'm not comparing my overall experience to the accident, just offering an example of how the brain can seize or concentrate on certain things that can make you temporarily stupid, even during "perfect" conditions when everythign seems in the green.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
avek00
Posts: 3241
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:51 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 294):
Exactly how is that a "weak response"?

Which and exactly how many people would actually be required for which concrete tasks at hand in your view?

You really sound a bit obsessive across all your posts to the matter thus far.

Lufthansa and United would have sent literally dozens if not hundreds of personnel, enough so that each affected family has a personal point of contact with an airline representative for the first couple weeks after the accident, and to eliminate the need for third parties to handle the key aspects of the post-accident response as they are having to do right now. Then again, Lufthansa and United maintain comprehensive, tightly-scripted accident contingency plans.
Live life to the fullest.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21538
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:55 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 295):
Nowhere fast if the engines are shut down. I would think it's an option they would want to retain for as long as possible (e.g, until ATC told them to shut down or whatever).

I would say they immediately became part of the accident scene with all the debris scattered about.

I don't think they had any options beyond that point but to wait for further instructions.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:55 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 237):
Their 'pretty boy talking head' just said the NTSB said the aircraft crew radioed to the tower 1.5 seconds before the impact asking permission to go around, but never received that permission.

Talk about distortion of facts.

There was no radio call - it was a command, comment, request made by someone in the cockpit. The NTSB did not say who made the Go Around statement.

There was a go-around call made on the radio - you can hear it on the ATC tape. But because several transmissions were being made at once, you can't tell who was saying it (probably the tower - it was definitely an American accent) and you can't tell who they were saying it to.

But yeah, the idea that the crew was asking for permission to go-around is ridiculous.

Quoting hivue (Reply 295):
Nowhere fast if the engines are shut down. I would think it's an option they would want to retain for as long as possible (e.g, until ATC told them to shut down or whatever).

   Unless I perceived a danger to the aircraft, I wouldn't be shutting my engines down unless ATC told me to do so.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos