|Quoting wingman (Reply 4):|
I've also discussed this accident with a lifelong friend who pilots for a European major and has flown into SFO at least 50 times. In his words "no airport the caliber of SFO should have all of its automated landing aids a the same time, it's just stupid". I have the ultimate respect for this guy so I do wonder if there aren't significant contributing factors to this accident. No question the PIC should have had at least one eyeball on the speed but to me this all just looks like a classic set-up for failure.
There is a lot of merit to this comment. Those of us that fly ULH know all too well how the body does not perform at the end of a flight like it does at the start. Numerous studies have been done to show that fatigue alone can have the same effect on the body as drinking 6 beers. We do not let people drive a car after 6 beers, but it is "legal" to expect this of piltots.
In industry we have "flight time limitations", these set limits on how much pilots can fly, and how much recovery time they need before and after a flight. In these days where accountants run all over good common sense, these "flight time limitations" are becoming various companies "rostering target", i.e. they will roster pilots to those limits. When you go back to the people who designed these "flight time limitations" they view them as maximums, not as a rostering target.
By having good approaches available to ULH crews for the landing just makes good common sense, I know many people will disagree with me saying they could fly it no problems. Remember every day there would be hundreds of people around the world that drive a car illegally after drinking, a lot of them get to their destination, they are not caught. Some people do get caught, others only get caught after being involved in an accident.
|Quoting bcoz (Reply 5):|
I simply cannot fathom that you can have a pilot flying a 777 full of passengers who is "uncomfortable" flying a visual approach in relatively great weather conditions. I mean it almost doesn't even compute to me....
I do not know if uncomfortable is the literal translation of what they were saying, no large airliner is designed to be hand flown for extended periods. A visual approach in a large jet is still an approach made on instruments looking at the window for the centre line and aim point. Gimmicks provided by manufacturers such as control wheels and moving thrust levers provide pilots will a false sense of security, it does not give any feedback on performance.
Pilots still need to have their heads inside a lot to monitor the aircraft's performance. Fixation on too much on either the outside or inside will result in less than optimum results.
|Quoting hivue (Reply 12):|
Actually, he was depending on the A/Th. I'm not nitpicking here. If he had in fact been flying 100% manual things probably would have turned out a lot better. A successful GA perhaps but not a crash.
I am not sure abut that, I would like to see someone explain to me why the software update (low speed warning) that was made to the 737NG after the Turkish 737 crash in AMS
was not rolled out to other types.
|Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 15):|
Can someone explain to me the "gremlin" or known issue with the 777's autothrottle system that everyone seems to be mentioning?
It is not a gremlin all the time, it does exactly what it is supposed to do. Like everything on aircraft, at the wrong time it can have the wrong outcome, what they are referring to is the throttle hold mode (HOLD).
|Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 16):|
It's sad to see Asiana plagued by the same issues Korean Air had a few decades ago. After a string of crashes, Korean Air took the opportunity to revamp their cockpit culture, let's hope Asiana does the same.
I maybe wrong, I was of the understanding that Asiana and Korean both had all their simulator training performed by the manufacturer.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949