777 Crash and Fire at SFO

[Gabriel]

And thank you for the shouting.

I didn't listen any shouting. But I saw some highlighting and emphasis.

[B757300]

CNN: Victims of the Asiana Flight #214 crash have filed a lawsuit against Boeing and Asiana Airlines.

Interesting how they're trying to pin this on Boeing so early. 83 pax suing Boeing alone according to the Los Angeles Times.

Of course they have. Some scum sucking lawyer sees big $$$.

Just like those suing Boeing over 9/11 including that witch, Scary Mary.

[3WE]

...And thank you for the shouting. It adds so much cred to your comment.

You, my friend, looked at my original post, but jumped to conclusions, and glossed over a vast amount of what it said.

Just like I once glossed over part of a sentence from you that said, "I wasn't flying the 787 that diverted so I don't know for sure, but it sure seems unneccesary that they diverted"

I was not sure how else to get through to you.

20 miles...sounds great, but you don't say how high.

Therefore, you only have 1/2 the story.

I'm seeking the whole story.

[Evan]

You cannot dismiss it as a contributing factor!!!!!!!

If they got good vectors, the crash probably would not have occurred.

Bad vectors, wind shear, traffic ahead, improvisational piloting... these are all contributing factors to a missed approach.

The crash occured because of a continued unstable approach, and no one, not ATC, not Boeing, not "HAL", not a missle attack conspiracy, not the Russians, not lifting straps, not even that 'nerve racking' 11,000 ft aircraft carrier known as SFO can share the blame for that. This is a pure piloting violation and if this crash hadn't occurred, eventually another one would have.

[3WE]

Bad vectors, wind shear, traffic ahead, improvisational piloting... these are all contributing factors to any number of plane crashes where people died, where if they did not happen the plane would not have crashed and people would not have died. Consequently, all of these must be considered when reviewing a plane crash, as opposed to being closed minded, tunnel visioned, black and white thinkers like me.

Fixed your post for you, but you too have a comprehension problem.

My point is valid.

And, your friend Gabirel says so too.

Do not dismiss it.

And if you do not care to add any information whatsoever as to whether their vectoring placed them higher than what is average, you do not need to reply to a post which asks whether the vectoring placed them higher than average.

[Dispatch Dog]

I don't have the data to make calculations that prove you wrong, but I strongly disagree.

Ok, the boundary of stall is a very high drag situation. But with 500ft, you could easily lower the nose a good bunch, thus both reducing the AoA greatly to reduce there drag, and also assisting the thrust by trading altitude for speed. Combine with say 5 more seconds of time for spool up (also thanks to the altitude), and you would have had a great acceleration.


Altitude is energy. And a lot of it. Just to visualize it, figure how much thrust and for how long is necessary to bring the plane from rotation to 500ft during the take-off. It's TOGA for like 15 seconds. So, at those speeds and altitudes, 500ft is equivalent to 15 seconds of TOGA (sort of).

I'm going to stick to my basic perception, but moderate it slightly as your perception always has value IMO.

At 103kts almost level flight and about 20-25deg nose up AoA... taken from the actual video, not the simulation... even once spool up had arrived, I don't think this aircraft has the power to mass ratio of a fighter, or the 3D RC planes I fly. At the approach of and during stall, the loss of lift is accompanied by a huge increase in drag. Leading edge devices and slotted flaps help delay the stall to a slower speed and reduce the loss of lift, but at high AoA they are also a huge contribution to drag, plus whatever lift there is, a large component is aft.

All these factors plus the mass of the aircraft mean that they were way behind the energy curve and only significant height could have helped. Anyone with more than 10 hours in a C152 should have glanced at the altitude following a low energy stall recovery, and that was with the instant reaction of a lycoming.

I've only got 300hrs in various light planes, but thousands designing and flying RC aircraft. #stop giggling in the back there!!# and only a 1:1 + power to mass ratio can pull you back from a big stall without loss of height.

But this is all academic since it is a consequence of mistakes made far earlier when they had the height and still the speed to make a 'recovery' merely an adjustment. It is IMO a reminder of how quickly things can go wrong and even with 4-7 few seconds, beyond recoverable.

Everyone must have seen that AF A320 at the airshow that seemed to just fly into the trees? They had spool up but because of the aircrafts FBW logic, they couldn't raise the nose and flew right in before the power had a chance to increase speed. I like Boeing's attitude of allowing the pilot to get that extra bit of AoA to save the day at the last moment, which probably saved a lot of lives at SFO, but then Airbus systems would have added power to ensure they didn't get behind the energy curve.

I stick to my perception simply because they were slowing badly and I think way below 100kts at impact, this is well into aerodynamic stall territory. Passengers actually did hear the engines rev up and they still failed to gain height. We will see exactly what thrust was produced at what point when we get the FDR data published, but my guess is that at the final moment, they had some thrust and were still slowing because of the huge drag at that speed and AoA.

Again, just an opinion that is not meant to confront the opinions of others.

[3WE]

....Everyone must have seen that AF A320 at the airshow that seemed to just fly into the trees? They had spool up but because of the aircrafts FBW logic, they couldn't raise the nose and flew right in before the power had a chance to increase speed. I like Boeing's attitude of allowing the pilot to get that extra bit of AoA to save the day at the last moment, which probably saved a lot of lives at SFO...

Don't go there- Gabriel ususally busts me:

Basically there was no meaningful extra speed energy available with the A320- the FBW system really doess keep you very few knots above stall, not nearly enough to have missed the trees, and had that maneuver been flown with a similar Boeing, and similar idled engines, then it very well might have plunged into the trees, at a nasty roll angle from the control problems caused by the stall as opposed to gliding in.

A Boeing could also have glided in, but it would be the pilots choice if he really wanted to blow the last three knots and then deal with a loss of lift and wallowing flight/control behavior...and sure, it doesn't hurt to do that when you are down to your last couple of feet...

[Gabriel]

At 103kts almost level flight and about 20-25deg nose up AoA...

Hmmmmm.... let's wait for the final report, but I think it's very hard (not impossible) that they reached that so high AoA. But it was very high, no doubt.

... even once spool up had arrived, I don't think this aircraft has the power to mass ratio of a fighter, or the 3D RC planes I fly.

Of course not, but consider that this airplane has the power to mas ratio for, with half the power (that is, with one engine out), complete the take-off and safely climb, or to go around in approach config. Of course, not with a "stallish" AoA. But the power-to-mass ratio is much more than your typical single engine piston GA.

plus whatever lift there is, a large component is aft.

3we, look for this absolute statement that is NOT wrong:

DD: you are 100% wrong on this. And it's not an opinion, it's a definition.
The fluid makes a total force on an object. For practical reasons, this force is conventionally divided in two components: the component parallel to the freestream, which is named drag, and the component perpendicular to the freestream, which is named lift. There cannot exist any other component because there isn't any other direction to decompose the total aerodynamic force and, as you see, by definition, what you call "backwards lift" MUST BE part of the "huge drag" that you've already described. Don't count it twice.

All these factors plus the mass of the aircraft mean that they were way behind the energy curve and only significant height could have helped.

Agreed. For me 500ft clearly falls into the realm of "significant" in this context.

Anyone with more than 10 hours in a C152 should have glanced at the altitude following a low energy stall recovery, and that was with the instant reaction of a lycoming.

100ft.

I've only got 300hrs in various light planes, but thousands designing and flying RC aircraft. #stop giggling in the back there!!# and only a 1:1 + power to mass ratio can pull you back from a big stall without loss of height.

And even then it will be hard to accomplish. Agreed. On the other hand, if you have 500ft...

But this is all academic since it is a consequence of mistakes made far earlier when they had the height and still the speed to make a 'recovery' merely an adjustment. It is IMO a reminder of how quickly things can go wrong...

100% agreed on this.

... and even with 4-7 few seconds, beyond recoverable.

Ok, but for the record, in this case it was NOT 4-7 seconds. It was more like 20-30 (if you count since the point where V went below Vref). You'll see when the final report is out.

I stick to my perception simply because they were slowing badly and I think way below 100kts at impact

In fact, and this is a point I made before, the spool up had reached only 50% and yet, they were already accelerating. They increased the speed 4 knots, from 103 to 107, in the last one or two seconds (this was confirmed by the NTSB). Yes, with the high AoA and the engines only partially spooled up and all. Add 500ft and you very clearly have margin for a recovery (if you fly it well, not like Colgan or AF).

Passengers actually did hear the engines rev up and they still failed to gain height.

maybe, MAYBE, they started to gain a little bit of height, just not enough for the gear and tail to clear the sea wall.

my guess is that at the final moment, they had some thrust and were still slowing because of the huge drag at that speed and AoA.

As said, that is factually wrong. They were already starting to gain airspeed. Huge drag and AoA and all.

Again, just an opinion that is not meant to confront the opinions of others.

Not to confront. Just to discuss and exchange opinions, and in some cases facts. I think this type of discussion is constructive.

[Dispatch Dog]

3we, look for this absolute statement that is NOT wrong:

DD: you are 100% wrong on this. And it's not an opinion, it's a definition.
The fluid makes a total force on an object. For practical reasons, this force is conventionally divided in two components: the component parallel to the freestream, which is named drag, and the component perpendicular to the freestream, which is named lift. There cannot exist any other component because there isn't any other direction to decompose the total aerodynamic force and, as you see, by definition, what you call "backwards lift" MUST BE part of the "huge drag" that you've already described. Don't count it twice.

Um, yes, I believe you are 100% correct.

[Dispatch Dog]

I also didn't see the NTSB data recording an increase in speed. So again, will have to concede mostly to your perspective. While I drag my ego off for some ice cream, may I at least keep some perspective that they lost energy rather than position, as the position.. i.e. low on the GS and short of the runway... was a result of not having the speed to gain height and reach the runway?

... mr whippy?.. make mine a double!

[Evan]

as opposed to being closed minded, tunnel visioned...

If they got good vectors, the crash probably would not have occurred.

THAT IS A FACT!!!!!!!!!!

Well, algebraically then, since this crash probably did occur, you must know for a fact that ATC gave them bad vectors. Well done. You should call the NTSB and tell them this immediately.

...

BTW, You could also have said that if they had a glideslope signal the crash probably would not have occurred.

Or... if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass... on the seawall.

Look, I understand the need to fully recognize all the contributing factors in an accident but many of these things are simply incidental. Aviation safety is built on fault tolerance. The most important goal of a crash investigation is to find the places where there is currently no fault tolerance and then to do whatever is possible to fix that. Therefore you must draw a distinction between what is expected to go wrong, where such fault-tolerance exists, and that which is not expected to go wrong and where there is currently no fault-tolerance.

So a glideslope out or a poor vector that leads to a late descent into the glidepath, these are essentially things we expect to happen from time to time. There are tolerable because ultimately we have a crew of two or more pilots who are familiar with the rules and required to abandon an unstable approach. The worst case scenario here is a missed approach. Bad vectors are going to happen at busy airports. NTSB recommendations to ATC aren't going to change much about that.

However, a crew of two or more pilots either failing to monitor or willfully violating the parameters governing a stable approach is not something we expect to happen. It should be avoidable. This is not tolerable because nothing can save the aircraft at this point except dumb luck (which often does I imagine). The worst case scenario here is a fatal crash. Recommendations by the NTSB can have a profound effect here.

So, to summarize my "close-minded tunnel vision"...

- Dealing with bad vectors and less than opportune situations during the approach: a required part of piloting that is always solved by going around.

- Not monitoring instruments or willfully violating the rules: nothing to do with sound piloting and absolutely intolerable.

Sure, ATC vectors may have been a factor in setting the stage for these clowns to act on (as did operating without a glideslope) and the investigation might fault them for giving them this wobbly stage. But if the investigation shifts any fault here for the crash over to ATC, that will be a crime.

I think it is very important in this case to keep things very focused on the piloting decisions that were made here and the training and culture behind those desicions.

[3WE]

Not to confront. Just to discuss and exchange opinions, and in some cases facts. I think this type of discussion is constructive.

You guys are 'arguing' (ok, it's a polite debate) over whether 500 feet is high enough to go screwing around with stall and near-stall behavior and whether you can recover or not...

I belive that there's consensus that we don't know, but I will ask Gabriel if he'd feel safe doing a stall and recovery at 500 feet in a 777. And not a surprise, oh shit stall, but an intentional stall where you are primed for recovery.

I do belive that doing a stall and recovery at 500 feet in a Tommahawk would not be a big deal. On the other hand, even that a very gross violation of the black and white, ISO-9001, QC POH, QRH and Process Manual on how to practice stalls...2500 to 3000 feet or you don't do it. (The little dot is a period)

[3WE]

I think it is very important in this case to keep things very focused on the piloting decisions that were made here and the training and culture behind those desicions.

Thanks for the response.

But, when the final report comes out, there will be an analysis of the altitudes and vectors given to Asiana.

If they were significantly high it will be listed as a contributing factor.

The behavior of this forum that we are not allowed to discuss this, that we can only focus on the pilots, Ummm, no, we discuss all the facets leading to the crash- even though the pilot behavior is hugely delinquent.

[3WE]

My friend got his private license last year.

I asked him if he was taught very early in his fight training to watch his airspeed and glidepath when on short final.

He said yes.

The Asianna pilots were total, 5000% idiots and should have thier passports revoked and be publically beaten and Asiana airplanes should be confiscated and all their employees shot.

[BoeingBobby]

In almost all of these accidents, the lawyers as I believe TeeVee said in an earlier post go after the deepest pockets. They assume Boeing will look at the cost to litigate the case and just settle for less. The problem is this tactic usually works. Boeing builds the aircraft, Honeywell (I assume) the FMS, who knows the manufacture of the actual auto-throttle system. More than likely they will all be named in any legal actions.

Now let me say this, in my opinion there is no one to blame other than the three pilots in the cockpit at the time of the accident. It is the pilots’ responsibility to fly the aircraft at all times. All of the automation is there to assist the pilot. As far as placing blame on ATC, they are sitting in an air conditioned office behind a radar screen. At the end of their shift they get to get in their car and drive home. Yes they can be held accountable but they are still alive. Did I say this earlier? It is the pilots’ responsibility to fly the aircraft at all times. Even if they had been held up until the last possible minute, just throw the gear out with a little flap and the aircraft will come down like a rock without the use of spoilers.

Gabriel is 100% correct on the stall recovery!!!!!! After the Air France accident stall recovery has been changed after all of the years of teaching “Do not lose any altitude”. There are going to be certain times that some altitude must be sacrificed in order to get the airspeed back. I am not saying that if he had dropped the nose at 500’ he would have recovered, but it was about the only option he had left at that point. Being that he elected to continue an un-stabilized approach.