777 Crash and Fire at SFO

[TeeVee]

Have you ever read an NTSB report on a major aviation accident? You can rest assured that every aspect of this crash, including anything that may have contributed to death or injury, will be exhaustively investigated. You can expect, for instance, a section describing the cause of internal inflation of the escape slides. They will go far beyond the cause of the accident to explain every collateral aspect of it.

What possible evidence exceeding the scope of the investigation, implicating Boeing as liable, that does not concern "this aircraft, this event, this crew" could you possibly be referring to?

Just answer me that. Please.

It's ambulance chasing. It's a rotten field.

tell us again, or for the first time, what it is you do and what experience you have? oh, that's right, professional internet butthead that just hates lawyers but has no proof of any of the allegations he makes against them.

read up about international treaties and laws and get back to me on what the ntsb is and is not allowed to do in this accident.

oh and if you trust your government, maybe you should read up about an obscure fellow named snowden...

as for this conversation, it is over. i guess i had forgotten how ignorant you were on this subject since our last interchange a few years ago. good to see nothing has changed.

[brianw999]

Language, language......play nicely kiddies please !

[TeeVee]

sorry. fixed.

[EconomyClass]

OK, so maybe TeeVee is among those I was referring to. But all I said was a larger percentage of tort lawyers are sharks. At no point did I even say "the typical tort lawyer is a bottom feeder". I'm quite sure lots of people believe that, but I'm not taking a stand. Contrary to his livid response, I was making the point that in my experience I have a lot of trust in lawyers due to the integrity of the ones I've personally dealt with. I think that would get an equally incredulous response from some people who maybe had a different experience (maybe they were defendants who got legally raped in court). But, honestly, when you read the extremes to which some lawyers go, how could you infer anything but they are bottom feeders?

[EconomyClass]

News stories say Asiana offering $10k to survivors. Just?

[guamainiac]

In the "K__a Trial" the Public Defenders lawyers were across the hall from my office. The esteemed council for the defendant came up with a defense that cast the victim, a 5 year old girl as precocious, and sexually advanced so as to cause the defendant to lure her aboard his sail boat that was parked in his driveway where he raped and strangled her.

Now, IMHO, this dim bulb could not have concocted that story on his own and when his attorney, a female, would get on the elevator, I would stop and get off or would pass on boarding a car with her.

What else was interesting was that about mid trial, his bum of a brother was suddenly located. He was a derelict welfare case living in a trailer (caravan), and watching the tape of his testimony he appeared slightly intoxicated as he narrated how their father allegedly sexually abused him when they were wee lads. I also noted that in the background of this tape, two cases of Michelob Beer, at the time, a premium beer, were stacked. Would an alcoholic, bound to a tin box of a home, when his check to cover his dole came in select two cases of Michelob or four cases of a working mans brew? I knew the gal who conducted the interviews and she seemed to have stopped looking me in the eye and avoided contact?

Somehow defense attorneys have learned the black arts of hypnotism or casting spells to make seemingly reasonable conclusions and forget that the standard for a conviction is how they, as reasonable people could conclude that a person committed a foul deed. Somehow, they a deluded and come to feel that they need to be 100% certain beyond any (not just reasonable), doubt did the dirty deed. Actually a lot of this happens in the process for jury selection. After listening to a few of these processes to weed out irrational, uneducated, males who lack the ability to make decisions and reach conclusions ... ho, ho, wait, it's the other way around isn't it?

I have been thinking of a way that allows me my right to due process and inclusion into the legal fray during which precedents are set since I feel that my exclusion via the serendipity of defense counsel is depriving me of the Constitutional right to participate. I may develop a list of "truisms" in order to effect my being seated on a jury. Prior to the interview of jurors you need to do a few things to respond, honestly to the questions that defense sometimes use during the challenge process.

When they ask me if I am a member of any national organizations, I'll be able to respond .... "yes, the ACLU" (if they let me join for a $1 donation).

When they ask me in what area of study did I pursue in school, I'll be able to respond ... "the humanities and issues of social and environmental welfare"

When they ask me if I have any bumper stickers on my vehicle, I'll respond with certainty ... "Save The Whales"

When they ask me if I have ever had any significant encounters with law enforcement ... I'll respond ... "well yes and does the one where I was brutalized by a traffic officer count?

Well OK, the traffic incident was in England and I think I was stopped and questioned because I have an Irish name. Wait that doesn't spin well but gimme' time and I'll work on it.

[EconomyClass]

I always figured I'd figure out a way to sneak in "I like to see n-words hang". If I could do it with a southern twang, all the better. Trouble is, do you ever know what they're going to call you for? I'd love to hang a jury where the defendant is poor and dependant on a public defender. That combo has gotten ten or twenty years behind bars before the discovery of the defendant's innocence.

[BoeingBobby]

Interesting read

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_22_2013_p25-597816.xml

[Dispatch Dog]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p25-597816.xml

I think that pretty much explains it for me. Won't know for sure until the final report, but the issue now shifts to training and tested competence with the systems, not just from the pilot flying but the training pilot in command.

To teach, you really have to know a lot more than just a competent pilot, especially about the pitfalls of automation philosophy and discrepancies.

BB, does this sort of AT / AP trap occur on the 747?

[Evan]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p25-597816.xml

Does anybody here know if this is a misuse of the FLCH mode, i.e. a way to cheat the automation into a fast descent rather than the Boeing-intended use of FLCH. I wonder if certain operators advocate (or tolerate) this procedure as unofficial SOP while others are wiser to the danger. And what other seemingly clever operator-devised procedures might not be found in the Boeing/Airbus manuals...

[EconomyClass]

304 survived. $10,000 apiece. And a trashed plane. Not sure what the value of a 777 is, but that pilot became an expensive liability! I wonder if management is in meetings trying to figure out if there's any way to avoid moments of mindlessness that turn into such whopping losses. That, of course, assumes no litigation. I'm not sure what amount would result if a lot of litigation started. The airline obviously hopes to achieve some damage control, to avoid a gushing financial wound.

[Gabriel]

Does anybody here know if this is a misuse of the FLCH mode, i.e. a way to cheat the automation into a fast descent rather than the Boeing-intended use of FLCH. I wonder if certain operators advocate (or tolerate) this procedure as unofficial SOP while others are wiser to the danger. And what other seemingly clever operator-devised procedures might not be found in the Boeing/Airbus manuals...

I think that, basically, in any airplane with an equivalent function the same will happen.

But there are many ways to use the automation in a wrong way. For example, if you set it up in VS mode to intercept the ILS from above, some systems won't capture the GS. Or if it would do so, except that you forgot to arm the APP mode. In any of those cases, the airplane will happy CFIT with the pilot saying "I thought it would follow the GS".

Or we have the already very well known case of setting up a climb in VS and a healthy speed in the AT, except that the VS set is more than the plane can sustain even at full power. Planes with no envelope protection will stall while trying to hold the VS and trading speed for altitude by doing so.

Or more or less when the airplane is tracking the GS and there isn't enough power to keep that descent gradient (in airplanes with no A/T or where the A/T had some problem or was not or wrongly set). The plane will have no problem raising the nose to keep the GS while bleeding speed, all the way into a stall.

Or if you set a VS that is so high that the plane will overspeed even with the engines idled. No matter what low speed you set in the AT, the plane will accelerate and overspeed (unless it has envelope protection).

It's time that pilots (some of them) start using the automation as a tool and not as their deputy. "I thought that the automation would do that" is an unacceptable excuse, even if the automation was actually supposed to do just that, because the pilot is there to manage the automation and override it if necessary, not the other way around.

[Evan]

I think that, basically, in any airplane with an equivalent function the same will happen.

Hopefully the scenarios you cite are more obvious to the pilots. FLCH seems to have an added element of stealth, although any alert crew who understand how the mode works should not get 'trapped' by it. It seems that the pilot has to intentionally select an unsafe altitude to get into this mess:

As I understand it... FLCH is an AFDS pitch mode that, in descent, essentially brings the thrust to idle and uses pitch to hold the target speed. When used correctly it allows for quick descent or continued descent when other modes will try to level off. When used correctly, a minimum safe altitude is selected on the MCP and when reaching that selected altitude FLCH will change to ALT and put the A/T back into SPD mode. Or, if VNAV is armed, FLCH will transition to VNAV PTH when intersecting the path. So it seems pretty safe unless...

...unless the crew hacks the thing by selecting an unsafe altitude or something like 0'. In this case FLCH will continue to try to hold speed with pitch while the A/T remains at idle in HOLD mode... presumably all the way down to your selected altitude of terra firma (speed protections are inhibited below 100').

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of that. Maybe BB knows how this works in practice, but AFAIK, FLCH is a 777 thing.

Here's some reference:

• AFDS pitch holds selected speed. When selected altitude captured, pitch
flight mode annunciation changes to ALT
• A/T operates in THR, followed by HOLD mode in descent. When
selected altitude captured, A/T mode changes to SPD
• A/T advances or retards thrust levers to provide 500 FPM vertical speed
for each 1000 feet altitude change
• AFDS attempts to reach the MCP selected altitude within two minutes if
able with available thrust. Otherwise, A/T uses IDLE or CLB thrust to
reach the MCP selected altitude

This is how FLCH is also used for RAPID descent:

Rapid Descent:Set a lower altitude in the altitude window. Select FLCH, close the thrust levers and smoothly extend the speedbrakes. If turn radius is a factor, the pilot should manually select the desired bank angle required to complete the maneuver in a safe manner. Autothrottles should be left engaged. The airplane pitches down smoothly while the thrust levers retard to idle. Adjust the speed as needed and ensure the altitude window is correctly set for the level off.

[Gabriel]

Vnav, please come to my rescue on this.

I don't know how exactly how it works in the 777, but it looks quite similar to how it works in other planes. This explanation is from my "extensive" experience with the Mad Dog (yes, in MSFS).

There are basically two ways to change an altitude with the A/P: Speed or VS.

In both cases, the procedure is as follows:
Select the desired target altitude.

Tell the autoflight how you want to get there.
a- Select the desired VS and click VS, or
b- Select the desired speed and click IAS/MACH
(both values are selected in the VS/Speed window of the vertcial mode of the autoflight guidance panel).

After that, the flight director will give cues to adjust pitch to either keep the selected VS or speed. If the AP is engaged, it will follow those cues.

What happens with the thrust? Well, basically... nothing.
Previous to the activation of the vertical mode(whichever of the two you've chosen), the autothrust might have been following one of the following modes (basically, there are other possibilities):
Off, speed/Mach (selected in the "speed" window of the AT, not of the vertical mode), or EPR Lim (where the A/T holds a target EPR calculated by the Thrust Rate computer in function of the mode you've selected: TO, TO FLX, GA, MCT, CL, CR).

So, if you select the VS mode, the A/T will keep doing just it was doing. It will not change its mode.

But if you select the IAS/MACH mode of vertical gideance, if the AT was in speed mode, it will change to CLAMP mode (the thrust levers will remain in their last position), and if it was in a EPR Lim mode, it will keep holding the same EPR target.

For example, during climb you have say 20000 in the target altitude window, will be climbing in IAS/MACH mode with say 270kts selected in the vertical mode window, have the AT in EPR Lim mode, and have say M.290 selected in the speed window of the AT.

The plane will keep climbing, keeping the thrust adjusted to the climb EPR target (that changes with altitude), and holding a pitch such that the airspeed will remain 270. When the plane approaches 20000ft, the vertical mode will change to VS, using the current VS as the initial target and slowly decreasing it until reaching 20000ft with 0fpm. At the same time, the AT mode will change to IAS/MACH and will start to hold 290kts.

Now, imagine that you are climbing as described before, and then decide that you have to return and change to a descent in V/S mode with the AT still holding climb thrust. You'll overspeed. Will you call that a trap?

Another scenario. You are at cruise, with the AP in altitude hold 20000 and the AT in SPEED/MACH 290. You reach the TOD. To start the descent, you select the target altitude (say 10000ft), select the desired speed in the vertical mode window (say 270), and push the "IAS/MACH" button to select the descent mode. What will the airplane do?
THE PLANE WILL CLIMB!
The AT will change to CLAMP, the thrust levers will remain where they were (that was, as needed to hold 290kts in level flight) and the AP will adjust the pitch to reduct the speed to 270. That is, it will pitch up.
Ok, so how is this done?
You select the current speed in the window of the vertical mode: 290. The rest is the same. What does the plane do now?
NOTHING! The AT goes to climb, so the levers will stay at their position which was to hold 290 in level flight. The AP will adjust the pitch to keep 290, which is again level flight.

This is the point where the pilot stops scratching his cr.... whatever was itchy, moves his hand to the thrust levers, and retard them. The levers will stay wherever the pilot leaves them (typically at idle), and now the AP will pitch down to hold 290 kts. But the pilot wanted 270 for the descent, so now yes, he smoothly adjust the speed in the vertical mode window to 270. Smoothly because if you do it in one quick twist, the plane will pitch up to try to loose those extra 20 knots and might momentarily climb. I don't know if just 20 kts is enough to make this, but change quickly from 290 to 200 and up you'll go (for a while), even with the engines idle.

Ok, so now you've established your descent with the engines at idle and the AP adjusting the pitch to keep 270. The AT is on. It's almost like it's not, because the levers will stay wherever the pilots leaves them. The pilot can use the thrust levers to control not speed, but vertical speed (thus "power controls altitude").

When the plane approaches 10000ft, the vertical mode will change to VS and track 10000, and the AT will change to Speed/Mach and track 250.

This vertical mode is not typically used in the approach, but it could be used if you are too high, to descent as much as you can without busting your airspeed. Now, guess what happens if you select 0ft as target altitude and the ground is higher than that? The plane will keep descending at the selected speed until it approaches zero feet, then it will hold zero feet. That's below the ground? Too bad!

Now, what happens if you disconnect the AP in the middle of a descent in IAS/MACH mode? Nothing. The autoflight doesn't control the autopilot directly. It controls the flight director, with the expectation that some pilot (human or otto) will follow its cues.

If you disconnect the AP, the flight mode will not change and the flight director will show cues to make you keep a pitch that keeps the speed selected in the vertical mode window. You don't follow it an instead pull up? Again, too bad! Who is going to hold your speed since the AT is in CLAMP mode and you have not reached the target altitude yet? Unless you manually advance the throttles or select speed mode in the AT, you'll crash.

By the way, have you've heard of a lot of MD-80s crashing becasue of that? And I bet that there have been much more landings in MD-80s than in 777s.

[EconomyClass]

It's time that pilots (some of them) start using the automation as a tool and not as their deputy. "I thought that the automation would do that" is an unacceptable excuse, even if the automation was actually supposed to do just that, because the pilot is there to manage the automation and override it if necessary, not the other way around.

As a nonpilot, I was thinking that too. "I thought autothrottle was on, but it wasn't". Even if there is an indicator saying it is on, it is manufactured and can fail! If a pilot is needed in the cockpit, it is to have a brain there to check what the machine says against reality. No "assuming everything will work as advertised". Until civilization arrives at Shangri-La where things come off the production line perfect and remain perfect when used, everyone operating any machine has to believe "this can fail" and be ready to act when it does.