If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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.
This part of your post is again completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
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, I'm not trying to oppress you here, I'm just responding to the discussion. My response was that ATC errors only lead to a missed approach if the pilots are doing their job and I think this point should be reflected in the final report.
Some of the casual findings of the AF447 report still irritate me. IMHO, absolute fault should have been 110% focused on pilot training and company culture. After the report was released, the press should have been more damning of AirFrance. The reputation of Airbus should not have suffered along with them. Too much criticism was diverted to systems that might have confused them. How hard is it to fly the UAS memory procedure and not pull up relentlessly despite stall warnings?
I don't want to see that kind of generosity happen with this accident, where the blame pie gets passed around.
But I didn't mean to come off like we can't discuss it here...
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.
Actually, I said this and TeeVee got angry with me. But maybe just for calling them 'ambulance chasers', which in this case they are.
I have 18 hrs stick and rudder time from flight training back in the 1970's on a Cherokee 140. That means that I could easily have more "stick and rudder" time than some of today's new commercial pilots. !!
Kinda' scary really ?
Brian, Just to set your mind at ease (A little anyway). Most of us (Older) pilots hand fly plenty. If I am doing a departure out of let us use for an example HSV (Huntsville Alabama), there is no SID for this airport. Departure is runway heading to 5000’ expect radar vectors. I routinely depart HSV in the 747-8 at very close to max gross T.O. weight (987000 lbs) on the way to LUX. I will brief the departure as hand flown and request “Heading select” at 400’. Sometimes up to 12 to 14000’, sometimes into the mid 20’s. There are many airports that this will work for that we fly out of every day, ANC, MIA just to name a few.
Now on the other side of the coin, LHR, STN, FRA, AMS, these are not only some long and often complicated SID’s, but are also noise sensitive airports. Every noise violation at any of the above mentioned airports result in a $ 10000.00 U.S.D. fine! This is the time to let the automation do its magic and engage the autopilot at 250’.
The same holds true for arrivals, if it is a long complicated STAR, let the machine do its thing. Kick off the autopilot on a 5 mile final and do the landing. Weather not the best or pure dog s**t, let the airplane land itself. Weather is great (Like it was in SFO for these guys) not to tired, kick it off and hand fly the approach and the landing. I have been known to, and seen many of my colleagues hand fly the airplane from altitude all the way to the landing. Got to have fun when you get the chance!
Brian, Just to set your mind at ease (A little anyway). Most of us (Older) pilots hand fly plenty. If I am doing a departure out of let us use for an example HSV (Huntsville Alabama), there is no SID for this airport. Departure is runway heading to 5000’ expect radar vectors. I routinely depart HSV in the 747-8 at very close to max gross T.O. weight (987000 lbs) on the way to LUX. I will brief the departure as hand flown and request “Heading select” at 400’. Sometimes up to 12 to 14000’, sometimes into the mid 20’s. There are many airports that this will work for that we fly out of every day, ANC, MIA just to name a few.
Now on the other side of the coin, LHR, STN, FRA, AMS, these are not only some long and often complicated SID’s, but are also noise sensitive airports. Every noise violation at any of the above mentioned airports result in a $ 10000.00 U.S.D. fine! This is the time to let the automation do its magic and engage the autopilot at 250’.
The same holds true for arrivals, if it is a long complicated STAR, let the machine do its thing. Kick off the autopilot on a 5 mile final and do the landing. Weather not the best or pure dog s**t, let the airplane land itself. Weather is great (Like it was in SFO for these guys) not to tired, kick it off and hand fly the approach and the landing. I have been known to, and seen many of my colleagues hand fly the airplane from altitude all the way to the landing. Got to have fun when you get the chance!
Good to hear BB. A lot of the BD pilots were the same: they flew because they loved it and I'm sure a lot of pilots are the same.
But there are also some where status as a pilot was the driving force and the challenges of real piloting and the checks involved filled them with dread. I don't know about these pilots, but I have an uneasy feeling about their competence and how long they have been 'getting away with it'.
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)
That I don't think that intentionally doing stalls at 500ft in any airplane is wise or safe doesn't meant that I don't think it's recoverable if the recovery is correctly executed.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
But I didn't mean to come off like we can't discuss it here...
Look, I post that the pilots screwed up royally, but was curious if anyone knew if they were vectored high.
Dead Stick and Gabriel jump on me to forget vectoring/altitude because the pilots screwed up royally.
I re-emphasize to them that being vectored very high would definately be discussed- at length- in the final report...
Gabriel posts that he understands...
THEN after all that discussion, and without adding any altitude information, you have to pile on and tell me that the pilots screwed up royally.
Yes, this is stuff a 5-hour student pilot should not mess up, but if they were vectored really high, it belongs in the discussion and belongs in the final report.
...and Boeng Bobby....Blue font is often used to symbolize sarcasm.
The pilots screwed up royally, and I've got a private license and therefore know that they should be shot along with Evan, Deadstick and Gabriel who can't understand that being set up high could be a discussion-worthy factor.
Peace, Love, and Strong Fundamental Airmanship to all!
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
THEN after all that discussion, and without adding any altitude information, you have to pile on and tell me that the pilots screwed up royally.
I wasn't piling that on you. I'm aware that we all agree on that. The point I was trying to add was that bad ATC vectors should only lead to a missed approach unless the pilots screw up royally. It doesn't explain what happened here but it might be part of the chain of events (as was taking off and putting their pants on in the morning). It may end up being discussed in the final report but the idea that pilots can't be expected to handle a CAVU approach without crashing unless it is perfectly handed to them doesn't sit well with me.
Honestly, yes, I see it being relevant as part of the flight history (how they got high and fast in the first place) -- so we agree on that -- but I don't know exactly where are you going with it.
If they got good vectors, the crash probably would not have occurred.
That sounds a lot like you are shifting some of the blame for the crash onto ATC.
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.
yes, but for what it's worth....
I've seen things like:
"The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was impact with a tree as the result of the pilot's decision to continue the approach below the published minimums in dark night conditions with weather below IMC minimums.
Contributors to this accident were the weather conditions, the dark night and the tree."
They always forget to mention the take-off, which is a necessary link in the chain of events that lead to most aviation accidents.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
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.
Let me add the airline's managers.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
I wasn't piling that on you. I'm aware that we all agree on that. The point I was trying to add was that bad ATC vectors should only lead to a missed approach unless the pilots screw up royally. It doesn't explain what happened here but it might be part of the chain of events (as was taking off and putting their pants on in the morning).
The difference being that taking off and putting their pants on were not mistakes. Vectoring an airplane too high/close/fast could be considered one.
The pilot is supposed to take-off. The ATC is not supposed to vector you wrong.
And while I agree 200% that this error should lead to nothing more that a go-around, or even better, an "unable" call from the cockpit, IF the pilots didn't screw it up big time, the fact that we put an IF means that one slice of Swiss cheese was removed, albeit a very thin and full-of-big-holes one.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
“If they got good vectors, the crash probably would not have occurred”.
Can’t find who said this, but I say hogwash!
And Evan, The CAA, come on now!
This is really NO different than the AF crash. Which I said from day one on that thread and was clobbered there as well. SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE MINDING THE STORE AT ALL TIMES PERIOD.
NO BLUE FONT INSERTED!
ATC can't come up and fly the airplane for you. Management can't as well.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment