777 Crash and Fire at SFO

[LH-B744]

Haha, maybe the fact that they hit the sea wall 200ft before the displaced threshold even began?

This topic has started to be a topic even in Germany (hopefully not because my avatar has been filmed at SFO)... But, this forum is a little bit quicker than all the others, as we all know.

So, who here was the first one who stated that the Koreans came in way too slow? It must have been an eye witness.

Displaced threshold is not a problem, but if you try autoland where autoland is n/a, that can cause a problem. I still know a/c which have to be manually landed in 100% of all cases, as autoland is n/a in those a/c!
[E.g. my contemporary, LH-B742.]

We all should regularly practice that.

[BoeingBobby]

I still know a/c which have to be manually landed in 100% of all cases, as autoland is n/a in those a/c!
[E.g. my contemporary, LH-B742.]

Just a little note: All Boeing 747-200's & 300's were and are fully capable of doing auto-land. If certified and current they are CAT 2 capable. I have done many CAT 2 landings in the 200 & 300.

[EconomyClass]

Is autoland and autothrottle the same thing. The pilots spoke of assuming autothrottle was on.

[Gabriel]

Is autoland and autothrottle the same thing.

No.

Autoland is an autopilot mode. Basically (but not fully correct) is the approach mode that is used for any ILS + a flare mode that actually lands the plane.

Autothrottle (or autothrust) is an automatism of the thrust commands used for example to hold a speed or hold a power setting (like a given EPR or N1 value).

In this accident, the autothrottle was engaged but in a mode (clamp) that holds the last thrust set by the pilots (which was idle). The pilots thought that the AT would hold the speed when the airplane slowed down to the selected speed. But it wouldn't and it didn't.

More or less. The exact name of the modes and the fine description of them change from one manufacturer to another.

[EconomyClass]

What can I say? Once again, the automatic features assume maybe more than human qualities of human pilots. They said "we assumed autothrottle was on". It was. But not in the useful mode. I wonder if not enough blood was spilled for any serious action to result. I mean already the airline seems to be cutting its losses. So long as it is cleared to land at all desired destinations, how deep an impression will it make on them at the home office? I know I'm beating this to death. EVERYONE is a human. Not a god involved at any level. We should totally expect weakness.

[Gabriel]

What can I say? Once again, the automatic features assume maybe more than human qualities of human pilots. They said "we assumed autothrottle was on". It was. But not in the useful mode. I wonder if not enough blood was spilled for any serious action to result. I mean already the airline seems to be cutting its losses. So long as it is cleared to land at all desired destinations, how deep an impression will it make on them at the home office? I know I'm beating this to death. EVERYONE is a human. Not a god involved at any level. We should totally expect weakness.

That's why accidents will always happen, even when the plane is fully automated with computers designed by computers designed by computers. Because, for the foreseeable future, somewhere along the chain there will be a human screwing up. And when the technology advances to the point where no human is longer needed, I bet that the artificial intelligence will have reached the level of creating their own artificial screwing up.

By the way, that the pilots didn't understand the automation and expected it to do something that it wouldn't is unforgivable (for the airline who trained them).

But even more unforgivable is that, while there were three persons in the cockpit, there was not pilot effectively monitoring the flight parameters to detect the deviation and take corrective action. The failure of the AT to hold speed could have been caused by lack of understanding of the automation (as it seems was the case), but also by a competent pilot that understands it but made a mistake with the mode selected, or by a technical failure with the autothrottle itself. The pilot MUST be there to detect that and take corrective action. They are in the front seat for that, not along for the ride. Yes, they are human and they can fail at that too (even all three of them). When you have an automation failing to perform as expected by the pilots (for whatever reason) + all pilots in the cockpit fail to do their job of flying the plane themselves, you have an accident.

You blame the technology for over-reliance on the pilot. I blame the pilots for over-reliance on the technology. The technology is there to assist the pilot who is in charge, not the other way around.

[BoeingBobby]

You blame the technology for over-reliance on the pilot. I blame the pilots for over-reliance on the technology. The technology is there to assist the pilot who is in charge, not the other way around.

And there you have it! This is what we both have been saying all along.

[Gabriel]

And there you have it! This is what we both have been saying all along.

You can be my FO any day!!!

(in the Tomahawk )

[Gabriel]

You
MUST
see
this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk

And you'll understand what BoingBobby is talking about.

It's 25 minutes, but it's the best 25 minutes that I have spent in front of a computer for some time. Brilliant, entertaining. We would likely not have this thread if the Aisiana pilots had seen this video.

And EconomyClass, if you still think that the problem is in the automation not taking into account the human factor of humans, then I give up with you.

[BoeingBobby]

You
MUST
see
this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk

And you'll understand what BoingBobby is talking about.

It's 25 minutes, but it's the best 25 minutes that I have spent in front of a computer for some time. Brilliant, entertaining. We would likely not have this thread if the Aisiana pilots had seen this video.

And EconomyClass, if you still think that the problem is in the automation not taking into account the human factor of humans, then I give up with you.

I have never seen this video. It was one of the BEST ground school videos I have ever seen in over 40 years of doing this for a living. Thank you Gabriel for the link. I am sending it to about 100 people I work with!

[Evan]

But equally unforgivable is that, while there were three persons in the cockpit, there was not pilot effectively monitoring the flight parameters to detect the deviation and take corrective action.

Fixed.

You know, if it turns out that they were intentional setting the FLCH at an unsafe altitude (such as 0') this is not an issue of over-reliance on technology. It's an issue of overconfident in themselves. (If they had set a safe target there, I don't see how this could have happened).

[brianw999]

I just changed my mind about flying American Airlines. If every one of their pilots has been to that lecture then I'll put up with some bad cabin service.

[TeeVee]

interesting (and GOOD) that at about 6:20 he talks about FMC database errors. i guess AA learned their lesson from 965...

[Gabriel]

Fixed.

You know, if it turns out that they were intentional setting the FLCH at an unsafe altitude (such as 0') this is not an issue of over-reliance on technology. It's an issue of overconfident in themselves. (If they had set a safe target there, I don't see how this could have happened).

How this could have happened?

Another day, they could have set the wrong target by a honest mistake, or the automation could have had a real failure.

You are entitled your opinion, but I don't agree (well, not fully).

The main task of the pilot is... you got it... FLY THE PLANE, and that means ensuring that the flight track and flight parameters are at target, and that means monitor the flight track and flight instruments and take whatever action is needed to enforce it, and "kill HAL" is in the list of what might be needed, and not very far down that list really.

See the video above. The automation is not doing what you expected? Click click, clack clack (or, as the NTSB would put it "sound of AP disconnect, sound of AT disconnect"). Leave for later to figure out what happened, if it was a problem of your understanding of the automation, a simple mistake of button pushing (you knew how to do it right but made a mistake) or a failure of the automation itself. Again, as said in the video, change "what is it doing now" for "why was it doing that".

"We are not automation managers. We are Captains and pilots."

The video is from 1995.

[EconomyClass]

That's why accidents will always happen, even when the plane is fully automated with computers designed by computers designed by computers. Because, for the foreseeable future, somewhere along the chain there will be a human screwing up. And when the technology advances to the point where no human is longer needed, I bet that the artificial intelligence will have reached the level of creating their own artificial screwing up.

By the way, that the pilots didn't understand the automation and expected it to do something that it wouldn't is unforgivable (for the airline who trained them).

But even more unforgivable is that, while there were three persons in the cockpit, there was not pilot effectively monitoring the flight parameters to detect the deviation and take corrective action. The failure of the AT to hold speed could have been caused by lack of understanding of the automation (as it seems was the case), but also by a competent pilot that understands it but made a mistake with the mode selected, or by a technical failure with the autothrottle itself. The pilot MUST be there to detect that and take corrective action. They are in the front seat for that, not along for the ride. Yes, they are human and they can fail at that too (even all three of them). When you have an automation failing to perform as expected by the pilots (for whatever reason) + all pilots in the cockpit fail to do their job of flying the plane themselves, you have an accident.

You blame the technology for over-reliance on the pilot. I blame the pilots for over-reliance on the technology. The technology is there to assist the pilot who is in charge, not the other way around.

There is an excellent point in here. If humans create artificial intelligence, it will not be godlike. It will be humanlike. And as such it will make similar mistakes. Only real solution is a tremendous shrinkage of the airline industry so that only enough jobs are left for the Sully Sullenbergers. But anyone can predict that will not happen. So, I infer that most air travelers will keep betting they don't have pilots who are due for a moment of idiocy. And the odds are heavily in the travelers' favor. But SOMEWHERE down the line, there will be a batch of travelers for whom it just wasn't their day. Then they will be like riders on the ferry boats that capsize. Who can say why except that if you run any form of transportation long enough, it will fail. Everybody knows that in their gut going in. Somewhere, sometime, something will go wrong. As a civilization, we accept the fatalities as a price of operating at the high level that we do.