Wow, watching this on Fox News. How on earth did everybody get off that plane in one piece? Amazing pictures of the burnt out aircraft & the debris strewn down the runway. Looks like an absolute miracle.
PS, next time you're in a serious plane crash with the tail sheared off, fatalities, and an engine on fire, make sure to grab your luggage before exiting.
An American 'expert' air crash investigator was interviewed on BBC World last night. He implied that there may be a possible fault with Boeing aircraft following a similar incident at Heathrow a few years back (2008 I think) and other non specified incidents. I guess with such a major player as Boeing, he had to be very careful what he said. Anyhow, per miles travelled etc., flying is still incredibly safe compared to any other mode of transport
777 is a new aircraft with radical differences to other planes. Always worrying as new lessons have to be learned, where as with standard plane designs, designers pretty much know everything they need to know now! This could have a big negative impact for Boeing with stiff competition from Airbus!
Yes, it will - wink - But it won't help - is it a plane people want to fly in? A few more incidents and it will be a liability and airlines won't want any more of them.
Yes, it will - wink - But it won't help - is it a plane people want to fly in? A few more incidents and it will be a liability and airlines won't want any more of them.
Hope not - I'm flying on one in a couple of weeks!
To be fair, the 777 does have an excellent safety record and there are over a 1,000 in the air at any given time, apparently. Been flying since 1995 on serious long-haul journeys and these look like the first two fatalities - and one of these appears to have been a poor soul who survived the crash, only to get run over by one of the emergency vehicles. How rough is that?
Ah, now the 787 - that's a different matter. Agree with you on that little baby, Muttley - if I knew I was flying on one anytime soon I would do so with proper trepidation. What with all of its composites and whatnot, it's like a completely new plane altogether. (cue Airplane! joke...)
From what's been reported, and from eye witness accounts the following seems to have happened:
The plane was lacking air speed, but was descending at a steeper angle/rate of descent that usual. At the last moment the pilot tried to abort the landing by rising the nose. Due to the lack of airspeed, and the plane's low altitude, this caused the tail to kit the sea wall.
Now there are a number of questions here, I guess the most pertinent are why was the plan coming in slow and steep, and why did the pilot try to abort the landing so late on.
We can surmise that for some reason (instrumentation or pilot error) the decent was start too late, so the plan had to slow and increase it's rate of descent rather than overshoot the runway. Conditions were clear, but if the pilot was unaware that the glide path beacon wasn't active (it's only turned on at San Fran in poor visibility conditions) then could have waited for the plane radar to pick up the beacon, and when it didn't then started a manual approach too late. Equally, the altimeter could have been faulty and the pilot realised visually that he was too high and fast to make the landing, and therefore slows and steepened the approach deliberately.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the above, though it's not ideal, but plenty of planes are landed below optimum speed and at steep descent paths.
The bigger issue is that the descent path wasn't corrected, that the plane couldn't land safely at that rate of decent. The pilot seems to have tried to pull out of the landing far too late. Again this could be an altimeter issue but visibility was clear, the pilot would have seen the runway all the way in.
It does look like human error at first glance. Altimeter issues seem unlikely as the answer to both issues as that would require the altimeter indicating the plan was lower than it was in the first instance, and higher than it was in the second.
From what has been reported so far there is no indication of any fault, or report from the crew, of a mechanical issue that would cause the plan to come in slow and steep, nor explain why the pilot left it so late to correct the flight path. Reports have indicated that whilst the pilot was greatly experience, he had very limited experience in the 777. What I haven't read anywhere yet was did he have experience of similarly sized planes? i.e. had he flown any of the bigger Airbuses, or even a 757 or 767. If he was coming from 737s, Airbus 320, etc. or even the short variants of the the 757 and 767, something as big as a 777 reacts very differently, there's a lot more momentum involved, it's quite possible that a similar throttle/flare would be enough in a 737, even at that low an altitude to pull out of a landing without incident.
Good points, RA. I think I read it was his first time into SF in a 777, and as a bit of an ACI nerd it is striking how often incidents happen when some system or other is down for maintenance. But apparently all pilots were told that they would have to do a visual approach as the ILS was out of operation.
If he was looking to TOGA he must have been pretty late getting on the power, so your point about what equipment he may have been used to and consequent variants in response times is a very interesting one, as would whether the flight computer thought the point of no return had been reached as they were so low and decided it was setting down whatever.
By the sound of it, his co-pilot had a lot more hours in the 777 so you might have thought he could have called it if things were getting too tight - unless the theory about deference to the captain in the cockpit of some of the Far Eastern airlines came into play and he didn't feel able to pipe up.
Maybe, I read somewhere else about how a lot of pilot training is to overcome a natural reaction that can be catastrophic. Apparently the natural reaction when losing speed and altitude is to pull up and throttle up, when what you should do is point the plane down to gain speed quick. It's what caused the France air crash, one pilot was pushing down as he should the other was desperately pulling up in a panic reaction, end result neither occurred.
However, the plane in this case was clearly far too low to point the nose down, but you wonder how many seconds the pilot was pulling up, thus lowering the tail whilst still losing altitude and not gaining sufficient air speed. Again it's a mistake that might not have been a severe in a smaller lighter plane, but the 777 is a big beast, pulling up will just expose a far larger surface area and slow the plane even more.
The 777 has an excellent safety record, so it seems unlikely to be anything than slight pilot error and an unfortunate set of circumstances...
Rival airlines Korean Air had a very poor safety record for a major airline before 2000, when the government took strong action to turn things around, and things have been much better in that country's airlines since.
The more I read the more it simply seems the plane was travelling too slowly, which made it descend faster (less air speed, less lift, therefore faster descent) and the pilot reacted too late to correct the situation. The plane was going slow enough for the stale warning to go off 7 seconds before impact. As I said above, pulling the nose up in an attempt to slow the descent would cause speed to be lost, but it's a basic error from such an experienced pilot, and there's no indication from the cockpit recorder of any panic, etc. until the last second.
Just read a passenger account in the NY Times, a regular traveller into and out of SF, saying they were far closer to the water than usual, that just before impact the pilot gunned the engines (last attempt to gain some speed and height) and they were close enough to the water for this throw up great walls of water either side of the plane, then they hit the wall.
As mentioned above, the 777 has a great safety record, before this flight only 1 person had ever died on one and this was crew, whilst the plane was on the ground during a refuel. I actually travel on 777s reasonably often, probably 2-3 times a year for the last few years. They're a great plane, though the crews aren't keen as they're a pain for the cabin for some reason.
From what's been reported, and from eye witness accounts the following seems to have happened:
The plane was lacking air speed, but was descending at a steeper angle/rate of descent that usual. At the last moment the pilot tried to abort the landing by rising the nose. Due to the lack of airspeed, and the plane's low altitude, this caused the tail to kit the sea wall.
Now there are a number of questions here, I guess the most pertinent are why was the plan coming in slow and steep, and why did the pilot try to abort the landing so late on.
We can surmise that for some reason (instrumentation or pilot error) the decent was start too late, so the plan had to slow and increase it's rate of descent rather than overshoot the runway. Conditions were clear, but if the pilot was unaware that the glide path beacon wasn't active (it's only turned on at San Fran in poor visibility conditions) then could have waited for the plane radar to pick up the beacon, and when it didn't then started a manual approach too late. Equally, the altimeter could have been faulty and the pilot realised visually that he was too high and fast to make the landing, and therefore slows and steepened the approach deliberately.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the above, though it's not ideal, but plenty of planes are landed below optimum speed and at steep descent paths.
The bigger issue is that the descent path wasn't corrected, that the plane couldn't land safely at that rate of decent. The pilot seems to have tried to pull out of the landing far too late. Again this could be an altimeter issue but visibility was clear, the pilot would have seen the runway all the way in.
It does look like human error at first glance. Altimeter issues seem unlikely as the answer to both issues as that would require the altimeter indicating the plan was lower than it was in the first instance, and higher than it was in the second.
From what has been reported so far there is no indication of any fault, or report from the crew, of a mechanical issue that would cause the plan to come in slow and steep, nor explain why the pilot left it so late to correct the flight path. Reports have indicated that whilst the pilot was greatly experience, he had very limited experience in the 777. What I haven't read anywhere yet was did he have experience of similarly sized planes? i.e. had he flown any of the bigger Airbuses, or even a 757 or 767. If he was coming from 737s, Airbus 320, etc. or even the short variants of the the 757 and 767, something as big as a 777 reacts very differently, there's a lot more momentum involved, it's quite possible that a similar throttle/flare would be enough in a 737, even at that low an altitude to pull out of a landing without incident.
Has it been stated whether this was an ILS or VFR landing?
I heard on the news tonight that is being investigated that one of the deaths could be due to an fire truck responding to the crash might have run one of the passengers over on route to the scene!
Malcolm Gladwell wrote some interesting stuff about Korean Air's previously poor safety record in Outliers. Argued it was explained by cultural factors (his words below). Probably has nothing to do with the Asiana crash but interesting nonetheless:
"Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline in the world for a period at the end of the 1990s. When we think of airline crashes, we think, Oh, they must have had old planes. They must have had badly trained pilots. No. What they were struggling with was a cultural legacy, that Korean culture is hierarchical. You are obliged to be deferential toward your elders and superiors in a way that would be unimaginable in the U.S.
But Boeing (BA, Fortune 500) and Airbus design modern, complex airplanes to be flown by two equals. That works beautifully in low-power-distance cultures [like the U.S., where hierarchies aren't as relevant]. But in cultures that have high power distance, it's very difficult.
I use the case study of a very famous plane crash in Guam of Korean Air. They're flying along, and they run into a little bit of trouble, the weather's bad. The pilot makes an error, and the co-pilot doesn't correct him. But once Korean Air figured out that their problem was cultural, they fixed it."
Thanks for cheering me up everyone! Guess who is flying into SF in an Air France 777?
You'll be fine. I've flown in/out of SFO more than 60 times and never crashed ;-)
Seriously, it is a little weird coming in so low over water on the final approach and more than once I've thought that the sea wall (aka bunch of massive rocks wired together) looks a bit high, but this definitely looks like pilot error and I'm sure the majority of landings are on instruments
jblockmatt - not really a tip but very spread out (runway wise; takes an age to taxi) and deserted in the international terminal compared to LHR or LGW
PS, next time you're in a serious plane crash with the tail sheared off, fatalities, and an engine on fire, make sure to grab your luggage before exiting.
PS, next time you're in a serious plane crash with the tail sheared off, fatalities, and an engine on fire, make sure to grab your luggage before exiting.
Comments
Hope everyone involved is ok, apparently reports coming in that 1 or 2 may have died.
PS, next time you're in a serious plane crash with the tail sheared off, fatalities, and an engine on fire, make sure to grab your luggage before exiting.
I guess with such a major player as Boeing, he had to be very careful what he said.
Anyhow, per miles travelled etc., flying is still incredibly safe compared to any other mode of transport
To be fair, the 777 does have an excellent safety record and there are over a 1,000 in the air at any given time, apparently. Been flying since 1995 on serious long-haul journeys and these look like the first two fatalities - and one of these appears to have been a poor soul who survived the crash, only to get run over by one of the emergency vehicles. How rough is that?
The plane was lacking air speed, but was descending at a steeper angle/rate of descent that usual.
At the last moment the pilot tried to abort the landing by rising the nose.
Due to the lack of airspeed, and the plane's low altitude, this caused the tail to kit the sea wall.
Now there are a number of questions here, I guess the most pertinent are why was the plan coming in slow and steep, and why did the pilot try to abort the landing so late on.
We can surmise that for some reason (instrumentation or pilot error) the decent was start too late, so the plan had to slow and increase it's rate of descent rather than overshoot the runway. Conditions were clear, but if the pilot was unaware that the glide path beacon wasn't active (it's only turned on at San Fran in poor visibility conditions) then could have waited for the plane radar to pick up the beacon, and when it didn't then started a manual approach too late. Equally, the altimeter could have been faulty and the pilot realised visually that he was too high and fast to make the landing, and therefore slows and steepened the approach deliberately.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the above, though it's not ideal, but plenty of planes are landed below optimum speed and at steep descent paths.
The bigger issue is that the descent path wasn't corrected, that the plane couldn't land safely at that rate of decent. The pilot seems to have tried to pull out of the landing far too late. Again this could be an altimeter issue but visibility was clear, the pilot would have seen the runway all the way in.
It does look like human error at first glance. Altimeter issues seem unlikely as the answer to both issues as that would require the altimeter indicating the plan was lower than it was in the first instance, and higher than it was in the second.
From what has been reported so far there is no indication of any fault, or report from the crew, of a mechanical issue that would cause the plan to come in slow and steep, nor explain why the pilot left it so late to correct the flight path. Reports have indicated that whilst the pilot was greatly experience, he had very limited experience in the 777. What I haven't read anywhere yet was did he have experience of similarly sized planes? i.e. had he flown any of the bigger Airbuses, or even a 757 or 767. If he was coming from 737s, Airbus 320, etc. or even the short variants of the the 757 and 767, something as big as a 777 reacts very differently, there's a lot more momentum involved, it's quite possible that a similar throttle/flare would be enough in a 737, even at that low an altitude to pull out of a landing without incident.
If he was looking to TOGA he must have been pretty late getting on the power, so your point about what equipment he may have been used to and consequent variants in response times is a very interesting one, as would whether the flight computer thought the point of no return had been reached as they were so low and decided it was setting down whatever.
By the sound of it, his co-pilot had a lot more hours in the 777 so you might have thought he could have called it if things were getting too tight - unless the theory about deference to the captain in the cockpit of some of the Far Eastern airlines came into play and he didn't feel able to pipe up.
However, the plane in this case was clearly far too low to point the nose down, but you wonder how many seconds the pilot was pulling up, thus lowering the tail whilst still losing altitude and not gaining sufficient air speed. Again it's a mistake that might not have been a severe in a smaller lighter plane, but the 777 is a big beast, pulling up will just expose a far larger surface area and slow the plane even more.
Rival airlines Korean Air had a very poor safety record for a major airline before 2000, when the government took strong action to turn things around, and things have been much better in that country's airlines since.
Just read a passenger account in the NY Times, a regular traveller into and out of SF, saying they were far closer to the water than usual, that just before impact the pilot gunned the engines (last attempt to gain some speed and height) and they were close enough to the water for this throw up great walls of water either side of the plane, then they hit the wall.
As mentioned above, the 777 has a great safety record, before this flight only 1 person had ever died on one and this was crew, whilst the plane was on the ground during a refuel. I actually travel on 777s reasonably often, probably 2-3 times a year for the last few years. They're a great plane, though the crews aren't keen as they're a pain for the cabin for some reason.
"Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline in the world for a period at the end of the 1990s. When we think of airline crashes, we think, Oh, they must have had old planes. They must have had badly trained pilots. No. What they were struggling with was a cultural legacy, that Korean culture is hierarchical. You are obliged to be deferential toward your elders and superiors in a way that would be unimaginable in the U.S.
But Boeing (BA, Fortune 500) and Airbus design modern, complex airplanes to be flown by two equals. That works beautifully in low-power-distance cultures [like the U.S., where hierarchies aren't as relevant]. But in cultures that have high power distance, it's very difficult.
I use the case study of a very famous plane crash in Guam of Korean Air. They're flying along, and they run into a little bit of trouble, the weather's bad. The pilot makes an error, and the co-pilot doesn't correct him. But once Korean Air figured out that their problem was cultural, they fixed it."
Seriously, it is a little weird coming in so low over water on the final approach and more than once I've thought that the sea wall (aka bunch of massive rocks wired together) looks a bit high, but this definitely looks like pilot error and I'm sure the majority of landings are on instruments
jblockmatt - not really a tip but very spread out (runway wise; takes an age to taxi) and deserted in the international terminal compared to LHR or LGW
Lightening can't strike twice...can it?
I've upgraded to Premium Voyager to get extra room and a blowie off the stewardess ;o)