Actually I'm surprised that it hasn't happened more often. Like in the crash in Tenerife in the 70s between a KLM and a Pan Am 747s, the rescue crews were focused for awhile on the KLM plane where all perished and didn't realize that there was another plane with survivors further up the runaway. I could see survivors getting run-over in that scenario because of the poor visibility.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Asiana Flight 214
- Thread starter MacNut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually I'm surprised that it hasn't happened more often. Like in the crash in Tenerife in the 70s between a KLM and a Pan Am 747s, the rescue crews were focused for awhile on the KLM plane where all perished and didn't realize that there was another plane with survivors further up the runaway. I could see survivors getting run-over in that scenario because of the poor visibility.
The pilot says he was blinded by a bright light 500 feet in the air.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/asiana-flight-214-ntsb-pilot-blinded/2507059/
If it was a jackass pointing a laser pointer at the plane, he better come forward. But, most likely he will be a coward since he would probably face some big criminal charges since the plane crashed and people died.....
Then again, no way to really verify if the pilot is being honest.
Then again, no way to really verify if the pilot is being honest.
You'd think that he would have made some comments about being blinded (at the time it occurred) that the cockpit voice recorder picked up?
Lets say something did blind the pilot, were the instruments still showing a problem before then?
You would think. Then again maybe he was concentrating on the approach, so he didn't state it?
Like I said, without it being on the CVR, is no way of verifying if he is telling the truth about being blinded unless the source of the light is discovered or the jackass comes forward.
Were both pilots blinded? If not, it really does not wash, but I wonder if a medical exam can determine if this is true or a creative excuse? I would expect something on the voice recorder as in a loud verbal alarm like "I CANT SEE!". I don't see them becoming instantly slow, but something that developed over time. However I acknowledge that if there was a laser involved, this is second guessing pilot actions.
If I was temporarily blinded, that would be a nightmare, but I don't see continuing the approach. I'd probably add power pull the nose up a bit, get the gear and some flaps up, turn away from the mountains just West of the airport, and if the autopilot was off, get it on. In the Airbus going full thrust puts you into a go around mode. Then get a crew member up to the flight deck pronto, even a flight attendant to start reading instruments. I don't see myself continuing inbound.
Last edited:
I'm with you on being unsure if I buy his story of being blinded. Also doesn't excuse why he didn't go around in a timely manner.
It's just if a person did point a laser pointer at the plane, I hope some serious criminal charges are brought up on the person. The point needs to be made that it isn't a laughing manner or a joke to point a laser pointer at the plane.
I've been hit with a laser - it would be normal to say "ow" or "dammit" or "what the heck" or "son of a ..." as it hurts. I'd put it on par with someone flicking their finger into your eye - without warning.
I'm wary about this unless there's something on the CVR.
I'm wary about this unless there's something on the CVR.
Being hit by a laser pointer is more critical at night as it destroys your night vision( would take 30 minutes to get it back).
More bad news: cockpit delayed evacuation by 90 seconds.
"Pilots initially said passengers should stay put."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23265238
A 777 has no need to land short at SFO.
SFO runway 10R/28L is 10,602 feet (3,231 meters) long.
Source wikipedia.
In worst case scenario (heavy load) on a dry runway, a Boeing 777 needs about 6000 feet to land at sea level. San Fran airport is very close to sea level.
Source: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec3.pdf
"3.4.2 FAA LANDING RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS"
"Pilots initially said passengers should stay put."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23265238
A 777 has no need to land short at SFO.
SFO runway 10R/28L is 10,602 feet (3,231 meters) long.
Source wikipedia.
In worst case scenario (heavy load) on a dry runway, a Boeing 777 needs about 6000 feet to land at sea level. San Fran airport is very close to sea level.
Source: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec3.pdf
"3.4.2 FAA LANDING RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS"
I think the ILS being inoperative is a non-issue, but have a question.
If the ILS was unavailable, does that mean the whole approach was visual? Isn't there a cockpit warning, audible or visual, that would alert the pilots he was off the glide slope? At least I'm assuming it was since its widely reported he was too low and slow.
Wouldn't there have been a stall alarm sounding since he was about 40 mph or knots below normal approach speed?
All this brings me to my real question, I'd like to understand how you think the decision making process went as to why it was decided to "continue" the approach and landing? I assume at the "continue" point they were already low and slow. It was not until 1.5 seconds before impact [at least from what I read and heard on KGO] was the decision made to go around.
Last edited:
What if at that point you just threw on the lights in the flight deck, would you be able to see your instruments?
Yes the whole approach was visual. The PAPI was working which would give them a visual aid in judging their glide path.
Only if they were doing an ILS approach would there be an audible warning that they were below glide slope. Without the signal from the glide slope equipment, the plane doesn't know where it is on the glide slope.
Yes and it activated at 4 seconds before impact.
We don't know. Fatigue may have been a factor. They may have just wanted to land and be done with that 10+ hour flight.
I wouldn't do that. What if you managed to close one of your eyes in time so at least one still had decent night vision? What if the other pilot wasn't hit by it?
Also going around would give your eyes time to readjust again for night. Turning up the instruments/lights in the flight deck would continue continue to ruin your night vision. Unless you're doing a CAT III ILS, you will need to land visually at some point during the approach.
For this kind of an accident, there would really be no reason to hold off evacuating, however for some general perspective, when I first started flying in the airlines (1986) a standard maneuver would be to have some malfunction after landing and the Captain was expected to evacuate. Over time this morphed into a situation where more analysis was expected.
For example, evacuations typically cause injuries. So, if you land and the aircraft is in one piece, and are informed of a brake fire or even an engine fire and emergency trucks are there to put it out, a Captain might not order an evacuation immediately or maybe not at all. One of the keys is what's happening in the cabin- Everything normal back there? No smoke? Are reports from the emergency vehicles positive or negative?
No ILS means no electronic glideslope, however there is a VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicator) or PAPI, visual aids representing a glideslope provided by an instrument located next to the landing threshold that the pilots see, if the runway has one and it's working. As I recall, those runways do have one or the other.
And most (all) pilots have a mental picture of a proper visual glideslope based on how the angle of the runway appears to them. But if new to an aircraft, new environment, this element is reduced somewhat.
Modern airplanes are established with stick shakers which warn of impending stall, and a stall warning that annunciates STALL, STALL. The time to act is when the stick shaker goes off, and my understanding is that they did have stick shaker (but I'm not 100% on this).
Note: The Airbus technology includes fight laws (computer controlled) that if working properly will not allow it to stall, although this kind of an accident could still happen because it won't prevent the aircraft from being low and slow and in the landing mode, it's expecting to land. Consequently there is no stall warning in Airbus aircraft. I'm not familiar with the 777, if it has flight laws or a stall warning.
Many factors- did they recognize they were low and slow? They should have, they may not have, or they tried to fix it without doing a go around. If you recognize it in a timely fashion it is something that can be corrected to a safe landing, but based on what I've read the trend developed and got worse until only moments before touching down when they tried to Go Around.
And where was their power set? Normally when you are flying a stabilized approach, the engines are at a mid range power setting and are usually very responsive if a go around is necessary. However if the engines are at a reduced power setting, there will be more lag before they spool back up. This is why there is such emphasis in aviation on flying a stabilized approach. Stabilized means configured for landing, basically on glideslope, at a normal speed (not excessively fast or slow), and with the engines at the normal power setting, especially not at idle.
My guess is that their rate of decent was higher than it should have been (low), and that their power was pulled back for what ever reason, and when they tried to go around, they pulled the nose up in an attempt to avoid landing short, and the engines did not spoll up fast enough, resulting in a tail strike. Which btw could indicate that they over rotated the airplane trying to climb and avoid hitting the ground.
It's possible it was not until they were at 1.5 seconds prior to touch down that it dawned on them what was going to happen, but this shows a real lack of situational awareness. Although not all of the info is in, my impression is that the instructor really failed in his duties.
Last edited:
I was imagining a scenario where the pilot claims to be blinded temporarily, but honestly didn't know exactly what that means. I did not think it ment total blindness. Here is a link I found. In any case if it happened, a go around would have been appropriate and an error was made, although with some mitigating circumstances.
Last edited:
Seriously doubt the whole "laser" nonsense. Some dweeb on the ground is "lucky" enough to track the correct cockpit window of a 777, traveling a few hundred MPH, and manages to get it just right so it hits--not just anyone, but the one piloting the aircraft? Right in the eye? Come on now.
Didn't buy the "laser" hysteria 15 years ago and am not buying it now.
Michael
Didn't buy the "laser" hysteria 15 years ago and am not buying it now.
Michael
So every pilot reporting being blinded by a laser is lying?
I doubt this case of it, but doesn't mean it isn't an issue....
Thank you both for your replies. I apologize if the answers were in the thread. I'm only scanned it.
Just a follow up question in regard to possible fatigue, but I was under the impression long haul flights such as this usually carry two flight crews. The primary crew takes off and lands with the secondary crew carrying the load between. Is this a regulation, Star Allegence policy, or merely guidelines air companies adopt as they see fit?
Just a follow up question in regard to possible fatigue, but I was under the impression long haul flights such as this usually carry two flight crews. The primary crew takes off and lands with the secondary crew carrying the load between. Is this a regulation, Star Allegence policy, or merely guidelines air companies adopt as they see fit?
Last edited:
Yeah for long haul flights such as this, there are usually multiple crews. It's a regulation.
Even though this crew was resting, it's not the same kind of rest if you were in your own bed. You're in a plane in a small area. Even I never get a decent rest in first class with those seats that fold out flat to become a bed. I would maybe fall asleep for an hour and then wake up and start the cycle again.
Even back in 1997 the so-called "incidents" were laughable.
Every pilot blinded by a laser? That is an assertion I won't bite on. You can't lump TV/police choppers flying below 500' and barely moving--relative to fixed wing--to large airliners. I could ask you if every pilot who reported a UFO was lying and that still wouldn't make extra-terrestrials coming in contact with aircraft a reality.
Michael
Sure it's hard to point a laser at an airliner that is at altitude. But, at an airliner that is landing at 130 knots? It's not impossible.