NYCAviation:
Quote:
Unstable Approach: Asiana 214
What is a stable approach and how "unstable" did Asiana Flight 214 become before impacting the ground?http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/nycav...~4/gRtETIRzNbA
[Click to Read Full Article]
Printable View
NYCAviation:
Quote:
Unstable Approach: Asiana 214
What is a stable approach and how "unstable" did Asiana Flight 214 become before impacting the ground?http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/nycav...~4/gRtETIRzNbA
[Click to Read Full Article]
An extremely well-written article, gentlemen, thank you. More proof of how much this site rocks!:cool:
From my post in the other thread a few days ago:
We are finally starting to get some answers to some of the basic questions and will continue to get more and more as the investigation progresses. It sure is sounding like this is the result of an unstable approach though and perhaps some confusion...I think there will be a good human factors analysis that comes out of this too. There were 3 pilots in the cockpit; yet no one seems to have spoken up until it was too late.Quote:
A bad landing is usually the result of a bad and/or unstable approach. How was this crew's approach? Were they behind the aircraft at all? Were they slammed dunked into the airport or given ample space and time to establish a normal approach? Were they established on a 3* glideslope configured for landing at 1,000'AGL? At 500'AGL? If not, what did they look like? Was there some other factor (internally or externally) distracting them from flying the airplane and focusing on the approach? What kind of automation were they using to fly the approach? Was it functioning properly? I don't know the 777 systems, but I assume they would have been able to load a visual approach into the FMS which would have given them some type of glidepath indication assuming the correct altimeter setting was inserted. Was this done? If not were they backing up the visual approach with any other approach (i.e. GPS)?