Jeeze, I wonder if the two were thrown from the plane and the vehicles didn't see them laying there. That's horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by JHNA57
Printable View
Jeeze, I wonder if the two were thrown from the plane and the vehicles didn't see them laying there. That's horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by JHNA57
I won't buy that until I hear official word. I can;t imagine rescue crews just running over bodies... the would have to have been completely covered in dirt or something for them not to see them or the drivers of the vehicles involved should be fired at the very least. That is simply unacceptable. Ever heard of a NYC Bravest running over a victom of the fire they are responding to? I am disgusted by this just hearing about it. Really hope it's not true!!
'Asiana Flight 214 pilot had 43 hours of training', in large bolded font, now adorns the CNN homepage. It's bigger than the font they used last week when it said 'Coup in Egypt'. Nothing like sensationalism to build up page hits. They make it sound like the guy just came out of a Skylane and sat down in the 777. Gotta love the media!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96701620130708
Quote:
Asiana Airlines Inc said the pilot in charge of landing the Boeing 777 that crash-landed at San Francisco's airport on Saturday was training for the long-range plane and that it was his first flight to the airport with the jet.
It was Lee Kang-kook's maiden flight to the airport with the jet...Lee, who started his career at Asiana as an intern in 1994, has 9,793 hours of flying experience, but only 43 hours with the Boeing 777 jet.
Co-pilot Lee Jeong-min, who has 3,220 hours of flying experience with the Boeing 777 and a total of 12,387 hours of flying experience, was helping Lee Kang-kook in the landing, the spokeswoman said.
I'm a firefighter & an EMT. I also have a paying gig shooting for a few publications, (Newsday, Fire News, First Responder Network, etc). If I'm on a scene, I'll render first aid before the other responders get on scene. Once the locals get there, I grab the camera and shoot away.
To Moose's point, if I'm in my fire district & I'm on my rigs, or working for the fire department, it's not appropriate for me to shoot scenes. I never have and never will as my job is to aid and serve, not to photograph.
I agree with Moose 100%. There is nothing wrong with a civilian capturing something like that. Hopefully, it's a once (or rather never) in a lifetime opportunity.
From thread #1 about this crash over on anet, reply #22: "NYCAviation is reporting fuel problems. Perhaps fuel exhaustion?"
Did I miss that in this thread here, or was that totally made up? I re-read this thread and didn't see anyone here talking about them running out of gas.
Thank you, I was thinking that was the case. I feel bad for those pilots and passengers that saw it to as they are probably reliving that moment over and over again. The pilots could see what was coming but the passengers on that side of the plane must of had some fireball going past them at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by 727C47
What would the next step be shut off the engines and wait for instructions? Maybe drive further down the runway to get away from it? I would like to hear what they were being told what to do.
That was one of the very early reports, which was in something I retweeted in the NYCA account. Obviously, that was not true and never made it into any of my articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by megatop412
Apparently 43 hours on a 777-200 is worse than 42? or 1? How about this new rule, how about all pilots must have 12,000 hours or more of experience behind the stick of any plane they are about to fly for the first time... errr... huh?
THer will always be ONE person who does it for THE FIRST TIME. Regardless... Of course, we can always have the airlines make pilots fly empty planes for a year or two, once a day, and then get into flying a plane full of pax. But, it will still be their first time with a plane full of people.
While this is horrible, I can't imagine the Pilot or Co-Pilot wanting this to happen or even allowing a huge mistake to be made without some sort of warning. So far from the looks of it, pilot error, indeed, but something else should have contributed to it. There were two brains on that cockpit, both with experience in general. VFR rules likely meant their experience behind the 777-200 mattered less than their OVERALL experience. I can't imagine they simply let their guard down.
Manny the more I hear about this, the more I think it could be a small combination of things. Just not one thing, it just doesn't make sense.
When you hear these retired pilots talking on CNN all you hear is the "I have no idea" in their voice. You can tell they are trying to figure it out but it doesn't make sense to them either.
I am sure once the NTSB gets more details they will figure this one out and it wont take as long as usual.
Just went to WikiNews this morning. They report that smoke was reported coming from the aircraft after departure from Incheon. No other agency reported this. If true, this could be very important or it could be nothing. Another reason why we spotters should be encouraged to take photos. If smoke were emanating from the aircraft and was captured by a photographer at Incheon, this would greatly aid the investigation.
CFIT doesn't really involve a combination of things. It involves a crew that flies a perfectly good airplane into the ground, mountain, water, etc because they either weren't flying fast enough or lost sight of where they where.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny Ohare
It's never that simple. There are almost always a series of things that happen that culminate in a crash, which is why they have a team of investigators looking at everything involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Yup.....all the facts need to be gathered and collaborated. Obviously the media jumps to their own conclusions.
Sure, but I get the feeling in a year or so when the official probable cause is released with the animation it will be the same. Pilot let air speed decay to the point lift was lost. Controlled flight into terrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee71
My complete GUESS is one or a combination of wrong altimeter setting and disconnected auto throttles and didn't see loss in speed.
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/52423611#52423611
New video showing passengers fleeing the plane.
BTw I believe I heard that the United 747 that was sitting there couldnt be moved for about 2 hours. And I did read a story, cant seem to find it, that the United pilots were giving reports to the Tower about
what was going on. Must be LiveATC tapes of that.
And we must give credit to the controllers on managing all the planes inbound to SFO and getting them safely somewhere else!! That would be an interesting read!!
Incredible video!
If video is going to be NTSB's best ally in the future, people HAVE GOT to learn how to shoot.
Not unless they're paid professionals they don't. In the heat of the moment, when sh*t is going down and your hands are shaking, I would consider myself lucky that I could even get my phone in video mode, let alone shoot straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by RomNYC
You know, in the heat of the moment, I wouldn't even THINK of grabbing my camera. But it seems that it is just me around here/anywhere nowadays. Oh well...Quote:
Originally Posted by megatop412
In most aircraft mishaps there's always a combination or "chain of events" that ultimately lead to the mishap. It's why a much greater emphasis has been placed on CRM in the past few decades and why we talk about getting all crew-members involved - especially during critical phases of flight - you never know who may be the one to see something off and speak up and break that chain of events. It will be interesting to see whether all 4 pilots were up front for the approach and landing, or whether it was just the two senior guys up there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny Ohare
In this case, there are several facts we know of (without even knowing the full contents of the CVR/FDR). To list a few:
1) An approach into a major airport surrounded by very busy airspace.
2) ILS glideslope and PAPIs both out of service.
3) A veteran pilot with something like 10,000 total hours but very new to the 777 (reports say it was his first landing ever in it).
4) Visual perception issues associated with shooting an approach completely over water to a runway surrounded by land (and possible perception issues from a pilot perspective based on previous aircraft flown).
5) A call for "more power" on very short final.
6) Stick shaker actuation with airspeed speed "well below" Vapp.
7) Both throttles left in the idle position.
8) Very favorable weather conditions.
The question is, how did they end up in the situation they got into? Not one of these factors alone should have caused them to do so.
Was it due to some other or outside factor we don't yet know about?
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)?
At what point during the approach the autothrottles were disengaged?
Sometimes the over-reliance on automated aircraft systems leads to a poorer crosscheck or complete forgetfulness of the associated system. It can be very easy to disengage the autothrottles and then get sidetracked with something else - whether it be inside or outside of the cockpit - and completely forget about them, especially since for almost the entirety of the flight they are on, doing theirs (and your) job with little thought required.
These are just some of the questions I would like to know the answer to before crucifying the pilots and jumping to broad and somewhat unfounded conclusions like many news sources have done.
I have my personal theory on what caused them to get into the situation they did (along with every other pilot, flightsim expert and person that stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night) but we will see what the data and NTSB reveal in the days and months to come.
While, I'm saddened two people lost their lives in this incident and so many more injured both mentally and physically for life, I'm very grateful so many were able to survive.
Which is exactly why I don't understand all the numerous "this is a sad day for aviation" comments I have heard all over the place since this happened. ONLY two people lost their lives, one is presumably not even a result of the crash. What I've seen online, from both avgeeks and avnoobs, sometimes sounded like the loss of the aircraft was sadder than everything else. Planes are safer than ever before, can we at least enjoy that?Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07
Thanks for such a detailed post!
Watching the presser. I believe Chair Hersman said the Auto Throttles were armed.
Most recent info from today's update: http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/07/b.../#.UdybkW12mOB
Interesting info; will be interesting to see if the CVR/FDR back up the crew's account. Also, it appears the PAPIs were operational (unlike I first thought was reported).Quote:
Originally Posted by yankees368
I'm curious as to whether or not the autothrottles were in fact engaged (the crew reports they were "armed").. I would imagine the 777 has some sort of speed protection associated with the AT that wouldn't allow airspeed to decrease below Vmm (or Vapp in this case)... I think my theory is becoming more and more plausible.
Someone Pranked San Francisco TV Station Into Reporting Fabricated Names Of Asiana Pilots
A local Fox affiliate, the San Francisco powerhouse station KTVU, is dealing with the fallout of a major error on Friday. During their noon broadcast, a report on the deadly Asiana Airlines crash took a turn for the unintentionally offensive when they broadcast the names of pilots in charge of that flight. The mangled Asian-sounding names were, in fact, thinly-disguised expletives mocking the sentiments expressed by the crash victims and their families.
The supposed names of the crash victims broadcast on KTVU included “Sum Ting Wong,” “Ho Lee Fuk,” and “Bang Ding Ow.”
A KTVU anchor later apologized for the error. She said that the names were inaccurate in spite of the fact that a National Transpiration Safety Board spokesperson confirming them.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...48461197_n.jpg
A third person has died from injuries sustained in last week's crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214
CNN
even one loss is too much, this was a tragedyQuote:
Originally Posted by RomNYC
A very good video
LINK
Very good animation