Boeing 777 crash at SF

[scissorhands]

Trainee pilot too by the sounds. What happens with his career now, will he be allowed to fly again. Gotta sux knowing you fucked up that big.

My dad crashed a spitfire when he trained as a pilot. Just a bent propeller, but he never flew again

[Woodman]

Looks like one of the casualties was run over by a emergency vehicle.

When your numbers up...................

[Jantar]

I have been following the information as it becomes available on the site provided by Smokeu. I was wrong about the engines, they are not RR Trents but PWs, so the possibility of fuel icing, as experienced at Heathrow, is very small. The ATC trecordings and some of the cockpit voice recordings are now available, and early indications are that the crash is entirely Pilot Error.

Although the pilot in control was still training on type, and was unable to accurately fly a visual approach, it appears that the main fault is with the type of training and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) used in Korea. Pilots there are actively discouraged from using visual approaches and manually flying the aircraft. As a result the approach started off too high and using a slam dunk approach ended up too low and too slow. It amounts to an accident due to the Korean culture, and it is very unlikely that a western trained pilot would make the same mistakes.

[Mushu]

Being the expert that I am (and I must be, I can do the carrier landing on fsx) I thought it was pretty much a no no to have the engines at idle during flight or at least unusual?
Perhaps he forgot to increase the throttle when he applied the flaps?

[Brian d marge]

I have been following the information as it becomes available on the site provided by Smokeu. I was wrong about the engines, they are not RR Trents but PWs, so the possibility of fuel icing, as experienced at Heathrow, is very small. The ATC trecordings and some of the cockpit voice recordings are now available, and early indications are that the crash is entirely Pilot Error.

Although the pilot in control was still training on type, and was unable to accurately fly a visual approach, it appears that the main fault is with the type of training and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) used in Korea. Pilots there are actively discouraged from using visual approaches and manually flying the aircraft. As a result the approach started off too high and using a slam dunk approach ended up too low and too slow. It amounts to an accident due to the Korean culture, and it is very unlikely that a western trained pilot would make the same mistakes.

could well be the case , Ive tried the 747 simulator ( real sim not pc ) , I made korean piolot look like an expert , fk its difficult

Stephen

[5150]

Monitoring your instruments while on approach is the key word. Calculating and then maintaining your approach and landing speeds is an absolute must. Three things that I have been taught are, plan well ahead, execute and monitor. It looks like the trainee pilot did not plan his approach well. When it became clear that he was way off glideslope, he became preocupied with correcting his glideslope path thet he did not monitor his instruments, therefore let the approach speed decay, and allowed the aircraft too stall on approach. Once he realised his mistake, he gunned the engines, but he simply run out of altitute. This is ofcourse my theory, but, the indicators so far point to this exact scenario. They were already well aware that the glideslope beacon was not functioning, so he was forced to do a manual approach, perhaps only using his VOR beacon for lateral navigation onto the runway centreline. But judgeing by the skid marks at the first contact point, he was off centre anyway by a good third of the runway width.

I would suggest, that his long haul flying days are over. Perhaps flying cargo haulers is all that he will be allowed to do.

[unstuck]

Will tell what type of person he is I guess if he does fly again then, I would think that after something like this though, that someone in a position to do so would ground him. Maybe a few more years training before being allowed to fly a comercial airliner would be a good idea.

[5150]

Will tell what type of person he is I guess if he does fly again then, I would think that after something like this though, that someone in a position to do so would ground him. Maybe a few more years training before being allowed to fly a comercial airliner would be a good idea.

I would say, that even if ih is allowed to fly anything, he will be on a minimum 6 to 12 mnth simulator training before he gets airbourne. Judging by his airmanship, this had nothing to do with him having minimum hours on the T7. This is down to poor planning and execution. I would even go as far as saying that had he be flying any other aircraft that day into KSFO, be it 737, or 747, the end result would have been the same. Nothing to do with the 777, as the principles of flying and navigation are the same, no matter what you fly.

[unstuck]

I have also got to wonder if he was a trainee, why there was not a senior officer sitting next to him keeping an eye on things.

[5150]

I have also got to wonder if he was a trainee, why there was not a senior officer sitting next to him keeping an eye on things.

Funny thing is that pilot flying (trainee) has loged lots of hours on other types of aircraft, and that he was only finishing his conversion course onto the 777. So he was by no means "fresh" pilot. He has flown 747s before, but never into San Fran. He should have known better. And yes, there was a pilot monitoring with more hours on the type that was suppose to be monitoring the PIC. Why he did not react in time, and took over, rather then just call for speed is anybodys guess.

[unstuck]

Funny thing is that pilot flying (trainee) has loged lots of hours on other types of aircraft, and that he was only finishing his conversion course onto the 777. So he was by no means "fresh" pilot. He has flown 747s before, but never into San Fran. He should have known better. And yes, there was a pilot monitoring with more hours on the type that was suppose to be monitoring the PIC. Why he did not react in time, and took over, rather then just call for speed is anybodys guess.

Fresh member of the mile high club perhaps.

[5150]

Latest from the AV Herald :

On Jul 8th 2013 the NTSB reported the pilots' flight bags and charts were located, the proper (approach) charts for San Francisco Airport were in place at the cockpit. There were 4 pilots on board of the aircraft, they are being interviewed on Jul 8th. The cockpit was documented and the switch positions identified. Both engines were delivering power at time of impact consistent with the flight data recordings, the right hand engine found adjacent to the fuselage showed evidence of high rotation at impact. The aircraft joined a 17nm final, the crew reported the runway in sight before being handed off to tower. The autopilot was disconnected at 1600 feet 82 seconds prior to impact, the aircraft descended through 1400 feet at 170 KIAS 73 seconds prior to impact, descended through 1000 feet at 149 KIAS 54 seconds, 500 feet at 134 KIAS 34 seconds, 200 feet at 118 KIAS 16 seconds prior to impact. At 125 feet and 112 KIAS the thrust levers were advanced and the engines began to spool up 8 seconds prior to impact, the aircraft reached a minimum speed of 103 KIAS 3 seconds prior to impact and accelerated to 106 knots. The vertical profile needs to be assessed first. There was debris from the sea wall thrown several hundred feet towards the runway, a significant portion of the tail is ahead of the sea wall in the water.

On Jul 8th 2013 South Korea's Ministry of Transport reported the captain (43, ATPL, 9,793 hours total) of the ill-fated flight was still under supervision doing his first landing into San Francisco on a Boeing 777, although he had 29 landings into San Francisco on other aircraft types before. He was supervised by a training captain with 3,220 hours on the Boeing 777, all responsibilities are with the training captain.


So it seems he has flown into KSFO before.

[bobsmith]

I have been following the information as it becomes available on the site provided by Smokeu. I was wrong about the engines, they are not RR Trents but PWs, so the possibility of fuel icing, as experienced at Heathrow, is very small. The ATC trecordings and some of the cockpit voice recordings are now available, and early indications are that the crash is entirely Pilot Error.

Although the pilot in control was still training on type, and was unable to accurately fly a visual approach, it appears that the main fault is with the type of training and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) used in Korea. Pilots there are actively discouraged from using visual approaches and manually flying the aircraft. As a result the approach started off too high and using a slam dunk approach ended up too low and too slow. It amounts to an accident due to the Korean culture, and it is very unlikely that a western trained pilot would make the same mistakes.

Ummm I don't know. Back when I was in aviation industry, training 5-6 years ago it was well known that airlines in any culture, especially some of the american airlines actively discouraged manually flying the aircraft because autopilot can fly the aircraft far more efficiently than a human can. Because of this most pilots going into busy airports with auto land capabilities were making bare minimum manual landings and getting practices. I don't think this problem is limited to any one culture...

[edit] - even so still finding it difficult to understand how a pilot with 10,000 hours supervised by another pilot with 3000+ hours on the type completely stuffed up a visual approach with PAPI working. From what 5150 said just above it does look like they were on a very steep approach with speed reducing fairly quickly. Between the two pilots, someone should have seen things getting out of shape well before the go around was called.

[unstuck]

I think when I hear the word Trainee, that he must of been sort of green. But if he had many hours on other aircraft it alters that image somewhat. Still, I think it was extremely lucky that he did not kill them all. Dont think I would be flying again if I was him. Not without going back to the basics and relearning a few things.

[5150]

Ummm I don't know. Back when I was in aviation industry, training 5-6 years ago it was well known that airlines in any culture, especially some of the american airlines actively discouraged manually flying the aircraft because autopilot can fly the aircraft far more efficiently than a human can. Because of this most pilots going into busy airports with auto land capabilities were making bare minimum manual landings and getting practices. I don't think this problem is limited to any one culture...

[edit] - even so still finding it difficult to understand how a pilot with 10,000 hours supervised by another pilot with 3000+ hours on the type completely stuffed up a visual approach with PAPI working. From what 5150 said just above it does look like they were on a very steep approach with speed reducing fairly quickly. Between the two pilots, someone should have seen things getting out of shape well before the go around was called.

Unless visibility is a factor, we been taught to manually fly the aircraft from 1000 feet down. Most I known have been waiting untill 500 ft callout before disconnecting autopilot, allowing for stable approach. Different airlines have different SOP's for this procedure, as well as different airfields will have different approach procedures. In this case, the approach was never stabilised.