Slashdot Mirror
Second SFO Disaster Avoided Seconds Before Crash
sabri writes "On July 25th, flight EVA28, a Boeing 777 flying from Taiwan to SFO, was on the final approach for runway 28L when they were alerted by ATC that they were only at 600ft above the ground at less than 4NM from the threshold. SFO's tower directed the flight crew to climb immediately and declare missed approach. Assuming they were flying at 140 knots (typical approach speed of a 777), they were less than 2 minutes from the runway and at a 3 degree angle (approx 500ft/min descent), about a minute from impact. This is the same type of aircraft and runway used by the crashed Asiana flight. Similar weather conditions and awfully similar flight path. Is there a structural problem with computer-aided pilot's ability to fly visual approaches?"
"Is there a structural problem with computer-aided pilot's ability to fly visual approaches?"
No, Just Pilot error. The 777 has constantly landed at SFO everyday for years without issue and the cause of the Asiana has been well-documented.
That would be nm. NM is Nautical Mile.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
4 NM / 140 knots = about 1.7 mins (Like the summary says). Not more than 3 minutes. Just a little nitpick; your overall point is still correct: 2 minutes is a LONG time in this kind of situation. Possibly embarrassing for 777 pilots to be doing while in VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions). Definitely NOT newsworthy. (I fly for a living, missed approaches happen).
Descending from 600ft at a rate of 500ft per minute only takes 72 seconds. You can't spool up and recover from a steep decline like that in a matter of seconds. It wasn't an emergency yet, but there was no time left for an argument or misunderstanding either.
I suggest you read this post from a former UAL Pilot and Flight instructor for Asiana:
http://originalforum.justhelicopters.com/DisplayThread.asp?BD=2020564&Page=1&ForumID=23&msgid=2020564&OM=2020564&Return=DisplayThread.asp&D83jsd=True
In short, the culture in SE Asia produces pilots who are well trained to operate an aircraft as a piece of Machinery, however are unable to "Fly".
responding to my own post because I looked at the data.
At 1500 feet they were descending at 2220 feet per minute. I assume this is when ATC freaked out. By 800 feet they were 'only' descending at a rate of 1920 feet per minute. By 600 feet they were still descending at 420 feet per minute. The next measure they were still at 600 feet but ascending at 900 feet per minute. So somewhere between 600 feet and going down and 600 feet and going up, they were below 600 feet. The data resolution is every 15 seconds, so roughly speaking they probably hit 500 feet on the way down.
Assuming the decrease from 2200 FPM to 1920 FPM is the first indication of a correction, it took them 1000' of altitude to correct their rate.
So, based on their initial rate of 2200 FPM and a 500 foot "cushion", it looks like they had 13 seconds "extra" to spare, and at that we need to figure in how much higher the transponder is than the landing gear and figure in wave height. Somebody buy that ATC a beer (after work).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Sorry, but I learned to fly at San Carlos airport (next to Redwood Shores, right adjacent to SFO airport and airspace) so I know a little bit of flying AND the area. I cannot see anything "unsafe" in the approach to SFO. Ofc I don't fly a "heavy", so if a pilot of one of those wants to disagree I'll bow to superior knowledge. But as long as there is no ("heavy") pilot who disagrees I'll say the only thing a LITTLE bit difficult is the approach over water.
However, even that is not an issue, you should have learned an easy way to track the point where you are going to touch down without ANY technical aids (we are talking visual approaches here, and visibility is near perfect in that area almost most of the time, esp. during the day): Keep your head in a position that you can easily remember and fix a point on the runway over a fixed point in front of you inside the airplane. When you look from your fixed head position over the fixed point inside the cockpit to the point on the runway it should not move. If it does (up or down) you are going to over- or under-shoot. That works independent of what the actual sink rate and speed (ergo the angle) is, always.
But then, my very own flight instructor later asked ME to demonstrate when I went on to learn aerobatics (i.e. "real flying") - turned out the "professional" pilots hardly ever do anything but "straight & level". Also, 5000 hours does not seem a lot if most of it is spent not just "straight and level", under computer control, and "at altitude". Only while maneuvering, incl. take off and landing, do you exercise flying skills. I said "flying skills", piloting skills include a lot more of course, from talking to ATC to calculating course, fuel, etc. etc. What those "professionals" seem to lack is good old FLYING SKILLS. It may sound strange from a lowly "small airplane pilot", but when I read that that Air France flight from Brazil went down because the pilots wanted to pull up when the airplane was in a stall (or close) - FOR MINUTES!!! - I really couldn't believe it - with some solid (small airplane!) training every pilot knows that you can never, ever pull UP to get out of trouble unless you have excess speed to trade for.
That doesn't mean I could fly a big airplane (wouldn't even be able to start it I guess), but while it does not matter to anyone that I lack the skills to fly a big airplane it matters to all passengers if the pilots cannot FLY (not "pilot") their airplane. I mean "fly" as in "without computer".
Is there an airline pilot here? I'm curious, what would you say about the FLYING skills of (big airplane) pilots? It seems that in the US the situation isn't bad, that this is an Asian (or Korean?) problem, and as I read it in an aviation forum not necessarily one of culture (at least not any more) but of many variables, including how easy it is for a lot of people to get to fly privately in the US vs. small countries like S.Korea, so that when a S.Korean wants to become a pilot they start from zero and do the training with an eye on the cockpit jobs (ASAP ofc, time is money), so no time/resources to do "fun flying" (like acro, which really, really teaches to fly). Then there's that even if you go into the job with good skills, how much is left after 10 years of mostly computer-aided careful "by the book" flying? How many pilots keep their (low-level) flying skills sharp by flying a small airplane in their spare time, to do "fun stuff" and "unusual attitudes and maneuverer"?
It's not racist.
The airline was Asian and in English you can make phrases out of Asian sounding names.
Do you also consider jokes about "Oliver Klozoff" and "Yuri Nater" and "Ivana Tinkle" racist too?
Once you add "asian drivers" to the mix sure, but just the names is merely playing with the sounds of words.