• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

SFO plane crash (7/6/13)

Var said:
Ya I knew that..just didn't know when they applied power. That's why I said 'commanded full power'.
Click to expand...
I must have glassed over the commanded part.



Ya it seems to be the case. Do they have a chart of airspeed leading up to impact? I'm still curious if that 90 knots reported was at impact or during approach.

Also, watching the video, was his approach too shallow or is that normal? (obviously before the shit hit the fan)[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if they do. I haven't had a chance to look real deep into any data yet other than the NTSB brief, some preliminary data, and the video. But yeah, that approach was really really flat. A typical approach is 3 degrees. The look to be about 1.5, 2 at the most. They screwed up, BIG! If you get a stick shaker in a swept wing jet, you were way to close to a stall about 10-15 knots ago. You don't stall a transport category airplane onto the runway, you fly it on.
 
Follow the links that have between put here in this thread.
I can't recall which one is was, but one of them had a pilot speculating on the crash. In his post he had graphs that showed the differences of the flight path compared to another 777 that had landed a few minutes earlier.
He had charts based on the radar tracks, with elevation vs. distance, ground speed vs. time (I think), and another he called "energy" or something like that.

From what he had, it looked like Asiana started off a bit high and fast early on. In the last few miles they appear to have tried to correct that by increasing the decent rate, and dropping thrust. Then, as they dropped quickly under the preferred glide path, they didn't have enough airspeed or thrust to catch themselves in time, somewhat due to the increased "energy" (momentum) of the accelerated decent.
 
Last edited:
Can somebody tell me the status of SFO? I would appreciate it. I'm supposed to come home from my vacation in Michigan on Thursday. Didn't fell like going through the 19 pages.
 
Now that I think about it, it may be a link from one of the news articles that's been linked here. I'll find it tonight when I get home
 
Antarius said:
You know what's funny? I don't fly Airbus because of that exact reason -- the computers ability to override the pilot, even in a time of emergency. I have a friend who flies Continental, and flies an Airbus. You know when I stopped flying on Airbus's? When he, the guy who flies them, said don't fly them.

In general, sure, automation = safety, but at some point in time there may be a case of shit is gonna get loose no matter what, and at that point the pilot needs to be able to limit damage / casualties, even if he cannot save the entire plane.

The way my friend described it, and apparently this other pilot in the quote, an Airbus can sometimes prevent you from doing that as it reads your input as one that will likely crash the plane. I have no idea if he's exaggerating or if it's 100% correct or only partially correct, but it stuck with me and I've heard more than one pilot (here's another) repeat it. For me, that makes it true enough. :)

No joke, I only fly Boeing. I won't book the ticket if it's not on a Boeing. In Europe sometimes you have no choice, but here in the U.S. -- fly Boeing.
Click to expand...

Chances are, statistically, the Airbus is doing you a favor by overriding the pilot.
 
Charles R said:
Now that I think about it, it may be a link from one of the news articles that's been linked here. I'll find it tonight when I get home
Click to expand...

I remember seeing it, too but i can't find the exact graph...

altitude-asiana-214.jpg


f=ma said:
damn I'm helpful
BOhIDCWCUAApHFV.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Var said:
Chances are, statistically, the Airbus is doing you a favor by overriding the pilot.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't disagree with that.

Nowadays though, pretty much any plane is as automated as any other plane. I do agree I think Airbus takes a "hands off" approach as human error causes more crashes than mechanical.

But then you have situations like the French flight that stalled, and the pilots didn't even know how to recover from a stall. Why? Because they hadn't actually FLOWN a plane in YEARS. Too much automation can be a bad thing, IMO, and the caveman instinct me wants two grown adults to be able to tell a computer to shut the fuck up and force the plane to do something it otherwise may not want to do.

On a side note, I'm flying out of SFO on a Boeing 747 this sunday. I hope there's no major delays for us.
 
Antarius said:
But then you have situations like the French flight that stalled, and the pilots didn't even know how to recover from a stall. Why? Because they hadn't actually FLOWN a plane in YEARS. Too much automation can be a bad thing, IMO, and the caveman instinct me wants two grown adults to be able to tell a computer to shut the fuck up and force the plane to do something it otherwise may not want to do.
Click to expand...

According to some people, this might have been a case of that, but because they kept doing ILS approaches over and over without practicing visual. And this was in a Boeing. I don't think refusing to fly an Airbus makes you any safer. Most pilots would fly on an Airbus
 
Antarius said:
On a side note, I'm flying out of SFO on a Boeing 747 this sunday. I hope there's no major delays for us.
Click to expand...

They generally don't delay the big boys too badly. If you were on a little Sky West hopper, you would be boned though. :p
 
Var said:
According to some people, this might have been a case of that, but because they kept doing ILS approaches over and over without practicing visual. And this was in a Boeing. I don't think refusing to fly an Airbus makes you any safer. Most pilots would fly on an Airbus
Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt that there's probably no difference in terms of safety percentages between the two. In fact, if you look up the amount of flights per crashes, they're basically the same.

I'm just saying for my little irrational brain, I prefer Boeing based on my own experiences and what my friend who flies an Airbus told me.

Not saying it is doing anything for me in actuality. :)
 
Antarius said:
Oh I don't doubt that there's probably no difference in terms of safety percentages between the two. In fact, if you look up the amount of flights per crashes, they're basically the same.

I'm just saying for my little irrational brain, I prefer Boeing based on my own experiences and what my friend who flies an Airbus told me.

Not saying it is doing anything for me in actuality. :)
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor and never talk to any of the aerospace engineers. :laughing
 
MrIncredible said:
Do yourself a favor and never talk to any of the aerospace engineers. :laughing
Click to expand...

Why, what will they say? "Fuck I'm surprised they fly at all?" :rofl

The funny part is I enjoy flying a lot, in small planes. I know, those are the ones that crash far more often, but I still enjoy the smaller planes -- either private, or even commuter planes.

I've never enjoyed flying on large jumbo-jets. I like looking at them, I think the technology to make an A380 or 747/777 fly is fucking awesome, but being on them I just don't find myself as having a good time.

Maybe it's the service, the laziness, or because I'm just anxious to get where I'm going rather than being on the ride to get there? I dunno, they just don't do it for me.
 
MrIncredible said:
Half the ones I know refuse to fly :rofl

Then they get drunk and start telling you about how much is actually holding your wings on etc etc etc.

I won't get on a plane sober :p
Click to expand...

I'll have been up for 24 hours and have taken a little red Melatonin pill when I get on the plane for my 11 hour flight on sunday. I suspect I'll sleep quite well and wake up refreshed!

If I do happen to wake up early, the free booze will make my night pass right on by. :)
 
I actually have an entirely different objection to flying Airbus, which is only semi-related to Die by Wire.

Paying for a perfectly good airline seat, only to be delayed by either a lost takeoff slot, and/or lost arrival gate, because they had to stop to reboot the fucking aircraft.

That is all.

:laughing
 
I fly sober and I'm ready to die every time I get on an airplane
 
Marlowe said:
I actually have an entirely different objection to flying Airbus, which is only semi-related to Die by Wire.

Paying for a perfectly good airline seat, only to be delayed by either a lost takeoff slot, and/or lost arrival gate, because they had to stop to reboot the fucking aircraft.

That is all.

:laughing
Click to expand...

"Ctl alt del" is the standard fix for all newer aircraft, Boeing included.
 
teg916 said:
"Ctl alt del" is the standard fix for all newer aircraft, Boeing included.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's mostly because the airplane isn't legal to dispatch with whatever it might be causing the issue. It could be something as simple as the ACARS isn't communicating with dispatch, and you can't get your performance numbers/fuel numbers/etc. from dispatch. It's not that it won't fly, or is even unsafe. It's just not legal. In a transport category airplanes (airplanes certified under part 25 standards), if the coffee pot is broken, a piece of interior trim is missing, or the left elevator is missing, the plane isn't legal to dispatch unless certian criteria are met and the item is defer'ed. In what I fly now, the oddest thing that can be inop and the plane still dispatched is the fuel cross flow valve. Not that big a deal if both engines are operating. But should one fail, you have no way to get the fuel from one side of the airplane to the other to balance the fuel loads (max 800lbs imbalance), but now you have one engine burning roughly 1600-1800 lbs an hour. Descending from the mid 30,000 foot range, you have a very limited time to get it on the ground before the airplane is no longer within limits, and you basically become a test pilot. It takes a while to get down from 30k feet. You can't just push the nose over and go for it, you'll overspeed the the airframe and it will come apart on you. Thankfully, modern turbine engines are so reliable, it's never been an issue. "But one day Alice... One day!"
 
Antarius said:
I've never enjoyed flying on large jumbo-jets. I like looking at them, I think the technology to make an A380 or 747/777 fly is fucking awesome, but being on them I just don't find myself as having a good time.

Maybe it's the service, the laziness, or because I'm just anxious to get where I'm going rather than being on the ride to get there? I dunno, they just don't do it for me.
Click to expand...

You are flying the wrong airlines or in economy. :laughing

Just to add, Asiana was one of my best flight experiences in F, truly worldclass airline in that respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top