This summary report looks at what has been reported or quoted from the press reports and briefings. Most early reports indicate no mechanical issue arose on final approach. Here are some issues that will be answered at the end of the NTSB efforts to find the root cause of a mishap: There will be thousands of checks and hundreds of reports isolating the cause of this incident.
Nothing is off the table from air worthiness, to airplane operations by crew and airport.
My short list would include these general areas under examination:
- Weather conditions and wind inputs on the aircraft, on a clear day.
- Airport reporting systems and control tower communications.
- Pilot information onboard the aircraft before the tail strike.
- Pilot performance during and at the end of the flight.
- The Flight, final line of approach prior to impact.
- Airspeed on final approach
- Airframe worthiness and systems
- Airplane weight at end of flight.
1st Update: Pilot in training crashed the 777-200 on 43 hours of practice.
Credit: Airchive.com clink on link above.
"July 7 – 9:45PM EDT Update
Reuters is reporting that the pilot in charge during the Asian flight 214 landing was in training on the 777, with only 43 hours on the twin. It was his first 777 flight into SFO, but the pilot Lee Kang-Kook had 9,793 hours of flight experience, including on the 747 and into SFO. The co-pilot during the landing had 3,220 hours of flight experience on the 777 and 12,387 hours of flight time. Also, Asiana’s CEO said on Saturday that he doesn’t believe the 777 suffered from mechanical failure, but didn’t speculate on whether crew error was to blame. More from Reuters here.
July 7 – 7:46PM EDT Update
“The New York Times” reports data collected by FlightAware suggested the plane was descending more than four times faster than normal shortly before it crashed. At 800 feet over San Francisco Bay, the plane was descending at 4,000 feet a minute. This is 5 times faster then the normal approach descent of 600 to 800 feet a minute at that altitude. Flight aware data indicated that at 100 feet above the water, the plane was descending at more than 270 feet a minute when it should have been slowing to a rate of a few feet per second. View the data from Flight Aware here."
The list would continue on until everything is examined on this aircraft, whether it was damaged or intact going through the countless check-off items. How did this heavy come down and was it below the line of approach over the water before impact?
The answer to that last question is emerging, even some suggesting the angle of descent was extremely steep and then flying low on final approach compared to other aircraft landing at SFO. The pilot at the controls revved the motors just 1-1/2 seconds before tail strike, reacting cogently to the situation, as though the pilot was in a startled state with new information, his actions acknowledging he was flying too low and too slow right before impact. Could pilot depth perception been slighted on a long trip over the Pacific, and reliance on manual and visual information made the final approach risky? Since a system was down and not used at the airport for final approaches, using descent angle alignment, the pilot has to rely more on flying skills and acumen to land the aircraft rather than data. Everything is happening so fast at the runway height after flying so high and long as if in slow motion. A landing in real time is slower in approach but happening so much faster to the senses, than flying at 40,000 ft and 550 kts for 12 hours.
It seems to be a difficult situation not having additional information alerting the pilot that the aircraft descent is out of shape for landing. Striking the rock wall at sea level, a 1,000 feet short of usual skid marks for landing, is a definite sign pilot information was missing or perception was impaired.
Since no investigative reports are posted yet, and it would be foolish to post any conclusion at this time. By parsing through statements, I am hearing how well the structural aircraft did on the runway, how well the emergency team performed, but not word on what the pilots had to say. It isn't a good sign from the pilot perspective that a statement is missing. Only statements from passengers, who are the victims, and doctors or emergency people. The manufacturer, Boeing is smart to hit the mute button at this time, until solid evidence and findings are concluded. The pilots are told by HQ to keep mouths shut until the investigation works through.
Remember Captain "Sully", Miracle On The Hudson. He was on every talk show after that crash. A hero America needed with the other stuff going on in the world at that time. Not even a picture of the Asiana flight crew, other than a mention of their names, and how many thousands of hours that they have flown. Who was flying at the time of the crash? No name has come out only that he tried to abort the landing before crashing. If the pilot had died in this mishap we would have heard the name on day one. Asiana is taking a reclusive position as the investigation begins. I believe with the little information coming forth of flying too slow of target speed for landing and no mention of the pilot, the ending is not a good one for the company or the pilot at this point in time.
Points to ponder.
- Who was flying? Not yet reported!
- It has been documented: 214 was below target speed at rock wall and then striking the rocks, shearing the tail off just feet above the water, where it was short by a 1,000 feet of the target landing spot on the runway!
- Attempted aborted landing that failed in the last seconds before strike!
- Observations of 777 coming in low, just off the water by passengers and various people on the ground!
Aviation is also finding what went right:
- The aircraft structure,
- emergency response
- and flight crew passenger assistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment