Asiana A320 accident in Japan today

Jeff Oslick said:
Gotta wonder at what point their insurance company steps in to "resolve the issue".

Once *might* be considered an accident. Twice in two years is a trend.
Click to expand...

As long as the operations fall within the actuarial predictions the underwriters used establishing the premium, they will not flinch as long as the premium is paid. So far I would assume they are well within actuarial predictions considering how ****ing scary smart actuaries are at this stuff. Insurance companies are the only ones making big money off aviation.
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
That's a good point, they shoulda had their "A" game for that situation.

How long will it take to find the "black" boxes so we can end all this speculation and prove that it is Boebus's fault????
Click to expand...

Fifth picture down, A night shot, shows an extension ladder set up against the rear fuselage.... Probably used to access the black boxes....:dunno::confused:

http://avherald.com/h?article=484c306e
 
Henning said:
I also think Airport and Runway got lost in the translation with regards to where the plane stopped. That was confusing me before, having read it without a picture a little while ago elsewhere. From the disjointed stuff I've read it sounds like he was low on approach and got an antenna caught in his right landing gear, and that was likely disrupting the braking action on that side and he veered off under a heavy left brake.
Click to expand...

If you look at the second pictures in the Avherald article, there seem to be pieces of the localizer antenna underneath and aft of the left engine. The first picture shows the gap in the localizer antenna and some imprints of landing gear just short of the runway. Difficult to tell whether they spun off the runway due to hard braking, uneven TR deployment or the combination of blown tires and crosswind.

Spinning out beats running off the end.

A testament to how sturdy landing gear legs on air carrier aircraft are designed.


Closer picture of the antenna array:

hiroshima-20150415_0231_0338-870x949.jpg
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
If you look at the second pictures in the Avherald article, there seem to be pieces of the localizer antenna underneath and aft of the left engine. The first picture shows the gap in the localizer antenna and some imprints of landing gear just short of the runway. Difficult to tell whether they spun off the runway due to hard braking, uneven TR deployment or the combination of blown tires and crosswind.

Spinning out beats running off the end.

A testament to how sturdy landing gear legs on air carrier aircraft are designed.
Click to expand...


Looking at the second pic down.. I am assumed the tires were flat and the rims were digging into the grass during the sideways slide....
 
weilke said:
If you look at the second pictures in the Avherald article, there seem to be pieces of the localizer antenna underneath and aft of the left engine. The first picture shows the gap in the localizer antenna and some imprints of landing gear just short of the runway. Difficult to tell whether they spun off the runway due to hard braking, uneven TR deployment or the combination of blown tires and crosswind.

Spinning out beats running off the end.

A testament to how sturdy landing gear legs on air carrier aircraft are designed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, one way or another, he hung up the localizer antennae and ended up off the side of the runway. In the end, at the air carrier scal, the consequences here are very minor for a very major procedural error. They came out pretty well all in all.
 
That picture is why operations at St Maarten are so bloody sketchy,:rolleyes:. I don't think they should prohibit it, but one day it will go horribly wrong there. I recently saw a vid where he was inches from taking the fence and landed short of the threshold, and waved on taxi after, proud. It's just time before we have an aviation version of the Costa Concordia there.
 
It's too bad most airlines (especially Asian carriers) have absolutely no emphasis on stick and rudder skills. A 10 hour student pilot in a 150 probably has better stick and rudder skills than the whole Asiana pilot group cumulatively.
 
weilke said:
The fact that they plowed through the localizer array and some approach lights 1000ft short of the runway got lost in translation I guess.
Click to expand...

Captain Wei Tu Lo strikes again ... he LOVES those low approaches, dragging it in, attempting the threshold markers.

Pilawt said:
Well, the METARs five minutes before and three minutes after were "VRB02KT" -- right at the outer margin of an Asiana crew's level of demonstrated skill.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol::lol:

weilke said:
The first picture shows the gap in the localizer antenna and some imprints of landing gear just short of the runway.
Click to expand...

That "imprints short of the runway" is now an Asiana trademark:yesnod:
 
Henning said:
That picture is why operations at St Maarten are so bloody sketchy,:rolleyes:. I don't think they should prohibit it, but one day it will go horribly wrong there. I recently saw a vid where he was inches from taking the fence and landed short of the threshold, and waved on taxi after, proud. It's just time before we have an aviation version of the Costa Concordia there.
Click to expand...


Agreed 100%.... I am amazed there has not been squished beachgoers there by now.......

It is just a matter of time....:sad::sad::sad:
 
weilke said:
Difficult to tell whether they spun off the runway due to hard braking, uneven TR deployment or the combination of blown tires and crosswind.
Click to expand...
No crosswind -- "VRB02KT"

Spinning out beats running off the end.
Click to expand...
Henning said:
In the end, at the air carrier scal, the consequences here are very minor for a very major procedural error. They came out pretty well all in all.
Click to expand...
They were very lucky there was so much flat ground on that side of the runway. The airplane could very easily have continued across the perimeter road and down the embankment -- sideways!
 
Henning said:
As long as the operations fall within the actuarial predictions the underwriters used establishing the premium, they will not flinch as long as the premium is paid. So far I would assume they are well within actuarial predictions considering how ****ing scary smart actuaries are at this stuff. Insurance companies are the only ones making big money off aviation.
Click to expand...

Underwriters are also good at scoring up your premiums when you have excessive minor incidents. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how lucky Asiana is that these two incidents didn't result in numerous fatalities.
 
danhagan said:
Captain Wei Tu Lo strikes again ... he LOVES those low approaches, dragging it in, attempting the threshold markers.
Click to expand...
Hey, if they're going to go to the trouble of putting that runway in there, you might as well use all of it -- like these guys:
 

Attachments

  • 0995911.jpg
    0995911.jpg
    319 KB · Views: 51
  • 0321482.jpg
    0321482.jpg
    262.4 KB · Views: 48
Pilawt said:
No crosswind -- "VRB02KT"


They were very lucky there was so much flat ground on that side of the runway. The airplane could very easily have continued across the perimeter road and down the embankment -- sideways!
Click to expand...

Ugg, and that would have been really ugly. They really need to get their act together in Asia with this stuff.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Underwriters are also good at scoring up your premiums when you have excessive minor incidents. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how lucky Asiana is that these two incidents didn't result in numerous fatalities.
Click to expand...

You bet, actuaries are constantly updating the data in their formulas to keep the premium correct, but again, as long as the premium is paid, the coverage will continue. Since the airlines require insurance to operate, they have to pay the premium or shut down. It's basically how everything is regulated. Government agencies just uphold the terms of contracts between the insurers and insured to make sure the actuaries are working with valid assumptions.. The money flow takes care of the rest.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
RJOA 141100Z VRB02KT 6000 -SHRA PRFG FEW000 SCT012 BKN020 09/08 Q1006
Click to expand...

I'm wondering exactly what the pilots could see.

What is the visibility in this metar? It doesn't seem to be in statute miles. Is it 6000 feet, or 6000 meters? And presumably that's measured in just one spot on the airfield, and not at the approach end of the runway.

Then there's the condition PRFG. I don't recall encountering that one, but does appear in the FAA book "Aviation Weather Services" where it says that for partial fog
A substantial part of the airport is expected to be covered by fog while the remainder is expected to be clear of fog (e.g., a fog bank)..



​
 
NoHeat said:
I'm wondering exactly what the pilots could see.

What is the visibility in this metar? It doesn't seem to be in statute miles. Is it 6000 feet, or 6000 meters? And presumably that's measured in just one spot on the airfield, and not at the approach end of the runway.

Then there's the condition PRFG. I don't recall encountering that one, but does appear in the FAA book "Aviation Weather Services" where it says that for partial fog
A substantial part of the airport is expected to be covered by fog while the remainder is expected to be clear of fog (e.g., a fog bank)..



​
Click to expand...
According to this site:

horizontal prevailing visibility** representative of the airfield in metres up to 9 km (9000): if the prevailing visibility (as defined below) is 10 km or more, then this group is given as 9999 & if < 50 metres, it is coded as 0000.
[ ** the 'prevailing visibility' is defined as the value that is reached or exceeded over at least 50% of the horizon (contiguous or in fragments), or within at least half of the airfield / airport surface. See examples below for the reporting of significant variations from this value.
Click to expand...

When used with FG, the qualifier 'PR' is used for fog banks, i.e. an extensive area of fog impinges upon an airfield, reducing visibility over part of same to less than 1 km; 'BC' [ patches ] would be used when a discrete, small-scale area of fog drifts/forms over the airfield, again reducing visibility below 1 km but not in all directions. In practice, it is not easy to tell the two apart!
Click to expand...

The 1108Z METAR (3 minutes post-accident) had the note, "1500E FG E-S". Apparently that means visibility was 1.5 km toward the east, with fog bank east through south. The airplane was landing from the east.

4000 .. 0900NE .. The first figure given is the 'prevailing visibility', which can be regarded as the 'best' figure that can be applied to at least 50% of the horizon (contiguously or otherwise). So, for example, if the visibility varies from 8km down to 4000m for at least half of the visible horizon, the prevailing visibility is 4000m. It is important to note that the visibility may be lower than this figure elsewhere, but for deviations to be reported, they must obey certain rules: if the visibility in one particular direction is less than 1500m or is less than half of the prevailing figure, then the lowest visibility observed (900m in above) is reported, with the direction shown (NE). If the lowest value applies in several directions, then the 'most operationally significant' direction is given. If the visibility is fluctuating wildly (e.g. rapid shower transistion), then only the lowest visibility is reported. Where the observation is a fully-automated one (e.g. an 'AUTO' ob.), then no variation with direction of visibility is usually possible, and the letter-group NDV is appended to the visibility value.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Does it even matter what they could see (as far as an excuse for the accident)?

If they reach the MDA for the approach and the visibility requirements aren't met, go around. I don't understand how a pilot with 8000+ hours let's this happen. Anyone know the actual approach they were using and what the minimums were?
 
Last edited:
For grins I played with the ruler function on Google Earth. OZ162 first contacted terra firma about 500' short of the pavement; 1,000' short of the numbers; and a half-mile before the touchdown zone. Had they touched down about 750' sooner it would have been into the face of a near-vertical hillside.

If a “good” landing is one you can walk away from, and a “great” landing is one after which you can use the airplane again, only by sheer luck was this one even barely in the “good” category.

:nonod:
 
Bonchie said:
Does it even matter what they could see (as far as an excuse for the accident)?
Click to expand...


Of course there is no excuse for an airliner to land short.

But I was interested in learning about the metar, with its entries that were unfamiliar to me. And I was wondering if weather could be a factor this time, unlike the seawall-strike landing in San Francisco.
 
Pilawt said:
For grins I played with the ruler function on Google Earth. OZ162 first contacted terra firma about 500' short of the pavement; 1,000' short of the numbers; and a half-mile before the touchdown zone.
Click to expand...



That's really short.

Extrapolating a 3 degree descent from that point of contact would have put the 25' underground at the beginning of the pavement.
 
Bonchie said:
Does it even matter what they could see (as far as an excuse for the accident)?

If they reach the MDA for the approach and the visibility requirements aren't met, go around. I don't understand how a pilot with 8000+ hours let's this happen. Anyone know the actual approach they were using and what the minimums were?
Click to expand...


I'd wager it was a DA in this case, but yeah I agree 100%.
 
Pilawt said:
Hey, if they're going to go to the trouble of putting that runway in there, you might as well use all of it -- like these guys:
Click to expand...

Those pictures are deceiving. Those pilots were showing off by landing backwards.
 
Maybe that airline needs to show live videos of every landing and grade each one, just like on a carrier.
 
Zeldman said:
Still, I would rather fly on Asiana air than Malasia Airlines.
Click to expand...

Is that like preferring being stabbed over being shot? :dunno: I think my I'll keep my fat happy ass off of both of them! :D
 
Zeldman said:
Still, I would rather fly on Asiana air than Malasia Airlines.
Click to expand...

I dunno about that. The Asiana planes are crashing due to the abysmally poor skills of their pilots. The Malasia crashes are due to real bad luck. One plane Odin only knows what happened, that'll be an aviation mystery for a generation at least. Another got shot down by Russians. Admittedly it probably shouldn't have been where it was, but those guys weren't supposed to have sophisticated antiaircraft missiles either.

I'll take bad luck to bad pilots any day of the week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top