us AAirways
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2012
- Messages
- 973
- Display Name
Display name:
us AAirways
The glideslope was out of service.
Can't the FMS make a glideslope?
The glideslope was out of service.
Extreme pitch angle and extreme force - it was said that in the last phase they were pulling close to 80 lbs on the yoke, even a blind pilot could tell something wasn't exactly right
The glideslope was out of service.
Yes, but first, you have to know how to use it.missed the word 'virtual?'
Yes - like usAA notes - you can program the FMS to create a virtual GS and then fly it like a real one. . . .
Well, with autothrottles engaged, you do pitch up and the AT maintains the speed. Problem is, with the combination of buttonpushes used at 1500ft, they had inadvertently disabled the AT.
Go to page 26/27 of the interviews where the PF explains that by culture and company policy, the decision for a go-around has to come from the more senior pilot, in this case the IP sitting in the right seat.
Your understanding is sadly mistaken...and it isn't the first time.I understand that you lack knowledge on the subject.
missed the word 'virtual?
They didn't disable it exactly. It sounds like they were descending in FLCH mode, and this is also independent of whether the A/P is on or not, the Autothrottles do not provide low speed protection in FLCH mode.
Can the 777 go around from 200' agl without the wheels touching?
There is some fuzzyness about why one of the flight directors was on and the other off and whether that was the reason for the inactivated AT. Whatever the reason, the PF thought he had autothrottles but with the autopilot mode selected and the settings of the flight directors, he did not.
If I understood the information in the report correctly, the AT system in the A320 (which he flew previously) would provide low-speed/high AOA protection regardless of the AP mode selected when some of the Boeing planes dont have that logic.
It should with no problem under normal circumstances, meaning configured and on speed. In fact, you'd lose less than 30-50' normally. But they weren't anywhere on speed/stabilized. They also had idle thrust, which takes longer to spool up than when the engines are around 55-60%, as they are normally.
I didn't realize one was on and off. Who had the FD off?
You're correct about the A320/30/40/50/80. Even in an open descent (FLCH in the bus), the low speed protection works. They would have slowed to the low speed and the engines would have gone to full power automatically. If they held the back pressure (which they were doing), they would have climbed out in a spectacular fashion.
Boeing designs their FBW planes to allow pilots to put them into positions outside the flight envelope. It looks like in this case the pilots did just that and the plane did exactly what it was designed to do.
I didn't realize one was on and off. Who had the FD off?
I only had little time to skim through the interviews, one of them is with a FAA test-pilot who was involved in certification of the 787 A350 and many other types. They went into those differences in programming philosophy between the two companies. He had written up a post-test report on the 787 where during test-flights he had to arrest a descent due to a RA. The throttles didn't 'wake up' and he flew the plane into a under-speed condition.You're correct about the A320/30/40/50/80. Even in an open descent (FLCH in the bus), the low speed protection works. They would have slowed to the low speed and the engines would have gone to full power automatically. If they held the back pressure (which they were doing), they would have climbed out in a spectacular fashion.
I am glad that in relative terms, this accident ended with as little loss of life as it did and that they were able to talk to the different people in the cockpit. None of the issues raised :Boeing designs their FBW planes to allow pilots to put them into positions outside the flight envelope. It looks like in this case the pilots did just that and the plane did exactly what it was designed to do.
Can the 777 go around from 200' agl without the wheels touching?
Yes, but first, you have to know how to use it.
Correct, here is more info how they were descending, what emerges is a scary picture of two captains not understanding the consequences of pushing some buttons (copy and pasted):It sounds like they were descending in FLCH mode, and this is also independent of whether the A/P is on or not,
Correct, here is more info how they were descending, what emerges is a scary picture of two captains not understanding the consequences of pushing some buttons (copy and pasted):
During hearings on December 11, National Transportation Safety Board officials described the final approach sequence of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, scannerwhich crashed at San Francisco International Airport on July 6. The Boeing 777 was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 28 Left where, as per a Notam, the glideslope was inactive. The left-seat pilot flying had logged fewer than 45 hours in the 777, while the right-seat instructor had 3,200 hours of time on the widebody. On a 15 mile final approach, the Boeing’s airspeed was at 210 knots as it descended with autopilot and flight-level change (FLCH) engaged. Descent altitude was set at 1,800 feet. The aircraft was high on final approach and switching to vertical speed mode did not help this situation. Final approach reference speed was calculated at 137 knots. On a five-mile final the altitude was reset to 3,000 feet in case of a go-around. At 1,600 feet and 3.5 miles from the runway, the FLCH switch was again activated, which changed the auto-throttle mode. [Boeing does not recommend using FLCH inside the final approach fix—Ed.]. When the FLCH was engaged, the autopilot tried to climb the aircraft to 3,000 feet. The pilot reacted by pulling the thrust to idle and disconnecting the autopilot. This put the autothrottles in hold mode at idle. At 1.4 miles from the runway and at 500 feet above the water the aircraft was still descending. With the thrust at idle, the left-seat pilot began to add backpressure to the control wheel to stop the descent and get back on the visual glideslope from the precision approach path indicator. The airspeed continued to decay–now slowing through 120 knots–although neither pilot mentioned it. Eleven seconds before impact a low-speed alert was heard in the cockpit. At eight seconds from impact and with the aircraft 100 feet above the water, the pilots moved the throttles full forward to initiate a go-around. Four seconds later the stick shaker activated and someone in the cockpit called for a go-around. The action was too late and the main gear and aft fuselage struck the seawall. The lowest recorded airspeed was 103 knots, 34 knots below the calculated safe reference speed.
What is a Pilot In Command?answer: ________ is critical for a safe landing
...Koreans are very, very, status conscious. They will risk their lives rather than cause a 'senior' person to lose face. ....So they both sat there waiting for the other to say 'go around', as the PAPI's all turned red.
Knowing how the US legal system works, I am not suprised at all.Well, guess we know now it was all Boeing's fault.
Sigh,
Dave
=======================================================
The lawsuit alleges that some equipment on the plane was improperly installed or defective, resulting in inadequate warnings for the pilots about low airspeed.
"Boeing was aware that its low airspeed warning system was inadequate," the suit states.
More than 80 of the plane's 291 passengers are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit
http://tinyurl.com/mf7o9xv