Armchair air crash investigator

Post by sneak » Sun, Jul 07, 2013, 10:00 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #67

rdl wrote: post #29

NY Daily News is reporting that VASI was down as well ( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/expert-runway-guida... ) Which appears to be due to someone incorrectly reading a post-crash NOTAM which is about the aids being gone due to the crash, so there's no particular reason to think VASI was down before the crash. I really don't think I'd trust SF city government to run an airport, even under FAA regulations. L…

The short version is there are multiple things on a runway that emit light and I think they're being confused. "Which appears to be due to someone incorrectly reading a post-crash NOTAM which is about the aids being gone due to the crash" OK first of all VASI has been obsolete since I was a kid in the 90s, its all PAPI now. (edited to add, in the USA) Much like people still call the AWOS an ATIS because it does about…

Post by saraid216 » Sun, Jul 07, 2013, 10:02 PM UTC

avree wrote: post #22

madiator wrote: post #12

Sorry to go offtopic here, but the images seem to be used without any credits. The first one was taken by David Eun ( https://path.com/p/1lwrZb )

Well, the whole blog design is very gray-area 'theft' of Medium's design.

Post by bajsejohannes » Sun, Jul 07, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

pcl wrote: post #7

Lusake wrote: post #4

Here is graphical comparison of safe landing and Asiana crash: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOhIDCWCUAApHFV.jpg:large . Also it appears that runway was modified: http://metabunk.org/sk/HL7742_777_Crash%2C_Korean_Asiana_Air...

Interesting. I wonder what the Asiana's descent profile looks like compared to the average and some outliers of other safe 777 landings at SFO. Did you generate that image? If not, what was the source?

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, Jul 07, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #84

lisper wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, autoland is pretty good. But there are two factors that cause pilots to land manually most of the time: 1) pilots think they are better at handling last-minute unexpected contingencies like wind sheer or bird strikes (and they may well be right about that) and 2) pilots don't want to give the Powers that Be any additional data to suggest that they aren't actually needed to fly a plane at all. The fact of the matt…

> The fact of the matter is that there are no technological barriers to making aircraft completely autonomous, but pilots want the world to remain in denial about this for as long as possible for the sake of their job security. Two words: anomalous conditions. As we both know, pilots aren't needed in the vast majority of commercial flights. The plane is perfectly capable of taking off, navigating, avoiding collisions…

Post by RockyMcNuts » Sun, Jul 07, 2013, 10:41 PM UTC

bajsejohannes wrote: post #82

VLM wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"- number 4, pilot error/bad approach, can't argue with that. the story is what's interesting" Pilot induced oscillation on a really big scale. Coming in way too hot, slam down, whoops way over corrected, now coming in too low, whoops ran outta air and time to correct. Coming in way too hot, now are you better off trying to salvage or go around and get fired? Different nations airlines have differing policies on this…

Do you really risk getting fired for a go around? I mean, I can see that happening if you do it way more than other pilots, but just doing it once? (For the record, I have no idea how these things works, it's just very surprising)