71–80 of 365 posts
So many things went wrong, and yet the pilots brought the plane down safely – and then this!? Just infuriating.
They did not bring the plane down safely! The pilot failed to lower the landing gear, or extend the flaps, both of which, for all intensive purposes were technologically possible. Multiple redundant systems for these. I think they completely lost situational awareness, and panicked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did not bring the plane down safely! The pilot failed to lower the landing gear, or extend the flaps, both of which, for all intensive purposes were technologically possible. Multiple redundant systems for these. I think they completely lost situational awareness, and panicked.
When an engine blows up, it’s hard to say what still worked and what didn’t. They aren’t supposed to, but when turbines come apart, there is often a lot of shrapnel that has a history of taking out multiple systems. But, it is possible that it was a case of poor crew performance. In any case, the concrete blockhouse at the end of the runway was unhelpful, and it is also outside of the standard guidance for runway ali…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When an engine blows up, it’s hard to say what still worked and what didn’t. They aren’t supposed to, but when turbines come apart, there is often a lot of shrapnel that has a history of taking out multiple systems. But, it is possible that it was a case of poor crew performance. In any case, the concrete blockhouse at the end of the runway was unhelpful, and it is also outside of the standard guidance for runway ali…
There are 3 different hydraulic system plus one electric that can be operated out of a battery… anything is possible, but it seems until now they failed to lower the gear.
I think in the cockpit voice recording we are going to be hearing the sirens going off about no landing gear and those guys were just not paying attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 3 different hydraulic system plus one electric that can be operated out of a battery… anything is possible, but it seems until now they failed to lower the gear.
Something else that may be a factor, a lot of Asian carriers teach their pilots to use auto pilot for landing. American pilots almost universally SOP do not use auto pilot when landing. It's possible the South Korean pilot was using auto pilot to land, forced to do a go around, but wasn't in the habit of manually configuring the plane for landing. That's how the flaps and the gear were both missed. He assumed autopil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something else that may be a factor, a lot of Asian carriers teach their pilots to use auto pilot for landing. American pilots almost universally SOP do not use auto pilot when landing. It's possible the South Korean pilot was using auto pilot to land, forced to do a go around, but wasn't in the habit of manually configuring the plane for landing. That's how the flaps and the gear were both missed. He assumed autopil…
That would be a tragic void in training and procedure. I hope for the sake of the families involved that it doesn’t turn out to be something so avoidable in practice and foreseeable in the carriers operating procedure.
If you look at "Video of aircraft after touchdown sliding along the runway and impacting the fence:", you will find out that it took them ~1.7 sec from leaving the tarmac until they hit the construction. If you measure the distance on Google earth you come up with ~140m. That means they hit the construction with roughly 296km/h or 160 knots. If it wasn't the construction it would have been the treeline or something else. That plane was doomed, concrete construction or not.So many things went wrong, and yet the pilots brought the plane down safely – and then this!? Just infuriating.
No commentary on the pilots’ role here, we don’t know nearly enough to judge. Could be they did a great job and they were just doomed. But the end result is that they didn’t get it down safely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something else that may be a factor, a lot of Asian carriers teach their pilots to use auto pilot for landing. American pilots almost universally SOP do not use auto pilot when landing. It's possible the South Korean pilot was using auto pilot to land, forced to do a go around, but wasn't in the habit of manually configuring the plane for landing. That's how the flaps and the gear were both missed. He assumed autopil…
That would be a tragic void in training and procedure. I hope for the sake of the families involved that it doesn’t turn out to be something so avoidable in practice and foreseeable in the carriers operating procedure.
A recent(ish) example is the Asiana crash in SF. They had pretty much perfect conditions for a hand-flown visual approach, but they were out of practice, got behind the airplane, and it snowballed.
There’s an excellent lecture about this called Children of the Magenta Line. The magenta line being the flight path or direction indicator on an autopilot, and the discussion is about pilots who constantly reconfigure the autopilot to direct the plane instead of just taking over. https://youtu.be/5ESJH1NLMLs
I'll recite an avherald comment: If you look at "Video of aircraft after touchdown sliding along the runway and impacting the fence:", you will find out that it took them ~1.7 sec from leaving the tarmac until they hit the construction. If you measure the distance on Google earth you come up with ~140m. That means they hit the construction with roughly 296km/h or 160 knots. If it wasn't the construction it would have…
It's also definitely the case that the cement-reinforced dirt mound is not best practice for a locator array.