[The Frugie]

Isn't this the first time a 777 has crashed? I flew on one when I went to Spain in '03 and one of the main reasons I chose that flight was because they had a perfect record.

[sixmilehighguy69]

Nope Frugie, BA038 crashed at LHR on 17th January 2008.

[blancadon]

There wasn't enough time for the flight crew to intice the passengers to help with increasing the pucker power to clear the wall.

[McLovin510]

If he is at fault, I hope the pilot is charged with manslaughter back in Korea.

[gatagato]

Inquiry Suggests Chance That Mechanical Failure Had Role in Crash

SAN FRANCISCO — The pilots of the Asiana jet that crashed here Saturday believed that they had set the auto-throttles, devices that can control the engines to maintain safe airspeed, but speed fell to unsafe levels anyway, the chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board said on Tuesday.

Investigators in the cockpit of the wreckage found the auto-throttle switches set to the “armed” position, meaning that the auto-throttle could have been engaged, depending on various other settings, she said. The disclosure is far from conclusive, but raises the clear possibility that there was a mechanical failure or that the crew misunderstood the automated system it was using.

The chairwoman, Deborah A. P. Hersman, also said that interviews of the three pilots who were in the cockpit at the time of impact showed that the speed indicator on the flat-panel displays in the cockpit had drifted down into a crosshatched area, meaning that the instruments were saying that the plane was moving too slowly.

At the dual controls, the pilot flying the plane was undergoing initial training as he upgraded from a smaller plane, and was supervised by a veteran pilot who was new as an instructor, Ms. Hersman said. The instructor told investigators that between 500 feet and 200 feet in altitude, the crew was also correcting from a “lateral deviation,” meaning that the plane was too far to the right or left (she did not specify which) and realized they were too low.

At 200 feet, the instructor pilot told investigators in an interview, he noticed they were too slow. “He recognized that the auto-throttles were not maintaining speed,” and began preparing the airplane to go around for another try. But it was too late.

Ms. Hersman made clear that the safety board was looking to see if there was a generic problem with the runway and the approach path. Her agency requested data from the Federal Aviation Administration, which operates the air traffic system, on other recent arrivals by Boeing 777s, and recent go-arounds, cases in which crews broke off the approach because of a problem.

As the investigation continued, others — including lawyers, passenger advocates and a pilots’ union — began jockeying for position.

The crash resulted in an unusual mix of deaths and injuries, said Robert A. Clifford, an aviation lawyer in Chicago, who pointed out that lawyers in his specialty are usually pursuing wrongful-death claims, not personal injury ones. Injured passengers will need legal help, he said.

But Hans Ephraimson-Abt, who leads the Air Crash Victims Families Group, and who frequently lobbies for passenger rights and represents the families of people killed, said that under the governing international law, those injured were covered by a no-fault provision. Under the 1999 Montreal Protocol, he said, “they are entitled to be reimbursed for all their property damages, and economic and noneconomic damages, including psychological counseling.” All that was required, he said, was to show medical bills or calculate lost earnings.

Mr. Ephraimson-Abt’s 23-year-old daughter was one of the 286 passengers on board Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by a Soviet fighter plane in 1983 after a crewman’s navigation error.

Mr. Clifford and other lawyers, however, have been making public statements since the crash about safety problems and stressing their expertise in pursuing claims.

On Tuesday, Mr. Clifford said that another party, not covered by the Montreal Protocol, could be vulnerable to claims: Boeing. The plane did not have an aural warning of low airspeed, he said, even though the safety board recommended 10 years ago that the Federal Aviation Administration convene a panel of experts to consider installing them. If the plane was unsafe, he said, the manufacturer could face suits.

A retired 777 captain, Chuck Hosmer, who flew for American Airlines and later Air India, said that many foreign carriers had a reluctance to land the plane manually, and thus lacked proficiency in the technique. The Asiana crew was attempting a manual landing on Saturday because an instrument landing system was out of service. And though there were four pilots on the Asiana plane, three of them very experienced in the 777, pilots in some cultures are reluctant to contradict a pilot at the controls, Mr. Hosmer said.

In fact, the safety board has investigated previous accidents in which cultural factors have reduced the effectiveness of the crew, and that is one of the areas of inquiry here, investigators said.

On Tuesday, a pilots’ union, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, issued a statement critical of the safety board, asserting that the board’s quick release of “incomplete, out-of-context information” had “fueled rampant speculation about the cause of the accident” and created the impression that it was pilot error.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 10, 2013


An earlier version of this article misidentified a retired 777 captain who flew for American Airlines and later Air India. His name is Chuck Hosmer, not Robert Maurer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us...rash.html?_r=0

[5150]

So, the untrained pilot, with only 50% of his 777 training completed, who never landed a 777, was in "control" of the aircraft at the time. Colossal cluster F*** of mistakes by crew. Even if auto throttle had an issue, which I doubt it did, airspeed is a critical component when landing and a pilot is designated to watch it. If auto throttle malfunctioned, or more likely was improperly programmed, they should have manually controlled the speed. Idiots.

Photo of crew:

[FNAL]

Originally Posted by 5150 ↗

So, the untrained pilot, with only 50% of his 777 training completed, who never landed a 777, was in "control" of the aircraft at the time. Colossal cluster F*** of mistakes by crew. Even if auto throttle had an issue, which I doubt it did, airspeed is a critical component when landing and a pilot is designated to watch it. If auto throttle malfunctioned, or more likely was improperly programmed, they should have manually controlled the speed. Idiots.

Whoa whoa, slow down there speed racer. How do you think these untrained pilots become trained? They don't spend all their time on simulators, that's why they are supervised by the captain.

You also don't know when the auto-throttle failed and how it did. Did it just stop working and the throttles were cut? Or did the engines slowly decelerate and bleed off airspeed? Airspeed should always be monitored on landing but don't jump the gun pointing the finger until all elements of the equation have been investigated.

Sadly, this is the 2nd hull loss of a 777 :'(

[durt]

airspeed, glideslope, on a CAVU day!
were the pilots doing
.....obviously, they weren't flying the airplane

[5150]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

Whoa whoa, slow down there speed racer. How do you think these untrained pilots become trained? They don't spend all their time on simulators, that's why they are supervised by the captain.

You also don't know when the auto-throttle failed and how it did. Did it just stop working and the throttles were cut? Or did the engines slowly decelerate and bleed off airspeed? Airspeed should always be monitored on landing but don't jump the gun pointing the finger until all elements of the equation have been investigated.

Sadly, this is the 2nd hull loss of a 777 :'(

They were gradually losing speed until they got near stall speed before anyone clued in to increase throttle. There was no sudden emergency by what I can tell from the data. My guess is the instructor, who was also acting as an instructor for the first time, got sidetracked with getting the aircraft that was not coming in properly lined up for the landing, lined up. That is the only thing I can think of that distracted them to the low airspeed. Yet that is just beyond comprehension. Yes, I realize the investigation is ongoing but some things are just too obvious. They will be sued into oblivion.

[FNAL]

The people are going to sue the airline or insurance company if anything, they are the ones with all the money. They will find some hole somewhere (incorrect procedures, training, hiring screening etc) and go for those deep pockets. I'm sure if the pilots didn't follow correct procedures or did something against FARs, they will certainly be penalized, but I doubt they will personally be sued.

It's all fucked up....besides, the Federal Aviation Regulations aren't designed to protect the pilot, they are designed to protect the FAA from getting sued. But I digress.