LarryC Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 I'm no expert in this area, however, isn't the design of this runway a challenge in itself, especially to a "non-seasoned" pilot? Yes, 1000's of landings have been made without any issues. However, to have a "sea wall" at the beginning of the runway that extends approximately 10 - 20 feet above sea level looks intimidating and potential fatal if not negotiated correctly. Some of you guy's that are pilot's may have a completely different take on this perspective. Sure, it's a challenge but that's what experienced captains and first officers are hired for. However, approach and landing procedures are very tightly spelled out, and visual aids are engineered to accommodate that need. For example, airports have "PAPI" glide slope indicators that show the pilots whether they are on the correct glide slope. It appears, in this case, that the PAPI was operating as it should -- the instructor pilot reported that he saw all red lights meaning they were in fact BELOW the glide slope: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/09/200472988/asiana-crash-trip-was-pilots-first-as-instructor-ntsb-says The pilots flying the plane absolutely should have seen that, and it shouldn't have needed an "instructor" captain. An added problem is the lack of easy visual references to judge the height, like trees, grass, buildings, etc., in an over-water landing approach. The problem appears to have been the pilots' failure to set the correct auto-throttle mode. Even though the auto-throttles were "armed" and set at 137 knots, they were NOT OPERATING. This retarded the engines to idle, instead of spooling up to maintain speed. As a result, the speed dropped to 103 knots and the plane could no longer stay up in the air! Jet engines are very slow to respond from idle, and it's impossible for a jet engine to spool up its thrust from idle to full power in less than 10-15 seconds. The crew only had a few seconds before the plane hit the ground. They tried, but it was way too late. This is not the first time that complicated cockpit management systems have confused inattentive crew members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 This is not the first time that complicated cockpit management systems have confused inattentive crew members. That's sadly very true. It seems that skill in basic use of the flight controls is taking a back seat to managing the computer systems today, so actual flying skills are in decline, as in the crash off Brazil in 2009: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169134/Damning-report-2009-Air-France-crash-killed-228-says-pilots-averted-disaster.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 That's sadly very true. It seems that skill in basic use of the flight controls is taking a back seat to managing the computer systems today, so actual flying skills are in decline, as in the crash off Brazil in 2009:That crash was a real horror -- one should be able to trust in a transoceanic flight in a modern large airliner (Airbus 330, I believe). The Air France crew showed awful incompetence in managing a simple stall, and I'm not sure that cockpit complexity had much to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 The Air France crew showed awful incompetence in managing a simple stall, and I'm not sure that cockpit complexity had much to do with it.Well, that was a big part of it, but there's more -- the problematic Airbus cockpit and control stick design (!), for one thing. This CBS report is excellent IMO: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57587193/air-france-flight-447s-lessons-four-years-later/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 That crash was a real horror -- one should be able to trust in a transoceanic flight in a modern large airliner (Airbus 330, I believe). The Air France crew showed awful incompetence in managing a simple stall, and I'm not sure that cockpit complexity had much to do with it. That report is excellent, and Captain Sullenberger is clear and articulate. It really appeared that the pilot who had control had no idea what he was doing. How could he have passed any flight tests, let alone be qualified to fly large airliners? Use of side-stick controls could be made more safe by a simple device: a bar meter on the instrument panel that indicates the position of both side-sticks. If there was such a meter on the panel, probably beside the artificial horizon, either pilot could immediately see the amount and direction of the other pilot's stick actions. Something as simple as that could prevent a similar tragedy in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRFL Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 The Air France crew showed awful incompetence in managing a simple stall, and I'm not sure that cockpit complexity had much to do with it.Well, that was a big part of it, but there's more -- the problematic Airbus cockpit and control stick design (!), for one thing. This CBS report is excellent IMO: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57587193/air-france-flight-447s-lessons-four-years-later/ If it's not a Boeing I'm not going... A Buss should stay on the ground... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.