<p>I tried, snowdog. I looked at that link and posts several times. It has gotten so long that the mods over there have closed threads and started #2, 3 , 4. Its simply unwieldy and cumbersome to wade through all those posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>320 is a common model of Airbus plane, which is similar in size to the common Boeing 737.</p>
<p>No jym, slight hearing loss doesn’t affect tower communications, most everyone my age/job has it. You just turn up the headset volume. My problem is listening to people who talk low and fast in person, when you can’t turn up the volume! </p>
<p>I don’t think there is anything unusual going on in the tower communications. Just sounds like people reporting positions and getting cleared to takeoff and land. The only communications with Asiana, they are reporting a 7 mile final, and being cleared to land. One thing that does seem a little off is that they crashed less than two minutes after calling a seven mile final. With their usual approach speeds, that would suggest they were going pretty fast. They could have just made the call late, trying to get a word in edgewise, and could have been at 5-6 miles at that point. Plus, maybe they were fast pretty far out like that and slowed down before landing. Potentially irrelevant, but now that they have the black boxes, they will be able to tell everything about that approach. Sink rate, speed, everything. And soon enough, we’ll know exactly what the pilots ate, how much sleep they had, everything that was wrong with the airplane, etc. They are pretty thorough with these investigations, and since the pilots are alive, the black boxes intact, they will get it all.</p>
<p>It would not be unusual to take off on 01R and land 28L/R at SFO, but yes, they would never takeoff and land opposite direction 28/10, you’re right, Sikorsky. The only time you get opposite direction takeoff and landings are at smaller airports, in the middle of the night where there is little activity going on anyways. After a near mid-air collision not too long ago because of that, they really cracked down on opposite direction takeoffs and landings.</p>
<p>One thing that would have made it a bit more challenging to land, is that the glideslope was out (that provides vertical guidance). Also the visual glide slope indicator for that runway was showing inop (but that was right around the time of the crash, so I’d assumed it was because of the crash). But even though it makes things a little more challenging, it’s not a big deal in good weather.</p>
<p>You know I was just kidding, busdriver (responding to your comment that you were half deaf 
)</p>
<p>Is the glidescope what the news is saying was not operational (a guidance system) at the airport due to construction?</p>
<p>Oh, I know you were kidding, but hearing loss is a valid concern. It’s just nice to have a volume control, and that would be helpful to have one all the time. Though it’s not really that bad, just when people talk in these fast low voices (like my son), I keep saying, what, WHAT? Just say it loud enough the first time so I don’t have to keep asking!</p>
<p>I don’t know what the news is reporting was not operational, I wouldn’t take it for valid information anyways. I looked up the NOTAMS for SFO, right after the crash (pilot information for hazards, inoperative equipment, etc) and it said the glideslope was inop (it’s an instrument system that we use for vertical guidance), but the localizer was operative (we use it for course guidance). Perhaps that is what they are referring to, but I didn’t see that in news reports.</p>
<p>My hearing has gone south too. I am constantly asking people to slow down or repeat what they said, especially on the phone.</p>
<p>Have you seen the video of the plane landing and crash that they are showing on CNN filmed by some gentleman who just happened to be watching landings with his wife?</p>
<p>The news is saying that the glide scope system had been out at SFO for the past month due to construction.</p>
<p>Was watching the footage on CNN and it is amazing the plane didn’t turn upside down during the crash.</p>
<p>Yeah, I just looked at the video, hard to watch and listen to (how many time does he say, “Oh my God”)! It looks like a tail strike to me. When the nose is raised too aggressively on landing (or takeoff), you can have what is called a tail strike. That is fairly rare. Sometimes it just scrapes the paint off the bottom of the airplane, sometimes it can cause a big hole in the airplane, or cause it to cartwheel. </p>
<p>I can see the potential, if ATC kept the airplane up fast and high, and they are trying to descend in a hurry, they could have gotten in too rapid a descent, realized it near the ground and flared too much, causing a tailstrike and crash. Then again, that’s only a guess, and I’m sure the accident report will be accurate. The more navaids working, the better, but in VFR weather, people fly without them all the time.</p>
<p>What strikes me is how high one of the wings rolled up in the air after impact.</p>
<p>[Asiana</a> crash injuries include paralysis, ‘severe road rash’ - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1]Asiana”>http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)</p>
<p>Imagine being on the 747 waiting to depart and watching this horrific sight. That plane apparently sat on the tarmac for 3 hours.</p>
<p>The NTSB chairwoman said that the plane was approaching at significantly lower speed than 137 knots. I take it 137 knots is the speed at which it should have been travelling. She said the shaker stick went off meaning that the pilots yoke started shaking to indicate the plane was about to stall. It looks like the plane was approaching at too slow of a speed to make it to the runway properly. One of the pilot indicated a “go around” meaning that the plane would go full power to try to fly back up and go around and try again to land.</p>
<p>^^That’s interesting that the NTSB already knows this. 137 would be a typical approach and landing speed for a 777. They would not purposefully fly lower than approach speed, especially not “significantly lower”, and should have had all sorts of indications that they were going slow before the stick shaker went off. The 777 is highly automated. Which makes me wonder about my original theory, a pitot static malfunction where their airspeed was indicating higher than it actually was. Perhaps the reason for the tail strike is that they basically stalled, and dropped out of the sky, too late to recover.</p>
<p>It’s amazing how quick the information is coming.</p>
<p>Breaking off the horizontal and vertical stabilizers probably didnt help with control of the plane.</p>
<p>The test of the limit load of the 777 wing.
[Boeing</a> 777 Wing Test - YouTube](<a href=“Boeing 777 Wing Test - YouTube”>Boeing 777 Wing Test - YouTube)</p>
<p>This is from the NTSB, not media speculation or wild guesses from non-experts like me. 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Investigation</a> focuses on possible pilot error in crash landing of South Korean plane - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/2-killed-182-hospitalized-as-s-korean-jet-crash-lands-in-san-francisco/2013/07/07/4d8c5e9c-e705-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html]Investigation”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/2-killed-182-hospitalized-as-s-korean-jet-crash-lands-in-san-francisco/2013/07/07/4d8c5e9c-e705-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html)</p>
<p>^^I guess the positive of losing big pieces of the airplane is, it stopped pretty quickly. They probably had little fuel left, causing less of a fireball, which is probably why so many people survived. I fear there will be more fatalities, with so many people in critical condition.</p>
<p>bus…For the pilot’s sake I hope there was some sort of aircraft malfunction that contributed to the situation, but I have a hard time believing they’re not going to take the brunt of the blame here. What the heck ever happened to basic Pilot 101 stuff like instrument crosschecks and “aimpoint, airspeed, VVI”? Even if the ILS GS and the PAPIs were out of service, it was a clear and a million day!! How do you let yourself get THAT low and THAT far below glidepath without realizing it? I’ve flown practice and real-world airspeed out approaches as I imagine you have, and known pitch and power settings with any kind of instrument crosscheck should’ve allowed them to safely get to the runway even if their airspeed indicators were completely out in the weeds given the weather conditions. We’ll see what the black boxes and CVR have to offer I guess.</p>
<p>Oh, I know what you mean, wolverine. Which is why I am loathe to just put all the blame on three very experienced pilots, as it doesn’t seem likely that they are going to just get extremely low and slow and crash the airplane, on a perfectly clear day without any extenuating factors. It is too easy to just blame the pilots without having a full picture of the circumstances.</p>
<p>And the most insidious mechanical failures are the ones that you don’t know you have. It would be obvious that you have a problem if you are getting warnings, and your airspeed indicator is tits up. But if you had no warnings and you thought you were on airspeed, that’s a much greater problem. On a highly automated airplanes, people get used to their automation, which actually can be a problem. You don’t fly that kind of airplane in the same way you do a small airplane.</p>
<p>I just think that there could be other factors involved, as it is usually not just one thing that causes a crash, but a succession of errors or failures. We are trained to look for flags that will stop the sequence of events, and trained that anyone speaks up if they see a problem. I don’t know what the culture of this airline is, but ours over in the US has changed greatly from, “The captain is God”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, that’s a song I’ve been singing for a lot of years in a lot of different airplanes. I like automation that aids the pilot, but not when it reaches the level where it almost replaces the pilot. I think too much reliance on automation erodes the basic skills of the pilot (Air France out of Brazil for instance), and too many are leaning towards being more of a computer operator than a pilot.</p>
<p>I’m also curious what the cockpit culture might be on Asianic. Like you said, the US airlines learned their lessons the hard way and CRM has helped greatly to make US aviation as safe as it is today. Other parts of the world may still be catching up.</p>
<p>Is it typical that the warning alarm goes off only four seconds before the hits the fan?
It seems like in this sort of situation there would be all kinds of lights and buzzers indicating an emergency - maybe like even twenty second warning?</p>
<p>The airline has a good safety record & it was a beautiful clear day. Dont they have windows?</p>
<p>SFO’s automated landing system was turned off for the summer, but all approaching pilots were apprised of this and that they had to land visually. The weather was good, and the pilots were experienced, so a visual landing should not have been a big deal.</p>
<p>^^I’m not sure what warning alarm you are talking about, EK. Do you mean the stick shaker? That is not a verbal alarm, but a physical warning that you are going to stall. And of course they have windows, it was a visual approach, so they were relying on visual cues in addition to their instruments.</p>
<p>Accident investigations are not always that simple. There are always additional factors that lead up to a crash. I sincerely doubt that it will be as simple as two extremely experienced crew members watched as the third highly experienced pilot got very low and slow, and crashed an airplane onto a long runway in broad daylight.</p>
<p>They will look at factors such as physiological issues, was there a medical problem, fatigue, distraction, fixation on something abnormal. It will take longer than a day for anyone to declare with certainty that there was nothing wrong mechanically, though of course the manufacturer and airline will jump all over themselves to claim there was nothing wrong with the airplane. And certainly environmental issues like wind shear, bird strike, and wake turbulence will be looked into. It seems apparent that the crash happened because they got low and slow, but was that due to pilot error (including lack of proficiency, not experience), or what contributed to it? Certainly they probably could have salvaged this (purely an assumption) if they would have recognized it and reacted sooner, but what caused them to be in that situation in the first place? </p>
<p>As far as that Air France A330 out of Brazil, though they can blame the pilots for reacting improperly (and I have heard that the A330 is really strange to fly, that basic stick and rudder skills are not so helpful), the entire accident would not have happened if they hadn’t gotten icing on their pitot tubes, which of course, is not supposed to happen. There are probably very few pilots around today that have ever seen a high altitude stall.</p>