Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Clearly the SFPD must search all hotels for naked men doing Kung Fu, and shoot William Sadler on sight.

 d-usa wrote:
I think one of the big questions is if the data on the displays matched what was happening. From what I have gathered so far both pilots said all the right things during the landing, and verbalized the right speeds. But what they said they were doing didn't match what was actually happening while they gave verbal confirmations of their actions.

Even instrumentation issues wouldn't be good justification for this.

To clarify: it'd require not just the failure of both air speed indicators, but a whole host of other gauges (and their backups) to have much of an impact, and even then, there's still the good ol' Mark 1 Eyeball.

Do speed indicators display both knots and mph?

One thing that stood out to me as a layperson is that it looks like they were flying 135 mph when they were supposed to be flying 136 knots.

I've personally never seen an airspeed indicator that shows MPH, but I understand it was the standard prior to the 70s. All modern aviation uses knots, though.

If it's anything to do with instrumentation, I'd say the most likely culprit would have been them simply setting their altimeter incorrectly. Even still, with VFR conditions, shouldn't have been a fatal issue unless these guys literally just never looked up.

 Seaward wrote:
I've personally never seen an airspeed indicator that shows MPH, but I understand it was the standard prior to the 70s. All modern aviation uses knots, though.

If it's anything to do with instrumentation, I'd say the most likely culprit would have been them simply setting their altimeter incorrectly. Even still, with VFR conditions, shouldn't have been a fatal issue unless these guys literally just never looked up.

Thanks for the info on the airspeed indicator. That was just one of those things in the articles that jumped out at me (somebody that has feth to do with flying) and made me think "I wonder if that oculd have anything to do with it".

 d-usa wrote:
Thanks for the info on the airspeed indicator. That was just one of those things in the articles that jumped out at me (somebody that has feth to do with flying) and made me think "I wonder if that oculd have anything to do with it".

Doesn't look like it. I just Googled up some images, and it looks pretty standard.

There's no question they were way too slow and flirting with a stall right before they hit, it's just not clear why. A visual approach wouldn't have been anything new for either of these guys, and they were both experienced enough with flight in general (I know the guy working the stick only had 44 hours or whatever in the 777, but he had flown 747s before) to know they were way short and way slow.

For what it's worth, this wouldn't be the first time that the notion of "face-saving" played a role in an Asian airline crash, which is exactly what I think happened.

So possibly just a case of "expecting everything to be routine, and thinking that everything is routine, that you ignore the signs that something is not routine because you think it is actually just a routine landing with everything going fine"?

Dont know to much about that runway, but reading a report, apparently its a pretty straightforward place to land, with most pilots picking their spot about a third of the way down, so obviously plenty of length.

One thing I have learnt so far while learning to fly is look outside the cockpit, when I first started I was to fixated on the instruments, but now I just glance at them every so often, I know the guy landing only had 44 hours in a 777 but thousands of hours prior to that, he could almost land the thing blindfolded, it seems a really strange thing to occur, but surely has to be pilot error?

edit: for spelling

 d-usa wrote:
So possibly just a case of "expecting everything to be routine, and thinking that everything is routine, that you ignore the signs that something is not routine because you think it is actually just a routine landing with everything going fine"?

I tacked an edit onto my post above, but I might as well clarify.

I strongly suspect the captain (the guy with more 777 experience in this case) knew the approach was bad, but didn't say anything to avoid shaming the guy on the stick, assuming he'd figure it out himself before it got to the point of no return.

Something somewhat similar happened with a Korean Air 747 flight out of London a decade or so ago, though there was actual instrumentation issues there. The captain's ADI (artificial horizon) wasn't working, and it was night. He tried to bank the plane, the artificial horizon didn't show a bank, so he kept right on trying to bank until he basically got the thing perpendicular to the ground and plowed the wing right on into the dirt. The copilot's ADI was working fine, and he just didn't say anything. I think the UK's NTSB analogue actually said, after they'd finished their investigation, the equivalent of, "Hey, you guys really need to drop this whole don't correct the pilot because he'll lose face," thing, as that's basically what it came down to.

Anyone can shoot a short approach, but there are so many tools available to let you know you're doing it (I haven't heard anyone say there was an issue with the airport's PAPI, which is basically a system of lights somewhat similar to an IFLOLS on a carrier that tells you where you are in relation to the proper glide path) that you'd almost have to be actively ignoring them to wind up riding a bad approach into the ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tuiman wrote:
DOnt know to much about that runway, but reading a report, apparently its a pretty straightforward place to land, with most pilots picking their spot about a third of the war day, so obviously plenty of length.

One thing I have learnt so far while learning to fly is look outside the cockpit, when I first started I was to fixated on the instruments, but now I just glance at them every so often, I know the guy landing only had 44 hours in a 777 but thousands of hours prior to that, he could almost land the thing blindfolded, it seems a really strange thing to occur, but surely has to be pilot error?

I was the exact same way, in terms of not getting my eyes out of the cockpit. I think most students are.