Seeking Alpha

Asiana Airlines CEO Yoon Young-doo doesn't believe, "for now," that the crash of one of the...

Asiana Airlines CEO Yoon Young-doo doesn't believe, "for now," that the crash of one of the carrier's Boeing (BA) 777 in San Francisco was caused by problems with the plane or its Pratt & Whitney (UTX) engines. However, he wouldn't be drawn on whether the accident was due to pilot error.
Comments (23)
  • JonBeGood
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    CNN or Fox (I switched back and forth) reported the plane had Rolls Royce Trent 800 engines. I am sure it will be clarified soon enough.
    7 Jul 2013, 04:12 AM Reply Like
  • jwill919
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    They don't know what they're talking about, Asiana uses the PW4000, but British Airways did have Trents on its own 777 that crashed a few years ago.
    7 Jul 2013, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (563) | Send Message
     
    on still the flight data recorder and the flight recorder are recover
    everone is just guesting to the cause of the crash !

     

    It was 777-200 that hit a plyon or lightpost or the sea wall that cause the tail to brake off,
    the and cause the aircraft to spin on the ground
    flight date recoder and flight recorder are located in the aft cagro compartment just inside the aft cargo door and painted organge .

     

    Information
    ModeS: 71BF42
    Reg: HL7742
    Typecode: B772
    Type: Boeing 777-28EER
    Serial number: 29171
    Airline: Asiana Airlines

     

    Aircraft Type Reg Airline Delivered Became Remark
    c/n ln
    29171 553
    Boeing 777-28E(ER) HL7742 Asiana Airlines
    07-03-2006 Written Off

     

    The 777 was deign in 1989 and been in service since 1995
    The 777 is a fly wire and does not have self sealing fueling tanks, the skin thicken is .063 not .25 that being reported

     

    As of August 2012, the 777 has been in eight aviation occurrences,] including two hull-loss accidents, and two hijackings, with no fatalities among the passengers or crew.[ http://bit.ly/17YKzLT
    It appear the flight crew place the aircraft on at the being of the runway and made a hard landing to get the passenger off the aircraft due to the fire
    The 777 was design to have the engines and landing gears to break way on a hard landing
    After the crash of United Airlines Flight 232 a DC-10 in Iowa all commercial aircraft must a interior that will meet a crash landing of 9G
    After the crash of Swissair Flight 111 a Md-11 all commercial aircrafts must meet flammability required for the interior
    For photo of Asiana Airlines aircraft see
    http://binged.it/17YKzLX

     

    the other crash the press is forgetting about is Flight 6 a UPS 747-400F that crash carrying a load of Ion batteries
    http://bit.ly17YKCHnUPS_Airlines_Fl...
    7 Jul 2013, 05:29 AM Reply Like
  • healthythoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (3015) | Send Message
     
    June 2009 Airbus crash/Air France...pilot panic...An experienced pilot, even with fly by wire is a necessity & maybe rethinking sidesticks?

     

    "What had caused it to fall out of the sky?"

     

    " Airbus’s 'brilliant’ aircraft design may have contributed to one of the world’s worst aviation disasters and the deaths of all 228 onboard."

     

    "Critics of side sticks may now argue that Airbus should return to the drawing board."

     

    full text

     

    http://bit.ly/10GZE2y

     

    Airplanes are still safer than automobiles....

     

    The recent Asiana crash still being investigated. Amazingly all but 2 survived the crash...The loss of the 2 young students, is saddening...Many thoughts/prayers are with them & their families, as well as all survivors
    7 Jul 2013, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (563) | Send Message
     
    you statement is incorrect per the facts and the finding of the Safety board of the crash of af447

     

    Boeing 777 are fly by wire aircraft
    The FAA should adopt Airbus cockpit software protocol where the computer monitor all flight data of the aircraft and the computer fly the aircraft base on date that been inputted (Some military aircraft has similar software ) this would stop polit error where pilot are flying the aicraft on manual like flight 214
    (note the polit only has 43 hours in a 777 )
    The FAA should adopt Airbus cockpit software protocol where the computer monitor all flight data of the aircraft and the computer fly the aircraft base on date that been inputted (Some military aircraft has similar software )

     

    ======================...

     

    AF 447 was a Airbus A330-200’s the crash was caused by malfunctioning pitot probes provided inconsistent speed measurements and the pilots did not understand the rapidly deteriorating situation, failing to properly identify a stall situation or react promptly to it (ATW Daily News, Aug. 1, 2011
    The AF 447 was not the only aircraft that has crash there were a
    B-2 bomber also 5 other commercial jet due to malfunctioning pitot probes
    http://bit.ly/12S2ouO
    http://bit.ly/12S2ouR
    It is unknown if the aircraft pilots review the last satellite weather map before taking off shown the largest storm in history
    The flight before and after AF447 where able to fly into Europe
    but the pilot was not flying the aircraft he was busy becoming member of mile high club the same thing he did on other flight with he’s girlfriend
    Other aircraft before and after Af447 flight crew has change the weather setting to maximum ranger, the slower setting of the wealth radar only allow AF447 to see the first storm and only fifty miles ahead not the 2nd storm, AF447 was unaware it was flying into the larger storm in history
    you should the report
    http://bit.ly/12S2ouR
    AF447 could been a Boeing aircraft

     

    Also you may want to some reach of Boeing 747,
    http://bit.ly/12S2ouS
    where engine fuse pin had fail and the aircraft engine had come off kill people on the ground ,United flight 811 cargo door open in flight , UPS flight 6 a 747-400F, TWA fight 800,
    http://bit.ly/12S2ouS
    http://bit.ly/118w5UY
    China Airlines Flight 611 crashes stemmed from improper aircraft repair and Japan Airlines Flight 123 that kill everyone on board
    Boeing crashes

     

    As of December 2009, the 747 has been involved in 123 incidents,[184] including 48 hull-loss accidents,[185] resulting in 2,850 fatalities. The 747 has been in 31 hijackings which caused 25 fatalities.[186

     

    As of May 2009, the 767 has been in 40 incidents,[56] including 11 hull-loss accidents,[57] resulting in a total of 569 fatalities. The 767 has been in six hijackings involving 282 fatalities.[58]

     

    As of May 2010, the 777 has been in seven incidents,[151] including one hull-loss accident,[152] with no fatalities among the passengers or crew.[153] The only fatality involving the twinjet occurred in a refueling fire at Denver International Airport on September 5, 2001, during which a ground worker sustained fatal burns.[154] The aircraft, operated by British Airways, suffered scorching of the wings and was repaired and put back into service.[154]

     

    As of August 2009, the Boeing 757 has been involved in 22 incidents,[25] including 8 hull-loss accidents, resulting in a total of 700 fatalities (including 125 fatalities on ground due to terrorist hijacking and subsequent crash in the September 11, 2001 attacks).[26]

     

    As of May 2010, a total of 303 incidents involving 737s had occurred,[107] including 148 hull-loss accidents[108] resulting in a total of 4,097 fatalities. The 737 has also been in 106 hijackings involving 324 fatalities.[109]

     

    As of 2010, a total of 325 incidents involving 727s had occurred, including 110 hull-loss accidents[16] resulting in a total of 3,704 fatalities. The 727 has also been in 178 hijackings involving 345 fatalities.[17
    As of May 2007, the 707 has been in a total of 166 hull-loss occurrences[27] with 2,733 fatalities.[28]
    As of August 2009, the DC-10 was involved in 55 incidents,[32] including 30 hull-loss accidents,[33] with 1,261 fatalities.[34]
    Despite its troubled beginnings in the 1970s, which gave it an unfavorable reputation,[35] the DC-10 has proved a reliable aircraft.[36] The original DC-10-10's bad safety record continuously improved as design flaws were rectified and fleet hours increased. The DC-10's lifetime safety record is comparable to similar second-generation passenger jets as of 2008.[37] the DC-10 and Md -11 are still in freighter service and making profit for Boeing
    As of November 2009, the MD-11 was involved in 13 incidents,[34] including seven hull-loss accidents,[35] with 235 fatalities.[36]
    737 rudder problem has kill more people then Af447 A330
    See http://bit.ly/UShye9
    For incidents involving other 737 variants see Boeing 737 Classic incidents and Boeing 737 Next Generation incidents.
    As of April 2012, a total of 315 incidents involving 737s have occurred,[132] including 159 hull-loss accidents[133] resulting in a total of 4,236 fatalities. The 737 has also been in 106 hijackings involving 324 fatalities.[134]
    8 Jul 2013, 04:16 AM Reply Like
  • Perkins Cove
    , contributor
    Comments (634) | Send Message
     
    "doesn't believe". But by all reports the tail was too low, as reported by eye witnesses. Why would a pilot let the tail be too low? Thank God for those data recorders. The truth will come out.

     

    RIP 2 souls.
    7 Jul 2013, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • IncomeYield
    , contributor
    Comments (2225) | Send Message
     
    pilots are told from day one, "low and slow" is a very bad combo
    8 Jul 2013, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • jeff lauder
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Pilot error, pure and simple. Too slow, aircraft started to sink and pilot pitched up to break descent without adding power. I'd even bet they got a stall warning too.
    7 Jul 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • The Long Tail of Finance
    , contributor
    Comments (809) | Send Message
     
    Seems like evidence is pointing to pilot error. Could be the software used for landing the vehicle might have given some false readings, which the pilot would have to overcome and may have overcompensated for. We'll have to see what the final NTSB investigation indicates.
    7 Jul 2013, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • FlyFirstForever
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    I don't disagree with your Pilot Error, but take into consideration that the pilot could not land the plane using the airplanes ILS instrument landing system. It was out of service and not working since sometime in June 2013. ILS should never be out of service, especially in San Francisco where it is foggy on a regular basis. I think the FAA and US Government with all of its cut backs is a factor in this accident.
    7 Jul 2013, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • IncomeYield
    , contributor
    Comments (2225) | Send Message
     
    Appears they did add power but way too late. It takes a LONG time for the engines to spool up and arrest descent for a large jet like this one.

     

    Also it appears they did get the stall stick shaker.

     

    Counter intuitive, but pilots are taught to push the nose down (not pull back) even when close to the ground to prevent an outright stall. If they had done this, might have saved the landing or at least made it over the sea wall.
    8 Jul 2013, 01:20 AM Reply Like
  • IncomeYield
    , contributor
    Comments (2225) | Send Message
     
    And they recently moved the threshold so maybe not in the plane's computer.

     

    In any event, a bunch of other landings by others without a problem.

     

    Clear day, no wind, and a 2 mile long runway, and the plane was traveling outside the envelope (too slow and low) ???
    8 Jul 2013, 01:23 AM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1432) | Send Message
     
    The 777 can land on autopilot by evaluating where the runway is using runway radio signals. Here is an excerpt from an article written years ago on this. Check out the whole article at http://bit.ly/12bfgJb

     

    The auto landing procedure is executed automatically but the Captain still have to intervene to reduce speeds as the flaps are selected from 0, 1, 5, 20 and then to 30. At any time an emergency crops up, each pilot knows what to do because they have been covered during the briefing. Below 200 feet above ground level, the computers would ignore non-critical emergencies because pilots should not be disturbed at this very crucial phase of the landing.

     

    At 50 feet, the autopilot flares the airplane, a term to describe how it would raise the nose slightly to prepare for a soft landing. The computer would call out aurally the heights every 10 feet and then at around 25 feet, the throttles are closed. At this point, the airplane should sit onto the runway gently and roll along the centerline until it comes to a complete stop by the auto brakes with the pilot aiding it further with reverse thrusts. You are now safely landed! If the Captain is unable to see the taxiway because the visibility has further reduced, he may request a ‘Follow Me’ vehicle to guide the pilot to its parking bay.
    7 Jul 2013, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • Perkins Cove
    , contributor
    Comments (634) | Send Message
     
    COBee, Thanks for the info and link !
    7 Jul 2013, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • FlyFirstForever
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    I fly into SFO on Cathay Pacific long haul flights from Hong Kong on a regular basis. I prefer flying on CX Boeing 777-300ER. CX SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) instructs pilots to use the ILS approach on all landings regardless of the weather conditions. Cathay also flies this long haul with 4 pilots on board the plane.

     

    Does the ILS ( Instrument Landing System) work with the planes Auto Pilot ? The runway 28Left at SFO did NOT have the ILS up and working. So all planes landing at SFO on 28L had to land the plane using VFR Visual Flight Rules. The pilot with more then 10,000 hours of flight time was clearly a veteran. But I think this crash could have been prevented if the ILS was in working condition. Because I usually sit in the first row of the plane, I can over hear the cockpit of the plane upon landings and as you said it clearly 50 feet, 40, 30, 20, 10. I would think the Auto Pilot would know that the plane was landing short of the run way? Even on a clear, sunny day, with calm winds, flying over the water to land on runway 28R or 28L, the plane is supposed to actually land about 1000 feet after the runway starts. I don't want to speculate to the cause, but even on a sunny day, with calm winds I think this accident could have been prevented if the ILS systems at the airport was working. SFO is foggy on a very regular basis, I just can not understand how the ILS could not be working for several weeks.
    7 Jul 2013, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • IncomeYield
    , contributor
    Comments (2225) | Send Message
     
    It sounds like the plane was being operated outside of its approved envelope. Period.
    8 Jul 2013, 01:26 AM Reply Like
  • Viper740
    , contributor
    Comments (290) | Send Message
     
    It has now come out that the pilot had only 42 flight hours in the 777.

     

    Seems like an open and shut case of pilot error / negligence. He simply came in too low and realized it too late.

     

    The fat that ILS was off should not be an issue, as they are trained to land without it, and other planes were landing without it that day with no problems.

     

    At any rate, I hope they have not let the crew leave the country.
    8 Jul 2013, 04:39 AM Reply Like
  • FlyFirstForever
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Correction, the pilot in charge of this plane had over 10,000 hours of flight time on other Asian aircraft but he only had 45 hours of actual flight time in the Boeing 777-200ER. This was his maiden flight from S.Korea to the USA.

     

    According to the NTSP the flight was landing significantly below the 137 knots that the crew planned to land the plane. 4 seconds before impact, speed was increased because of a stall indicator warning. 1.5 seconds before impact CVR (cockpit voice recorder) crew said, "Go around" meaning they knew they were too slow, too low and tried to increase power to attempt to land the plane a second time.
    8 Jul 2013, 04:57 AM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (563) | Send Message
     
    Did history repeart itself ? runway 28L, flight 214 and Flight 845's On July 30, 1971, a Pan American 747 struck approach light structures for the reciprocal runway as it lifted off the runway 28L at San Francisco Airport.

     

    In 1971 a Pan American 747 struck approach light structures for the reciprocal runway as it lifted off the runway at San Francisco Airport.
    Flight 845's crew had planned and calculated their takeoff for runway 28L,
    http://bit.ly/12Tlxwd
    Major damage to the belly and landing gear resulted, which caused the loss of hydraulic fluid from three of its four flight control systems. The fluid which remained in the fourth system gave the captain very limited control of some of the spoilers, ailerons, and one inboard elevator. That was sufficient to circle the plane while fuel was dumped and then to make a hard landing. There were no fatalities, but there were some injuries.[34]

     

    ^ "Aircraft Accident Report Pan American World Airways Inc Boeing 747, N747PA Flight 845". NTSB. Retrieved 11 April 2011.

     

    http://bit.ly/12Tlxwj

     

    Pan Am Flight 845 was a Boeing 747-121, registration N747PA, operating as a scheduled international passenger flight between Los Angeles, CA and Tokyo, with an intermediate stop at San Francisco International Airport (ICAO: KSFO).[1]

     

    On July 30, 1971, at 15:29 PDT, while taking off from San Francisco bound for Tokyo, the aircraft struck approach lighting system structures located past the end of the runway, seriously injuring two passengers and sustaining significant damage. The crew continued the takeoff, flying out over the ocean and circling while dumping fuel, eventually returning for a landing in San Francisco. After coming to a stop, the crew ordered an emergency evacuation, during which 27 passengers were injured while exiting the aircraft, with eight of them suffering serious back injuries.[1][2][3] The accident was investigated by the NTSB, which determined the probable cause was the pilot's use of incorrect takeoff reference speeds.
    The NTSB also found various procedural failures in the dissemination and retrieval of flight safety information, which contributed to the accident.[1]

     

    Actions Flag Clear flag Print Message Show Message Status View Message Source --------- Move to: Inbox Spam Trash Saved Mail Saved Chats 2006 Ex girl fr... 2008 2009 A 1 Catia 2009 bisk colle... 2009 email 2009 jobs 2009 precision ... 2009 storage 2010 AIA 2010 alaska air... 2010 alerts@pat... 2010 Brookfield 2010 glen.depew 2010 itisichackett 2010 january email 2010 job 2010 jobs search 2010 lewisto 2010 listmanager 2010 northrop 2010 pimailer 2010 Sandra 2010 sjmeyers 2010 storage 2011 jobs search 2013 MCldrnman9 2013 Carol Keith A fall of 2009 ... aia banking becu beth boeing job catia cliff code enforcement dale deebeck emily f18 dave gary help unemployment Hillcrest Clinics job 2006 jobs 2007 jobs 2008 judy lot 80 house magie may banking 2007 NC UNEMPLOYMENT new house sander scott tanker Go to the next message control+alt+pageup Close message escape
    8 Jul 2013, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • IncomeYield
    , contributor
    Comments (2225) | Send Message
     
    The sea wall is the wildcard here. No excuse for "low and slow" as already stated most everywhere, BUT ...

     

    In a large jet, already nose high, pilot focus down the runway, easy to lose sight (no pun intended) of the sea wall. In other words, probably no one would expect an object sticking up at the approach end of a runway.

     

    The tail might have just snagged the sea wall like a fighter landing on an aircraft carrier. The pilots might have thought "we are ok", we will JUST make it, if not for the sea wall. Also maybe "get-home-itis". Long flight, nobody wants to go around.

     

    Combination of bad luck maybe compounded by what appears to be inattention to the planes overall config on approach -- flaps, airspeed, altitude, attitude (pitch).

     

    When I flew (just small planes) I liked to carry some extra speed onto the runway. No reason to completely stall the plane onto the runway IMO.
    I stayed away from a stall config unless training at altitude far away from the ground and other traffic. When I had passengers, I doubled/tripled my attention and envelope.
    9 Jul 2013, 11:27 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1432) | Send Message
     
    IMHO, an airport should never direct large planes like this to runways with broken ILS. It is not an excuse for the pilot error, but the probability is that it would have prevented this accident.
    10 Jul 2013, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • Perkins Cove
    , contributor
    Comments (634) | Send Message
     
    Good point.
    10 Jul 2013, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • joegillam
    , contributor
    Comments (406) | Send Message
     
    If an veterin internation pilot with three assistants can't land VFR on a two mile runway on a daylight landing with clear windless weather then I'll just swim to Korea on my next trip!
    30 Jul 2013, 01:23 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs