Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
There were dozens of attempts to replace the KC-135, but somehow it never happened, I suspect mainly because they were all new rather overcomplicated designs and everyone kept wanting to refuel vast number of supersonic bombers we had no use for. Just like the reason the B-52 still has 1950's turbojets instead of bypass engines (twice the power, half the fuel use, etc) -- no one could ever make a decision. My brother did quite a bit of design work on GE's military engines to reduce failure rate and improve operations, and in the time he was there not one single change was accepted because it would interrupt supply systems. I can see that to a certain point, but not to the point on paralysis. The main reason the DC-10 was selected over the L1011 or B747 as the new tanker was GE -- they were pissed off that neither Boeing nor Lockheed chose the CFM-6 for their widebodies (they wanted to put all the other engine makers out of business and have a monopoly), and having way too much political pull, nixed everything but the airframe they had an exclusive engine supply for. Less than stellar engine for many years, caused several crashes (some genius decided that since they never made bad parts it was unnecessary to x-ray finished parts, with the result that a large number of turbine disks had internal defects resulting in engine explosions -- the rear engine on Ship one blew up and shed the entire turbine assembly, luckily by flying out the rear without airframe damage, on the initial test flight according to gossip). It's fine now, I think, but they are all much better than the old jets. The main problem is way too much money, just like the main problem with the NSA getting all phone records -- the contractors are absorbing a vast portion of the US economy for no reason at all except to get filthy rich. Ah, politics! Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
B-52H's, only ones still in use, have always had turbofans -- TF-33; 17000 lbs trust; low, of course, with other, modern engines producing 90 - 100 klbs, etc. Wilton - Original Message - From: Peter Frederick psf...@earthlink.net To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana There were dozens of attempts to replace the KC-135, but somehow it never happened, I suspect mainly because they were all new rather overcomplicated designs and everyone kept wanting to refuel vast number of supersonic bombers we had no use for. Just like the reason the B-52 still has 1950's turbojets instead of bypass engines (twice the power, half the fuel use, etc) -- no one could ever make a decision. My brother did quite a bit of design work on GE's military engines to reduce failure rate and improve operations, and in the time he was there not one single change was accepted because it would interrupt supply systems. I can see that to a certain point, but not to the point on paralysis. The main reason the DC-10 was selected over the L1011 or B747 as the new tanker was GE -- they were pissed off that neither Boeing nor Lockheed chose the CFM-6 for their widebodies (they wanted to put all the other engine makers out of business and have a monopoly), and having way too much political pull, nixed everything but the airframe they had an exclusive engine supply for. Less than stellar engine for many years, caused several crashes (some genius decided that since they never made bad parts it was unnecessary to x-ray finished parts, with the result that a large number of turbine disks had internal defects resulting in engine explosions -- the rear engine on Ship one blew up and shed the entire turbine assembly, luckily by flying out the rear without airframe damage, on the initial test flight according to gossip). It's fine now, I think, but they are all much better than the old jets. The main problem is way too much money, just like the main problem with the NSA getting all phone records -- the contractors are absorbing a vast portion of the US economy for no reason at all except to get filthy rich. Ah, politics! Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Yeah, a military engine rather than a commerical one (they tend to have much better reilability, eh?). Way low on power since a JT-7D usually runs around 25,000 lbs static thrust if I remember correctly. The C5A still uses that miserable high-bypass turbofan GE built for it, in spite of the fact that even GE has been trying to get them to change it for at least 40 years. It's a first generation engine designed in a hurry, with the result that it's a fuel pig, has very low reliability, and is horribly expensive. A good deal of the operational difficulties with the C5A and later super-lifters would be cured by modern engines, and the Air Force refuses to consider replacement. GE even offered to do the engineering for free got get rid of it, was rejected out of hand. The joys of the military-industrial complex, eh? Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Ten to twelve years ago, Boeing and Pratt Whitney or GE proposed an engine up-grade, lease arrangement for B-52H's - replace the eight TF-33's on each with four much more efficient, much higher thrust, surplus airline engines. Air Force refused the offer - 'didn't want a civilian company to own its critical/necessary engines in case of war. Wilton - Original Message - From: Peter Frederick psf...@earthlink.net To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana Yeah, a military engine rather than a commerical one (they tend to have much better reilability, eh?). Way low on power since a JT-7D usually runs around 25,000 lbs static thrust if I remember correctly. The C5A still uses that miserable high-bypass turbofan GE built for it, in spite of the fact that even GE has been trying to get them to change it for at least 40 years. It's a first generation engine designed in a hurry, with the result that it's a fuel pig, has very low reliability, and is horribly expensive. A good deal of the operational difficulties with the C5A and later super-lifters would be cured by modern engines, and the Air Force refuses to consider replacement. GE even offered to do the engineering for free got get rid of it, was rejected out of hand. The joys of the military-industrial complex, eh? Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Since one of those companies produces the TF-33 (likely PW), that's just hot air. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
That is stupid. The civilian company owning the engines part. --R On 7/27/13 11:13 AM, WILTON wrote: Ten to twelve years ago, Boeing and Pratt Whitney or GE proposed an engine up-grade, lease arrangement for B-52H's - replace the eight TF-33's on each with four much more efficient, much higher thrust, surplus airline engines. Air Force refused the offer - 'didn't want a civilian company to own its critical/necessary engines in case of war. Wilton - Original Message - From: Peter Frederick psf...@earthlink.net To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana Yeah, a military engine rather than a commerical one (they tend to have much better reilability, eh?). Way low on power since a JT-7D usually runs around 25,000 lbs static thrust if I remember correctly. The C5A still uses that miserable high-bypass turbofan GE built for it, in spite of the fact that even GE has been trying to get them to change it for at least 40 years. It's a first generation engine designed in a hurry, with the result that it's a fuel pig, has very low reliability, and is horribly expensive. A good deal of the operational difficulties with the C5A and later super-lifters would be cured by modern engines, and the Air Force refuses to consider replacement. GE even offered to do the engineering for free got get rid of it, was rejected out of hand. The joys of the military-industrial complex, eh? Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Peter Frederick psf...@earthlink.net writes: Well, the DC-10 was hardly the cutting edge technology -- the L1011 was a vastly superior airframe in just about any way you want to compare them, and never suffered from unexpected engine separations or doors blowing off. The engine separations were caused by airlines inventing an engine removal procedure that was not approved by MD. The cargo door design was flawed, though once understood the problem could be mitigated. Otherwise the aircraft has been reliable and is still in wide use as a freighter and still in passenger service in some countries. It is most definintely an aircraft from another era at this point, unless refitted with a glass cockpit it has a gauges and switches cockpit and requires a 3-man crew to operate. -- Allan Streib ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Thank you Allan, for putting the engine separation blame where it belongs. Bad maintenance can ruin any machine. Scott -Original Message- From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of Allan Streib Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:50 PM To: Peter Frederick; Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana Peter Frederick psf...@earthlink.net writes: Well, the DC-10 was hardly the cutting edge technology -- the L1011 was a vastly superior airframe in just about any way you want to compare them, and never suffered from unexpected engine separations or doors blowing off. The engine separations were caused by airlines inventing an engine removal procedure that was not approved by MD. The cargo door design was flawed, though once understood the problem could be mitigated. Otherwise the aircraft has been reliable and is still in wide use as a freighter and still in passenger service in some countries. It is most definintely an aircraft from another era at this point, unless refitted with a glass cockpit it has a gauges and switches cockpit and requires a 3-man crew to operate. -- Allan Streib ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
The DC-10 was a troubled aircraft (which doesn't explain why the USAF uses dozens of them as mid-air re-fuelers) By comparison to the KC-135 (still the most common USAF refueler) the KC-10 is a joy. The KC-10 boom and boomer station is a great improvement too. Few people (well, Wilton does) really appreciate how old our front-line military systems are. The F-15 was designed with '60s technology. The F-16 was designed with early 70s technology. The USAF planned to junk the A-10s (70s technology but a primitive aircraft) until the gulf war. The B-52s and KC-135s are 50s technology. Most avionics and some engines have been upgraded but they are still old birds, for the most part. The new stuff (like F-22s) is not plentiful and never will be. Scott -Original Message- From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of Peter Frederick Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 5:29 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana Nope, on that DC-10 the engine separated shortly after takeoff disabling one hydraulic system and half the electrical power, hydraulic powered slat retracted on the starboard wing and not the port (if I remember correctly, could have been the other way), plane immediately rolled over and nosed in. Proximate cause was un-intended engine separation due to some very creative installation procedures cooked up by American without consulting MD, some design issues with the mounting flange in the wing (prone to cracks). Immediate cause was uncommanded slat retraction (no lock, something needed as any loss of hydraulic pressure will result in uncommanded retraction) resulting in asymetric lift at a critical time -- noise abatement turn at low speed. The crew entered here because it was possible to fly it out IF the pilots knew the slat had retracted. Sadly, the warning system was disabled by the engine separation so by the time the pilots realized what was going on they were upside down and going in. The DC-10 was a troubled aircraft (which doesn't explain why the USAF uses dozens of them as mid-air re-fuelers) -- designed in a hurry in a company recently taken over and severely shaken up by a military contractor, with WAY to much input in safety systems by airlines trying to save money on very expensive aircraft they didn't really need. Doors bursting open at altitude, engine cowlings coming adrift and stripping the fan blades (at least twice on a single aircraft), engine turbine disks blowing up repeatedly (thank you, GE), inadequate floor strength, shared by the early 747 and the L-1011, although the Lockheed was much better. Cogent point is that nasty surprises often crash airplanes, and systems really must be designed to keep the pilot informed at all times, correctly, and with adequate warning. Since all commercial aircraft are VERY complex these days, training has to be adequate, too, and is very often the weak link. This is different than the Air France debacle where you have one pilot shouting climb, climb, climb and pulling the stick all the way back and the other pilot shouting dive, dive, dive and shoving the stick all the way forward, when all they needed to do was let go and turn the autopilot back on Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Well, the DC-10 was hardly the cutting edge technology -- the L1011 was a vastly superior airframe in just about any way you want to compare them, and never suffered from unexpected engine separations or doors blowing off. The KC-135 should have been retired in the mid 60's, it's a horrible airplane (BOAC refused delivery of the original 707 due to instability problems and the KC-135 never got the improvements). Grossly underpowered, nearly uncontrollable at low speeds (straight turbojets until it was parked for good), but the good people who run the military could never decide on who was going to get the contract to replace it. They were the same people who bought the C5A from Lockheed when they didn't have a design in the competition (the plane they submitted was half the size, literally). The military procurement system is rotten all the way through, that's why we have half billion dollar bombers that can only fly a hundred hours or so between five week long overhauls. We keep pissing ourselves over vastly complicated do everything equipment that, like Hitler's tanks, turns out to be too big, to heavy, to fuel greedy, and to complicated to use much. The Ruskies had standard wire cable with hydraulic boost controls up to the Mig 23 -- I think their first major fly-by-wire was the Mig 31, and it's simple, not smart. Needless to say, they are cheaper and much easier to keep flying Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Comments embedded On Behalf Of Peter Frederick Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:40 PM Well, the DC-10 was hardly the cutting edge technology ... **Perhaps not the most important criteria for a gas passer. Only one USAF KC-10 was lost and that was to a ground fire during maintenance.** The KC-135 should have been retired in the mid 60's, it's a horrible airplane (BOAC refused delivery of the original 707 ... ** Sure but without a replacement that means getting out of the air refueling business (probably something Obama would favor). By the way, the 707 was much improved over the C/KC-135.** They were the same people who bought the C5A .. ** Not really the same people.** The military procurement system is rotten ... ** No argument there but the main problem is the unending series of reforms that give authority to everybody and responsibility to nobody. ** We keep pissing ourselves over vastly complicated do everything equipment ... ** The requirements process has been truly broken for a long time (think F-111). When the warfighters got to own requirement without an ability to assess cost or technical risk it was not a good thing. Almost as bad, acquisition program execution is regularly sabotaged by budget instability (DC politics) and personel instability (Service politics). ** **Scott** ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
In a prior life as a student at the USAF Test Pilot School, we had a two-week field trip that included the TWA simulation center in Kansas City. I'll never forget what one of the TWA instructors told us. I'm not sure of his exact words but the gist was: You need to understand that these guys aren't really professional aviators like us. Scott -Original Message- From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of WILTON Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:55 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana No. Like I said, regardless of auto this or auto that, there is no excuse for not monitoring attitude, airspeed and altitude, especially in critical stages of flight, and, no matter how bad things may get (weather, SAM's, SWMBO digging fingernails into inner thigh demanding to know, What is that noise? etc.) you must continue to fly the airplane. Wilton ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:29:13 -0400 Scott Ritchey ritche...@nc.rr.com wrote: In a prior life as a student at the USAF Test Pilot School, we had a two-week field trip that included the TWA simulation center in Kansas City. I'll never forget what one of the TWA instructors told us. I'm not sure of his exact words but the gist was: You need to understand that these guys aren't really professional aviators like us. I hesitate to request an explanation, but your use of pronouns leaves me confused about whom and to whom the TWA instructor was talking. Craig ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Scott wrote: I'll never forget what one of the TWA instructors told us. I'm not sure of his exact words but the gist was: You need to understand that these guys aren't really professional aviators like us. That is changing perhaps with the children of magenta. My son has similar experiences with hiring pilots. Similar to the criticism of the Asiana pilots - they know Rote but they do not know Application or Correlation - terminology used by the FAA that my son learned. mao ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Specifics: The year was 1977. The TWA instructor was speaking to members of my TPS class: mostly USAF officers but also a Naval aviator, a Marine, a couple of Canadians, an Italian, and an Israeli (all military). The comment was made after one of my class members asked about the cockpit mockups, which were identical to a real cockpit but non functional. The TWA instructor said the TWA pilots took their qualification tests in the mockups, which were clearly placarded with numerous warnings and things like limit airspeeds. Since we took our STANDEVAL tests at a desk some of us students thought it was cheating to have access to that information posted all over the mockup cockpit when the crews were being tested on many of those same facts. Apparently this was a union thing based on rationale that the only time the crews needed to know that stuff was when they were in the cockpit so that's how they should be tested. For us TPS students, flying was the focus of our lives at that point. Apparently less so for some commercial air crews according to that instructor. Sorry you asked? Scott -Original Message- From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of Craig Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:41 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:29:13 -0400 Scott Ritchey ritche...@nc.rr.com wrote: In a prior life as a student at the USAF Test Pilot School, we had a two-week field trip that included the TWA simulation center in Kansas City. I'll never forget what one of the TWA instructors told us. I'm not sure of his exact words but the gist was: You need to understand that these guys aren't really professional aviators like us. I hesitate to request an explanation, but your use of pronouns leaves me confused about whom and to whom the TWA instructor was talking. Craig ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:43:18 -0400 Scott Ritchey ritche...@nc.rr.com wrote: Specifics: The year was 1977. The TWA instructor was speaking to members of my TPS class: mostly USAF officers but also a Naval aviator, a Marine, a couple of Canadians, an Italian, and an Israeli (all military). The comment was made after one of my class members asked about the cockpit mockups, which were identical to a real cockpit but non functional. The TWA instructor said the TWA pilots took their qualification tests in the mockups, which were clearly placarded with numerous warnings and things like limit airspeeds. Since we took our STANDEVAL tests at a desk some of us students thought it was cheating to have access to that information posted all over the mockup cockpit when the crews were being tested on many of those same facts. Apparently this was a union thing based on rationale that the only time the crews needed to know that stuff was when they were in the cockpit so that's how they should be tested. For us TPS students, flying was the focus of our lives at that point. Apparently less so for some commercial air crews according to that instructor. Sorry you asked? Actually, no. To translate the additional information into your original comment then, I'll never forget what one of the TWA instructors told my class of USAF officers and other nations' military pilots. You need to understand that the TWA pilots aren't really professional aviators like we are. Did I get that correct? Craig ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
You've got a great memory! LarryT 91 300D On 7/21/2013 5:40 PM, Rich Thomas wrote: Was that the one where the pilot was screaming allahuwa akbar as he bored the plane in? --R On 7/21/13 5:29 PM, Peter Frederick wrote: This is different than the Air France debacle where you have one pilot shouting climb, climb, climb and pulling the stick all the way back and the other pilot shouting dive, dive, dive and shoving the stick all the way forward, when all they needed to do was let go and turn the autopilot back on Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Well, for trivia. Don't remember what I ate for lunch, though! The DC-10 crash I remember very well because a friend of mine took that flight back home for holidays from school, and I thought she was on the plane. Not a pleasant memory. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
The rest of the story about SWMBO's fingernails digging into inner thigh: In July of '75, I had flown SWMBO and daughter from Sault Ste. Marie, MI, to Greenville, NC, aboard a Cessna 182 for daughter's college freshman orientation weekend. Returning to The Soo mid-afternoon Sunday over Ohio headed toward Detroit. At about 13 kft on top of nearly solid undercast; thunderstorms to 60 kft all around and ahead in Detroit area; altered course to the east in tending to cross middle of Lake Erie and Ontario between Lakes Huron and Erie; radio above my left ear talking continuously about the thunderstorms to 60 kft. Suddenly, the sound of, stall warning horn got our attention! Quick glance at instruments showed what I already knew: straight and level, good airspeed, etc. Pushed slight forward pressure on control column to descend and accelerate slightly, etc., no change in pitch and intensity of stall warning. Glance out at stall warning device on leading edge of left wing revealed nothing unusual. Sound of slipstream, airspeed indication, altimeter, etc., showed that airplane was doing exactly what I asked it to do. The loud sound in my ears said, You are stalling! Everything else told me, You are NOT stalling, you have complete control of the aircraft. I pulled back on control column to purposely and significantly change angle of attack, climb, slow down, etc. Pitch and intensity of stall warning never changed. Meanwhile, while I was still descending slightly, SWMBO looked down through hole in clouds below us and saw Lake Erie. She grabbed my right thigh, digging fingernails into inner part and nearly screamed, We're going down, we're going down! We're over water, we're over water! I replied, I know we're going down; I pushed it down; I have complete control of the aircraft. Hush! About this time, I pulled back and began to climb, slow, etc. SWMBO spotted Detroit International Airport and said, There's an airport, YOU LAND RIGHT NOW! I replied, We're OK; I have control of the aircraft. We're OK. She said, fingernails still digging in, Well, explain that noise, then! I replied, I can't explain it, but I have control of the aircraft - we're OK. Again, I glanced out at stall warning device on left wing leading edge. As I brought my vision back inside, I noticed the ram air scoop/register near the upper left corner of the windshield and near leading edge of the left wing. I reached for the ram air scoop/register and pulled it out slightly; stall warning ceased instantly. On takeoff after refueling at Mansfield, OH, there was too much air blowing on me, and I had reached up and pushed the vent closed; over Lake Erie, it had finally open enough to vibrate and sound exactly like stall warning. Wilton - Original Message - From: Randy Bennell rbenn...@bennell.ca To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana On 20/07/2013 9:54 PM, WILTON wrote: No. Like I said, regardless of auto this or auto that, there is no excuse for not monitoring attitude, airspeed and altitude, especially in critical stages of flight, and, no matter how bad things may get (weather, SAM's, SWMBO digging fingernails into inner thigh demanding to know, What is that noise? etc.) you must continue to fly the airplane. Wilton Sort of like driving a car. It has become much easier with automatic transmission, automatic choke and now fuel injection, automatic climate control, etc BUT at the end of the day, you still need to keep the vehicle on the road between the ditches and avoid other cars. Randy ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Thanks for that story! I now know that the fresh air can sound like the stall horn. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, WILTON wilt...@nc.rr.com wrote: The rest of the story about SWMBO's fingernails digging into inner thigh: In July of '75, I had flown SWMBO and daughter from Sault Ste. Marie, MI, to Greenville, NC, aboard a Cessna 182 for daughter's college freshman orientation weekend. Returning to The Soo mid-afternoon Sunday over Ohio headed toward Detroit. At about 13 kft on top of nearly solid undercast; thunderstorms to 60 kft all around and ahead in Detroit area; altered course to the east in tending to cross middle of Lake Erie and Ontario between Lakes Huron and Erie; radio above my left ear talking continuously about the thunderstorms to 60 kft. Suddenly, the sound of, stall warning horn got our attention! Quick glance at instruments showed what I already knew: straight and level, good airspeed, etc. Pushed slight forward pressure on control column to descend and accelerate slightly, etc., no change in pitch and intensity of stall warning. Glance out at stall warning device on leading edge of left wing revealed nothing unusual. Sound of slipstream, airspeed indication, altimeter, etc., showed that airplane was doing exactly what I asked it to do. The loud sound in my ears said, You are stalling! Everything else told me, You are NOT stalling, you have complete control of the aircraft. I pulled back on control column to purposely and significantly change angle of attack, climb, slow down, etc. Pitch and intensity of stall warning never changed. Meanwhile, while I was still descending slightly, SWMBO looked down through hole in clouds below us and saw Lake Erie. She grabbed my right thigh, digging fingernails into inner part and nearly screamed, We're going down, we're going down! We're over water, we're over water! I replied, I know we're going down; I pushed it down; I have complete control of the aircraft. Hush! About this time, I pulled back and began to climb, slow, etc. SWMBO spotted Detroit International Airport and said, There's an airport, YOU LAND RIGHT NOW! I replied, We're OK; I have control of the aircraft. We're OK. She said, fingernails still digging in, Well, explain that noise, then! I replied, I can't explain it, but I have control of the aircraft - we're OK. Again, I glanced out at stall warning device on left wing leading edge. As I brought my vision back inside, I noticed the ram air scoop/register near the upper left corner of the windshield and near leading edge of the left wing. I reached for the ram air scoop/register and pulled it out slightly; stall warning ceased instantly. On takeoff after refueling at Mansfield, OH, there was too much air blowing on me, and I had reached up and pushed the vent closed; over Lake Erie, it had finally open enough to vibrate and sound exactly like stall warning. Wilton - Original Message - From: Randy Bennell rbenn...@bennell.ca To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana On 20/07/2013 9:54 PM, WILTON wrote: No. Like I said, regardless of auto this or auto that, there is no excuse for not monitoring attitude, airspeed and altitude, especially in critical stages of flight, and, no matter how bad things may get (weather, SAM's, SWMBO digging fingernails into inner thigh demanding to know, What is that noise? etc.) you must continue to fly the airplane. Wilton Sort of like driving a car. It has become much easier with automatic transmission, automatic choke and now fuel injection, automatic climate control, etc BUT at the end of the day, you still need to keep the vehicle on the road between the ditches and avoid other cars. Randy __**_ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/**archive/http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/**mailman/listinfo/mercedes_**okiebenz.comhttp://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com __**_ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/**archive/http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/**mailman/listinfo/mercedes_**okiebenz.comhttp://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- OK Don 2013 F150, 19 mpg 2012 Passat TDI DSG, 45 mpg 1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph! ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
On 20/07/2013 9:54 PM, WILTON wrote: No. Like I said, regardless of auto this or auto that, there is no excuse for not monitoring attitude, airspeed and altitude, especially in critical stages of flight, and, no matter how bad things may get (weather, SAM's, SWMBO digging fingernails into inner thigh demanding to know, What is that noise? etc.) you must continue to fly the airplane. Wilton Sort of like driving a car. It has become much easier with automatic transmission, automatic choke and now fuel injection, automatic climate control, etc BUT at the end of the day, you still need to keep the vehicle on the road between the ditches and avoid other cars. Randy ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
At 12:53 PM -0400 7/22/13, WILTON wrote: On takeoff after refueling at Mansfield, OH, there was too much air blowing on me, and I had reached up and pushed the vent closed; over Lake Erie, it had finally open enough to vibrate and sound exactly like stall warning. Hee! Good story. Closest I can come to something like that was the time I was practicing a flaps-up landing in a Cessna 152 at Whiteman Airpark in Pacoima thirty years ago, while they were repaving the runoff strip at the far end of the runway. Talk about a long landing roll! And that poor traffic cone would never be quite the same... interestingly enough, the bugger didn't hit the ground UNTIL I had the engine stopped and was checking the prop for damage (just a couple smears of rubber), so it probably got close to pattern altitude on its lonesome... -MMM- ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
'Sure can - 'zackly! Wilton - Original Message - From: OK Don okd...@gmail.com To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana Thanks for that story! I now know that the fresh air can sound like the stall horn. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, WILTON wilt...@nc.rr.com wrote: The rest of the story about SWMBO's fingernails digging into inner thigh: In July of '75, I had flown SWMBO and daughter from Sault Ste. Marie, MI, to Greenville, NC, aboard a Cessna 182 for daughter's college freshman orientation weekend. Returning to The Soo mid-afternoon Sunday over Ohio headed toward Detroit. At about 13 kft on top of nearly solid undercast; thunderstorms to 60 kft all around and ahead in Detroit area; altered course to the east in tending to cross middle of Lake Erie and Ontario between Lakes Huron and Erie; radio above my left ear talking continuously about the thunderstorms to 60 kft. Suddenly, the sound of, stall warning horn got our attention! Quick glance at instruments showed what I already knew: straight and level, good airspeed, etc. Pushed slight forward pressure on control column to descend and accelerate slightly, etc., no change in pitch and intensity of stall warning. Glance out at stall warning device on leading edge of left wing revealed nothing unusual. Sound of slipstream, airspeed indication, altimeter, etc., showed that airplane was doing exactly what I asked it to do. The loud sound in my ears said, You are stalling! Everything else told me, You are NOT stalling, you have complete control of the aircraft. I pulled back on control column to purposely and significantly change angle of attack, climb, slow down, etc. Pitch and intensity of stall warning never changed. Meanwhile, while I was still descending slightly, SWMBO looked down through hole in clouds below us and saw Lake Erie. She grabbed my right thigh, digging fingernails into inner part and nearly screamed, We're going down, we're going down! We're over water, we're over water! I replied, I know we're going down; I pushed it down; I have complete control of the aircraft. Hush! About this time, I pulled back and began to climb, slow, etc. SWMBO spotted Detroit International Airport and said, There's an airport, YOU LAND RIGHT NOW! I replied, We're OK; I have control of the aircraft. We're OK. She said, fingernails still digging in, Well, explain that noise, then! I replied, I can't explain it, but I have control of the aircraft - we're OK. Again, I glanced out at stall warning device on left wing leading edge. As I brought my vision back inside, I noticed the ram air scoop/register near the upper left corner of the windshield and near leading edge of the left wing. I reached for the ram air scoop/register and pulled it out slightly; stall warning ceased instantly. On takeoff after refueling at Mansfield, OH, there was too much air blowing on me, and I had reached up and pushed the vent closed; over Lake Erie, it had finally open enough to vibrate and sound exactly like stall warning. Wilton - Original Message - From: Randy Bennell rbenn...@bennell.ca To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana On 20/07/2013 9:54 PM, WILTON wrote: No. Like I said, regardless of auto this or auto that, there is no excuse for not monitoring attitude, airspeed and altitude, especially in critical stages of flight, and, no matter how bad things may get (weather, SAM's, SWMBO digging fingernails into inner thigh demanding to know, What is that noise? etc.) you must continue to fly the airplane. Wilton Sort of like driving a car. It has become much easier with automatic transmission, automatic choke and now fuel injection, automatic climate control, etc BUT at the end of the day, you still need to keep the vehicle on the road between the ditches and avoid other cars. Randy __**_ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/**archive/http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/**mailman/listinfo/mercedes_**okiebenz.comhttp://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com __**_ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/**archive/http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/**mailman/listinfo/mercedes_**okiebenz.comhttp://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- OK Don 2013 F150, 19 mpg 2012 Passat TDI DSG, 45 mpg 1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph! ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
I went drinking beer yesterday with a friend who is a retired USAir (+Force) pilot. I asked him when he landed his airplanes if he ever failed to monitor airspeed and altitude and power and all that. He just laughed and said Sum Ting Wong was a compete failure as a pilot, no matter what kind of airplane and fancy electronics he was dealing with. --R On 7/20/13 10:54 PM, WILTON wrote: No. Like I said, regardless of auto this or auto that, there is no excuse for not monitoring attitude, airspeed and altitude, especially in critical stages of flight, and, no matter how bad things may get (weather, SAM's, SWMBO digging fingernails into inner thigh demanding to know, What is that noise? etc.) you must continue to fly the airplane. Wilton - Original Message - From: Mountain Man maontin@gmail.com To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:06 PM Subject: [MBZ] OT - Asiana Maybe the crew did the proper things? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk mao ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
I would disagree about the DC-10 comparison, in that as far as we know this aircraft was undamaged and functioning perfectly in all respects. The FLCH trap is ostensibly a well-known idiosyncracy of the 777 automation and thus FLCH mode is not advised during approach, but perhaps through training oversight the OZ pilots were not well-drilled on this fact. I think you are right that this is ultimately a combination of unlikely events, the classic alignment of all the holes in the swiss cheese which thankfully happens rarely. The other thing I come back to though, is that almost without exception every analysis I've seen by anyone who actually flies the 777 says that there is no excuse for the crew failing to monitor their approach parameters and either correcting them in time or going around. Peter Frederick psf...@earthlink.net writes: Well, the real point is was this a stupid pilot error or an error the pilot made when he though he was doing something else, or alternatively a training issue where the pilot did something he should not have when he thought he was doing something else, and what he did was what he was taught to do. One does NOT land one of these things like one does a single engine Cesna on a clear day with no wind, I suspect the only time they are landed without autothrottle control is when something is wrong with the aircraft. It's foolish to manually control the airspeed when the autospeed does a better job anyway. We will see, the NTSB generally does a superb job of accident investigation, and what exactly happened will get ferreted out eventually. Probably going to take some time, though. This is similar to the AA DC-10 crash in Chicago back in the mid 70's where the engine came off just after liftoff. The crew failed to correct for the loss of lift on the affected wing due to leading edge slat retraction upon hydraulic failure and the aircraft rolled over and crashed. It was very easy to compensate for, all the crew had to do was retract the slat on the other side to balance the lift, so you could call that pilot error. However, since the power for the mis- match slat extension warning was supplied only by the engine that ripped off, there was no warning and the plane rolled over too far to recover before the crew could fix it. They DID cotton on the the problem, but only after it was too late to save the plane. Was that pilot error? No, every single DC-10 pilot who flew the accident on a simulator crashed the plane, every time. If the slat mis-match warning was enabled, every single one flew it out with no issues and landed safely. Pilot error? Not really. If the Asiana crew thought the autothrottle was set and working, as it always was on landing a 777, and it did NOT control the speed as the aircraft approached the set landing speed AND there was no audible or visual warning that the speed was not being controlled by the autothrottle, is that pilot error or a training/equipment problem? There is, from what I've read, at least one flight mode where the autothrottle is deactivated AND the speed warning/autothrottle failure is ALSO deactivated (look up FLCH trapon the 777). Remember, SFO ATC is well known for not giving final approach clearance until the landing aircraft is past the inital flight slope and too high, requiring some fancy flying to get the plane down to glide slope and into stable approach conditions. The ALPA has been complaining for decades, this is not a new problem. So think this scenario: ATC doesn't give landing clearance until the ASIANA flight is past the initial point on the glide slope. This is against company rules, since it requires an un-stabilized approach, but it's routine at SFO. It's also not a big problem, but to get down to glide slope, it's necessary to idle way back on the engines and descend a bit faster than normal. This is a computer operated plane, you don't manually handle the throttles much, you select the speed you want and the rate of descent. However, since you are over the glide slope, you have to use some flight mode on the computer that lets you do so, and in this case, if the crew selected FLCH (flight level change) and did NOT realized that doing so deactivates the auto throttle AND the auto throttle failed to engage -- speed too low warning, we are in a situation where the crew expects the autothrottle to control the speed and is NOT watching the rate of speed loss very carefully, they are watching to make sure they achieve glide slope and don't have to go around to avoid an over-run by landing too fast too far down the runway. During the last few seconds of the approach, the engines don't come up, speed starts to drop below set landing speed, crew has to figure out why (remember, they always use auto throttle speed control), and oops,
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
'Zackly, re. failure to monitor critical info. Wilton - Original Message - From: Allan Streib str...@cs.indiana.edu To: Peter Frederick psf...@earthlink.net; Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana I would disagree about the DC-10 comparison, in that as far as we know this aircraft was undamaged and functioning perfectly in all respects. The FLCH trap is ostensibly a well-known idiosyncracy of the 777 automation and thus FLCH mode is not advised during approach, but perhaps through training oversight the OZ pilots were not well-drilled on this fact. I think you are right that this is ultimately a combination of unlikely events, the classic alignment of all the holes in the swiss cheese which thankfully happens rarely. The other thing I come back to though, is that almost without exception every analysis I've seen by anyone who actually flies the 777 says that there is no excuse for the crew failing to monitor their approach parameters and either correcting them in time or going around. Peter Frederick psf...@earthlink.net writes: Well, the real point is was this a stupid pilot error or an error the pilot made when he though he was doing something else, or alternatively a training issue where the pilot did something he should not have when he thought he was doing something else, and what he did was what he was taught to do. One does NOT land one of these things like one does a single engine Cesna on a clear day with no wind, I suspect the only time they are landed without autothrottle control is when something is wrong with the aircraft. It's foolish to manually control the airspeed when the autospeed does a better job anyway. We will see, the NTSB generally does a superb job of accident investigation, and what exactly happened will get ferreted out eventually. Probably going to take some time, though. This is similar to the AA DC-10 crash in Chicago back in the mid 70's where the engine came off just after liftoff. The crew failed to correct for the loss of lift on the affected wing due to leading edge slat retraction upon hydraulic failure and the aircraft rolled over and crashed. It was very easy to compensate for, all the crew had to do was retract the slat on the other side to balance the lift, so you could call that pilot error. However, since the power for the mis- match slat extension warning was supplied only by the engine that ripped off, there was no warning and the plane rolled over too far to recover before the crew could fix it. They DID cotton on the the problem, but only after it was too late to save the plane. Was that pilot error? No, every single DC-10 pilot who flew the accident on a simulator crashed the plane, every time. If the slat mis-match warning was enabled, every single one flew it out with no issues and landed safely. Pilot error? Not really. If the Asiana crew thought the autothrottle was set and working, as it always was on landing a 777, and it did NOT control the speed as the aircraft approached the set landing speed AND there was no audible or visual warning that the speed was not being controlled by the autothrottle, is that pilot error or a training/equipment problem? There is, from what I've read, at least one flight mode where the autothrottle is deactivated AND the speed warning/autothrottle failure is ALSO deactivated (look up FLCH trapon the 777). Remember, SFO ATC is well known for not giving final approach clearance until the landing aircraft is past the inital flight slope and too high, requiring some fancy flying to get the plane down to glide slope and into stable approach conditions. The ALPA has been complaining for decades, this is not a new problem. So think this scenario: ATC doesn't give landing clearance until the ASIANA flight is past the initial point on the glide slope. This is against company rules, since it requires an un-stabilized approach, but it's routine at SFO. It's also not a big problem, but to get down to glide slope, it's necessary to idle way back on the engines and descend a bit faster than normal. This is a computer operated plane, you don't manually handle the throttles much, you select the speed you want and the rate of descent. However, since you are over the glide slope, you have to use some flight mode on the computer that lets you do so, and in this case, if the crew selected FLCH (flight level change) and did NOT realized that doing so deactivates the auto throttle AND the auto throttle failed to engage -- speed too low warning, we are in a situation where the crew expects the autothrottle to control the speed and is NOT watching the rate of speed loss very carefully, they are watching to make sure they achieve glide slope and don't have to go around to avoid an over-run by landing too fast too far down the runway. During the last few seconds of the approach, the engines don't come up, speed starts to drop
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Allan Streib wrote: The other thing I come back to though, is that almost without exception every analysis I've seen by anyone who actually flies the 777 says that there is no excuse for the crew failing to monitor their approach parameters and either correcting them in time or going around. I like the going around idea. The simple answer to getting landing clearance after you are above glide slope is to go around one more time and approach on glide path. If every pilot did that, the controllers might have to change their ways. Mitch. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
I may be thinking of the wrong DC-10 event, but by recollection is the pilots still had complete control of the airplane until they transitioned to the steeper, slower noise abatement climb out. -Original Message- From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of Peter Frederick Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 12:42 AM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana Well, the real point is was this a stupid pilot error or an error the pilot made when he though he was doing something else, or alternatively a training issue where the pilot did something he should not have when he thought he was doing something else, and what he did was what he was taught to do. One does NOT land one of these things like one does a single engine Cesna on a clear day with no wind, I suspect the only time they are landed without autothrottle control is when something is wrong with the aircraft. It's foolish to manually control the airspeed when the autospeed does a better job anyway. We will see, the NTSB generally does a superb job of accident investigation, and what exactly happened will get ferreted out eventually. Probably going to take some time, though. This is similar to the AA DC-10 crash in Chicago back in the mid 70's where the engine came off just after liftoff. The crew failed to correct for the loss of lift on the affected wing due to leading edge slat retraction upon hydraulic failure and the aircraft rolled over and crashed. It was very easy to compensate for, all the crew had to do was retract the slat on the other side to balance the lift, so you could call that pilot error. However, since the power for the mis- match slat extension warning was supplied only by the engine that ripped off, there was no warning and the plane rolled over too far to recover before the crew could fix it. They DID cotton on the the problem, but only after it was too late to save the plane. Was that pilot error? No, every single DC-10 pilot who flew the accident on a simulator crashed the plane, every time. If the slat mis-match warning was enabled, every single one flew it out with no issues and landed safely. Pilot error? Not really. If the Asiana crew thought the autothrottle was set and working, as it always was on landing a 777, and it did NOT control the speed as the aircraft approached the set landing speed AND there was no audible or visual warning that the speed was not being controlled by the autothrottle, is that pilot error or a training/equipment problem? There is, from what I've read, at least one flight mode where the autothrottle is deactivated AND the speed warning/autothrottle failure is ALSO deactivated (look up FLCH trapon the 777). Remember, SFO ATC is well known for not giving final approach clearance until the landing aircraft is past the inital flight slope and too high, requiring some fancy flying to get the plane down to glide slope and into stable approach conditions. The ALPA has been complaining for decades, this is not a new problem. So think this scenario: ATC doesn't give landing clearance until the ASIANA flight is past the initial point on the glide slope. This is against company rules, since it requires an un-stabilized approach, but it's routine at SFO. It's also not a big problem, but to get down to glide slope, it's necessary to idle way back on the engines and descend a bit faster than normal. This is a computer operated plane, you don't manually handle the throttles much, you select the speed you want and the rate of descent. However, since you are over the glide slope, you have to use some flight mode on the computer that lets you do so, and in this case, if the crew selected FLCH (flight level change) and did NOT realized that doing so deactivates the auto throttle AND the auto throttle failed to engage -- speed too low warning, we are in a situation where the crew expects the autothrottle to control the speed and is NOT watching the rate of speed loss very carefully, they are watching to make sure they achieve glide slope and don't have to go around to avoid an over-run by landing too fast too far down the runway. During the last few seconds of the approach, the engines don't come up, speed starts to drop below set landing speed, crew has to figure out why (remember, they always use auto throttle speed control), and oops, crash. By the time the failure of the engine power to come up when expected gets processed by the crew and they ram the throttles wide open, it's about 10 seconds too late to avoid the crash. Throttle application on a 777 is timing critical, that bus descends fast and takes a lot of thrust to stop a descent. By the time the speed drops below selected landing speed you are at least 5, probably 10, seconds LATE on throttle application and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to fix
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Nope, on that DC-10 the engine separated shortly after takeoff disabling one hydraulic system and half the electrical power, hydraulic powered slat retracted on the starboard wing and not the port (if I remember correctly, could have been the other way), plane immediately rolled over and nosed in. Proximate cause was un-intended engine separation due to some very creative installation procedures cooked up by American without consulting MD, some design issues with the mounting flange in the wing (prone to cracks). Immediate cause was uncommanded slat retraction (no lock, something needed as any loss of hydraulic pressure will result in uncommanded retraction) resulting in asymetric lift at a critical time -- noise abatement turn at low speed. The crew entered here because it was possible to fly it out IF the pilots knew the slat had retracted. Sadly, the warning system was disabled by the engine separation so by the time the pilots realized what was going on they were upside down and going in. The DC-10 was a troubled aircraft (which doesn't explain why the USAF uses dozens of them as mid-air re-fuelers) -- designed in a hurry in a company recently taken over and severely shaken up by a military contractor, with WAY to much input in safety systems by airlines trying to save money on very expensive aircraft they didn't really need. Doors bursting open at altitude, engine cowlings coming adrift and stripping the fan blades (at least twice on a single aircraft), engine turbine disks blowing up repeatedly (thank you, GE), inadequate floor strength, shared by the early 747 and the L-1011, although the Lockheed was much better. Cogent point is that nasty surprises often crash airplanes, and systems really must be designed to keep the pilot informed at all times, correctly, and with adequate warning. Since all commercial aircraft are VERY complex these days, training has to be adequate, too, and is very often the weak link. This is different than the Air France debacle where you have one pilot shouting climb, climb, climb and pulling the stick all the way back and the other pilot shouting dive, dive, dive and shoving the stick all the way forward, when all they needed to do was let go and turn the autopilot back on Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Was that the one where the pilot was screaming allahuwa akbar as he bored the plane in? --R On 7/21/13 5:29 PM, Peter Frederick wrote: This is different than the Air France debacle where you have one pilot shouting climb, climb, climb and pulling the stick all the way back and the other pilot shouting dive, dive, dive and shoving the stick all the way forward, when all they needed to do was let go and turn the autopilot back on Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Different story, that was and Air Egypt. Seems that model of Airbus can go nuts and start porposing when it flies over certain types of radio beacons, sorta like Creighton's Airframe plane did. Several well known instances, fortunately for the rest of them control was regained before the plane came apart of hit something. Numerous up and down cycles getting larger every time, and I suspect pilot input fighting computer control (remember this is the model that autolanded a few miles short of a runway and during a touch-and-go killing passengers). I seriously doubt the pilot was shouting praise to allah, more likely the translation should be holy god and jesus what the hell is happening to me? Easy to imagine what happens when an Airbus A320 decides the pilot is exceeding the flight envelope, eh? Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
[MBZ] OT - Asiana
Maybe the crew did the proper things? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk mao ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
No. Like I said, regardless of auto this or auto that, there is no excuse for not monitoring attitude, airspeed and altitude, especially in critical stages of flight, and, no matter how bad things may get (weather, SAM's, SWMBO digging fingernails into inner thigh demanding to know, What is that noise? etc.) you must continue to fly the airplane. Wilton - Original Message - From: Mountain Man maontin@gmail.com To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:06 PM Subject: [MBZ] OT - Asiana Maybe the crew did the proper things? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk mao ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
As noted by a 777 pilot, it's possible to set the equipment up to disable both the autothrottle and autothrottle failure warning during normal flight. This is a training issue, but also one of those pitfalls that should be designed out to prevent someone using an inappropriate mode at the wrong time. If they were flying on autothrottle and it neither controlled the speed nor warned them that the autothrottle was not engaged, there is probably no way they could have made a normal landing -- by the time the speed drops below landing speed it's way too late. We will see. We have intact controls, intact computers, and a live crew. I'm hesitant to just blame the pilots at this point, no one EVERY intentionally splatters a plane full of passengers, and someone who has been flying 747's for decades isn't a dud pilot. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Peter wrote: As noted by a 777 pilot, it's possible to set the equipment up to disable both the autothrottle and autothrottle failure warning during normal flight. Can we be open to a perverse negative? A perverse negative scenario stemming from viewing Children of Magenta is... perhaps they were in the auto mode up until too late, at which time they regained situational awareness and flew the airplane with what they had, i.e. nothing. The auto mode may have destroyed the entire plane, instead. It occurred to me after watching the video that while the video shames the auto mode addiction, perhaps the crew had in good time gotten off the addiction and really did fly the plane with zero lift and zero power, but they lifted the nose to avoid the wall, nixing the tail, avoiding complete fireball and crash? Perhaps? Actually... I know nothing... Stray thoughts occur from time to time while I watch stuff. mao ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
I'm hesitant to just blame the pilots at this point, no one EVERY intentionally splatters a plane full of passengers, and someone who has been flying 747's for decades isn't a dud pilot. Peter ___ I appreciate the wait and see approach. Honestly, I can't see any conclusion that does not include pilot error. lack of training or other excuses to me will still end at pilot error. Humans err. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - Asiana
Well, the real point is was this a stupid pilot error or an error the pilot made when he though he was doing something else, or alternatively a training issue where the pilot did something he should not have when he thought he was doing something else, and what he did was what he was taught to do. One does NOT land one of these things like one does a single engine Cesna on a clear day with no wind, I suspect the only time they are landed without autothrottle control is when something is wrong with the aircraft. It's foolish to manually control the airspeed when the autospeed does a better job anyway. We will see, the NTSB generally does a superb job of accident investigation, and what exactly happened will get ferreted out eventually. Probably going to take some time, though. This is similar to the AA DC-10 crash in Chicago back in the mid 70's where the engine came off just after liftoff. The crew failed to correct for the loss of lift on the affected wing due to leading edge slat retraction upon hydraulic failure and the aircraft rolled over and crashed. It was very easy to compensate for, all the crew had to do was retract the slat on the other side to balance the lift, so you could call that pilot error. However, since the power for the mis- match slat extension warning was supplied only by the engine that ripped off, there was no warning and the plane rolled over too far to recover before the crew could fix it. They DID cotton on the the problem, but only after it was too late to save the plane. Was that pilot error? No, every single DC-10 pilot who flew the accident on a simulator crashed the plane, every time. If the slat mis-match warning was enabled, every single one flew it out with no issues and landed safely. Pilot error? Not really. If the Asiana crew thought the autothrottle was set and working, as it always was on landing a 777, and it did NOT control the speed as the aircraft approached the set landing speed AND there was no audible or visual warning that the speed was not being controlled by the autothrottle, is that pilot error or a training/equipment problem? There is, from what I've read, at least one flight mode where the autothrottle is deactivated AND the speed warning/autothrottle failure is ALSO deactivated (look up FLCH trapon the 777). Remember, SFO ATC is well known for not giving final approach clearance until the landing aircraft is past the inital flight slope and too high, requiring some fancy flying to get the plane down to glide slope and into stable approach conditions. The ALPA has been complaining for decades, this is not a new problem. So think this scenario: ATC doesn't give landing clearance until the ASIANA flight is past the initial point on the glide slope. This is against company rules, since it requires an un-stabilized approach, but it's routine at SFO. It's also not a big problem, but to get down to glide slope, it's necessary to idle way back on the engines and descend a bit faster than normal. This is a computer operated plane, you don't manually handle the throttles much, you select the speed you want and the rate of descent. However, since you are over the glide slope, you have to use some flight mode on the computer that lets you do so, and in this case, if the crew selected FLCH (flight level change) and did NOT realized that doing so deactivates the auto throttle AND the auto throttle failed to engage -- speed too low warning, we are in a situation where the crew expects the autothrottle to control the speed and is NOT watching the rate of speed loss very carefully, they are watching to make sure they achieve glide slope and don't have to go around to avoid an over-run by landing too fast too far down the runway. During the last few seconds of the approach, the engines don't come up, speed starts to drop below set landing speed, crew has to figure out why (remember, they always use auto throttle speed control), and oops, crash. By the time the failure of the engine power to come up when expected gets processed by the crew and they ram the throttles wide open, it's about 10 seconds too late to avoid the crash. Throttle application on a 777 is timing critical, that bus descends fast and takes a lot of thrust to stop a descent. By the time the speed drops below selected landing speed you are at least 5, probably 10, seconds LATE on throttle application and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to fix it, you are going to stall. Obviously, the crew expected the speed to be automatically controlled, and it was a very nasty surprise when it wasn't. Now, where is the error? Is it stupid pilots who recklessly fail to set the autothrottles? Is it improper training -- never use FLCH mode to descend to glide slope (did anyone make sure the pilots knew FLCH would leave them with NO
