Asiana Crash Landing San Francisco

[cstorey]

The PNF (pilot not flying) is supposed to have his head INSIDE the cockpit at all times during the approach doing exactly that - watching the airspeed, altitude, glidepath (if on a visual approach) and engines to make sure everything is okay. The pilot is supposed to keep his eyes outside the cockpit flying the plane. If on an ILS approach, both Pilot Flying and PNF watch the glidepath, but the PNF is responsible for looking for the runway and the PF watches the speed and altitude.

Fascinating. Just one thing not explained: how does PNF( head down ) , monitor the glidepath when the glideslope transmitter was turned off some days beforehand?

[Garry Russell]

Animation done by a former pilot showing desired and actual

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/07/11/ ... sfo-crash/

[Chris Trott]

The PNF (pilot not flying) is supposed to have his head INSIDE the cockpit at all times during the approach doing exactly that - watching the airspeed, altitude, glidepath (if on a visual approach) and engines to make sure everything is okay. The pilot is supposed to keep his eyes outside the cockpit flying the plane. If on an ILS approach, both Pilot Flying and PNF watch the glidepath, but the PNF is responsible for looking for the runway and the PF watches the speed and altitude.

Fascinating. Just one thing not explained: how does PNF( head down ) , monitor the glidepath when the glideslope transmitter was turned off some days beforehand?

I was speaking more in the general sense of the duties of the crew during approach. In the LionAir crash, both pilots had their heads out of the window looking for the runway instead of the PF watching the approach. In the Turkish crash, both were distracted by the weather and the radar altimeter and both focused on that instead of the glidepath and speed, which got away because they didn't properly switch to a manually flown approach. In the Asiana flight, it appears that both pilots may have been "head up" flying outside the plane instead of inside since the PNF never gave any of the expected altitude calls or speed calls, something they should have been doing even if the autothrottle was engaged as there are speed changes during the approach that need to be called and confirmed. In this case, even without a glideslope to follow, the FMS should have still generated a virtual glidepath (had they selected a visual approach in the FMS) for reference that could have been monitored and even in the absence of that, the issue with the accident is more that the speed was allowed to decay which caused them to become low as the wing lost lift. In a normal cockpit, had the PNF been "head down" like he was supposed to be, then he would've notice the speed decay and either corrected it himself or called for a go around. However, this is where the Korean society issues come into play as he may have noticed it but assumed the Captain/PF was aware and would take care of it.

Either way, in this specific accident no matter what the circumstances, there is only one conclusion - the crew failed massively in the basic flying of the airplane. Whether it was because they didn't watch the speed or someone noticed it but didn't say anything because it was "improper" to do so - it is still the crew at fault, not the airplane and not the displays.

[NigelC]

The PNF (pilot not flying) is supposed to have his head INSIDE the cockpit at all times during the approach doing exactly that - watching the airspeed, altitude, glidepath (if on a visual approach) and engines to make sure everything is okay. The pilot is supposed to keep his eyes outside the cockpit flying the plane. If on an ILS approach, both Pilot Flying and PNF watch the glidepath, but the PNF is responsible for looking for the runway and the PF watches the speed and altitude.

Fascinating. Just one thing not explained: how does PNF( head down ) , monitor the glidepath when the glideslope transmitter was turned off some days beforehand?

I think we'll let Chris have V/s / Sink Rate rather than G/S on a visual.

[NigelC]

PNF been "head down" like he was supposed to be, then he would've notice the speed decay and either corrected it himself

NO. Pilot monitoring (PM) or Pilot Not Flying (PNF) mean exactly that.... monitoring or not flying.

777 FCOM advises flying the aircraft on the autothrottle at all time. If the AFCS had been set up properly, we wouldn't be talking about this.

If they were flying manually, then the PF would have one hand on the stick, one hand on the throttles and eyes on the runway with a quick peek at the airspeed occasionally, PNF on the radio's and monitoring.

If I was a commercial pilot flying a visual approach as PF and the PNF started fiddling with the speed, he'd get a slap.

[NigelC]

PNF never gave any of the expected altitude calls

Doesn't the radalt do that these days???

The funniest one being on youtube, 737 at Paris I think, seen it twice but can't find it for the life of me now.

Rad alt: "500....400....300....Approaching miminums....minimums....100....50...40...30....20....." Aircraft touches down, spoilers/reverse thrust, 80kts is called and reverse idle selected then reverse is cancelled as aircraft starts to take the high speed exit. As it does so the Rad alt chirps in with "...10...."

Much laughing on flight deck.

[Dev One]

Very long interesting discussion on this over at SOH by current pilots....seems PNF was a check pilot & to have intervened would have failed the PIC! - Anyway thats as I interpret some of the forum.
Keith

[NigelC]

Depends on whether it was line training or line check.

If intervening would have failed the PF, it might have saved 3 lives.

Immaterial really as approach was unstable at both the 1000' and 500' gates and go-around should have been flown.

[Garry Russell]

Sadly another death, said to be a six year old Chinese girl

[Garry Russell]

Oh dear!!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... e/2513971/

Sort of supports the theory that media don't spend a lot, if any, time checking facts