Asiana Airlines 777 Crash @ SFO

Discussion in 'Other Aspects of Aviation Security' started by RB, Jul 6, 2013.

  1. RB

    RB Founding Member

    http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/141965/

    This might be a good approach but a 1/4 mile on either side of centerline, especially on short final, is not acceptable. In limited visibility taking it down to minimums a 1/4 mile doesn't cut it.

    I may not fully understand the system and the accuracy in close may be much better than the .5 nm. I would hope so.
     
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Last line is the key here -- RNP has been around for almost 20 years, and current/future systems are much more accurate. GPS systems are now accurate to +/- 50' or less. The almost 10-year-old discussion you pulled out of airliners.net (after 2+ years using XenForo almost exclusively, A-net seems even more of a dinosaur than FT) hardly reflects the story.

    The main capabilities:
    • Takeoffs: Fully automated, allowing closer packing of aircraft and promises to relieve congestion at airports where there are often lengthy queues for takeoff (e.g. JFK). Currently takeoff is a completely manual procedure. Aircraft that have to do it manually in an RNP environment will be stuck in even longer queues as RNP-capable aircraft will have priority.
    • In flight: Closer packing (esp. vertically) in congested air corridors. You'd think the South Pacific would be wide open but the designated air corridors are actually limited & congested. The Australians have been pushing RNP to allow then to control more aircraft more efficiently.
    • Landings: Glide in from 30,000 feet instead of the traditional "dive & drive" approach -- tremendous fuel savings. Although not accurate enough for autoland, it can often get you in "under the cover" to where a landing can be completed manually (excepting Asiana pilots, of course). If you've landed at SYD in the last several years, odds are you've done an RNP landing.
    Benefits:
    • Fuel savings run around 6%. Southwest was the first major U.S. airline to commit to to converting their entire fleet, which included installing glass cockpits in the 737-300's and re-enabling the auto-throttles in their 737-700's (they had turned them off to force their pilots to do more work :D). Southwest has also committed to developing approved RNP approaches at every airport they serve; they expect fuel saving to cover all the conversion costs.
    • Relief of congestion at takeoff & in-flight.
    • Relies on the aircraft's avionics instead of ground-based systems, so your capabilities go wherever your plane goes.
    No, they have choices of automation available. What was lacking in the Asiana incident was monitoring of the flight parameters and responding to what they observed.

    Asiana should be banned immediately from U.S. airspace until they have demonstrated that their pilots are (1) competent and (2) actually capable of flying their aircraft under all conditions. How would crew members like Ho Li Fuk & Mi Ti Lo handle situations like loss of airspeed indicators (NW flew through it, AF crashed) and the severe lost of hydraulics as occurred in now legendary UA DC-10? Until their competency is proven, they should be kept out of situations where they can cause incidents at our airports and/or are likely to be carrying substantial numbers of Americans.
     
  3. RB

    RB Founding Member

    If pilots rely on automated landings why would we expect them to be able to hand fly when in extremis?
     
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Nobody's arguing with you. Some situations require automation, and at other times it's an option.

    The problem is cultural. Good airlines encourage their pilots to take control when they can. Other airlines don't.
     
  5. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    If Asiana is still landing in the US after all this.
    And as for the cf on the ground, why SFO might not be a top pick as a crash destination: Asiana flight tragedy: how girl was left for dead
     
  6. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    What an insult ...

    Bloomberg: Asiana Offers San Francisco Crash Victims Initial $10,000 Payout (Aug 11 2013)

    Asiana Airlines Inc., the South Korean carrier that suffered a fatal jet crash in San Francisco last month, plans to pay an initial compensation of $10,000 each to survivors. The amount is to cover medical costs and transportation and the carrier may pay more after the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board completes its investigation into the accident, Lee Hyo Min, an Asiana spokeswoman, said yesterday. The survivors “need money to go to hospital or for transportation so we are giving them the $10,000 first,” Lee said in a telephone interview. “Even if they are not hurt or they don’t go to hospital, we will still give them this money.”
     

Share This Page