Skip to main content

View Diary: How Airliners Work - Instrument Approaches (121 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One other 777 came down hard (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doingbusinessas, ER Doc

    because of iced fuel .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Ice crystals in the fuel were the cause of the accident, clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger (FOHE) of each engine. This restricted fuel flow to the engines when thrust was demanded during the final approach to Heathrow.[7] Boeing identified the problem as specific to the Rolls-Royce engine fuel-oil heat exchangers, and Rolls-Royce has subsequently developed a modification to its FOHE; the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) mandated that all affected aircraft were to be fitted with the modification before 1 January 2011.[4][8]

    In this latest crash the pilot/s might have been fighting for control over a malfunctioning aircraft .

    The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

    by indycam on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 12:21:14 PM PDT

    •  Different Engines (13+ / 0-)

      The British Airways flight had Rolls Royce engines. Asiana had Pratt & Whitney.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 12:24:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't say they were the same same or had not (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        barbwires, patbahn, ER Doc

        been updated to fix the problem .
        I said that aircraft have problems that can make them difficult to fly , as can be seen by the other hard landing / crash in a 777 .
        People should not jump to the conclusion that the pilot/s screwed the landing .

        The fuel on board might not have had enough anti ice added in at the last refill .

        The plane might have been in a down-burst .

        Etc Etc Etc .

        The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

        by indycam on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 12:33:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We won't know (16+ / 0-)

          until they analyze the flight recorder data and the crew has been interviewed.

          My point was that the fuel icing problem was specific to the Rolls Royce Trent 800 series engines. None of the Pratt & Whitney equipped 777s have ever had that problem. Plus the British Airways crash was in January. I wouldn't expect fuel icing to be much of an issue in California in July.

          Also there was no convective activity in the area, which is normally the cause of microbursts. If you look at the video it wasn't even particularly windy.

          So I'd say those are not the most likely explanations.

          If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

          by Major Kong on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 01:00:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nicely done diary! You make a complicated topic (12+ / 0-)

            very understandable.

            Getting my instrument rating was one of the most challenging, and satisfying, things I've ever done. Learning to do all of these approaches, including the now mercifully abandoned NDB (Non Directional Beacon) approach, was a major part of that rating.

            •  Must be a very tough adjustment: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hoghead99, flitedocnm

              Congrats on getting the ILS - I am no pilot but the many considerations make it quite an accomplishment.

              It must take a lot of training to get over the fact that you are flying through soup and can't see a damn thing - but know the ground is getting closer and closer.

              I watch a ton of youtube fight-landing vids - I am kinda an airplane nut - and every time I see the ILS approaches through the fog it just creeps me the hell out. I keep imagining the last 3 seconds of my life as seeing the ground rushing up to meet me without time to do anything. It must take a lot of training to be concentrating on the instruments and not looking out the window at gray nothingness and being scared shitless that you can't see a damn thing.

              Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick: The "party of Jesus" wouldn't invite him to their convention - fearing his "platform."

              by 4CasandChlo on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 06:31:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  IMHO, every pilot should do instrument training. (0+ / 0-)

                It's not just for being able to land in the soup. It makes you a much better, and safer, pilot, by teaching situational awareness, and precision flying -- knowing exactly where you are in space, and what your plane is doing in space, at every moment. And -- being able to use all of the resources and equipment available to you, to continuously make minor adjustments, to always anticipate what comes next, and to prevent, and correct when necessary, any problems.

                It's quite likely that John Kennedy and his passengers would be alive today, for example, if he had been adequately instrument trained, and knew how to use his autopilot.

                I got my Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) certification 25 years ago. And I do recurrent training annually. No pilot should ever be scared -- respectful (of the weather and one's limitations), and attentive, always. A pilot who is scared should not be flying.

              •  Kinda backwards... (0+ / 0-)

                In training, one uses foggles or other devices to prevent the student from looking out the windows. IRL, you keep the clouds in your scan so that you can switch to visual and get off the instruments as soon as possible.

                It's also not rare for instruction to include landing blind on ILS. The precision of the instruments is more than adequate, and with a safety pilot looking out the window it's reasonably safe. Doing that IRL is not encouraged, but can be the best option. (It is categorically NOT something to do on a VOR or NDB approach.)

          •  A fuel problem can be seen in any engine . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doingbusinessas
            My point was that the fuel icing problem was specific to the Rolls Royce Trent 800 series engines. None of the Pratt & Whitney equipped 777s have ever had that problem.
            I knew that before you said that the first time .
            So I'd say those are not the most likely explanations.
            I never said they were the likely explanations .
            What I said was lets not blame the pilots , other things could have been the cause .

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            In this latest crash the pilot/s might have been fighting for control over a malfunctioning aircraft .
            Its almost like you are trying to not understand .

            The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

            by indycam on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 04:21:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  was an AD issued for icing (0+ / 0-)

            in th e777?

    •  Crisis Management is tough (0+ / 0-)

      i'd think they would worry about how to fly first
      then navigation and comms,

      but i'd hope they would give out a distress call.

      just a  quick "SFO Tower, asiana 214, Mayday, Mayday, Loss of Power, Declaring Emergency Landing, Notify Fire/Rescue".

      •  I believe the very last communication (0+ / 0-)

        from the pilot was "Emergency". The tower replied that emergency response was being deployed. That's part of the record.

        The only trouble with retirement is...I never get a day off!

        by Mr Robert on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 06:02:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site