Incident: EVA B773 at San Francisco on Jul 23rd 2013, descended below safe height

[alberttky 0]

An EVA Airways Boeing 777-300, registration B-16701 performing flight BR-28 from Taipei (Taiwan) to San Francisco,CA (USA), was on final approach to San Francisco's 28L being cleared to land when the aircraft descended to about 600 feet about 3.8nm before the runway threshold (about 600 feet below glidepath, remaining glidepath angle 1.5 degrees instead of 3 degrees), tower warned the aircraft "climb immediately, altitude alert, altimeter 29.97", the crew initiated a go-around and positioned for another approach, that concluded in a safe landing about 13 minutes later.

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=465e38db&opt=0

[Radzi 2]

Foe a respectable modern aircraft, there is always the LNAV/VNAV or FAC/GP approach, if you're not comfortable with pure visual and the ILS is not available. At least those are what we have on the B738; other modern aircraft might have different name for it but basically it is a FMC-generated ILS that can bring you down to the minimums safely.

[Hakan 2]

Capt. Radzi, could be there any possible unvisible/unexpected athmospheric activity onto 28L approach track in SFO?(by changing global climate, or new activity such as microburst but without CB cloud)

Seems like almost the same scenario with Asiana.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Hakan

[S V Choong 4]

B-16701.... first B777-300ER with EVA Air...

[alberttky 0]

Capt. Radzi, could be there any possible unvisible/unexpected athmospheric activity onto 28L approach track in SFO?(by changing global climate, or new activity such as microburst but without CB cloud)

Seems like almost the same scenario with Asiana.

If that's the case then no aircraft should be allowed to do a visual approach onto 28L since the ILS is out of action.

[Arthur Van Straten 0]

Good evening.

 

It is not my intention to step on to Capt. Radzi's transmission when it comes , but i give you my perception here in a nutshell.

@ Hakan, NO. there is no such thing. This particular crew came in low, were alerted by ATC, did the right thging and went missed.

Now, to the question of why they cam in low, that is difficultt to say if you where not in the cockpit at that particular time.

 

I got this little gem from PPrune this afternoon on the subject, "Landed 28R this afternoon. European accent and tail number. Briefed for the visual as per the atis. 1st norcal clears us for the rnav 28R. Next says intercept the radial. (sounds like a vis coming up and we can see the airport). Next says cleared for the vis. Number one (flying), does the "click click, click click' thing, tea and medals all round. Told to reduce to approach speed at about 8 miles. Looks like atc are being a bit more careful if you're not a regular.

Had a good look at the NTSB workings as we crossed the sea wall. There were a number of trucks, but the thing that stuck out was the burger van.

God bless america."

 

I admit, it is a little bit sarcastic but, it tells the tale.

For I myself, i am a Dinosaur. When we, in my old days, landed at Kaitek, Hongkong, established meant, "roll wings level over the approach lights' . if you could not hack that, my company did not make you Captain.

Things have changed. We have to live with that. If we, as the aviation industry, are accepting that basic stick and rudder skils are no longer necessary, due to available automation, then, and i mean then only, we must also accept within the aviation industry, that all and every airport in the eastern and western hemisphere, have at least available a functional ILS on each and every runway. You can not have it both ways. If you think you can have it both ways, then here is my advise to the gullible passenger, " if you want to travel, take the train or boat."

 

Cheers

Art,

("in his hammock, smoking cigars and drinking adult beverages".)

[Din Hilmi 0]

Is it fair to say too much relying on automation diminished the hand on, manual flying skill? How different it makes when it come to training inside the simulator with real thing?

[Sandeep G 1]

Guys, don't be too fast to conclude error on EVA's part - they may have very well been responding to a TCAS Descent RA, which happens in SFO due to the close simultaneous parallel ops.

[alberttky 0]

 

Guys, don't be too fast to conclude error on EVA's part - they may have very well been responding to a TCAS Descent RA, which happens in SFO due to the close simultaneous parallel ops.

Shouldn't they have switched to TA only on final approach?

Edited July 28, 2013 by alberttky

[alberttky 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZDjkIjuHGE

 

Interesting case study on over-reliance on automation.

[Radzi 2]

Shouldn't they have switched to TA only on final approach?

 

I don't think so. Not during a normal approach anyway. If there is a non-normal situation the checklist will say so.

 

Anyway what I was trying to say earlier is that while all pilots should be able to do a fairly decent fully manual visual approach, there are usually other options available for a modern jet aircraft.

[Aaron Goh 1]

Why the bashing on over reliance of automation? Why not because one doesnt understand automation.

Old hags and western boys say new guys lack stick and rudder skills. I say old hags dont understand automation thus rely on stick and rudder.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Aaron Goh

[flee 5]

Why the bashing on over reliance of automation? Why not because one doesnt understand automation.

Old hags and western boys say new guys lack stick and rudder skills. I say old hags dont understand automation thus rely on stick and rudder.

But the "old hags" did not crash their airplanes trying to land on visual approach!

[Radzi 2]

Why the bashing on over reliance of automation? Why not because one doesnt understand automation.

Old hags and western boys say new guys lack stick and rudder skills. I say old hags dont understand automation thus rely on stick and rudder.

 

Simple.

 

You just have to know both ways.

[Waiping 12]

Yup, now who's "driving" manual these days?

[flee 5]

Yup, now who's "driving" manual these days?

I am!

 

Manual, CVT, DSG/Powershift and slushboxes...

Edited July 29, 2013 by flee

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

Yup, now who's "driving" manual these days?

I do. A Pickup. People get out of the way whenever they see a pickup coming.

[Aaron Goh 1]

But the "old hags" did not crash their airplanes trying to land on visual approach!

Oh yes they did thus the automation came into being

[Rozhan 0]

 

I do. A Pickup. People get out of the way whenever they see a pickup coming.

Everybody gets out of the way when they see a prime mover approaching. I was in one and it was fun :-)

[JingKai Seah 0]

I do as well.. 5 speed stick shift

[Naim 6]

Yup, now who's "driving" manual these days?

Whenever I travel I always rent manual. To sustain my manual skills.

[S V Choong 4]

I do as well.. 5 speed stick shift

 

I did when I was in Melbourne, as well as Automatic/ triptonic / CVT / Manual

I prefer 5 or 6 speed manual actually. More responsive and more in control with the power.

[JingKai Seah 0]

I did when I was in Melbourne, as well as Automatic/ triptonic / CVT / Manual

I prefer 5 or 6 speed manual actually. More responsive and more in control with the power.

 

Agreed.. somehow it feels as though I have more power.. feels as if I'm racing haha~

[xtemujin 0]

U.S. regulators order foreign airlines to use automatic landing at San Francisco

SINGAPORE | 30 July 2013 Tuesday | 12:25am EDT

 

SINGAPORE, July 30 (Reuters) - U.S. aviation regulators have mandated that foreign airlines must use automatic landing aids, instead of visual cues, when approaching San Francisco International Airport where an Asiana Airlines Boeing Co 777 crashed last month.

The Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement that it has noticed a higher number of aborted landings, or go-arounds, by foreign carriers conducting visual approaches after last month's incident involving the South Korean carrier.

 

The FAA added that it was looking into an incident involving an aircraft operated by Taiwan's EVA Air on July 23, when it approached San Francisco at a lower than normal altitude.

 

The FAA said that it would assign "alternate instrument approaches", including the use of global positioning systems (GPS), to foreign airlines on approach into San Francisco. U.S. airlines are not affected by this rule.

 

This comes as ongoing upgrade works to two of San Francisco's runways, 28R and 28L, mean that pilots will not be able to use glide slopes, an instrument landing aid, until late August. These guide pilots down a specific path until they land.

 

The Asiana pilots were trying to land at runway 28L using visual cues when last month's crash occurred. The aircraft was also flying at a lower than normal altitude before crashing.

 

Three passengers died in the crash and investigators are trying to understand why the aircraft was flying so low, and why the pilots waited until the last few seconds before trying to abort the landing.

 

Pilots can normally conduct either visual or instrument landings during clear weather.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/airlines-faa-idUSL4N0G010720130730

Edited July 30, 2013 by xtemujin

[CV Thian 0]

Flight Safety Foundation Statement on Approaches to SFO

 

Due to recent events at San Francisco International Airport, the FAA has instituted additional landing guidelines for foreign carriers. FSF is concerned that the FAA is singling out foreign carriers unnecessarily due to an increased number of go-arounds. This increase is not reason enough to implement these new guidelines. A go-around is a standard operating procedure to be used as a result of an unstabilized approach and should not be used to single out foreign air carrier pilots. This can set a precedent to single out these pilots for performing a necessary risk-mitigation strategy. If the FAA believes that additional landing guidelines are necessary at a certain airport, than those guidelines should apply to all airlines, not just foreign carriers.

 

http://flightsafety.org/blog/fsf-statement-on-approaches-to-sfo

Edited July 31, 2013 by Chow Vi Thian