Animation of Asiana Flight 214 accident sequence

[@TheChuck531]

As a professional airline pilot who has made that approach and landing many times in heavy aircraft I am critical of the lack of crew concept and the fear of embarrassing the Captain flying the plane on this flight. The First Officer and the line check pilot should be fired. There are no excuses for this accident and it was obvious at 1000 ft that the Captain was behind and the Check Airman should have leaned forward and commanded that the F/O instigate a go around. The accident was more of culture and fear of loss of face than rudimentary flying.

[@viperfly757]

Absolutely correct!

[@leonardmilcin7798]

I am not a pilot so I will relate to one thing closest to it that I know, playing games. In one word, they sucked at it. I mean, this was performance I could expect from somebody playing it maybe second or third time, not from somebody that is being paid to do it, spent hundreds of hours in simulator and also has hundreds of people effectively completely depending with their lives on his performance. This is game in hardcore mode, if the approach doesn't look right, you just do it again. If you can allow your pride to compromise safety you are in a wrong place flying a passenger plane or any plane for that matter. They had perfect weather and visibility and perfectly functioning plane. Compare to guys how crashed UA Flight 232 with similar effect after losing almost all control of all surfaces and could only sort of use engines cancel pogo oscillations and sort of turn to the right and still managed to not hit the sea wall. There is no excuse.

[@canadianroot]

Welcome to Korea. (I live here, and am well-versed in that aspect of the culture).

[@agwargergahht]

That's Korean.

[@justsheeeps134]

Heck yeah i could even land a b29 with full load fuel Cracked my gear and then in flames after At least in warthunder

[@hycrexxiaTP]

3:30 can you imagine being the passengers on the taxiing plane seeing that just before takeoff? must be nerve racking.

[@SubBrief]

That should buff right out.

[@robrambilla]

01:57 why in the world did he switch to flight level change mode? I couldn't understand that... And after disconnecting the A/P, why didn't they control the throttles manually? :/

[@howardflies]

I think it was because he wasn't aware that the altitude was set to 3000 and he thought it was set to something lower and he thought FLCH would help the descent.

[@PilotWithAGun]

Disconnecting the A/P does not disengage A/T. Most guys who "hand fly" with the A/P off, keep the A/T on to control speed.

[@sq8409]

Even if the MCP altitude was below the aircraft altitude, Autopilot will pitch up to reduce speed to MCP speed and deviate from the vertical path even more. I can't get why they though it was a good idea to switch to FLCH.

[@TYGucci]

Their pilot license should have been stamped as "Auto-landing only" and "Domestic flights only". Unfortunately, with Airbus model the same company Asiana caused the similar landing failure at Hiroshima AP, Japan on April 14, '15, again at manual-landing. It seems they do not take Lessons-Learned seriously. The pilots did not take any crash-avoiding action till 2 seconds before the crash. It is just a god's blessing to end up with no fatalities!

[@Avantime]

Here's what I think happened: The captain/pilot flying was in line training, transitioning from the Airbus to the Boeing. Fly-By-Wire Airbuses have a vastly different throttle system where Autothrust controls speed on landing ~90% of the time, and the pilot-controlled throttles are pretty much left stationary at the CLB gate/detent all the way to touchdown. In a Boeing the throttle levers have motors in them and they move on their own, but for some reason the Capt went back to his old way of 'Airbus thinking' and left the throttles alone, thinking that Otto the autopilot has things covered - just like in an Airbus. He also screwed up for not monitoring airspeed and seeing the 4 red VASI lights on short final as a big clue for a go-around. The pilot monitoring (aka the supervising check airman) however really screwed up. It's his job to monitor the instruments and since he's more senior in rank, he has the real final authority. Airspeed falling substantially below landing speed/Vref, excessive sink rate and unusual attitude/power settings all constitute a breach of the stabilized approach criteria below 500ft (for a visual approach) and it demands instant go-around.

[@railyatra8879]

Is it the same aircraft flown by the legendary Sum ting wong ?

[@quasarsavage]

11-12 seconds earlier when the PAPIs all went red if they hit TOGA then it would have been saved. that's crazy they were at 220 ft at 122 knots and -800fpm decent then, definitely unstable go around should have been made much earlier

[@engmark1320]

All on a Clear Day. Wow who was watching the airspeed. Are these guys still flying.

[@Darren4352]

Bottom line:The pilots failed int he first charge of any pilot. They failed to fly the airplane. Period. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

[@Bill_Woo]

Recently I've discussed this incident with a senior aviation official who states rather convincingly that the crew DID receive sufficient warning of disaster, that the hardware and software provided adequate warning, but the crew's (or, as he expressed, the carrier, by way of its policy) ineptness killed the plane. He maintains that no matter what automated warnings were provided, the this crew, due to the carrier's insane "autopilot only" policy were bound for the ocean. (However his contention was that they would never excercise manual control; however it appears that at the last seconds before impact that they applied thrust.) (Quite provocatively, he stated that one of the giant U.S. carriers likewise prohibits its pilots from manual piloting. Today. In 2016.) Look I get what you aviators are saying, maintaining that the fault was not in insufficient instrument warnings. Nonetheless, more explicit warnings, I mean mortally specific, are very very very very very easy to program, cheap, and consider this: maybe THIS crew was hell bound to misperform and no warning in the world would have shaken them into doing the right thing. However, what about the next time? The panel needs to say "HEADING FOR THE WATER. YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO PREVENT IT." What I suspect that they received was more like beeps indicating that they were under the glide path. Please correct me if that's an unfair characterization. And if we're talking truth instead of just bullying opinions, NTSB: "Contributing to the accident were (1) the complexities of the autothrottle and autopilot flight director systems that were inadequately described in Boeing's documentation" Boeing does not get a pass on this one.

[@jeffgoin]

Before airliners become fully automated and controls become quaint, I envision a system where the computers monitor the flight, including destination runways are (they already know all this). If an airplane gets out of parameter, or is predicted to do so within some number of seconds, it warns the crew. Such a system would know about runway remaining, energy state, trends, acceptable climb/descent paths and so on. Sooo many accidents could be prevented with this.

[@bernardocattapan2564]

These guys knew they were in an unstabilized approach, CAM-3 and CAM-1 had recorded it several times during approach. Even though, the PF took 4 seconds to increase thrust after the "airspeed low" warning sounded. Probably they had lack of operational standard of going around in an unstabilized approach... there's no computer that will solve it, unless it overrides pilot commands, what brings us to another level of discussion of who's really in command.

[@jeffgoin]

Bernardo Cattapan Yup, they screwed up -- no question there. This isn't the first time and won't be the last. Sub-crash occurrences happen far more frequently -- we're told about them in "read before fly" postings. "Solve" may be strong. But improve the odds? THAT we can do, and dramatically. The warning I envision would be predictive plus it would be a mandated go around, a response pilots are already conditioned to. Such a system could have easily give them a "Go Around, Airspeed" warning in time to prevent this. The system I envision would also know if the craft was out of other bounds such as trajectory relative to terrain and runway location. There have been some near disasters that, thankfully, were only "read-before-fly"s. This system would also reduce the chances of those turning disastrous.

[@dickjones4310]

jeff, That system, I believe, already exists.

[@jeffgoin]

Dick Jones They may exist in the lab but they don't yet protect any airliner that I'm familiar with. There is no protection for runway overruns, landing on the wrong runway, landing at the wrong airport, hitting terrain while on an approach with the gear down, or having too much energy at threshhold crossing. The technology (sensors, information, and processing) to do this is already in the airplane. A modern smartphone has all the power necessary without even being particularly taxing.

[@TorontoDrivingVideos]

This accident accured because of the mistaken belief that auto pilot on hold controls airspeed

[@NFreund]

The A/P doesn't control the speed, the A/T does. You can switch off the A/P but still use the A/T to control the Speed. This was inattention...

[@TorontoDrivingVideos]

+Anton Zuykov Yes I do because I actually watched the video unlike you. This was the cause of the accident as stated in the report.

[@TorontoDrivingVideos]

+Anton Zuykov " mistaken belief " this was the cause as stated in my first post so I am still correct. Thanks for backing up my post. You should thumb me up like everyone else.

[@jdshemp]

Was there an RNAV for 28L at the time? I would have set that in the box for vertical guidance for backup reference.

[@jeffgoin]

Obviously the pilots screwed up--but humans will err. We must strive to make the system more error tolerant. All the necessary data was present for an improved EGPWS to sound "Go Around, Airspeed Low" well in time to prevent this accident. Pilots are conditioned to do a go around the moment they hear this already-existing alert (for other causes). A combination of system unfamiliarity, culture, and system design conspired to allow this accident. System design is merely the most reliable way to avoid it in the future.

[@ZZTops89]

error tolerance seems like the wrong way of going about it - it's like responding to a bridge that's in danger of failing by adding some temporary braces - it works in the short term, but the underlying problem (an unsound structure) is getting worse.

[@jeffgoin]

Aaron Zisook The underlying structure is a transportation system that has become the safest way of moving humans ever devised -- and not by just a little bit. That's hardly failing. My suggestion is catching the error well before it causes a problem. There are other, better solutions but for far more money. We ALREADY have EGPWS in the cockpits. And pilots are ALREADY trained to respond.

[@vidura]

You have to get rid of idiots. It's as simple as that. These "pilots" were idiots, all of them.

[@jacobsladder1281]

The video rendition is wrong. At the 2:10 mark when the pilot disconnects the autopilot, the LOC indicator on the PFD would cap out and disappear. In the video, NTSB has the LOC on until the crash. Gettin' sloppy at L'Enfant Plaza.

[@distar97]

A good landing only happens with a good approach. This was drummed into me early in flight training. Another thing is Korea has virtually no private aviation where pilots spend lots of time hand flying. They never learn the rapid reflex needed to hand fly out of a bad approach, whatever its cause. 777 or C150, no difference when it comes to basic flying skills.

[@hankchinaski_]

It's hard to believe these guys have thousands of hours. This could have ended much much worse. Unfortunate, because everything is business as usual back at Asiana. Fly Asiana at your own risk.

[@joonsup]

i would like to know what happened to these pilots...whether they are still flying this route, etc...

[@michellechristensen5835]

What really torques me off are the suggestions that the FAA or Boeing were negligent in auto throttle function or design. Engineers cannot create or program to prevent stupidity or ignorance. I like the video in that a professional can see the disintegration of safety. Auto throttle systems were not even common place in airliners until the 90's. This next generation of aviators is way too dependent on automation. If it were up to me, a career aspiring pilot would need more than solo proficiency in a J3 Cub (or equivalent tail dragger) before they get to program Flight Management Computers or couple up auto pilots/auto throttles. And Asiana fired one of our retired training pilots working their training center as an ex-pat instructor. He refused to graduate pilots still deficient in meeting his flying standards for a simulator check ride. And many foreign countries have no general aviation to encourage basic pilotage. ALL pilots need skills, common sense, and experience to develop superior judgement. Thousands of cruise hours on auto pilot do not build these necessary traits. Clearly, this new Asiana co pilot, the line check airman captain, and the relief pilot did NOT have these traits. And that is tragic. And many airline managements have no inclination to cultivate this culture. Most non aviators are convinced these planes can land themselves. It takes over 100 predetermined steps to safely perform an autoland, with specialized ground and airplane equipment, and specialized crew training. Howac6 777 Captain (7000 hours) 48,000 flight hours

[@stenic2]

I know it sounds harsh but these are the kind of mistakes I make playing with the pmdg 737 on fsx.. But I am not a pro...

[@ianriggs]

Wow. At 600 feet, close to the 500 feet at which guidlines dictated that the approach must be stable or a go around is needed, they were 10 knots above their desired approach speed and descending at a rate of almost 1700 feet per minute!!!!! That was the point at which there should have been no question about the need for a go around. I believe that when a highly automated airplane like the 777 is doing a visual approach, the pilots should be required to hand fly the final thousand feet of the approach and not try to use the A/P to control their approach that low to the ground. And also be manually controlling the throttles. That would have made them more focused on the approach and less focused on what the A/P was doing to their plane. Of course pilots should have more training hand flying these automated planes on the final approach if that requirement came about. Having flight crews being required to do that with the lack of manual flight training that they have now would just be dangerous.

[@jacobsladder1281]

NTSB should have faulted Boeing and the FAA for an autothrottle system that allows the plane's speed to deteriorate below not only the speed showing on the MCP digital display of the autothrottle, but the stall speed as well. In no other autopilot mode (LNAN, VNAV, TRK Hold, HDG Hold) does the auto throttle system allow the plane's speed to deteriorate below the speed displayed in the AT window. Even if Boeing didn't want to change the FLCH system to allow the auto throttle to control the descent rate, the digital display for the AT should have blanked out or had dashes showing if the speed itself was not going to be 'honored' by the autothrottle. To have "137" knots showing in the AT display window and it have ZERO meaning or input to the auto throttle system itself is absolutely deceptive to pilots.

[@wileysanders3966]

They did actually recommend a fix to the behaviour of hold mode. Boeing disagrees. I guess "You can't do this in an Airbus" isn't a good enough argument for Boeing. But your training should hammer this point home, especially if you have experience in both types.

[@howardflies]

Simply put, if the plane wouldn't be fixed, fix yourself!

[@jrhensley7]

No matter the technological sophistication there MUST be on OFF setting! So you have to be able to disengage every aspect of operation including autothrottle, otherwise Murphy will smite thee.

[@OldFlyerMan]

JacobsL - It appears that you have a small bit of knowledge of the Boeing auto flight system but it is very clear that you do not understand it. I'm afraid that is likely true as well for one or both of the Asiana pilots. The system provides superb auto control while still allowing the pilot to remain in the loop and to downgrade to manual in an instant. Throttle Hold is a VERY pilot-friendly mode. It is too bad the Captain had such a poor grasp of how it works - especially after having used the same system on other Boeing airplanes!

[@jacobsladder1281]

OldFlyerMan - Sorry, but I don't see any logical reason why the plane's speed would be allowed to deteriorate below the number displayed in the IAS window of the autotthrottle. It should have dashed out.

[@EpicSauce12345]

Come on??? 4 red lights?? As soon as you see that it's time for full power and a go around. Better to try again than risk seeing out the landing like they did.

[@jimp9106]

Maybe the PILOT'S should have known the systems. Maybe the PILOT'S should have known how to fly the damn plane ...Quit blaming Boeing ,,,

[@canadianroot]

PILOT'S?

[@roborob767]

Aggreed...These pilots (Korean) fly on autopilot 95% of the time. When sh!t gets hairy, fly the damn plane.

[@thecomedypilot5894]

Trust me, they blame the pilots a lot more than the amount of times they blame the companies.

[@ze2004]

Now you pu the thing wrong way bud Boeing its trash for sure....

[@jimp9106]

@@ze2004 lol 6 year old comment bud.

[@jdshemp]

If I was as rusty as those guys,I would have programed an RNAV into the box for verticle guidance,I believe the PAPis were inop also?

[@vcbiller1864]

3 people in one cockpit. While none of them pay attention to the air speed tape..

[@zacharyw4628]

+vc Biller Two of them are afraid to speak up. One has no basic flying skills (purely my speculation).

[@Bill_Woo]

+vc Biller The crew shouldn't HAVE to monitor airspeed that closely. An altimeter, airspeed indicator, glide path indicator and about $14 in electronic parts should be enough for the cockpit panel to TELL THEM their deviation. The crew SHOULD monitor airspeed and altitude and glide path adherence, if for no other reason than in case automated systems reported incorrectly. Fine, require it.. But how come the panel doesn't take the guesswork away from them? A plane shouldn't be destroyed because the instruments didn't announce the problem. The crime is how trivial the glaxon programming would have been. Where was it? I think that Boeing designers get credit for this crash.

[@zacharyw4628]

***** You can't be serious. If a pilot needs a God damn horn to tell them they're not on speed during approach, they lack the fundamental skills of a pilot. Lol I'm sorry to be inflammatory, but your comment is the most ludicrous thing I've read in a while. And that train of thought is dangerous in the aviation industry. Over reliance on automation is a key problem today. Now you suggest a wide body pilot shouldn't be able to do a simple instrument scan while on a visual. You have no understanding of the basics.

[@zacharyw4628]

+Anton Zuykov That was exactly my other thought!

[@Bill_Woo]

Do you geniuses want to remove ILS too? Assholes.

[@nathanvermeulen8392]

I spoke to a former Korean Air captain (now flying in Europe) and he told me that their policy was « no manual flying above 1000ft AGL, and don’t even think about deactivating the autothrust/autothrottle ». I do believe it’s pretty much the same at Asiana...

[@captaindirckhecking2581]

This feels more like a ditching, that inadvertantly ran into an airport. -cap.

[@Aeryxs]

Hooolllly craaaaap.... 105 knots on a 777! 0.o

[@fernyflores7374]

Never force a landing ...

[@joepatroni8777]

1 in 3 rule? 5 miles back should have been at 1500 feet, 3 miles 900 feet and so forth. SFO is at sea level, so even easier mental math. That stuff is elementary. And for a seasoned pilot even though he only had 40 hours on type. (Whats that, 4-5 legs)? and as pilot flying, 2 landings? They were really lucky the plane did not explode.

[@n40798]

So the pilots simply weren't paying attention to their speed?

[@alexpailot444]

* FATAL ERROR * * A - I disconnect the autopilot and manually not control accelerators. * B - Triggered flaps 5% to 30% * C - From the first point, it is seen that after the driver will notice it was 5 nm. * D - The locator signals was warned off course, 1.5 miles. I should have aborted the approach. * C - And the worst stupidity, volume control accelerators 300 mn. away. AND THE FINAL CONSEQUENCES. * SUMMARY * A stupid driver that comes up, disconnect the autopilot, without accelerating engines, although it was a 35% minimum. and worst drive the flaps to 30%, very close to the maximum. * This causes the rapid decline and loss of speed.

[@toddybambam]

VFR conditions. Why use Autopilot on final approach?

[@Infinitepilot234]

thats just it, he didnt use it, which is why he crashed

[@AaronShenghao]

I am a Aerospace Engineering student, not a pro. I wonder if the pilot push the stick forward in the last second or two, will it prevent the tail broke off completely, the landing gears would still rip off from the plane but at least the 2 people been ejected out would have better chance. And the girl from China won't been crushed by Fire fighting vehicles.

[@besmith51]

Some of the best landings on the 727 were accomplished this way, by nursing forward stick a split second before touchdown. But you have to have your airspeed nailed. These guys were way too far outside the envelope for that.

[@RacinJason]

I think they were to slow for the push forward theory to work. It probably would have caused a harder impact with the ground. Even if they were at the correct speed, pushing the nose down would only slightly move the mains in an upward direction.

[@alphajet2145]

Well, i think it would have been better if they had pushed the stick right before the impact, I would have done it this way just to prevent a tailstrike, then a tail-off (short) flight and a complete loss of control over the trajectory of my airplane ... like they did. But the workload and the fatigue i have is not the same as ATP on those lines. It's only human factors, as always.

[@compactAIRtriq]

They would only increase the descent rate and it would descend right in to the water (higher descent rate=rougher impact and I think that more people would have died. That being said, the pilots should have initiated a go-around well before the speed reaching 120kts

[@dickjones4310]

Should have gotten on the glide path or gone around early/ Dumb!!!! I was a professional pilot and know better than to get behind the power curve. Once there, there isn't much you can do to change the fact that you are going to hit the ground and have a bad day..

[@Capn2Mike]

What we have here is p-ss poor airmanship. In this case, improper use of auto-flight system and then lack of ability to fly the aircraft manually. This accident and AF 441 has lead me to believe that many in this generation of "pilots" have become airborne video game operators and not aviators!

[@NikosWings]

These guys had no clue on how to fly an airplane, they only knew how to fly an autopilot and that not well at all. Too bad that this seems to be the norm in aviation nowadays. Again, as I said before, there is quantity and quality, many pilots out there only care about quantity of hours in order to get on the right or left seat of the airlines that pay well. However, most of them don't even know how to fly the damn things, and have forgotten the basics of flying.

[@ianriggs]

The airlines put pilots in a position to only care about the number of flight hours they have. It is the only way they have a chance to move to an airline that will pay anything above poverty levels. A pilot can't move up just by being an above average pilot and having a full and comprehensive knowledge of the aircraft systems. They must also have many many hours in the air. Airlines care way too much about hours flown and don't seem to care at all about the actual abilities of the pilot. There are pilots with 500 hours that are more capable than some 5000 hour captains. Especially when many of those hours have been spent monitoring automation with someone else having to kno how to program the automation and fly.

[@NikosWings]

I agree, the problem here is the FAA and their minimum requirements on hours vs quality. That is why this industry is flawed. Most pilots out there built time, as you said, watching someone else flying.

[@dickjones4310]

ianriggs Those are literally ignorant comments. Ask any airline pilot to explain the training he had to endure to become a captain. It ain't easy, fellows. Flight hours are only one part of the qualification process. I can't speak for the foreign airlines but I can certainly defend our national airline pilots and companies.

[@cavok84]

Dick Jones foreign carriers tend towards this behavior on occasion with contracts basically hiring a pilot from zero time to right seat qualified. The right person can do well with this program, but your typical pilot will severely be lacking quality of experience as an aviator. As a pilot for a US major airline I would argue against nikolaki's comments. Most major US airlines/cargo carriers have no shortage of candidates to pick and chose from, and by the time the candidates have 10,000 hours of command jet time their experience is considerable. If you have not flown heavy jets it is easy to relate it to your cessna or cub in terms of hand flying, while the truth is that there is much more going on besides stick skills to ensure proficiency.

[@essel23fly]

Sorry dude, unfortunately what you're saying is NOT he norm. Not many planes flying into water banks on short final are there? Pilots are handling their planes just fine. I'd rather take someone that's flown 1500 hours even as a CFI observing than a 0 to hero low time guy because guy with 1500 has had time to scare himself while making their own decisions before stepping on an airliner. You maybe chuck Yeager at 200 hours and that's great but how do we know the next guy at 200 hours is a good pilot too? Take their word for it? I'm not willing to bet my life on it and that's how the FAA views it too. There needs to be a bar you have to meet so that everyone has some sort of reasonable experience and everyone is viewed equal.

[@cloudaffliate6569]

4 years later

[@flyingtoday]

Pilot flying failed Private Pilot 101....any student pilot with training should be able to do a visual approach....and by the time you reach a "Heavy" like the B777, you better have it figured out.

[@vidura]

How can such individuals be pilots, when they clearly have no idea how to handle that plane. You don't give such responsibility to such idiots.

[@OzStriker1198]

Simple use of the 3-times tables would have prevented all of this...

[@ninox9674]

Is he an amateur flight simmer?

[@kathyreeannumali543]

What game is it?

[@lumpheadthump]

Time to resurrect self piloted airliner research

[@howardflies]

Are you an armchair pilot? Or someone who has zero flying time?

[@lumpheadthump]

Howard Lau Why do you ask? By far the leading cause of aviation accidents (part 91, part 135, part 121) is pilot error. NTSB statistics have consistently shown that the pilot is the weakest link in the safety chain. SMS data from scheduled and on demand operators has shown the same. Are you suggesting the NTSB data is incorrect? If so, please share your infinite knowledge on the subject. Not sure what your question on flying time has to do with anything but I do always find it cute when green pilots with no other experience in the industry think they're experts of one kind or another and that their opinions somehow trump those of more experienced professionals. Aviation professional with 20+ years in the industry

[@jacobsladder1281]

lumpheadthump - The pilot's always responsible for anything that goes wrong. That's why they're always blamed. But a lot of times, the systems are hokey.

[@lumpheadthump]

Jacobs Ladder HAHA!! What? No, that's complete bullshit. Modern airliners (especially the 777) practically fly themselves. There's nothing "hokey" about that aircraft. Clearly you're completely unfamiliar with aviation

[@lumpheadthump]

***** how does that change the fact that it was pilot error, or that the pilots are the weakest link in the safety chain?

[@mrobirosa]

The aircraft wasn't configured properly. Too high on the glide, then cutting throttle, then dropping faster than aprópiate... all this indicates pilot underestimated the conditions. They should have gone around and regrouped. Airmanship/judgement was impaired.

[@MrPLC999]

No matter how you slice it, the pilots completely failed to fly the airplane.

[@emergencymanager5233]

Complacency kills

[@BlueGemYt]

It is very hard landing

[@ooodongcom]

이 시뮬레이션은 뭐지요??

[@ShutterBugBob]

이 시뮬레이션은 뭐지요??: This simulation is doing it (Korean)

[@MegaFPVFlyer]

Children of Magenta anyone?

[@BlueGemYt]

😲😲😲😲😱😲😲😱🤯🤯

[@hn-soo]

Woa.. .It's terrible.......................

[@esathegreat]

why is there a ffucking wall

[@gendaminoru3195]

It doesn't matter. The result would have been the same if it was a corn field. The airplane stalled, was post stick shaker and power didn't come up in time to do anything. They were probably groggy and half asleep at the end of a long flight counting on a trainee to monitor the approach _ WHICH WAS NEVER STABLE.

[@oswaldmontecristo1035]

Because the airport is built on the bay. SFO is an extension of old farmland that was owned by DO Mills, who leased it out to San Francisco for the first airport, Mills Field. It later became San Francisco Muncipal Airfield and expanded to San Francisco International Airport in the 50's. The "wall" as you call it, is simply riprap that borders the land and the bay water, preventing erosion that would undermine the runway integrity, That is why there is a ffucking wall there.

[@ellisjones3586]

安息葉蒙元和王凌嘉。我相信你會一直橫空出世很大。

[@iagher]

Late late go around...

[@mikethemagnificent6631]

wi tu lo

[@Coachplayer]

Ho Lee Fuk Sum Ting Wong Were also in the cockpit

[@vangelosecondomarco7549]

Piloti cinesi.....

[@petemackenzie4160]

Unstable...go around. Basics.

[@petemackenzie4160]

Terrifying stuff

[@siripfreely]

In the comments: Armchair pilots

[@Bill_Woo]

Why doesn't the most modern, safest, most sophisticated plane in history simply tell the pilots that they're on a crash trajectory? I thought that this was settled in the 1960s. There should have been klaxons out the wazoo, WAY before impact. Am I uninformed, so that they DID fire off? I don't see anything about ignoring safety systems warnings in the NTSB assessment. I think the Boeing engineers need to quit stroking themselves at having the most advanced cockpit in history, and install some G.D. common sense. That is, before they allow more deaths, simply because cockpit systems can't even stop pilots from undershooting a runway. This is so trivial. WTH. Again, wasn't this issue solved 50 years ago???

[@JakeHabermansYouTube]

Well the pilots were a little high there's your problem...

[@kurumia0922]

What a rubbish approach...