Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Video: what might have been for Asiana 214
Animation showing how 214 would have landed if the approach had been maintained, vs. what did happen (www.youtube.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
So what I'm gathering from this animation is that, if they hadn't crashed, they would have landed...
So I too gather. But only IF they(pilot/s) had ......
I am with PhotoFinish, flawed animation is like flawed news, they have no business being published for they distort the trugh and adds to the confusion. Drop it.
Video needs to be corrected for a few flaws, Left engine apparently ended up on the right side of Runway 28L, Fire started after the airplane came to a rest on the dirt.
Version 2 posted: http://youtu.be/JhoAfgYhhs0
Version 2 posted: http://youtu.be/JhoAfgYhhs0
Can there be a way for the guys at FA to it possible to check or align the blogs on time scale like newest first and so on?
Here's another short video from the same poster, with the cockpit perspective.
http://youtu.be/Lj-Etq3H4Eo
http://youtu.be/Lj-Etq3H4Eo
The saying is lies, damn lies and statistics. Apparently you can add animations to the list now.
The sensationalistic use of flames all over the fuselage many minutes aged of reality, as well as the inaccurate track of the engines are the least of this animation.
The animation is severely out of scale. Asiana dropped below the glidepath long before the point indicated in this animation.
Asisna 214 had 3 red PAPI at 500 ft (when the pilot flying alleged he say the bright light.) The plane continued to drop further below the glidepath, and would be well below 4 red PAPI at 100 ft, yet this animation shows Asiania 214 close to altitude of the plane representing the proper glidepath altitude over the light pier at the very end of the approach, immediately before the seawall of the runway.
It would be more useful for the animation to track the Asiana flight from DUVET where it was above the glidepath (2200 vs. 1800 ft) showing not only the steeper descent, but the insufficient and late reaction to the plane dropping below the glidepath. Also, the animation could show the change in attitude of the plane as they pulled the nose up slightly to reduce the descent, as well as the resulting severe reduction in speed that was causing the plane to stall out. The the last minute attempt to avoid the light piers/ seawall by raising the nose and finally pushing the thrust forward too late to avoid the ground.
If would be interesting to see the whole picture. It might help people to associate the Asiana incident to another example scenario that non-aviators might find easier to relate.
That being, traveling down one hill in a car at slow speed with the intention of coming to a complete stop at the flat stretch at the bottom of the hill (with the foot off the accelerator pedal and the engine merely in idle) then reaching the bottom and suddenly needing to go up the next hill instead to avoid a collision with a huge boulder in your lane, but even pushing the gas pedal to thd floor, unable to get the heavily loaded vehicle moving at full highway speed fast enough up the next hill before that tractor trailer in the next lane plows through you. Also add to the picture that your engine takes at least 7-9 seconds to get up to full power.
That 18 wheeler might have brakes, but the last time I checked gravity doesn't. So trying to pull a heavy plane out of a fall at the last minute (below 100 ft) with the planes' engines in idle is not easy, and likely impossible due to the laws of physics, with all that downward momentum of such a heavy plane, and the inertial resistance to get a large engine spinning up at full speed, which will take time in the best of curcumstances.
The car on hill analogy aside, this Asiana animation could benefit from showing a longer perspective of relative glidepath position vs. normal, as well as the insufficient futile attempts to change the certain crash at the last minute.
But the positions need to be more accurate. Better than within 100 ft (as flight aware data shows position only to the nearest 100ft) when the animation is showing the flight below 100 ft. Assuming the animator is using public flightaware data, the error is as large the altitude bring illustrated. Showing the descent starting from a much higher altitude allows to better plot the descent because of more data points available to mote accurately show the path.
The sensationalistic use of flames all over the fuselage many minutes aged of reality, as well as the inaccurate track of the engines are the least of this animation.
The animation is severely out of scale. Asiana dropped below the glidepath long before the point indicated in this animation.
Asisna 214 had 3 red PAPI at 500 ft (when the pilot flying alleged he say the bright light.) The plane continued to drop further below the glidepath, and would be well below 4 red PAPI at 100 ft, yet this animation shows Asiania 214 close to altitude of the plane representing the proper glidepath altitude over the light pier at the very end of the approach, immediately before the seawall of the runway.
It would be more useful for the animation to track the Asiana flight from DUVET where it was above the glidepath (2200 vs. 1800 ft) showing not only the steeper descent, but the insufficient and late reaction to the plane dropping below the glidepath. Also, the animation could show the change in attitude of the plane as they pulled the nose up slightly to reduce the descent, as well as the resulting severe reduction in speed that was causing the plane to stall out. The the last minute attempt to avoid the light piers/ seawall by raising the nose and finally pushing the thrust forward too late to avoid the ground.
If would be interesting to see the whole picture. It might help people to associate the Asiana incident to another example scenario that non-aviators might find easier to relate.
That being, traveling down one hill in a car at slow speed with the intention of coming to a complete stop at the flat stretch at the bottom of the hill (with the foot off the accelerator pedal and the engine merely in idle) then reaching the bottom and suddenly needing to go up the next hill instead to avoid a collision with a huge boulder in your lane, but even pushing the gas pedal to thd floor, unable to get the heavily loaded vehicle moving at full highway speed fast enough up the next hill before that tractor trailer in the next lane plows through you. Also add to the picture that your engine takes at least 7-9 seconds to get up to full power.
That 18 wheeler might have brakes, but the last time I checked gravity doesn't. So trying to pull a heavy plane out of a fall at the last minute (below 100 ft) with the planes' engines in idle is not easy, and likely impossible due to the laws of physics, with all that downward momentum of such a heavy plane, and the inertial resistance to get a large engine spinning up at full speed, which will take time in the best of curcumstances.
The car on hill analogy aside, this Asiana animation could benefit from showing a longer perspective of relative glidepath position vs. normal, as well as the insufficient futile attempts to change the certain crash at the last minute.
But the positions need to be more accurate. Better than within 100 ft (as flight aware data shows position only to the nearest 100ft) when the animation is showing the flight below 100 ft. Assuming the animator is using public flightaware data, the error is as large the altitude bring illustrated. Showing the descent starting from a much higher altitude allows to better plot the descent because of more data points available to mote accurately show the path.