Ti quoto.
Si sono scritti chilometri di posts sul fatto che gli AA/VV non siano dei camerieri ad alta quota.
Lei lo ha dimostrato, facendo il suo lavoro e portando onore alla categoria che rappresenta.
Incidente 777 Asiana a SFO
- Autore Discussione Shogun
- Data d'inizio
Ti quoto.
Si sono scritti chilometri di posts sul fatto che gli AA/VV non siano dei camerieri ad alta quota.
Lei lo ha dimostrato, facendo il suo lavoro e portando onore alla categoria che rappresenta.
Articolo del WSJ sui pax che in caso di evacuazione arraffano i bagagli: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7179976.html?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories
Un encomio alla AV. Vero è che "ha fatto solo il suo lavoro" ma non tutti in situazioni che sono straordinarie sono in grado di mantenere il necessario sangue freddo. Anche perché, per fortuna, non è lavoro di tutti i giorni per un AV dover gestire una evacuazione con l'aereo appena schiantatosi sulla pista.
Vero. Ma fa parte del loro mestiere il saper gestire le emergenze. Fosse anche una volta nella vita. Dire che non tutti gli Av in situazioni che sono straordinarie sono in grado di mantenere il necessario sangue freddo significa dire che non tutti gli Av sono in grado di fare bene il loro lavoro.
E, ripeto, non voglio assolutamente sminuire la straordinaria prestazione della purser.
Testimonianza visiva del F/O del volo United
http://www.curacaochronicle.com/avi...ction_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UdxnfYrg7WU.like
http://www.curacaochronicle.com/avi...ction_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UdxnfYrg7WU.like
Possiamo dire anche che puoi simulare una serie di situazioni d'emergenza quante volte vuoi, ma finchè non ti capita quella vera non sai come ti comporterai, se ragionerai lucidamente sperimentando un rallentamento soggettivo del tempo che ti permette di valutare con distacco e apparente calma la situazione, o se ti bloccherai come una lepre di notte davanti ai fari di un'auto.
Per la mia fortunatamente piccola esperienza di emergenze reali posso dire che ho preso le decisioni nei modi e nei tempi corretti (in fondo non sono mai finito sui giornali o su youtube, finora), probabilmente grazie ad un carattere normalmente calmo e una montagna di ore di addestramento, ma finchè nel mondo reale non mi si è accesa una spia rossa davanti al naso, in decollo, con una vociona che strillava qualcosa che sul momento non capivo, non potevo sapere come avrei reagito.
Ergo gli assistenti di volo hanno fatto ciò per cui erano a bordo, ma se il bilancio delle vittime non è catastrofico lo si deve anche al loro lavoro, e possono esserne ben orgogliosi.
Capisco quello che dici, e sono d'accordo. Concordo assolutamente anche con quello che molti hanno scritto che la assistente di volo ha fatto un egregio lavoro, e se l'avessi di fronte a me, correrei a stringerle la mano e congratularmi per l'operato. Ma nel complesso questo e' quello per cui sono addestrati. Fortunatamente le tragedie capitano raramente, ma e' importante che quando accadano vi siano persone pronte a fronteggiarle. Detto questo, complimenti alla AV.
apro per leggere notizie novita e commenti sull'incidente e invece si parla solo di quel che ha fatto l'hostess. Condivido che ha svolto un lavoro encomiabile, ma forse per parlare di questo meglio aprirle un altro 3d no? Scusate la mia opinione...
Sull'incidente mi sembra che stiamo discutendo e la gestione dell'emergenza fa comunque parte dell'incidente. Oltretutto fino a che non si avranno ulteriori notizie non possiamo gettarci in congetture , ma solo in ipotesi che sono già state vagliate da parecchi forumisti.
Dal Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324507404578595730188554270.html?mod=e2fb
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324507404578595730188554270.html?mod=e2fb
Scusate se e' gia stato postato:
NTSB: Asiana 777 commanding pilot assumed auto-throttles were maintaining speed
The pilot in command ofAsiana Airlines Flight 214, the Boeing 777-200ER that crashed on landing at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) July 6, told investigators that he assumed the aircraft’s auto-throttles were engaged and maintaining a speed of 137 knots as the 777 came in for a landing. The aircraft’s speed dropped to just 103 knots at the time of impact.
The commanding pilot was one of three pilots in the cockpit at the time of the crash, sitting in the right seat. He was serving as an instructor for the pilot flying the aircraft, sitting in the left seat, who was in the midst of training on the 777 after serving for eight years as an Airbus A320 captain for Asiana.
“At about 500 feet, [the commanding pilot] realized they were low,” US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chairman Deborah Hersman said at a Tuesday news conference in San Francisco. “He told the [flying] pilot to pull back.”
The commanding pilot told NTSB he realized a go-around was necessary and noted the flying pilot had already pushed the throttles forward. But it was too late; the aircraft’s main landing gear was the first to impact SFO’s sea wall as the 777 came down short of runway 28L, Hersman said. The tail section then hit the sea wall. The aircraft “went into a 360 degree spin,” she added.
Debris from the crash, in which two passengers were killed, can be seen from the sea wall all the way to where the aircraft came to a stop, Hersman said. “Sections of the cabin are found very early on in the debris field,” she noted, pointing out that aircraft parts, galley materials, newspapers and magazines are scattered throughout the debris field.
http://atwonline.com/safety/ntsb-as...assumed-auto-throttles-were-maintaining-speed
NTSB: Asiana 777 commanding pilot assumed auto-throttles were maintaining speed
The pilot in command ofAsiana Airlines Flight 214, the Boeing 777-200ER that crashed on landing at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) July 6, told investigators that he assumed the aircraft’s auto-throttles were engaged and maintaining a speed of 137 knots as the 777 came in for a landing. The aircraft’s speed dropped to just 103 knots at the time of impact.
The commanding pilot was one of three pilots in the cockpit at the time of the crash, sitting in the right seat. He was serving as an instructor for the pilot flying the aircraft, sitting in the left seat, who was in the midst of training on the 777 after serving for eight years as an Airbus A320 captain for Asiana.
“At about 500 feet, [the commanding pilot] realized they were low,” US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chairman Deborah Hersman said at a Tuesday news conference in San Francisco. “He told the [flying] pilot to pull back.”
The commanding pilot told NTSB he realized a go-around was necessary and noted the flying pilot had already pushed the throttles forward. But it was too late; the aircraft’s main landing gear was the first to impact SFO’s sea wall as the 777 came down short of runway 28L, Hersman said. The tail section then hit the sea wall. The aircraft “went into a 360 degree spin,” she added.
Debris from the crash, in which two passengers were killed, can be seen from the sea wall all the way to where the aircraft came to a stop, Hersman said. “Sections of the cabin are found very early on in the debris field,” she noted, pointing out that aircraft parts, galley materials, newspapers and magazines are scattered throughout the debris field.
http://atwonline.com/safety/ntsb-as...assumed-auto-throttles-were-maintaining-speed
Domanda per ingegneri e tecnici: secondo voi cosa sarebbe successo strutturalmente ad un 787 in un impatto simile?
dal sito sopra postato ho estrapolato questi due commenti forse interessanti, che ne pensate?
il primo:
his raise another issue of cross training on different philosophy of Airplanes. The Airbus has anti stall protection on the for of alpha floor (the stall speed) the auto throttle command a automatic maximum thrust available on the engines and force the pilot flighting to take actions and correct the problem. It will continue on this new setting until it is physical remove from it. This is a safety thing from Airbus, yet it still can kill you (Air France accident over the south atlantic).
The biggest concern here is Why the Pilot Instructor did not command a go around with plenty of time to execute a safe one and return to a safe landing.
All the passengers and crew have to thank whoever is their God is because this was not a survival crash when you see the event and how the airplane turn 360 degree. The airplane for all purpose was intentionally flown to the ground. Praises for Boeing for building a tank of an airplane.
risposta al primo:
The 777 has the same (similar) stall protection, but if you DISARM the A/T system the only warning that 'pops'out is SPEED LOW and then the stick shaker.
In this situation there is 'too-many' assumptions on this very dangerous situation. Definitely they were NOT STABLE by a 1000 feet, even if the A/T system was DISARMED, if they were 'STABLE' the amount of thrust they would need at 1000 feet on a STABLE condition, would suffice to land safely the A/C.
I can understand the problem of a pilot coming from an Airbus to a Boeing environment, it takes time, what I cannot understand is the 'Instructor' not being aware of this little issue and not being able to 'be' ahead of the aircraft and anticipating the problem and REACT immediately instead of advising the other pilot that obviously is not aware of what's happening. This all situation looks, to me, that 'AWARENESS" was very low on this cockpit.
In the other hand, to 'recover' from a Stick Shaker and DO a Go-Around is not an easy task. Since the A/C was low and on the Landing Configuration, I can believe that the thrust levers were at idle (full idle) and it takes 7 to 9 seconds to reach Go-Around power after pressing the TO/GA buttons (normally helped by pushing FWD the thrust levers). And they didn't had the 'time'.
It's a sad day, fortunately, despite the injuries, only few died.