decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I'm missing your point | 118 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I'm missing your point
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 08 2013 @ 09:41 PM EDT
You wrote (some posts above)

>> Also They were doing a straight approach from 18 thousand feet.
Not a lot of visual cues to acquire valid visual altitude reference, or to
recheck during the approach. <<

The tracking data shows not a straight in approach, but a normal
approach turning thru three 90 degree banked turns during descent,
with plenty of visual clues in excelllent weather.
Unless by "straight" approach you meant "normal",
in which case I apologise.

Final approach on runway alignment was established at 4300 feet altitude
13 nm out, after which the rate of descent was sometimes greater than
normally expected. But the aircraft does not seem to be significantly below
glidepath until below 1000 feet according to
https://twitter.com/DaveMcLauchlan/status/353693057520132096/photo/1

expanded from
http://qz.com/101266/look-at-the-flight-path-of-asiana-214-before-it-crashed-in-
san-francisco-yesterday/

Which also shows an anomalous approach of the same flight number
the day before the crash.

There have been several press comments about the pilot's previous
experience in 747 being a longer, higher airplane which may have
affected his visual PoV. IMO such experience should have caused
him to come in high and long in a smaller plane. Landing speed
for the two planes seems about the same.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )