Search:

Home About Us Locations Practice Areas Industries Our People Litigation Support FMG Trial Successes Events & Publications Careers

SEARCH OUR BLOG

SEARCH

The Flight Level Change Trap: NTSB Cites Boeing Design as Possible
Cause of Asiana 214 Crash CATEGORIES
Posted on: April 16th, 2014
Appellate Advocacy
California LPL
By: William Ezzell
Commercial Litigation/Directors & Officers
Boeing’s 777 is regarded by many as one of, if not the safest commercial airliner ever produced. Up until the tragic accident of Asiana 214 at Construction & Design Professional
San Francisco last year, it’s safety record was nearly spotless. On that unfortunate day, a Boeing 777-200ER crashed short of the runway. Cyber, Privacy, & Security
181 were injured. Three lost their lives. Last month, the NTSB released its Accident Investigation Submission and attributed the crash in E-Alert
part to an autoflight (aka the autopilot) mode known as Flight Level Change. The 777 offers pilots many ways to fly – including descend – the Employment Law Blog (US)
plane. One common mode is LNAV/VNAV – the 777 descends pursuant to the plane’s flight management computers, calculating and Employment Law Blog – CA
executing a descent rate and speed to hold in order to hit certain waypoints at speeds and altitudes input by pilots. Another way is called Employment Law Blog – FL
Flight Level Change, or FLCH. More on that in a minute. Employment Law Blog – GA
Employment Law Blog – MA
Commercial airliners’ autoflight systems are made up of two basic components: the autopilot and the autothrottle. Although they are used in Employment Law Blog – PA And NJ
tandem, they are two separate systems. Autothrottle does exactly what it says, providing automated control of the engines and throttles to Financial Services And Banking Litigation
maintain desired speeds and most airlines require that their 777’s have the autothrottle armed at all times. So if the pilot is flying manually, General Liability
the autothrottle system remains engaged and the 777 in effect tells the pilots “you handle the yoke, I’ll handle the throttle.” Keeping the Government Law
autothrottle engaged reduces workloads for pilots, lowers fuel costs, and provides an envelope of protection from stalls. In most of the Government Relations
autoflight modes, if the speed of the 777 drops too low, the autothrottle will “wake up” and through a series of motors (“servos”) and push the HOA
throttles forward, increasing thrust and helping the airplane recover. However, there is one mode that does not offer stall protection: FLCH. In Hospitality
FLCH, the 777 will not “wake up” from a slow speed. FLCH is used in the initial descent phase or at times where the plane’s altitude is high. It Immigration & I-9 Services
is an idle thrust pitch mode, generally used to change the 777’s altitude while in cruise, not approach, and is the recommended technique for Insurance Coverage And Extra-Contractual
rapid descents. Liability
Enter Asiana 214. That day, the 777 was a little high above its desired altitude just before entering final approach. The flight data recorder Internet Defamation And Media Liability
showed that the FLCH mode was then activated. The appropriateness of this action aside, the mode caused the engines to idle and allowed LawLine
the 777 to descend as quickly as possible. The pilots believed the autothrottle would function through the entire approach to touchdown, Life Sciences
meaning that once the 777 reached its desired altitude path (glideslope), the throttles would reengage and provide enough thrust to maintain Medical & Health Care
the landing speed. This is commonly referred to as at “FLCH trap.” When a plane is descending in FLCH mode, if the throttle levers are Professional Liability And MPL
moved to idle by pilots or computer, the autothrottle goes into a “HOLD” mode and will not move the throttles from the idle position – the Tort And Catastrophic Loss
servos are disconnected from the throttle levers. So when Asiana 214 approached the runway, its speed kept decreasing, as the throttles Transportation
were trapped in idle. By the time the pilots realized the problem (or as many argue, their blunder), it was too late and the plane collided with Uncategorized
the sea wall. Wage & Hour

Make no mistake, the claims against Boeing fall squarely within product liability and this is therefore a case we are following closely here at
FMG. There are many questions, for example, is there a better design alternative to this mode? Did Boeing adequately warn pilots and
airlines about the potential danger? These questions alone have already garnered significant debate in the aviation industry and will only
become more heated as the lawsuits progress. The NTSB report lends significant credence to the core of some of plaintiffs’ claims: design RECEIVE ALERT FOR NEW
defect and failure to warn. Boeing, rightly so, has strongly denied the claims and placed the blame solely on the shoulders of Asiana’s 214 BLOG POSTS
crew, a subject for a post some other day. In the meantime, this case raises a number of product issues and reignites the ever-present
debate human control versus automation. Subscribe to Construction & Design
Professional Law

Subscribe to Employment Law

Like 0 Tweet Share
Subscribe to Government Law

Subscribe to Immigration & I-9 Services

Subscribe to Insurance Law

Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Medical & Health Care

Subscribe to Tort and Catastrophic Loss

Subscribe to Wage & Hour

SUBSCRIBE TO RSS FEED

Construction & Surety Law

Employment Law

Government Law

Immigration & I-9 Services

Insurance Law

Medical & Health Care

Tort and Catastrophic Loss

Wage & Hour

CHECK OUT OUR

NEWSLETTER
Our newsletter, FMG LawLine, is published
monthly. To read the latest issue, please
click here:

ARCHIVES
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
September 2008
August 2008

Home About Us Practice Areas Industries Our People News & Seminars Careers Contact Us
Copyright © 2014 Freeman Mathis & Gary — see Terms of Use.