it could have been mechanical problem. Just sayin'. I know people like to jump to blaming the pilot most of the time, but often, they actually did nothing wrong in many of these accidents.

Seems like too little too late.

I can't imagine that attempting to abort a landing after the plane has stalled just a few feet above the ground could ever end well.

and I don't trust any blame until they are done.

For instance, the last airplane major crash in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, there was a plane that crashed. They said pilot error. But guess what, they never fucking told the pilot that he shouldn't do the rudder inputs that he did, which were considered a standard maneuver on Boeing planes, but it broke the tail off an Airbus. So even when they say "pilot error", that in some cases, can be bullshit.

senger aircraft, but the pilot had to have a lot of hours in other types. There has to be a reason for pulling up and stalling the aircraft - maybe he mistakenly thought the large aircraft on the other runway was in his own path?

and it is tricky. I sure wouldn't want to try it in a big jet.

A miracle more weren't killed, really.

but an experienced OE (Operational Experience) instructor who would have been a captain with considerable experience in the 777. Also, since this was a long international flight there would have been an augment crew (2 extra pilots) and they would also have been in the cockpit. The mystery is why somebody didn't intervene before this landing completely fell apart.

And it isn't like the pilot was a rookie - he was merely new to the 777. Pilots are not even hired at major airlines until they already have several thousand hours of flight experience. At least in the US, when pilots are trained on a new airplane they typically train for about six weeks, learning systems and procedures, and they have to pass several check rides in a simulator. The simulators in which they qualify for line experience are what the FAA calls Level D simulators, which means they almost exactly replicate the way the real airplane flies. The FAA regularly inspects them for accuracy and performance. They are amazingly realistic.

Once pilots pass the initial training course they are required to fly the real airplane for certain number of hours under the supervision of an instructor (Operational Experience), but by that time they should be capable of flying it with very little, if any, assistance. I can guarantee that anyone who regularly flies on any airline has been a passenger on an OE flight. These flights happen all the time and normally they are without incident. On the rare occasions where a pilot doesn't seem to be quite comfortable with the airplane he will be sent back to the simulator for more instruction. It's been done this way for years without any problems.

Whether Asiana has different requirements and different training standards remains to be seen, but since they have FAA permission to fly to the US, and are also a member of the Star Alliance, they would have been vetted pretty carefully by the FAA and by United Airlines, which is the "owner" of the Star Alliance. I would suggest that this pilot's OE instructor has a lotta 'splainin' to do...

It seems that impact was inevitable and they should have been preparing for that instead of attempting to gain altitude.

(stall warning) the reaction is to add power. And even if it looks like you're about to land hard, adding power would soften the impact. The problem is that with a big jet it takes a little time for the engines to spool up from idle - they tried to recover too late. If they flew an unstable approach, which is what appears to have happened, they should have aborted the landing as soon as they became aware of the situation.

It's becoming evident what happened; now we need to know why it happened.

and then they were too low?

Didn't they complete their Wills? ...

It seems absurd to expect a pilot to give up on flying the aircraft so he can 'prepare for impact' ...

Methinks you aren't really thinking this through ...

And if the pilots job is flying the aircraft as safely as the conditions offer, then he or she should have been attempting to prepare for impact. As Velveteen has pointed out though, it seems they might have been doing exactly that at a time that was simply too late.

... in the conditions that are believed to have existed at the time, would not be flown on an ideal flight path during approach ...

Either:

1) Conditions were not ideal (sudden wind shear, etc)

2) Mechanical defect occurred

3) Plain old pilot error

The aircraft had no apparent reason to be on an anomalous flight path, in an improper attitude ... something caused this to be the case, however ...

The indicated airspeed of 85kts indicates that either an anomaly occurred, or the pilots were inattentive and neglected to maintain proper airspeed on approach.

Pilots aren't going to stop trying to fly and instead prepare for impact - their gut reaction is going to be: Fly the goddamned airplane ...

You'd think even if he was a newbie piloting a real 777 for the first time, he would have spent countless hours flying the simulator, with the instructor slamming him with simulated malfunctions and simultaneous disasters, so he'd know how to fly the aircraft and wouldn't botch the landing.

like distraction or fatigue. Or the way the automation was used - if they were trying to descend quickly in what's called FLCH (Flight Level Change) mode, the autothrottles would have been at idle, and if the crew wasn't paying attention to the airspeed and assumed the autothrottles would automatically respond to an airspeed reduction, they could have gotten in a spot they couldn't quickly recover from. But with other experienced crew members in the cockpit who should have been paying attention, the fact that one guy was messing up should not have resulted in an accident.

The ILS for that runway was INOP. Most commercial crews will couple the glideslope/loc even on a clear day strictly to use as reference,more as a backup that they are on proper profile. Since the ILS wasn't operating they had to rely basically on visual.

Do you realize that landing any aircraft especially that size is very difficult no matter how experienced. The water could have messed with their depth perception, there are optical illusions factors as well, this is why they couple the GS/LOC to backup what they are seeing.

BTW I knew 3 of the 4 Pilots. I worked for Asiana for a year and handled flight operations/planning on over 150 flights with 6 different tail numbers which included that hull that was destroyed yesterday. The crew has over 8 years in the 777 flight deck. I route briefed each of them before they departed Seattle 3x a week.

Lets let the NTSB do their job.

I wonder if the altimeter was correctly adjusted for SFO ? That could have been a factor in the accident as well.

I worked as an instructor for a major airline for a number of years until my recent retirement. Pilots are trained to fly visual approaches all the time, and they are actually more difficult to execute in a simulator because the screen display doesn't give you quite as many visual cues as the real thing. If you can do a visual approach in a simulator you should be able to do a real one. There are a variety of reasons why this landing could have gone bad, including mechanical or automation failures, but since pilots do visual approaches all the time without crashing they should have been able to do this one without an ILS backup. They aren't that hard.

Interesting coincidence that you knew some of these pilots. I'm sure the NTSB will soon find out what went wrong, and why.

A precision approach path indicator (PAPI) is a visual aid that provides guidance information to help a pilot acquire and maintain the correct approach (in the vertical plane) to an aerodrome or an airport. It is generally located beside the runway approximately 300 metres beyond the landing threshold of the runway.

The PAPI can be seen to the right of the runway. The plane is below the glideslope.

The greater number of red lights visible compared with the number of white lights visible in the picture means that the aircraft is flying below the glideslope. To use the guidance information provided by the aid to follow the correct glide slope a pilot would manoeuvre the aircraft to obtain an equal number of red and white lights.

Student pilots in initial training may use the mnemonic, "WHITE you're light, RED you're dead" until they are used to the lights meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Approach_Path_Indicator

You don't have any ground reference when landing over water....

I find this OP hard to believe, you got some kind of source for this or did it just pop in your head?

the first time at this particular airport??