Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
SLF aside: If I was in an evacuation situation, there's no way I would leave everything behind. For example, last time I flew I had all my essentials in my jacket pockets - passport, keys, wallet, phone etc. I could have flung open the overhead locker and grabbed my jacket in 3 seconds, literally. Just grabbed it and went, not put it on till I was outside.
You might say that those three seconds could be the difference between life and death, but in the wider context of getting everyone out of the plane, it's probably not. If it comes down to three seconds, my goose is probably cooked already. Weigh that against the hassle and expense of replacing those essentials, and it's a chance I would take. I imagine women feel the same about their handbags, and would grab them too. But I agree that suitcases should be left behind - that's too much. Small & quick can be done safely.
You might say that those three seconds could be the difference between life and death, but in the wider context of getting everyone out of the plane, it's probably not. If it comes down to three seconds, my goose is probably cooked already. Weigh that against the hassle and expense of replacing those essentials, and it's a chance I would take. I imagine women feel the same about their handbags, and would grab them too. But I agree that suitcases should be left behind - that's too much. Small & quick can be done safely.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newark
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News Article
SAN FRANCISCO/SEOUL (Reuters) - The pilot of the crashed Asiana plane at San Francisco airport was still "in training" for the Boeing 777 when he attempted to land the aircraft under supervision on Saturday, the South Korean airline said.
Lee Kang-kuk, whose anglicised name was released for the first time on Monday and differed slightly from earlier usage, was the second most junior pilot of four on board the Asiana Airlines aircraft. He had 43 hours of experience flying the long-range jet, the airline said on Monday.
The plane's crew tried to abort the descent less than two seconds before it hit a seawall on the landing approach to the airport, bounced along the tarmac and burst into flames.
It was Lee's first attempt to land a 777 at San Francisco airport, although he had flown there 29 times previously on other types of aircraft, said South Korean transport ministry official Choi Seung-youn. Earlier, the ministry said he had accumulated almost 10,000 flying hours, including 43 at the controls of the 777.
Two teenage Chinese girls on their way to summer camp in the United States were killed and more than 180 injured in the crash, the first fatal accident involving the Boeing 777 since it entered service in 1995.
The Asiana flight from Seoul to San Francisco, with 16 crew and 291 passengers, included several large groups of Chinese students.
Asiana said Lee Kang-kuk, in his mid 40s, was in the pilot seat during the landing. It was not clear whether the senior pilot, Lee Jung-min, who had clocked up 3,220 hours on a Boeing 777, had tried to take over to abort the landing.
"It's a training that is common in the global aviation industry. All responsibilities lie with the instructor captain," Yoon Young-doo, the president and CEO of the airline, told a news conference on Monday at the company headquarters.
The plane crashed after the crew tried to abort the landing with less than two seconds to go, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said on Sunday.
Information collected from the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder indicated there were no signs of problems until seven seconds before impact, when the crew tried to accelerate, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman told reporters at San Francisco airport.
A stall warning, in which the cockpit controls begin to shake, activated four seconds before impact, and the crew tried to abort the landing and initiate what is known as a "go around" manoeuvre 1.5 seconds before crashing, Hersman said.
"Air speed was significantly below the target air speed" of 137 knots, she said. The throttle was set at idle as the plane approached the airport and the engines appeared to respond normally when the crew tried to gain speed in the seconds before the crash, she said.
TRAGIC TWIST
In a tragic twist, the San Francisco Fire Department said one of the Chinese teenagers may have been run over by an emergency vehicle as first responders reached the scene.
"One of the deceased did have injuries consistent with those of having been run over by a vehicle," fire department spokeswoman Mindy Talmadge said.
The two, Ye Mengyuan and Wang Linjia, were classmates and friends from the Jiangshan Middle School in Quzhou, in the prosperous eastern coastal province of Zhejiang.
They were among a group of 30 students and five teachers from the school on their way to attend a summer camp in the United States, the official Xinhua news agency said.
Ye, 16, had an easy smile, was an active member of the student council and had a passion for biology, the Beijing News reported.
"Responsible, attentive, pretty, intelligent," were the words written about her on a recent school report, it added.
Wang, a year older than Ye, was also known as a good student and was head of her class, the newspaper said. The last post on Weibo, China's Twitter-like microblogging site, simply read in English; "go".
Twelve parents, including those of Ye and Wang, were due to leave China for San Francisco on Monday, Xinhua reported. The other students in Ye and Wang's group who are well enough to travel will return to China as the rest of their trip has now been cancelled, the People's Daily said on its official microblog.
More than 30 people remained hospitalised late on Sunday. Eight were listed in critical condition, including two with paralysis from spinal injuries, hospital officials said.
The charred aircraft remained on the airport tarmac as flight operations gradually returned to normal. Three of the four runways were operating by Sunday afternoon.
Hersman said it was too early to speculate on the cause of the crash. The data recorders corroborated witness accounts and an amateur video, shown by CNN, indicating the plane came in too low, lifted its nose in an attempt to gain altitude, and then bounced violently along the tarmac after the rear of the aircraft clipped a seawall at the approach to the runway.
In reply to a question on whether the information reviewed by the NTSB showed pilot error in the crash, Hersman told reporters:
"What I will tell you is that the NTSB conducts very thorough investigations. We will not reach a determination of probable cause in the first few days that we're on an accident scene."
Asiana said mechanical failure did not appear to be a factor. Hersman confirmed that a part of the airport's instrument-landing system was offline on Saturday as part of a scheduled runway construction project, but cautioned against drawing conclusions from that.
"You do not need instruments to get into the airport," she said, noting that the weather was good at the time of the crash and the plane had been cleared for a visual approach.
SERIOUS INTERIOR DAMAGE
The flight's passengers included 141 Chinese, 77 South Koreans, 64 Americans, three Indians, three Canadians, one French, one Vietnamese and one Japanese citizen.
Pictures taken by survivors showed passengers hurrying out of the wrecked plane, some on evacuation slides. Thick smoke billowed from the fuselage and TV footage showed the aircraft gutted by fire. Much of its roof was gone.
Interior damage to the plane was extreme, Hersman said on CNN earlier on Sunday.
"You can see the devastation from the outside of the aircraft, the burn-through, the damage to the external fuselage," she said. "But what you can't see is the damage internally. That is really striking."
The NTSB released photos showing the wrecked interior cabin with oxygen masks dangling from the ceiling.
Hersman said the first emergency workers to arrive at the scene included 23 people in nine vehicles. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said a total of 225 first responders were involved.
"As chaotic as the site was yesterday, I think a number of miracles occurred to save many more lives," Lee said at the airport news conference. Appearing later at San Francisco General Hospital, he declined to address whether one of the Chinese teenagers may have been run over.
It was the first fatal commercial airline accident in the United States since a regional plane operated by Colgan Air crashed in New York in 2009.
Asiana, South Korea's junior carrier, has had two other fatal crashes in its 25-year history.
(Additional reporting by Gerry Shih, Alistain Barr, Sarah McBride, Ronnie Cohen, Poornima Gupta, Laila Kearney, Dan Levine, Jonathan Weber, Peter Henderson, Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles, Jonathan Allen and Barbara Goldberg in New York, Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by David Chance and Raju Gopalakrishnan)
Lee Kang-kuk, whose anglicised name was released for the first time on Monday and differed slightly from earlier usage, was the second most junior pilot of four on board the Asiana Airlines aircraft. He had 43 hours of experience flying the long-range jet, the airline said on Monday.
The plane's crew tried to abort the descent less than two seconds before it hit a seawall on the landing approach to the airport, bounced along the tarmac and burst into flames.
It was Lee's first attempt to land a 777 at San Francisco airport, although he had flown there 29 times previously on other types of aircraft, said South Korean transport ministry official Choi Seung-youn. Earlier, the ministry said he had accumulated almost 10,000 flying hours, including 43 at the controls of the 777.
Two teenage Chinese girls on their way to summer camp in the United States were killed and more than 180 injured in the crash, the first fatal accident involving the Boeing 777 since it entered service in 1995.
The Asiana flight from Seoul to San Francisco, with 16 crew and 291 passengers, included several large groups of Chinese students.
Asiana said Lee Kang-kuk, in his mid 40s, was in the pilot seat during the landing. It was not clear whether the senior pilot, Lee Jung-min, who had clocked up 3,220 hours on a Boeing 777, had tried to take over to abort the landing.
"It's a training that is common in the global aviation industry. All responsibilities lie with the instructor captain," Yoon Young-doo, the president and CEO of the airline, told a news conference on Monday at the company headquarters.
The plane crashed after the crew tried to abort the landing with less than two seconds to go, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said on Sunday.
Information collected from the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder indicated there were no signs of problems until seven seconds before impact, when the crew tried to accelerate, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman told reporters at San Francisco airport.
A stall warning, in which the cockpit controls begin to shake, activated four seconds before impact, and the crew tried to abort the landing and initiate what is known as a "go around" manoeuvre 1.5 seconds before crashing, Hersman said.
"Air speed was significantly below the target air speed" of 137 knots, she said. The throttle was set at idle as the plane approached the airport and the engines appeared to respond normally when the crew tried to gain speed in the seconds before the crash, she said.
TRAGIC TWIST
In a tragic twist, the San Francisco Fire Department said one of the Chinese teenagers may have been run over by an emergency vehicle as first responders reached the scene.
"One of the deceased did have injuries consistent with those of having been run over by a vehicle," fire department spokeswoman Mindy Talmadge said.
The two, Ye Mengyuan and Wang Linjia, were classmates and friends from the Jiangshan Middle School in Quzhou, in the prosperous eastern coastal province of Zhejiang.
They were among a group of 30 students and five teachers from the school on their way to attend a summer camp in the United States, the official Xinhua news agency said.
Ye, 16, had an easy smile, was an active member of the student council and had a passion for biology, the Beijing News reported.
"Responsible, attentive, pretty, intelligent," were the words written about her on a recent school report, it added.
Wang, a year older than Ye, was also known as a good student and was head of her class, the newspaper said. The last post on Weibo, China's Twitter-like microblogging site, simply read in English; "go".
Twelve parents, including those of Ye and Wang, were due to leave China for San Francisco on Monday, Xinhua reported. The other students in Ye and Wang's group who are well enough to travel will return to China as the rest of their trip has now been cancelled, the People's Daily said on its official microblog.
More than 30 people remained hospitalised late on Sunday. Eight were listed in critical condition, including two with paralysis from spinal injuries, hospital officials said.
The charred aircraft remained on the airport tarmac as flight operations gradually returned to normal. Three of the four runways were operating by Sunday afternoon.
Hersman said it was too early to speculate on the cause of the crash. The data recorders corroborated witness accounts and an amateur video, shown by CNN, indicating the plane came in too low, lifted its nose in an attempt to gain altitude, and then bounced violently along the tarmac after the rear of the aircraft clipped a seawall at the approach to the runway.
In reply to a question on whether the information reviewed by the NTSB showed pilot error in the crash, Hersman told reporters:
"What I will tell you is that the NTSB conducts very thorough investigations. We will not reach a determination of probable cause in the first few days that we're on an accident scene."
Asiana said mechanical failure did not appear to be a factor. Hersman confirmed that a part of the airport's instrument-landing system was offline on Saturday as part of a scheduled runway construction project, but cautioned against drawing conclusions from that.
"You do not need instruments to get into the airport," she said, noting that the weather was good at the time of the crash and the plane had been cleared for a visual approach.
SERIOUS INTERIOR DAMAGE
The flight's passengers included 141 Chinese, 77 South Koreans, 64 Americans, three Indians, three Canadians, one French, one Vietnamese and one Japanese citizen.
Pictures taken by survivors showed passengers hurrying out of the wrecked plane, some on evacuation slides. Thick smoke billowed from the fuselage and TV footage showed the aircraft gutted by fire. Much of its roof was gone.
Interior damage to the plane was extreme, Hersman said on CNN earlier on Sunday.
"You can see the devastation from the outside of the aircraft, the burn-through, the damage to the external fuselage," she said. "But what you can't see is the damage internally. That is really striking."
The NTSB released photos showing the wrecked interior cabin with oxygen masks dangling from the ceiling.
Hersman said the first emergency workers to arrive at the scene included 23 people in nine vehicles. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said a total of 225 first responders were involved.
"As chaotic as the site was yesterday, I think a number of miracles occurred to save many more lives," Lee said at the airport news conference. Appearing later at San Francisco General Hospital, he declined to address whether one of the Chinese teenagers may have been run over.
It was the first fatal commercial airline accident in the United States since a regional plane operated by Colgan Air crashed in New York in 2009.
Asiana, South Korea's junior carrier, has had two other fatal crashes in its 25-year history.
(Additional reporting by Gerry Shih, Alistain Barr, Sarah McBride, Ronnie Cohen, Poornima Gupta, Laila Kearney, Dan Levine, Jonathan Weber, Peter Henderson, Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles, Jonathan Allen and Barbara Goldberg in New York, Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by David Chance and Raju Gopalakrishnan)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd probably take with me what I had around the seat, given that it's likely to be small, but I certainly wouldn't mess around trying to get something from the overhead bin, and would be likely to be fairly rough with anyone blocking the aisle while trying to do that. I guess this is partly because I do read sites like this one and I'm an engineer by training and so am fully aware of the time-critical nature of evacuation. If someone's got a bag and is moving with the flow then let them keep it, if they're slowing things down then they should be discouraged, quickly and, if necessary, forcefully in order that everyone else can evacuate. Those who wish to take their baggage from the overhead should wait until last, and not expect the cabin crew to wait for them.
On the subject of culture, yes there are places where pointing out to a superior that he's made a mistake can be a career-limiting move and yes, it has happened. It's not just places like Korea, countries where a lot of military pilots retire and end up either directly or very quickly into the left hand seat for the national carrier can have a similar issue where the FO in the other seat is reluctant to speak up. The whole point of CRM is to encourage awareness of this problem so that captains accept input from the other side of the cockpit and so that the FO is not fearful of raising an issue. The Tenerife incident has been covered, another one is UA173 which kickstarted the United CRM programme.
On the subject of culture, yes there are places where pointing out to a superior that he's made a mistake can be a career-limiting move and yes, it has happened. It's not just places like Korea, countries where a lot of military pilots retire and end up either directly or very quickly into the left hand seat for the national carrier can have a similar issue where the FO in the other seat is reluctant to speak up. The whole point of CRM is to encourage awareness of this problem so that captains accept input from the other side of the cockpit and so that the FO is not fearful of raising an issue. The Tenerife incident has been covered, another one is UA173 which kickstarted the United CRM programme.
Auto thrust
It would be an almost certainty that the AT was NOT in speed mode, once below a certain height All protections are lost. Alpha floor on the bus lost below 100'. There have been accidents attributable to this.
I would think that the PDF was flying an attitude that would be normal for the approach, it was only at the last few hundred feet that he realised he was going to land short and raised the nose. However with no auto thrust active the speed rapidly decayed. No one appeared to have noticed the AT being out of speed mode.
Speed is not so often scanned as the AT usually takes care of it.
I would like to know at exactly what point the speed started to decay. There is so much thrust at idle on these engines and I would think it was not until the last few hundred feet when the speed decayed due to the AOA being increased to make the runway. At this point things become interesting and the pilots are wondering what is happening and why no thrust. This was the point to apply TOGA as no thought is required to push the levers to TOGA.
Thr Idle open descent on the bus would be the same thing. Which is why on a visual approach FD are off.
I would think that the PDF was flying an attitude that would be normal for the approach, it was only at the last few hundred feet that he realised he was going to land short and raised the nose. However with no auto thrust active the speed rapidly decayed. No one appeared to have noticed the AT being out of speed mode.
Speed is not so often scanned as the AT usually takes care of it.
I would like to know at exactly what point the speed started to decay. There is so much thrust at idle on these engines and I would think it was not until the last few hundred feet when the speed decayed due to the AOA being increased to make the runway. At this point things become interesting and the pilots are wondering what is happening and why no thrust. This was the point to apply TOGA as no thought is required to push the levers to TOGA.
Thr Idle open descent on the bus would be the same thing. Which is why on a visual approach FD are off.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A visual approach in severe cavok.... They get low, slow, whack the tail into the threshold, 2 deaths, multiple injuries, a perfectly serviceable aircraft written off.......I see jail time.
Rubbish.
On approach as PF I'm continually scanning IAS ALT VS etc AND Engine thrust.
At the same time the PM when visual below 500' is calling me "plus 5 - 700" ( for eg ) all the way down thus actively monitoring and calling my IAS and Sink rate.
IAS is NOT "forgotten"
On approach as PF I'm continually scanning IAS ALT VS etc AND Engine thrust.
At the same time the PM when visual below 500' is calling me "plus 5 - 700" ( for eg ) all the way down thus actively monitoring and calling my IAS and Sink rate.
IAS is NOT "forgotten"
Last edited by nitpicker330; 8th Jul 2013 at 11:56.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nitpicker
AND the fault of ATC for slam dunk approaches......
It's pretty tough to argue that a 14 mile final from 4300 ft is a "slam dunk"
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ollie Onion http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post7928896
This all comes down to bean counters who want to reduce training costs - this is then a 'customer requirement' and the training companies compress the training, the manufacturers put in more automation allowing less training. And none of these people will think that they are creating a flight safety problem they will congratulate themselves on 'keeping the company profitable'. The post cold war military and boomer generation of pilots is now at retirement and are being replaced by pilots who have only been under the bean counter regime of absolute minimum training. It is starting to apparent in the statistics. Unfortunately, the bean counters will only react when the costs of the crashes exceed the savings in training - unless someone gives them some 'guidance' first.
What scares me about all this is that these are apparently 'professional' crews from ALL different cultures and backgrounds who seem incapable of keeping a perfectly airworthy aircraft in the air when faced with what amount to very very minor defects or unservicabilities.
Ok, that data came out after I commented and please forgive me but SFO is notorious for slam dunk approaches and in my outfit 747's and 777's have indeed been forced to go-around more than a few times.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All pilots onboard this flight have close to 10,000 hours or more. First, you can ask any long haul PICs how many hours they spend sleeping in the bunk and it still counts as flight hours in the logbook.
Well, maybe the public should know the reality of experience counted in flight hours, for lack of a better reference.
To reply to some posts racial comments that were supposedly made (and I believe most experienced folks on this forum have well explained this to be cultural rather than racial differences), the culture in this part of the world is very different from what we see as western standards.
Of course western countries also do have accidents, incidents and other mishaps, but I would like to point out one factor that seems not too well expanded here.
I have been flying as a captain on A320 for a few years now in China, and as TRI on other types in various countries in South East Asia. While I have met skilled individuals, I was surprised (still am, and the word is weak) to see what counts as experience in some of these countries.
To me, the Asiana pilot could have 30,000 hours that I would not be more impressed. Some (Asian) airlines do not allow the FO's to touch the flight controls during takeoff and landing, unless they are with an instructor, which happens twice a month at best on short haul. In one of my posts last year I had mentioned the concern of having FO's ready for upgrade (3500 hours or more) but they lack the total number of landings. They need 400 landings to get upgraded.
This means that when a pilot gets his first command of a jet liner, he/she has clocked a total of 400 landings in their whole professional career. On top of this, I have seen jumpseaters log the flight hours as well, even getting signatures on their logbook from training captains while they just sat on the jumpseat picking their nose and smoking cigarettes.
And guess what? When they have the opportunity to fly with a training captain/instructor, they will have the controls only when the conditions are near VMC, no wind, etc.
So it would be interesting to know how many landings the pilots have at the controls, and how many landings they have done in the last week or month or year, to make a more realistic picture of the proficiency/recency of a pilot.
Of course, getting an upgrade on the 777, you gotta start somewhere, and there was a time for all of us pilots where we had no experience on a new type. Nevertheless, if your experience before the new type can be traced to thousands of actual hand-flown landings, in whatever aircraft, it should definitely make a difference.
The new generation of pilots, jumping straight from flight school to a fast jet are missing not only experience, but exposure, and exposure comes with experience.
Well, maybe the public should know the reality of experience counted in flight hours, for lack of a better reference.
To reply to some posts racial comments that were supposedly made (and I believe most experienced folks on this forum have well explained this to be cultural rather than racial differences), the culture in this part of the world is very different from what we see as western standards.
Of course western countries also do have accidents, incidents and other mishaps, but I would like to point out one factor that seems not too well expanded here.
I have been flying as a captain on A320 for a few years now in China, and as TRI on other types in various countries in South East Asia. While I have met skilled individuals, I was surprised (still am, and the word is weak) to see what counts as experience in some of these countries.
To me, the Asiana pilot could have 30,000 hours that I would not be more impressed. Some (Asian) airlines do not allow the FO's to touch the flight controls during takeoff and landing, unless they are with an instructor, which happens twice a month at best on short haul. In one of my posts last year I had mentioned the concern of having FO's ready for upgrade (3500 hours or more) but they lack the total number of landings. They need 400 landings to get upgraded.
This means that when a pilot gets his first command of a jet liner, he/she has clocked a total of 400 landings in their whole professional career. On top of this, I have seen jumpseaters log the flight hours as well, even getting signatures on their logbook from training captains while they just sat on the jumpseat picking their nose and smoking cigarettes.
And guess what? When they have the opportunity to fly with a training captain/instructor, they will have the controls only when the conditions are near VMC, no wind, etc.
So it would be interesting to know how many landings the pilots have at the controls, and how many landings they have done in the last week or month or year, to make a more realistic picture of the proficiency/recency of a pilot.
Of course, getting an upgrade on the 777, you gotta start somewhere, and there was a time for all of us pilots where we had no experience on a new type. Nevertheless, if your experience before the new type can be traced to thousands of actual hand-flown landings, in whatever aircraft, it should definitely make a difference.
The new generation of pilots, jumping straight from flight school to a fast jet are missing not only experience, but exposure, and exposure comes with experience.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TacheyonID
With some of the cockpit CVR data available it raises the issue of how they got into a slam dunk-- it sounds like they got put into a short final? Is all the ATC audio available from their turn onto Base, all the way in? .
Originally Posted by Nitpicker 330
Ok, that data came out after I commented and please forgive me but SFO is notorious for slam dunk approaches and in my outfit 747's and 777's have indeed been forced to go-around more than a few times.
the data was posted before your post. and ther had been previous posts about the flight track plot in Flight Aware showing a 13+ mile final. Ive never flown into SFO myself, but apparently they have a practice of putting you in a slam dunk, you aren't the only one to comment on this. But that seems to lead everyone to assume that ATC turned them on a short high final, which is clearly not the case. Now what happened after they were turned on final regarding altitude restrictions is to be determined, but certainty their turn onto final was neither short nor high
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 41
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Vic777
Could this happen on an Airbus? Wouldn't the Airbus just go into "TOGA" and climb away?
Could this happen on an Airbus? Wouldn't the Airbus just go into "TOGA" and climb away?
Last edited by W2k; 8th Jul 2013 at 12:15.
Sorry Nitpicker, I disagree, I used to get those calls in my first airline but not in 4 others I have been in, including current one. I always thought they were good SOPs. Proof is in the pudding as they say and it has happened countless times, speed Is not so often monitored as when you had your hand controlling the speed.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be a worrying trend here. Taking the Turkish AMS accident and this one (while not, of course, prejudging the NTSB findings) it would seem that the performance of trainers is falling, both in attention and actions that are required.
It is my view that the industry needs to re-look at selection for the post, and whereas it has for some time been seen as a 'career move' by many, it really needs to be seen as a 'what and how can I teach' move . I have in my time seen a too relaxed and over-casual approach from some trainers, giving the impression that they are where they are and that is it and most of it is box-ticking. I think the best example for me was the BA trainer who was 're-validating' me LHS after some time away, with a carefully selected sector LGW-BIO (yes, of all choices....) with thunderstorms and variable winds who was blissfully unaware that there was an airfield brief for Captains for BIO which had to be read and watched before operating there. Interesting scenario - TC not legally able to be PIC on that detail.
So, folks, do we, and how do we change the criteria for TCs? Is there indeed a problem in the role?
EDIT: to add, there was, in fact, a major error in BA's BIO brief in those days (the video circled the wrong way!) so, tongue in cheek, was it in fact better he hadn't seen the briefing................?
EDIT 2: Thanks to 'macrihanish', ICAO code corrected. Why did I think it was 'BLV'?....................
It is my view that the industry needs to re-look at selection for the post, and whereas it has for some time been seen as a 'career move' by many, it really needs to be seen as a 'what and how can I teach' move . I have in my time seen a too relaxed and over-casual approach from some trainers, giving the impression that they are where they are and that is it and most of it is box-ticking. I think the best example for me was the BA trainer who was 're-validating' me LHS after some time away, with a carefully selected sector LGW-BIO (yes, of all choices....) with thunderstorms and variable winds who was blissfully unaware that there was an airfield brief for Captains for BIO which had to be read and watched before operating there. Interesting scenario - TC not legally able to be PIC on that detail.
So, folks, do we, and how do we change the criteria for TCs? Is there indeed a problem in the role?
EDIT: to add, there was, in fact, a major error in BA's BIO brief in those days (the video circled the wrong way!) so, tongue in cheek, was it in fact better he hadn't seen the briefing................?
EDIT 2: Thanks to 'macrihanish', ICAO code corrected. Why did I think it was 'BLV'?....................
Last edited by BOAC; 8th Jul 2013 at 14:02.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitpicker,
I thought the same about the famous SFO "slam dunk" and agree totally with your comments about the other pilots on the flightdeck. Watching the video of the crash, a few observations;
1. Imagine if the flight had been "paired" with another aircraft landing on 28R (as SFO like to arrange). That would have got "exciting" as he could have flown into Asiana's debris field.
2. The designers of the 777 need to take a bow. The aircraft took two massive thumps and it is amazing that all but two survived.
3. Not absolving the pilots' responsibilty to monitor speed and I don't want to get into speculation, but I wonder if the speedbrakes inadvertently remained extended during the approach.
4. Not absolving the other pilots of responsibility, but had there been an electronic glideslope available, I somehow doubt this would have happened. It is a lot easier to speak up from the back with a call "one dot low, not correcting", than "err..you look a bit low to me". Not sure if PAPIs were available, as they would have helped.
Finally, the talking heads on 'uhmerican TV are expressing concern that pilots are trained on flights with passengers. Oh dear, are they in for a shock when they learn that for most us when we land a new aircraft type for the first time, a few hundred unsuspecting people are sitting behind "enjoying the ride"
I thought the same about the famous SFO "slam dunk" and agree totally with your comments about the other pilots on the flightdeck. Watching the video of the crash, a few observations;
1. Imagine if the flight had been "paired" with another aircraft landing on 28R (as SFO like to arrange). That would have got "exciting" as he could have flown into Asiana's debris field.
2. The designers of the 777 need to take a bow. The aircraft took two massive thumps and it is amazing that all but two survived.
3. Not absolving the pilots' responsibilty to monitor speed and I don't want to get into speculation, but I wonder if the speedbrakes inadvertently remained extended during the approach.
4. Not absolving the other pilots of responsibility, but had there been an electronic glideslope available, I somehow doubt this would have happened. It is a lot easier to speak up from the back with a call "one dot low, not correcting", than "err..you look a bit low to me". Not sure if PAPIs were available, as they would have helped.
Finally, the talking heads on 'uhmerican TV are expressing concern that pilots are trained on flights with passengers. Oh dear, are they in for a shock when they learn that for most us when we land a new aircraft type for the first time, a few hundred unsuspecting people are sitting behind "enjoying the ride"
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 8th Jul 2013 at 12:28.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all comes down to bean counters who want to reduce training costs
James----Well it is in my Airline.
And Qantas and Dragonair and Virgin Oz.
With AND without Auto-thrust ( Auto-throttle in Boeing ) being used.
And Qantas and Dragonair and Virgin Oz.
With AND without Auto-thrust ( Auto-throttle in Boeing ) being used.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 8th Jul 2013 at 12:26.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Vic777
You mean like that brand new 738 that "Touched down" on the reef with VOR ahead of Runway 09 in DPS Bali?? Not like landing on the sea wall at SFO at all.
Either way if TOGA with AT and/or AP engaged??
Either way if TOGA with AT and/or AP engaged??
Last edited by philipat; 8th Jul 2013 at 12:35.
