Asiana flight crash at San Francisco

[JimNtexas]

To those bemoaning the `racism' in this thread.
Some cultures have high power distance - i.e. you do not question those in charge.
Others have low power distance - you can question those in charge.
It's a fact of life - not racism.
Read the long history of how Korean cultural norms contributed indirectly to the Guam crash and many other accidents - among a host of other factors.
It's a well established scientific principle in aviation human factors - not racism at all.
From Malcolm Gladwell - certainly not a conservative, or a racist for that matter:

I was a mere Navigator, but I did spend a year on a Korean Air Force base (NOT a USAF base in Korea, a ROKAF base) working daily with my Korean counterparts.

This 'power distance' difference between the USAF and ROKAF was huge.

Just to give you one example, years ago I was a bombing range controller back when the USAF had range control towers.

I was a junior Captain navigator. One day a two star general showed up in a flight of F-4s. He fouled his first low angle bomb pass for a low pullout, but I just warned him, since I was a bit intimated. He fouled his second LAB pass so I called the foul.

He then did a low angle strafe and fouled again. I ordered him to hold high and dry, as we had a 'two strikes and you're out' rule.

As that flight left I called my Squadron Commander and told him that I had fouled a General Officer off the range. The CC said "good job".

I never heard another word about it.

Fast forward a few years and some USAF technicians are working on camera equipment on a controlled ROKAF range. A ROKAF general officer shows up in an F-4 30 minutes early and wants to strafe.

The ROKAF range control told the USAF guys who are very near the strafe targets to "take cover" and the ROKAF general rolled in for his strafing runs.

That was the most extreme example I saw, but it was clear to me that in matters large or small the ROKAF officers were extremely reluctant to pass any sort of bad news to the boss, and would never, ever, directly contradict a senior officer. They told me that it was very important to them that their boss never lose face, and that they knew that as an American I couldn't really understand the whole concept of 'face' as it was practiced in their service.

[Capi_Cafre']

Originally Posted by 3,725

No use in even commenting in the first days since we are overrun with newbies (less than 500 posts) expressing subjective opinions.

Actually, most of the specious blather on this topic seems to be coming from those whose post counts show a true affinity for it.

[Lonewolf_50]

Callsign Kilo:
Fair criticism of the sound byte: as posted it was not a specific scan pattern but a general scan habit taught to us all way back when we started. There is indeed a bit more to it than "inside, outside", since what one is supposed to be checking for (and correcting for) inside and outide is an integral part of a given scan pattern. Slap to the wrist accepted.

[Onceapilot]

I refer to my post #346. A config corelated audio "low speed" type of warning is the only way to avoid low speed on approach, poor scan related, mishaps. The stick-shaker does not protect this, nothing else does either when ATS or A/T are disconnected.
Aviators learned long ago that "speed is life".

[taildrag]

asiana

Good points. Can those familiar with SFO tell us whether "slam dunk" visual approaches are common there? I can see how a pilot making his first SFO landing after a long flight, concerned with being evaluated, possibly not having practiced such g/s US approaches in the sim, could be caught out by the factors you mentioned.
Flight International had a lengthy article years ago about Asian culture. It's possible that played a role here too.
We'll see.

[clayne]

Am unsure how the debate about the authority gradient applies when both crew are Captains and the more senior one is an instructor PNF in the RHS. Is there anything culturally that would prevent him from speaking out?

YES.

High context vs low context, i.e. "face."
Typically different perception of authority when it comes to captain vs F/O as compared to Western airlines.
Lack of assertive CRM as a result.

[clayne]

Of course the pilots where tired, they where flying for 10 h and they are human.

Sorry, disagree. What's the relief crew there for?

[Shutterbug]

Lee Yoonhae Briefing (Korean)

This _must_ be the interview several news articles are referring to, but it doesn't even seem to be the same interview to me:

??? ???, "?? ??? ?? ?? ??" / YTN - YouTube

If you don't speak Korean, don't bother with the link. It's all in Korean, no subs no translations. This is the Cabin Manager Lee Yoonhye's interview to the press in Korean. Here are the highlights that I haven't seen in any article:

Immediately after the crash she went to the cockpit, asked if everyone was okay. Affirmative. She then asked the captain, "Shall we evacuate?" The captain replied, "Please wait." Ms. Lee said there were two captains and one F/O in the cockpit, and _one_ captain outside the cockpit at landing. She refers to captains by their Korean titles Kijang, the F/O as Bukijang...

She made 3 PA's asking the pax to please remain calm... captain comes on the PA and gives orders to commence evacuation.... Ms. Lee pops L1 door and slide and commences evacuation of that section... she realized one of the crew is trapped at the R1 but decides to evacuate pax first and then attempt to free her colleague... the captain who had been in the cabin with the crew has grabbed the crash ax and rushes to R1 to deflate the slide and liberate the trapped crew.

Ms. Lee makes her way to L2 to assist with evacuation... some comments about the chaos and Chinese pax unable to understand their instructions...
observes R2 slide has also inflated and trapped the cabin attendant's leg. The cabin attendant has been crying for help while the pax are scrambling to evacuate. Ms. Lee locates one of the meal knives and stabs the slide to deflate it. Asks colleagues to rescue the trapped crew and help her out the aircraft.

Ms. Lee rushes down to L3 to check on the status of the evacuation there and starts to see smoke and fire in HJK seats sections. She locates a BCF and gets it to the F/O and asks him to put out the fire as she scrambles back to L2.... lot of miscellaneous comments about the chaos throughout the cabin, Chinese pax being unable to understand the crew's instructions... her yelling at pax to leave their bags and get out... few observations on her crew assisting pax out... even as smoke and fire began to get out of control she rushed back and forth through the aircraft until she felt the aircraft had been completely evacuated. She evacuated last.

Apologies for any errors. Don't take my word for any of this. Grab a Korean friend and have them go over her statement. Sorry, it's PPrune... best I could do on short notice.

[ZBBYLW]

Do Asiana relief crews sit in the flight deck or sit back in First Class on landing. I heard it may be the later... May want to change that policy, it seems there were already 2 passengers sitting in 0A and 0B maybe having someone in the flight deck with a touch more assertiveness may be a wise move.

Would the FAA ever consider having an approved pilot list. Frankly if the FO at certain companies or from different cultures don't want to be an assertive PNF perhaps having specially trained pilots who have to demonstrate to an FAA checker CRM skills, the ability to fly a visual approach with no magic and instrument approaches down to CAT I mins without AP or A/THR from say 10,000 feet? Perhaps only letting pilots with these types of certifications into US airspace would be a good start. It should not be a requirement but frankly it is looking like the private sector is letting the ball drop.

It would not be like insurance companies of years back allowing only western pilots fly, but instead allowing only those pilots who are successful in an "aircraft handling" course fly into the USA. You could have ops spec for international airlines who don't need to meet this extra standard (LH, BA, AC, CX etc..) based on a very good pass rate early in the program with regular audits showing that during LOFTs etc these companies are still maintaining proficient at flying.

Just a thought, I fly for an airline that encourages AP and A/THR off "when appropriate" in fact it's in our Ops Manual stating that it is encouraged. In my case the Airbus flies wonderfully with the magic off and with a bit of practice I find you can fly more accurately or smoother than the AP in certain situations by thinking ahead of the plane and anticipating various things. To read what has allegedly happened on board the Asiana flight deck makes me wonder if these guys took the joke "Computer Monitor" too seriously and forgot that they get paid the big bucks to be pilots.

[givemewings]

Wow.

That she made the PAs fits in with a passenger statement on CNN that the crew were asking for calm.. iirc he mentioned that the pax didn't want to stay seated so it's possible the ones at the back were pretty much starting to evacuate by the time the captain gave the purser the go ahead. Still, amazing that she managed to get around the aircraft to check on her crew on keep her head. Certainly she earnt her money that day!

Interesting that the pax ignored the trapped CC... I don't know if I could leave a CC there especially if I were on my way past anyway. Then again I consider any CC my colleague whether my airline or not.

Didn't someone post earlier that the NTSB were waiting to interview the crew? If so isn't it poor form on the part of the airline to let them speak to media first? I thought that was a huge no no

[roving]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

Asiana Airlines will likely end up paying hundreds of millions of dollars to passengers of its flight that crashed in San Francisco on Saturday, according to a leading aviation law expert.

"I don't think there's a claim out there worth less than $1 million. Many will be worth multi-millions," said Arthur Wolk, one of the top personal injury attorneys specializing in air crashes. The Philadelphia-based Wolk said that, as of Monday, he had not been retained by any of the passengers or their families.

The crash, the first fatal airline crash in the United States in nearly four years, occurred Saturday when the Boeing 777 jet attempting to land clipped the end of runway. There were 182 people hospitalized with injuries ranging from severe scrapes to paralysis.

Wolk said even the 123 passengers on the plane who escaped without any physical injuries are likely to see seven-figure settlements from the airline and its insurance carriers due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Asiana passengers likely to get millions of dollars - Jul. 8, 2013

[Boneman]

Sorry, disagree. What's the relief crew there for?

Have you ever flown international before?

Crossing multiple time zones and landing in a different hemisphere from where you departed has a very negative effect on your circadian rhythm. Having a "relief crew" does not necessarily mean you will get adequate or quality rest, if any. You could (and will) be landing when your body tells you, you should be sleeping. You see the sun rise when you feel like it is time to go to bed. It is something we all encounter flying flag operations, but we do the best to mitigate the negative consequences. Fatigue is a contributing factor in this accident.

[NamelessWonder]

Cannot see it, says 'not available in your territory'...is it a different version of the crash as it was shown in cnn yesterday? thanks

Same footage as before, but edited (on the BBC vid)

From the CSD/Purser (See Shutterbug's post above)

Ms. Lee said there were two captains and one F/O in the cockpit, and _one_ captain outside the cockpit at landing.

So, the PF, the PNF (TC) and one FO in the cockpit, with the Captain from the second crew outside would seem to be the crew configuration at landing.

[oceancrosser]

CNN; NTSB says, as of Monday 3PM EST, that they have not interviewed the crew. Apparently, they are waiting for Korean authorities to assist.

I lived in Korea for 3 years. Nearly all Koreans speak English fairly well.

Unfortunately, not many Korean pilots appear to be part of "nearly all Koreans" judging by r/t skills.

[glad rag]

The thing you got to ask yourself, would the same be ever led to happen on BA or Lufthansa.

It says a lot about the airline when two idiots upfront can't even tell they are way below the approach speed on landing, they shouldn't even be flying a Cessna and deserve everything they get if what is reported to be the case is true. I'm sure some pax in the back who have 0 flying hours would have known something was going wrong by the way a slow approach speed/attitude feels, its not rocket science wether your flying a 777 or a C150....

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...-schiphol.html

[Speed of Sound]

Interesting to mention that flight Asiana 214 on July 5, so the day before the crashed one, make a go around at SFO.

It might be an interesting exercise to trawl back through the FlightAware database for the weeks since the ILS was U/S.

I have already made the point that despite the "cultural/training" issues, at least 20 previous Flight 214s have landed without incident at SFO. If any more of them are GAs it may back up the charge that some of these pilots are not particularly skilled at hand flying visual approaches (obviously depending on the reason for the GAs), but it would also however knock on the head the idea that these pilots 'don't do' go arounds.

[givemewings]

Apologies if this has already been posted... but it's hard to keep up with all the posts


Read more: Plane crash survivors describe horror]

[Siglo]

Severe break down on both parts - As pilot flying you are expected to be able to visually fly a serviceable aircraft down to the runway and land safely in the designated touchdown zone, instrument assisted is a bonus! If you can't get the basics right what are you doing there!? As pilot monitoring in a 2 crew environment you are there to advise the pilot flying of any deviations; whether that's glide slope/localiser deviations from an ILS or height checks on a LOC only or VOR approach.. How did these guys manage to hit the ground so short!?

Having relief crew in the cockpit for landing should be a bonus and they should obviously call out anything they see that isn't right!! Why do so many airlines stipulate that on long haul flights all 4/3 crew members must be in the cockpit for takeoff and landing!? This accident could have been a lot worse and if it was all to 'save face' then anyone who won't speak up about deviations in flight path purely to save face shouldn't be there in the first place! Do they not have CRM training at Asiana??

[Shutterbug]

@givemewings #978

I want to reiterate... this is from her statement at the aforementioned briefing. I've already heard another eyewitness account from a pax who stated her relatives had seen the FA trapped by the slide and attempted to help her and according to her _they_ were the ones who were able to free her from the R2 slide. Obviously can't have both events. Also haven't seen Asiana state 3 of the cockpit crew were "captains," but she referred to them as "kijang," I'm just translating her statement.

[nigegilb]

Since June it has been something of a lottery as to whether or not PAPIs are available to 28L/28R. Be very interested if anyone has a copy of the SFO Notam for July 6 prior to the accident. I can't recall seeing them operative since the current airfield works have been underway. Looking at the flight aware data this was a steep approach that coincided with a 3 deg flight path @ around 500 feet, only to go below the glide path at this point. I am struggling to comprehend how the crew would ignore four reds at this point, so, until the crew confirm the PAPIs were functioning, doubts remain. Perhaps someone better versed than myself can explain the acceptability of the situation at SFO given that FAA are signed up to these agreements?

This is the requirement as explained by FAA and attached to its recent capital improvement program RE PAPI installation;

Core Initiative: Visual

Navaids(N04.01-00) (CIP#:N04.01-00)

This program supports the procurement, installation, and commissioning of Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) systems and Runway End Identification Light (REIL) systems. A PAPI provides visual approach glide slope information to pilots and enables them to make a stabilized descent with a safe margin of approach clearance over obstructions.

These are the ICAO internationally agreed requirements;

ICAO Annex 14 Vol 1 Aerodrome Design and Operations





5.3.5 Visual approach slope indicator systems

Application

5.3.5.1 A visual approach slope indicator system shall be provided to serve the approach to a runway whether or not the runway is served by other visual approach aids or by non-visual aids, where one or more of the following conditions exist:

a) the runway is used by turbojet or other aeroplanes with similar approach guidance requirements;

b) the pilot of any type of aeroplane may have difficulty in judging the approach due to:

1) inadequate visual guidance such as is experienced during an approach over water or featureless terrain by day or in the absence of sufficient extraneous lights in the approach area by night, or

2) misleading information such as is produced by deceptive surrounding terrain or runway slopes;

c) the presence of objects in the approach area may involve serious hazard if an aeroplane descends below the normal approach path, particularly if there are no non-visual or other visual aids to give warning of such objects;

d) physical conditions at either end of the runway present a serious hazard in the event of an aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway; and

e) terrain or prevalent meteorological conditions are such that the aeroplane may be subjected to unusual turbulence during approach.

Note.C Guidance on the priority of installation of visual approach slope indicator systems is contained in Attachment A, Section 12.

5.3.5.2 The standard visual approach slope indicator systems shall consist of the following:
a) T-VASIS and AT-VASIS conforming to the specifications contained in 5.3.5.6 to 5.3.5.22 inclusive;

85

b) PAPI and APAPI systems conforming to the specifications contained in 5.3.5.23 to 5.3.5.40 inclusive; as shown in Figure 5-12.

5.3.5.3 P API, T-V ASIS or A T-V ASIS shall be provided where the code number is 3 or 4 when one or more of the conditions specified in 5.3.5.1 exist.

5.3.5.4 PAPI or APAPI shall be provided where the code number is 1 or 2 when one or more of the conditions specified in 5.3.5.1 exist.

5.3.5.5 Where a runway threshold is temporarily displaced from the normal position and one or more of the conditions specified in 5.3.5.1 exist, a P API shall be provided except that where the code number is 1 or 2 an AP API may be provided.