PPRuNe Forums


Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:52   #1241 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: currently unsure
Posts: 13
Easy Street:

Quote:
Am I right in thinking that the most commonly-quoted reasons for retention of pilots, despite advances in automation, are that only a human can think flexibly enough to react to any unforeseen circumstance, and that only a human can continue to fly the aircraft when critical elements of automation fail?
Yes you are right in thinking this and on many, many occasions this fact has been demonstrated. Its just that you never read about them because the outcome is that the aircraft lands at an airport (maybe not the intended one) and everyone goes home.

What is being said about the absence of the G/S is that it removed a safety barrier. Put it another way, if you consider the (fictitious) predicate:

An accident is likely if the crew are not that skilled in visual approaches AND are new on type AND there are CRM issues AND the PM is distracted AND a steep descent is required to get on the glidepath AND vertical guidance is not available.

If any condition is removed the accident becomes significantly less likely.

Note: this is a gross simplification, just to illustrate a point
wasthatit is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:56   #1242 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South East Asia
Age: 49
Posts: 2,399
Quote:
framer says:
Quote:
"So what do we need to change about the environment they were operating in? If you can answer that question you actually make an impact on flight safety rather than just on your own ego."
...ensure that pilots can actually fly 100% manually, and have no aversion in disconnecting A/P & A/T at any time to maintain desired flight path profile.
Exactly Glueball, exactly.
So now try and convince the people running the Airlines ( accountants, lawyers etc) that we must increase our type rating sims from 6 sessions to 12 and that we must allow our pilots to fly manually on the line and that our recurrent sim sessions must involve hand flown visual approaches and circuits. Good luck.
framer is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:57   #1243 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SEA
Posts: 35
Interesting, FD off left, On right
Flaps 30

and autothrottles ON....
UAVop is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:00   #1244 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
and autothrottles ON....
didn't she say the autothrottles were ARMED?
Airbubba is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:05   #1245 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 530
This may have been posted already, but the student CA was most previously on the A320. Boeing vs Airbus A/T issue?
ImbracableCrunk is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:09   #1246 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
didn't she say the autothrottles were ARMED?
Yes, she did say they were ARMED, not on.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:15   #1247 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
NTSB: PM in right seat (training captain) saw four reds on PAPI and noticed low airspeed, assumed A/T would maintain speed.
Machaca is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:24   #1248 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
Not clear if Foreign ops crews are subject to drug /alcohol tests

from my SLF point of view, this seems bizarre.

If the plane is in the US, the crew should be subject to the same post crash checks as a US based crew.

I don't recall any road users getting exemptions after crashing a company car, just cos their company was based elsewhere.

Odd. The US gets to throw it's weight around on so many things, and yet in this which would seem to be a no brainer, it's not clear?

Not that I suspect alcohol or drugs were a factor in this case, but I think it's a loophole that needs fixing.
ExitRow is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:29   #1249 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 235
Interesting that she also made a point of saying that the "Instructor Pilot" (PNF) asserted that he was the PIC. However it is clear that the PF had longer service (years) with Asiana (so was in some sense more senior) but was the only one of the three that didnt come to Asiana through an Korean Airforce route - he did his training in Florida (so in some senses was less regarded presumably).

Interesting in that they are exploring the relationships between the three flight deck crew.

Last edited by Pinkman; 9th Jul 2013 at 23:50.
Pinkman is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:32   #1250 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
JamesGV:
Quote:
Pilot in the left seat had 9700 hours of total flight time
Fixed it for you.
Machaca is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:32   #1251 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 20
Thanks NZ, I assume there were 2 pilots landing the plane in the cockpit, and 4 in total on board somewhere. All I'm saying is that in Korea, South or North, you go with the majority view and are not encouraged to make decisions, outside of consensus, even if consensus is incorrect. Similar in many regions north of Australia. ps Olympus Corporation Scandal is a prime example in Japan. It mostly works for them as a society but where individual decisions are needed as in this crash, it all falls down.
garpal gumnut is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:35   #1252 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6
Too high?

To my understanding and interpretation of the NTSB today the pilots refused a drug and acohol test.
tmny is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:36   #1253 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 8
She said there were three in the cockpit, one not.
jlsmith is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:37   #1254 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 54
Quote:
MikeNYC wrote:
Here's the FlightAware data:
Flight Track Log ? AAR214 ? 06-Jul-2013 ? RKSI / ICN - KSFO ? FlightAware
I'm curious where FlightAware got the data from, since it is much more frequent data points than many other flights at that stage of flight. Sometimes FlightAware will provide the facility (e.g. Oakland ARTCC, SoCal TRACON, etc.) for the source, which indicates that the data flowed through the National Offload Program. In this case the source is "FlightAware." Are there any other options for the data's source, e.g. ADS-B Out?

Last edited by Feathered; 10th Jul 2013 at 15:57.
Feathered is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:37   #1255 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 58
Posts: 215
I wonder why she mentioned specially about the lack of alcohol / drugs testing post-crash? She implied that this was the responsibility of the Korean authorities, and that the NTSB don't know why it wasn't carried out. Do they have suspicions about incapacitation?

I also thought she said that the PAPIs were 3 red, one white.

And two cabin crew were ejected through the hole at the back. Horrible.
overthewing is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:38   #1256 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Malmo
Posts: 19
4 reds on the PAPI, speed is low? The only thing that comes to mind is press TOGA or disconnect the freaking A/T, push the throttles forward, select flaps and Go-around !!!!!
Ivanbogus is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:39   #1257 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: US
Posts: 119
Quote:
RetiredF4
What is the special difficulty about that visual approach?
Speed on short final was the problem looks like, what has it to do with the VAP?
I don't think it is particularly difficult. However, i've seen some struggle. Particularly those with a bias towards heavy automation use. An unstable final approach can begin with a rushed preparation.

1. If the approach is not in the database. Then figure out how to build it.

2. Decide what mode to use - LNAV/VNAV then IAN ? All LNAV/VNAV ? Look out the window ?

3. The recommended 1900' altitude at the bridge leaves the aircraft about 300 feet high on a 3 degree glide slope. Close to the runway. Were they hurrying to get down ?
JPJP is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:43   #1258 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
No tests - no requirement. Fact v suspicion

From listening to what and how it was discussed, it didn't seem that she was implying that the crew refused a test.
If the situation is that the law doesn't require one, or empower the authorities to request one of the crew, it may be a failing in the law that they were unable to eliminate the factor from their investigation. That doesn't necessarily hint at suspicion.

I would like it clarified though.
ExitRow is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:43   #1259 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Interesting photo of crash scene showing flight landing on runway with tail intact

Photo Du Jour: Asiana Flight 214 : SFist
MountainBear is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 23:43   #1260 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 102
They were high out of 4000', in V/S with -1500 in the window. So no FLCH trap.
Back at NH is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 19:44.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1