Asiana runway excursion in Hiroshima [Archive]

xaf2fe

14th Apr 2015, 15:55

Here's the AP story:

The headline says "Plane skids off runway in Japan; about 20 injured"

TOKYO (AP) — An Asiana Airlines plane skidded off a runway Tuesday after landing in western Japan, and about 20 people received minor injuries, officials said.

Hiroshima airport reported that the aircraft's tail touched the runway while landing, causing some sparks, but there were no flames, the Mihara City fire department said.

(well, ok, guess he scraped the tail. No flames? )

The airport was closed after the accident for an investigation.

(Then in the 4th paragraph the plot thickens)

Officials found damage to a wireless communication facility near the runway, suggesting the Airbus 320 may have touched it before landing, Transport Ministry official Shunichiro Sasaki said. He said the plane's left wing and left engine were also damaged.

(So it was a bit more than a tail scrape. Left wing and engine damaged? Wireless communications facility? Wait, there's more)

An object believed to be an antenna from the communication facility was found caught in the plane's left landing gear, Kyodo News reported, quoting the Transport Ministry.

(An antenna stuck in the left gear!!! )

Officials said Asiana Flight 162 was carrying 74 passengers and eight crewmembers from Incheon airport in South Korea.

Fire department official Kyoichi Utsumi said about 20 people received minor injuries — mostly bruises and scratches — and no one was hurt seriously. All were evacuated using escape chutes, and it was not immediately clear if they were injured during the landing or the evacuation. Transport officials said 18 of the injured people were taken to nearby hospitals for treatment.

TV video showed the escape chutes hanging from the aircraft, with several fire engines standing by as a precaution.

Passengers interviewed by Japanese media described a tense evacuation.

Kyodo quoted an unidentified passenger as saying that the plane bounced when it touched down, then skidded off the runway and stopped on the grass. It said another passenger described seeing flames in the engine. NHK quoted a passenger as saying smoke entered the cabin before the evacuation.

(Of course we get the reference to the SFO 777, but maybe they're related?)

An Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 crashed two years ago as it approached San Francisco's airport in an accident that killed three teenagers and injured nearly 200 others. U.S. safety investigators said the pilots bungled the landing approach by inadvertently deactivating the plane's key control for airspeed, among other errors.

NoJoy

14th Apr 2015, 17:14

Heres what the local foreigner/English media house, the Korean Times had to say;

Posted : 2015-04-14 22:12
Updated : 2015-04-14 22:17
Asiana jet slides off runway at Hiroshima

음성듣기
By Kim Jae-won

An Asiana Airlines aircraft overran a runway at a Japanese airport Tuesday evening, leaving 23 passengers with minor injuries, according to officials and reports.

Asiana flight 162 slid off the runway at Hiroshima Airport at 8 p.m, about one hour after it departed from Incheon International Airport, an Asiana official said.

Eighty one passengers and crew members were on board the jet, according to Kyodo News. All of the passengers and crews escaped from the aircraft.

Runways at the airport were shut down after 8:20 p.m.

The accident came about two years after an aircraft of the Korean airliner crashed at San Francisco International Airport in July, 2013, killing three Chinese passengers and injuring more than 180 people. Compensation lawsuits filed by the passengers against the airline are pending at U.S. courts.

tubby linton

14th Apr 2015, 19:56

I can only find a chart for a VOR approach to that runway. Another early touchdown off a non-precision approach.

fireflybob

14th Apr 2015, 20:19

Accident: Asiana A320 at Hiroshima on Apr 14th 2015 (http://avherald.com/h?article=484c306e&opt=0)

Japan's Ministry of Transport reported that the aircraft touched down about 330 meters short of the runway suffering a tail strike with sparks visible from the tail section upon touchdown, the aircraft broke through the localizer antenna and received substantial damage to left wing and left engine (V2527).

pilot11

14th Apr 2015, 20:27

No visual approaches and no non precision approaches from now on! :}

skyhighfallguy

14th Apr 2015, 22:00

just in case no one taught them, at night, or really anytime, don't land on the first bit of pavement.

be sure you leave a little pavement behind you, just to make sure you did not undershoot the runway.

there are handy markings on the runway to help you understand

and if you can't seem them at night, try to land abeam or past papi or vasi or similar.

there are those who will even not go below 50' RA until the runway is beneath them.

good luck.

taufupok

14th Apr 2015, 23:25

Possibly the Asiana chaps misinterpreted " dive and drive " and transposed it as " drive and dive "!

I have seen Korean guys holding English level 6 certificates but getting almost every ATC clearance wrong! And they have failed expat native English speakers in the ICAO English tests, I kid you not! Some expats are saddled with only level 4or 5 English, whilst pilots ( both Korean and some expats ) who can hardly carry on a decent everyday conversation in English brandish their level 6 certificates unashamedly.:=

Indarra

15th Apr 2015, 00:58

Asiana 162 from Incheon reported to have come in low, knocked down 12 out of 24 posts on the ILS, damaging left engine and wing and presumably landing gear. Wind at the time negligible - 2km/h. Hiroshima airport remains closed. Here are some photos and diagramatic depictions from today's Japanese media:

http://www.sankei.com/west/photos/150415/wst1504150017-p1.html

http://www.asahi.com/articles/photo/AS20150415000068.html

http://mainichi.jp/graph/2015/04/15/20150415k0000m040106000c/006.html

http://mainichi.jp/graph/2015/04/15/20150415k0000m040106000c/005.html

James4th

15th Apr 2015, 01:22

Anybody know what type of approach they were doing? I used to instruct in the A320 sim at Asiana until I just couldn't take it anymore. :ugh: I can confirm that if using anything else but an ILS it would lift the degree of difficulty of the approach, in a geometric progression, the closer they were to the threshold.

Sad but true and a fact of life now here in SE Asia.:ooh:

TWT

15th Apr 2015, 01:29

Some daylight video in this report:

Hiroshima plane accident passengers injured - News - NHK WORLD - English (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20150415_80.html)

Lookleft

15th Apr 2015, 02:01

Looks to be a similar accident to the Air Canada crash at Halifax. I don't think this can be blamed on the culture of any particular airline or region. It is a worldwide problem that pilots are being deskilled. IATA keep looking at fatality rates but should start quoting hull loss rates as not every accident results in fatalities.

Can737

15th Apr 2015, 02:21

Aircanada pilots are very skilled and experienced pilots, there is no way any Canadian airline pilot can't fly at any time an airplane with very proper hand-skills when necessary. Many pilots do come in the major airlines with a northern experience and for some thousands of hours of piloting in an IMC environment, sometimes 100% manually.

The unfortunate accident in Halifax can't be compared to this event. Also the accident at Halifax was with a WX at minimum and decent x-winds, it could be windshear, time will let us know.

Lookleft

15th Apr 2015, 03:09

All accidents are unfortunate but you can't deny an accident occurred! The Asiana pilots may be able to claim the same problems but the similarities are striking. Aircraft landing short of the runway during a manual landing and the aircraft coming to a stop with the gear ripped off.

TWT

15th Apr 2015, 04:30

Nose and right main gear are intact,left main might be damaged but is still holding the left engine clear of the ground (see video a few posts up).

peekay4

15th Apr 2015, 04:40

There's no ILS to RWY28.

Also, from ADS-B data it does not look like they did the VOR approach.

So other than visual that leaves vectors to RNAV GNSS RWY28 approach as a possibility. Are Asiana A320s equipped for RNAV GNSS approaches? (DME/DME is not authorized for this approach.)

The ground track matches the RNAV approach, however -- if the ADS-B data is correct -- the altitude looks 200' high at FAF and then about 3.3 or 3.4 degrees steep descent (normal is 3.00 for this approach). FR24's data ends at about 1000ft AGL unfortunately.

According to AvHerald the METAR was:

RJOA 141108Z VRB02KT 4000 R28/0300VP1800D -SHRA PRFG FEW000 SCT005 BKN012 09/08Q1006 RMK 1ST000 4ST005 6CU012 A2973 1500E FG E-S

So maybe they had the runway in sight and then lost it in fog.

CodyBlade

15th Apr 2015, 04:51

Very lucky not down embankment.

skyhighfallguy

15th Apr 2015, 04:55

peekay4

Your analysis is very interesting and not to be dismissed.

There is something about night illusions, non prec apch, and the big thing,crew coordination.

I will assume no HUD on the 'bus. Some airlines have very specific callouts of speed and sink rate, even altitude, after you leave the MDA for the runway.

PF is looking out window, PNF (PM to you , you know who you are ) inside monitoring instruments. Throw in visual miscues at night and local situations such as runway slope and BAM.

There is also a subconscious effort to maintain visual contact even if it means ducking under.

I would like to know if the crew had done many (at least 100) real non precision or purely visual approaches. IF the only nonprec apchs were in the sim, well, time to rethink the specifications, IE, time to PROHIBIT Non Precision approaches for this airline.

While there are similarities to the air canada thing, the weather is significantly different as some have already mentioned.

Lookleft

15th Apr 2015, 05:39

time to PROHIBIT Non Precision approaches for this airline.

How about thinking of it a different way, time to train pilots to cope with an NPA as a routine operation?

VR-HFX

15th Apr 2015, 07:02

PK4

RJOA elev is 1,086' which may explain why FR24 data ceased.

NPA in iffy visibility. This is one of the few airports in the region that is not at or near sea level.

QNH 1006 - 1013 = -7X30=-210'

Not saying this happened but the old adage did spring to mind.

de facto

15th Apr 2015, 07:38

Possibly the Asiana chaps misinterpreted " dive and drive " and transposed it as " drive and dive "!

Back to your cave .:rolleyes:

Hempy

15th Apr 2015, 07:54

time to PROHIBIT Non Precision approaches for this airline.
How about thinking of it a different way, time to train pilots to cope with an NPA as a routine operation?
Something needs to change, or they are going to run out of aeroplanes...

fireflybob

15th Apr 2015, 07:55

Some more pictures here

Asiana plane skids off runway at Hiroshima, Japan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32313599?OCID=fbasia)

jolihokistix

15th Apr 2015, 08:10

Fleshed out some more in Japan Today
Asiana plane hit antenna on runway, footage shows ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/asiana-plane-hit-antenna-on-hiroshima-runway-footage-shows)

and Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-14/asiana-aircraft-skids-off-runway-in-hiroshima-no-fatalities

Stone_cold

15th Apr 2015, 08:36

CAN 737 .

Yet they (Air Canada) still managed to screw it up ! It is amazing that excuses fly in when it is a Western carrier involved in any incident yet , the other regions of the world are convicted immediately , be it culture ,training etc. If it was that bad , no one forced them ( AC ) to land . " A superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations which the use of his superior skill " Frank Borman .

Curious that several North American carriers cant seem to keep in on the pavement recently , but they are experienced and superior , aren't they??!

Also , you advise time will tell and you proffer a windshear scenario , yet you imply that this one cannot be compared . I guess you already have your judgement in on this one ( Asiana ) after only a few hours . Maybe you should heed your own advice .

Koan

15th Apr 2015, 09:10

Asiana plane skids off runway at Hiroshima, Japan - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32313599)

2 good pics on the BBC Asia article.

jolihokistix

15th Apr 2015, 10:16

According to this (Yahoo, in Japanese, but it is upcoming news in the pipeline), the control tower felt no stress or tension in their spoken communication with the pilot during approach. They did however suddenly lose visual contact with the plane, indicating a sudden patch of thick fog.
????????????????????????????(???????FNN?) - Yahoo!???? (http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/videonews/fnn?a=20150415-00000363-fnn-soci)

JammedStab

15th Apr 2015, 10:54

To be honest with you, that Asiana aircraft doesn't look nearly as damaged as the AC aircraft.

mark one eyeball

15th Apr 2015, 10:56

The weather around japan and Korea last day has been unstable
Much rain, low cloud and windy
There are some carriers out here in east asia I dont feel comfortable flying with
i.e. KAL and Asiana to name a few
I saw a survey in Australia 2 years ago it asked...what is best low fare with a low cost carrier or pay more for a reputable airline that will get you there safely
Most of em went for the low fare option

With the Korean airline set up you pay higher and no feel safe option

Can737

15th Apr 2015, 11:47

Stone_cold,

I don't think "the superior pilot" is part of the flying culture at AC.
I was more commenting on the lack of ability in handling properly an aircraft, which I believe is not true.

I just saw the METAR, at first I thought it had happened on an other CAVOK day, strange coincidences the two accidents are with the same type of aircraft.

Stone_cold

15th Apr 2015, 12:04

Fair enough CAN , and although it may not have seemed so , generally I do agree that there is a different culture surrounding the development of and maintaining proficiency in manual flying skills between NA and Asia . I have flown in both areas and manual flying is certainly discouraged if not banned in the latter . I just object to jumping the gun regarding incidents , even if we suspect what is behind it .

I would not be quick to put my head on a block for the A/C guys , until the fat lady sings , we just don't know . The Asiana incident is even more recent and of course , would not stick up in their defense at this point , but it's a little early to compare or criticize . Waiting on the fat lady's report !

Can737

15th Apr 2015, 12:14

Stone_cold,

Wise words and I will wait for the final report as well. :ok:

Lonewolf_50

15th Apr 2015, 12:24

It is a worldwide problem that pilots are being deskilled. IATA keep
looking at fatality rates but should start quoting hull loss rates as not every accident results in fatalities. Trend analysis on root cause, with fatalities and without, might provide some fodder for training improvements.

The 64 dollar question is: will management invest in the training?

Indarra

15th Apr 2015, 12:46

NHK television news this evening said both cockpit crew were Korean nationals, 8,200 and 1,500 hours. Five minutes before touchdown visibility was good but rapidly deteriorated after that with heavy patches of fog, only 300 or 500 meters visibility in places.

Centaurus

15th Apr 2015, 13:03

There is also a subconscious effort to maintain visual contact even if it means ducking under.
Back in the Fifties I think, the United States Air Force Instrument Flying School did some research on pilot actions during low visibility approach and landings. I think a Sabre Liner was used in the experiments.

Many approaches were flown and recorded. There were a couple of observations recorded that have stood the test of time. One of them included the case where the runway is visually acquired at 500 feet on the ILS when suddenly visual contact is lost due passing low cloud. The tendency is for pilots to keep looking at the same spot on the windscreen where they last spotted the runway.

When the runway re-appeared out of the low cloud layer it was nowhere near in the same angle and same place as the pilots were looking. Of course a go-around should be made but that wasn't the point of the research. The research showed how an unwary pilot or crew could be suckered into continuing the approach in the hope of spotting the runway but be unaware until too late that the outside view through the windscreen had changed a lot and it was all too easy to be drawn into trying to now land visually in the very short time left.

Following on that theme, water on the windscreen as in light or heavy rain attenuation is a well known cause of optical illusions especially if there is no electronic or VASIS/PAPI glide slope information.

Lastly, another interesting discovery made during these trials carried out over sixty years ago, was the strong compulsion for the PNF to look up near the MDA to try and acquire the runway visually when he was supposed to remain heads down. As soon as he went heads up, his monitoring of airspeed, altitude and rate of descent literally went out of the window and undetected excess rates of descent that could occur as the PF himself was heads up looking for the runway, was missed.

The reason why the PNF allowed himself to start to look outside nearing the MDA or DA when he should have disciplined himself to stay heads down monitoring at this critical time, was possibly a very understandable survival mode as terrain got closer. Once both pilots were heads up trying to acquire the approach lights or runway environment in heavy rain or reduced visibility, both were wide open to optical illusions.

Research proved that this powerful human instinct for survival by looking outside at a critical point during short final, (when heads down was vital) could paradoxically lead to the greater chances missing serious changes of flight path deviation both laterally and vertically as well as speed excursion.

On a personal note I found these problems difficult to overcome when landing at night especially in rain and low cloud at Pacific atoll runways that were not only black hole approaches but no visual or electronic glide slope guidance was available.
One thing I occasionally discovered during final approach was besides rain attenuation through the windscreen causing a false horizon, the same rain attenuation seemed to cause the runways to move from side to side causing the pilot to "chase" the runway as if the problem was varying crosswind even on a calm wind. This was because dependant on windscreen design, the water ran sideways over the windscreen as well as vertically as one would expect

One solution to the danger of being sucked in by optical illusions on short visual final in heavy rain, is to have the PNF make a specific call-out at 200 ft of height, airspeed variation from planned approach speed and sink rate. Example being "200 feet, Bug plus ten, Sink 900". This one call at exactly 200 ft was selected so that there was enough height to execute a low altitude go around allowing for engine response time - even if the rate of descent was relatively excessive. It also ensured the PM was forced to go heads down even if he was being tempted to look up instead of forcing himself to stay heads down.

If no call of height/speed and sink rate was forthcoming at exactly 200 ft, then either the PNF was too lazy to call, or was actually heads up (survival mode) when he should be heads down, or had forgotten. Either way, it meant he could not be trusted and the PF would need to consider this fact in future approaches.

Of course the captain could be the PNF, but the same principle applies since as captain he would be in survival mode as he wears the responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight.

My apologies for the thread drift and rant but some of us find corporate history useful to remember.:ok:

320busdriver

15th Apr 2015, 14:33

Thanks Centaurus very very interesting info:ok:. I`m afraid this is something human beings just can`t do after thousands of years of evolution no amount of training or shouting for that matter can keep you looking out for terra firma. I have a good yellow streak running down my back and proud of it, at minima if I don`t see anything its "go around flaps" and my 330 does not disappoint ;) - that's my survival instinct :}

skyhighfallguy

15th Apr 2015, 14:35

centaurus

I do not think it is thread drift at all. I've been a strong proponent of excellent cockpit discipline during all approaches, especially the most critical like a NPA at night in wx.

JUST like that Eastern Airlines L1011 in the everglades, everyone got interested in looking at ONE thing instead of the thing THEY WERE DESIGNATED TO BE LOOKING AT.

PM, sorry buddy, you don't get to look out the window until you see the runway lights in periphreal vision. And you have felt that pleasant bump of landing.

Greenlights

15th Apr 2015, 18:12

what was the experience of these pilots ?:suspect:

fireflybob

15th Apr 2015, 18:35

I presume Asiana do not fly the monitored approach system?

DirtyProp

15th Apr 2015, 19:16

Back in the Fifties I think, the United States Air Force Instrument Flying School did some research on pilot actions during low visibility approach and landings. I think a Sabre Liner was used in the experiments.

Many approaches were flown and recorded. There were a couple of observations recorded that have stood the test of time. One of them included the case where the runway is visually acquired at 500 feet on the ILS when suddenly visual contact is lost due passing low cloud. The tendency is for pilots to keep looking at the same spot on the windscreen where they last spotted the runway.
.....
Very interesting indeed.
Do you happen to have some docs or links to this research?
Thank you for sharing.

Stone_cold

15th Apr 2015, 19:31

Firefly , I think you will find that generally , the concept doesn't exist outside of UK .

skyhighfallguy

15th Apr 2015, 20:18

stone cold

We have used monitored approach for many years in the USA. MANY YEARS.

JammedStab

15th Apr 2015, 21:31

Gets used in Canada at some airlines. But if you have a decent autopilot, is it nearly as necessary. The Pilot monitored approach was most beneficial back in the days of hand flown approaches.

Yankee Whisky

15th Apr 2015, 21:43

Did anyone ever investigate the communication standard between instructors and Asian students, in other words, if instruction was given in English, how much of the material was retained by the student pilots to absorb the importance of critical matters concerning flight safety ?

physicus

15th Apr 2015, 21:47

Lack of piloting skills is a definite problem these days. Whether that came about as deskilling (i.e. skills were there once) or whether the skills never were there in the first place doesn't really matter. The question is how can it be fixed?

Are we going to see much more simulator time, with crews hand flying several hours every month in less predictable scenarios? Didn't airbus suggest changes to sim runs to that effect?

Then ultimately we'd want more hand flying in real life as well, although statistics seem to suggest that may not be a terribly good idea.

It would be good if a more scientific approach was taken to deciding actions and lessons learnt from the spate of recent incidents. As blasphemous as that sounds, serious discussion is required about removing pilots from handling roles. There's no technical reason why airplanes can't fly gate to gate on autopilot, Airbus demonstrated that 20 years ago. The technology has been there for a long time. But that of course is an extremely contentious subject. Nobody wants to see the "avengers" retired... but that may just be the only way forward past the accident free 10m passenger kilometer mark.

A0283

15th Apr 2015, 22:06

Hiroshima Airport (Japan) – 14April 2015

INFORMATION ON 15 AVRIL 2015

The BEA has been informed by its Japanese counterpart, the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB), of an accident to anAirbus A320 at Hiroshima Airport (Japan) yesterday at about 20h local time (11h UTC).
The aeroplane, registered HL 7762 and operated by Asiana Airlines, was flying the Seoul (South Korea) – Hiroshima(Japan) route. On board there were 74 passengers and 8 crew members. The aeroplane made a runway excursion during landing. According to the first official report, 28 people were injured, including 2 crew members.
In accordance with international provisions the BEA, representing the State of Design of the aeroplane, is participating in the investigation initiated by the JTSB. A team of 2 investigators, accompanied by 4 technical advisers from Airbus, is leaving for Hiroshima today. The BEA reminds you that all communication on the Safety Investigation is the exclusive responsibility of the JTSB.

A0283

15th Apr 2015, 22:20

Great post by Centaurus !

One of the Golden Rules of Airbus was "One head up at all times".

When you read the posts till now ... (especially) on final and landing ... they suggest it would be a good idea to add "One head down at all time during landing".

From an investigative point it would be quite interesting to find out if the pilots complied with this Golden Rule.

A basic way to do that would be to introduce video recording ... an already very old and much discussed subject ... but to have a record of a heads-up/down in this case would indeed be quite interesting. There are of course more and different technical solutions for a heads up and down check than video alone ...

ExSp33db1rd

15th Apr 2015, 22:29

We have used monitored approach for many years in the USA. MANY YEARS.

When the "monitored approach" system of handing control over when becoming visual was first being used, and discussed, by BEA circa. 1960's, we were standing in customs at New York and were approached by an "older" Pan Am skipper, who asked if "you BOAC guys also practiced monitored approaches" and when we said not ( then) he went on to say "Pan Am has always used monitored approaches". We expressed our surprise and he said "yes, I fly, he monitors!"

Said it all.

Capn Bloggs

16th Apr 2015, 01:04

From an investigative point it would be quite interesting to find out if the pilots complied with this Golden Rule.

A basic way to do that would be to introduce video recording ... an already very old and much discussed subject ...
You are joking?? "Your head, sir was not pointed in the correct spot at the appropriate time; you therefore caused the accident!". I do wonder whether people posting here have any idea what the job entails. My eyes look at a thousand things (or a few things a thousand times) in the space of a couple of hundred feet on final. Video of my head/eyes would be a complete waste of time.

Those Golden Rules are merely good airmanship and commonsense, nothing else.

number0009

16th Apr 2015, 01:35

Buttscratcher

16th Apr 2015, 03:22

Can someone confirm for me that there's no ILS on that Runway (28) but there is an ILS on Runway 10
And if not then what exactly are we looking at with that Antenna Array?
Is it just HIALs ?
And, if there was an ILS on RWY 10, then WTF were they not using it as the active Runway if the wind was ...RJOA 141108Z VRB02KT. And the weather was somewhat marginal.. as one of the guys reported

Buttscratcher

16th Apr 2015, 04:10

So what's the bet that the Koreans blame Japanese ATC for not programming RWY10 ILS
Watch this space

shorty2rj

16th Apr 2015, 04:33

There is no ILS to RWY 28. RNAV/VOR approach has fairly high mins (+1000 feet if memory serves). As to why they flew 28, Japanese ATC will assign a runway to accommodate presumed runway flow at the detriment of other aircraft unless you speak up FIRMLY.

Buttscratcher

16th Apr 2015, 05:42

Yup, like anywhere I guess
They expect pilots to be able to actually fly airplanes, so RWY10 should be fine.
But I'm waiting for a slagging match to begin

springbok449

16th Apr 2015, 06:46

Butt,

The localiser antenna is located at the opposite end of the approach RWY so in this case ILS 10 Loc Ant would located at RWY 28 threshold end so it could well be that you are looking at a Localiser Antenna in the pictures.

fox niner

16th Apr 2015, 07:14

Inflicted damage to the airplane:

Left hand horizontal stabilizer partly broken off
Right wing flaps partly broken off
Left engine severely damaged
ILS structure curled up around left hand main gear
ILS structure embedded in one of the righthand wing fairings

All of this can be seen by viewing the videos posted here:

????3??????????????????(???????ANN?) - Yahoo!???? (http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/videonews/ann?a=20150416-00000018-ann-soci)

slast

16th Apr 2015, 10:59

Centaurus, leadsled, fireflybob, skyhighfallguy etc:
If you are interested in this issue there is a website just being finalised that addresses this. From it you can download among many other documents the original report by Don Carmack of the Air Force IPIS-TR-70-3 LANDING WEATHER MINIMUMS INVESTIGATION from 1972, which as Centaurus says was done with a Sabreliner.

You can find it at Landing in poor visibility. | PICMA . org (http://www.picma.org.uk/content/landing-poor-visibility) where there's a link in the page about making visual assessments. There's also a lot of material about CRM related stuff like monitoring, approach management, and cultural issues.

FYI the "funny" linked by leadsled was a fake notice created and put about by some disgruntled pilots as propaganda during a hotly disputed merger.

Ambient Sheep

16th Apr 2015, 11:59

Good number of photos showing aircraft and ground damage.

Asiana Airlines Aircraft Skids Off Runway On landing At Hiroshima Airport Photos | Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.ca/galleries/events/548466109)

...

Thank you for those. This one (http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/in-this-aerial-image-asiana-airlines-flight-162-skidded-off-news-photo/469774726) at the top of page 2 (http://www.gettyimages.ca/galleries/events/548466109?page=2) seems particularly good; had I not bothered to go to the second page, I'd have missed it.

Stone_cold

16th Apr 2015, 12:52

Skyhigh , I didn't say it was never used , I did say generally , but are you saying that the monitored approach where the monitoring pilot takes over the landing on acquiring visual references and the PF then becomes PM is widely used in the US ? And how many airlines do you know use this in the US .

Again Jammed , I speak generally , and I still think that the concept is not widely used outside the UK .

slast

16th Apr 2015, 14:23

Stone_cold,
for some further information see Usage and experience | PICMA . org (http://www.picma.org.uk/?q=content/usage-and-experience)
also the information on that site regarding recommendations by NTSB, FSF etc.

peekay4

16th Apr 2015, 17:08

Many US airlines / regionals do monitored approaches for CAT II landings (requiring transition from approach to landing from a low DH). On approach, the captain will be PM, and near DH the captain will take over as PF and perform the landing while the FO switches role to PM.

However, with the advent of autoland, many operators feel this practice is now outdated. The PF flies (on A/P), the PM monitors -- autoland does the landing. There is no need to switch between PF/PM roles at low DH.

So instead of conducting PMA for CATII, they now require autoland on anything worse than CAT I minima.

Stone_cold

16th Apr 2015, 17:32

Still doesn't seem widely used.

2 US carriers , 2 UK . No other "mainland EU ", Middle Eastern or Asian carrier . Don't know about Boeing , but Airbus Low Vis procedures don't change roles .

I did not say that it is not practised at all , for those who wish to read , I said "generally the concept doesn't exist outside of the UK ". If it has been used by a few airlines for many years or is used by 6 airlines worldwide , I think this would suggest that it is not practised " generally "outside of the originators of the concept .

Apologies , some in Canada also .

peekay4

16th Apr 2015, 17:43

stone_cold: that list isn't at all complete. Just off the top of my head I know three other regionals in the US with monitored approaches (if not autoland).

Stone_cold

16th Apr 2015, 17:58

Okay , exiting as it is now obvious that it is extensively practised worldwide .

peekay4

16th Apr 2015, 18:02

Asiana boss apologizes; Downdraft possibility

HIROSHIMA – Asiana Airlines Vice President Akiyoshi Yamamura apologized Thursday to passengers and their families over Tuesdays’s botched landing at Hiroshima Airport.

“I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the passengers, their family members and those involved,” Yamamura told reporters gathered at the airport.

One investigator said Wednesday that a downdraft may have caused the wheels of the airplane to clip a communications array moments before landing and running off the runway, injuring more than 20 passengers.

A downward air current may have caused the Airbus A320 to fly too low on its final approach in low visibility due to fog and rain, said the investigator from the Japan Transport Safety Board.

Full Article | The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/04/16/national/downdraft-may-factor-asiana-airlines-botched-landing-hiroshima/)

fox niner

16th Apr 2015, 18:16

Downdraft?
Wind was reported as vrb02kts!!! They have to come up with something more credible than that.

peekay4

16th Apr 2015, 22:28

Technically, microbursts can be very localized -- as small as 0.5 miles across -- so it's possible to hit a downdraft on final while airport winds are calm.

However without more data I'm skeptical that this is what happened.

RetiredF4

17th Apr 2015, 06:54

The name of the PF was "Downdraft" then. Not only the landing gear was clipping the structure, the complete tail was dragged through as well. They touched short of the runway, as one of the pictures clearly shows.

The report will be interesting, hope we will see the FDR.

bringbackthe80s

17th Apr 2015, 08:44

Now they suspended the Hiroshima flights for safety checks whatever that is. Like the problem is the Hiroshima route.
Honestly, it's people's lives we're talking here. Is this for real??

I always find it funny when I hear people say it will take an accident to make things change when we are not happy with aspects of the profession. Well like I said many times before, I see accidents happening, but not many things change apart from the bonuses of the managers and the cost cutting from the companies.

777300ER

17th Apr 2015, 09:19

Sadly most of Asia is 30+yrs behind the rest of the civilised world with regard to incident prevention, post accident response/investigation, and general risk management. Regulators and CEOs are more concerned with public image and saving face than they are with attempting to learn from these events in a systematic manner.

slast

17th Apr 2015, 09:39

Stonecold, you are quite right that monitored approach procedures are NOT used by the majority of airlines. That is exactly the situation the PicMA site is intended to change.

The objective is to make available as much information as possible on the subject, especially from authoritative sources, so that more airlines will use them, and in fact it becomes the default procedure for two-pilot operation, especially in IMC and at night as is suggested by the ICAO/FSF/FAA CFIT training aid and many other sources.

jolihokistix

17th Apr 2015, 10:12

Among the possibilities being discussed by the analysts on J TV was the fact that there is a steep gulley/cliff/valley off the east end of the runway and cold air tends to run off the runway and get pulled down there under normal conditions anyway. Add to that this four-minute window of drastic reduction in visibility from 1,700 meters one moment to 750, then 500-300 meters which occurred without warning and almost within seconds, apparently.

Capn Bloggs

17th Apr 2015, 11:04

that monitored approach procedures are NOT used by the majority of airlines. That is exactly the situation the PicMA site is intended to change.
Perhaps there is a reason for this. Certainly, when the approach itself was high-workload, it made sense to have the FO concentrating on it while the Captain monitored him/her until a few hundred above then started looking out in anticipation of taking over or ordering the GA.

But now, with the AP doing CDFAs (I am stunned that a first-world operator such as CA apparently has A320s without GPS fitted), IMO there is no longer any need, as Peekay 4 says earlier.

PAXboy

17th Apr 2015, 12:53

bringbackthe80s
I always find it funny when I hear people say it will take an accident to make things change when we are not happy with aspects of the profession. Well like I said many times before, I see accidents happening, but not many things change apart from the bonuses of the managers and the cost cutting from the companies.

I suggest that prangs change very little - you have to wait until people die. THEN things change, not always fast but they change.

fox niner

17th Apr 2015, 13:17

If nothing is going to change (within Asiana) then why are we discussing this incident?
Apparently not much has changed, even though people got killed in SFO.

slast

17th Apr 2015, 13:25

Hi Capn Bloggs,
IMO there is no longer any need (for the monitored approach procedure)

"no longer" implies that there used to be problems that the procedure addressed, but they have now gone away. But sadly, that clearly is not the case.

It might be true if the ideal world had been reached, where ALL approaches were low workload, ALL crews had great CRM skills, were trained to the best possible standards, were 100% fit and adequately rested, and never omitted checklists items; where ALL aircraft and airports were equipped with 100% reliable vertical and horizontal guidance allowing the autopilot to remain engaged to touchdown in ALL weather conditions.

But the reality is that most accidents occur when pilots make errors trying to deal with the real, non-ideal world, in which the AP is NOT doing CDFAs and a first-world operator such as CA does have A320s without GPS fitted, CRM training can box-ticking, and working conditions can be c**p.

The majority of all Prune posts are complaints about the inadequacies of the real world, not celebrations of how great things are now we've achieved perfection!

So the question is whether we pilots should actually take precautions by using revised procedures which will provide us with better protection? They may not be 100% perfect but they are freely and readily available to deal with the realities....

White None

18th Apr 2015, 03:28

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMY05ynSNkjXy1cvm5dHmDMbJqW4T-pUci4GYMdVWlmFX4_Y4CQw
Anyone else get a bit sick of the ubiquitous assertion that every person coming from the red zone, flying in the red zone, or every airline within the red zone is poorly trained, poorly skilled etc etc, whilst the opposite allegedly goes for the outside? I'd be tickled to see a survey on where many of these posters even believe "AZEA" is "AT".

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story Huh?

Capn Bloggs

18th Apr 2015, 03:52

Slast, stop misquoting me. I said there may no longer be any need when a CDFA is being flown by the AP.

I even said: Certainly, when the approach itself was high-workload, it made sense to have the FO concentrating on it while the Captain monitored him/her until a few hundred above then started looking out in anticipation of taking over or ordering the GA.
which, I assume you realise, is a MA.

Icarus2001

18th Apr 2015, 06:25

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story Huh?

Some facts...

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2698.pdf

FullWings

18th Apr 2015, 10:01

After two recent NPAs in marginal visibility which have ended in spectacular undershoots, one has to wonder what the view out of the front was like in the last 30s or so of the approach. It would appear in both accidents that there was no vertical guidance visible as it would have been of the “four reds” variety, which one hopes would have prompted action.

In both cases, it would appear that any internal VG would have been from whatever modes were being used for a raw data approach as opposed to a path from an RNAV one or precision from an ILS, therefore not necessarily coinciding with the touchdown point. If the FDs were still on, that is a powerful distraction.

It also appears from the plates that there was a CAT III ILS onto the opposite runway, which would have been more appropriate for the weather conditions prevailing (assuming it was serviceable - it isn’t now... :ouch:).

I’m starting to think that the best solution would be to replace all NPAs with RNAV ones. Some operators might have to retrofit GPS but that’s cheap compared with a write-off...

slast

18th Apr 2015, 11:05

CapnBloggs, apologies, I did not mean to misrepresent you.

I interpreted your comment as meaning that "now" (i.e. in 2015), the use of monitored approaches has become irrelevant because the technical capability exists to use an autopilot and a CDFA. That is a commonly asserted position, but one with which I strongly disagree.

The technology developed since the 1970s has made the very lowest visibility landings extremely safe, and potentially could remove a lot of these accidents where there was little if any vertical guidance, but there are many other aspects (e.g. monitoring breakdowns - "the co-pilot's dilemma" - and overall approach management) where using the monitored approach procedure would make operations a lot safer.

peekay4

18th Apr 2015, 20:26

slast:

1. In a modern airliner conducting low-visibility autoland operations, there is already double monitoring to prevent such issues. The PF monitors autoland sequences all the way to landing and rollout. The PM provides an independent, second level of monitoring and decision making.

Since both pilots are already monitoring, there is no need for them to switch roles between PF and PM at DH. In fact PMA might add risk: by taking away both pilots' concentration from monitoring to role switching, at a critical moment.

2. In a modern airliner conducting low-visibility ops using HUD/EVS, there is no inside-outside transition at DH, and so again role-switching at low altitude brings no value to the table.

Let's not do PMA just for the sake of doing it. It doesn't make sense to "force" the use of PMA where it's no longer applicable.

Now, there are a lot of ops (especially regionals) flying equipment with neither autoland nor HUD. For them I agree PMA or a variation of it should be the norm. And in the US at least, this is the case.

JammedStab

19th Apr 2015, 06:41

Some facts...

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2698.pdf

Wow....those are some interesting facts. It shows the area known as EUR with quite a high accident rate. Then you look deeper and discover that EUR includes all of Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazhakstan, Kygyzstan, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Remove these so-called EUR countries and all fatal accidents in the report are removed. But this is the UN so they must know the facts.

Capn Bloggs

19th Apr 2015, 15:15

I interpreted your comment as meaning that "now" (i.e. in 2015), the use of monitored approaches has become irrelevant because the technical capability exists to use an autopilot and a CDFA. That is a commonly asserted position, but one with which I strongly disagree.

technical capability exists to use an autopilot and a CDFA
Not only exists, is used, I would wager, thousands of times a day around the world.

The Handover/Takeover very close to the ground is undesirable. I've done it; grabbing the controls and the throttles and getting a feel of what is going on, potentially with manoeuvring required to line it up/decrab, is not ideal.

So the question has to be asked, why are we doing monitored approaches? It's because we don't want the PF, working hard concentrating on the instruments, suddenly looking up at the Minimum and trying to spot the runway. But nowadays, the PF isn't doing that; the AP and ATS is doing it (assuming VNAV and Lateral-mode tracking). And with the emphasis on CDFAs, the aeroplane is already "in the slot". In this case, I agree with Peekay4; both monitor the AP, the PF starts looking approaching the minima, the autocall calls at the mimima (or the PNF does if Hal misses it) and the PF either pickles off the autopilot and lands on the runway he can already see or if he can't hits the GA buttons and off they go. Simple.

I don't have the time or the inclination to go through that complete website; after reading a few pages, to be honest, I think it is a bit sus. If you have a list of recent accidents (post 1980) that have been caused by the non-use of the MA procedure then please post them.

Or, we shall have to agree to disagree. :)

Monitored Approach [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-228773.html)

fireflybob

19th Apr 2015, 18:49

The Handover/Takeover very close to the ground is undesirable. I've done it; grabbing the controls and the throttles and getting a feel of what is going on, potentially with manoeuvring required to line it up/decrab, is not ideal.

Capn Bloggs, I respect your opinion but over several years of operating MAs I have never found this to be a problem.

For me one of the biggest advantages of the MA is that if the PM has not taken over by DA the PF automatically initiates a Go Around.

KublaiKhancun

4th May 2015, 23:05

There's a lot more at play here. I've lived in Asiana country, and I can tell you that there is a totally different conception of thinking about binary decision making, directions and just generally.

Everything in society is about appearance. Grown men will constantly groom themselves - especially their hair - in elevators, even in the presence of business partners or competitors. Even subway stations have full length mirrors everywhere. Appearance - suit, shoes, hair, skin (men wear makeup just to fit in within the business world), teeth - is routinely looked at something just as important as everything else when in the west, it's not nearly as important. So there is a lot of energy being spent on something that it shouldn't be.

Then you have the way of communication and thinking. You ask someone for directions and they really do not think in the same way a westerner does. It's a very different way of thinking. Go there for a holiday and try it sometime.

Then there is yes/no. First, everything there is thought of in shades of grey. Often where the answer should be no, people will say yes, then a few seconds later if you ask them again, no. It can be quite a shock. The way I think about it, if the answer isn't yes, it should be no. Have you or have you not done XYZ/ Does the state of XYZ exist or not? Answer should never be "yes, uh, no". That's what could cause hull losses and deaths. They aren't thinking like a westerner. They don't focus on the words. Instead, I feel that they are focusing on the bigger picture - not the question being asked. That's actually a cultural strength (?), but in the context of flying a plane or performing surgery or making a series of binary decisions, it's not a strength at all. There's the other issue of language, and they will frequently answer "Yes, I would not like to eat/drink/do XYZ", when they mean "No, I would not like to eat/drink/do XYZ", which is another problem.

I'm calling it how it is after 30 + years of observation and travel there, and they aren't the only ones in that part of the world to do it, but seem to be very good at doing it their way. Everyone's unique, but it's still a shock sometimes when I travel there.

twentyyearstoolate

5th May 2015, 15:19

both pilots were from the same culture. I can not see this to be a contributing factor in this incident

If you've ever flown for a Korean carrier, this in itself speaks volumes.

Naali

5th May 2015, 21:12

In the good old days they built wooden expendables into airplanes,thus diminishing the risks of pilots wrecking the whole kite by mishandling. So perhaps Airbus might want to think again the philosophy of just selling our product,and trusting the training elsewhere being the same standard,what these complex airplanes do require. Manufacturer is always involved when their product is used. There should not be any playgound in here,because any accident has an affect on us all. Even to retired,who still want to know.

Sqwak7700

6th May 2015, 01:16

Was amazed by how little media coverage this accident got. Especially considering that it wasn't that long ago that Asiana had a very similar crash, the 777 in SFO.

Same thing with the Turkish crash. As hard as I looked, I did not see it even mentioned in the BBC here in Hong Kong. Neither crash has gotten any media coverage.

I know none resulted in loss of life, but they were still both very lucky they didn't.

:confused:

Volume

6th May 2015, 08:36

Well, the media is the media... It is about sensations, not information. They want to sell, not to inform.

When I get really worried is, if such incidents do also not receive a full accident investigation. The budget of most investigators is so restricted these days, that we may just see a "factual report" of some 10-20 pages with just the usual safety recommendations we have read so many times before.
It probably is not just luck which preventet fatalities, it is the crashworthiness design of the aircraft, but that should be analyzed in depth after such accidents, because there is still so much to learn what works perfectly, and what is indeed just luck and should be improved. We can never do enough crash tests to cover all likely scenario, so such accidents are extremely valuable to get as much information for future design as possible.

I expect a little more from the Japanese here than from the Turkish for the other incident.

Hogger60

14th May 2015, 07:33

From Flight Global -

Crashed Asiana A320 drifted below glidepath in low visibility

By: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW

Japanese investigators have indicated that an Asiana Airlines Airbus A320 began to deviate from its descent path shortly after its autopilot was disengaged, before it collided with the localiser antenna at Hiroshima.

The A320 had been conducting the area navigation (RNAV) approach to runway 28 on 14 April.

It hit an approach light at a height of 4m before carving through the antenna. Flight OZ162 subsequently veered off the runway, suffering substantial airframe damage.

Preliminary findings by the Japan Transport Safety Board show that weather conditions were not ideal, with light rain and fog reducing visibility on the runway to 300m in places.

The aircraft passed the final approach fix at a height of just above 3,000ft and initially followed the correct descent profile.

Its autopilot was disconnected at around 2,100ft but the inquiry’s data indicates that, after this switch to manual operation, the A320 began to drift below the normal glidepath. Its airspeed stayed largely constant, around 130kt, according to flight-recorder data released by the JTSB.

The glidepath deviation gradually became more pronounced until the aircraft hit the localiser, situated 325m before the runway.

Just 2s before the impact the recorder data indicates an attempted go-around, with changes to the side-stick input and the engine thrust-lever positions.

After destroying the antenna the A320 shed debris before reaching the runway, its aft fuselage making ground contact 148m short and its main gear following at 136m.

It travelled 725m along the runway but then started veering to the left and exited 1,154m from the threshold, coming to rest facing almost in the opposite direction.

Passengers evacuated the aircraft through slides, suffering only minor injuries during the accident.

Asiana had previously disclosed that the aircraft’s captain had accumulated over 8,200h and the first officer nearly 1,600h.

Investigators have yet to determine the primary cause and contributing elements to the event.