Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Capt Kremlins earlier comment on the approach lighting:
As far as I know, the approach lighting structures are arranged so the that the whole lighting array is coplanar with the runway surface. Hence if you hit the lighting, you are already at or below the runway surface level.
As far as I know, the approach lighting structures are arranged so the that the whole lighting array is coplanar with the runway surface. Hence if you hit the lighting, you are already at or below the runway surface level.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: America
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildraggers are a fine alternative, but I was thinking of Asian carriers who might be looking for the cheapest possible way of developing and maintaining stick and rudder skills in a workforce that has no access to GA opportunities.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: America
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then perhaps, if the airline has the route structure, "long haul" crew members should be given short haul assignments on a regular and continuing basis? 2 months long, one month short?
And before a debate on the complexities of such an approach (pun intended) begins, if the skill in visual approaches is perishable, but necessary, then a bit of effort overcoming "complexity" might be worthwhile. Otherwise, it's an exercise in "you can't get there from here", which solves nothing.
In an occupational field where high flying hours is regularly touted as a badge of high skill and experience, isn't it a bit embarrassing to admit that the long haul folks, usually very high hour crew, have the least recent and refreshed skill in a very basic maneuver that is a requirement for even a Sport Pilot License - a visual approach?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: oztraylia
Age: 72
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no more nits to pick for now
I guess if we have gone from why a 777 appears to have been flown into the ground to pointing out details of landing gear configs on GA aircraft and gliders, maybe the thread may have run its course until more real info becomes available.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Hours are not a good measure of experience, thenumber of landings is.
Maybe, instead of 10,000 hour pilot we ought to be taking of 2000-landing-pilot etc.
Ross m:
The ICAO Annex 14 states "The system shall lie as nearly as practicable in the horizontal plane passing through the threshold..."
hence the reason for seeing approach lights on sometimes quite tall structures where the terrain (ocean) lies below the runway level.
The ICAO Annex 14 states "The system shall lie as nearly as practicable in the horizontal plane passing through the threshold..."
hence the reason for seeing approach lights on sometimes quite tall structures where the terrain (ocean) lies below the runway level.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: on an island
Age: 81
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe, instead of 10,000 hour pilot we ought to be taking of 2000-landing-pilot etc.
Junebug:
The aircraft they're on are long haul aircraft and moving to short haul means a different aircraft. You can't hop aircraft types and routes are bid on by seniority which you don't violate.
In short, perhaps the current model doesn't work in more ways than one. Supplemental training is "too expensive" and "violating seniority" can't be done. Seems like the status quo is more important than raising skill levels.
Last edited by tilnextime; 14th Jul 2013 at 07:55.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours and Landings might measure experience but so what, I guarantee you pretty much all pilots that have crashed airliners have hours, landings and experience.
What is needed is:
1. Aptitude!
2. Great Training!
3. A worthwhile check where the pilot demonstrates appropriate Capability and Skill!
On all checks a pass is a coat of paint from a failure and typically many airlines and regulators set the bar too low. In the present regulatory regime you can repeat pretty much everything and partial pass some items before retraining and retesting to get a minimal pass. How would you fancy being operated on by a surgeon with this sort of record.
Around the world pilots buy licenses, in some places more so than in others. It isn't in a Training Organisation's interests to fail their customers; they will just flee to their competitors. Some airlines don't allow their First Oficers to land the plane or Captains to do anything but an Autoland, yet they still count as recent. Until the industry wakes up and requires airlines to select pilots well and then pay the cash to train them/keep them current; these types of events will continue it is as simple as that.
The Industry views crashes as a cost of doing business but not paying for the training of pilots; how sad can that be?
What is needed is:
1. Aptitude!
2. Great Training!
3. A worthwhile check where the pilot demonstrates appropriate Capability and Skill!
On all checks a pass is a coat of paint from a failure and typically many airlines and regulators set the bar too low. In the present regulatory regime you can repeat pretty much everything and partial pass some items before retraining and retesting to get a minimal pass. How would you fancy being operated on by a surgeon with this sort of record.
Around the world pilots buy licenses, in some places more so than in others. It isn't in a Training Organisation's interests to fail their customers; they will just flee to their competitors. Some airlines don't allow their First Oficers to land the plane or Captains to do anything but an Autoland, yet they still count as recent. Until the industry wakes up and requires airlines to select pilots well and then pay the cash to train them/keep them current; these types of events will continue it is as simple as that.
The Industry views crashes as a cost of doing business but not paying for the training of pilots; how sad can that be?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours and Landings might measure experience but so what, I guarantee you pretty much all pilots that have crashed airliners have hours, landings and experience.
I don't know but I am indeed curious to find if anyone knows the answer.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A note to all those who believe that automation is somehow a serious factor in this accident. Go to the accident websites and research how many accidents there were in the 'good old days' when we didn't have automation - particularly undershoots. As others have stated there is a lot of misinformation floating around.
Old Carthusian A note to all those who believe that automation is somehow a serious factor in this accident. Go to the accident websites and research how many accidents there were in the 'good old days' when we didn't have automation - particularly undershoots. As others have stated there is a lot of misinformation floating around.
It's not so much the existence of automation that pilots worldwide are pointing to as an issue, but the absence of the skills the automation automates.
Ie.....we need to practice flying airliners.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours and Landings might measure experience but so what, I guarantee you pretty much all pilots that have crashed airliners have hours, landings and experience.
What is needed is:
1. Aptitude!
2. Great Training!
3. A worthwhile check where the pilot demonstrates appropriate Capability and Skill!
On all checks a pass is a coat of paint from a failure and typically many airlines and regulators set the bar too low. In the present regulatory regime you can repeat pretty much everything and partial pass some items before retraining and retesting to get a minimal pass. How would you fancy being operated on by a surgeon with this sort of record.
Around the world pilots buy licenses, in some places more so than in others. It isn't in a Training Organisation's interests to fail their customers; they will just flee to their competitors. Some airlines don't allow their First Oficers to land the plane or Captains to do anything but an Autoland, yet they still count as recent. Until the industry wakes up and requires airlines to select pilots well and then pay the cash to train them/keep them current; these types of events will continue it is as simple as that.
The Industry views crashes as a cost of doing business but not paying for the training of pilots; how sad can that be?
What is needed is:
1. Aptitude!
2. Great Training!
3. A worthwhile check where the pilot demonstrates appropriate Capability and Skill!
On all checks a pass is a coat of paint from a failure and typically many airlines and regulators set the bar too low. In the present regulatory regime you can repeat pretty much everything and partial pass some items before retraining and retesting to get a minimal pass. How would you fancy being operated on by a surgeon with this sort of record.
Around the world pilots buy licenses, in some places more so than in others. It isn't in a Training Organisation's interests to fail their customers; they will just flee to their competitors. Some airlines don't allow their First Oficers to land the plane or Captains to do anything but an Autoland, yet they still count as recent. Until the industry wakes up and requires airlines to select pilots well and then pay the cash to train them/keep them current; these types of events will continue it is as simple as that.
The Industry views crashes as a cost of doing business but not paying for the training of pilots; how sad can that be?
A quick halfway fix would also be to avoid rookies to fly together. As displayed here with Asiana, a rookie on the LHS and a rookie on the RHS as TRE, is a recipe for disaster, even if both can produce impressive records on other seats/types/functions, you can also add destinations/regions to this list.
I know it would take a few dollars more to implement a function in the rostering automations, but experience should always be paired with a trainee or a regional newcomer. But at the same time i guess these few bucks would give too many little grey, wobbling hairs to the bean counters that seem to be in charge of safety today, so even here we have to forget about common sense.
And by the way i would greatly appreciate a general freeze period for rookies to become trainers. It takes time to get used to a seat/function and a good trainer should be able to transmit experience, not only preach the sops and company bs.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by glofish
A quick halfway fix would also be to avoid rookies to fly together.
The whole training side, as I have previously said, needs a close inspection. Some airlines 'allow' an LTC to move to a new type and begin training straight-away. Do we know the LTC's experience on the 777 here? I agree the combination presented on 214 was bad.
Not-with-standing, of course, that as far as we know the LTC's 'omission' was a very basic one here, and not really type dependent.
About 20 years ago, I left the RAF and got a job instructing baby airline pilots in the US. I was contemplating future career options, and discussed the airlines with a 747 Training Captain. He told me not to bother, as the airlines no longer cared about having good pilots. "They only want 'good enough', and that won't last long either". He reckoned the beancounters had figured that as long as the accident rate stayed below 1 per 10 million flight hours (which is about what it is now for commuter airlines), the increasing safety of the aircraft meant that money could be saved by hiring dumber pilots (and not training them, etc). The public/media seem to accept a an accident rate of 1 in 10 million, i.e. this rate does not cause people not to fly in significant numbers.
So events like AF447 and Asiana 214 will continue to happen.
There is no shortage of good pilots. There are thousands of guys like me could join the airlines with a six-month refresher, except I won't be leaving my current profession to be paid peanuts, get over-worked, given no stick time or get treated with no respect by the company.
The good guys are not as good as they could be if they had proper training and currency on manual flying, and there are an ever increasing number of bozos I wouldn't trust with a paper aeroplane.
So events like AF447 and Asiana 214 will continue to happen.
There is no shortage of good pilots. There are thousands of guys like me could join the airlines with a six-month refresher, except I won't be leaving my current profession to be paid peanuts, get over-worked, given no stick time or get treated with no respect by the company.
The good guys are not as good as they could be if they had proper training and currency on manual flying, and there are an ever increasing number of bozos I wouldn't trust with a paper aeroplane.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They only want 'good enough', and that won't last long either". He reckoned the beancounters had figured that as long as the accident rate stayed below 1 per 10 million flight hours (which is about what it is now for commuter airlines), the increasing safety of the aircraft meant that money could be saved by hiring dumber pilots (and not training them, etc). The public/media seem to accept a an accident rate of 1 in 10 million, i.e. this rate does not cause people not to fly in significant numbers.
Or not? Maybe, the flying public is forgetful enough and price sensitive enough that a few $$ shaved off the ticket price will still get Asiana full planes?
Wonder how deep are the effects of a crash on an airlines revenues?
Beancounters may not fund safety for safety's sake, but they will respond to bleeding bottomlines like a hornet bit 'em. What gives?
Last edited by ross_M; 14th Jul 2013 at 10:50.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: SFO/KCH
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned earlier (but in a different context) the airlines view training costs vs crashes in n number of flight hours akin to the Ford Pinto effect. The bean counters truly have won - but in the most insidious of ways. Sadly, Joe Public is too busy looking for his next 5$ flight to give a damn.
Last edited by clayne; 14th Jul 2013 at 11:00.
But an this incident like Asiana, does it not have a fairly lasting effect on the bottom line? Compensations apart, does it hurt operating revenues?
It may affect an airline's revenue, but it won't affect airline revenue. The beancounters are prepared to take the gamble that it won't happen to their airline. The same is true of railroad operations - Lac Megantic being a prime example. The CEOs, etc take a gamble that it won't happen on their watch, but the monetary savings always boost their bonuses.
The principle operates almost everywhere these days. You won't get a road crossing installed until somebody dies. One cannot legally prove that any particular safety measure saves lives, so they won't happen.
Equally, vast numbers of unnecessary safety measures and banning happen where there is the risk of being sued, because that will cost money.
In summary, the two questions are:
Can I save money this financial year?
Will we get sued?
The solution to the second one is to get your cuts approved by the regulatory body. This can be achieved 3 ways.
Bribe the civil servants
Bribe the politicians to change the rules
Get the size of the regulatory body reduced so they can't effectively enforce the existing rules.
The principle operates almost everywhere these days. You won't get a road crossing installed until somebody dies. One cannot legally prove that any particular safety measure saves lives, so they won't happen.
Equally, vast numbers of unnecessary safety measures and banning happen where there is the risk of being sued, because that will cost money.
In summary, the two questions are:
Can I save money this financial year?
Will we get sued?
The solution to the second one is to get your cuts approved by the regulatory body. This can be achieved 3 ways.
Bribe the civil servants
Bribe the politicians to change the rules
Get the size of the regulatory body reduced so they can't effectively enforce the existing rules.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a pilot. After reading over several days this forum one thing struck me as rarely mentioned. Isn't it a systemic error of the airline to put a novice at the type (PF) for the first landing at a demanding airport (SFO) together with yet another novice in his job, the training captain? It was said that they were both experienced pilots but obviously that did t help them here, now did it. Isn't this the biggest mistake to put these two newcomers to type and job together?
In my profession that is not done. E.g. In surgery you will never find two experienced surgeons doing a procedure new to both of them together. There will be one experienced in the procedure training the other (unless it is so new and experimental but that equals in my comparison to landing on the moon). I have seen once a surgeon trying a new instrument (gastric stabler) nobody used before and it didn't bide well for him. He tried 40 minutes, didn't get it to work and then reverted to hand sewing.
In my profession that is not done. E.g. In surgery you will never find two experienced surgeons doing a procedure new to both of them together. There will be one experienced in the procedure training the other (unless it is so new and experimental but that equals in my comparison to landing on the moon). I have seen once a surgeon trying a new instrument (gastric stabler) nobody used before and it didn't bide well for him. He tried 40 minutes, didn't get it to work and then reverted to hand sewing.