Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting photo of crash scene showing flight landing on runway with tail intact
Photo Du Jour: Asiana Flight 214 : SFist
Photo Du Jour: Asiana Flight 214 : SFist
td, what about the 'spool up' required on final?
Yes LW, the GA in the sim, or even when flight testing, rely on a 'fling' effect, being at or above speed, not below speed.
Yes LW, the GA in the sim, or even when flight testing, rely on a 'fling' effect, being at or above speed, not below speed.
Yes, the guys driving when we're doing flight testing are good stick and rudder - and airspeed is generally spot on. Being 20 or 30 knots slow would certainly affect the go-around performance - short of a sim session I'm not sure how to quantify that. But, I do know that on a twin, after they push TOGA and those engines spool up, the airplane accelerates and climbs fast (I'm generally standing behind the observers seat - I make damn sure I'm hanging on to something)!
According to the reports, someone on the flight deck verbalized 'airspeed' 7 seconds prior to impact. My point is that, had they performed the go-around and firewalled the throttles then, rather than 5.5 seconds later, I doubt there would have been an impact and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting that she also made a point of saying that the "Instructor Pilot" (PNF) asserted that he was the PIC. Interesting in that they are exploring the relationships between the three flight deck crew.
Maybe my previous post about possibly transitioning from a low erroneous computed FMS path to a higher real world PAPI was too technical, it seems to have disappeared.
Now it looks like the situation was the opposite, high and fast with 180 knots to 5 miles, V/S 1500 fpm down to get on the PAPI. Then A/T off (but still armed), back to idle presumably. Nose up, but power still back when the PAPI's go red...
For a non-pilot I think Debbie Hersman is doing a terrific job of explaining the findings and the technical aspects of the automation and warnings.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Mr Learmount has come out with a video analysis on FI, "the facts so far" but for some reason has them flying an approach to 28 Right. I thought the clearance was always 28L
VIDEO: Asiana crash ? the facts so far
VIDEO: Asiana crash ? the facts so far
Last edited by flite idol; 9th Jul 2013 at 22:58.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am so sick of hearing how little B777 time the Flying Pilot had. 
It has almost nothing to do with this accident. Ever hour of every day somewhere in the world a pilot is checking out in a new aircraft type. Do you honestly think that those pilots are dangerous and likely to have an accident?
This "Inexperienced pilot" had 10,000 hours! He probably had months of B777 Classroom and Simulator experience. He was Type-Rated on the B777 and was now doing his series of Line Indoctrination flights on this new type
How much more experience do you think he needed before he should be allowed near a B777?
It has almost nothing to do with this accident. Ever hour of every day somewhere in the world a pilot is checking out in a new aircraft type. Do you honestly think that those pilots are dangerous and likely to have an accident?
This "Inexperienced pilot" had 10,000 hours! He probably had months of B777 Classroom and Simulator experience. He was Type-Rated on the B777 and was now doing his series of Line Indoctrination flights on this new type
How much more experience do you think he needed before he should be allowed near a B777?
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 9th Jul 2013 at 23:02.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructor on his first flight as such... That's a factor!
Last edited by Back at NH; 9th Jul 2013 at 23:10.
What is Boeing North? Everett built aircraft?
.
Last edited by tdracer; 10th Jul 2013 at 00:24.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is that a factor? Have you ever been a training pilot? A new training pilot is likely to be very conservative. That would make an accident LESS likely.
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 9th Jul 2013 at 23:22.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the plane is in the US, the crew should be subject to the same post crash checks as a US based crew.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
:
As NTSB mentioned, U.S.-registered airlines operate under Part 121 of the FAA regs, while foreign airlines operating into the U.S. operate under Part 129 of the FAA regs. Most simply stated, Part 129 kicks things back to regs of the foreign airline's country, which may not (and often don't) mirror the FAA's regs. Under Korean regs, the crew may not have been required to submit for post-accident testing.
As NTSB mentioned, U.S.-registered airlines operate under Part 121 of the FAA regs, while foreign airlines operating into the U.S. operate under Part 129 of the FAA regs. Most simply stated, Part 129 kicks things back to regs of the foreign airline's country, which may not (and often don't) mirror the FAA's regs. Under Korean regs, the crew may not have been required to submit for post-accident testing.
I can see how from an FAA point of view, they would have an interest in having US based crews tested post-crash overseas, but I don't see that in order to get that situation they would have to give up the right to test overseas crews in the US post-crash.
I assume if there was any indication of inebriation that the police could demand a test, as opposed to some FAA regulation, correct?
Arguably, flying a servicable aircraft into a seawall in perfect weather could constitute 'reasonable suspicion' for a San Fran police officer, even just to eliminate it as a factor.
Basic Pilot Skills
Hi Folks,
I can make no real judgement as to the Air Asiana B777 accident at SFO.
However, I feel as a general practice throughout the whole Airline Industry, the use of Auto Pilot & other Automatic systems is overtaking the Pilot's basic ability, to fly the aeroplane. You can so easily forget some of the monitoring, when the Automatics are in control. Yes, modern aircraft are designed to make a great deal of use of all Automatic systems, but I suggest, this leads to a degredation of the old, hand flying skills. Many of the airfields I operated into, basically called for a hand flown 100% manual approach, very good practice & good fun as well.
Yes, by all means use the Automatics, they are there to help you, but No one priority, has & always will be, fly the aircraft!
I can make no real judgement as to the Air Asiana B777 accident at SFO.
However, I feel as a general practice throughout the whole Airline Industry, the use of Auto Pilot & other Automatic systems is overtaking the Pilot's basic ability, to fly the aeroplane. You can so easily forget some of the monitoring, when the Automatics are in control. Yes, modern aircraft are designed to make a great deal of use of all Automatic systems, but I suggest, this leads to a degredation of the old, hand flying skills. Many of the airfields I operated into, basically called for a hand flown 100% manual approach, very good practice & good fun as well.
Yes, by all means use the Automatics, they are there to help you, but No one priority, has & always will be, fly the aircraft!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Formerly in Seoul
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post #1249 by Mic Dundee
If you don't want to scroll though 65 pages of opinions, thoughts and a few rather useless postings on this topic please read the detailed post #1249 by Mic Dundee.
This sums up very accurately the situation that has existed in Korea for many years and unless someone can come up with a way to change 3,000 years of what could be described as a "cultural gradient" then accidents and incidents of this nature will continue.
An airline can give their pilots CRM courses but unless the techniques given in these courses are adopted then there is little hope for change.
This sums up very accurately the situation that has existed in Korea for many years and unless someone can come up with a way to change 3,000 years of what could be described as a "cultural gradient" then accidents and incidents of this nature will continue.
An airline can give their pilots CRM courses but unless the techniques given in these courses are adopted then there is little hope for change.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume if there was any indication of inebriation that the police could demand a test, as opposed to some FAA regulation, correct?
It would an interesting question as to whether the state or federal government would assert jurisdiction if any criminal charges (such as manslaughter) were to be filed. I suspect that INS would defer to the San Fran police because of their expertise but who knows...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FARs
In order to implement, and enforce (let alone enforce in anything approaching a systematic way) post-accident testing regimen on foreign-certificated air transport carrier crews, would there not need to be some emendation, or alteration or revision or amendment, to the governing international agreements, such as the Chicago Convention (1944) or others? Alternatively, consider a hypothetical in which mishaps substantially similar or parallel in their essential probable cause roots occur with significant frequency (that is, lack of hand flying, horribly botched CAVOK approach, insufficient time in type, cockpit culture of obsequiousness - some or all of these), all foreign-certificated air carriers. Would Congress pass, and would the president sign, legislation creating (or expanding, if it is said to exist already) federal jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes relative to safety of air transport operations? Staff the NTSB Go Team with federal Marshals and the civilian equivalent of Judge Advocates. Require every airport with an FAA facility to enter into a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) requiring local law enforcement to impound the crew until chain of custody testing can be federally overseen and administered. They fly into U S of A airspace, swear 'em into the union, test 'em, without fail, just like we do to our own. I could write this legislation in a week; getting it passed, and getting the president to sign it....."Priceless" --