Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Political correctness out of control
This airline carried 300 passengers across a mighty ocean to one of the world's busiest airports and not one of its flightcrew members were competent enough to land it without ILS/PAPI guidance and automatic throttle.I hope that the NTSB,the world's best accident investigation authority,will have the guts to go a little bit deeper and call it for what it actually is.Pilots are no longer trained to fly the plane.Automation reliance is endemic.Political correctness is out of control.Airmanship replaced by SOP and rote.And this is mandated from top-down.
Passengers have a right to know that the airlines they fly with are not training their pilots to be able to fly and land the plane in case automation fails.
Boeing doesnt build any single crew airliners,yet many airlines in places like India/China/Korea operate this "no takeoff/land" policy where actually only one crew member(if you're lucky) up front is able to fly the plane and land it.We have 9000 hour pilots with 98% of that on LNAV/VNAV.Theres no experience,no backbone in a pilots resume anymore.I spent the last 12 years watching George do it..but Im damn good at paperwork and know my FCOMs inside and out.This has to stop NOW.Perhaps the NTSB will finally take it upon themselves to correct what should have been corrected.
I see the picture of the Asiana crew being paraded and I am saddened.Deeply so.The Koreans are capable and proud people and they know they let their passengers down badly.They in turn were let down by the system.The same system that should have trained them to do the job properly.
Passengers have a right to know that the airlines they fly with are not training their pilots to be able to fly and land the plane in case automation fails.
Boeing doesnt build any single crew airliners,yet many airlines in places like India/China/Korea operate this "no takeoff/land" policy where actually only one crew member(if you're lucky) up front is able to fly the plane and land it.We have 9000 hour pilots with 98% of that on LNAV/VNAV.Theres no experience,no backbone in a pilots resume anymore.I spent the last 12 years watching George do it..but Im damn good at paperwork and know my FCOMs inside and out.This has to stop NOW.Perhaps the NTSB will finally take it upon themselves to correct what should have been corrected.
I see the picture of the Asiana crew being paraded and I am saddened.Deeply so.The Koreans are capable and proud people and they know they let their passengers down badly.They in turn were let down by the system.The same system that should have trained them to do the job properly.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At 03:10 the NTSB Spokesbabe says the Flight Director switch for the left seat was OFF and for the right seat it was ON.
So much for an "approach" other then just another day at the office shooting the visual approach with the PAPI.
So much for an "approach" other then just another day at the office shooting the visual approach with the PAPI.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: redmond
Age: 88
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re blinding light
Given the time of day, no clouds, and a plethora of glass buildings- has anyone considered the momentary blinding **may** have been simply sunlight reflection ???
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Givemewings
The 90 seconds was figure obtained statistically and has been briefed for many years as: After a crash landing, passengers that exit the aircraft in under 90 seconds are likely to survive; survivability after that time rapidly reduces.
90sec is a certification guideline not a rule when starting evac. Again, please go read about QF32 to understand why immediate evac may not be a good idea.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Perhaps a bit too much focus on ILS. Please don't forget the PAPIs. Thanks to the PAPIs, this aircraft made it to the runway.
It shows the gs is not coincident. Would the TCH of 53 show them low on the PAPI at TCH 64? ( I assume the PAPI is set with the VGSI?)
I commented here earlier about transitioning from FMS glide path guidance to a visual glide slope indicator (VGSI) with a different angle in a widebody aircraft but the post was perhaps too technical for non-pilots and was summarily removed. At any rate, vertical path guidance, both visual and computed was available but for apparently some reason not followed on short final in the crash of OZ 214.
The notams mentioned previously in the thread are indeed in some wacky 1930's teleprinter format and it is not uncommon for three of us in a widebody cockpit to be puzzling over what an item really means as we cruise the, uh, NOPAC CRS on the PACOTS.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: us
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being blinded by light is nonsense. Thousands of other pilots have landed at SFO in the same conditions and never complained of being blinded by a light (most likely a sun reflection). It has happened to all of us and we all know that it is no big deal. If the approach was on glide path and stable, a temporary blinding incident would be a non issue.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: "Go around" call
I think that youtube version has been edited and/or spliced and therefore not a true reflection.
Instead see this (unofficial) transcript:
Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO | LiveATC.net which suggests the call was from the tower to someone (N737ZD?) and comes after the crash at 46 seconds in the timeline.
AAR214 crew did belatedly call TOGA but did not broadcast it.
Instead see this (unofficial) transcript:
Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO | LiveATC.net which suggests the call was from the tower to someone (N737ZD?) and comes after the crash at 46 seconds in the timeline.
AAR214 crew did belatedly call TOGA but did not broadcast it.
Last edited by PaperTiger; 11th Jul 2013 at 17:50.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ATIS for KSFO has been broadcasting an advisory for a green laser light coming from the shore line west of the extended centerline for 28L/28R.
Last edited by Halfnut; 11th Jul 2013 at 17:50.
Rananim
You wrote:
"Perhaps the NTSB will finally take it upon themselves to correct what should have been corrected."
Perhaps they will do their job according to their terms of reference. I would think that does NOT entail jumping to conclusions along the lines of "if they're Korean it must be their fault."
They will, I am certain, be aware of the reputation that has been generated by western pilots who have worked in this region. However, as professional technical people they will want to establish hard facts using verifiable data. If you have ever written a technical report then you will understand that it needs to stand up to scrutiny. Shooting from the hip as so many do on this forum is not their modus operandi.
Lastly, I believe that in the UK, by way of comparison, the AAIB does not apportion blame as such. I don't know if the same holds true for the NTSB. Happy to stand corrected on this last point.
"Perhaps the NTSB will finally take it upon themselves to correct what should have been corrected."
Perhaps they will do their job according to their terms of reference. I would think that does NOT entail jumping to conclusions along the lines of "if they're Korean it must be their fault."
They will, I am certain, be aware of the reputation that has been generated by western pilots who have worked in this region. However, as professional technical people they will want to establish hard facts using verifiable data. If you have ever written a technical report then you will understand that it needs to stand up to scrutiny. Shooting from the hip as so many do on this forum is not their modus operandi.
Lastly, I believe that in the UK, by way of comparison, the AAIB does not apportion blame as such. I don't know if the same holds true for the NTSB. Happy to stand corrected on this last point.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC wants you to maintain that speed for spacing and to maximise their arrival/departure rate. If you can do it, DO IT. If you cant, DONT DO IT.
Most competent operators are more than capable of politely saying "Unable LAHSO" to ATC on a daily basis at many of the major airports in the U.S. So why was it so hard with speeds on final approach for the Asiana crew?
The moment they heard the infamous "Maintain 180 knots to 5DME" they no doubt began sweating. I wouldnt be surprised if these guys even knew that they could "dare" tell ATC "Unable"
Blind adherence to instructions as usual in Korea. What if ATC asked them for 200kts to 5DME? No doubt they would have tried.
Flying 101?
Most competent operators are more than capable of politely saying "Unable LAHSO" to ATC on a daily basis at many of the major airports in the U.S. So why was it so hard with speeds on final approach for the Asiana crew?
The moment they heard the infamous "Maintain 180 knots to 5DME" they no doubt began sweating. I wouldnt be surprised if these guys even knew that they could "dare" tell ATC "Unable"
Blind adherence to instructions as usual in Korea. What if ATC asked them for 200kts to 5DME? No doubt they would have tried.
Flying 101?
Last edited by B-HKD; 11th Jul 2013 at 18:00.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'n not sure that this has been posted yet. It is from Today's Wall Street Journal and appears to infer that people who have heard the CVR report:
"Instead, these people said, it came from a third pilot in the cockpit, first officer Bong Dong-won, the most junior pilot on the flight who was sitting on a jump seat. Mr. Bong repeatedly yelled out the phrase "sink rate," intended to warn the two captains at the controls that the jet was losing altitude too quickly, these people said. An NTSB spokeswoman declined to comment."
Pilots' Recollections Differ From Cockpit Recordings in Asiana Crash - WSJ.com
"Instead, these people said, it came from a third pilot in the cockpit, first officer Bong Dong-won, the most junior pilot on the flight who was sitting on a jump seat. Mr. Bong repeatedly yelled out the phrase "sink rate," intended to warn the two captains at the controls that the jet was losing altitude too quickly, these people said. An NTSB spokeswoman declined to comment."
Pilots' Recollections Differ From Cockpit Recordings in Asiana Crash - WSJ.com
Last edited by PlatinumFlyer; 11th Jul 2013 at 18:15.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Lonewolf_50:
"Causes and effects aside, and mitigation, the NTSB has been releasing a lot more info a lot faster than I am used to seeing after a fatal accident."
"Causes and effects aside, and mitigation, the NTSB has been releasing a lot more info a lot faster than I am used to seeing after a fatal accident."
It might also have something to do with the compressed media atmosphere that exists now, i.e. an attempt to quash unsubstantiated rumors before they spread virally over social media.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Rananim:
The NTSB does not have the authority to correct anything in aviation (or, to my knowledge, in any other form of transportation). The Board is not a regulatory or rule-making agency -- it is not an agency at all.
It functions in an advisory capacity, and makes many RECOMMENDATIONS concerning regulation and the like. Those agencies with actual authority (in civil aviation matters, the FAA) may follow those recommendations in whole, in part, or (in many cases) not at all. There is a long history of tension (to put it mildly!) between the NTSB and FAA, that is well known to those who follow aviation safety issues in the United States.
@BBK:
You have it correctly -- in accident investigations, the NTSB quite purposefully refrains from allocation of blame, guilt, etc. It is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body. The goal of accident investigations is to make findings of probable cause, to the extent that available evidence and analysis support such findings. Sometimes, the result of an investigation is that the Board cannot determine a probable cause. Frequently, there are multiple causes, or more typically causes composed of several factors that acted in concert to contribute to the accident.
[One exception to the "no blame" principle: when the NTSB has previously recommended regulatory changes, and find that a new accident might have been prevented had their recommendation been followed by the regulatory agency, the Board is not necessarily shy about pointing this out!]
The NTSB does not have the authority to correct anything in aviation (or, to my knowledge, in any other form of transportation). The Board is not a regulatory or rule-making agency -- it is not an agency at all.
It functions in an advisory capacity, and makes many RECOMMENDATIONS concerning regulation and the like. Those agencies with actual authority (in civil aviation matters, the FAA) may follow those recommendations in whole, in part, or (in many cases) not at all. There is a long history of tension (to put it mildly!) between the NTSB and FAA, that is well known to those who follow aviation safety issues in the United States.
@BBK:
You have it correctly -- in accident investigations, the NTSB quite purposefully refrains from allocation of blame, guilt, etc. It is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body. The goal of accident investigations is to make findings of probable cause, to the extent that available evidence and analysis support such findings. Sometimes, the result of an investigation is that the Board cannot determine a probable cause. Frequently, there are multiple causes, or more typically causes composed of several factors that acted in concert to contribute to the accident.
[One exception to the "no blame" principle: when the NTSB has previously recommended regulatory changes, and find that a new accident might have been prevented had their recommendation been followed by the regulatory agency, the Board is not necessarily shy about pointing this out!]
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KSFO ATIS has no advisory whatsoever regarding a green laser as of 1821z
If you want to hear it for yourself, give the ATIS a call. +1 (650) 877-358
NOTAM's mentioned on ATIS. 28L/R GS out of service, 28L/10R closed, etc. However nada, zip, 0 about any green lasers. Making up stories now are we?
If you want to hear it for yourself, give the ATIS a call. +1 (650) 877-358
NOTAM's mentioned on ATIS. 28L/R GS out of service, 28L/10R closed, etc. However nada, zip, 0 about any green lasers. Making up stories now are we?
Last edited by B-HKD; 11th Jul 2013 at 18:24.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human Factors
Can't help but wonder if this isn't a simple human factors issue. ASI has been reduced to a small tape indication on the display. I can't believe that the PF would have allowed the airspeed to continue to decay if he knew what it was. So, why didn't he know?
Airspeed needs a more prominent display.
FO in the jumpseat calling "sink rate" (should this rumour turn out to be true) just distracted the PF from the real problem, which was airspeed. He might have responded to the sink rate call with the pull-up seen on the video, which put the AOA so high that the subsequent (and too late) power application had no effect.
We'll get the answer pretty quickly, but this has to be autothrottle function misinterpretation plus situational awareness caused by HF. Possibly also a heuristic error due to previous A320 experience.
Airspeed needs a more prominent display.
FO in the jumpseat calling "sink rate" (should this rumour turn out to be true) just distracted the PF from the real problem, which was airspeed. He might have responded to the sink rate call with the pull-up seen on the video, which put the AOA so high that the subsequent (and too late) power application had no effect.
We'll get the answer pretty quickly, but this has to be autothrottle function misinterpretation plus situational awareness caused by HF. Possibly also a heuristic error due to previous A320 experience.
Two quotes from How-Airliners-Fly (first published in 1997). The first refers to landing technique:
In this accident it seems the 'attentive monitoring' and 'compunction' were absent, perhaps because of the cultural factors to which many posters have alluded.
It would seem that airline managers, and perhaps regulatory authorities, have not addressed this issue.
You can be sure that PNF will be monitoring attentively and will have no compunction about calling out deviations from the correct approach path and speed.
Again, will our future pilots be able to fly their aircraft without the assistance of autopilots and computers when necessary if they never get the chance to practise these skills during normal operation? A related factor is that a pilot whose job is merely to watch the aircraft fly itself is unlikely to be as well motivated as one who can get his or her hands on the controls now and then. Designers of future aircraft and airline managers must address the issue of how much and under what conditions pilots should be allowed, or indeed encouraged, to fly manually and without guidance systems. It is likely that compared to a mere aircraft monitor, a skilled, motivated pilot will always make a greater overall contribution to flight safety.
Last edited by Discorde; 11th Jul 2013 at 18:31.
ETUD
The NTSB as an organization does have authority beyond recommending change. Pertaining to accidents, however I believe you're correct.
Legal - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board
The NTSB as an organization does have authority beyond recommending change. Pertaining to accidents, however I believe you're correct.
Legal - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@West Coast:
Thanks for the info! I was not aware of NTSB's role an adjudicating administrative law cases.
This does not conflict with my understanding that the NTSB is completely devoid of regulatory or rule-making authority. Its Office of Administrative Law Judges apparently interprets FAA regulations, but cannot write or amend them.
Thanks for the info! I was not aware of NTSB's role an adjudicating administrative law cases.
This does not conflict with my understanding that the NTSB is completely devoid of regulatory or rule-making authority. Its Office of Administrative Law Judges apparently interprets FAA regulations, but cannot write or amend them.