Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tilnextime
Not surprisingly at all. The Pilot in Command is the final authority on what a given aircraft and crew can or cannot do. ATC deals in general procedures, the PIC deals in determining if he and his crew can handle the aircraft to comply with those procedures. If not, it's the PIC's responsibility to request an alternative.
If automation is making some of the decisions, and ATC is making some of the decisions, what the hell are we pilots doing?
Not surprisingly at all. The Pilot in Command is the final authority on what a given aircraft and crew can or cannot do. ATC deals in general procedures, the PIC deals in determining if he and his crew can handle the aircraft to comply with those procedures. If not, it's the PIC's responsibility to request an alternative.
If automation is making some of the decisions, and ATC is making some of the decisions, what the hell are we pilots doing?
I hate bringing in culture/language issue but you have to remember the Korean pilots are not native English speakers.
So they had a choice
1. Say Unable and end up using English even more for explaining why and figure out new approach etc, ALL the while possibly risking getting too close to another aircraft
2. Or you trust your piloting skill and put your faith in your flying skill. I know that may sound hilarious to many at this point but I doubt they thought they lacked flying skill. Otherwise, they would've left the job long ago.
No idea about the comfort level the pilots had with English though. As someone who had to start learning English at pre-teen age, it's PRETTY hard. If you don't start young (like elementary school, even earlier), learning a new language is not easy.
who knows...
Last edited by dba7; 12th Jul 2013 at 18:42.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,806
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Originally Posted by deSitter
Covering a victim with foam is a bad enough mistake. The foam goes on the hot places.
It got better when the local RED fire trucks arrived. They are used to dealing with fires.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Garnet Valley, PA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am torn between protecting the airline pilots and getting the accident details.
I am deeply concerned that we are shifting into an environment where pilots can't make a mistake without fear of having ones life turned upside down prematurely. I don't think it serves the traveling public very well to have pilots walking on egg shells every time they enter the cockpit.
I also think pilots should be required to have three go arounds per year. This way, the embarrassment will be completely removed from taking such an action.
We need to focus more on why this crew waited until the last seconds to call a go around. To me, that is of equal significance than failing to monitor.
Airspeed works against you in high workload situations. Slowing down the plane gives you more time to process. How many crashes will it take related to airspeed before we admit that a stand alone warning is required. Requiring flight crews to monitor a small box on the speed tape that turns from green to yellow to red for such a critical parameter is absurd.
Yes. Professionals should be able to monitor these things without incident. But, why? Why take the risk? Humans are terrible monitors. Computers are excellent monitors. When the airspeed is trending too slow, give a blessed alert---with or without the autopilot engaged.
Finally, I appreciate the transparency of the NTSB, but we need to protect our pilots and I see no reason for not waiting to disclose any crew statements until more facts are in. I still want crew interviews conduced immediately. But, there is no reason we can't wait for other details to be fully corroborated before releasing one word from the pilots.
I am deeply concerned that we are shifting into an environment where pilots can't make a mistake without fear of having ones life turned upside down prematurely. I don't think it serves the traveling public very well to have pilots walking on egg shells every time they enter the cockpit.
I also think pilots should be required to have three go arounds per year. This way, the embarrassment will be completely removed from taking such an action.
We need to focus more on why this crew waited until the last seconds to call a go around. To me, that is of equal significance than failing to monitor.
Airspeed works against you in high workload situations. Slowing down the plane gives you more time to process. How many crashes will it take related to airspeed before we admit that a stand alone warning is required. Requiring flight crews to monitor a small box on the speed tape that turns from green to yellow to red for such a critical parameter is absurd.
Yes. Professionals should be able to monitor these things without incident. But, why? Why take the risk? Humans are terrible monitors. Computers are excellent monitors. When the airspeed is trending too slow, give a blessed alert---with or without the autopilot engaged.
Finally, I appreciate the transparency of the NTSB, but we need to protect our pilots and I see no reason for not waiting to disclose any crew statements until more facts are in. I still want crew interviews conduced immediately. But, there is no reason we can't wait for other details to be fully corroborated before releasing one word from the pilots.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cohoes, NY
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This "FLCH trap" is not something that can ever happen in final approach if the pilot's have brain in their heads.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armchair Quarterbacking
I have no idea about the techniques, policies or equipment, but watching a Major Foam Unit [as we called them] squirting foam at the left engine [that didn't exist] and not even moving close enough to achieve the necessary trajectory was …. interesting.
Perhaps they saw fuel pouring from the attachment point of the missing engine? Possibly they were responding in accordance with their training? Maybe there were some good reasons why the responded as they did?
The function of the foam is primarily to starve the fire of oxygen. How effective it is to stream the foam from a distant nozzle, when fire has burned a hole through the roof, I don't know.
Some airport fire departments have special trucks for attacking fires inside the fuselage. The trucks have purpose-designed nozzles on long-reach arms, able to puncture the aircraft skin, and disperse the foam in a volume-filling mist designed to suppress flame and reduce temperatures with great rapidity. Were the fire crew you found so interesting taking care of the area around the plane, while waiting for other equipment to handle the interior?
I don't really know ... but it would be great to hear from somebody who does.
In a similar vein, I've read several posts excoriating the flight crew for their delay in authorizing emergency evacuation. It seems plausible, at least, that they were physically and then psychologically stunned after their ship came to rest -- the nose may have experienced some of the largest sustained accelerations as the plane pirouetted on the runway.
After taking a few moments to recover themselves, they would presumably need to pull up their pre-evacuation checklist, and run through it. As more than one person has observed, evacuating passengers in the proximity of gigantic 100,000 lb thrust-class turbofans could have resulted in dreadful casualties, without assurance that the engines were stopped (or in fact, detached). With the ship badly damaged and an engine missing, the engine indications were presumably different from what the crew is used to. Mightn't they have wanted to take a bit of time to make sense of what they were seeing, and to confirm that the engines were stopped?
I'd be interested to hear from experienced air carrier pilots here how long they expect it would take them to complete their corresponding checklists in such a scenario.
Maybe the Asiana crew took an unconscionably long time to OK evacuation. Or maybe they were doing reasonably under the circumstances. What do the veteran airline pilots say?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,806
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Originally Posted by JimField
All you have to do is look at the approach radar data for Asiana 214. It clearly shows the aircraft far above glide slope at 4.5 NM and 190 knots. Then it began a descent to acquire glide slope. It acquired glide slope at 1.3 NM and 140 knots, but continued descending! Then increased its rate of descent!! And continued to slow, until it hit the rocks.
But I ask again - and again - what is that procedure? Who on Earth approved something that puts you hot and high at 5 nm and then, on a Visual Approach, leaves you to sort it out?
Don't you think that's a bit unfair? I know/hope most of you can do that within 5 nm, but do you think thats a proper way to handle c. 300 pax down the back? Fighter pilot, yes … Civil Air Transport, perhaps not. Is this a factor? NTSA might determine so.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SI
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bobcat, don´t you know the system knows the airfield elevation?
It´s there next to "LDG ELEV", it normally says AUTO and displays correctly the field´s elevation. Therefore a simple "landing elev + xxx feet" inhibition on the altitude selector shouldn´t be that difficult.
It´s there next to "LDG ELEV", it normally says AUTO and displays correctly the field´s elevation. Therefore a simple "landing elev + xxx feet" inhibition on the altitude selector shouldn´t be that difficult.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MSP
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not according to that rather strange video of the fire crew[s] in action (search up-thread, please). The apparent inability to even squirt the foamy stuff where the fire was raging was disturbing. I have no idea about the techniques, policies or equipment, but watching a Major Foam Unit [as we called them] squirting foam at the left engine [that didn't exist] and not even moving close enough to achieve the necessary trajectory was …. interesting.
It got better when the local RED fire trucks arrived. They are used to dealing with fires.
It got better when the local RED fire trucks arrived. They are used to dealing with fires.
And they seemed they kept moving in that area. Despite having a relatively long throw on their foam they drove up very close to the aircraft. It seemed 5 or 6 trucks arrived almost same time. One would think they would each pull up and stop in positions surrounding the aircraft and deploy fire measures as necessary. Many however kept moving, jockeying position.
This photo shows a good idea of the fire truck tire tracks. Sadly, if you look to the left front corner of the truck near the wing the yellow tarp might also show something else.
I believe one report noted the victim was found appx 30' from a boarding slide on left side of the aircraft.
There are several higher rez copies of this and similar shots - none conclusive - however the yellow tarp was in almost all of the post crash photos.
As this early pre-fire photo shows - there were many people in the area as trucks arrived, and there was no one/nothing in the spot the tarp now appears.
This higher rez shot shows the large number of people in the area as deplaning was occurring - again nothing appears visible in that spot.
In the overhead shot the tire tracks and tarp coincide.
I find it very hard to believe they sprayed foam on this young girl without seeing her. And if they did and she was run over in the foam - then that seems equally problematic.
Hopefully the emergency teams will develop an improved response plan - one that minimizes truck movement when survivors are present and requires on the ground spotters in that case.
Not an attack on the fire crews, just hopefully constructive review - I'm sure they are doing the same
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPN11
The SFIA ARFF trucks are chartreuse. The red ones you see in the video are from local communities providing assistance. I have watched SFIAFD in action, and in this video, I wonder why they didn't get in a little closer to the right side before the fire really took off. But I wasn't there...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 54
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Licensing hours split into Automated + Manual?
Recent incidents are following a worrying trend. Has automation incidiously outgrown the the current licensing framework to the point of impacting safety?
Simplying counting the hours whilst PIC in the front seat is too crude a measure of experience when it comes to the fundamental skill of manual flying e.g. a flight can take 11 hours and only require 2 mins of hands on.
What's the solution?
If logged hours were split between manual hours and automated hours then appropriate licensing baselines could be establish to guarantee the pilots routinely practice their most fundamental flying skills. This can only be implemented across the board if imposed by the licensing authority. Currently it is mostly left to airline policy to influence the amount of manual flying hours. This is not adequate for such a fundamental skill. This minor change would not cost much more to implement and I would expect it to get the backing of Unions/Pilots afterall don't most pilots want to actually fly?
Automation improves safety but so does having pilots experienced at manual flying, so lets have both.
Simplying counting the hours whilst PIC in the front seat is too crude a measure of experience when it comes to the fundamental skill of manual flying e.g. a flight can take 11 hours and only require 2 mins of hands on.
What's the solution?
If logged hours were split between manual hours and automated hours then appropriate licensing baselines could be establish to guarantee the pilots routinely practice their most fundamental flying skills. This can only be implemented across the board if imposed by the licensing authority. Currently it is mostly left to airline policy to influence the amount of manual flying hours. This is not adequate for such a fundamental skill. This minor change would not cost much more to implement and I would expect it to get the backing of Unions/Pilots afterall don't most pilots want to actually fly?
Automation improves safety but so does having pilots experienced at manual flying, so lets have both.
Children from the flight recount their experience:
Shock and survival: Asiana plane crash through the eyes of children - CNN.com
Shock and survival: Asiana plane crash through the eyes of children - CNN.com
For desitter in post #1911, I think your term "Inexcusable" regarding the fire fighting vehicle perhaps running over a victim is out of line and does not help at all.
Tragic is a better word.
As others have indicated the victim, perhaps alive, perhaps not, was outside the fuselage and covered in foam. Debris were everywhere. Obviously several of the posters here have no idea of the complexities of operating a heavy foam truck near an active incident, or the procedures involved. There are clear procedures and getting foam on active flame, hot spots, spilled fuel, positioning etc. Foam application is not precise, it tends to go everywhere. Even with the engines clearly ripped from the aircraft they would have wanted to get foam around the engine pylons and wings to cover any leaking fuel. Remember foam is designed to cover fuel and prevent the oxygen chain from causing more fire. This is likely the reason they were spraying the engine areas.
Foam apparatus needs to be moved during an active incident to best fight the fire. These are huge trucks, often operating without dismounted ground crew to guide them to ensure the path is clear. These are huge trucks, and again the area was littered with debris, all covered with foam.
desitter would you prefer the foam truck sits 500 yards away and let the plane burn, with passengers perhaps still aboard, out of fear of running over a evacuee? I think not.
No one feels worse than the firefighters, believe me, and blaming them does no help.
Tragic, yes. "Inexusable" likely not.
Tragic is a better word.
As others have indicated the victim, perhaps alive, perhaps not, was outside the fuselage and covered in foam. Debris were everywhere. Obviously several of the posters here have no idea of the complexities of operating a heavy foam truck near an active incident, or the procedures involved. There are clear procedures and getting foam on active flame, hot spots, spilled fuel, positioning etc. Foam application is not precise, it tends to go everywhere. Even with the engines clearly ripped from the aircraft they would have wanted to get foam around the engine pylons and wings to cover any leaking fuel. Remember foam is designed to cover fuel and prevent the oxygen chain from causing more fire. This is likely the reason they were spraying the engine areas.
Foam apparatus needs to be moved during an active incident to best fight the fire. These are huge trucks, often operating without dismounted ground crew to guide them to ensure the path is clear. These are huge trucks, and again the area was littered with debris, all covered with foam.
desitter would you prefer the foam truck sits 500 yards away and let the plane burn, with passengers perhaps still aboard, out of fear of running over a evacuee? I think not.
No one feels worse than the firefighters, believe me, and blaming them does no help.
Tragic, yes. "Inexusable" likely not.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read many accident reports involving scattered passengers, dead and alive, and never once heard of a single one being run over by a vehicle. They sprayed foam everywhere but on the small fire near the still-present engine. Yes, it is inexcusable.
Just because it's never happened before doesn't mean that it couldn't. If you read accident reports so often, I'm surprised that you cannot see how this could happen. It's an accident, they didn't chase her down and run her over.... 
Inexcusable is driving drunk.
Inexcusable is leaving your kids in the car while you go drink and gamble.
Inexcusable is being cracked off your face and rolling on your kid in your sleep.
This was a tragedy, plain and simple. Could it have been avoided? Maybe, but at the expense of a fast response and saving other lives? Possibly...
Inexcusable is driving drunk.
Inexcusable is leaving your kids in the car while you go drink and gamble.
Inexcusable is being cracked off your face and rolling on your kid in your sleep.
This was a tragedy, plain and simple. Could it have been avoided? Maybe, but at the expense of a fast response and saving other lives? Possibly...
Last edited by givemewings; 13th Jul 2013 at 00:05.
desitter, please understand that foam is also designed to prevent further fire, and smothering spilled fuel is high on their priority list, not just the "hot places" you used in you post. You and I were not there, and have no idea where fuel was or may have been leaking from.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post7936332
In retrospect I was significantly more polite with them than I should have been…
Last edited by Ranger One; 13th Jul 2013 at 00:12.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of them would have dreamed of telling me how to fly.
I suggest you extend the same courtesy to your fellow professionals.
Trust me, they will be debriefing, critiquing, and examining their response as throughly as we would examine our flying.