Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bournemouth UK
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
I'm assuming here that the trainer had previously done a number of sectors training under the supervision of an experienced trainer sat on the jump seat
Last edited by Sky Wave; 14th Jul 2013 at 12:36.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grimmrad,
in my opinion there have been 4 pilots and all of them had lots of hours. Basic flying skills had to be there. Not checking speed and altitude and not to answer both are dropping is a huge failure of all of them. Even if one of the pilots, lets say the pilot flying (PF), did not recognize it, what's about the other gentlemen? Why didn't they respond?
Every student pilot gets drummed "Speed is life, altitude is life insurance", "Aviate - navigate - communicate", "First fly the aircraft" and "Never let an aircraft take you somewhere, your brain didn't get to 5 minutes earlier."
A lot of airlines require their pilots that the approach at certain points must be stable, for example at a 1000 ft gate - or to go around if not everything is in smooth condition at that point.
So I ask for the competence of the PF, the PNF and also the other crewmembers of that cockpit. Why didn't they recognize and prevent what happend?
Even if there are cultural circumstances, at some point a will to survive must kick in... And that's another very large site:
In the 1990's Korean Air lost many planes because crews did not work together in a proper way. The whole world introduced modern Crew resource management systems (CRM) in order to coordinate crew cooperation and to dismantle obstructive hierarchies. What about the Koreans?
They continue working under the old principles and continue to have bad accidents with it. Time is over to remain silent about that and to be political correct. These guys kill people with this behaviour. It is macabre, but seeing the Asiana wreckage and how it spinned around after impact, one must wonder that there are not 300+ dead. A little bit less height or speed and the aircraft would be completely crashed against the shore fortifications.
When the hell Korean aviation launches its renewal? How many deaths they still want to accept before they arrange with modern ways of crew coordination? Nothing against their culture, but if it does not fit into the cockpit, they must change it in the cockpit or should not fly.
in my opinion there have been 4 pilots and all of them had lots of hours. Basic flying skills had to be there. Not checking speed and altitude and not to answer both are dropping is a huge failure of all of them. Even if one of the pilots, lets say the pilot flying (PF), did not recognize it, what's about the other gentlemen? Why didn't they respond?
Every student pilot gets drummed "Speed is life, altitude is life insurance", "Aviate - navigate - communicate", "First fly the aircraft" and "Never let an aircraft take you somewhere, your brain didn't get to 5 minutes earlier."
A lot of airlines require their pilots that the approach at certain points must be stable, for example at a 1000 ft gate - or to go around if not everything is in smooth condition at that point.
So I ask for the competence of the PF, the PNF and also the other crewmembers of that cockpit. Why didn't they recognize and prevent what happend?
Even if there are cultural circumstances, at some point a will to survive must kick in... And that's another very large site:
In the 1990's Korean Air lost many planes because crews did not work together in a proper way. The whole world introduced modern Crew resource management systems (CRM) in order to coordinate crew cooperation and to dismantle obstructive hierarchies. What about the Koreans?
They continue working under the old principles and continue to have bad accidents with it. Time is over to remain silent about that and to be political correct. These guys kill people with this behaviour. It is macabre, but seeing the Asiana wreckage and how it spinned around after impact, one must wonder that there are not 300+ dead. A little bit less height or speed and the aircraft would be completely crashed against the shore fortifications.
When the hell Korean aviation launches its renewal? How many deaths they still want to accept before they arrange with modern ways of crew coordination? Nothing against their culture, but if it does not fit into the cockpit, they must change it in the cockpit or should not fly.
Last edited by Flyer94; 14th Jul 2013 at 13:22.
at some point a will to survive must kick in
The point at which they realise they are in a survival situation is too late to do something about it.
In one sense, there is a real risk with people putting themselves into situations they know to be risky because they haven't been properly trained. This should apply to a lot of aircrew having read the AF447 report. Could I do any better with the training my company gives me?
However, the immediate survival risk of losing your job for making a stand overrides the more psychologically distant risk of being unable to cope if something unusual happens.
People rationalise. They tell themselves they'll cope, or "it'll never happen to me"; probably most do a bit of both.
Thus we end up with the situation we have in so many industries. The ones who make a stand get sacked. An increasing proportion of the remaining ones have either an inflated sense of their own skills, or too low a sense of self-esteem to complain,or they 'need the job'. With all of those, a management who only cares about their own bonuses will get away with anything they can. The only solution is an effective justice system to deal with unethical senior management. The ability to prosecute companies for corporate manslaughter in the UK has existed for nearly 50 years. There has been one successful prosecution, of the one-man company responsible for the Lyme Bay canoe tragedy. And there's an awful lot of bankers retired on nice pensions, with not one of them even accused.
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 14th Jul 2013 at 13:46.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asiana Airlines considering legal action after - CNN.com
Really? Asiana trying to polarise support? Guess it might offset their huge insurance burden and counter suits for corporate manslaughter.
Really? Asiana trying to polarise support? Guess it might offset their huge insurance burden and counter suits for corporate manslaughter.
Do We Need A Training Regulation Update
This thread seems to have split off into opinions about training or lack of.
Training costs money and airlines are not likely to freely add syllabus to their already approved programs.
Is the missing part simply a one time demonstration/learning of skill each time a move to a new model is made?
If we, as users could point out the pros of such training there is an opportunity for the regulator to step up to the plate with their cost benefits analysis and rewrite of their min training requirements.
Training costs money and airlines are not likely to freely add syllabus to their already approved programs.
Is the missing part simply a one time demonstration/learning of skill each time a move to a new model is made?
If we, as users could point out the pros of such training there is an opportunity for the regulator to step up to the plate with their cost benefits analysis and rewrite of their min training requirements.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Age: 51
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLCH
SLF just reading up on FLCH on the 777 and found this old thread on PPRune for anyone interested:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/34257...peed-prot.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/34257...peed-prot.html
Agreed, the problem is that clearly inadequate training programs are approved.
The problem is that no Government, via its regulator, is going to admit it's got things massively wrong, and that's where we are now.
Hasn't happened anywhere, ever.
The problem is that no Government, via its regulator, is going to admit it's got things massively wrong, and that's where we are now.
Hasn't happened anywhere, ever.
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 14th Jul 2013 at 14:27.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asians seeing NTSB and TV station?
"The reputation of the four pilots and of the company had been seriously damaged by this report." Really? But not by their pilots crashing the plane onto the runway? This is rediculous.
Flyer94 - thanks and couldn't agree more. Just saying that putting both together (new at type and new at instructing) didn't help the situation either. Might have been better to get the newbie on type together with an experienced I stricter and let the new instructer do a couple trips with someone more experienced already as a lead in.
Flyer94 - thanks and couldn't agree more. Just saying that putting both together (new at type and new at instructing) didn't help the situation either. Might have been better to get the newbie on type together with an experienced I stricter and let the new instructer do a couple trips with someone more experienced already as a lead in.
Last edited by grimmrad; 14th Jul 2013 at 14:30. Reason: Typo
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asiana Airlines considering legal action after - CNN.com
Really? Asiana trying to polarise support? Guess it might offset their huge insurance burden and counter suits for corporate manslaughter.
Really? Asiana trying to polarise support? Guess it might offset their huge insurance burden and counter suits for corporate manslaughter.
Every time some dude believes his GPS and drives himself onto railway tracks we make fun of them. Or people that do stupid stuff while yapping away on cellphones.
These Asiana pilots aren't exactly beyond reproach. I don't know why everyone wants to treat them so reverently.
In any case I don't know how they well make a legal case that the pilots' reputations were hurt, if all the TV station used were these silly pseudonyms.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in my opinion there have been 4 pilots and all of them had lots of hours. Basic flying skills had to be there. Not checking speed and altitude and not to answer both are dropping is a huge failure of all of them. Even if one of the pilots, lets say the pilot flying (PF), did not recognize it, what's about the other gentlemen? Why didn't they respond?
(1) We have a hull loss with fatalities.
(2) So far as we can guess right now, some degree of pilot error was involved. Perhaps gross error, or even negligence. Perhaps.
(3) Flight crew is alive
(4) Lots of forensics data: CVR, video, United crew that witnessed, relief pilots etc.
Asides of the NTSB investigation (which so far as I know does not assign blame) what's the chance of a criminal prosecution being filed? ( Almost certainly, civil suits will result. ) What's the dividing line between an accident and culpable negligence?
Historically, what precedents do we have for scheduled carrier flight crew being prosecuted for an incident? Do they enjoy any immunities? Have there been any successful prosecutions?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seoul
Age: 57
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lack of facts
What discussion have been ongoing are based on lack of information and facts.
NTSB reports at media show quite discrepency from Asiana pilots' statements during investigation.
Both pilots consistently urged that they have tried to put the throttle lever full back position in order to gain the thrust but it did not work, which took place much earlier than known in public.
They stated that discovered it too low when they noticed PAPI with 3 reds and 1 white and full back throttle at 500 feet altitude but failed to gain thrust for seconds.
After several trials, pushed TO/GA for final hope, then the flight regained power but late.
It seems strange to hear that all discussion and news are going on based on unfactual NTSB report without certain data that have to be analysed and summarized.
Anyway Korea goverment sent letter NTSB stop releasing unfactual inforamtion meanwhile Asiana preparing law case.
CP who experienced with 747, 320 for 16 years has been disgraced by ones-who-know-everything-from-CNN due to lack of facts and information.
We will see how premature information without thorough investigation have been released in public to make all focus on pilots' mistakesby NTSB. whatever reason is behind, truth is about to come.
NTSB reports at media show quite discrepency from Asiana pilots' statements during investigation.
Both pilots consistently urged that they have tried to put the throttle lever full back position in order to gain the thrust but it did not work, which took place much earlier than known in public.
They stated that discovered it too low when they noticed PAPI with 3 reds and 1 white and full back throttle at 500 feet altitude but failed to gain thrust for seconds.
After several trials, pushed TO/GA for final hope, then the flight regained power but late.
It seems strange to hear that all discussion and news are going on based on unfactual NTSB report without certain data that have to be analysed and summarized.
Anyway Korea goverment sent letter NTSB stop releasing unfactual inforamtion meanwhile Asiana preparing law case.
CP who experienced with 747, 320 for 16 years has been disgraced by ones-who-know-everything-from-CNN due to lack of facts and information.
We will see how premature information without thorough investigation have been released in public to make all focus on pilots' mistakesby NTSB. whatever reason is behind, truth is about to come.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key point may be if Boeing is going to redesign the auto throttle system for the next plane they bring on the market.
A system that engages automatically even if switched off
A system that engages automatically even if switched off
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This complete transparency is new ground for the NSTB; right? Well, maybe this is not a good thing....
They should not spear anyone especially the crew immediately. They should wait until all the facts are in.
The NSTB is simply feeding the Internet frenzy for speculation on how and why this happened. Accidents are not cut and dry. The are caused by many factors.
I don't think suing the NTSB will go far in the USA.
They should not spear anyone especially the crew immediately. They should wait until all the facts are in.
The NSTB is simply feeding the Internet frenzy for speculation on how and why this happened. Accidents are not cut and dry. The are caused by many factors.
I don't think suing the NTSB will go far in the USA.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, when the SQ6 tragedy happened in Taiwan, the Taiwan authorities would not let the flight crew (all pilots survived) leave the country for a few weeks. They were allowed to remain in their hotels and free to move about but not leave the island, until Singapore's government protested and then the crew were allowed to leave upon the promise that they will return to answer questions. Under Taiwan's law they would have been liable for jail terms if found at fault.
Again the Singapore government defended them fiercely and the crew were not jailed.
SQ then quietly fired the Captain and CoPilot when they were found to be liable in the accident. While the Singapore government continued to protest deficiencies at the TPE airport. Their government's report on the accident differed substantially from the Taiwan government report on the same. With Singapore still insisting their crew were misled by missing runway lights, the fact that the partially closed runway 5R (the one they mistakenly took off from) should not have been partially open (part of it was being used as a taxi way during reconstruction) ,etc.
In all honestly the airport should have been closed as the typhoon was approaching. SQ6 was scheduled to be the last flight out that night as far as I can recall. But the winds were still within parameters and the flight crew wanted to leave ASAP. Perhaps they were fearful of what would happen to their jobs if they did not continue and they and their passengers suddenly needed hotel rooms for the next one to two days.
Again the Singapore government defended them fiercely and the crew were not jailed.
SQ then quietly fired the Captain and CoPilot when they were found to be liable in the accident. While the Singapore government continued to protest deficiencies at the TPE airport. Their government's report on the accident differed substantially from the Taiwan government report on the same. With Singapore still insisting their crew were misled by missing runway lights, the fact that the partially closed runway 5R (the one they mistakenly took off from) should not have been partially open (part of it was being used as a taxi way during reconstruction) ,etc.
In all honestly the airport should have been closed as the typhoon was approaching. SQ6 was scheduled to be the last flight out that night as far as I can recall. But the winds were still within parameters and the flight crew wanted to leave ASAP. Perhaps they were fearful of what would happen to their jobs if they did not continue and they and their passengers suddenly needed hotel rooms for the next one to two days.
Last edited by armchairpilot94116; 14th Jul 2013 at 16:29.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@kaokao
And where did you get your info from?
The NTSB published the last few seconds and just at the very (too late) moment they wanted to make a GA. Why would the NTSB lie?
Are you working for Asiana with your just 2 posts?
The NTSB published the last few seconds and just at the very (too late) moment they wanted to make a GA. Why would the NTSB lie?
Are you working for Asiana with your just 2 posts?
Psychophysiological entity
I have to say this leaves me with a niggling doubt. Just the troubling thought of innocent people going to the slaughter always makes me want to look again, and again.
Is there telemetry from the levers themselves--or just the result of those movements?
We've all been stunned by the sink through the (ideal) glide-slope, but what if several small corrections had been applied, would they be recorded before the resultant parameters changed (same question, I know) as opposed to the time the TOGA command was given?
It just seems so impossible to believe these reasonably experienced pilots would fail to apply power under these circumstances - just sitting there waiting for a mechanism to do the job for them.
Who's right? Is there any chance their statement is true?
Is there telemetry from the levers themselves--or just the result of those movements?
We've all been stunned by the sink through the (ideal) glide-slope, but what if several small corrections had been applied, would they be recorded before the resultant parameters changed (same question, I know) as opposed to the time the TOGA command was given?
It just seems so impossible to believe these reasonably experienced pilots would fail to apply power under these circumstances - just sitting there waiting for a mechanism to do the job for them.
Who's right? Is there any chance their statement is true?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the discussion about increasing manual flying hours sounds good, but there was the writer ho said he flies 8 sectors a month with 3 pilots. Each has to make a currency landing, then there is the autoland currency question etc. In some worlds it's not that practical and in the airports they use maybe not that useful anyway. LHR STARS are flown by ATC until G.S. capture.
In the short-haul world, very different. In the old days of Greek islands (and I wonder if it is still the same) the descending visual was the standard. Much beer was lost if you did not do a CDA or spooled up >1500'. It would be difficult for an XAA to impose a factor, as all licences are the same. It should be an airline culture thingie. Sadly that is going in the opposite direction.
One element of the attitude of the behaviour of the IP: not acting quick enough; should not have been rostered with a newbie in the first place; should not have been rostered into SFO knowing the lack of aids etc. One parameter I'll add is; given all these things were in place and did happen they he should not have given the sector to the newbie. A low experience on type pilot should be allowed to build confidence in a known and comfortable environment. Later you can pump up the volume.
In the short-haul world, very different. In the old days of Greek islands (and I wonder if it is still the same) the descending visual was the standard. Much beer was lost if you did not do a CDA or spooled up >1500'. It would be difficult for an XAA to impose a factor, as all licences are the same. It should be an airline culture thingie. Sadly that is going in the opposite direction.
One element of the attitude of the behaviour of the IP: not acting quick enough; should not have been rostered with a newbie in the first place; should not have been rostered into SFO knowing the lack of aids etc. One parameter I'll add is; given all these things were in place and did happen they he should not have given the sector to the newbie. A low experience on type pilot should be allowed to build confidence in a known and comfortable environment. Later you can pump up the volume.