Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Asiana flight crash at San Francisco

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Asiana flight crash at San Francisco

Old 14th Jul 2013, 21:59
  #2061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 49
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seriously, this is beyond sad when the airline apologists drop the standard of pilot performance down to the point where landing on big open runways on sunny days is 'dangerous'.

Yes, from now on, you abort any hand flown approach, nothing but coupled, autothrottle, and two pilots babysitting you all the way down. Beyond sad.
Teldorserious is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 22:06
  #2062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GPWS

I just listened to Chairman Hersman's final briefing in which she mentioned they have sent the GPWS to Wash. D.C. for analysis.

Q: Is the GPWS inhibited below some altitude on approach (similar to the A/T below 100' RA)?
techgeek is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 22:24
  #2063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Asiana PR clearly working overtime in this thread, and using every dirty trick in the book too. I wish they spend some of the PR budget on pilot training instead.
brak is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 22:30
  #2064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: America
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It takes amazing skill to control a plane that has lost its tail and to make it rotate without flipping while reducing the speed.
Nice try Asian PR people. That has got to be one of the stupidest statements I've read so far regarding this accident.

Those guys were along for the ride once the aircraft impacted the sea wall. The only thing their "skill" did was **** up the approach.
junebug172 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 22:37
  #2065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sound asleep,

My post was about misperceptions and the media echo chamber, and my alternate-theory story was a speculation on the sort of patched-together alternate narrative that might be believed by those who do not trust the NTSB, and believe there is bias against the pilots and a cover-up rather than a real investigation.

I was saying that things like the snafus with the first responders and the pilot-name story, both of which did, factually happen, can feed into mistrust and can undermine belief in an objective investigation.

For example, the "30-second" tidbit -- that is from an actual question fielded by the NTSB chair after a briefing. A reporter said, "The Korean media is reporting that the air traffic controllers changed shifts 30 seconds before the accident."

NTSB chair neither confirmed nor denied, but reiterated that the exchanges with the crew were uneventful and clearance was given. It seems, reading between the lines, that the Korean media was implying ATC dropped the ball because they did not reply promptly enough to one of the aircraft's transmissions.

But just from that question, as well as the translated news article someone posted above, you can see how different countries emphasize different things, which means that readers end up being *absolutely sure* that stories like the yarn I spun are the "real truth."

Just to be clear: it's not what I believe, nor is it a prediction of what the eventual conspiracy theory will actually be. But surely there will be one.

And, speaking now for myself, I do have a level of mistrust of the veracity of the fire department's statements. I will trust the NTSB's findings on the rescue operation far more than the interim statements coming from the SF department.

Why? Because the day of the accident, it was the SF Fire Chief who made statement after statement that was premature and wrong. She said everyone was alive. Then she said 60 people were unaccounted for (letting everyone believe they might still be on the burning plane.) Then she said that weird thing about some passengers coming up from the water line, sort of hinting that they had gone down for a dip in the water. I am betting very strongly that those people near the water line were the critically injured flight attendants and passenger, and the other passengers who had found them and were calling for help. It just has not inspired confidence.

And, given that the pushback for findings of pilot error can be nationalist in tone, all of these details could be twisted and presented as deliberate, malicious, inept, etc on the part of Americans, who messed up but want to blame the pilots.
cynar is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 22:45
  #2066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 551
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Q: Is the GPWS inhibited below some altitude on approach (similar to the A/T below 100' RA)?
Normal GPWS modes aren't inhibited

I would hazard a guess that their profile descent rates were not enough to trigger either Mode 1 or 2. They were configured so Mode 4 not applicable and no glideslope so no Mode 5.

The EGPWS does have an onboard memory so they could just be sending it to the manufacturer to have the data extracted as an additional source of information.
Kiwiconehead is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 23:08
  #2067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seoul
Age: 57
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Asina pilots

I am not working at Asiana nor flight industry.

Several Korea media deliverately reported the pieces of statements from pilots but mented early come to conclusion until blackbox investigation done.

It was fair and common sense to cross check all information when we deal with events and accidents.

According to pilots there were plenty times to try recover speed and altitude but failed to gain thrust. This is testimony during investigation which they cannot fake. If they did make story to cover their mistake or tell lies they would be sent to jail.

Well. what are you going to do in flight if the engine does not listen to your manuver? Just you gonna be a sitting duck waiting until all dead.

Still they saved hundreds lives.


They are over experienced pilots who have 10000 hours flying time at commercial planes as well as legacy fighter jet during military service.

I do not believe NTSB reports that pilots are untrained, undisciplined and unprepared for critical situation.

From NTSB recent media reports, a number of evidence shown that they already drew public's attentions to pilots faults. Now we see a certain evidence that even a racial discrimination might have been involved from recent incidents showing bizarre names disgracing pilots.

Boeing is encountering harsh conditions these days due to many troubles such as 787 issues. However their loss cannot be compensated by innocent's head.

Full throttle did not work. why?

Did the pilots really not know how to gain the thrust?

or

Did something happen which should never happen?
kaokao is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 23:16
  #2068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TRW Plus
Maybe the answer to all of this is to have pilot training "on type" conducted separately from passenger aviation, I would envisage planes shuttling from location to location continuously with all the prospective trainees housed in hotels at either end, a team of trainers, and everyone on the one aircraft with no passengers, then if something like this happens, the casualty count is very small. It would be a selling point for aviation in general, as one has to assume some prospective passengers are probably a bit nervous about booking onto flights after these sorts of incidents. I suppose with the lack of incidents on major North American and European carriers that problem is less pointed. It might also be good for both confidence building and skill development if training pilots and trainees were from different airlines..............
The pilot flying Asiana 214 was not a "Trainee". He was FULLY qualified to fly the B777 due to the intensive training he had already received in Groundschool and in the Simulator. A Simulator so advanced and so realistic that there is no requirement to fly an actual B777 in order to be certified.

What he was doing was Line Indoctrination Training which all airlines do for a new Captain or First Officer only because the Airline Industry takes safety very seriously and leaves nothing to chance.

The accident was not caused because a new B777 Captain was at the controls. The accident happened because of a very complicated set of circumstances which is rampant in many(but not all) airlines outside of Europe and North America.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 23:27
  #2069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Farmer - you miss the point. Air travel has gotten safer since the good old days primarily due to automation which allows a lot of the pilots who might be tempted to hand fly badly to land and conduct flights safely. The message behind this accident is that it was a bad crew who lacked CRM and a scan. In a word it's called 'professionalism' which I would define as an attitude that you will do the correct thing and ensure that you know how to do the correct thing no matter what the environment you operate in. Others have postulated a cultural dimension which could indeed have played a role - living in the region I constantly see examples of where professionalism is lacking due to cultural aspects but I would hesitate to assign that explanation to this accident. I have included a lot of negatively loaded words in my comments here but I feel that it is justified - the accident was due to a poor crew and this can happen with any airline in the world. There will always be poor pilots who slip through the net as it were.
Old Carthusian is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 23:39
  #2070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
kaokao writes:
I do not believe NTSB reports that pilots are untrained, undisciplined and unprepared for critical situation.
First, welcome to Pprune.

That said, it's a shame your first few posts are, well, shameful.

NOWHERE in any media I've read has the NTSB said anything derogatory about the pilots of AS214.

From NTSB recent media reports, a number of evidence shown that they already drew public's attentions to pilots faults. Now we see a certain evidence that even a racial discrimination might have been involved from recent incidents showing bizarre names disgracing pilots.
The NTSB have merely been communicating what has been retrieved from the CVR, the DFDR, and interviews with involved persons - like the pilots.

Also, the NTSB did not provide those hoax names to KTVU. I would guess someone probably faxed them in to the news desk, and the less-than-bright person who received that fax checked with another less-than-bright person at the NTSB who then improperly "confirmed" them.

It was a bad joke put forth by someone who has not yet been identified, and as soon as it was learned to be a hoax, everyone responsible apologized.

What more can you ask for?
rottenray is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 23:44
  #2071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kaokao
..........................................

Full throttle did not work. why?

Did the pilots really not know how to gain the thrust?

or

Did something happen which should never happen?
Full Throttle did not work because the pilots were relying on automation to do it for them. All the facts are not known at this time but a properly trained pilot monitors the airspeed and keeps their hand on the thrust levers at all times during the final phases of the approach. All that was needed was to simply physically push on the thrust levers and the engines would have responded.

All three pilots in that flight deck were negligent in their duties and allowed the airspeed to decay to a dangerous level without the appropriate response. The reason for this was an over reliance on automation that can effect pilots from every part of the world.

In view of the fact that the rest of the world has for many years held poor opinions of the flying abilities of Korean aircrew, I would have thought they would have worked hard to enforce practices to prove the world wrong.

In this case it looks like they didn't try hard enough.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 23:49
  #2072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tokyo
Age: 73
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Suggest experienced posters take Kao Kao (and by extension a whole lot of other Korean readers) through the technicalities gently and clearly, without the little barb about Korean flying abilities at the end.

Last edited by Indarra; 15th Jul 2013 at 00:03.
Indarra is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 00:21
  #2073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,067
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
And, given that the pushback for findings of pilot error can be nationalist in tone, all of these details could be twisted and presented as deliberate, malicious, inept, etc on the part of Americans, who messed up but want to blame the pilots.
Well given that they (including the CEO) have said there was no mechanical problem with the aircraft how can it not be a pilot problem?

If pilots can't fly a visual approach they should not be there. Don't try divert the issue away from the real issue which is why these guys struggled to fly a visual approach in good conditions and something that everyone else in the world seems to do perfectly safely 24/7/365.

its bound to happen... it will only be a matter of time... the days of the human flight crew is nearing its end... with automation taking its place.
Except automation can't do what humans can do in a aeroplane.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 00:23
  #2074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Based on earlier posts about stable approach procedures, why not add an EGPWS mode offering a "GO AROUND" alert when the following conditions are met:
I believe AIRBUS have something in the pipeline to alert to an unstabilised approach. At the moment there is an arc displayed on the ND as a guide to energy management in the descent, if the arc crosses the runway threshold you are fine, if it's miles beyond that then it's time for speed brakes.
Metro man is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 00:49
  #2075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: America
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Full throttle did not work. why?
When speaking about jets, we refer to "thrust" or "power". Throttles are for recip engines.

The crew did initiate a go around, but gave the aircraft very little time to respond. You have to consider two things here:

1. Engine spool-up time which, even at flight idle, takes a few seconds to come to full thrust.

2. Momentum - you simply cannot take any mass traveling in a particular direction and expect to change its vector instantaneously. It takes time, once the engines are to TOGA, for the airplane to start responding.

The crew gave the 777 about 1.5s to do the above two. You'd be hard pressed to get any aircraft to perform in the time frame.

Its important for a pilot to be a few seconds ahead of the aircraft at all times. Being proactive instead of reactive is the key. Once you get behind the aircraft, you're pretty much screwed.

Last edited by junebug172; 15th Jul 2013 at 02:22.
junebug172 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 00:57
  #2076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@techgeek, Metro_man:

Perhaps you will take a look at my post #1977, reachable by this link:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post7938954

I'm curious what some ATPs may think of the concept.

PS It won't satisfy in the least, those who are appalled by the loss of stick-and-rudder skills. But maybe, once in a while, even a Pretty Good Pilot forgets something ... but is saved by a configuration warning horn.

Last edited by Etud_lAvia; 15th Jul 2013 at 01:00.
Etud_lAvia is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 01:20
  #2077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,407
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Etud

It's being considered, I think Honeywell and its EGPWS gurus have designed it. Not released to service.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 01:27
  #2078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EGPWS

@Etud_lAvia

It appears that we are in agreement!

My idea is an enhanced EGPWS mode (2?) that would address the short landing CFIT scenario exemplified by this accident.
techgeek is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 01:56
  #2079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Q: Is the GPWS inhibited below some altitude on approach (similar to the A/T below 100' RA)?
Normal GPWS modes aren't inhibited
How do you define normal? If you look at detailed notes on the GPWS system, there are inhibits. For some modes, the inhibit is 30 feet. Inhibits can vary depending on closure rates and configuration and can vary enormously (e.g. up to 1000').

There is an AIRSPEED LOW caution (or advisory) fitted to Boeings. However, these are options. I'm assuming Asiana has not opted for an AIRSPEED LOW caution (beeper and message), otherwise it wouldn't only be the Second Officer alerting the flying pilot of his speed error.

Last edited by NSEU; 15th Jul 2013 at 01:57.
NSEU is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 02:00
  #2080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@techgeek:

EGPWS may have gotten a lot smarter than I remember it to be... but I think that the concept I proposed is a good deal "stronger" in the technical sense: that is, more restrictive.

If I understand correctly, EGWPS would not inherently warn of a "hot" landing coming in too high/fast (again, I may not understand how the systems work these days).

The "strong" warning system (which could be realized in the EGPWS, or any other convenient site in the avionics) could evaluate the full stabilized approach criteria selected by the appropriate authority (airline, certifying agency, etc.), including vertical and lateral deviations from ideal approach path, airspeed, and perhaps engine power range.

This would, of course, be more complex than a "too low/slow" warning.

@TWT: It'd be designed to be "always on" like the gear warning

Last edited by Etud_lAvia; 15th Jul 2013 at 02:02.
Etud_lAvia is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.