NTSB update on Asiana 214
What has become of the most basic - I say again the most basic - part of flying / operating any type of aeroplane - and that is monitoring of airspeed - it is why the damn thing flies in the first place.
So many non aviation colleagues are asking me - " is it that hard to monitor airspeed"
Man this is not good.
So many non aviation colleagues are asking me - " is it that hard to monitor airspeed"
Man this is not good.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thumbing through the docket, some interesting observations on Asiana pilot culture viewed though the eyes of a couple of expat captains on pages 128-136 here:
Document 12 Other Pertinent Forms and Reports - 6120.1 Filing Date September 16, 2013 11 page(s) of Image (PDF or TIFF) 0 Photos
The scripted approach to training and flying is mentioned. Lack of hand flying skills at OZ is acknowledged to be cultural and also generational, many of us flew thousands of hours on steam driven round dial planes with primitive analog autopilots before going to glass. Younger pilots, not so much anymore.
Document 12 Other Pertinent Forms and Reports - 6120.1 Filing Date September 16, 2013 11 page(s) of Image (PDF or TIFF) 0 Photos
The scripted approach to training and flying is mentioned. Lack of hand flying skills at OZ is acknowledged to be cultural and also generational, many of us flew thousands of hours on steam driven round dial planes with primitive analog autopilots before going to glass. Younger pilots, not so much anymore.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDRW, call me a bluff old traditionalist, but it is AOA combined with a bit of airspeed that "keeps you flying in the first place", not airspeed. Of course, lacking any worthwhile AOA gauge, the ASI is the least worst way of steering clear of the stall. I guess that pilots who only ever go to about +/- 10 deg in pitch and +/- 20 deg in roll can afford to forget the absolute fundamentals. 
Lee Kang Kuk, a 46-year-old pilot who was landing the big jet for his first time at San Francisco, "stated it was very difficult to perform a visual approach with a heavy airplane."
Sorry, but anyone who thinks performing a visual approach on a beautiful summer day is "very difficult" has absolutely no business sitting in the pointy end of a commercial jet.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks performing a visual approach on a beautiful summer day is "very difficult" has absolutely no business sitting in the pointy end of a commercial jet.
Absolutely. No contest.
I actually found it easier in a 747 than presently in a microlight (LSA) due to ........ inertia, I would occasionally, when passing 500 ft, on the centre line, right height,right rate-of-descent, right speed, right power, checks complete, suggest to my hand flying co-pilot that now only he could fcku it up, change nothing until initiating the landing flare ! (unless of course some external factor interferred)
I recall doing hand flying circuits in a 707 - the aircraft, not the simulator, and ATC asked the training captain why he had requested that the VASI's ( pre-PAPI ) be turned off, 'cos these guys have to learn to sort it out for themselves, was the reply, but of course that was before iPads had been invented,or INS, or FMS, or GPS, maybe even before Bill Gates had even been born all we had was a pair of hands and a pair of eyes and an aeroplane - magic, I'd love to be able to have another go !
@ExSp33db1rd
I could not have said it better myself!
I heard this snippet of info (Lee Kang Kuk's statement) on the radio news and my mouth hit the floor..!!!
Nuff said..!
I could not have said it better myself!
I heard this snippet of info (Lee Kang Kuk's statement) on the radio news and my mouth hit the floor..!!!
Nuff said..!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This series of comments - the captain of the flight being interviewed - struck me as interesting:
Q: Before you had to do that, when you were still like at 300 feet or something, did you feel you had to go around at that time?
A: That’s very hard because normally only in our Korean culture the one step higher level the final decision people he did he decide the going around thing. It’s very important thing. As a first officer or the low level people they dare to think about the go around thing. It’s very hard.
Q: In your mind, then, and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, you tell me, did you feel that as the pilot in the left seat flying the airplane that you had the authority to do, commence a go around yourself?
A: Go around thing. That is very important thing. But the instructor pilot got the authority. Even I am on the left seat, that is very hard to explain, that is our culture. How can I say, during cruise also, when we met the turbulence condition, things like that, easily, B777 go into the maximum airspeed, so that’s the limitation. In that case, I never ever thought about that I controlled that condition because instructor pilot handled that, that sort of limitation thing. So that is a, they control the autothrottle system, things like that. I was also the company investigation team also, I know the investigation or the QAR thing, so my experience said to me the regulation and authority is very obvious to me. So, uh, yeah.
Q: And when you say the regulation is very obvious to you, you mean that there is a regulation that says only the PIC can do go around.
A: Yeah, that is obvious to me, but up to now I thought the very dangerous condition, now I am a captain position. I can do that, but it is very hard, yeah.
Q: So just to close this one out, did you expect that only the instructor pilot could decide to go around?
A: Basically, and the regulation, yeah.
Q: Before you had to do that, when you were still like at 300 feet or something, did you feel you had to go around at that time?
A: That’s very hard because normally only in our Korean culture the one step higher level the final decision people he did he decide the going around thing. It’s very important thing. As a first officer or the low level people they dare to think about the go around thing. It’s very hard.
Q: In your mind, then, and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, you tell me, did you feel that as the pilot in the left seat flying the airplane that you had the authority to do, commence a go around yourself?
A: Go around thing. That is very important thing. But the instructor pilot got the authority. Even I am on the left seat, that is very hard to explain, that is our culture. How can I say, during cruise also, when we met the turbulence condition, things like that, easily, B777 go into the maximum airspeed, so that’s the limitation. In that case, I never ever thought about that I controlled that condition because instructor pilot handled that, that sort of limitation thing. So that is a, they control the autothrottle system, things like that. I was also the company investigation team also, I know the investigation or the QAR thing, so my experience said to me the regulation and authority is very obvious to me. So, uh, yeah.
Q: And when you say the regulation is very obvious to you, you mean that there is a regulation that says only the PIC can do go around.
A: Yeah, that is obvious to me, but up to now I thought the very dangerous condition, now I am a captain position. I can do that, but it is very hard, yeah.
Q: So just to close this one out, did you expect that only the instructor pilot could decide to go around?
A: Basically, and the regulation, yeah.
Within the Interview Summaries, in the reports linked by Airbubba, is this snippet from the Captain under training in the left seat, Lee Kang Kuk:
Turning up at work "almost 6 hours" before report? Dedication ..... or extreme anxiety?
Furthermore, from the Jazz Hands post above, it seems the culture authority gradient idea about who can and cannot instigate/order a go around does not sit well with a safe operation.
He began preparing for the flight at 0930. It was a training flight, so he showed up early. The cockpit crew show time was 1510. He spent almost 6 hours preparing for the flight, checking the NOTAMS, the regulations, and the ETOPS
regulations. He first saw the PM (the instructor pilot) around 1440. He briefed everything with him. Pushback time was about 1630 local time.
regulations. He first saw the PM (the instructor pilot) around 1440. He briefed everything with him. Pushback time was about 1630 local time.
Furthermore, from the Jazz Hands post above, it seems the culture authority gradient idea about who can and cannot instigate/order a go around does not sit well with a safe operation.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turning up at work "almost 6 hours" before report? Dedication ..... or extreme anxiety?
There's a race of sorts in flying. Punching in transponder codes before the ACARS PDC has finished printing, calling 25% N2 at 23% so you're not late, etcetera.
I mistakenly sent a PDC request before the CA called for it. It was available, of course, but I hid the printout and requested a new PDC at the "correct" time.
Last edited by ImbracableCrunk; 12th Dec 2013 at 14:17.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another report:
Asiana Pilot 'Very Concerned' About Landing Visually - AVweb flash Article
Absolutely incredible.
Asiana Pilot 'Very Concerned' About Landing Visually - AVweb flash Article
Absolutely incredible.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFALPA systematically rejects the notion that pilots are ‘forgetting how to fly.’ “Automated systems actually require the pilot to be more of a pilot, and systems of systems manager. Pilots’ knowledge and skill have actually increased as a result of increased automation,” said Capt. Dave McKenney, Human Factors Chairman for IFALPA.
IFALPA Supports APU at NTSB Investigative Hearing into Asiana Flight 214 | Business Wire
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he can't fly an aircraft to a visual approach on a clear and beautiful VFR day then he has no business being in a cockpit of an aeroplane.
I agree completely, and that of course is any aeroplane. And it is very true that this guy is not the only one with an unease about such a manoeuvre. My last few airlines, large, medium & small a/c, included many F/O's who shied away from making visual circuits, even when there was an ILS at the end of it. They might just get away with a base training type level circuit at 1500', but no way could they do a CDA low drag circuit from downwind or passing overhead. There were some who were enthusiastic and good at it. What troubled me was the spread in talent and attitude. The root cause of that might be found in the selection and training process of the various airlines; plus the line operating philosophy and thus that of the captains. It now seems quite a common philosophy that visual approaches are frowned upon.
Most major airports have PAPI backup to ILS or NPA. But what if the approach aid is u/s? Then you have only the PAPI. However, I've flown to airfields where the PAPI's were also having a bad day. Perhaps it was a circle/visual approach to the non instrument runway. One company had the SOP that a finals OM equivalent had to be constructed and a waypoint with speed & altitude inserted to give VNAV guidance. With that philosophy how can pilots be expected to maintain their MK.1 eyeball skills. And there are still needle & dials a/c flying the skies.
What has happened to the world of 25 years ago when visuals in to any airfield was common, even the major ones, traffic permitting. It helped speed up traffic flow and saved time/fuel. It also kept the skills up for when it was necessary into some tiny inhospitable places. If you fly to Africa it is really necessary to have the basic skills. There's no guarantee things will be working correctly, or at all, no matter what the notams said. Then you needed to know the characteristics of your a/c so that you knew when the approach aids were not kosher.
How have skills levels deteriorated so much? I hear some XAA's suggesting they need to be improved and 'go back to basics', great, but how did we get to this mess in the first place. I think we need to know that to be able to correct the problem. There needs to be a thorough analysis of the airline training culture and the checking culture and the associated philosophies.
We've seen the demise of the profession into to robotic button pushing automons and the associated reduction in perceived status and T's & C's. Perhaps there is a link to the dilution of skills. Less skills less status less pay.Perhaps they have been perceived as unnecessary. A/C are more reliable and have more back-ups. There is more radar; more ILS's etc. Runways are longer. The whole infrastructure is much improved. Extensive cover-all SOP's.No longer are Topguns required.
IMHO when there is a hiccup the pilots need to be a reliable insurance policy and sort it out. The pax pay good money & expect it. They get on an a/c with blind faith. They do not want pilots to be the cause of the hiccup, but if they are then they do not want them to exacerbate the problem. Yet that is what we see happening. Take away the crutches of an ideal day and someone stumbles and falls over. It shouldn't happen.
I wonder what mitigating circumstances will be quoted in all these recent inexplicable serviceable a/c prangs. Obviously it was not on purpose, but it happened for reasons that were not evident to the crew. Why? Once we answer that we can address finding a solution. Let's find the WHY first and find a professional long tern solution, not a knee jerk quick fix.
I agree completely, and that of course is any aeroplane. And it is very true that this guy is not the only one with an unease about such a manoeuvre. My last few airlines, large, medium & small a/c, included many F/O's who shied away from making visual circuits, even when there was an ILS at the end of it. They might just get away with a base training type level circuit at 1500', but no way could they do a CDA low drag circuit from downwind or passing overhead. There were some who were enthusiastic and good at it. What troubled me was the spread in talent and attitude. The root cause of that might be found in the selection and training process of the various airlines; plus the line operating philosophy and thus that of the captains. It now seems quite a common philosophy that visual approaches are frowned upon.
Most major airports have PAPI backup to ILS or NPA. But what if the approach aid is u/s? Then you have only the PAPI. However, I've flown to airfields where the PAPI's were also having a bad day. Perhaps it was a circle/visual approach to the non instrument runway. One company had the SOP that a finals OM equivalent had to be constructed and a waypoint with speed & altitude inserted to give VNAV guidance. With that philosophy how can pilots be expected to maintain their MK.1 eyeball skills. And there are still needle & dials a/c flying the skies.
What has happened to the world of 25 years ago when visuals in to any airfield was common, even the major ones, traffic permitting. It helped speed up traffic flow and saved time/fuel. It also kept the skills up for when it was necessary into some tiny inhospitable places. If you fly to Africa it is really necessary to have the basic skills. There's no guarantee things will be working correctly, or at all, no matter what the notams said. Then you needed to know the characteristics of your a/c so that you knew when the approach aids were not kosher.
How have skills levels deteriorated so much? I hear some XAA's suggesting they need to be improved and 'go back to basics', great, but how did we get to this mess in the first place. I think we need to know that to be able to correct the problem. There needs to be a thorough analysis of the airline training culture and the checking culture and the associated philosophies.
We've seen the demise of the profession into to robotic button pushing automons and the associated reduction in perceived status and T's & C's. Perhaps there is a link to the dilution of skills. Less skills less status less pay.Perhaps they have been perceived as unnecessary. A/C are more reliable and have more back-ups. There is more radar; more ILS's etc. Runways are longer. The whole infrastructure is much improved. Extensive cover-all SOP's.No longer are Topguns required.
IMHO when there is a hiccup the pilots need to be a reliable insurance policy and sort it out. The pax pay good money & expect it. They get on an a/c with blind faith. They do not want pilots to be the cause of the hiccup, but if they are then they do not want them to exacerbate the problem. Yet that is what we see happening. Take away the crutches of an ideal day and someone stumbles and falls over. It shouldn't happen.
I wonder what mitigating circumstances will be quoted in all these recent inexplicable serviceable a/c prangs. Obviously it was not on purpose, but it happened for reasons that were not evident to the crew. Why? Once we answer that we can address finding a solution. Let's find the WHY first and find a professional long tern solution, not a knee jerk quick fix.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seoul
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuart,
"Within the Interview Summaries, in the reports linked by Airbubba, is this snippet from the Captain under training in the left seat, Lee Kang Kuk: Quote:
He began preparing for the flight at 0930. It was a training flight, so he showed up early. The cockpit crew show time was 1510. He spent almost 6 hours preparing for the flight, checking the NOTAMS, the regulations, and the ETOPS
regulations. He first saw the PM (the instructor pilot) around 1440. He briefed everything with him. Pushback time was about 1630 local time.
Turning up at work "almost 6 hours" before report? Dedication ..... or extreme anxiety?
Furthermore, from the Jazz Hands post above, it seems the culture authority gradient idea about who can and cannot instigate/order a go around does not sit well with a safe operation. "
In Korean culture this is basically showing your 'dedication'. It has no bearing on his ability or stress level. As an example, in Korea it is very bad form to go home before the boss. Thus, some of my K friends go to work before the boss (8am), play video games and waste time until 6pm, and then work hard for a few hours and leave after the boss at 10pm. They could do all their work from 10-2pm, sleep in and spend time with their kids, but that would 'look bad'!
TME
"Within the Interview Summaries, in the reports linked by Airbubba, is this snippet from the Captain under training in the left seat, Lee Kang Kuk: Quote:
He began preparing for the flight at 0930. It was a training flight, so he showed up early. The cockpit crew show time was 1510. He spent almost 6 hours preparing for the flight, checking the NOTAMS, the regulations, and the ETOPS
regulations. He first saw the PM (the instructor pilot) around 1440. He briefed everything with him. Pushback time was about 1630 local time.
Turning up at work "almost 6 hours" before report? Dedication ..... or extreme anxiety?
Furthermore, from the Jazz Hands post above, it seems the culture authority gradient idea about who can and cannot instigate/order a go around does not sit well with a safe operation. "
In Korean culture this is basically showing your 'dedication'. It has no bearing on his ability or stress level. As an example, in Korea it is very bad form to go home before the boss. Thus, some of my K friends go to work before the boss (8am), play video games and waste time until 6pm, and then work hard for a few hours and leave after the boss at 10pm. They could do all their work from 10-2pm, sleep in and spend time with their kids, but that would 'look bad'!
TME
Cornflakes Licence Holders
Can somebody explain WHY we let pilots of such low competency land in our countries? I am forever perplexed by the fact that the regulatory body has no audit provisions for foreign airlines 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Can somebody explain WHY we let pilots of such low competency land in our countries? I am forever perplexed by the fact that the regulatory body has no audit provisions for foreign airlines
US regulator to audit DGCA from today - Times Of India
I am forever perplexed by the fact that the regulatory body has no audit provisions for foreign airlines
The better question might be, are they auditing enough, and are the standards high enough.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Half the big planes in the sky are "officially" made in the US, they are certified in the US, the other half are "officially" made in Europe certfied in Europe, the training procedures are created by the manufacturer, the airport process is largely created by the same supervising authorities, yes?
And then we are regularly told that the fact that quite a few pilots have insufficient hand flying skills is a fault of ... the koreans, the chinese, the brits, the french the whatever; Really? Each of the members of the AF447 crew was current on type, and trained in the country that manufactured the plane. Can each 59 year old ex-USAF captain sitting in the left hand seat look at the whole-bloooded american 200 hour boy-wonder in the right hand seat, and say with confidence that superboy can be absolutely trusted to hand fly better than the Air France or the Asiana guys did?
From the way the NTSB is talking, the Asiana pilots will probably be doing us the greatest favor of all - they can be used to show that something went wrong. Thus they can serve as an alibi to get the system changed - to get more hand-flying hours into the training, and more hand-flying into the everyday experience of airline pilots. They may even serve as an alibi for improving the next generation of glass cockpits, and -one can hope- better training of the SFO fire crew that will take into account the possible presence of supine survivors at a crash scene.
Edmund
And then we are regularly told that the fact that quite a few pilots have insufficient hand flying skills is a fault of ... the koreans, the chinese, the brits, the french the whatever; Really? Each of the members of the AF447 crew was current on type, and trained in the country that manufactured the plane. Can each 59 year old ex-USAF captain sitting in the left hand seat look at the whole-bloooded american 200 hour boy-wonder in the right hand seat, and say with confidence that superboy can be absolutely trusted to hand fly better than the Air France or the Asiana guys did?
From the way the NTSB is talking, the Asiana pilots will probably be doing us the greatest favor of all - they can be used to show that something went wrong. Thus they can serve as an alibi to get the system changed - to get more hand-flying hours into the training, and more hand-flying into the everyday experience of airline pilots. They may even serve as an alibi for improving the next generation of glass cockpits, and -one can hope- better training of the SFO fire crew that will take into account the possible presence of supine survivors at a crash scene.
Edmund
Last edited by edmundronald; 12th Dec 2013 at 18:46.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there are unconfirmed reports that the LHS pilot (the new guy) was operating on an invalid pilot’s license, issued by a training organization that recently had its authority to conduct training for pilots revoked.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyone here remember what a chandelle, turn about a point, or lazy 8 is?
I would really like to see a requirement that anyone checking out as a captain on an airliner demonstrate these in the real plane in real life.
I would wager that a 200 hour pilot who came up the hard way or the military way in the USA is probably on his way to being a good pilot. there is a remarkable heritage in general aviation or military flying in the USA.
I do recall reading that the first man on the moon first learned to fly in a piper cub and paid for it himself by working in a kind of menial job.
so edmundronald, yes I think a 200 hour pilot might be pretty good.
BUT
the guy who is a chosen one, who gets a free ride on some cadet program might not be as motivated to really ''sink his teeth'' into our profession.
There are few nations with the real flying bug...Canada might be another one with their ''bush'' pilots and anyone might care to watch the film,
"captain of the clouds" with james cagney for the flavor...I imagine Australia too.
in the USA it used to be that age 16 meant a car...age 16 meant a car to me and then I could drive it to the airport...and I worked my butt off at minimum wage to pay for lessons, and to pay for gas for the car.
I would really like to see a requirement that anyone checking out as a captain on an airliner demonstrate these in the real plane in real life.
I would wager that a 200 hour pilot who came up the hard way or the military way in the USA is probably on his way to being a good pilot. there is a remarkable heritage in general aviation or military flying in the USA.
I do recall reading that the first man on the moon first learned to fly in a piper cub and paid for it himself by working in a kind of menial job.
so edmundronald, yes I think a 200 hour pilot might be pretty good.
BUT
the guy who is a chosen one, who gets a free ride on some cadet program might not be as motivated to really ''sink his teeth'' into our profession.
There are few nations with the real flying bug...Canada might be another one with their ''bush'' pilots and anyone might care to watch the film,
"captain of the clouds" with james cagney for the flavor...I imagine Australia too.
in the USA it used to be that age 16 meant a car...age 16 meant a car to me and then I could drive it to the airport...and I worked my butt off at minimum wage to pay for lessons, and to pay for gas for the car.