NTSB update on Asiana 214
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM: Why wasn't the ILS 28R offered? Because it is considered normal in our business to offer the easiest, most fuel efficent approach. The visual approach. OH and the visual approach is not a non precision approach.
I asked you , WHBM, why didn't the pilot ask for 28R if he could not handle a visual approach?
HE had hours to plan his approach into KSFO.
He could have told ATC he did not have the airport in sight. But he didn't.
IN this country a student pilot can advise ATC he is unfamiliar or a student pilot and he will get extra attention.
The NTSB has also released information that the pilot was holding 80lbs of back pressure on the controls. IS there any reason in NORMAL flying to hold 80lbs of control pressure? (no of course).
At my airline getting below Vref is worthy of a callout by the non flying pilot.
Being over 30 knots below Vref is worthy of much more action.
I asked you , WHBM, why didn't the pilot ask for 28R if he could not handle a visual approach?
HE had hours to plan his approach into KSFO.
He could have told ATC he did not have the airport in sight. But he didn't.
IN this country a student pilot can advise ATC he is unfamiliar or a student pilot and he will get extra attention.
The NTSB has also released information that the pilot was holding 80lbs of back pressure on the controls. IS there any reason in NORMAL flying to hold 80lbs of control pressure? (no of course).
At my airline getting below Vref is worthy of a callout by the non flying pilot.
Being over 30 knots below Vref is worthy of much more action.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I hope the NTSB start by asking why it was not offered. They should know that non-precision approaches have an accident ratio, what, 5 times, 10 times precision ones. There was a runway right alongside with all the right kit facing the right way and available. Why wasn't it offered?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Y'know, WHBM, it's starting to get pretty old listening you try to hammer the "Americans are bigoted xenophobes" square peg into a round hole. Particularly the way you reaaaaaaaalyy stretch reality to try to support your view.
Right. That wouldn't surprise me one bit. Lets assume that the figures you quote you are 100% accurate. Cool? OK, now that is for Instrument approaches". The relevant statistic for this situation is what is the accident rate for visual approaches in CAVU daylight conditions to runways with precision approach, vs accident rates for visual approaches in CAVU daylight conditions to runways which do not have precision approaches. SO if you have that statistic and can substantiate it, by all meas post it. but posting instrumet approach statistics is completely irrelevant as this was not an instrument approach.
Actually, the TV station was unknowingly drawn in by someone else's prank, a prank they didn't catch. Are you ignorant of what really happened or are you intentionally misrepresenting it?
Ahhh yes the same tired old " The Birmingham accident was exactly like the Asiana accident" tripe. Except that it wasn't exactly like it. In fact it wasn't anything like it, not even a little bit. At Birmingham, the crew struck terrain they couldn't see, at night. The Asiana crew, in virtually perfect visual conditions, lost control of their aircraft, failed to hit a runway they could see clearly, and hit water and terrain short of and below the runway, the same runway which could be clearly seen in their windshield. No matter how desperately you want those accidents to be the same, they really are not. Not in any rational analysis. About the only similarities were that they occurred while large airliners were in the landing phase. Similarities end there.
Ahhh yes the same tired old " The Birmingham accident was exactly like the Asiana accident" tripe. Except that it wasn't exactly like it. In fact it wasn't anything like it, not even a little bit. At Birmingham, the crew struck terrain they couldn't see, at night. The Asiana crew, in virtually perfect visual conditions, lost control of their aircraft, failed to hit a runway they could see clearly, and hit water and terrain short of and below the runway, the same runway which could be clearly seen in their windshield. No matter how desperately you want those accidents to be the same, they really are not. Not in any rational analysis. About the only similarities were that they occurred while large airliners were in the landing phase. Similarities end there.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WHBM
And I hope the NTSB start by asking why it was not offered.
And I hope the NTSB start by asking why it was not offered.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 938
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astonishing article on the CNN website -
Pilot concerned about landing Asiana jet before crash - CNN.com
Apparently the pilot was worried about performing a visual approach - just who you want in charge of a jet airliner!
Pilot concerned about landing Asiana jet before crash - CNN.com
Apparently the pilot was worried about performing a visual approach - just who you want in charge of a jet airliner!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably if you say "unable" on a "simple" approach, with a check captain next to you, there goes your career. It would be interesting to know whether other crews requested runway changes during this period without ILS.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately saying you are unable to do a visual on a clear day tells all the other pilots and ATC that your airline training doesn't meet standards but you want to couple up so the automation can fix your incompetence.
Pride would prevent saying unable I would think.
Pride would prevent saying unable I would think.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbers44
It would be interesting to know whether other crews requested runway changes during this period without ILS. Maybe will to live outweighed pride for some.
It would be interesting to know whether other crews requested runway changes during this period without ILS. Maybe will to live outweighed pride for some.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost every a/c flying today can build an FMC glideslope(VTI)('poor man's glideslope')(VTK error) overlay into any airport. Add in a VASI/PAPI and it's basic flying.
Expressing concern about a non-precision approach with visual glide path assistance (VASI/PAPI) shouldn't be an issue, especially on a CAFB day.
Expressing concern about a non-precision approach with visual glide path assistance (VASI/PAPI) shouldn't be an issue, especially on a CAFB day.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If cultural barriers prevented the relief crew member and the trainee to call 'Go Around', then no amount of remedial training can change the culture of a nation.
Expect to see more expats on Korean registered airframes and much to the dismay of the Koreans.
Expect to see more expats on Korean registered airframes and much to the dismay of the Koreans.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done hundreds of approaches to 28L never felt I was giving up a will to live to do a simple visual approach with no glide slope. Amazingly we never got low once and always touched down beyond the threshold with no risk of life. No pilot I have ever met has either. Why did you say that?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off Edmundronald, I would think NO ONE requested an ILS on a day that was so nice. I don't think anyone requested an ILS for weeks during periods of daylight in good wx. Second I would tell any checkairman that I was going to do an ILS if I wanted it and they couldn't not deny my judgement.
bubbers, if I was so worried about pride, I would tell ATC that we had to do an ILS to check some equipment. Yes, its sort of lame but it would work.
Being UNABLE to do a visual approach means you don't have the airport in sight or are unsure in some way.
In no method of teaching flying would I teach someone how to couple an ILS without being sure they couldn't fly a visual approach in broad daylight. They would also have to demonstrate hands off trim in landing configuration on target speed.
I think the mods should lock this and call it a day. IN a year or so we will hear the final reports.
bubbers, if I was so worried about pride, I would tell ATC that we had to do an ILS to check some equipment. Yes, its sort of lame but it would work.
Being UNABLE to do a visual approach means you don't have the airport in sight or are unsure in some way.
In no method of teaching flying would I teach someone how to couple an ILS without being sure they couldn't fly a visual approach in broad daylight. They would also have to demonstrate hands off trim in landing configuration on target speed.
I think the mods should lock this and call it a day. IN a year or so we will hear the final reports.
I'd be disappointed to have a thread closed just because it has documented inconvenient truths. There are a range of issues and it will be good to see the enquiry address each and every one.
I want to know, if dispatch with an unserviceable ILS on the aircraft is not allowed by the MEL, why is dispatch with the ILS unserviceable on the anticipated landing runway allowed.
Thank you to those who have sent encouraging PMs.
I want to know, if dispatch with an unserviceable ILS on the aircraft is not allowed by the MEL, why is dispatch with the ILS unserviceable on the anticipated landing runway allowed.
Thank you to those who have sent encouraging PMs.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why is dispatch with the ILS unserviceable on the anticipated landing runway allowed.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference in ILS ground vs. aircraft hardware is pretty evident if you think in terms of a typical airline flight.
On board the aircraft, having no ILS puts you in a sorry state if both primary and alternate airfields are IMC.
But if one runway's ILS is out, there will be a multitude of Plan B's - Either other runways at the destination, or at the declared and undeclared alternates.
On board the aircraft, having no ILS puts you in a sorry state if both primary and alternate airfields are IMC.
But if one runway's ILS is out, there will be a multitude of Plan B's - Either other runways at the destination, or at the declared and undeclared alternates.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can physically drag the localizer and glide slope shacks to the dump and I can still fly the ILS approach. Why would I cancel a flight for that? I can take a NPA to the airport and turn it into a precision approach if needed.
Makes no sense to tie an inop NAVAID in general terms to dispatch. There are likely exceptions to this, but the mindset shouldn't be to cancel a flight because the ILS is out.
Makes no sense to tie an inop NAVAID in general terms to dispatch. There are likely exceptions to this, but the mindset shouldn't be to cancel a flight because the ILS is out.
I'm aware of all that, of course, and you haven't got the gist of my question. If the ILS had been u/s on this aircraft in Seoul, no go. But why then go when the known landing runway at SFO had none.