NTSB update on Asiana 214

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by roulishollandais

FBW does not mimic the human pilot

It doesn't need to - it's merely transmitting the commands given by the human pilot (or the autopilot) to the flight surfaces and engines.

About your most loved manufacturor...

There we go with the ad hominem. I am not partisan in that regard - I'm what a certain subset of geeks would call "Lawful Neutral". By that I mean I favour no manufacturer, but if I see something I'm fairly certain to be based on hearsay rather than fact, I won't be shy to point it out. For example - in your previous post you again refer to "FBW automation", when FBW and automation are two separate things.

Being in a manual did never mean "not being unknown. by smart or stupid people. Specially if it is not understood and the manual is often modified

Perhaps if one cannot be bothered to stay current in understanding the manual, one should not be doing the job.

[roulishollandais]

Robotic or butterfly ?

ad hominem

NO, ad homines

Perhaps if one cannot be bothered to stay current in understanding the manual, one should not be doing the job.

ad homines again ! Errare humanum est. Our threads are showing all along that understanding the manual is not so easy. And changing systems or only gains would need to have a new name, or version number not just the date to avoid confusions. Changing systems must be very very seldom.

Could you suggest a name for the non human part of systems (FBW and what you call automation in your Country) please? Untill your suggestion I shall call it "butterfly" to don't risk to be

[bubbers44]

Thanks for the clarification because in 50 years of flying have never heard the term. I have used automation as needed but never required it if not required for FAA requirements. It helps you keep up up on current events via newspaper. Level flight is quite boring

[220mph]

It would seem to this lowly PP that the simple solution to the "FLCH trap" is the LOTW manuever or simply follow the FTDA procedure.

That an entire flight deck was unable to Look Out The Window and/or simply Fly The Damn Aircraft remains to this day ... incredible.

This is not an "error", nor a "mistake" ... it is not "accidental" ... nore even simple inattaention ... t is an outright, abject, and in my opinion criminal, failure.

If you lose control of your car and kill someone you are charged with criminal vehicular homicide or a myriad variations of that.

This failure in my opinion was no different. In fact it was worse, far worse.

[IcePack]

Maybe their is more to this accident than the obvious, as the crew are alive to argue their case, maybe waiting for the final report would be prudent!
Let's be honest they are part of the brotherhood so give them a break!

[Capn Bloggs]

Chuck 'em in jail, eh 220mph? Good one.

Better hope you're not on the next aircraft that does the same if all we do is chuck the pilots in jail if they stuff up.

[ATC Watcher]

220mph :

This is not an "error", nor a "mistake" ... it is not "accidental" ... nore even simple inattaention ... t is an outright, abject, and in my opinion criminal, failure.

Good grief ! and we ( and I ) spend all this time trying to convince managers, CAAs and Public Prosecutors that we shoudl look at systemic causes and not individual ones !

But fortunately, looking your profile and then reviewing briefly the 8 posts you wrote so far , I'm glad to see that you are obviously not a pilot, and probably not related to aviation either.

[J.O.]

Originally Posted by 220mph

If you lose control of your car and kill someone you are charged with criminal vehicular homicide or a myriad variations of that.

Just because that is how it is done doesn't mean that it's how it should be done. It all depends on what your ultimate interest is in terms of outcome. If all you care about is getting your pound of flesh, then this approach may heal your pain - although I highly doubt it. This approach also fails to do anything substantive in preventing it from happening again, nor does it consider intent.

If on the other hand you are interested in safety and prevention of similar occurrences, then you need to take the approach that is (generally) taken to aviation accidents. This approach takes systemic issues including policies, procedures, training and even cultures into consideration to try to understand why it made sense to them at the time. If such an approach was taken to road accidents, I suspect that we'd see many times more training and changes to vehicle and road design that would ultimately result in a safer system, but that stuff costs money and it seems no one is willing to pay for it. So instead we turn a blind eye to possible improvements until a particular section of road experiences multiple deaths. Then we decide to spend some money, but the people who were treated as criminals for past accidents at those locations never get to go back in front of a judge for reconsideration.

[fg32]

Fire truck killing recumbent survivor

Am I the only one who has closely examined the existing video footage?

One can clearly see the moment this person is crushed. The vehicle manoeuvring, the fireman who discovers the body, looking down appalled…signalling for help, others running over, frantic animated conversation, covering the body.

Correlating this with other viewpoints one can determine with great precision not only that this occurs in exactly the correct position, but, I am sorry to say, that there was no foam covering the body at that time.

I guess no-one really wants to know this.

This is of course, only my personal conclusion, from running the available footage through many times, and correlating with various stills and helicopter footage. But the actual sequence of events, from the long-distance high-power footage from across the bay…well..once you comprehend the fire-crews reactions, it becomes crystal clear.
Find the footage, run it for yourself.

Sadly, I doubt this post will survive long.

PS. Don't bother looking unless you can use the highest available resolution…only then can you read the body language of the tiny figures, see the waving arms and the desperate conference with superiors

[aterpster]

fg32:

I would presume the San Mateo County District Attorney's office reviewed all available evidence, including interviews, before they concluded that a criminal filing was not warranted.

The San Francisco Fire Department may, or may not, have sanctioned the employee in accordance with the employment contract. That would be confidential under California law.

The NTSB will eventually have something to say about the matter.

[LiveryMan]

Originally Posted by 220mph

That an entire flight deck was unable to Look Out The Window and/or simply Fly The Damn Aircraft remains to this day ... incredible.

You might find this interesting.

[olasek]

That an entire flight deck was unable to Look Out The Window

We actually don't know where they were looking, maybe in fact they were looking out the window but not looking at their instruments, we simply don't know. Whether they were 'criminally negligent' is another matter, FAA has history of going after pilots whom they find 'criminally negligent' but a bar for this is pretty high, doesn't happen often in airline flying.

[aterpster]

olasek:

We actually don't know where they were looking, maybe in fact they were looking out the window but not looking at their instruments, we simply don't know. Whether they were 'criminally negligent' is another matter, FAA has history of going after pilots whom they find 'criminally negligent' but a bar for this is pretty high, doesn't happen often in airline flying.

If criminal charges are filed against the crew, perhaps it would be by Korea.

[Machaca]

fg32:

This San Francisco Chronicle article and its (non-graphic) stills from the helmet cam video will enlighten you on the timeline of events and the presence of significant foam.

[olasek]

If criminal charges are filed against the crew, perhaps it would be by Korea.

Correct, FAA doesn't even have jurisdiction over foreign pilots.

[roulishollandais]

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe#122

in your previous post you again refer to "FBW automation", when FBW and automation are two separate things.

My mistake! Thank you for pointing it. I edited my post #121with that erratum : Please read "FBW and automation" instead "FBW automation".
I hope the December NTSB meeting will add "FBW" to "automation" in his study about airlines, SOPs and pilots "automation" over-addiction.

@LiveryMan
Your joint document explains many things and the danger of robot pilots. It is not only Korean. Fake certifications and licenses exist in many countries opening the door to the "butterfly" lobby.

[jetjackel]

WTF? Just retired. Been listening to this post since it began. Been on pprune since 2000. Know SFO well. Did my initial training and cert. at San Carlos in 71'. WTF? Joined Korean Air in Oct of 97. Got fired Jan 98'. Guys are screwed up. Culture rules the behavior.

The incident is beyond "stupid". 20K hours plus in the cockpit in CAVOK. What else should we train them for? They need to be removed. Period.

Good job Delta. This accident indicates it's even worse then better since Delta. Same old "****" over the years. Need to get out of the culture. It's not only KAL. Worked for Cebu Pacific Airlines, Bouraq Indonesian Airlines, United Airways in Bangladesh, Spirit of Manila Airlines. Culture problems, all of them. "Ain't" going to change until Asian airlines implement changes extending their culture to blend with "aviation culture" to the highest degree than can absorb.

It's only about "communication" and following SOP's in the cockpit. Good luck.

How many expats work in Asia?............

What are "we" professionals doing? Shut this post down. Respect and maintain the professionalism of our occupation. This post isn't worth the words. The accident looks like a Cessna 172 crash.

[roulishollandais]

World monopolies

In order to sell more aircraft , airliner manufacturers , looking for new monopolies on the world, wish to have themselves the authority to prescribe the qualifications of pilots, instead the administration of control, airlines and critical and anxious pilots and their unions.
In countries where the democratic control of aerospace is low , such as South Korea in question , this is already the case .
In countries with strong aviation tradition like France , operations have recently suffered the dictates of manufacturers.
At crashes trials the notion of both criminal and civil liability is questioned by international teams of brilliant lawyers in the service of this ultra -liberal aerospace where the status of the Captain is challenged by the prominence given to systems computer on board as a lever to destabilize the old airmanship,, whatever the cost in human lives concealed by the opaque and corrupting system .

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by roulishollandais

In order to sell more aircraft , airliner manufacturers ... wish to have themselves the authority to prescribe the qualifications of pilots...

Please elaborate with examples if you could.

To the best of my knowledge, manufacturers don't do anything of the sort, they just supply a demand to their customers.

In countries with strong aviation tradition like France , operations have recently suffered the dictates of manufacturers.

Again, please provide examples if you have them.

If you are referring to recent revelations regarding training and heavy reliance on automation by some airlines, then that is coming from the airlines themselves - not the manufacturers.

[olasek]

whatever the cost in human lives concealed by the opaque and corrupting system .

Sorry, I don't see a corruption here, perhaps the system is imperfect but it isn't corruption yet.