NTSB update on Asiana 214

[BOAC]

http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...-aviation.html

[Airbubba]

remember when we had check rides in the sim every six months and someone thought, why not call it AQP and do it every year?

Are you saying you only do sim checks once a year?

Yep, under most AQP programs, you go to the sim only once a year. This stuff has been around for well over a decade at many carriers.

AQP was initially more relaxed with train to proficiency in my observation but over the years as more check boxes were added it has morphed into a continuous checkride with little or no training accomplished. Many AQP programs only require a line check every two years.

I remember years ago a QF pilot telling me that their command training was so good that only about half the pilots pass it on the first try. That would not be considered good training in the U.S.

Almost everyone passes command training in the U.S., although some might need extra sims or OE legs.

[Centaurus]

Perhaps it is not perceived necessary any longer to have high standards, only adequate standards. The technology will take care of the odd deficiency

You have hit the nail right on the head - especially with that last sentence.

[flarepilot]

rat5

yes.


regarding flight directors...I hate the two cue and love the single cue (howard johnson roof), but LOVE NO FLIGHT DIRECTORS THE BEST.

One sim instructor was really into FDs , yelling all the time...so, there was a little button marked: flight director cue/sync.

by pressing this button the flight director would sort of follow me, so I pressed the button and flew it without really looking at it. He loved it. (the instructor)said I was doing great following the flight director.

sheesh.(and this was over 20 years ago).


Then, I'll never forget this, he said: fly the NDB apch to runway 34 left, circle to land (remember those?)16 right.

oh, and do it just the way you would do it on the line.


he wanted me to configure at the NDB go to the MDA and make the pattern and land.


I went in clean and FsST to the NDB, went to the MDA, entered the pattern, slowing on the down wind etc and circling to land.

He said: that's not the way we do it.


I said:: ITS THE WAY WE DO IT ON THE LINE

my sim partner and I laughed and laughed and the sim instructor looked like I had taken away his birthday.


of course now a days we are limited to basic VFR for circling, so really how hard is it?


What we need is to demand the hand flying skills and GOUGE airmanship from the old days and knowledge of the magic.


oh, and has anyone noticed that jane fonda's eye wrinkles look just like the stress wrinkles aft of the wing on a 737? not fonda jane.

[Jazz Hands]

Improvements in automation shouldn't be taken as an excuse to reduce the training of pilots by the same factor. All that does is give a false impression of the safety improvement - the safety level increases but only by virtue of the machines being reliable, when it should be increasing at a greater rate by virtue of the reliable machines being combined with pilots whose training hasn't been reduced as a result of the 'better' automation.

[RAT 5]

To add a small note to this topic: if it is decided by the powers that be, after many years of hand wringing and perhaps a few more high profile easily avoidable crashes, that it is necessary to revert back to basics and reaffirm the need for piloting skills, and to keep them tuned on the line, where will be the old farts to bring this about. In short time the training departments will be full of young bucks who have come up through the current system and who have ingratiated themselves in the SOP inner sanctum. Where will there be the knowledge and skill base to reintroduce these basics? It will be a lost art almost like using a pen to write a letter, read a map or cook a proper meal for 1 from fresh ingredients.

[olasek]

Would anyone like to take a guess if the Korean authorities might disagree with whatever the NTSB has to say, as the Egyptians did after that accident they had?

I will guess that Koreans won't disagree with NTSB. First they don't have a track record of such 'disagreement', second this is not a 'mystery' crash over Atlantic, the crew survived, would be next to impossible to blame unspecified equipment failure.

[awblain]

The Korean airworthiness authorities might well be able to understand more about the nuanced subtleties of culture and practice at Asiana than the NTSB.

However, I would be very surprised if they came to different conclusions about the factual details and causes. Perhaps there'd be a political preference to try to shuffle some responsibility onto ATC, but it's not clear how that would be achieved.

Korea's not Egypt - it's a sophisticated, well-educated state, and doesn't have members of murderous/deranged communities seeking work in cockpits. If anything, the Egyptian protests about that "accident" just cemented the correctness of the NTSB's conclusions.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by Rat 5

…if it is decided by the powers that be, after many years of hand wringing and perhaps a few more high profile easily avoidable crashes, that it is necessary to revert back to basics and reaffirm the need for piloting skills, and to keep them tuned on the line, where will be the old farts to bring this about. In short time the training departments will be full of young bucks who have come up through the current system and who have ingratiated themselves in the SOP inner sanctum. Where will there be the knowledge and skill base to reintroduce these basics? It will be a lost art almost like using a pen to write a letter, read a map or cook a proper meal for 1 from fresh ingredients.

Another spot-on comment!. THE only thing that’s not allowing the accident/incident rate to shoot through the roof today, is that, at least for a while, the guys managing the training departments, and for those few larger operators who can afford to do so, actually re-hire retired line pilots back into the training department, are the “old f@rts” you are describing … and they pass along the real necessity to fly the airplane – knowing full well that you may do that physically yourself – or – you may use the autoflight guidance system to manipulate the controls as long as you remember that you’re NOT transferring control of the airplane to the autopilot (!) which is, I’m afraid, what a lot of the “newer” guys actually do. I’ve often told relatively new pilots that if you take out the A/P Engage switch-light cover, and look on the back, it DOES NOT SAY – Pilot Disengage.

[Cool Guys]

A Korean government inititive to improve airline safety:

Airlines to face suspension in case of fatal accident (Airlines to face suspsension in case of fatal accident)


An Asiana inititive to improve airline safty:

Asiana Airlines? new safety chief stresses preemptive action (Asiana Airlines' new safety chief stresses preemptive action)

[Intruder]

WOW! Asiana must REALLY be serious about changing their corporate culture and reputation, to hire a Japanese guy as VP Safety!

[bubbers44]

An easier flight means a safer flight,” he added.

An easier approach for a pilot means use automation to the runway??????

What does an easier flight mean. In our country it is doing a visual approach. What does it mean for Koreans?

Why, once again, could they feel stressed with a visual approach with no ILS on a clear day?

[HundredPercentPlease]

Originally Posted by bubbers44

Why, once again, could they feel stressed with a visual approach with no ILS on a clear day?

Two groups of interlinked problems.

Group 1: Currency and culture

• If you never do a certain type of approach, then you become bad at it.
• If you are monitored to death with a picky and punitive culture, then you never expose yourself by doing something you are bad at.
• Loop the above two round until you can't do it. If you have to do it, you are stressed for two reasons, the punitive culture and the lack of skill.

Group 2: Tech

• He reverted to A320 methods: call for FD off to get A/T in speed mode, do nothing with the stick, expect no movement from the thrust levers and you will arrive.
• Nothing needs monitoring because the A320 goes "ping" if any of the auto systems fail. No ping, no problem, no need to monitor. A trillion pilots are guilty of this.
• Notwithstanding, stuff goes wrong and "oddly" the a/c is not maintaining the path. Everyone in the west knows that if it goes wrong you simply go around. Here he has to wait for the other chap to call the go-around, due to bizarre culture.

What needs fixing?

Stupid flight deck culture and stupid airline punitive monitoring culture.
More manual flying, on the line, of complex airliners.

What won't fix it?

Idiot pilots thinking that throwing these chaps in the bin will do anything other than bury the real problems. Which are closer to home than you may think.

[ATC Watcher]

100%please : superb analysis for me. Kuddos !
I fear your last line is unfortunately what is likely to happen (again)

[HPSOV L]

Insurance actuaries, statistics, economics and increasing airspace requirements dictate that there will be no going back to basics for long haul operators.

The likely outcome off this investigation will be a long overdue warning in the FCOM, followed by improvements to the 777 autothrottle and warnings systems.

[deadcut]

Public perception

The public already thinks that the aircraft fly themselves with no input from the pilot. What these "pilots" did will dig the hole deeper.

Say hello to single pilot airline operations within the next 10-20 years. I better start retraining now.

If it wasn't for the brilliant work from Boeing and Airbus then Korean, asiana and all those other third world airlines would have been dropping like flies.

[Ultra Glide]

We'll have single pilot airline operations sometime after we get single engine airliners for the very same reason, if you need to have one to get safely back on the ground then you're going to need at least 2 for dispatch.

I think HPSOV L is correct, if the Triple had systems like the Airbus that (a) wake up the throttles no matter what (Alpha Floor) and (b) had a warning that you're on your own with the thrust (like when you pull the throttles to idle on the bus Autothrust disconnects accompanied by a "ding" and an ECAM warning) this accident probably would not have happened.

Boeings most likely will be modified accordingly.

[deadcut]

Ultra Glide

What I meant was the aircraft will fly and do everything by itself and the "pilot" will be there just in case it fails.

[Capn Bloggs]

I 100% agree with 100%Please.

[ExSp33db1rd]

What I meant was the aircraft will fly and do everything by itself and the "pilot" will be there just in case it fails.

Plus the dog.

( the pilot is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to ensure that the pilot doesn't touch anything - and you thought it was a joke, didn't you? World's Gone Mad.)