Asiana Crash Investigation
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TRF4EVR, Your right. The Koreans are the canaries in the mine! It wouldn't cost the airlines, pilot's unions, or FAA/BSA type authorities that much, to implement some continuing education and certification on some Cherokees, 172's, or whatever is cheap and appropriate for developing or keeping up modern pilots manual skills. Maybe Burt Rutan and his brother could come up with something inexpensive and effective? They certainly have the passion for aviation and creativity to either point out something off the shelf, or create an inexpensive bird to keep pilots sharp in manual flying skills, and not just be a warm body in a uniform.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wilmington
Age: 47
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How expensive could it possibly be? The box on stilts is so expensive that they have to hustle us in and out of it like it's Bergen-Belsen and the Soviets are knocking at the door. Surely a 172 would be cheaper for teaching, you know, "flying an airplane" and "not hitting stuff". FFS, I feel like I'm on Candid Camera even having this discussion. Is Alan Fundt hiding in the bushes?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How expensive could it possibly be? ... Surely a 172 would be cheaper for teaching
http://www.pprune.org/flying-instruc...ml#post7980315
Originally Posted by TRF4EVR
The box on stilts is so expensive that they have to hustle us in and out of it like it's Bergen-Belsen and the Soviets are knocking at the door.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Age: 73
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are the majority of these posts so negative? Almost all passengers survived what could easily have been a total calamity despite the massive impact(s) and extensive structural damage.
Me thinks we must salute our Asian brethren for not going onto the UPS 1354 thread and posting insults and racial innuendoes like some of our nincompoops from the west.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: vietnam
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question
Hi all, crs guy here.
Some friends of mine (crew) told me there was once a medical study...
I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, much less insult Korean people. I just want to be informed. Even if what I'm about to ask is true, I'm sure there is today training methods to overcome the situation. So, here goes.
Was there in any time a medical study concluding Korean suffer from a genetic loss of depth perception? Not to be confused by momentary loss of it.
Again, the purpose is not to hurt Korean people's feelings, towards whom I have great respect.
Thanks
Some friends of mine (crew) told me there was once a medical study...
I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, much less insult Korean people. I just want to be informed. Even if what I'm about to ask is true, I'm sure there is today training methods to overcome the situation. So, here goes.
Was there in any time a medical study concluding Korean suffer from a genetic loss of depth perception? Not to be confused by momentary loss of it.
Again, the purpose is not to hurt Korean people's feelings, towards whom I have great respect.
Thanks
Hi all, crs guy here.
Some friends of mine (crew) told me there was once a medical study...
I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, much less insult Korean people. I just want to be informed. Even if what I'm about to ask is true, I'm sure there is today training methods to overcome the situation. So, here goes.
Was there in any time a medical study concluding Korean suffer from a genetic loss of depth perception? Not to be confused by momentary loss of it.
Again, the purpose is not to hurt Korean people's feelings, towards whom I have great respect.
Thanks
Some friends of mine (crew) told me there was once a medical study...
I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, much less insult Korean people. I just want to be informed. Even if what I'm about to ask is true, I'm sure there is today training methods to overcome the situation. So, here goes.
Was there in any time a medical study concluding Korean suffer from a genetic loss of depth perception? Not to be confused by momentary loss of it.
Again, the purpose is not to hurt Korean people's feelings, towards whom I have great respect.
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 848
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO this fall
So, since the Korean aviators piloted (pun intended, indeed vectored at ya'!) a perfectly good wonderfully designed and constructed Trip'-7 into the ground - many posts on a number of threads have been busy pointing out the need for some increased regulatory approach to Airmanship certification of aircrews particularly foreign, as well as domestic. What organization is going to press ICAO to take it up and actually do something about it? This year's triennial is only about six weeks away. ALPA, you guys want to agitate a bit for some needed change? Whatever the Brit counterpart is called, what's up? I will tell you for certain, if this subject matter were in the hands of my legal eagle brothers in the SJA (USMC), not only would the problem be ATTACHED to the ICAO agenda, but ladies and gentleman, it would be on its way to being fixed, now. What is it with civil aviation?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it with civil aviation?
The solution is simple; regulate it as a requirement.
If a hand flown ( preferable raw data, no F/D ) approach was mandated as law the cost would be passed on to passengers at maybe 5cents per ticket.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MSP
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can build a seat to survive 100G but how many g's can a human survive
Two of the big reasons are nominal cost. About $300 worth of materials in bead foam seats (which cost appx $3000 to $8000 on a one of custom basis), and appx $ 50 worth of materials in the HANS Device (head and neck restraint system) - which sells for less than $1,000.
My point is not necessary to directly correlate Indycar and flight safety improvements, but rather that effective solutions are possible and are not always wildly expensive.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: redmond
Age: 88
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFO to ban helmet cameras re Asiana
SF Fire Chief Bans Helmet Cams Following Asiana Jet Crash « CBS San Francisco
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — San Francisco’s fire chief says helmet-mounted cameras no longer will be allowed after images from July’s airliner crash became public.
Chief Joanne Hayes-White told the San Francisco Chronicle she is concerned about the privacy of victims and firefighters.
The decision comes after images at the scene of the Asiana Airlines crash from Battalion Chief Mark Johnson’s helmet camera were published in the San Francisco Chronicle.
That led to questions about whether the department is liable in the death of a 16-year-old who survived the crash but was run over by a fire truck. She was covered with fire-retardant foam.
Police, the coroner and the National Transportation Safety Board are reviewing the footage.
Hayes-White said her 2009 ban on video cameras in facilities was meant to include fire scenes.
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — San Francisco’s fire chief says helmet-mounted cameras no longer will be allowed after images from July’s airliner crash became public.
Chief Joanne Hayes-White told the San Francisco Chronicle she is concerned about the privacy of victims and firefighters.
The decision comes after images at the scene of the Asiana Airlines crash from Battalion Chief Mark Johnson’s helmet camera were published in the San Francisco Chronicle.
That led to questions about whether the department is liable in the death of a 16-year-old who survived the crash but was run over by a fire truck. She was covered with fire-retardant foam.
Police, the coroner and the National Transportation Safety Board are reviewing the footage.
Hayes-White said her 2009 ban on video cameras in facilities was meant to include fire scenes.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: France
Age: 60
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A smart and timely ban
Chief Joanne Hayes-White’s concern about « the privacy of victims and fire fighters » is very touching. In light of the less-than-stellar performance of the SFO’s fire department that she is responsible for, banning helmet-mounted cameras seems indeed a priority.
She also appears to be a savvy communicator: Suggesting, on the grounds of « privacy concerns », to get rid of a tool susceptible to provide NTSB investigators with crucial forensic evidence should be tremendously popular, provided that this wise decision is not misconstrued by ignorant « journos ».
Mrs Hayes-White should probably consider running for Chairman of the FAA, enabling her to get rid of those pesky CVRs and FDRs. And CCTV at or around airports. Oh, yes, and those ELT’s as well, nice suggestion Mr McNerney.
I am looking forward to reading the final NTSB report, which will certainly take a long and hard look at the performance of Mrs Hayes-White’s department. Her professional experience could come in handy during the “feathers and tar” episode.
Sarcasm aside, the fact that the images recorded by the Battalion Chief were made public is a genuine concern. A concern that can be easily addressed by a mix of guidelines and sanctions. Banning such devices, regularly used by law enforcement professionals worldwide, appears to be exactly what it is: a desire to get rid of a modern and useful forensic tool, that can occasionally bring to light shortcomings, all thinly disguised under the veil of respect for privacy. In short, pure hypocrisy.
A.
She also appears to be a savvy communicator: Suggesting, on the grounds of « privacy concerns », to get rid of a tool susceptible to provide NTSB investigators with crucial forensic evidence should be tremendously popular, provided that this wise decision is not misconstrued by ignorant « journos ».
Mrs Hayes-White should probably consider running for Chairman of the FAA, enabling her to get rid of those pesky CVRs and FDRs. And CCTV at or around airports. Oh, yes, and those ELT’s as well, nice suggestion Mr McNerney.
I am looking forward to reading the final NTSB report, which will certainly take a long and hard look at the performance of Mrs Hayes-White’s department. Her professional experience could come in handy during the “feathers and tar” episode.
Sarcasm aside, the fact that the images recorded by the Battalion Chief were made public is a genuine concern. A concern that can be easily addressed by a mix of guidelines and sanctions. Banning such devices, regularly used by law enforcement professionals worldwide, appears to be exactly what it is: a desire to get rid of a modern and useful forensic tool, that can occasionally bring to light shortcomings, all thinly disguised under the veil of respect for privacy. In short, pure hypocrisy.
A.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MSP
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire response SFO ...
SF fire chief bans helmet cameras in wake of crash
I wrote several detailed reviews of the actions (and lack thereof) of the fire department in this crash.
In my opinion the evidence shows many issues, some minor, but many significant - and some, like the totally inexcusable death of this young girl, as major as they get ....
In that context, of the apparent serious failures on the part of the fire dept, which culminated in the death of a 16 year old survivor of the plane crash ... this action by the chief is truly unbelievable. The arrogance (and ignorance) of this action is truly breathtaking.
The claims about privacy are simply ridiculous. There are surveillance cameras by the tens of thousands all across this country. And a large share of them are in law enforcement use. Overall, I personally think there are too many.
Many of these cameras have far higher privacy implications than an active emergency scene, and yet the law and common sense have proven their legality, usefulness and value.
Any LEGITIMATE concerns can be addressed by restrictions on the dissemination and use of any such cameras.
This action by the Fire department leadership adds to the damage. It has every appearance of a retaliatory action intended to insure the fire dept is not put in this position - where their actions can be judged because of on-scene evidence - again.
The evidence, in my opinion, clearly shows the fire department knew exactly what happened immediately - they knew a fire truck had run over a survivor.
Yet it took days to hear about the death and a week or more for details to begin to emerge. On its face this is not necessarily incriminating, however taken on the whole - in light of all the circumstances and criticism about their response and actions that day - this most recent action - the banning of video camera's - cannot be taken in much any other way as to be retaliative ... that the decision was not remotely connected to privacy, but rather to insure the performance (or lack thereof) of the fire department response cannot be so documented in the future.
In my opinion, as one who has followed and reviewed this in great detail since the very beginning, this recent action demonstrates a department with serious failures from top to bottom.
From the initial un-coordinated response that sent passengers running in all directions to get out of the way of arriving firetrucks, to the almost complete inability to effectively fight the fire (including the failure to deploy foam booms and the several defective booms, and allowing fire to expand to fully engulf the airframe some 15+ minutes AFTER the crash, and then the inability to knowledgeably attack the blaze, simply emptying several foam tankers shooting foam over the top of the aircraft)), to the 20+ minute delay in emergency response including to the approach end of the runway (w/survivors having to call and plead with 911 for help), to fire crews dumping the body of the young girl (incl making the inaccurate judgement she was deceased) in an unsafe area, to fire crew KNOWING the body was there and not communicating that, to a late arriving fire truck with a SOLO operator and no spotter (and no FLIR) running over the young girl ... to the, in my opinion, apparent attempt to at least temporarily cover up what they had done ... the actions of the fire department throughout this incident deserve highly critical review of the department from top to bottom.
And this latest decision by the Fire chief - whose primary purpose seems transparent, to eliminate the chance the cameras will show future problems with fire responses - jut reinforces the need for a serious top to bottom review.
I wrote several detailed reviews of the actions (and lack thereof) of the fire department in this crash.
In my opinion the evidence shows many issues, some minor, but many significant - and some, like the totally inexcusable death of this young girl, as major as they get ....
In that context, of the apparent serious failures on the part of the fire dept, which culminated in the death of a 16 year old survivor of the plane crash ... this action by the chief is truly unbelievable. The arrogance (and ignorance) of this action is truly breathtaking.
The claims about privacy are simply ridiculous. There are surveillance cameras by the tens of thousands all across this country. And a large share of them are in law enforcement use. Overall, I personally think there are too many.
Many of these cameras have far higher privacy implications than an active emergency scene, and yet the law and common sense have proven their legality, usefulness and value.
Any LEGITIMATE concerns can be addressed by restrictions on the dissemination and use of any such cameras.
This action by the Fire department leadership adds to the damage. It has every appearance of a retaliatory action intended to insure the fire dept is not put in this position - where their actions can be judged because of on-scene evidence - again.
The evidence, in my opinion, clearly shows the fire department knew exactly what happened immediately - they knew a fire truck had run over a survivor.
Yet it took days to hear about the death and a week or more for details to begin to emerge. On its face this is not necessarily incriminating, however taken on the whole - in light of all the circumstances and criticism about their response and actions that day - this most recent action - the banning of video camera's - cannot be taken in much any other way as to be retaliative ... that the decision was not remotely connected to privacy, but rather to insure the performance (or lack thereof) of the fire department response cannot be so documented in the future.
In my opinion, as one who has followed and reviewed this in great detail since the very beginning, this recent action demonstrates a department with serious failures from top to bottom.
From the initial un-coordinated response that sent passengers running in all directions to get out of the way of arriving firetrucks, to the almost complete inability to effectively fight the fire (including the failure to deploy foam booms and the several defective booms, and allowing fire to expand to fully engulf the airframe some 15+ minutes AFTER the crash, and then the inability to knowledgeably attack the blaze, simply emptying several foam tankers shooting foam over the top of the aircraft)), to the 20+ minute delay in emergency response including to the approach end of the runway (w/survivors having to call and plead with 911 for help), to fire crews dumping the body of the young girl (incl making the inaccurate judgement she was deceased) in an unsafe area, to fire crew KNOWING the body was there and not communicating that, to a late arriving fire truck with a SOLO operator and no spotter (and no FLIR) running over the young girl ... to the, in my opinion, apparent attempt to at least temporarily cover up what they had done ... the actions of the fire department throughout this incident deserve highly critical review of the department from top to bottom.
And this latest decision by the Fire chief - whose primary purpose seems transparent, to eliminate the chance the cameras will show future problems with fire responses - jut reinforces the need for a serious top to bottom review.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MSP
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcasm aside, the fact that the images recorded by the Battalion Chief were made public is a genuine concern. A concern that can be easily addressed by a mix of guidelines and sanctions. Banning such devices, regularly used by law enforcement professionals worldwide, appears to be exactly what it is: a desire to get rid of a modern and useful forensic tool, that can occasionally bring to light shortcomings, all thinly disguised under the veil of respect for privacy. In short, pure hypocrisy.
One point ... I do not believe a public employee has (or should have) any reasonable expectation of privacy in the process of performing the work they are employed to do - which eliminates her concern there.
Numerous departments across the country have found that implementing video has significantly reduced exposure overall to claims. Far more often the existence of video disproves claims of damages.
As A. notes privacy concerns can be addressed with simple rules and policy.
The Chief could and should have said the video had been instrumental in identifying serious concerns and that the department was making them mandatory and that their use would be expanded. Which would give the department control over the video as well.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mea Culpa NOT
220mph, well said.
I think you'd find most police departments, on the whole, value their video cameras as it backs them up very much more than it hurts them.
Chief should go.
I think you'd find most police departments, on the whole, value their video cameras as it backs them up very much more than it hurts them.
Chief should go.
Last edited by jack11111; 19th Aug 2013 at 22:30.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
220mph, well said.
I think you'd find most police departments, on the whole, value their video cameras as it backs them up very much more than it hurts them.
Banning the cameras is an astounding bit of wrong-thinking as a way to solve a possible privacy issue - surely the thing to do is ban anyone from taking the footage away or passing it on? Seeing that they just locked up the WikiLeaks bloke for half a lifetime, I can't see that it can be difficult to ensure this happens.
Keeping it within the control of the FD and any Government Department with a need for it, has to be the right solution, surely?