Asiana Crash Investigation
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.
A 200-foot wingspan aeroplane doing a complete groundloop and still keeping the wings, fin and fuselage together is amazing. Considering the height the rear of the aircraft came down from during the 360, it's incredible no-one inside was instantly killed. It looks a bit of a mess in the photos but having the floor/seats give way like that probably saved quite a few lives...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShotOne:
Because those on the flight deck were passengers rather than pilots. It was pure good luck and Boeing's design that kept it from being a fireball of death.
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.
Just read that Boeing are now being sued for being responsible for making an aeroplane that is selectively safe, i.e. the Business / Premium Class passengers had shoulder harnesses and relatively few injuries, if any, whereas most of the injuries were amongst Economy Class passengers who were only provided with a lap strap.
If you can afford a Business Class seat you are safer, is the claim, and it's all Boeings fault.
Never heard of shoulder harnesses for pax, maybe it was an Asiana requirement, and nothing to do with Boeing, who only provided what they were asked for ?
Any clues ?
If you can afford a Business Class seat you are safer, is the claim, and it's all Boeings fault.
Never heard of shoulder harnesses for pax, maybe it was an Asiana requirement, and nothing to do with Boeing, who only provided what they were asked for ?
Any clues ?
Last edited by ExSp33db1rd; 14th Aug 2013 at 09:02.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never heard of shoulder harnesses for pax, maybe it was an Asiana requirement,
There are multiple reasons for that but apparently combination of some factors like being at the front of aircraft, 'angled' seats (like herringbone arrangement) make you less protected hence requirement for beefier straps to compensate.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the main reasons that so many passengers survived this was down to the Asiana cabin crew who deserve much more credit for their response and heroic actions.
From accounts so far they dealt with two slides inflating inside the cabin, initiated the evacuation themselves, cut numerous people free from their seatbelts using knifes thrown up by first responders on the ground, deflated the defective slides using the crash axe, and carried a number of passengers out on their shoulders.
From accounts so far they dealt with two slides inflating inside the cabin, initiated the evacuation themselves, cut numerous people free from their seatbelts using knifes thrown up by first responders on the ground, deflated the defective slides using the crash axe, and carried a number of passengers out on their shoulders.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Woodbridge, Suffolk
Age: 71
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#66 -quite right.Outstanding performance by the cabin crew. The need to cut pax free,"... using knives thrown up by the first responders..." is a point that one hopes will not be overlooked.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@shot one -
To an extent I agree with you. I'm heavily involved in motorsport, and have to keep explaining to people that yes, the accidents look bad, but the same accidents would have been fatal not so long ago but are now "walk-aways" because of the improvements in safety devices and scrutineering. However, regardless of the relatively low death and injury list in the Asiana crash, there is always something to be learned. There is at least some argument that only having lap-straps is insufficient, and it is good to air opinions on this (even though, as someone will come along and point out, no-one pays any attention to people on here anyway). Even seat design is a valid discussion point - how can you get a reasonable level of comfort for passengers whilst maximising safety? Fixed backs and thin/no cushions *are* safer than seats with moving parts under certain circumstances, though when the fixed seat-back is in front of the bag of fluid in the next row, the argument is far from clear-cut.
It is interesting, mentioning seats, that there may be a legal case starting over differential safety (thanks for that, ExSp33db1rd). I had wondered if that might happen, what with this being the USA. I don't necessarily agree with it, and the case will definitely be worth following (for years, probably, since whatever decision is reached initially will be appealed ad nauseam), but there could be significant repercussions from this crash.
There are some safety that aren't being discussed much here that I will be interested to see when the report comes out, though, such as the inflating slides. Whilst it is possible that deployment was due to deformation of the frame, I'm waiting to see what, if any, recommendations come out.
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.
It is interesting, mentioning seats, that there may be a legal case starting over differential safety (thanks for that, ExSp33db1rd). I had wondered if that might happen, what with this being the USA. I don't necessarily agree with it, and the case will definitely be worth following (for years, probably, since whatever decision is reached initially will be appealed ad nauseam), but there could be significant repercussions from this crash.
There are some safety that aren't being discussed much here that I will be interested to see when the report comes out, though, such as the inflating slides. Whilst it is possible that deployment was due to deformation of the frame, I'm waiting to see what, if any, recommendations come out.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: I bucked one and Tim bucked two
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VOA Interview on the Asiana Crash
This is an interesting article. They edited a lot out of the interview. The article brings up issues that anyone who has flown over there knows.
Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology
Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology
Are only Korean pilots over reliant on technology? It would seem from some other accidents that they are not alone.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the article was too controversial.
Before the article was taken down by VOA, it was sent elsewhere.
Here is a link to a Youtube version of the article.
The pace of presentation is slow, but it is all there it seems.
Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology - YouTube
Before the article was taken down by VOA, it was sent elsewhere.
Here is a link to a Youtube version of the article.
The pace of presentation is slow, but it is all there it seems.
Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology - YouTube
Apparently the article was too controversial.
Before the article was taken down by VOA, it was sent elsewhere.
Here is a link to a Youtube version of the article.
The pace of presentation is slow, but it is all there it seems.
Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology - YouTube
Before the article was taken down by VOA, it was sent elsewhere.
Here is a link to a Youtube version of the article.
The pace of presentation is slow, but it is all there it seems.
Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology - YouTube
Priceless, is truth.....and, probably fleeting in this example.
Thanks for the link
Nothing new
Of course more training helps since it's a useful form of focused experience rather than just more flight hours.
Leaving unanswered Korea's in general training sylabus compared to other countries and comparisons of both accident/incident rates parsed by type.
All stuff that I would expect the NTSB to address in a non-confrontational manner.
I'll await for that finding as well as expectations that both Boeing and Airbus will be way ahead of the NTSB in reviewing the same info and making preemptive recommendations to their customers.
Nothing new
Of course more training helps since it's a useful form of focused experience rather than just more flight hours.
Leaving unanswered Korea's in general training sylabus compared to other countries and comparisons of both accident/incident rates parsed by type.
All stuff that I would expect the NTSB to address in a non-confrontational manner.
I'll await for that finding as well as expectations that both Boeing and Airbus will be way ahead of the NTSB in reviewing the same info and making preemptive recommendations to their customers.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: I bucked one and Tim bucked two
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Links back up now. On VOA. Two articles now. No videos. Legal department is reviewing videos. They may or may not return.
Experts Concerned S. Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology
Aviation Experts Question Whether Culture Had Role in Asiana Crash
The comments by Jim Hall ex-chairman of the NTSB are very informative:
“I would be interested in trying to do the historic work if I was in the FAA, which you have already done, to see whether this is an isolated incident or whether there is a pattern here," says Hall. "Why are these steps that had been taken earlier, these automation issues, language issues and cultural issues are reappearing again in a fatal accident at the San Francisco Airport.”
I remember comments by korean pilots a couple of years ago, "We have not had an accident in 10 years, we don't need foreigners here."
Experts Concerned S. Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology
Aviation Experts Question Whether Culture Had Role in Asiana Crash
The comments by Jim Hall ex-chairman of the NTSB are very informative:
“I would be interested in trying to do the historic work if I was in the FAA, which you have already done, to see whether this is an isolated incident or whether there is a pattern here," says Hall. "Why are these steps that had been taken earlier, these automation issues, language issues and cultural issues are reappearing again in a fatal accident at the San Francisco Airport.”
I remember comments by korean pilots a couple of years ago, "We have not had an accident in 10 years, we don't need foreigners here."
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wilmington
Age: 47
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The elephant in the room is that the children of the magenta are also likely never to have flown a visual approach under even the least challenging of conditions in anything larger than a 172. It's ludicrous, and while the Asians are on the "tip of the spear" when it comes to this fundamental failure to teach basic Airmanship, it's coming for the rest of us, too.
I've flown with F/Os who could recite the width of an ILS signal at 8.2 miles from rote (what? I don't know, who cares!), but could barely stay out of their own way with taxi instructions at a relatively uncrowded Class C airport. Call me a Luddite, but I'd rather fly with a guy who's done a few NDB approaches "in anger" flying a 208 than a guy who's Beat The System at Flight Safety on a Jet and has the memory items burned in to his cerebellum, but gets confused when you expect him to use the yoke. Our "training" system has become a self-perpetuating complex which has basically nothing to do with "training" or "safety", and everything to do with making more money.
For what they charge, you could BUY the kid a 172 to go out, make some mistakes, and actually learn something useful.
I've flown with F/Os who could recite the width of an ILS signal at 8.2 miles from rote (what? I don't know, who cares!), but could barely stay out of their own way with taxi instructions at a relatively uncrowded Class C airport. Call me a Luddite, but I'd rather fly with a guy who's done a few NDB approaches "in anger" flying a 208 than a guy who's Beat The System at Flight Safety on a Jet and has the memory items burned in to his cerebellum, but gets confused when you expect him to use the yoke. Our "training" system has become a self-perpetuating complex which has basically nothing to do with "training" or "safety", and everything to do with making more money.
For what they charge, you could BUY the kid a 172 to go out, make some mistakes, and actually learn something useful.
Last edited by TRF4EVR; 16th Aug 2013 at 17:44.
