Back to Squawk list
  • 39

Pilot in Asiana 214 "very concerned about attempting visual approach"

Enviado há
 
Lee Kang Kuk, a 46-year-old pilot who was landing the big jet for his first time at San Francisco, "stated it was very difficult to perform a visual approach with a heavy airplane." (www.wral.com) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jmilazzo
joe milazzo 20
If he has issues flying a visual approach he shouldn't be flying........period. My second landing after training in the 767 was a visual into BWI with just a papi!!!
preacher1
preacher1 10
With 40+ hours in type, I would have thought proper training would have required a visual or 2, whether an ILS was working or not. He is just grasping at straws to cover his butt and in my mind, so is that "TRAINING" captain. He just flatly screwed up by not monitoring airspeed and he made a serious mistake on the Auto Throttles which he will not admit. For them to admit that they just flatly screwed up puts them to total shame and disgrace in their culture and makes it a land rush for pax lawyers.
preacher1
preacher1 5
Their was so much hype about the auto throttles right after this thing happened, and I wasn't really sure myself as it had become 2nd nature, I had occasion to take our 767 on a short hop from FSM to DFW and back. I like to hand fly out/in anyway but I had the AP in and AT's armed and in the proper mode. At about 10grand, I flipped the AP off and basically it disconnected everything as it should have. It put the AT in what is best described as a standby mode. It is armed but not engaged. It is that way thru all the Boeing line. They just flatly missed it or else had Airbus on their mind.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 5
I vote for "Airbus of the Brain"
captainjman
Jason Feldman 3
This whole thing is nuts - "the pilot had never landed at *** airport before" - really, so now we all must have experience flying into each and every airport before we go there .....and WITH AN INSTRUCTOR NO LESS!? hahaha, what a joke!

As stated above, if you aren't comfortable landing the aircraft via a visual - you aren't a pilot - period. So sad there are so many great pilots looking for employment flying heavy metal - and you have people like this - I, I, I just don't get it.. this world is wacky isn't it?

Preacher1 - I am curious, have you flown Airbus before?
preacher1
preacher1 2
No, and from what I hear, I really don't have a desire to. It is my understanding that the AT's jump back in if speed falls low though, whether engaged or not, which is where some of these comments come fro. BTW, how you doing anyway?
lboyette
Lloyd Boyette 17
If you have issues with the approach... one tiny little word "Unable". Right side ILS was working fine and the controllers would have worked with you to make it happen. He's just grabbing at straws at this point to cover up what he clearly did wrong.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
PF covered this in one of his interviews.

He was scared of performing a manual approach (especially without ILS).

But other pilots were doing so successfully. It would be an embarrassment to request an acoomodation or somehow show tat he was unaesthetic to perform the skill.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
* unable
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Unable or Unwilling... There is a bid difference
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
Isn't there some laid down guidelines for conduct of the trainee pilot and the instructing pilot during an actual flight ? Whether sitting in left seat and/or right seat ? And vice-a-versa ?
What was their(the blundering pilots) take on such an issue?
I am sure they were LEAST concerned with what they were doing !
They were utterly rash and completely negligent in performing their duty.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Guidelines are there but are only good if they are followed. In this instance, for whatever reason, they weren't
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
Sorry, I meant statutory kind ?
For the trainee to comply and for the instructor to impose ?
And the corresponding statutory obligation of both to
follow them ?
Rights and duties, of both, at all times and during all situations.
All these must be at ICAO level .
Or else how can the regimen of training be made ? Especially in the air ?
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Are you saying there should be a law to cover every situation here? I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friends, there seems to be some communication gap.
Being a lawyer has nothing to do with my observations. Choice of words is a matter of convenience.
I am trying to invoke rationality, the systemic approach to any and every situation, as a student of science or engineering or.management.
The legal sense is invoked just to make compliance obligatory.
Nothing beats in life like self regulation, yet we fall prey to errors, serous errors, in life.
That's how and why there is an ICAO , FAA and so on, all being creations of a written document, duly authenticated.
That's what I meant by using those words. No more, no less.
Please do refer to obligations of a Pilot and copilot, from which ever point of view you wish. And add to them the role of an Instructor/Trainee scene !
These pilots failed on EVERY count of flying, written or unwritten.
And deserve no quarter for protection. And similarly, their Employers are at equal fault on various counts. Including the use of 'Culture' card as an excuse, directly or otherwise.
That's what I wish to say.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 4
I read where you say responsibility and yet hear law suit potential rather than corrective action. Some see the punishment of a monetary penalty as corrective, but I do not in all or even most cases. You want to "correct" the company but what about the instructor who gave him his first license? Who allowed him to continue flying with a fear of hand flying. Who encouraged him to be a guidance operator rather than a pilot?

I have cited the culture issue in this case. I nay be the first to cite it on these pages in a trade of comments with Preacher. Preacher has cited it on many occasions not as an excuse but as an explanation along with personal observation. His words ring true when you match it up to Lee's testimony to the NTSB. Words like "fear of embarrassment", and "demonstration of disrespect" are some strong evidence of the problem area that culture appears to be. More frightening is the obvious fact from the beginning of this tale that, pilot Lee was ill trained and ill tested. In my opinion, which counts for little in this case, a pilot who can't hand fly his craft to the ground in severe clear weather isn't and should not be called a pilot, and by definition should not be driving heavy aircraft with passengers on board. I don't know what Lees skill or experience is in the 747 or other aircraft he was qualified in, but I dare say from the information I've heard so far, he more than likely could not hand fly anything in the "big Iron" category. As for his employer, the legal guys want what's in their pockets not a corrective action nor how to improve the system, which is what these 'no fault" hearings are about. There is a time and a place for legal action, but I don't believe it is here in this venue.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Well said.

It properly complements the comment that to a hammer everything looks like a nail. The pilots on here could care less about fixing piloting through legal channels. They'd rather figure out how to create great piloting through training and regulation an how to prevent bad piloting through adjustment to existing pilot training and certification.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Agreed on both comments by you and Mark.

I don't know if it was followed through with. Manslaughter charges were recommended against controllers by someone in the Embraer/737 crash in Brazil. The colonel investigating the crash indicated that the fear of criminal prosecution only hurts an investigation and harms the ultimate effort of preventing such events in the future. The fear of criminal prosecution hanging over the head of controllers, pilots and others only makes them more likely to hide their actions. Then, what would not be known is if the event were the result of pure human error, procedure, a system glitch with an unknown cause or whatever.

The only time criminal charges are warranted are when one of the participants intentionally act with disregard to safety and life. That would be drinking/intoxicated on the job or any act that is known to have negative results and is yet intentionally carried out.

Allowing criminal charges even once can only lead to further perverting justice. I can picture some idiot of a prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves by prosecuting Denny Fitch for not properly controlling the aircraft resulting in loss of life. After Italy prosecuted a scientist for failing to foresee an earthquake, I can only imagine the fear promulgated in that country to keep one's mouth shut whether good or bad news.

No, there are no criminal acts in this case. Except for the very low standards the airline allowed for pilots in a new type this accident was the result of attitudes followed by very poor skills. It's that simple.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I think CRIMINAL INTENT is the key word here. Problem is as you say, somebody looking for$ or trying to make a name, causing folks to keep their mouths shut and the true cause of an accident may never be know. As in other professions, folks are supposed to be perfect but humans do make a mistake at times, regardless of how much they have trained or how well they have performed the same thing in times past. I will never be convinced that culture/status did not play a role here somewhere but the underlying known fact is that for whatever reason, the check airman did not do his job properly or at all. To my way of thinking, at some point he should have said "MY AIRPLANE" and taken control.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
Absolutely right. I have read some of what Pilot Lee had to say as the flying pilot, but have not heard any of the testimony from the check or instructor pilot. He was in the unenviable position of being senior pilot yet younger in age than Lee. The whole respect thing gets confusing.
It's beginning to look like Lee has been content to be the guidance officer rather then the pilot in command for a long time and he's been getting by. He got caught at it when they shut off the electricity at SFO.

ILS approaches have changed in the last few years along with the on board equipment. The equipment in today's cockpit was only a dream years ago. The front office of a modern transport is huge as compared to a DC 2 or 3 or for that matter the DC4. With a stretch I could reach the right window from the left seat of a 3. You probably remember.Try that in a triple 7. Today an ILS approach is like cooking with a Ronco BBQ, set it and forget it. But you never want to forget that a bad diode somewhere will bring it back to manual control and the age of dinosaurs.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
There is some confusion about the pilots' ages. The NTSB redacted all birthdates and didn't consistently provide ages for each pilot. The NTSB provided ages are not consistent with Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has changed the reported pilots' ages.

Haven't had a chance to research primary sources for pilot's ages and graduation dates. Maybe someone could find those.

Our theory about IP being younger than PF is in question.

Either he was younger/lower status, or was just reluctant to fail the other pilot, or didn't want to take control of an land te plane himself without ILS.
preacher1
preacher1 2
One way or the other, in his capacity, he dropped the ball
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
You could say that again. They both did.

The PF failed to fly. PM failed to monitor and as IP failed to tak over when necessary to avoid catastrophy.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
I remember reading an article before the incident at SFO by a trainer of pilots for some of the Asian airlines. He was very critical of the Asian pilots in general saying that they, as a group depended on technology rather than fly the airplane. It was more a critique of all pilots and warned that pilots in general might fall into the same bad habits. I recall him admonishing that the FAA was encouraging a dependance on guidance over flying through their testing and periodic check rides. It generated a million questions for me but I never found a way to contact him. It was only a week or so after I read the article that Asiana tried to land a 777 like a tail drager
preacher1
preacher1 2
They didn't try Mark, they suceeded
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
Indeed they did.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
The doc that Daniel Baker posted on the CVR squawk has three interviews by former Asiana pilots Geekie, Hooper, & Musser that supports that in more detail, and an apparent reticence to try manual landings.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Yup. What you said. I don't recall if that's the exact article or not. I just don't remember, But that's what the article I read was getting at. In addition the author was saying that lethargy is contagious and as we see dangerous.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Daniel posted the NTSB document released last week along with the CVR. Yours was prior to the incident.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yep. I was totally amazed at the difference in cockpit room between a 757 and 767. Then to, response time in a 67 is a little slower. 57 is like a racehorce moving around. 77 probably about the same
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
727 was an even faster Race Horse...
preacher1
preacher1 1
as the 767
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
727 is the fastest airliner this century documented. It is like a souped of sports car... It flies better fast than it does slower.
hjfischer1
Herb Fischer 1
sparkie,I love the 72' as much as anyone, but I'm pretty sure the old 880 was faster. Never flew it, but have Delta friends who did. It sure was nice on the three holer to see the barber pole in the upper left hand corner when you were running late or had a lot of altitude to lose quickly!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Where you been? Ain't seen you on here in several month's of Sundays
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
Lawyers especially prosecutors, seem to advance on their win loss record. Not much else need be said to thinking folks like those here.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
As do contingency fee lawyers...
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
Dear friend Ken Lane, on this Aviation related portal what is the significance of legal compensation or nature of punishment ?
Let's assume, these pilots are put to death. And victims are awarded astronomical sums. BUT at ASIANA it is business as usual ! Will it auger well with safety in aviation world ?
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
The significance is Brazilian authorities wanted to charge American pilots with a crime. They wanted to charge controllers with a crime.

And there are countries that do charge such bazaar crimes where no criminal intent existed.

As for civil liability, that's a different story. Failure to maintain adequate airman standards for flight crews should be a liability for the airline no differently than a poor fuel tank design on the R-44 was a significant liability for Robinson. Robinson knew it and continued without making changes.

I doubt it would take long for any responsible check airman to put the Asiana pilots through the paces in a sim to determine significant weaknesses. That sets them apart from American legacy carriers and most other carriers with much higher airman standards and I doubt you're going to find many lower-time FOs afraid to speak up. There was a weakness discovered in regionals with 3407 and much has been changed but the true test is how they perform in routine checks and beyond.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Thumbs up, dear friend PhotoFinish.
Over and above their internal professional audit, there must be some external agency to oversee the system as a whole.
Some thing similar to what we have for audits in the Corporate world ! Internal audit followed by Statutory or external audit.
And ICAO must be more vigilant and proactive as an overall Auditor or Supervisor.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friend Mark Lansdell, allow me to repeat what I believe in. Since the initial most inflow of info.
The nature of errors squarely put blame on BOTH pilots PLUS the organisation (ASIANA).
The corrective actions will be decided on the basis of final findings of authorities.
I for one am not concerned with legal action, but with the professional and functional part.
And I am sure that each one who ventures on this forum will have same or similar approach.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Good morning. Unless I am confused you are calling for legal remedies with out calling them so. Placing blame calls for a formal hearing and you don't seem satisfied with the NTSB or FAA, and that by elimination leaves the courts. Courts are administered by lawyers who are judged by their win loss record and the amount of fines collected $$. None of that will improve Asiana's or any other carrier's performance or safety. Insurance companies already penalize corporations to little effect.

If the prime requisite to freedom is responsibility then perhaps Asiana's freedom to fly into the United States should be curtailed or their pilots should be certified for operation here. I'm sure there are some more experienced than I, but to decide air safety in a courtroom debate seems folly to me. If that sounds a a little nationalistic, this is where I live and work. I'm not ready to turn these decisions over to the UN or any other international store front.
preacher1
preacher1 4
I too, am not ready to abdicate anything to a foreign body. With NTSB/FAA as the court of opinion for safety and operation, that should be finality. Once it moves into the legal arena it becomes a quest for $ and LAWYER UP and does nothing and generally can't do anything to change a given situation. A good example is the Colgan crash. The changes made were all kneejerk reaction to outside parties that had no real aviation expertise. Just increasing Total Time to 1500 hrs will not make a better pilot.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
We are pretty close in out thoughts and generally are. Most of the lawyers know little of aviation and look at you strangely when you cite the FARs. Most pilots are better acquainted with FARs than attorneys. Most lawyers aren't pilots and don't think like one and even less can think like an engineer. I remember listening to a couple of pilots, at different times, the day young Kennedy went wheels wet. The misinformation flowed freely.

It will be difficult if not impossible for the NTSB as part of the U.S.Government to even mention cultural differences. But the informal nature of the "no fault" hearings has allowed the pilot, Lee to bring it up. Like you, I believe the culture, the inability to disagree with a senior is key along with uncorrected, let's say bad habits are the crux of this incident
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I used to fly for a lawyer who is an aviation attorney dealing mostly with liability issues. But before he was a lawyer, he was an engineer for NASA. His job there... doing all the math for the shuttle passing from launch through the atmosphere into orbit. His simple explanation seemingly required a Phd.

Some defendants (including airlines) fear him as an attorney who is good at what he does... because he knows too much and doesn't have to BS his way through proving a case.

I understand he's gotten to the point these days he spends much of his time playing around with an old T-6 he has based in Florida.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
An exception, certainly. Probably an exceptional individual as well.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Just for what it's worth, in this article itself it quotes as follows:
"There were other indications that a culture of not acknowledging weakness — and of deferring to a higher-ranking colleague — contributed to the crash."
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Nothing about experience and skills?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Nothing but ho hum & excuses; "I didn't want to be embarrassed"
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
If he made that remark in front of a jury in a civil matter, their defense is finished. Just write a check.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friends Mark Lansdell and preacher1 and others, I am put in a corner on certain counts which looks like a test of my understanding about aviation and laws related to it.
In USA you have CFR, Code of Federal Regulations. Therein is Title 14 related to Aeronautics and Space. Vol.1,2 and 3 relate to flying and Vol 4 to D o T and Admn of Space, Vol.5 to Space .
FARs are Federal Aviation Regulations.
FAA is a statutory body empowered to administer air space over US territories by granting and regulating permission (Licence) to fly, to humans as pilots, to machines as aircrafts and airlines or airports as service providers.
They are, naturally, authorised equally to refuse permission to fly and to withdraw the permission given to fly.
Every action by FAA is to be done in accordance with Regulation or Law laid down in Vol. 1,2,3 of Title 14 of CFR.
FAA functions on the basis of credible inputs from agencies like NTSB and the like.
I am no Aviation lawyer, BUT any one aspiring to be one, HAS to understand Aviation, technically - in general, and law wise - thoroughly.
That's my defence and that's the gist of what people like preacher1 and some like him acquainted me with in a short span of 5 months, post Asiana 214.
I rest my case.
P.S. - Saying is that say nothing or write nothing and you make no mistakes.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Don't forget 49 USC, Subtitle 7.

It codifies many things not in the FARs such as the infamous "709 Ride"*.

The fellas at Wichita will become familiar with that one.

*49USC44709
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Obviously, I am not an attorney. Your perceptions in your last paragraph seem correct if you compare the situation to say a medical attorney, and I find that many corporate and divorce lawyers are accountants. Like medics, specialty attorneys require specialty knowledge and experience. I don't think that's requiring too much. Lest we forget, the aviation laws is created by people who only fly in the passenger compartment of aircraft and have never preplanned a flight. When I started flying a few months ago, the closest thing that came to a computer was my E6B, and flight planning required equal time to the flight itself. In addition to the law are the practical things that defy the written word. What I call the "no fault" hearings is an amnesty granted to flight crews and is a practical way to find and correct problems of 3 dimensional operations. I don't think there is any other industry that offers a way to fix problems rather than punish violators. Any ambulance chaser could find a way to fine both the pilots and the company in this case, I think you'll agree. Let's say "the State" wins a fine of $2M collectively. That just reduces the available funds to compensate the victims both injured and dead, awarding money to an uninjured party and their attorneys, the State, doing nothing to correct the problem(s) that caused the incident, allowing an an unqualified operator to pilot an airplane. The day they cut off my shirt tail, I promised myself and the 'guys" I celebrated with to cut up my license and burn my log book the day I didn't learn something new when flying an airplane. Like you, my education continues here among other places.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friend Mark Lansdell please allow me to indulge a bit more.
In legal system lawyers are called Officers of the Court with a job to assist the Court. They project the respective sides of the 'picture' or say the 'coin' so that the Court can decide one way or the other. Money part is incidental ! Surprised ? I say so because no where a lawyer can refuse appearance before the court on the plea of non payment from retainer(client)!
About creating laws and regulations please bear in mind that while it may be true that those who make laws may not be well versed with ground realities, yet advice, suggestions and opinions are sought from experts.
On your third point, let me assure you that any and every manager worth his/her salt endeavours to bring about corrections and stabilise the system to eliminate errors for future. Punishment etc. are for purpose of deterrence and are a different ballgame left for a different set of people, internal or external.
No exception, like in aviation. These are general rules of management practised for centuries, long before word management got formalised !
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I am acquainted with the way lawyers refer to themselves, and the esteem with which they hold each other. The only place I see real concern for the client is on Perry Mason and more recently The Good Wife on TV. I have friends and relatives who include me in their gatherings and listen to them as they talk of settlements like yard sticks and win loss records establishing pecking order. I disagree with you, that money is incidental and we'll have to leave it at that. Te court may have rules about representation in criminal situations, but try to engage an attorney on the N. E. coast for a civil matter wotth less than 10,000 dollars. AS for lawmakers creating law and using experts for advice, that becomes very political. Take a look at the most recent firearms laws for good example. Depending on the State the laws were all founded in emotional arguments that generally reflected a minority view. Other law is not much different. Like all lawyers, your next comment will be a standard trap, "how would you improve it?". I'll not enter that fray. Finally, I say again, Laws are created to be heard and determined in courts where the punishment and solution is generally a fine in dollars, usually many of them. Fining Asiana $10K, or $100K will not improve the flying skills of pilot Lee Kang Kuk who was licensed and tested by the country where Lee resided and applied. Perhaps Asiana should reevaluate their pilot review policy since they just lost a very expensive piece of equipment, More than any fine, never mind the cost of clean up and the medical expenses and insurance claims. This seems to me to be a matter of procedure not finding.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well Said, my friend. Mr. Mittal seems to want to learn from us on one hand but the lawyer really seems to interrupt that learning process at times. The two are not real compatible.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Thanks. I read his comments the same way. And again you're right. The two view points are most times, at cross purposes. I spent some time in law course class rooms, monitoring classes most particularly on Admiralty Law.About the only thing that got drilled into my head was there is no logic to law and by definition, case law in-particular.

Merry Christmas my friend. I hope to meet you one day. I'm growing to enjoy your company here on the inter-web.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Somewhere, sometime. Ya'll have a Merry Christmas as well.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Now I fee ta home
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friends Mark Lansdell and preacher1, most of you are good at flying. Kindly stick to that. Your experience with lawyers and courts, accepted. But, please refrain from teaching me about law and legal system. These are two different regions. Kindly treat this as my humble request.
None of you is trained to understand the depth of my using words like 'money being incidental'.
Ever heard of words like 'pro bono' ?
Legal system has same place in my mind and heart as aviation is for most of you.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I can accept your feelings but as I have said before, this is an aviation oriented site and most of here, while laymen in the law, are professionals in aviation, and it is just a general feeling that too much law or $ oriented judgments are a big part of what is wrong in the world today. For that reason, we will never agree on the subject and hence are not that real interested in hearing about that side of things. That said, if any of us wound up in a court as defendant somewhere, we would want someone with that attitude on our side. It's a catch 22 but don't chastise us for commenting here about our own profession. Look and learn and ask questions.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
ThanX,this is what I request. Stick to what you know best, Aviation. I am here for Aviation, not for law.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That is good, then speak aviation and don't offer a tirade on law. Opinions on it here are opinions and most don't want an explanation on it. If they did, they would go to a legal forum.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Right, but how about when aviators start dissecting law and legal system on this portal ? That's what worries me !
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
There are enough folks here who have a good understanding of the applicable FARs which is what mostly comes up, if at all.

More times than not, the discussion boils down to skill and common sense.

I've told students flying is governed by rules set forth by government and God. Violate either and they may come back to bite you. The latter set of rules are less forgiving.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, let them dissect it. ASK if they want your opinion. If not, don't offer it. Just keep quiet rather than forcing a tirade on them, right or wrong.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Mr. Mittal:

You are taunting me to change my tone. Please scroll up the comment history and you'll find you asked certain and particular questions to which I answered. If you don't want to hear the answer don't ask the question. Lawyers are famous for sayings like that. Actually, I think it was 'don't ask a question to which you don't already know the answer'.

Certainly I have heard phrases like Pro Bono, but not often.

Sir, I am not attempting to teach the law to anyone. I have consistently maintained that this is not the place for the law nor legal complaints, this is an investigation to solve a problem not a trial to punish bad behavior

Finally, I'm a little surprised the following statement was in a post that asked for an opinion. Not shocked nor ambushed, but a little surprised; "None of you is trained to understand the depth of my using words like 'money being incidental'.". Am I now subservient and unqualified. I think not.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Pro bono work is the exception that proves the rule. In many cases it is a poor attempt to relieve guilt from ill-gotten gains through arguably ethically -challenged means.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friend Mark Lansdell please allow me to indulge a bit more.
In legal system lawyers are called Officers of the Court with a job to assist the Court. They project the respective sides of the 'picture' or say the 'coin' so that the Court can decide one way or the other. Money part is incidental ! Surprised ? I say so because no where a lawyer can refuse appearance before the court on the plea of non payment from retainer(client)!
About creating laws and regulations please bear in mind that while it may be true that those who make laws may not be well versed with ground realities, yet advice, suggestions and opinions are sought from experts.
On your third point, let me assure you that any and every manager worth his/her salt endeavours to bring about corrections and stabilise the system to eliminate errors for future. Punishment etc. are for purpose of deterrence and are a different ballgame left for a different set of people, internal or external.
No exception, like in aviation. These are general rules of management practised for centuries, long before word management got formalised !
preacher1
preacher1 1
The day that we don't learn something new about something is the day the need to pull the grass over us. It is a totally wasted day
preacher1
preacher1 1
Your last 5 lines are plain and are the gist of this whole conversation. Plain & simple
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
ThanX. We all use expressions which come easier to any one of us.
You all have saying from day one what NOW is being said by NTSB and the like. Using the seal of evidence and legality. Unfortunately the same unavoidable evil !
Let us now await the futile and inconsequential reaction from the perpetrators of crime. .
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
NTSB may be publicly exposing some of the conversations that are being had behind the scenes. But we can read in the pilots own words that the issues were there in their own words immediately after the incident in the interviews in the dys after the crash and since then.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Yes, what all of you experienced have been saying based on bits and pieces, and now being reiterated in an authenticated and irrevocable style.
Let's wait what next !
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Very early on there was video of the crash and FlightAware data of the last moments of flight available to give a good sense of the trajectory of the plane. The NTSB also had very informative briefings that didn't provide any conclusions, but enough real details that knowledgeable individuals could make tr correct conclusions.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Yes, that's when I started taking my first lessons in arm chair flying ! And these lessons continue, thankfully !
ThanX to a few nice and patient teachers like you.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Unfortunately FA no longer seems to provide the same detail in ground proximate flight data, as was available for Adiana 214. Also, in the incidents since, the NTSB seems not brief ad much detail as A214.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, in defense of that, there hasn't been anything of that magnitude in the airline industry since 214. They have had several prominent rail accidents but there has been nothing that Debbie has presided over personally
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
FA scratched discussions of the prominent rail accidents despite the same investigator (NTSB) and the same issues (fatigue, automation, and safety warnings) that one up in air accidents.

But more importantly, there seems to be less ground proximate flight data displayed. I've repeatedly tried to look at the late stage flight data of particular flights' approaches, that come up for discussion, that don't provide the same detail anymore.
preacher1
preacher1 1
probably due to topic on the accidents. Can't speak to the other
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Being a lawyer, he may tend to see it that way.
"when all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail"
I don't think he goes to that extreme, tho'
IMHO
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 0
I was trying to engage him, as I find it as impossible to cover all situations with specific law as to "WIN" a nuclear war. Good sense or horse sense is always the final abettor.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Guidelines/statutory...As I said they are there but we see the results of them not being followed. When the NTSB report is final, then they will come into play for enforcement and action.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Could be wrong but I though the whole system was down

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 4
You are correct in that there is no GA in that country. Their pilots come over here for training and then as you said, they come back home with a license and whoop, dere it is. I did a few hours over there in a base aero club 150 to try and stay halfway current while stationed there, but 100% of the airspace is military controlled, Korean in name only at that time as the U.S had the lions share of what was in the air; There was a central clearing agency that required a flight authorization number from your base for any flight, military or commercial, and Taegu center worked all traffic in the southern half of the country. talk about no speaka da English. LOL
preacher1
preacher1 7
Although it will probably never come out to keep from offending someone, I still say it was a culture/status thing. The training pilot had more hours and was well qualified but was junior in age and I think in TOTAL time, and rather than do his job of pulling rank in the cockpit, yielded to that senior status. Either that or they just all made a mistake and missed looking at the Airspeed. At any rate, Murphy strikes again.
btweston
btweston 4
Well, at some point the guy's gonna have to do it for the first time. Even if the instructor pulled rank and landed the thing the trainee will have gained nothing on a flight designated to provide him with experience. It... just didn't quite work out.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
The interviews show that SFO has a reputation among Asiana pilots as the most difficult airport they fly into. ATC often keeps plane high and fast on approach. Depending on when ATC clears plane to land, pilots may have to get down quick; sometimes with speed brakes deployed or gear down to control airspeed.

They also have frequent altitude and speed restrictions to maintain separation because of the simultaneous operations on parallel runways.

Maybe SFO isn't the easiest first. But that just means they should be getting it done sooner and more often. Lest they get a rep for lacking confidence, and not being able to do it very well.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
If you get a chance to read the NTSB Interview Summaries, there's lots there.

The PF pulls the culture card repeatedly throughout. The other guy had status. The other guy was the instructor and was in charge. It was his call whether we went around

It would be an embarrassment to fail if I made an error.

PF even deferred whether he would get a cup of coffee (as was his norm) on his return to cockpit for his second duty time to the instructor. If he gets a cup of coffee, I would too. If he doesn't, I wouldn't. I can't recal if I got that cup of coffee (like I normally would).

The PF also doesn't remember pushing the button fir flight level change, nor could he confirm whether PM has pushed that button.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Pl. help me understand the scene in right perspective.
There was a trainee and there was an instructor. What is the duty of the instructor in situations where the trainee feels/seems 'cornered'?
Chances are I do not have the right perspective !
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, in a normal situation, the trainer/instructor should take control. He did not. This is a major question and as he was junior both in age and total time, that is where this culture thing should come into question. Did he abdicate his authority due to that or did he just flatly screw up as well?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
There seems to be some confusion about the ages and relative seniority. There were some discussions here about that in the past.

Wikipedia seems to have the age seniority reversed from they reported a while back. Unfortunately the NTSB redacted the birthdates of all the pilots involved in their interview summaries.

Does anyone have any of the original source reporting handy? Or know how to independently verify age, birthdates and graduation year and institution of these pilots? (these are important in determining social status).

In the NTSB interviews the responses made clear that they have flight deck seniority that would reflect the seniority typical in Western cockpits. However their approach to seniority, status and authority still seems to be much like pre-CRM cockpits, despite their twice annual CRM trainings.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, over the initial reports, they do seem to be reversed. That said, it should not matter. The trainer/check airman WAS IN CHARGE of ALL aspects of the flight. He failed to exercise that responsibility, for whatever reason.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friends, PhotoFinish and preacher1, irrespective of the age related conflicts, one this was clear. One was trainer and other was a trainee.
I repeat what I stated many weeks ago also.
In every culture or system or profession, hierarchy exists and there is an associated discipline. Including the sense or obligation towards responsibility.
These people, pilots and their organisation made serious errors of omission as well of commission !
The aviation world must react accordingly.
(Courts of)Law may and will take its own course, according to its own norms(laws)
andriy17
Andriy Tsyupka 7
"Do not let yourself be forced into doing anything before you are ready." -Wilbur Wright
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 6
I have sympathy for the people injured and those who lost their lives for what boils down to an unqualified timid crew in the cockpit. Most of them would not say Bandini if they had a mouthful.

There is no excuse for not knowing how to operate and interact with the systems on the aircraft. There is an old axiom among thespians the says "If you don't have a show, don't open the curtain." None of this crew should have been behind the curtain.

I don't care how big the plane is, if you can't fly it by hand looking out the window you have not been trained to be the PIC. I get nervous when ESL's take professional training in American classrooms, pilot, dentist, or barber they seem to miss the fine points of the instruction. I get rather tense when I find out foreign schools are going through the motions but no real information is retained by the students in the school.
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 5
Having read numerous posts on FlightAware on "foreign pilots" I KNOW there will be a field day on this one!
I (as a relatively inexperienced private pilot) cannot believe that an experienced pilot with many hours of experience could have a problem flying a visual approach in to a large airport in visual conditions. There is NO excuse. I concur with preacher1 on the potential for a cultural issue but Asiana should be aware of this and give special attention to it in their CRM training.
It has been said for many years that the Aussie typical lack of regard for authority and willingness to challenge it has been a significant contributor to Qantas's excellent safety record. It may well apply to other airlines as well.
preacher1
preacher1 6
"INEXPERIENCED PRIVATE PILOTS" become well experienced ATP's at some point down the line. DON'T ever put yourself down, as all of us started just exactly where you are at right now. Nobody just woke up one morning and was a Captain on a 747!!!!!
That said, it's probably hard for management to get involved there when that culture permeates the whole country. You would just have to be there for awhile to understand how it is. Talk to some of the ExPats that have worked over there recently and they will tell you the same thing. I can just see in my mind a picture of a Chief Pilot bowing to this guy as he came thru the room, just because he was wearing 4 bars and was older. In regard to that culture CRM is a joke. The best analogy I can make is that it is about like a cockpit here before CRM, where the Captain was God and you don't dare question or correct him. I started as an FE on a 707 in that environment and vowed that if I ever got left seat, it wouldn't happen. I got it, and we were well ready with our own brand of CRM before the term was ever coined.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
The PF was the only one of the 3 captains (in fact the only one of all 4 pilots including FO) to not have a nearly decade long military career flying fighter for the KAF.

He was the only one recruited as a pilot cadet and trained from scratch.

He has also spent the last few years in Airbus cockpits (A320) and was totally new in the 777, and maybe the only time he had spent in a Boeing left seat might have been the 30-40 hours in 777 IOE training.

May have something to do with his fear to land manually (and at SFO to boot).
preacher1
preacher1 1
I thought before his Airbus time that he had 747 time
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Right seat time only. (I believe he came after FE era). In fact he only landed once at SFO previously (cargo jet). Asiana captains don't usually allow FOs to land at SFO. He had been a front facing window passenger a few more times other than that one, but that was all 12 yrs ago.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I don't know anyone who hatched from the egg as a pic. Let me know when you stop learning as a pilot and file your logbook away that night. Every pilot I know started with a SEL license or something like it. Keep on learning and enjoy the trip. Only a few of us get to see the world from above it.

"...And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod the high untrespassed sanctity of space, put out my hand, and touched the face of God."

Magee

Merry Christmas
rjudy175e
Richard Judy 4
Asiana needs to fire the captain, the training captain, and everyone else on the flight deck. Cultural sensitivities or not, I thought SAFETY was #1 for everyone.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I think I read something here while back that they are on desk duty for now but that if Asiana got rid of them that it would be an admission of guilt by the company, so idk.
OnTheHorizon
Tony Smith 4
Agreed. If you can't land in absolutely ideal visual conditions in SFO - daytime and no clouds/fog using basic stick and rudder skills you have no business flying a Cessna, much less a 777 full of passengers.
mmcleran
Michael McLeran 4
Trainee captain in a triple seven experiencing serious anxiety
about putting that monster on the ground intact? Geez! Thank God there was no fog, they would have all perished.
bbabis
bbabis 5
Welcome to FA Michael, but you might not be following the story. Fog or anything but the perfect weather they had would have prevented this accident, at least until sometime later. This crew was perfectly capable of setting the aircraft up to auto-land itself using an ILS. This accident happened because the crew was asked to actually FLY the airplane themselves and perform the dangerous and dreaded visual approach.
preacher1
preacher1 4
And actually, if they hadn't had Airbus on the brain, which has a different AT setup, or paid attention to the approach instead of yakking, they'd have made that dreaded visual, even with the anxiety. He's just grasping for straws trying to cover his butt.
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
Sounds like he was not ready to be signed off yet. Maybe a simulator would have been a better test bed...
bbabis
bbabis 3
The 46-year-old pilot told investigators he had been "very concerned" about attempting a visual approach without instrument landing aids, which were turned off.

What is really being said in this statement is that he was very concerned about having to FLY THE AIRPLANE. An instrument approach would have been automated and he would have been more comfortable riding along like the rest of the pax except with a forward facing window.
xmrrushx
Jason Ho 2
I wish i had a forward facing window. Imagine the price they could charge.
spinoneone
Paul Wisgerhof 3
Ignorance is remediable; stupid is forever!
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Or, the difference between ignorance and stupidity is that one is curable.
k2lck
Ed Mentz 3
my brother-in-law drove a kc-135 and never got hired after leaving (O3)... But then again......
preacher1
preacher1 2
If he was truly concerned he should have never taken off to commence with. It wasn't like that ILS went out of service when he was halfway across the pond.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Well said my friend preacher1.
The WHOLE aviation world knew about ILS condition at SFO during that period.
These pilots knew this BUT ignored the necessity of refreshing their lessons of VFR !
Not only the 'taught' defaulted but the teacher also blundered.
Unfortunately at the most basic level .
A criminal neglect .
bushleague
david laite 2
Let's see, in the past few months an Asian wide body smacks a sea wall at SFO, and A-300 narrowly misses a row of houses before pancaking into a hillside in Birmingham, and a 737 with 150 pax smacks the asphalt so hard at LGA that the nosewheel collapses? "Go around flaps 2" would have saved the day in each case. I'm all for additional stall awareness training, how about additional go-around training?

Always back up a visual with some sort of electronic guidance..there's an LPV into the left side at SFO.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Yeah it would have. I think pride had a lot to do with 214 and the 737.; I still ain't heard all I need to know on that UPS 330 at Birmingham yet though. All I have heard so far is that they were on instruments but that they were yakking rather than monitoring the approach. You heard anything else?

[This poster has been suspended.]

jmilazzo
joe milazzo 3
Oh, we'll then I guess it's ok that they screwed up. That's why they carry IRO's. They get relieved in flight to rest on these long flights. Maybe Asiana and their pilots need to invest some time in human factors and sleep patterns to help combat extreme fatigue.
GOD-THIS IS NOTHING NEW!!!!
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Phil's talking about UPS.
preacher1
preacher1 1
For what it's worth, 214 called a go around, but way too late. According to the CVR transcript released today, they didn't call a go around until about 40', ignoring a vocal call from a Jr. pilot in the jump seat about sink rate. You and me both know that at 40' you are along for the ride, as they found out. I'll bet that United 747 crew that was holding need clean pants. LOL
stevemondral
steve mondral 5
I'm thinking the CVR on the 747 would be very interesting.
embrj145
Marcelo de lima 2
(Boeing's chief of flight deck engineering, Bob Myers, testified that the company designed the automated system to aid — not replace — the pilot. If there's a surprise, he said, "we expect them to back off on the automation" and rely on their basic skills.) I agree and disagree, yes pilots should not trust 100% on automation, but at the same time when you create a system to back up the pilots is case they also fail this system should work.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
The system works only in the hands of the properly trained and capable of operating as well as monitoring all aspects of its operation.

I've seen enough single-engine instrument pilots screw up with all the resources in a G1000. It boggles my mind a high-time ATP does so in a heavy jet.

There should be no surprises but based on my knowledge of some of the issues in the Airbus glass, I'm not surprised in some cases. I'd have a greater trust in Boeing.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I have long said that automation is a tool, not a crutch. Boeing has the right idea in that " it's there for you" but you are the one sitting in the pointy end and must make the decision to use it or not. If wx is bad and I'm looking at a CATIII or such, I like everything up there I can get. If it is CAVU, I think I'm supposed to fly the plane. It goes without saying that crappy wx has been around forever and I remember back in the day that a 707 didn't have near the avionics/automation that is out there now. ATC didn't either as I still remember those good old GCA days when a controller would talk you all the way down, at least to a quarter mile. Point is, know how to FLY THE PLANE. What part about that do people not understand?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Also, using a tool the wrong way is not much of a tool or a crutch.
embrj145
Marcelo de lima 0
That's all valid but human mind works different than machine, some ppl still blindly trust their automation, actually they are trained to do so, it's like when you're kid and you think i can do this and if anything goes wrong my parents will be there for me.., if Boeing created a system that doesn't work, this is a false sense of security which is worse than nothing at all.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
The plane didn't malfunction. The pilots did.

The plane did not make the pilot afraid to fly a manual landing. His own inadequate training and failure to perform manual landings make him lacking in basic skills.

The plane did not make the training pilot anxious about failing his ride. That was his deal.

The plane did not make him choose the wrong flight mode. Flight level change is for moving to a different altitude with automation at altitude (NOT ON APPROACH NEARTHE GROUND!!!) The plane didn't force the pilot to use te flight level trap that has been extensively trained as a major problem at low altitude.

That close to the ground, there are more appropriate modes, not least of which to hand fly the plane with the right hand on the throttles. The plane didn't fail to allow the pilot to fly fully manual.

The plane did not prevent the monitoring pilot from monitoring altitude and airspeed.

The plane didn't fail to keep the plane on the flight path. That was the pilot.

The plane didn't fail to keep the plane at the appropriate altitude. That was the pilot.

The plane didn't fail to keep the plane at airspeed. That was the pilot.

The plane didn't fail to monitor. That was the pilots.

The plane didn't fail to recognize how screwed up the approach was. That was the pilots.

The plane didn't fail to go around in time. That was the pilots.

I conceed that the plane could be reprogrammed to maintain minimum airspeed on approach in ALL MODES. That's not how the plane is programmed and all pilots are trained in using appropriate modes when necessary. Flying a commercial airliner with revenue passengers in a cross-oceanic international route for a major airline is not a hobby. It is a professional job that requires a modicum of proficiency.

In this instance, it might've saved the plane from incompetent pilots. But it wouldn't have made the pilots any more proficient. Maybe the pilots would've found something else to flub.

I wouldn't blame the plane. The plane performed exactly as expected. In constant, the pilots did not perform to a minimum level of acceptable execution for any commercial pilot.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Left one out...

The plane didn't keep the plane from flying straight on a beautiful afternoon. That too was the on the pilots. The failure to fly the plane in a straight line, but instead to swing left and right from the glideslope is all about the failure of the pilot in performing the most basic of piloting skills.

----------------

It truly is hard to find anything the pilots did right in those last few minutes of flight. They still almost accidentally landed on the runway completely sealed out. Buy that would've been all about luck and almost nothing about great piloting skills.

The pilots could've flown a slightly less steep descent and squires the glideslope over the threshold. Their stall ouldnt happened over the ground (hopefully over the concrete of the runway, but as long as the United 747 waiting tondepart didn't find itself in the path of the Asiana plane any landing on the airport would've been better than landing short and tail striking the seawall.

The pilots could've have a much steeper descent and acquired the glideslope much earlier in the approach. This way lady minute changes to acquire the glideslope wouldn't reveal an unstabilized approach only at very low altitude. The pilots would've had much longer to make a change (either to add thrust or to go around).

Maybe the plane wouldn't have been following another 777. The need to keep out the the other plane's wake turbulence might not have restricted the plane's ability to maintain speed in descent.

Maybe there wouldn't have been another plane on it's 8'o clock, keeping the Asiana I'm sight, and landing on a parallel runway. The need to provide for separation pit restrictions on both planes' airspeed and altitude.

Any of these variables might either not have been present or been different enough to not result in a crash. But any competent commercial airline pilot should be able to handle any of these factors. It's all in a day's work got a good pilot.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well said, both comments.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Thumbs up to both parts.
The aircraft was airworthy fully. The pilots were trained to fly. As well as paid to fly.
Yet THEY FAILED TO FLY a fully functional aircraft.
Simple.
A perfect open and shut case.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
"the pilots were trained to fly"

The pilots were not properly trained. Until their check rides 1) properly evaluate pilots for manual flying and 2) properly fail pilots who are marginal and require remedial training for deficient pilots, these airlines can't get their pilots up to the standard that passengers take fir granted.

The American pilots ate nit better because they're innately better at piloting because of geographic birthplace, but simply because they are held to a higher standard, to which they are tested and expected to perform routinely. Pilots from other places can be excellent pilots too. They and their airlines and their ceritifying agencies must conspire to insist on that excellence. It the only way to make excellence consistent and routine across an entire system.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
I guess this case must be an eye opener for America, FAA and Americans, to strictly enforce the existing laws on foreign airlines and their crew/staff. And make US air space a safe place.
If FAA continues its past policies of being soft, Asiana 214 will be repeated, by them as well by others, any where in the world.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
It's another Catch-22*. Most want to tell others what to do. Most don't want others to tell them what to do. The balancing of the two is diplomacy.

* We want your pilots to follow our rules and to subject them to criminal prosecution on our soil. But when our pilots find themselves on your soil, we'd like an exemption from your rules and your prosecution.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Excellent statement...
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
Off Topic but:
I don't know what topics will peak your interest next Friday if any. If I don't see you've posted and so don't get the chance, I wish you all a merry Christmas. It's truly the season for giving as it's my belief that it marks the beginning of the life of the greatest man that ever lived. God's greatest gift to man, his Son. Believe that or not, merry Christmas all the same.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
As long as culture rules over common sense, accidents like this will happen again.
preacher1
preacher1 2
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Odd thing between what is reported here and a conversation about sunglasses on the CVR. They don't seem consistent to me.


"Asked whether he wore sunglasses in the cockpit, Lee said he did not "because it would have been considered impolite to wear them when he was flying with his" instructor. The instructor pilot told investigators he never saw a bright light outside the aircraft."
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
That video showed the crash as way more violent than I originally thought. A testament to a strong hull and a lot of luck.
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
Preacher...you're a good old guy....the only ones I like to fly with... you remember the old days when you had to go out and shoot 3 approaches or so every 6 months... flying a real airplane... engine out... etc.. we used to have 2-5 United DC8s, a Pan Am 747, and an occasional TWA L1011 and Fly Tiger stretch DC8 shooting approachs for hours at Sacramento in the 70s.... kept us very busy... but we knew those guys could FLY THE AIRPLANE...
preacher1
preacher1 2
Thanks for the compliment. sad part is Tom, we have basically got a good crew of young guns here now and I really never though that on hiring that I needed to put so much emphasis on stick and rudder skills but I did and we got lucky in finding the right ones. That said, I'm basically just on minimum right now for fill in and that goes away in the spring. If they don't change the law again, my ATP will go away next November anyway when I hit 65. These folks have offered enough time for me to stay current. All that to say this; over the next few years, there won't be many left.
tchien69
tchien69 1
Tru Dat! ANY operator of ANY machinery that could cause death, injury or even just major property damage should be able to do so if the automation fails or is damaged and there should ALWAYS be a manual override (just like in the movies ;)! Has everyone forgotten the Top Gun and Space Cowboys movies?!? ;) We're starting to have to worry about automation now even with cars. With these ESC's, EBA's, ABS's and heck, even power steering and brakes, no one will have any any experience with manual steering / braking, pumping brakes, turning into a skid, etc.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Somebody was quoting over on another post a few ago about familiarizing a ne employee with the company 4wd p/u. It happened to be a stick shift and the first thing the boy asked was what was the clutch pedal for. Dang, that makes me feel old.
tchien69
tchien69 2
Me too. Proud stick (shift) operator for 20 of last 21 yrs. And wifey can do it too. I'm in software and it happens there too and at a much faster pace. Recruiters / hiring mgrs. looking for any noob who claims "'experience'" w/ latest automation vs. a veteran who doesn't but who could prolly re-INVENT that automation from scratch. Like picking a teenage driver with a 1-2 yrs. exp. with A/T's over a professional race car driver of stick shift cars because the latter's never driven an A/T.

[This poster has been suspended.]

andriy17
Andriy Tsyupka 1
WE ALL AGREE THEY DO !!
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown 1
New video released by the NTSB

http://www.businessinsider.com/ntsb-video-of-asiana-214-crash-2013-12
Neil49
Neil49 1
Why does everyone keep referring to that video as "new"? It was broadcast on just about every TV station with a news segment within a couple of days or so after the accident. It was taken by some spectator, I think with a cell phone, from across a body of water.

Just because it has now been released by the NTSB does not make it "new".
Tabs
Tabs 1
That's not the same video - this is from a slightly more west angle and is closer to the runway. The other one was filmed from a hotel across the little bay that sits between 28L and the shore.
Neil49
Neil49 1
Thanks for the clarification. It had occurred to me that it might in fact be from a slightly different perspective, but without side by side comparison, it is, for all practical purposes, the same as the earlier release. There's really nothing new in the "new" video.
preacher1
preacher1 3
I got to agree about nothing new in it. Not much angle difference; they still crashed and 3 died and a couple of United drivers needed clean pants.
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
Not only did he not know how to fly a visual approach with no electronic guidance on the airport, but was not familiar with the flight guidance provided by his FMC, waypoints, etc. He could have programmed the FMC to provide a glide path off the end of the runway and extended a centerline giving him both lateral and vertical guidance. Then fly above that glide slope indicated to land in the touchdown zone of the runway. All basic stuff.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Still lot's of unanswered questions and/or unadmitted mistakes here with a why and how being the biggest ones. Putting ourselves in his position or the trainers, and Monday morning quarterbacking, none of us with even the most basic of experience, can understand how it happened. I personally think it was just a mistake and he is trying to cover his butt to keep from being totally disgraced.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
If it were only the airspeed issue from choosing the wrong flight mode, it could be called a mistake.

But no. It was a certified fustercluck.

Not only was airspeed low, but the plane was well below the glideslope on final (related to idling engines), but the plane was also way off from the runway centerline (entirely separate problem from picking the wrong flight mode and fron failing to monitor airspeed and altitude).

He was not only going to fail to reach the runway, but was also not lined up.

Had he had enough juice to get over the seawall, he would've had to go around to line up with the runway.

From reading the interview, it sounds like this pilot was not only not prepared to land at SFO (or maybe at any airport) manually. Further, it sounds like he was determined to land it and/or crash/die trying. He wasn't going to call a go-around, unless the Instructor Pilot made the call. He saw a go around as an embarrassing failure, showing his inadequate a pilot he was.

Hiqever, crashing and burning doesn't look any better.

He did show up at the airport in the early morning for a Kate afternoon flight. He studied the SFO NOTAMs, the Manual, etc. He knew before he left Seoul that there was a chance that he'd get assigned a runway without ILS. At least one runway ILS was out for construction, and the weather was clear. He had long before made the decision that he'd try to land if assigned a non-ILS runway, rather than be embarrassed by asking to be reassigned to an ILS capable runway.

The relief crew was assigned the Golden Gate approach. The moment he he walked back in to the cockpit, he knew that he'd been assigned to land at 28L (without ILS) just from the aporoach.

He prepared. He tried. Unfortunately, he failed spectacularly and catastrophically. (PM also failed to save the passengers and the PF from himself.)
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Disclaimer: some of the above statements are a speculative romp inside the head of the PF. However all statements are based on the interview summaries of the pilots inbloved in the accident flight. The facts and feelings reported by the PF are consistent with the above.

The interviews are an interesting read. It would be difficult to come to conclusions that are too different from the ones above, taking into consideration the facts, the reported statements, and the culture that seems to underpin the answers and so the thinking on the day of the accident.
preacher1
preacher1 3
I think that EMBARRASSING business is as close as anything will come to the culture problem. I can see him having a problem as a trainees in type, but what happened to the instructor?
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Instructor ? Yes, what happened to him ? This was as good a time as any other to show who is the boss !
Right ?
racertex
racertex 1
Two words, Missed Approach!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Muffed approach?
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Concerned ? My foot.
For VFR they were ill prepared , mentally, physically, professionally, and even organisationally !
Not even the Pilot Instructor . Much less the trainee PF !
At least NOW everyone in Asiana should refrain from trying cover-ups .
jsulk
Joe Sulkowski 1
Wow, what a puttz. I agree, if he can't make the visual, get out of the cockpit. He shouldn't be flying.
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 1
My memory fails me a bit, but wasn't there a Japan Air Llines B747 freighter in the late 70's that went off the end of the runway during takeoff at Anchorage? The investigation revealed that the cultural influence in the cockpit caused the right-seater to not question the captain's errant takeoff procedures/preparation, resulting in the crash? Maybe someone can help me out here......
Neil49
Neil49 1
It was a DC-8 freighter full of live beef, and the captain (American) had had a few too many, which should have been obvious to the junior crew members (Japanese, and considerably younger).

Others who had observed the captain prior to the flight testified as to the captain's impairment.

http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=147
preacher1
preacher1 1
Seems I remember hearing about it Jim, but no specifics to offer. A quick check at Wiki gave no specifics either.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I would also add that in the 70's CRM had not been thought of yet, and while culture probably was there, "Captain is God" attitude was probably prevalent too.
k2lck
Ed Mentz 1
I read more and more data to indicate that airlines should limit their hiring to ex fighter pilots
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
There are many talented pilots in the world that never served on the military. But fighter pilot and no prior flying experence cadet are the 2 extremes. There is a wide range in between. How about starting with pilots with any flying experience? In the absence of prior flying experience, how about getting many potential candidates into a plane cockpit soon into training BEFORE deciding whether they'll be accepted into the long and expensive training program to make them into airline pilots.

Someone could look good on paper, but then on the seat, not have the qualities necessary to be a great pilot. Every pilot should be a great pilot.
preacher1
preacher1 2
problem is that there aren't near as many ex military as there used to be
Spincokiwi
Geoff Cooper 1
What total rubbish. What difference does a heavy aircraft make to a visual approach and what ever happened to the 3 in 1 ...1000' @ 3nm .... glideslope. This was clearly pilot incompetency in all flight deck seats as was evidenced by the lack of comment on both altitude and the speed so far below Vref. This was simply an accident going somewhere to happen and I have over 5000hrs PIC on the B777 and know full well what the difference between a safe and very unsafe approach looks like. The company still maintains these were very experienced pilots ... yeah right ... only in their own mind.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
Experience is irrelevant without common sense and skill... and, without automation.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
After playing "who's on First" for a while, I put this together for reading the transcripts:

Pilot Position Total Hrs B777 Military Exp CVR Ref

Bong, Dangwon FO 4,600 1,000 F5, F16 -3
Lee, Jung Min PM,IP,PIC 1,300 1,300 RF4- -1
Lee, Jung Joo Rel* 11,000+ 7,000 F5A-B
Lee, Kang Kut PF 9,700 35 -2
*Relief Pilot

It helps me,anyway.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The table is a great idea. Thought it does seem that you Ma have transposed some of the figures incorrectly. Some pilots have more oral hours and 777 hours than reflected in the table.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
They still fly the F-5??
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
RF4? That's the experience listed in the NTSB interviews. Sorry about the formatting- it looked good when I hit post. Must have mis-set the auto-space switch.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
It wasn't that long ago the Air Force flew RF4s. I think NASA still has a couple.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Most were in the boneyard at Davis Monthan but some were being made fly ready and made into drones for target practice
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
This crash will be a class room case study for the students of foreign policy as well as those of law.
FAA is fully empowered by Federal Laws to take severe action against Asiana. Like withdrawing or suspending licence to enter US air space. The NTSB is fully empowered and equipped to supply the necessary data for any and every action needed to be taken at FAA. Using conclusions drawn and recommendations by NTSB as experts.
And if FAA still fails to take stringent action against Asiana, I am afraid message will go down about lack of political will at the Capitol Hill !

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!
Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar