Asiana B-777 Reported Down At KSFO

[3Green 80]

I know this is a totally seperate debate, but I just want to point out that that is very very far off, if not even impossible

 

The moment you doubt whether man can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.  The Wright Brothers proved many skeptics wrong.  Man can fly. 

 

Pilots will be replaced, maybe not in our life time.

 

Back then...

 

 

Today...

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/kmax/timeline.html

 

RJ

[NGXfanatic 85]

First off, my apologies for the length of the following post.

 

I've been reading through the comments here and on other websites, both FS and RW Aviation related. While perusing through one of these I came across this post, which I found interesting. I've taken the liberty of "borrowing" it for your consideration (please note the quotation marks):

 

 

Thanks for the read!  I found this pilot's firsthand, intimate knowledge of the culture and practice at the Korean carriers to be extremely valuable in helping me dissect what went wrong with the KSFO crash.   I've taken his, as well as others in this post, advice to concentrate more on hand flying vs. autopilot programming to heart.   I am making it a point to spend more time flying without the autopilot engaged on takeoff and landing, and I am especially aware of the need to be stabilized at full landing flaps configuration and vref+5 at or before 500ft AGL VMC, or 1000ft AGL IMC.

[Jude Bradley 659]

First off, my apologies for the length of the following post.

 

I've been reading through the comments here and on other websites, both FS and RW Aviation related. While perusing through one of these I came across this post, which I found interesting. I've taken the liberty of "borrowing" it for your consideration (please note the quotation marks):

 

"From a former UAL check captain.

 

After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the –400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.

 

One of the first things I learned was that the pilots kept a web-site and reported on every training session. I don’t think this was officially sanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a database was building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran the sessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for. For example; I used to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO and I would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG and many of the captains were coming off the 777 or B744 and they were used to the Master Caution System being inhibited at 80 kts. Well, for the first few days after I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden they all “got it” and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). The word had gotten out. I figured it was an overall PLUS for the training program.

 

We expat instructors were forced upon them after the amount of fatal accidents (most of the them totally avoidable) over a decade began to be noticed by the outside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, Transport Canada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program or face being banned from the skies all over the world. They hired Boeing and Airbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana has another. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conducting training KAL and about 40 at Asiana. Most instructors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with a few stuffed in from Europe and Asia. Boeing also operated training centers in Singapore and China so they did hire some instructors from there.

 

This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce “normal” standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able to master basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 kt crosswind and the weather CAVOK. I am not kidding when I tell you that requiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... with good reason. Like this Asiana crew, it didnt’ compute that you needed to be a 1000’ AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min. But, after 5 years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their training and sometimes if I just couldn’t pass someone on a check, I had no choice but to fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistance against me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turned out he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on the fleet I was teaching on. I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL was not going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check and continued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain Brown was.

 

Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describe these events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. By the way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administered them. He requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for the approach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested “Radar Vectors” to final. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would have cleared him to the IAF and then “Cleared for the approach” and he could have selected “Exit Hold” and been on his way. He was already in LNAV/VNAV PATH. So, I gave him vectors to final with a 30 degree intercept. Of course, he failed to “Extend the FAF” and he couldn’t understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and missed approaches before he figured out that his active waypoint was “Hold at XYZ.” Every time he punched LNAV, it would try to go back to the IAF ... just like it was supposed to do. Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their own rules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen major errors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork. He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL).

 

This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are not more, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in the future unless some drastic steps are taken. They are already required to hire a certain percentage of expats to try to ingrain more flying expertise in them, but more likely, they will eventually be fired too. One of the best trainees I ever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) who flew C-141’s in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hired by KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and of course, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few years and he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start a pilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs on international flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED!

 

The Koreans are very very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an airplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hour before the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) with the entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But, putting that information to actual use was many times impossible. Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure it out completely, but I think I did uncover a few clues. Here is my best guess. First off, their educational system emphasizes ROTE memorization from the first day of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learning and they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM/CLR, it still exists either on the surface or very subtly. You just can’t change 3000 years of culture.

 

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are Ok. I guess they don’t trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea. But, they don’t get the kids who grew up flying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They do recruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and get them their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with the ex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a Naval Aviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I would get experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terrible pilots if they had to hand fly the airplane. What a shock!

 

Finally, I’ll get off my box and talk about the total flight hours they claim. I do accept that there are a few talented and free-thinking pilots that I met and trained in Korea. Some are still in contact and I consider them friends. They were a joy! But, they were few and far between and certainly not the norm.

 

Actually, this is a worldwide problem involving automation and the auto-flight concept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US or Australia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. After takeoff, in accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged at 250’ after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Hardly one minute. Then he might fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below 800’ after the gear was down, flaps extended and on airspeed (autothrottle). Then he might bring it in to land. Again, how much real “flight time” or real experience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, it’s the same only they get more inflated logbooks.

 

So, when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVOK weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

 

Tom"

 

Again... my apologies for the lengthy post.

 

:smile:

Thank you for this very informative article,I was shocked,but not supprised when reading it.

[horani 43]

Did anyone noticed that one of the pilots is blaming an unidentified laser beam / light rendering them blind on the approach?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/asiana-flight-214-ntsb-pilot-blinded/2507059/

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

I haven't heard of this detail until now, but it seems to be confirmed by different sources:

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

 

 

 

Anyway, three experienced pilots on the flightdeck (including the relief F/O) had at least three different clues for an unstable approach when at 500 ft AGL:

 

- below glide path according to PAPI

- lateral deviation

- vertical speed about minus 1.300 fpm

 

At 500 ft AGL they still had time to manually apply thrust and they still had sufficient airspeed - for a successful go-around ...

[happyhour 1]

First off, my apologies for the length of the following post.

 

I've been reading through the comments here and on other websites, both FS and RW Aviation related. While perusing through one of these I came across this post, which I found interesting. I've taken the liberty of "borrowing" it for your consideration (please note the quotation marks):

 

"From a former UAL check captain.

 

After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the –400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.

 

...... when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVOK weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

 

Tom"

 

Again... my apologies for the lengthy post.

 

:smile:

 

What an awesome post, thank you for taking the time to share that! Gives people a perspective of what goes on behind closed doors. Not sure if it has been mentioned as I haven't read through every post but did they conclude that one of the deceased actually did get run over by emergency services? So sad :(

[mgh 89]

Less automation is key to safety and not more....NASA has been researching ways of making aviation more engaging for the pilots to increase safety. It is the dependencies on the systems that has caused pilot errors in some areas due to a lack of pilot activity.

 

http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/flightcognition/Publications/Holbrookcopy.pdf

 

That link is to a paper titled "Enhancing Flight-crew Monitoring Skills Can Increase Flight Safety" and makes no reference to reducing the level of automation. It' point is that flight crew need to improve their skills in monitoring aircraft performance.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(...) Not sure if it has been mentioned as I haven't read through every post but did they conclude that one of the deceased actually did get run over by emergency services? So sad :(

 

 

It looks like she actually got run over. The macabre questions are whether she was already dead when the "second incident" happened and, if not, whether she might have survived without the runover or not.

 

This tragedy should never have happened ... (It seems to have been avoidable anyway.)

[fencer 16]

I know this is a totally seperate debate, but I just want to point out that that is very very far off, if not even impossible. There are far, far, far too many variables involved in flying for a programmer ever to be able to cover them all. Just look at accidents like the BA 777 at LHR, QF32, US1549 etc, where if the correct procedure was followed, then everyone on board wouldn't be around right now. The level of possibilities is next to infinite, unlike driving a car, or automatic trains where if anything goes wrong they pull over and wait for an engineer to come and fix it.

.../...

Regards,

Ró.

 

Further to Rónán's point, just look at what it takes to automate a metro : "sanitized" platforms with transparent walls and automatic doors to prevent someone from falling, jumping or ...beeing pushed on the track.  Try to imagine the equivalent for an airport and it's extended set of runways/taxiways (on the other hand, one could think of dedicated "ground crews" in charge of taxiing the planes to and from the runway ends with only the runways beeing "sanitized", just like use of electric motors for taxiing looks like it's going to happen soon...).

 

As for the size of the crew. The requirement to train new pilots (and provide backup for rest) militates in favor  or the 2+, crew

 

In the end, it's a matter of cost. I don't know if we'll see fully automated airliners. At this stage, it looks like the total cost would be awesome but, on the other hand, never say never...

 

"From a former UAL check captain.

After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the –400, 

 

Very interesting read. I have heard of a major european airline engaged in training asian airline pilots who had learned by heart the program for a simulator session so that changing the sequence of events resulted in total disarray for the trainees...

 

Granted, trying to beat the system is a natural human reaction but reading the comments on the general attitude and flying skills of the average pilot is frightening.

 

Rgds,

Bruno

[voske 34]

Quote from AvHerald quoting the fourth NTSB press conference:

 

The six uninjured flight attendants were interviewed and reported that after the aircraft came to a stop, one of the flight attendants at 1L went to the cockpit and checked with flight crew whether an evacuation should be initiated, the flight crew instructed to not initiate the evacuation. The flight attendants at 2R saw fire outside the aircraft near seat row 10, consistent with the position of the right hand engine's position adjacent to the fuselage, and initiated the evacuation. 90 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop door 2L closely followed by 1L opened and the evacuation began.

http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

 

It struck me that the evacuation was basically delayed for 90 seconds, but perhaps it makes perfect sense.

[Oracle427 45]

Did anyone noticed that one of the pilots is blaming an unidentified laser beam / light rendering them blind on the approach?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/asiana-flight-214-ntsb-pilot-blinded/2507059/

As I read that I thought that it was another great reason to GO AROUND.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

That link is to a paper titled "Enhancing Flight-crew Monitoring Skills Can Increase Flight Safety" and makes no reference to reducing the level of automation. It' point is that flight crew need to improve their skills in monitoring aircraft performance.

I couldn't find the name of the program that NASA is working on and I had to run to work. I read it about 4 months ago and should have saved it. Essentially they are studying the current systems in place and looking at solutions to make the job of piloting aircraft more engaging for the pilot rather then monitoring systems.

 

A number of recent accidents due to pilot error attributed to pilots spending too much time monitoring systems instead of flying the aircraft. Air France Flight 447 or this recent Asiana seem to be two examples of pilots depending on the systems and missed out on the fundamentals of actually flying the aircraft. There is something to be said about too much automation.

 

In a life or death situation it is better to have the pilot at the ready to fly the aircraft, then have the pilot trying to figure out what is going wrong, thus the reason to make the task of flying more engaging for the pilot.

[horani 43]

As I read that I thought that it was another great reason to GO AROUND.

They had ALL the reasons to go around.

 

Not only they showed a lack of basic flying skills, insufficient knowledge of technology they were operating, culture based behavior that has no place in cockpit, they also showed absolute lack of judgment and common sense.

 

They can try to blame ATC, auto throttle system, laser beam - whatever they want. I blame them and their airline for risking 300 or more lives.

[ohsirus 241]

Heard on the news the Co-Pilot says at 500 feet he was blinded by a bright light....Aliens?

[fencer 16]

 

Not only they showed a lack of basic flying skills, insufficient knowledge of technology they were operating, culture based behavior that has no place in cockpit, they also showed absolute lack of judgment and common sense.

 

They can try to blame ATC, auto throttle system, laser beam - whatever they want. I blame them and their airline for risking 300 or more lives.

Does the NTSB know you? Apparently, they could save themselves 18 months of enquiry.

 

Don't forget that some of elements you or others are mentioning (suspected laser beam, late evacuation) were not known until yesterday. So what shall we learn tomorrow?

 

I know most of us have enough clues by now to suspect that pilot error was the main reason for the crash.

 

Still, I think we should avoid making dramatic statements like yours. This is an aviation forum, not a tabloid.

 

My two cents, of course.

 

Rgds,

 

Bruno