Asiana B-777 Reported Down At KSFO

[tf51d 284]

 

 

On the subject of helping them out though, by the time you got hold of the first aid kit and got out of the aircraft the Fire Service would have likely reached them, and you'e likely not going to be able to do much in this case with a plaster and some disinfectant wipes... :mellow:

 

While generally I agree, in this case from the FO's statement, it seemed to take quite along time for EMS to respond, presumably because they were probably busy with the main crash site, and may not have been aware of survivors  back at the threshold at the time. While not mentioned in the email, although it may have been asked, with a full 747 full of passengers, it would be interesting to know if they asked if there were any medical or first responders on the plane (Police, Fire, EMS, etc...) to give assistance. I'm sure they wouldn't have hesitated if asked.

[3Green 80]

Less automation is key to safety and not more

 

I'd have to say yes and no to that statement.  Automation is making aviation safer, it's pilots lack of flying and the dependency of automation that is becoming the issue.  As the older pilots retire (aka "Sully" Sullenberger) who actually "flew" aircraft, we will see more and more push button pilots crash as a result of pilot losing situation awareness because of automation dependency.  Turkish Flight 1951 is a repeat of Asiana flight 214.  Air France Flight AF447 is another example how automated controls may have been an issue as well.  If that aircraft had been equipped with a Boeing style yoke, would it have helped the pilots with basic attitude situation awareness?  It's far more likely to see a person pulling back on a control column, then a pilot pulling back on a joystick with his wrist.

 

About three years ago UAVs (Unmanned aerial vehicles) became safer than general aviation, meaning that more general aviation planes are crashing than UAVs,  per 100,000 flight hours. So UAVs are actually safer than a weekend pilot, flying a small plane now.

 

So as more accidents like this happen, more automation will be put in place to prevent pilots from making these mistakes, to the point where pilots will be removed from flying.  It's a catch 22.  At some point the pilot will be removed entirely for safety.  So is automation more safe or not?  Automation is certainly reducing accidents, but it's causing them now too.

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-pilotless-planes-plan-to-take-off/1

 

 

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.

 

Agree with that statement, assuming you have a pilot with flying skills.  Don't think I'm ready to get into a pilotless aircraft just yet.  Wonder if Ró saw this pilotless aicraft fly past him?  

 

http://youtu.be/R8sGMTLJLFM

 

RJ

[RoboRay 126]

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/

 

You'd think he might have mentioned it to the other pilots during the approach and it would be in the voice tapes.

 

You'd also think "I'm being blinded by a laser" would be sufficient grounds to not continue the landing.

 

You'd even think they'd try to come up with more plausible excuses than this, but I guess they're grasping for anything at this point.

[Murmur 3,941]

I still think pilotless commercial aviation is not gonna happen for many, many decades, possibly never. The main task of an airline pilot today is decision making, and that is what is lacking the most in computers, however complex they may or will be.

 

Can you figure an on-board computer making the decision to land in the Hudson river after a total loss of thrust? What would an on-board computer do if a Chinese/Iranian/Russian fighter orders its immediate landing, threatening to shoot the airliner down? And what if a passenger goes mad? Who will be the ultimate authority in charge on board? Will it be the steward?

 

I'm sure all of you can think of hundreds more possibilities like this...

[KevinAu 441]

Just because an aircraft has no pilot on board does not mean there is no pilot in command. Even today with the military uav's, they are treated as if they were manned aircraft in theater with their own callsign, with a person, albeit at a ground station halfway across the world, respondin and working with other manned aircraft and soldiers on the ground as if they were just another manned aircraft providing air support.

[Murmur 3,941]

Of course I was talking about 100% autonomous airliners. If you have to train and pay a pilot RC-ing from the ground, then the pilot might as well be on board, without all the added costs due to the implementation of remote control.

 

RC/pilotless aircrafts make only sense if the aircraft does not carry passengers, and IMHO it will remain so for a long long time.

 

On the other hand, single pilot commercial ops, as you previously suggested, might be possible in the future (and RYR will be in the frontline of course :smile: ).

[KevinAu 441]

Here's the difference, due to the nature of airline flying, they could have one person monitor several flights at once from the ground, just like a dispatcher does. There is no need for someone to 'fly' it normally. ATC communicates with the dispatch center and may even send instructions directly to the aircraft. Again if there is some kind of problem, then that flight can get a dedicated controller and team of experts to work the problem.

[3Green 80]

You'd even think they'd try to come up with more plausible excuses than this, but I guess they're grasping for anything at this point.

 

Humans will always make mistake in life and this crash may very well be human error. Automation was introduced to help prevent humans from making such mistakes, but sometimes automation is the cause. Humans and automation sometimes just mix well..

 

One thing us humans do after making a mistake is try to cover up that mistake. I think we've all done that. But in the aviation industry, it’s very hard to cover up mistakes.

 

I still like the excuse those NWA pilots of flight 188 used after their plane over flew Minneapolis airport by 150 miles. We were busy using our laptops.

 

Automation put those pilots to sleep.

 

RJ

[dc9man27 1]

Here's an interesting view by a former United captain who, after he retired, was a sim instructor for both Asiana and KAL. This was sent to me by my airlines friends and fellow pilots.

enjoy your flight on Asiana..

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.

[Rations 102]

Here's an interesting view by a former United captain who, after he retired, was a sim instructor for both Asiana and KAL. This was sent to me by my airlines friends and fellow pilots.

Welcome to AVSIM, but please skim through the thread before posting outside content. Another user just posted that passage here, and a re-post in a larger font only wastes valuable space.  

[dc9man27 1]

Sorry about that, I'll do better.

 

Tom

[Rations 102]

Sorry about that, I'll do better.

No problem. At this time, you can probably still edit and remove the text.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

 

 

RC/pilotless aircrafts make only sense if the aircraft does not carry passengers, and IMHO it will remain so for a long long time.

 

As a passenger I want the pilot on-board the aircraft with me. Reason why is in a life or death situation the pilot's survival instincts will kick in to save his life, and the lives of the passengers and other crew.

 

If the pilot is not on-board and flying remotely, then their is no need for survival instincts, because the pilot will live regardless of the outcome.

 

Not sure I could live with myself if I crashed an aircraft with 300 people on-board that I was flying remotely, The concept is flawed. A good captain goes down with his ship.

 

Flying a military UAV is different because no one is on-board so you are not responsible for the lives of passengers.

 

So if the Pilot is going to continue to be on-board monitoring systems then it is in the best interest of flight safety to keep him well trained in flying, and keep his job as engaging as possible, so they are on the ready when needed. 

[SpiritFlyer 987]

As a passenger I want the pilot on-board the aircraft with me. Reason why is in a life or death situation the pilot's survival instincts will kick in to save his life, and the lives of the passengers and other crew.

 

If the pilot is not on-board and flying remotely, then their is no need for survival instincts, because the pilot will live regardless of the outcome.

 

Not sure I could live with myself if I crashed an aircraft with 300 people on-board that I was flying remotely, The concept is flawed. A good captain goes down with his ship.

 

Flying a military UAV is different because no one is on-board so you are not responsible for the lives of passengers.

 

So if the Pilot is going to continue to be on-board monitoring systems then it is in the best interest of flight safety to keep him well trained in flying, and keep his job as engaging as possible, so they are on the ready when needed. 

Excellent!

[SpiritFlyer 987]

 

 

Here's an interesting view by a former United captain who, after he retired, was a sim instructor for both Asiana and KAL. This was sent to me by my airlines friends and fellow pilots.

 

Hello,

 

I edited it for you sir.

 

Kindest regards,