SFO- Asiana 777 crash

[evaamo 549]

Kevin, I just can't agree with you on the role of ATC in this accident.

 

I mean, there were other aircraft landing in the same conditions and with the same restrictions. Even of the same type as the 777 in question, as Ryan in the post above just mentioned.

 

If the guys in the cockpit thought this was an insane or dangerous request that was being made by the controller, all they had to do was say no! A simple "unable" as many other posters in this thread, including myself have said, would have avoided this disaster - IF ... if ... that was the case, which in my opinion is not. This wasn't Boeing's design or ATC's fault... I'm sorry to say but it was the crew incompetence and very likely Asiana's lack of modern world CRM and SMS the real reasons behind this accident.

[KevinAu 441]

Kevin, I just can't agree with what you say with regards to the role of ATC in this accident.

 

I mean, there were other 777s landing in the same conditions and with the same restrictions. Ryan in the post above just said so as well.

 

If the guys in the cockpit thought this was an insane or dangerous request that was being made by the controller, all they had to do was say no! A simple "unable" as many other posters in this thread, including myself have said, would have avoided this disaster - IF ... if ... that was the case, which in my opinion is not. This wasn't Boeing's design or ATC's fault... I'm sorry to say but it was the crew incompetence and very likely Asiana's culture in the cockpit (lack of modern world CRM) the real reasons behind this accident.

There was nothing insane about the ATC setup. It was just a bit too high. But this was the first link in the chain. If the controller had been more mindful of getting them below the glideslope before clearing them for the approach, this accident will likely never have occured.

 

Again you point out how 'others' had managed to land safely. If you have been through current crm training you wouldn't have done that because you would realize that using a successful previous outcome as a justification for doing something is unacceptable. Just because the 99 others made it does not make setting up planes above glideslope for an approach any safer.

 

I'm sorry you don't agree, but from my viewpoint of the safety concepts in vogue at the schoolhouses currently, just because 99 times something ends ok doesn't mean it's ok. One of these days, someone will end up being the 100th. And high energy approaches is one of those somethings. There are many places where ATC will set up aircraft for high energy approaches as a standard procedure. SFO is one of them. I have two pages of arrival notes and cautions about SFO; all of which revolve around being kept high by approach and how to negotiate the steep approaches into that airport. We brief these particular pages under the 'threats' portion of pur arrival brief. They keep you high and tight over the bay water in order to keep you from disturbing the nature lovers of San Francisco. It is unsafe. It is a threat. There are dead people because of it. For what purpose? Arrival rate or noise abatement? Is the risk worth it? Of course the crew was incompetent since they balled up a perfectly good plane on a sunny day, but the incompetence had nothing to do with their race as white people have proven perfectly capable of making the same sin of task fixation. And ATC should not be held unaccountable for the little piece of the accident chain they created.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

 

 

but the incompetence had nothing to do with their race as white people have proven perfectly capable of making the same sin of task fixation.

 

No one said anything about race Kevin. Culture is not the same thing as race. Let's not go there. If this thread does, I will shut it down in a heart beat.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(...) It is not difficult to slow a 777 to Vref+5 from 180 in 5 miles while in a high drag state - (...)

 

 

About 3.5 nm as they had to be stabilized at the 500 ft gate. Still achievable, if you're ahead of your plane and know how to control it (like in "basic airmanship") ...

[KevinAu 441]

About 3.5 nm as they had to be stabilized at the 500 ft gate. Still achievable, if you're ahead of your plane and know how to control it (like in "basic airmanship") ...

Getting slowed is easy. Getting down is easy. It's slowing down and getting down that can be entertaining in a jet plane.

 

They finally got the plane to on slope and ref speed at about 400' and 1.2 miles out.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(...)

They finally got the plane to on slope and ref speed at about 400' and 1.2 miles out.

 

 

With fpm too high, idling thrust and the IAS probably still decaying (the NTSB animation doesn't display the speed trend vector, but they had started to decelerate the plane, so ...).

 

It's Asiana's policy NOT to handfly the plane until 200 ft (why is that, BTW???); the PF used automation instead, muddled it up (FLCH with a higher ALT on the MCP), never felt comfortable with the "missing" G/S, what exactly had Asiana trained and prepared their pilots for?   :(

 

Is it really ATC's responsibility to accommodate an "Asiana level of airmanship"?

[FLEX1978 373]

It's Asiana's policy NOT to handfly the plane until 200 ft (why is that, BTW???)

 

Hi Oliver,  

 

I had access to Asiana's 777 FCOM & FCTM,  don't  remember reading anything about staying on the automatics till 200ft. Am back in London for the summer so can't check.  That kind of restriction would be very strange if it was true! :) 

 

Did you get that info directly from them or did you read that off the internet? 

 

edit - ok did some research -  

 

Only CAT II and III need to be FD coupled 

CAT I can be flown on raw data to DH

 

 

Cheers

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Hi Oliver,  

 

I had access to Asiana's 777 FCOM & FCTM,  don't  remember reading anything about staying on the automatics till 200ft. Am back in London for the summer so can't check.  That kind of restriction would be very strange if it was true! :) 

 

Did you get that info directly from them or did you read that off the internet? 

 

(...)

 

 

Rob/all, I mixed that up, my apologies. Make that 1.000 ft instead. What I've gathered is:

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2014/asiana214/Asiana%20Board%20Meeting%20Operations.pdf

 

"PF’s first visual approach without glideslope outside simulator

•PF "stressed" about visual approach with no glideslope

•Simulator practice unlike accident scenario"

 

and

 

"Asiana policy was maximum use of automation

•Autopilot usually left on to 1,000 ft"

 

and from the NTSB abstract:

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2014/asiana214/abstract.html

 

"Asiana’s automation policy emphasized the full use of all automation and did not encourage manual flight during line operations."

[FLEX1978 373]

Ah ok, makes sense now! Cheers :)

[KevinAu 441]

With fpm too high, idling thrust and the IAS probably still decaying (the NTSB animation doesn't display the speed trend vector, but they had started to decelerate the plane, so ...).

 

It's Asiana's policy NOT to handfly the plane until 200 ft (why is that, BTW???); the PF used automation instead, muddled it up (FLCH with a higher ALT on the MCP), never felt comfortable with the "missing" G/S, what exactly had Asiana trained and prepared their pilots for? :(

 

Is it really ATC's responsibility to accommodate an "Asiana level of airmanship"?

Yes indeed with idle thrust and a too high descent rate. My point was it took them all the way until 400' and 1.2 miles out to decelerate to ref speed and descend to a point that touched the proper glideslope in response to your impression that it was easy to slow down a big jet.

 

Ok, you need to let this 'Asian' thing go. From what I saw in the the recreation, and what I've read in the ntsb report, there was nothing in there that showed Asian 'culture' had anything to do with this. The kind of things they said and did were identical to any Western 'culture' cockpit. The PM corrected and delayed a flap extension after the PF called for it at too high a speed. When someone noticed the airspeed was low, it wad called out. I couldn't tell these guys were Asian at all or that someone was afraid of being slapped.

 

'Asian level of airmanship?'. ##### is that supposed to mean? ATC should be placing aircraft below the glideslope to initiate approaches no matter if the pilots are Asian or not.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(...)

'Asian level of airmanship?'. ##### is that supposed to mean? ATC should be placing aircraft below the glideslope to initiate approaches no matter if the pilots are Asian or not.

 

 

Kevin, I wrote 'Asiana', not 'Asian', which makes quite a difference, doesn't it?

 

I was talking about an airline's policy of restricting manual flight to under 1.000 ft, an airline that coincidentally happens to be named 'Asiana'. (But still a certain culture may have contributed to what was going on on the flightdeck.)

 

ATC cleared Asiana 214 for a 14 nm final only slightly above the (INOP) G/S - that's more than 10 nm to get established and stabilized before the 500 ft gate.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Just to prove that I'm not prejudiced - this is about a Captain of a non-Asian airline with an impressive safety record (safety of the airline, that is):

http://avherald.com/h?article=47663f0f&opt=0

Edited June 27, 2014 by olli4740

[FLEX1978 373]

'Asian level of airmanship?'. ##### is that supposed to mean? ATC should be placing aircraft below the glideslope to initiate approaches no matter if the pilots are Asian or not.

 

He said Asiana's level of airmanship not 'Asian' ;)   Look, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that approach tends to keep you high when operating into KSFO, you can see the same thing happening on many arrivals globally.  I have spoken to many flight crew that like to call it a slam dunk approach, my old man used to operate the 744 into KSFO with Singapore cargo and says the same thing.  That is just how it is, everyone deals it with safely, it's part of the job. 

 

You can go on about it till you are blue in the face, I doubt anyone here is going to agree with you that ATC was at fault,  and the people that matter' NTSB' certainly disagree with you.

 

Regarding culture - Not sure where you live or who you fly for? Do you have any experience with how things operate in the Middle East & Far East?  I can tell you that issues most definitely exist in Asia when it comes to CRM.  

 

I mentioned that 10 years ago in the Middle East the exact same problems existed, Captains treated like gods, you did not question them, CRM was very poor & first officers afraid to speak up.  

 

It took a number of incident's to change things out here, one of the worse being this crash -  (If anything just read the CVR transcript)  The captain treated the F/O like a child. 

 

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/a40-ek000823a/htm/a40-ek000823a.html

 

It is no secret that that the same culture still exists within many Asian airlines.  I have spoken to guy's directly and heard nightmare stories of flying with Captains that have huge ego's and do not like to be questioned. 

 

I have a lot of respect for many aspects of Asian culture, very disciplined, very respectful of seniority. However in many cases it doesn't translate well into the flight deck when you are working as a team. Yes the Captain has the final say, that doesn't mean keep your mouth shut because the Captain always knows best.

[KevinAu 441]

I apologize for misreading you.

 

It is only slightly over, but it could have just as easily been slightly under as well which would have been better and if they weren't instructed to hold 180 until close in, none of this would have occured. I just don't see any compelling reason for ATC to continually put aircraft in that kind of added risk position.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

No problem, Kevin, no offence taken.

 

For sure, "slam dunks" don't increase safety margins. If someone reads the discussions on ATC procedures regarding closed runways in the New York airspace (accepting high crosswinds for the remaining active runways, in order to keep the no. of landings high), they are certainly aware of the fact that compromises concerning aviation safety do exist.

 

I do not quite see this with current SFO ATC (yet). In the future, with even increased air traffic and even more even heavier airplanes (think 'energy management') this situation actually may change for the worse. (Like in "critical".)

[Christopher Low 5,358]

Just out of curiosity.....why is it that ATC uses this "slam dunk" approach procedure at KSFO? Is it something to do with noise abatement? I have only ever arrived at KSFO once in my life (in a BA 747-200 back in October 1995), and I remember the engines being extremely quiet as we approached over San Pablo Bay, and then San Francisco Bay. We were approaching from the north and east, and the plane turned right to get on final approach for one of the 28 runways (I can't remember which one, but I assume it was 28R). To be honest, that 747 felt like a huge glider!