Korean 777 Down in SFO

SkyHog said:
Holy hell, did anyone watch Colbert Report tonight? Referring to the racism and the names, said it was racist because those were Chinese names, not Korean names. Less racist would be Ho Yo Lan Dis Tang?

Pure gold.
Click to expand...

No. Korean names are the Kim, Lee, Park, family names FIRST.

So Kim Lan Il or Lee Jung Fli or or Hong Il Lo or Park Il Gate maybe.
 
SkyHog said:
Holy hell, did anyone watch Colbert Report tonight? Referring to the racism and the names, said it was racist because those were Chinese names, not Korean names. Less racist would be Ho Yo Lan Dis Tang?

Pure gold.
Click to expand...

Searching... Need a laugh.

It'll be even funnier because I know someone reading this post's head is exploding somewhere. ;)
 
July 16 (Bloomberg) -- As the Asiana Airlines Inc. jet neared Los Angeles International Airport, Captain Vic Hooper told his Korean co-pilot to make a visual approach, meaning he’d manually fly instead of letting automation do the work.

The co-pilot froze, leaving them too high and off course, Hooper said about the incident, which occurred several years ago. Hooper said he had to take over the controls to get the Boeing Co. 777 back on track.

“I don’t need to know this,” Hooper said the co-pilot told him later, explaining why a maneuver that’s second nature to most U.S. airline pilots rattled him. “We just don’t do this.”
Click to expand...

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloo...ilots-Say-Manual-Flying-Secondary-4667588.php
 
Everskyward said:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloo...ilots-Say-Manual-Flying-Secondary-4667588.php
Click to expand...

There is more truth to this than most realize. When I came over here (Southeast Asia) I was amazed at how many pilots feared visual approaches. Doing line observations during training I would watch pilots do an elaborate setup in the FMS of a "traffic pattern" with way points to guide them around and set them up on a runway CF (centerline final) so that the FMS would set up a glide path from 1500 feet to runway for vertical guidance.
 
RotorAndWing said:
There is more truth to this than most realize. When I came over here (Southeast Asia) I was amazed at how many pilots feared visual approaches. Doing line observations during training I would watch pilots do an elaborate setup in the FMS of a "traffic pattern" with way points to guide them around and set them up on a runway CF (centerline final) so that the FMS would set up a glide path from 1500 feet to runway for vertical guidance.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me??
 
RotorAndWing said:
There is more truth to this than most realize. When I came over here (Southeast Asia) I was amazed at how many pilots feared visual approaches. Doing line observations during training I would watch pilots do an elaborate setup in the FMS of a "traffic pattern" with way points to guide them around and set them up on a runway CF (centerline final) so that the FMS would set up a glide path from 1500 feet to runway for vertical guidance.
Click to expand...
Heck I've seen it in this country. However I think in our case it's just that some pilots love to play with the FMS since almost no one has trouble with visual approaches. I flew with one guy who always wanted to set up the FMS when we were landing at our home airport on the runway without an approach. He would proudly set it up for me but I never really looked at it. He would set it up for himself too since I was too lazy. :dunno:
 
Setting up the waypoint for the no-flap visual is SOP for type ride or recurrent in the G-V. Can't imagine anybody needing it for normal approach.

RotorAndWing said:
There is more truth to this than most realize. When I came over here (Southeast Asia) I was amazed at how many pilots feared visual approaches. Doing line observations during training I would watch pilots do an elaborate setup in the FMS of a "traffic pattern" with way points to guide them around and set them up on a runway CF (centerline final) so that the FMS would set up a glide path from 1500 feet to runway for vertical guidance.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Setting up the waypoint for the no-flap visual is SOP for type ride or recurrent in the G-V. Can't imagine anybody needing it for normal approach.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but a 'no-flap' approach in the jet I'm going to guess is an abnormal/emergency procedure.
 
Yeah, it's an abnormal with a much higher ref. They also want to see the crew set the proper descent rate by calculating the descent rate (.5X GS) and establish the correct sight picture, yadda yadda.

Fearless Tower said:
Yeah, but a 'no-flap' approach in the jet I'm going to guess is an abnormal/emergency procedure.
Click to expand...
 
This sounds like there are a whole lot of pilots out there that really don't like flying. They like the pay/prestige of flying for a national airline, but don't want to do anything more than just push buttons. Those kind of people scare me, because if anything goes out of the ordinary they have no inner instincts or abilities to adapt.

They remind me of the kid in class who asks, "Will this be on the test?"
 
Matthew said:
This sounds like there are a whole lot of pilots out there that really don't like flying. They like the pay/prestige of flying for a national airline, but don't want to do anything more than just push buttons. Those kind of people scare me, because if anything goes out of the ordinary they have no inner instincts or abilities to adapt.

They remind me of the kid in class who asks, "Will this be on the test?"
Click to expand...
Ditto. I realize that flying professionally can become just another job, but I just don't get pro pilots who don't seem interested in routinely testing their skill or knowledge of the aircraft and/or flying in general.
 
rottydaddy said:
Ditto. I realize that flying professionally can become just another job, but I just don't get pro pilots who don't seem interested in routinely testing their skill or knowledge of the aircraft and/or flying in general.
Click to expand...
The guys I know who like to play with the FMS are testing their knowledge. More than I am, I'm ashamed to say. I'm not really a button-pusher and tend to be on the lazy side when it comes to that. :redface:
 
You'd understand if you followed them around for a year and watched all of the skill and knowledge testing that they receive during the myriad of scenarios they are confronted with in both sim sessions and occasionally hectic daily flying. Many of them fly more in a year than you'll fly in five, so it's not like they're sitting on the couch for months at a time until the weather gets better.

rottydaddy said:
Ditto. I realize that flying professionally can become just another job, but I just don't get pro pilots who don't seem interested in routinely testing their skill or knowledge of the aircraft and/or flying in general.
Click to expand...
 
rottydaddy said:
Ditto. I realize that flying professionally can become just another job, but I just don't get pro pilots who don't seem interested in routinely testing their skill or knowledge of the aircraft and/or flying in general.
Click to expand...

Professional pilots don't always have the option of "Gee, the weather is down to minimums, let me brush up on my hand flown approach skills and click of the AP/FD and A/TH!" The company wants the airplane on the ground and on time.

Airline flying is very structured, very standardized. The time for "testing their skill" comes in the form of recurrent training at the simulator. My recurrent last week covered wet runway with a 25 knot direct cross wind, a wet runway with a 20 knot crosswind single engine with a go around at 20 feet (balked landing), several ECAM events, V1 cuts, windshear on takeoff, TCAS and RA, emergency descent, emergency evacuation and a dual FMGS failure resulting in a raw data hand flown ILS to minimums, plus several non precision approaches (OEI and two engine). Also had to practice and demonstrate a rejected takeoff on a 25 knot crosswind wet runway with the engine failure below 60 knots, which if done incorrectly will leave you in the grass on the side of the runway.

We go twice a year, so yes we get to "routinely test our skill and knowledge".
 
rottydaddy said:
Ditto. I realize that flying professionally can become just another job, but I just don't get pro pilots who don't seem interested in routinely testing their skill or knowledge of the aircraft and/or flying in general.
Click to expand...

I was commenting on some of the observations American pilots had made of the Korean pilots they had worked with or trained. But, like any profession, you will always have people that are on the left side of the curve.
 
I'm wondering one thing. In SFO airplanes often land on 28L and 28R in pairs with fairly close spacing, or at least it looks that way. I understand that they are safe against wake turbulence as long as they are alongside each other, so that makes sense. Is that kind of landing automated too?
 
zaitcev said:
I'm wondering one thing. In SFO airplanes often land on 28L and 28R in pairs with fairly close spacing, or at least it looks that way. I understand that they are safe against wake turbulence as long as they are alongside each other, so that makes sense. Is that kind of landing automated too?
Click to expand...
In VFR it's no problem. When the weather is down, SFO has a system called ILS/PRM to 26L and LDA/PRM to 26R. PRM=Precision Runway Monitor. Rather than trying to explain, here are some pages to read.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1307/00375PRMAAUP.PDF
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1307/00375PRMAAUP_C.PDF
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1307/00375PRMAAUP_C2.PDF
http://www.flysfo.com/web/export/si...ressres/fact-sheet/pdf/PRM_SOIA_version_1.pdf
 
RotorAndWing said:
On occasion the check airman could be junior, but in Asian culture there is still the pecking order.

Questioning authority (check airman) or questioning seniors is not in their culture.
Click to expand...

I think that that also used to be the culture here. I recall discussions about a crash, I think but an not sure it was an Eastern Airlines crash in the everglades where the FO was afraid to speak up and tell the pilot that something was a miss because, well the captain was the captain. IIRC after that is when modern CRM started. At least that is the way I recall it.


Murray 10530 said:
Threefingeredjack said:
Sit behind a display like that for a few hours and it becomes as easy as reading a speedometer in a car.

That's my point. A speedometer has a range on numbers when the driver only needs to know the actual speed so the cop can be shown wrong. That number can flash yellow if it begins to get out of safe range, RED if the pilot approaches danger.

Why is all the extra numbers needed? Why spend months learning to interpolate?
Click to expand...

As others have said having a tape or analogue dial gives you trend information in addition remember that critical speeds will differ depending upon the configuration and Angle of Attack.
Click to expand...
 
AdamZ said:
I think that that also used to be the culture here. I recall discussions about a crash, I think but an not sure it was an Eastern Airlines crash in the everglades where the FO was afraid to speak up and tell the pilot that something was a miss because, well the captain was the captain. IIRC after that is when modern CRM started. At least that is the way I recall it.
Click to expand...
You got one part right....yes, CRM training was largely developed in response to EAL 401. However the FO failing to question the Captain had nothing to do with it. Everyone on that flight deck that night became entirely engrossed in the problem of messing with the nose wheel indication light and failed to notice/realize that the Captain had inadvertently disconnected the A/P. The FO was the first to notice the altitude issue (captured on the CVR)...about 25-50' AGL seconds before they hit.
 
PilotAlan said:
Just astounds me that the aircraft was still a largely intact aluminum tube when it came to rest (the fire damage came later).
How they can make them as light as they are, but still that strong I just don't know.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. There is some talk about suing Boeing, but you are right it is amazing that the plane did so well. All the facts aren't in but at this point Boeing looks like the hero not the zero.
 
I design computer based trainers for airliners such as the 777 and have extensive experience in Level-D simulators for Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft. I have to say that the monotony of the SOP can serve to degrade piloting ability.

As many have already pointed out those are the procedures and it seems that without these procedures and every system working as it should these folks were unable to deliver.

My understand from my experience and from the experience of others is that you don't necessarily have the opportunity to polish or even to get those hand flying skills in these aircraft. There once was a time when jet aircraft were hand flown for a considerable amount of the flight. It seems that time is gone.

These simulators are quite realistic in my opinion. They do provide a realistic enough sensation to allow the pilot to learn to hand fly. But I do not ever recall anyway going in for sim session practice touch and goes, maneuvering, etc in these aircraft. Some may argue that the sim isn't sufficient to provide pilot with the proficiency for these tasks but I would say it is.

A quick example; I've spent more than three years developing a 767-400 desktop trainer. During this time I have gotten very familiar with the aircraft and routine operations. Through out many sim sessions and testing my own software I have become what I would say a pretty proficient pilot in the normal routine of things for a flight in the aircraft. I have become pretty good at flying the aircraft OEI and can land in adverse conditions as well. Yet only recently did I think to try hand flying a significant portion of a flight. Previously I would follow the SOP quite closely. A routine takeoff would call for increasing throttles to about 70% N1 and as they neared activating the THR mode on the Auto-Throttles. A confirmation of their position and from that point on I essentially never touch the throttles again until short final. The system will keep the engine parameters within the appropriate limits and seek the appropriate speed and my task would be altitude and attitude. I personally liked to fly the aircraft through 10,000 feet maybe even sometimes to 18,000. Never to cruise however. This entire time I am just keeping the attitude on the flight director bars really. I mean I know the limitations but I am essentially following the flight director. This helps only slightly in learning real feel for the airplane.

I know many airlines will activate LNAV, VNAV, and A/P right at minimum acceleration height. I know that it is often the case in real life as flying out of Kennedy in real life is a lot more demanding than doing it in the sim.

The airplane will fly itself to cruise and even perform a step climb without the crew ever having to do a thing. All this is already programmed into the FMC. The crew can change it to their specific desires/requirements. A couple hundred miles out from the destination the STAR and arrival runway are confirmed and if they are different from originally planned they will be entered into the FMC otherwise they were already there to begin with and they will not be changed perhaps only confirmed to be correct. The STAR altitude and speed restrictions are already programed into the FMC and the aircraft will fly accordingly to meet those restrictions. Typically on an extended final the aircraft will be configured for landing but still be on autopilot and autothrottle. It is common for the a/p to be disconnected near glide slope/path intercept. With the A/T remaining on holding speed for a bit longer after that. Either at or around minimums most pilots with disconnect A/T and just keep the thrust where it was as if the approach was stable the proper thrust should be set. Upon touch down the spoiler deploy automatically and are only confirmed and the autobrakes as well. Reverse thrust and yada yada.

B767-400ER-Displays-101912.jpg


I have to say I find the information on these displays to be perhaps the best presentation of relevant information that you can find. I do not think that there is anything in the layout that could do any harm to a pilot. I think that they are incredibly aides to flying. They are clearly not the problem.

Since I have started hand flying the airplane in a manor not typical of a flight as described above I have realized just how poorly I fly the aircraft. I have found myself having to go around on a ~10 mile finals if I used absolutely no automation. I have found myself completely incapable of doing a pattern, horrible at maneuvering, and not really familiar with the aircrafts envelope. While I knew in my mind the engines took about ~5 seconds to spool up and get me the power I asked for from idle, I did not know how to apply that knowledge in my flying. I practiced stalls and would lose significant amounts of altitude because by the time I had brought the aircraft to a stall I had forgotten about the ~5 seconds. If I exhibited these traits in a piston aircraft that I fly in the real world I wouldn't be able to pass a check-ride. I suspect a lot of these guys flying this heavy iron are in a boat somewhat similar to mine. Yes they have a bit more sim time than I do and they fly the aircraft in the real world the rest of the time but it is shocking how unable we are at operating the aircraft outside of that typical flight routine/envelope.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious to know if you've watched Vanderberg's "children of the magenta" presentation and if so how your reaction corresponds to his suggestions to AA crews. As I read your post it appears that you are on the same page, but not sure about the tactile feel issues that he raised.

Engine said:
I design computer based trainers for airliners such as the 777 and have extensive experience in Level-D simulators for Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft. I have to say that the monotony of the SOP can serve to degrade piloting ability.

As many have already pointed out those are the procedures and it seems that without these procedures and every system working as it should these folks were unable to deliver.

My understand from my experience and from the experience of others is that you don't necessarily have the opportunity to polish or even to get those hand flying skills in these aircraft. There once was a time when jet aircraft were hand flown for a considerable amount of the flight. It seems that time is gone.

These simulators are quite realistic in my opinion. They do provide a realistic enough sensation to allow the pilot to learn to hand fly. But I do not ever recall anyway going in for sim session practice touch and goes, maneuvering, etc in these aircraft. Some may argue that the sim isn't sufficient to provide pilot with the proficiency for these tasks but I would say it is.

A quick example; I've spent more than three years developing a 767-400 desktop trainer. During this time I have gotten very familiar with the aircraft and routine operations. Through out many sim sessions and testing my own software I have become what I would say a pretty proficient pilot in the normal routine of things for a flight in the aircraft. I have become pretty good at flying the aircraft OEI and can land in adverse conditions as well. Yet only recently did I think to try hand flying a significant portion of a flight. Previously I would follow the SOP quite closely. A routine takeoff would call for increasing throttles to about 70% N1 and as they neared activating the THR mode on the Auto-Throttles. A confirmation of their position and from that point on I essentially never touch the throttles again until short final. The system will keep the engine parameters within the appropriate limits and seek the appropriate speed and my task would be altitude and attitude. I personally liked to fly the aircraft through 10,000 feet maybe even sometimes to 18,000. Never to cruise however. This entire time I am just keeping the attitude on the flight director bars really. I mean I know the limitations but I am essentially following the flight director. This helps only slightly in learning real feel for the airplane.

I know many airlines will activate LNAV, VNAV, and A/P right at minimum acceleration height. I know that it is often the case in real life as flying out of Kennedy in real life is a lot more demanding than doing it in the sim.

The airplane will fly itself to cruise and even perform a step climb without the crew ever having to do a thing. All this is already programmed into the FMC. The crew can change it to their specific desires/requirements. A couple hundred miles out from the destination the STAR and arrival runway are confirmed and if they are different from originally planned they will be entered into the FMC otherwise they were already there to begin with and they will not be changed perhaps only confirmed to be correct. The STAR altitude and speed restrictions are already programed into the FMC and the aircraft will fly accordingly to meet those restrictions. Typically on an extended final the aircraft will be configured for landing but still be on autopilot and autothrottle. It is common for the a/p to be disconnected near glide slope/path intercept. With the A/T remaining on holding speed for a bit longer after that. Either at or around minimums most pilots with disconnect A/T and just keep the thrust where it was as if the approach was stable the proper thrust should be set. Upon touch down the spoiler deploy automatically and are only confirmed and the autobrakes as well. Reverse thrust and yada yada.

B767-400ER-Displays-101912.jpg


I have to say I find the information on these displays to be perhaps the best presentation of relevant information that you can find. I do not think that there is anything in the layout that could do any harm to a pilot. I think that they are incredibly aides to flying. They are clearly not the problem.

Since I have started hand flying the airplane in a manor not typical of a flight as described above I have realized just how poorly I fly the aircraft. I have found myself having to go around on a ~10 mile finals if I used absolutely no automation. I have found myself completely incapable of doing a pattern, horrible at maneuvering, and not really familiar with the aircrafts envelope. While I knew in my mind the engines took about ~5 seconds to spool up and get me the power I asked for from idle, I did not know how to apply that knowledge in my flying. I practiced stalls and would lose significant amounts of altitude because by the time I had brought the aircraft to a stall I had forgotten about the ~5 seconds. If I exhibited these traits in a piston aircraft that I fly in the real world I wouldn't be able to pass a check-ride. I suspect a lot of these guys flying this heavy iron are in a boat somewhat similar to mine. Yes they have a bit more sim time than I do and they fly the aircraft in the real world the rest of the time but it is shocking how unable we are at operating the aircraft outside of that typical flight routine/envelope.
Click to expand...
 
It seems like hand-flying of airliners needs to be either systematically included in recurrent training, or prohibited. I suspect the latter is not a viable option.
 
Everskyward said:
The guys I know who like to play with the FMS are testing their knowledge. More than I am, I'm ashamed to say. I'm not really a button-pusher and tend to be on the lazy side when it comes to that. :redface:
Click to expand...
A good point- systems management is a whole 'nother skillset, and very important with heavies. But that's not really what I'm talking about.
And to address the comments of others: I wasn't painting with a wide brush to include all commercial pilots, not even just heavy transport pilots. And certainly not US-trained heavy transport pilots.
I'm talking about the pilots who view hand-flying smaller aircraft as a necessary evil required to get to the flight deck of something where core skills are, shall we say, relegated to the background. The pilots who moan and groan about sim scenarios, instead of looking forward to maybe learning something useful.
I realize this is not the norm...aside from posters on this board, I know several jet jockeys who also love flying for the hell of it, often flying aircraft even more primitive and demanding than their primary trainers in their free time, and I think that attitude serves them well on the job.
This Asiana crew just does not seem to fall into that camp, but to give them some credit, I'd guess that those in charge of their training don't place much value on hand-flying, or being fully prepared for things like flying a visual approach with the AP off and the AT on. They should at least be able to verify what's on or off before committing to the approach. Were they even using a checklist for such an approach? It's baffling.
And you have to wonder how these guys did not notice their airspeed, or the more basic fact that the only place in their field of view that was not moving was the seawall. This is Day 1 stuff. Pilots who like to revisit Day 1 are better pilots, IMHO.

Obviously, today's technology, and the resulting procedures, don't allow much practice of basic skills, but pilots are free to think about the flying any way they want. And they have to understand that the aircraft, no matter how cleverly designed, cannot think... that is the job of the PIC.
 
Last edited:
Wayne,

I've had to teach a couple of advanced cockpit systems and automation courses at my local aviation college. The first thing I do is tell everyone that none of it is necessary. Then I show them the "Children of the Magenta" video. I am in complete agreement with everything taught in that video. I really have it to thank for bringing me out of that rut of flying these airplanes exclusively with automation. I admittedly was one of those guys when the engine would fail I'd go to the VNAV page and make sure it was set up for OEI instead of flying and having PNF figure it out if necessary. But I never thought myself to just fly the airplane. Never that I could. Even though I had done it before.

Beaky,

I don't think it is that we choose to exclude that form of training. I think that no realizes just how deficient one can be in it. I for one never had the thought come into my mind that I would not be good at flying these things on 10 mile finals or traffic patterns. I suppose everyone things since we learned that stuff over and over again in our primary training that it is all transferable. But flying a 767 and flying a King Air or even a Cherokee are very different. You can not use the same rules, you do not have the authority you do in those airplanes, you must calculate your moves much further ahead. I just don't think that we realize how much training for all the emergency stuff and becoming real pros can make sure several deficient at those things which we consider basic.

I manage a fleet of airplanes for a flight club. My boss is a Compass Airlines Captain on the Embraer. He is perhaps our worst pilot. He sometimes has to do intro flights with folks for a first time flight experience and we dread letting him go out there. Because it is not comfortable flying those airplanes. He does not fly them well. He prefers the left seat. He needs all his instruments. He hates traffic patterns. He always uses a ton of runway. This is in a Cherokee. Not to bash on the guy because he is one damned good pilot but he can not do those things which people in primary training rely on as well as those with significantly less hours than he.
 
Engine said:
Wayne,

I've had to teach a couple of advanced cockpit systems and automation courses at my local aviation college. The first thing I do is tell everyone that none of it is necessary. Then I show them the "Children of the Magenta" video. I am in complete agreement with everything taught in that video. I really have it to thank for bringing me out of that rut of flying these airplanes exclusively with automation. I admittedly was one of those guys when the engine would fail I'd go to the VNAV page and make sure it was set up for OEI instead of flying and having PNF figure it out if necessary. But I never thought myself to just fly the airplane. Never that I could. Even though I had done it before.

Beaky,

I don't think it is that we choose to exclude that form of training. I think that no realizes just how deficient one can be in it. I for one never had the thought come into my mind that I would not be good at flying these things on 10 mile finals or traffic patterns. I suppose everyone things since we learned that stuff over and over again in our primary training that it is all transferable. But flying a 767 and flying a King Air or even a Cherokee are very different. You can not use the same rules, you do not have the authority you do in those airplanes, you must calculate your moves much further ahead. I just don't think that we realize how much training for all the emergency stuff and becoming real pros can make sure several deficient at those things which we consider basic.
Click to expand...
That sums it up very well... it's not a conspiracy, it's a syndrome.
I am talking out of school, but personally, if I were to be turned loose with any heavy, I'd be bitterly disappointed if I was not given the chance, at least in the sim, to fly a pattern with it. I'd feel unworthy if I wasn't confident I could do it safely. But I am sure the hardest part would be rapidly and intuitively getting the systems procedures and the hand-flying lined up in concert... you can't just chuck a jet transport at the runway the same way you can a light single. I guess that's a big factor in diminishing stick'n'rudder skills (and mindset) among transport pilots.

I manage a fleet of airplanes for a flight club. My boss is a Compass Airlines Captain on the Embraer. He is perhaps our worst pilot. He sometimes has to do intro flights with folks for a first time flight experience and we dread letting him go out there. Because it is not comfortable flying those airplanes. He does not fly them well. He prefers the left seat. He needs all his instruments. He hates traffic patterns. He always uses a ton of runway. This is in a Cherokee. Not to bash on the guy because he is one damned good pilot but he can not do those things which people in primary training rely on as well as those with significantly less hours than he.
Click to expand...
That's the type of which I speak... and I'm a little surprised, because I've been in back for a 145 ride from NY to Indianapolis and back, and thought it seemed pretty sporty, compared to the myriad wide-bodies I've flown on. But sure, it's built and equipped to meet modern transport specs, and the training is aligned with that. I have to wonder why he's flying the club singles at all, but it might be good for him. :D
 
Fearless Tower said:
You got one part right....yes, CRM training was largely developed in response to EAL 401. However the FO failing to question the Captain had nothing to do with it. Everyone on that flight deck that night became entirely engrossed in the problem of messing with the nose wheel indication light and failed to notice/realize that the Captain had inadvertently disconnected the A/P. The FO was the first to notice the altitude issue (captured on the CVR)...about 25-50' AGL seconds before they hit.
Click to expand...

Ah yes that sounds familiar, Thanks for the correction.
 
"Coroner: Asiana Airline passenger was alive until killed by rescue vehicle"
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/travel/asiana-airlines-crash

It seems that emergency responders ran over one of the passengers while she was still alive. The driver of the emergency vehicle probably couldn't see the victim, because the victim was probably obscured by foam. The aircraft was on fire, so the emergency responders had to act quickly. The loss of one, might be the greater good. There often is no perfect solution. More people might have died, if emergency responders were more hesitant. Therefore what is known at this time, I would not hold emergency responders culpable.

"After crashing their Korean jetliner at San Francisco International Airport, pilots of the doomed craft ordered passengers to remain seated"
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/remain_in_your_seats_MpXboIvHm6DPIt7qz60XIJ

Allegedly pilots told passengers to remain seated, rather than egress. Though I don't think the pilots should be used as scapegoats, because I feel the blame goes much farther than just the pilots. In my opinion, the pilots are culpable for the crash and I feel that their failure to instruct passengers to egress as soon as the aircraft stopped; contributed to secondary injuries and possibly to the death of the girl that supposedly was run over by the fire truck.

If passengers were allowed to leave the aircraft as soon as the aircraft came to a stop, other passengers may have come to the aid of the injured girl that was ejected. If passengers were allowed to egress as soon as the plane came to a stop, then emergency responders wouldn't have had so many burning passengers to save.

It may sound harsh, but I agree with others that say that saving the lives of the many, was more important than saving this individual.
 
+1 for me flying is just pure fun and would not do it for a living. That would take the joy out of it for me anyways.
 
What you guys don't seem to realize is training (in the eyes of the bean counters) is VERY expensive for airlines. In the minds of airline management pilots exist for one thing and that thing is operating the equipment in REVENUE service. Anytime they have to pay a pilot his salary without corresponding revenue is utterly undigestable. If they did not HAVE to they would choose to do no training at all. The ONLY thing that will get them to do more or different training is a mandate/requirement from the FAA.
 
Art VanDelay said:
What you guys don't seem to realize is training (in the eyes of the bean counters) is VERY expensive for airlines. In the minds of airline management pilots exist for one thing and that thing is operating the equipment in REVENUE service. Anytime they have to pay a pilot his salary without corresponding revenue is utterly undigestable. If they did not HAVE to they would choose to do no training at all. The ONLY thing that will get them to do more or different training is a mandate/requirement from the FAA.
Click to expand...

Or more dead people and folks choosing a different carrier. Happens all the time in the whitewater rafting industry. Or the airlines will just start having folks sign a ten page waiver, "You accept our product at your own risk."
 
denverpilot said:
Or more dead people and folks choosing a different carrier. Happens all the time in the whitewater rafting industry. Or the airlines will just start having folks sign a ten page waiver, "You accept our product at your own risk."
Click to expand...

Yes, but even those waivers do not stand up under cases of negligence.
 
Can't resist. Crew went to Kareoke the night before the crash...

(I'm going straight to hell for this post... Hahahaha.)

bugaja5y.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top