Jump to content

Asiana 777 Crashes At SFO


Recommended Posts

Nothing whatsoever is pointing to the ILS being involved. Even if it were, it doesn't account for the aircraft being 35 kts too slow on the approach and stalling (or nearly so). They were cleared for a visual approach in severely VMC conditions, which means by definition that they were hand flying the approach. A much more likely scenario, knowing the facts that have been released by the NTSB so far, is that it's simply a case of ignoring basic airmanship - FLY THE AIRPLANE FIRST and do everything else second, third, or tenth. If nobody's flying the airplane, crashes happen. Same thing with Air France 447 over the Atlantic. Everybody was mesmerized by all the flashy lights and beepy things and nobody was actually flying the airplane. The Asiana captain has over 10,000 hours, and recently transitioned from the 747-400 to the 777. The FO had a lot of 777 time. But having stripes on your shoulder and getting a big paycheck doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of first and foremost being a pilot. I don't care if the ILS, the GPS, the FMS, the PAPI, the VASI, the autoland, the autothrottle, or their condoms were inop, they were flying a visual approach in perfect meteorological conditions to a 10,000' long runway that they had had in sight for several minutes - and they blew it.

These guys were literally and figuratively behind the power curve.

Well said.. It will be interesting to see if the NTSB will find over reliance on automation and over-designed, very busy cockpit displays a contributing factor.

Bring back the six pack and a basic autopilot, for use only when you are in cruise!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.. It will be interesting to see if the NTSB will find over reliance on automation and over-designed, very busy cockpit displays a contributing factor.

Given that the NTSB rarely ever says anything before the preliminary report comes out, I find it very telling that the day after the crash they're releasing information and using words like "significantly below the approach speed" and such. I'll be shocked if this is anything other than pure, unadulterated pilot error. Everybody including the airline (who will have had access to the ACARS data) says that the airplane was functioning perfectly. Weather was perfect. Everything was just as it should have been except the two guys in the front seats. Unless one of them was having a heart attack on short final, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence to support anything other than a malfunctioning self-loading stick actuator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing whatsoever is pointing to the ILS being involved. Even if it were, it doesn't account for the aircraft being 35 kts too slow on the approach and stalling (or nearly so). They were cleared for a visual approach in severely VMC conditions, which means by definition that they were hand flying the approach. A much more likely scenario, knowing the facts that have been released by the NTSB so far, is that it's simply a case of ignoring basic airmanship - FLY THE AIRPLANE FIRST and do everything else second, third, or tenth. If nobody's flying the airplane, crashes happen. Same thing with Air France 447 over the Atlantic. Everybody was mesmerized by all the flashy lights and beepy things and nobody was actually flying the airplane. The Asiana captain has over 10,000 hours, and recently transitioned from the 747-400 to the 777. The FO had a lot of 777 time. But having stripes on your shoulder and getting a big paycheck doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of first and foremost being a pilot. I don't care if the ILS, the GPS, the FMS, the PAPI, the VASI, the autoland, the autothrottle, or their condoms were inop, they were flying a visual approach in perfect meteorological conditions to a 10,000' long runway that they had had in sight for several minutes - and they blew it.

These guys were literally and figuratively behind the power curve.

I agree, they forgot basic airmanship. They didn't fly the aircraft first.

I wonder if Korean culture played a factor in the FO not speaking up. Culture barrier were the readon in the Korean 747 crash at London's Stansted Airport in 1999. The finding in that accident was suppose to shake things up in the Korean aviation industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't anyone (media, NTSB briefs...)addressing the fact that the tower had communicated to these guys that "Emergency vehicles will be responding" prior to them crashing?!

Did they declare an emergency or what? Were they having power (engine)issues which may have lead to them being slow and unable to correct for that? Was something else giving them issues for them all (flight crew)to be "scope locked" on something else besides flying the bird?

I don't get why none of the so called "reporters" are asking these questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, they forgot basic airmanship. They didn't fly the aircraft first.

I wonder if Korean culture played a factor in the FO not speaking up. Culture barrier were the readon in the Korean 747 crash at London's Stansted Airport in 1999. The finding in that accident was suppose to shake things up in the Korean aviation industry.

Wasn't CRM (or lack thereof) also a factor in a crash in Guam a while back? Korean Air 747 flew into a hill, killing most on board.

Edit - My bad, I see that this accident was discussed on a previous post.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't anyone (media, NTSB briefs...)addressing the fact that the tower had communicated to these guys that "Emergency vehicles will be responding" prior to them crashing?!

Did they declare an emergency or what? Were they having power (engine)issues which may have lead to them being slow and unable to correct for that? Was something else giving them issues for them all (flight crew)to be "scope locked" on something else besides flying the bird?

I don't get why none of the so called "reporters" are asking these questions.

I think the call about the emergency vehicles was made during or after the crash. You can hear a commotion in the tower a few seconds before that call was made. They would most likely still have been able to transmit after impact.

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the call about the emergency vehicles was made during or after the crash. You can hear a commotion in the tower a few seconds before that call was made. They would most likely still have been able to transmit after impact.

Sean

I guess that is the case. Watching the news they are not clear about that. Surprised they were able to xmit after all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that is the case. Watching the news they are not clear about that. Surprised they were able to xmit after all that.

yeah..the time-line is still a little vague. I guess we just have to wait for more detail!!

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. That is the most detailed time-line I have seen yet, but it still does not "sync" with the ATC recordings. It will take some time before the atc timings and the crash timings get merged and published, then we will know if the call from the tower about emergency vehicles came before or after impact ( I stick with my assumption that it happened after the impact)

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even that timeline fails to even mention comms with the controllers.

I just can't understand that with all that experience sitting in the flight station this just happened because the pilot in command got slow on a clear an' a million day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I hear it right? NTSB press conference.

One pilot with 35 hours in a 777, and anther with 3000 hours.

Happens all the time. How do you think any pilot gets rated in a particular aircraft?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever flown into SFO?

He had 33 hours in type...not total. I think I heard he had upwards of 10,000 total. I'll go out on a limb and guess he'd been into SFO a bunch of times in all manner of WX conditions and circumstances.

On a CAVU day like Saturday he should of been able to grease that beeatch in...like I said previously, so long as nothing else was going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't anyone (media, NTSB briefs...)addressing the fact that the tower had communicated to these guys that "Emergency vehicles will be responding" prior to them crashing?!

My take on that is somehow the 777 crew still had comms, which would truly be a strong testament to the Boeing airframe. The battery bus must have still been energized. It sounds as though they were sitting on the ground talking to the tower.

I heard that the head stewardess knocked on the cabin door asking if they should evacuate. The flight deck crew said no, not yet. This is another indicator that there was serious lack of communication and crew resource management in that cockpit. I can't help but think that the culture barriers didn't permit the lesser senior people to speak openly. I have already referred to the Korean Air 747 crash in London which crashed when the Captain exceeded the bank angle of the 747 and no one in the cockpit said anything until it was too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He had 33 hours in type...not total. I think I heard he had upwards of 10,000 total. I'll go out on a limb and guess he'd been into SFO a bunch of times in all manner of WX conditions and circumstances.

I read he was an A320 & 747 Captain prior to switching over to the 777. As well, he flew into SFO as a 747 Captain.

Now this part I don't understand and it may be due to my military background. Why was he the Captain (aircraft commander) while his instructor was the FO? In the airforce you didn't become an aircraft commander, regardless of rank, until you were fully qualified on type.

I'd be willing to bet the FO saw things going wrong and was afraid to speak up due to the culture and rank structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read he was an A320 & 747 Captain prior to switching over to the 777. As well, he flew into SFO as a 747 Captain.

Now this part I don't understand and it may be due to my military background. Why was he the Captain (aircraft commander) while his instructor was the FO? In the airforce you didn't become an aircraft commander, regardless of rank, until you were fully qualified on type.

I'd be willing to bet the FO saw things going wrong and was afraid to speak up due to the culture and rank structure.

I found the answer to my own question. The non-flying pilot was a Captain. The media had been reporting that he was a FO,which was wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating. Thank you for posting. Very interesting point about a pilots total flight hours. If you engage the autopilot 1 minute after take off and 1 minute prior to landing, a pilot has 2 minutes of hands-on flight time yet logs 10 hours of time for a typical flight (+/-). This is not just a Korean issue, it applies to pretty much all airline pilots.

If I ran the world (which I will someday), I would require all airline pilot to not just pass the regular annual simulator training, they would also have to pass basic stick and rudder training in a Pitts Special and have to fly their assigned aircraft for a minimum of 5 hours with no assist from the autopilot, shooting landings in various conditions, stalls, etc. The Pitts Special training would also include full stalls, spins, inverted flight, etc.

Either that or we demote all airline pilots to "Systems Managers" and figure out a way to automate the entire flight with absolutely zero hands-on involvement by the flight crew.

The old joke applies - Future airliners will have a flight crew consisting of a pilot and a dog. The pilots job is to monitor the various systems from start to finish. The dogs job is to bite the pilot if he/she attempts to touch the controls and manually fly the aircraft.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...