SFO Crash - ATC Audio - Page 2 - Defender Source
Defender Source  

Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old July 8th, 2013, 04:18 AM
SonnyAK's Avatar
SonnyAK
Status: Offline
Sonny
1993 NAS 110
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Anchorage, AK, USA
Posts: 500
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenmountainrover View Post
Our current airline system is so beyond broken its nuts. When I as an FO had more time then 50% captains and even worse most of those guys had zero business being in the cockpit never mind being in the left seat. Between that and the sub par 3rd world mx they are doing. leaving the airlines was probably one best things that I ever did. I'd rather go back to Iraq then work for another airline.

------ Follow up post added July 7th, 2013 10:26 PM ------

I agree. FMS's and Auto pilots make pilots go full retard.

------ Follow up post added July 7th, 2013 10:26 PM ------

Never go full retard
I'm really glad to hear this situation turned out as well as it did!! I believe we all know what kind of disaster was closely averted!!

I agree completely...All the automation in the cockpits of newer aircraft can create an incredibly stupid pilot extremely quickly! I grew up flying in the 80's (in 1960's airplanes) and really feel the glass cockpits our young pilots are learning in, and transitioning into, are really setting them up for a failure. I currently fly a glass cockpit airplane for my work in Alaska, and I sometimes find myself making poor airmanship decisions while keeping my head in the cockpit too much and tinkering with the flatscreen equipment. Not to mention, that far too often the only time many of the newer automated aircraft pilots actually hand fly their planes is during emergency procedure training (or real situations), and this seems like a really bad time to be getting a feel for the plane's controls again...

When I go to Flight Safety for refresher training, I'm always a bit amazed how much of the training is spent letting the plane fly itself, and watching to make sure it does it well - I've always felt that's a great time for the plane's pilot to make his own stupid mistakes, and learn something from them...

I know automated cockpits are the way of the future for aviation...but I'm not so sure it's going to be a good outcome for everyone involved...
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #22  
Old July 8th, 2013, 08:51 AM
greenmountainrover's Avatar
greenmountainrover
Status: Online
Derek Chace
84 Lightweight FFR
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Charlotte VT
Posts: 1,661
Registry
I miss my 1900 days. No auto pilot.....stuff got serious in the sim when doing single engine ILS followed by missed and a hold in LGA.

Funny as soon as shit went wrong I dash it was auto pilot on.

I'd like to see how many of these new kids could do a NDB approach at minimums....they fucking cry bloody murder if just 1 FMS is out.
__________________
Green Mountain Rovers your Defender/Series sales and importation specialist.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

802-655-4874
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old July 8th, 2013, 10:04 AM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
We would be safer without pilots.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #24  
Old July 8th, 2013, 10:52 AM
Daddymow's Avatar
Daddymow
Status: Online
Raub A.
1987 D110 Tithonus
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Stuart, FL / Boone, NC
Posts: 3,970
Registry
I just read where they think one of the fatalities got run over by an EMS truck. That sucks.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old July 8th, 2013, 11:40 AM
tjfslaughter's Avatar
tjfslaughter
Status: Offline
thomas
Burbon
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 4,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddymow View Post
I just read where they think one of the fatalities got run over by an EMS truck. That sucks.
Yeah. You get out and think "I just survived a plane crash".....




The above link is some of the best landings I have ever seen. Only landed like that once in my life (coming into ADK).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old July 8th, 2013, 12:34 PM
Rocky's Avatar
Rocky
Status: Online
Chris
72 + D1 drivetrain
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colonies Aka Boston
Posts: 8,775
So the Pilot was training on the 777? I know everyone has to learn each aircraft's characteristics but something happened to the redundancy on the flight deck...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/wo...rash.html?_r=0
__________________
A friend of mine runs a land rover / range rover specialty repair shop. Based on his experience, they are capable of stopping anywhere, anytime, at any cost.

I don't know about the brakes, only their unreliability.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old July 8th, 2013, 12:42 PM
javelinadave
Status: Offline
-
-
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: -
Posts: 5,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
So the Pilot was training on the 777? I know everyone has to learn each aircraft's characteristics but something happened to the redundancy on the flight deck...
As a pilot transitions into a new aircraft or seat in the aircraft they typically fly with a check airman, a pilot evaluator/instructor. This takes place for a specific amount of time and/or take off's and landings depending on the company and the country that issues the airline's flying certificate. It will be interesting to find out who was in the other seat and why they let things deteriorate to the situation at hand.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old July 8th, 2013, 01:49 PM
GuamPilot's Avatar
GuamPilot
Status: Offline
Mike & Carrie Wendt
1986 90 2.5NA
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Guam & San Bruno
Posts: 605
Registry
Someday, maybe. Computers are not that reliable yet. And there are still more times when the pilots save the day, you just don't hear about it.

The Quantas Airbus 380 in Singapore is a good example of one that did make the news.

Mike

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilfij View Post
We would be safer without pilots.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old July 8th, 2013, 02:13 PM
SonnyAK's Avatar
SonnyAK
Status: Offline
Sonny
1993 NAS 110
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Anchorage, AK, USA
Posts: 500
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuamPilot View Post
Someday, maybe. Computers are not that reliable yet. And there are still more times when the pilots save the day, you just don't hear about it.

The Quantas Airbus 380 in Singapore is a good example of one that did make the news.

Mike
It'll be an extremely long time before pilotless planes fly passengers. Our plane is only 2 years old and meticulously maintained, and the autopilot system regularly has gremlins in it which will take it offline...

I'm sure there are countless corrections out there made every day by the pilots flying/managing the flight systems...There's just no drama, so there's nothing to be reported (other than a write up to maintenance to take a look at it)...Those computers don't like to self-report their shortcomings!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old July 8th, 2013, 05:02 PM
Rocky's Avatar
Rocky
Status: Online
Chris
72 + D1 drivetrain
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colonies Aka Boston
Posts: 8,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by javelinadave View Post
As a pilot transitions into a new aircraft or seat in the aircraft they typically fly with a check airman, a pilot evaluator/instructor. This takes place for a specific amount of time and/or take off's and landings depending on the company and the country that issues the airline's flying certificate. It will be interesting to find out who was in the other seat and why they let things deteriorate to the situation at hand.
The other Pilot/Captain is I meant with Redundancy. CNN reports the Pilot had 10,000 total lifetime experience on various aircraft. It doesn't report whether he had flown other aircraft into SFO, but does say he only had 43 hours on the 777. Asiana has 747s, A320, A330 and the 777.


http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Asiana/information.php
__________________
A friend of mine runs a land rover / range rover specialty repair shop. Based on his experience, they are capable of stopping anywhere, anytime, at any cost.

I don't know about the brakes, only their unreliability.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old July 9th, 2013, 03:18 PM
down_shift's Avatar
down_shift
Status: Offline
Russell
94' D90 ST & 06' LR3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 4,118
Registry
Forwarded to me.


After I retired from UAL as aStandards Captain on the –400, I got a job as a simulator instructor workingfor Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I wasshocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of thepilots. 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 thatex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat muchfaster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of thephenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six monthsat Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The onlydifference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s aminefield 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 andreported on every training session. I don’t think this was officiallysanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a databasewas building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran thesessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for. For example; Iused to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO andI would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG and manyof the captains were coming off the 777 or B744 and they were used to theMaster Caution System being inhibited at 80 kts. Well, for the first few daysafter I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden theyall “got it” and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). Theword 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 theoutside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, TransportCanada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program orface being banned from the skies all over the world. They hired Boeing andAirbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana hasanother. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conductingtraining 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 hiresome instructors from there.

This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrainedresistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualifiedinstructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce “normal”standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able tomaster basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 ktcrosswind and the weather CAVOK. I am not kidding when I tell you thatrequiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... withgood reason. Like this Asiana crew, it didnt’ compute that you needed to be a1000’ AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min. But, after 5years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their trainingand sometimes if I just couldn’t pass someone on a check, I had no choice butto fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistanceagainst me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turnedout he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on thefleet I was teaching on. I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL wasnot going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check andcontinued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain Brown was.

Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describethese events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. Bythe way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administeredthem. He requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for theapproach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested “Radar Vectors” tofinal. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would havecleared him to the IAF and then “Cleared for the approach” and he could haveselected “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 LNAVmagenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and missedapproaches 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 itwas supposed to do. Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their ownrules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen majorerrors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork. He also failed to put in ANYaileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictatedby KAL).

This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are notmore, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in thefuture unless some drastic steps are taken. They are already required to hire acertain 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 Iever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) whoflew C-141’s in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hiredby KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and ofcourse, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few yearsand he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start apilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs oninternational flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED!

The Koreans are very very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inabilityto fly an airplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hourbefore the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) withthe entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But,putting that information to actual use was many times impossible. Crosswindlandings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure itout 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 firstday of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learningand they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority andin spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM/CLR, it still existseither on the surface or very subtly. You just can’t change 3000 years ofculture.

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there isvirtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own aCessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders areOk. I guess they don’t trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 milesnorth of Inchon into North Korea. But, they don’t get the kids who grew upflying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They dorecruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and getthem their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with theex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a NavalAviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I wouldget experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terriblepilots 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 metand 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-flightconcept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US orAustralia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. After takeoff, inaccordance 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 hemight fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below800’ 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 realexperience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, it’s the sameonly they get more inflated logbooks.

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

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old July 9th, 2013, 04:00 PM
GuamPilot's Avatar
GuamPilot
Status: Offline
Mike & Carrie Wendt
1986 90 2.5NA
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Guam & San Bruno
Posts: 605
Registry
Great report, thank you. This re-enforces what I've heard from those American pilots I know who have worked for various Asian airlines.

You CAN change 3000 years of culture but it takes time. It might take another 3000 years.

I've lived in Guam since '89 which includes the Korean Airlines crash. For those who don't know the copilot and flight engineer allowed their captain to fly a perfectly good airplane into the ground 5 miles short of the airport. The first thing Korean Airlines AND the Korean government did was to blame and sue everyone here. They tried to bury the fact it was pilot error.

I started flying flying in 1977 at my local small airport. For those that don't know you first earn your Private Pilot License (which is a minimum of 40 hours.) You are closely monitored by your instructor during that 40 hours. Then you need to 'build' time as you need 250 total hours to earn your Commercial Pilot License.

During my time building phase I was basically unsupervised as were most who grew up in the same era. I've always felt this is when I "learned to not kill myself" by making (and surviving) stupid flying mistakes.

Outside the U.S. (and somewhat Australia) you don't have easily available private flying. There are NOT nearly enough military pilots to fill the needs of the airlines. So to fill the cockpits airlines hire non-pilots and train them from zero flight time.

It sounds good on the surface.

It is my humble opinion that these pilots are far too supervised during their entire time building phase (which can be lowered to about 200 hours in some flight schools.) These guys are not allowed to go make mistakes so they never learn to 1) recover from a bad mistake. Or 2) gain the EXPERIENCE to avoid those mistakes. But my point is you need to be allowed to make these mistakes when in little airplanes and not a 777.

Mike

[QUOTE=down_shift;451735]Forwarded to me.


[COLOR=black][FONT="Verdana"]You just canít change 3000 years of culture.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old July 11th, 2013, 12:17 PM
Rocky's Avatar
Rocky
Status: Online
Chris
72 + D1 drivetrain
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colonies Aka Boston
Posts: 8,775
Down_shift: Thank you so much for your valuable insight.
I just finished reading a couple of articles on seat belt design contributing to injuries. We got rid of lap belts in cars years ago.
I'm reminded that RAF aircraft and perhaps US military the passenger seats face towards the rear of the aircraft.
That would help in accidents.
__________________
A friend of mine runs a land rover / range rover specialty repair shop. Based on his experience, they are capable of stopping anywhere, anytime, at any cost.

I don't know about the brakes, only their unreliability.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old July 13th, 2013, 07:58 AM
Rocky's Avatar
Rocky
Status: Online
Chris
72 + D1 drivetrain
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colonies Aka Boston
Posts: 8,775
Good animation with correct glidepath v Asiana glide path. Makes me think that had they not pulled the nose up, it might just have made a belly flop on to the runway. Would like to see a side view.
__________________
A friend of mine runs a land rover / range rover specialty repair shop. Based on his experience, they are capable of stopping anywhere, anytime, at any cost.

I don't know about the brakes, only their unreliability.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old July 13th, 2013, 07:47 PM
GuamPilot's Avatar
GuamPilot
Status: Offline
Mike & Carrie Wendt
1986 90 2.5NA
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Guam & San Bruno
Posts: 605
Registry
This is an example of why the NTSB needs to shut up and do their investigation first before releasing this level unanalyzed of detail. Did they bring up the nose too far or too fast? The experts need time to do their work.

Mike

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
Good animation with correct glidepath v Asiana glide path. Makes me think that had they not pulled the nose up, it might just have made a belly flop on to the runway. Would like to see a side view.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old July 14th, 2013, 07:51 PM
down_shift's Avatar
down_shift
Status: Offline
Russell
94' D90 ST & 06' LR3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 4,118
Registry
My father was a F-8 driver and now retired pilot from AA. He received many theories about what occurred in that cockpit (sorry, no longer PC, flight deck) from his retired colleagues.
I do not endorse the below and am already regretting passing along this bigotry. I fly ANA, Cathy Pacific, and Singapore Airlines frequently and will do so again.


What happened to the B-777 flight is quite simple. They are Asian. They cannot, nor will they ever be, capable of a visual approach. Not in their skill set. They are totally directed in how to do every thing. Free thought is not allowed. Add the culture; not losing face, and the flight was doomed as soon as they were cleared for the visual. The landing speed of 137 kts, better know as Vref, is 1.3 above stall. All airplanes fly this speed. So dividing 137 by 1.3 = 105 or Vs (stall). Stick shaker is 1.07 Vs or in this case 112 Kts. So they slowed 25 kts or 25x1.151=28.7 Mph. When they finally play the cockpit voice recorder, you will find nobody said a word as the aircraft slowed. NOBODY! That is because to do so would have caused a loss of face! Many problems. It does not matter at all the guy only had 43 hrs in type. Not at all. He had plenty of time in 74's. An airplane is an airplane. They ALL fly the same way. (Except the piece of junk airbus) I have watched time after time Asian carriers cleared for visual approaches miss the runway, either too high or get low and miss. I have gotten on the radio and have told the controller - send them out for the ILS or they are not landing today. Needless to say, I have been in trouble many times because of it. The fact they waited til 1 or two kts above stick shaker to say something says volumes about the cockpit culture. When I was a check airman, doing the exact thing he was doing, I allowed abt 5 kts either side of Vref before correcting. You have to see if they will correct. Part of the learning curve. Was more tolerant if fast than slow. If they did not correct the situation in a timely manner, than I did. It's your Job!! The fact that all four pilots in that cockpit allowed that aircraft to slow to stick shaker and say nothing is beyond belief by western culture standards!!! They, the FAA and NTSB will dance around this fact, not want to offend anyone. This will also be tragic. So if the airline sounds Asian DO NOT get on it!!! We have been discussing over the last couple of years that pilots being trained today, with all the automation, lack basic flying skills. Both western and foreign. We see it in the Simulators every day. It is a guarantee , if they are Asian, and you take away the automation, it will not end well. Never does. But, by the same token, we have problems with the new breed of American pilots as well. Have had many a discussion with our FAA reps and they know it too. This problem will only get worse over time. Have a great day

------ Follow up post added July 14th, 2013 07:53 PM ------

Different guy. but more of the same....

Low-down on Korean pilots

The comments below about Asian pilots match up with some of my experience also. When I was instructing in the 737-300, 400, 500 at Boeing Flight Training (the predecessor to Alteon mentioned below) I trained many Chinese crews. Most of them were barely able to fly manually. We were appalled at their lack of basic airmenship. I washed out a 30 year, 20,000+ hour 707 captain, because he couldn’t fly and was unable to learn the 737 systems. It was amazing.

What we did learn was that prior to the Tianiman Square incident in Beijing, all pilot positions in China were controlled by politics. In China, you got into aviation because you had some relative who was highup in the Communist Party that got you the appointment. Once you were appointed, nothing short of death could get you out of that position. The captain I washed out was one of those political appointee types that should never have been there. To keep the really bad ones from killing themselves, the Chinese airlines used a peculiar command system in the airplane. The Captain was in charge of the flight and he sat in the right seat where he could direct the rest of the crew. The pilot flying was in the left seat and flew the airplane and did much of the system control switchology from that seat. The flight engineer sat behind the right seat and did his thing. Also on board was usually a navigator, a radio operator, and a third pilot in the jump seat who also helped with the overhead panel switches. Basically the Captain said OK let’s go and everybody did whatever it took to go flying while he looked around and pretended to be in charge. I learned about this operational methodology sometime after he failed and went home. With that background, it is no surprise that he couldn’t fly or operate aircraft systems.

All Chinese airlines now use modern US operational methodologies. But this didn’t start until around 1990 or so. They still have a long ways to go to become on a par with professional airline pilots from Western and European countries. They are taught to fly the airplane by rote and to use the automation from about 400 AGL on takeoff and to do an autoland if the landing conditions are tricky like crosswinds above 10 knots or so. They figure that the automation does a better job than the pilots can so they should use it. This was always a problem for the Boeing IPs that went along with an initial delivery to an airline. The Boeing guys insisted that the pilots they checked out should be able to manually fly the airplane. After all, these were usually the senior IPs for the airline and one would expect that, at the very least, they should be able to fly. There were lots of times when a 1 month checkout time extended into 4 to 6 months before the Boeing guys would sign them off.

------ Follow up post added July 14th, 2013 07:57 PM ------

Good article from Bloomberg:


Asiana Crash Shows Lessons of Pilots Trumping Technology

As planemakers build ever-safer jets, it’s often the split-second decisions by humans at the controls that can make the biggest difference between a smooth landing and a flight that ends in disaster.

The last moments of Asiana Airlines Inc. (020560) Flight 214, which inexplicably slowed on its final approach, underscore the stakes in the cockpit even in aircraft as sophisticated as Boeing Co. (BA)’s 777, according to safety consultants, retired pilots and aviation scholars following the U.S. investigation.

Technological advances such as ground-warning systems and seats that can withstand greater impact helped produce the longest fatality-free run in U.S. aviation since the jet age began, based on data compiled by Bloomberg. Now, U.S. investigators are working to determine whether Flight 214’s pilots, with all the safety features at their disposal, could have done more to prevent a crash that left two passengers dead.

“Whether it’s a disaster or a close call comes down to the pilot,” said Les Westbrooks, a former commercial and military pilot who now teaches airline operations at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. “Airplanes have incredible automation. But when the human has to exercise judgment, you can’t design around that.”

The July 6 crash was the worst on U.S. soil since 2009, and the first involving fatalities on a large jet in the U.S. since 2001. The focus on avoiding crashes spans advances such as the 777’s automatic systems to keep from flying too slowly to cockpit-behavior studies identifying common pilot lapses.

Tired Pilots

Yet even with those safeguards, risks as simple as fatigue remain.

“Show me a pilot who’s ever flown who hasn’t been in that condition at some point,” said Ross “Rusty” Aimer, an aviation safety consultant in Los Angeles and retired United Airlines (UAL) pilot with 30,000 hours of flying, including 1,500 hours on the 777.

Aimer recalled being at the controls of a Boeing 747 nearing Tel Aviv airport about 30 years ago when, worn out from delays and tight schedules, he briefly fell asleep and missed a couple of pre-landing checklist items recited by his co-pilot.

Trying to track an expanding array of safety-enhancing features -- including 3-D weather radar and data projected so that pilots see it while looking through the windscreen -- can be a distraction, while increased automation of basic flight functions may dull pilots’ response times.

“The stick-and-rudder skills get lost sometimes,” said Mark Epperson, a retired Boeing 767 captain who supervised pilot training as a former chief pilot for AMR Corp. (AAMRQ)’s American Airlines in San Francisco.

Misreading Data

An abundance of instruments also can’t prevent a misreading of the data and a flawed response. Investigators said pilots failed to react properly to stall warnings in the February 2009 crash of a regional jet operated by Pinnacle Airlines Corp.’s Colgan unit, which killed 49, and the loss of an Air France jet four months later with all 228 people aboard.

“Pilots may think the aircraft is in a particular flight control state when in fact it is not,” said Todd Curtis, founder of safety consultant AirSafe.com and a former safety analyst at Boeing. The National Transportation Safety Board “will very likely be looking at” those issues in the Asiana probe.

Asiana Crew

The junior pilot of the Asiana jet, 46-year-old Lee Kang Kuk, was at the controls and was in training on the 777 with just 43 hours of experience on that model, and 9,793 flight hours, according to the airline. Before switching to the larger two-aisle jet, he flew the smaller Boeing 737, whose fuselage is about the same diameter as a 777’s engine.

The senior pilot, 49-year-old Lee Jung Min, had 3,220 hours on the 777 and 12,387 career hours. He received his trainer license for the model last month, and was making his first flight in that role. It was the first time the two pilots had flown together, the NTSB said yesterday.

Investigators will review whether a cultural aversion to disagreeing with a colleague played a role in the Asiana crash, said David Greenberg, a former executive vice president of operations at Korean Air Lines Co. (03490)

In a 1997 fatal crash in Guam, a Korean Air captain ignored misgivings voiced by other crew members and followed a radio signal he wrongly thought was a glide-slope indicator that gives pilots a steady descent path, investigators found.

“Respect for age and seniority runs very deep” in Asia, said Greenberg, who spent five years at Korean Air after that accident helping retrain pilots to improve cockpit culture.

Sully’s Splashdown

Captain Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger showed flying and communication skill in the 2009 splashdown by a US Airways Group Inc. (LCC) jet that was dubbed the “Miracle on the Hudson,” according to Peter Goelz, a former NTSB member.

When Canada geese flew into the engines during takeoff and crippled the single-aisle Airbus SAS A320, Sullenberger landed gently enough on New York’s Hudson River to keep the jet afloat until all 155 people on board were rescued. Then 58, the former U.S. Air Force pilot had 19,000 flight hours, 3,800 of them in an A320, and was also certified on commercial gliders.

“Sullenberger was a little bit of an old-school pilot,” said Goelz, who is now a senior vice president with consultant O’Neill & Associates in Washington. “He knew his aircraft and its capabilities, and when you listen to the cockpit recorder you say, ‘This guy really was in command of the situation and was making the right decisions at the right times. He wasn’t hesitant.’”

Transcripts of cockpit conversations showed Sullenberger calmly saying “my aircraft” as he took the controls from his less experienced co-pilot, who had 35 flight hours in an A320, then reviewing his options before informing air-traffic controllers: “We’re gonna be in the Hudson.”

He then spoke a single word to passengers: “Evacuate.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Mary Jane Credeur in Atlanta at mcredeur@bloomberg.net; Mary Schlangenstein in Dallas at maryc.s@bloomberg.net; Julie Johnsson in Chicago at jjohnsson@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Ed Dufner at edufner@bloomberg.net

Find out more about Bloomberg for iPhone: http://m.bloomberg.com/iphone/
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old July 14th, 2013, 08:26 PM
Rocky's Avatar
Rocky
Status: Online
Chris
72 + D1 drivetrain
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colonies Aka Boston
Posts: 8,775
What's described here is also a major problem in business as well.
__________________
A friend of mine runs a land rover / range rover specialty repair shop. Based on his experience, they are capable of stopping anywhere, anytime, at any cost.

I don't know about the brakes, only their unreliability.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old July 14th, 2013, 10:52 PM
geoellis's Avatar
geoellis
Status: Offline
George
1995 D90 #2904 - BB
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Long Island of NY
Posts: 1,170
down_shift, what you posted is not bigotry at all. There is documented analysis on the command and control nature of different cultures and its impact on the cockpit environment. It's not just some Asian cultures, but there are Latin American cultures that exhibit the same propensity to not challenge authority. Remember the Avianca flight that ran out of fuel over Long Isand enroute to JFK?

Check out a great book, Outliers, which delves into the factors that lead to success. There's a chapter dedicated to the cultural effect in the cockpit. Excellent read.
__________________
1997 P38 4.6
1998 P38 4.0
2011 LR4
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old July 14th, 2013, 11:40 PM
down_shift's Avatar
down_shift
Status: Offline
Russell
94' D90 ST & 06' LR3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 4,118
Registry
The UA DC-8 crash in Portland were there the FO and FE knew they were low on gas yet failed to communicate this urgency to the left seat. The AA 757 that smacked the mountain in Columbia. Maintenance practices (suspending the engine on the front pin) on the AA DC-10 in Chicago. Maintenance practices (lubrication on the stab trim jackscrew) on the Alaskan MD-80 in the Pacific. There are many examples of Anglos loosing situational awareness.

Good book and a short blurb on that very chapter: http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008...plane-crashes/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB-D-90 '95 dash crash pad PMKColorado Wanted 0 March 9th, 2009 11:57 AM
Expedition Exchange shawnpalmer Misc. Chit-Chat 155 June 4th, 2007 10:56 AM
D90 Crash Safety Profile scubadanster Misc. Chit-Chat 15 September 1st, 2005 11:32 PM
First Post Here - D90 Audio Wiring and Advice Kimos Defender Technical Discussions 3 October 12th, 2004 01:17 PM
crash book pendy Defender Technical Discussions 3 October 12th, 2004 08:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 PM.


Copyright