See http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5809207/ …
Early “post-crash footage”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dFtmSybpuw 🙁
Boeing 777 of Asiana involved is said to be HL7742 …
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd October 2013 at 15:03
And they are still trying to blame the autothrottle.
Even though there won’t be criminal charges for the death of the girl who was run over by the fire vehicle, there will probably a civil case against them.
By: Bmused55 - 23rd October 2013 at 09:48
Read this damning blog from someone who tried to train Pilots at Korean Airlines and Asiana
When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical.
This guy’s observations have been matched by other instructors on fora all over the net who are all saying the same thing.
By: Newforest - 23rd October 2013 at 08:02
Firefighter not to be charged in the death of the passenger.
http://www.lakewyliepilot.com/2013/10/18/2121421/decision-due-in-runway-death-after.html
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st July 2013 at 02:02
On a seemingly routine visual approach on clear late morning over San Francisco, a Boeing 777-200ER flown by Asiana Airlines started an approach that began too high, descended too low, swerved off the centreline and, in the final, crucial moments, slowed to nearly a stall.
The resulting crash on runway 28L that killed two passengers and sent more than 180 to the hospital triggered a US safety investigation that promises to reopen sensitive questions over crew resources management, automation, air traffic management and culture.
The experience and working dynamic between the pilot flying, captain Lee Gang-guk, and the pilot monitoring (but still in command), Lee Jeong-min, is already a major focus for investigators. Lee Gang-guk had recently transitioned to the 777 from the Airbus A320, while Lee Jeong-min was flying as an instructor in the 777 for the first time.
Perhaps reviving distant memories of South Korean pilots and a culture of deference to authority, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also wants to know whether Lee Jeong-min and the relief first officer present on the flightdeck suppressed voicing any concerns to Lee Gang-guk.
“We are certainly interested to see if there are any issues where are any challenges to crew communication,” says Deborah Hersman, NTSB chairman. “We will be looking at those relationships as we move forward.”
By: ZRX61 - 19th July 2013 at 23:39
They were damn lucky it was only the tail that hit the seawall, a couple of seconds difference would have had the entire aircraft slamming into it.
By: Bombgone - 19th July 2013 at 20:40
My Thoughts on this incident. Seems to be a combination of Flight Deck protocol. And to much reliance of automation.
The Aircraft was flying to low and to slow causing stick shaker stall on attempting climb to go around. The engines could not respond in time from idle to full power causing the tail to drop. Weather conditions and visibility appeared to be good. It would seem to me that the low slow problem should have been detected earlier in the approach allowing the pilot good time to manually take over flying the aeroplane into a safe landing.
By: Bmused55 - 19th July 2013 at 19:34
These folks should be sending Boeing flowers and cookies for designing and building such a tough bird. Instead, about 100 of them are filing papers to sue Boeing.
By: hampden98 - 19th July 2013 at 14:00
Looking at those pictures it’s a wonder anyone survived!
By: Mr Merry - 19th July 2013 at 13:50
Amazing that the death toll wasn’t even higher.
By: Bmused55 - 19th July 2013 at 10:30
Check out the photos!
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2013 at 21:52
A new animation showing what may have happened based on videos and reports released so far:
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th July 2013 at 18:17
It appears that a third person has passed on. RIP 🙁
By: Amiga500 - 13th July 2013 at 13:06
The PDF on a 777 is very easy to understand and no one else has complained about it:
I don’t think understanding is the problem – I think its a question of not paying attention to the primary flight parameters. Getting distracted by the myriad other information presented.
Hence my thinking of putting them somewhere, permanently, where they are simply too intrusive in the pilots eye-line to be ignored, or rather, not observed.
By: lookieloo - 13th July 2013 at 03:09
Laughed until I cried. People in the other room asking “what the hell?”
By: ZRX61 - 13th July 2013 at 00:34
Excuse me?
LMFAO!! you just can’t make this stuff up 🙂
By: AirportsEd - 11th July 2013 at 10:32
Runway should re-open in the new few days…
http://www.airportsinternational.com/2013/07/san-francisco-outlines-plans-to-reopen-runway-28l/14306
By: Bmused55 - 11th July 2013 at 09:35
Oh that is B/S and ass covering of extreme proportions. The approach to Runways 28 are over water an miles from population.
It’s hard enough to aim a laser on a moving target 100M away, but over 2 or 3 KM away?
Pull the other one, it has bells on it. No, I think that’s the PIC trying to cover his ass and save his career.
All the evidence points toward 3 pilots in a cockpit completely unable to fly a visual approach.
The PDF on a 777 is very easy to understand and no one else has complained about it:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218608[/ATTACH]
The speed tape is on the left and quite clear to understand. Red boxes beside the speed tape indicate stall or over speed.
It has all the information a pilot needs for a visual approach except engine instruments.
The auto-throttle not maintaining speed tells me they probably had the A/T in the “LVLCH” mode. Not “APPR”. If that was indeed the case, the A/T performed as it should. In LVLCH mode (level change) the auto throttle does not adjust the engine speed. In stead the autopilot controls speed and height via pitch angle.
In this mode, you could easily go below VREF if you’re not paying attention to your speed and focusing only on the runway, which is what I suspect happened here. The PF was too focused on getting the plane on the runway and was not watching his speed, thinking the Autothrottles would maintain the right speed for him.
By: Matt-100 - 11th July 2013 at 08:35
The NTSB released a piece of information yesterday which is potentially a game changer.
At 500 feet the PIC said he was ‘blinded’ by a flash of light. The investigation is not ruling out that this could have been a laser.
By: Amiga500 - 11th July 2013 at 08:22
It sounds like what you are proposing is what all pilots go through – regular checks in simulators?
Nope. ‘Cos in a simulator they know they are being tested and that any mistake might be deliberate – in which case they may draw attention to it – whereas in a real flight they may be too meek to.
By: symon - 11th July 2013 at 07:43
Perhaps the solution would be to test them on the job. Have a senior pilot make a “deliberate mistake” at some point in a random flight (obviously, one that could be corrected, but delay the correction enough so the co-pilot would be failing in their duty by not point it out). If the co-pilot/flight engineer doesn’t call them on it. Formal warning.
Repeat the same test some time in the future. If they again don’t call them on it. Bye-bye.
If they fail to spot the problem… then bye-bye too as they aren’t fulfilling their primary role anyway!
It sounds like what you are proposing is what all pilots go through – regular checks in simulators? Which have the added benefit of not killing anyone if a ‘forced error’ goes horribly wrong.
Sign In
July 6, 2013 at 7:58 pm