Este sitio web utiliza cookies. Al usar y seguir navegando por este sitio, estás aceptando su uso.
Descartar
¿Sabías que el rastreo de vuelos de FlightAware se sostiene gracias a los anuncios?
Puedes ayudarnos a que FlightAware siga siendo gratuito permitiendo que aparezcan los anuncios de FlightAware.com. Trabajamos arduamente para que nuestros anuncios sean discretos y de interés para el rubro a fin de crear una experiencia positiva. Es rápido y fácil whitelist ads en FlightAware o por favor considera acceder a nuestras cuentas premium.
Descartar
Back to Squawk list
  • 100

NTSB Animation of Asiana Flight 214 accident sequence

Enviado
 
NTSB animation with voiceover showing the Asiana 214 approach and accident sequence. (www.youtube.com) Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


KennyFlys
Ken Lane 37
What a crock to blame Boeing or manuals!

Find a lowly student pilot who has not learned the concept of being on speed, on power with a stable descent rate on glide path even in severe clear and I'll point you to an instructor who needs to lose his tickets. It does not matter whether it's a 152 or a 777. The same rule applies. The airplane doesn't care if you're a non-solo student or have 30,000 hours in heavy iron.

These guys were unstable at least seven miles out and they continued, not acting until a half-mile from the threshold. They failed to make it do what they needed to do. They should have been hand-flying and were overdependent upon automation. They over-corrected for excessive error, made several large changes in succession and made themselves even more unstable. In the end, that bird did exactly what it was designed to do... no power, no speed... no fly!
rarebear14
Dolf Brouwers 3
Exactly !!!!!

The trust in automation by new pilots is scary..... Many incidents and accidents the last years show a terrible situation...
My instructor (100 years ago) once said : fly the ..... Plane, don't let it fly you !!!
hkanter
Herman Kanter 3
My thoughts exactly. Is the cockpit management problem about the person in the right seat not assertive enough to tell the person in the left seat, "we are going around while we still can!" I suppose one could argue that if the ILS was operational and given how much some airlines apparently depend on automation, this accident would not have happened, however this accident occurred during VFR conditions and the ability to land a plane using visual references is still a piloting requirement.
preacher1
preacher1 5
See below, old man. I've already vented. LOL. Like I said, if you can't fly it, move aside and let somebody that can. And Zumwalt is just a lap dog. He was a former airline pilot and said the manuals were complicated but I'll bet he never gave up a run and voluntarily asked for more training.
AlLemke
Al Lemke 2
Pride goeth before the crash!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 3
Yeah, but you're an old pilot about put out to pastor. Can your word be trusted?


;-)

[This poster has been suspended.]

THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
He's in his Bengay years...
AlLemke
Al Lemke 2
Elevator and throttle--------- just 2 moving parts-----if you can,t handle that , walk and chew bubble gum.
RECOR10
RECOR10 8
Chhhhhht....uh...ladies and gentlemen, this is Captain Obvious, I would like to welcome you to this investigation...
preacher1
preacher1 8
In defense of everybody and softening up just a tad, it is not right to penalize and blame a whole industry, including Asiana, for the actions of a couple of dummies that crashed a perfectly good airplane on a clear day. Personal Status overrode CRM and should not have, yet while very aware of it, you'll find no reference to it in the NTSB report. PC? Why the PM did not monitor airspeed/altitude, especially since he was in the instructor role, we'll never know. My personal opinion is that he was intimidated because he was younger in age and less total time and deferred/gave into, the PF, who was senior status wise. But again, why did he not monitor the approach?
AlLemke
Al Lemke 1
The FACTS have to be recognized and verbalized. If there is a problem after the flight, get out the recording and THEN
rectify appropriately and if necessary complement the good actions.
jwmson
jwmson 13
One has to understand how the airplane and its systems function before you take off with a load of passengers and crew. The airline will try to blame Boeing, but I cannot accept that.
preacher1
preacher1 5
The NTSB did too but you can see my feelings below. If you can't fly the thing, step aside and let somebody in that can.

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 1
For once we definitely agree.
organfreak
Scott Hawthorn -2
"incompetent asian pilots wrecked a perfectly good Boeing 777...."

Racist or xenophobic remark! Maybe not intentional. It was some French guys that killed everybody on board the AF447 A-330.
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
Mike Oxlong may or may not be a racist and/or xenophobe.
In his comment however, the pilots being Korean are 'Asian', failed to demonstrate minimal competency in landing under VFR conditions, causing irreparable damage to the airframe of the B777. I find it hard to construe xenophobic racism from those facts. Was the inclusion of 'perfectly good' that tipped the scales for you?
preacher1
preacher1 2
In addition, this article is talking about Asiana 214, not the stupid Frenchies that flew 447 into the water. It should be noted that this has not happened again, with any airline so we must have had some crappy Korean pilots in the pointy end.
smoki
smoki 5
Any half wit knows, at least they should know, that when you get behind an airplane on final approach the last thing you should ever rely on is pushing buttons, twisting knobs and flipping switches (turning yourself into a systems monitor) as if a heavy jet behemoth flying machine is to be treated like a video game. All that *&$% gets shoved aside and ignored in such a situation while getting a firm grip with one hand on the primary flight control and the throttles in the other hand, look out the window if visual while crosschecking back inside the instrumentation (needles, speed, Altitude, ROD), requesting assistance from the NFP if necessary and drive the airplane to the desired approach path with positive control inputs while correcting as necessary and keeping the airplane at or near the desired approach speed. Of immense help is to quickly compute the desired altitude (DME x 300) if unsure of where the airplane should be in altitude until the optical landing aid (if available) is acquired.

The absolute last thing any driver should ever do is let the airplane get low and slow. That's drummed into ab initio pilots from day one. If unable to get the airplane to the desired flight path and at or near the desired approach speed by the time the airplane reaches short final, inside a half mile, there's only one viable alternative, i.e. push the throttles forward and TAKE IT AROUND. I don't care what nationality, race, color or creed the pilots happen to be, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Their full and undivided attention to detail during an approach to land all the way to touchdown and roll out is all that matters, period!

If the pilot is not fully trained and knowledgeable on all the systems available in the airplane he is operating, then he should be taken off the line and put in remedial training until he is current and thoroughly familiar with those systems and can demonstrate a satisfactory level of knowledge in simulation as well as the judgement needed to shuck all the bells and whistles aside and fly the airplane by hand when the bells and whistles are too slow to catch up as was almost certainly the case in this accident. Asian culture being what it is, some will argue that CRM is not always compatible to which my response is: BS, culture should never take precedence over safety (CRM) in the cockpit of a modern heavy jet transport.
tomtreutlein
tom treutlein 1
Very true. Bottom line pilots didn't know how to fly the aircraft and were so puckered twidling knobs they didn't understand they never considered trying to fly it themselves.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I can agree with your comment about culture not taking precedence over CRM, but you have to be very familiar with Korean culture to understand that it does and can.
preacher1
preacher1 4
For what it's worth, here's the link to the full NTSB report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2014/asiana214/abstract.html
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
The was an example of amateurish piloting. Just about everything they could've messed up, they did mess up.

PF was clearly incompetent. PM did not do anything about it until it was way too late to save the plane and the lives and bodies of the passengers aboard.

Shameful really.
donallen
Donald Allen 3
If the 777 auto-throttle is too complicated and the documentation inadequate, why aren't 777s falling out of the sky regularly?

The simple fact is that, despite the apologist Zumwalt, these guys *were* incompetent. Auto-throttle in final approach is not a set-it-and-forget it proposition. If you set your car's cruise control to 60 and inadvertently touch the brake and the speed dropped to 50, would you intervene? Of course you would (I'm speaking of the 30% of drivers who aren't on the phone or texting).

As Cox said, when you fly a visual approach, you have to look out the window. Plus all the indications of the results of the unskilled flying that took place were on the panel. But they had to look at it. What this guy was looking at -- clearly not the runway or the panel -- is a mystery to me.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
LOL... How much more could the crew be blamed. They say all crashes have more than one cause. I do agree.. My list below of the 3 reasons.

1.) Pilot Flying
2.) Pilot Not Flying
3.) Observer
preacher1
preacher1 1
I agree with that but as I said above, the onus is really on PNF/PM/FO or whatever you want to call him. He was the one that should have taken control or at least been minding the store, being as he was instructor.
NF2G
David Stark 2
It seems pretty obvious that the PIC was flying the computer rather than the airplane.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 2
What's frightening is that they couldn't accomplish a fundamental VFR approach and landing! Hands on...Fly airplane.
Number1Mom
De Crockett 2
More diplomatic political correctness from Washington DC.
jet4ang
jet4ang 2
I agree with Ken. As a student, the basics of landing were taught over and over. Why blame Boeing. Those features are there to HELP the pilot fly, not fly for the pilot.
aviating
Owen Merrick 2
Not enough actual flying happening here...elementary flying skills not apparent. PAPI, throttles, stick n'rudder...what else was required? Dependant on automation, but they didn't even know how that worked. How common is this? I figure not very, but I wonder sometimes. No shame in hand-flying, folks...good practice.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
From the report, the link to which Preacher1 thankfully provided:
"Reduced design complexity and enhanced training on the airplane’s autoflight system. The PF had an inaccurate understanding of how the Boeing 777 A/P and A/T systems interact to control airspeed in FLCH SPD mode,...."

Is it just me, or does that imply that the PF did not know how to fly the 777 at the time?
preacher1
preacher1 1
That's kinda what it says, and the fact that he only had about 40 hrs in type, that could be correct but it makes no mention about the PM/FO, who was instructor and fully qualified on the 777. It just calls it pilot error due to lack of speed and altitude. If PM was qualified as instructor, he should have known all about the AT mode and it shouldn't have ben a big deal. I still say it was a culture/status thing, the instructor being intimidated by or yielding to the PF, who was his senior, as far as age and total time; hence any shot at CRM was out the window. I can see PF not wanting to lose face by making a go round or giving the plane to the PM for landing.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Yeah, the PF was very new in type and transitioning to Boeing equipment from Airbus kit (A320).

Meanwhile, the PM was his first trip as an instructor. He was too timid in correcting and/or taking over. At the same time PF just hadn't had enough time actually flying a plane without automation (ILS). He just seemed to have no clue what he was doing.

Classic example of the difference of rote memorization vs. practical skills. These guys would've benefited from actually flying Cessnas (without automation) for training and for fun.

Can't believe they didn't abort the approach and go around to try again. They were too. Too low. At one point before disengaging the AP, when the plane was already too high, FLCH was engaged and the plane started climbing to 3,000 (the go around altitude that had just been set). Too bad they didn't let the plane actually go to 3,000.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, certainly not defending them but civilian aviation in S. Korea is practically non existent. Airspace is controlled by the military, as tight if not tighter than China. That's how it was back in the day when I was over there in USAF and Expats that have been over there recently say it's still the same. Even flying an aero club C150, there was no recreational flying. You filed a plan, whether it was 1000' or 10,000' and then had to wait for permission to execute, sometimes 2-3 hours, and God help you if you deviated from it or you would be an escorted guest of a couple of F-4's, back to base. That said, most of those pilots took their training over here and the only flying they do is big iron while working, nothing in between; if they are senior in time, those basic flying skills may be bad rusty.
AlLemke
Al Lemke 1
40 hrs. In type for this a/c and airline means about 5 take offs and landings. Not much for a crotchety oldPIC.
sgbelverta
sharon bias 2
I'm not a pilot, yet the animation made total sense to me. The critical control items were clear and understandable. As with any mechanical item, if you don't learn and follow the instructions, you end up with bad results. Killing people is the ultimate bad result.

Anyone know what happened to those pilots? Maybe they're flying for Ryanair now.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Makes for a seemingly funny joke. But in reslutythese 2 would never get to the inside of a Ryanair flight deck. Their hiring is too competitive. Retention is equally competitive. These guys know they don't have what it takes, so would never candidate themselves. Had they applied, they wouldn't have made the cut. They certainly wouldn't have passedteir check rides. And they wouldn't be called back, has they ever flown with the airline.

There's a reason why Ryanair has never had an accident and fatalities, while the Korean airlines combined have had many. And it's not Ryanair that disregards safety. Apparently, it's the Korean carriers that let other things interfere with the safety of the plane and passengers (repeatedly).
NF2G
David Stark 1
Errrr, I just saw on Twitter that two Ryanair planes were damaged in a ground collision in London this morning.

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Very different cultures. Ryanair keeps the pilots on their toes. The pilots know they can be fired easily for deficient performance.

OTOH Asiana and Korean (and similar-minded airlines) don't fail their pilots on check rides because it's too shameful for the pilots.

The results speak for themselves. The first airline has never killed a passenger. The second bunch have lost many planes and killed many passengers.
preacher1
preacher1 1
On the serious side, last I heard, they had a desk job with Asiana, but Asiana was just holding onto them pending lawsuits and this final report, so who knows now.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 3
It's not that complicated. They crashed because the crew was not qualified to fly the airplane. Regardless of how many hours they had on it. The airline is responsible for putting an unqualified crew in charge of the airplane and passengers.

If any of this were Boeing's fault, why aren't airplanes falling out of the sky every day? SFO has one landing or take-off every minute, on average. The 777 is a very common visitor to SFO. i.e., many other 777s landed at the same place in the very same conditions (good weather, no ILS). But *somehow*, this was the only flight that crashed.

[This poster has been suspended.]

iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
Besides, autopilot or not, ILS or not, any "pilot" that is not 100% aware of speed and altitude during descent is not really a pilot. Anyone can read those two, and know weather you are about to stall. Don't need computers to tell you that.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Hell, even if you are set on auto-land, you should monitor.
gmcmanus
gmcmanus 1
FSX must be fun huh Mike?
bettiem
bettiem 1
I'm a mere passenger and all I've ever flown is MS Flight Simulator on my PC but even I know that thrust equals altitude (all else being equal). That animation was weird to watch with the throttle indicator staying down at idle while all the dithering was happening.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
In a normal decent/approach the is in the idle position. It automatically disconnects 2 seconds after landing. If are set up with the approach f you are set up with the approuch ! ₩

,*
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
Disregard the above post. What I wanted to say is ...In a normal decent/approach Auto/Throttle is setting is a idle. It automatically disconnects 2 seconds after landing. If you are set up with the approach the aircraft will begin a slow accelaration down the slope with the engines at idle. If your approach speed is de-stabalised, that's when your flaps come in. If you're coming in to fast...then put flaps at 15...it adds enough drag to recover your speed. Too low, Too slow...fundamentals of flying will tell you to Power-Up, Flaps up and nose up and go around before it's too lal 7-10 seconds for the engines to spool up. That's alot of time as "Asiana" showed the world how not to fly an airplane. The pilots eneptness to initiate a recovery is totally unacceptable.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Spool up time is totally dependent on engines, but I had a DAL Captain tell me that a 777 will spool to about 75% power in 5-7 seconds and that was enough to get a goround started. 2-3 seconds in that environment can cover an eternity. LOL. Both the 777 and 767 have options on engines from all 3 major mfgs.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
Preacher...so true. Again it depends on weight and other factors but the point that I was trying to make was.

The're not pilots.
What does it tell you when you can't fly a hands ONl...VFR landingl ????
preacher1
preacher1 2
You know, the report has officially identified the cause, as was known from about day 1 or shortly thereafter, that cause being pilot error, being low speed, hence low altitude. What it did not say was WHY? I still think culture/status had something to do with it, supplanting any hint of CRM. I think our NTSB knew all that but failed to mention it, wanting to be PC and not offend a good ally. Well, if they are to be impartial, they should have called a spaded a spade.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
"Spaded" is a good description of their landing technique!
donallen
Donald Allen 1
I want to add one more thought to my previous comments. It is pretty shocking to me that the PF and perhaps the PM didn't understand the 777 auto-flight system. I am trained in physics and have an advanced degree in mathematics. To get that degree, I had to demonstrate that I understood concepts far more complex than those required to operate a 777 auto-pilot. I demonstrated that in written examinations. How did these guys get certified to take responsibility for the lives of hundreds of innocents without having conclusively demonstrated that they knew what they were doing? Which they demonstrated they did not by crashing a perfectly good airplane in daylight in good weather. Either the written exams were not well crafted, or the requirements for passing were too lenient. There's clearly a major hole here in the training and pilot certification process used by Asiana and the South Korean aviation authorities. And there's a problem with the FAA, too, since they allowed these people to fly into our airspace and use our airports.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, to rehash a little from last year, foreign airlines are certified and operate under part 129, and U.S. flag carriers operate under part 121, which are a tad more stringent but also put more onus on the FAA as well. In all probability, the PM had an understanding of the 777 as he was certified as instructor, albeit was his first flight as instructor. You would have to understand the Korean culture of status and respect for seniors to you. Regardless of what should have happened in the cockpit, the PF was senior in age and total time to his instructor, hence the PM said nothing to him, even though he only had 40 hours in type. In this particular case, PM should have been monitoring airspeed and altitude, regardless of AT mode.Blind led the blind and they all went into the ditch.(seawall)
preacher1
preacher1 3
As an added not, our illustrious NTSB had to be PC and not mention that culture thing. Calling it Pilot Error and not saying why is about like a coroner saying that a jumpers cause of death was that sudden stop at the end of the fall. We need to get off the fence these days and call a spade a spade.
donallen
Donald Allen 1
I agree with your comments, but they do not address the fact, and it is a fact, that the PF did not understand how to use key aspects of the 777 automated flight system. You can't have on-the-job training in a situation like this, with a plane-load of people. Even if the PM did know the system, introducing a level of indirection can be dangerous due to communication problems, as in this flight (e.g., the PM didn't know the PF had set FLCH mode erroneously, because it wasn't called out). It can also introduce dangerous time delays, as it did in this flight. The PM eventually did the right thing -- decided to go around and applied full power -- the key word being eventually (= too late in this case).
preacher1
preacher1 3
Couple of things; PF was a senior multi thousand hour pilot. He just did not have that much time in a 777. That is not a uncommon practice. You can only learn so much in the classroom or in the SIM until you have to have hands on experience. You look at any airline captain and they all walked the same road to get those 4 bars. Where I really see the problem here is that Asiana did what they were supposed to by sending a check captain/instructor on the flight. Actually, the Onus is on him, as he should have been monitoring everything and taken control or corrected things when they started going sour, but for whatever reason, he didn't. And I still say it was the status thing that killed any chance of CRM as it should have been.
donallen
Donald Allen 2
But PF was allowed to fly an airplane when he did not understand some basic things about the automation. This could have been established by testing and clearly wasn't. Also, he had to have known that he hadn't absorbed all the details of the auto-flight system, so you would think that a multi-thousand-hour pilot, knowing how important airspeed is in the last stages of flight, would have had his hand on the throttles. You would have also thought that a multi-thousand-hour pilot would have looked out the windscreen and seen that he was too low. I also don't understand pulling the nose up in response to someone else saying "too low". My understanding of the basics of flying the final approach (I am not a licensed pilot and know just enough to be dangerous; but I have received instruction at the Boeing Air Canada flight-training center) is that you control altitude with power. Pulling the nose up risks a stall very close to the ground.

I don't dispute your theory about Korean culture; I think you are right and that it did play an important role in this crash (I hesitate to call it an accident, because the screw-ups were so egregious). But I believe that if Asiana had done a better job of separating the wheat from the chaff, the culture thing would not have been an issue, because someone with sufficient skill would have landed the plane in routine conditions (daylight, good weather, except the ILS was out).

Addendum: I was in the jump-seat of a Gulfstream G4 some years ago, being flown by an old, non-bold pilot. This guy was a great source of common sense. He always manually flew his final approaches. Why? Because if something went wrong, he didn't want to waste precious seconds disengaging the auto-pilot and getting acclimated to the airplane. We were flying into Hanscom Field in Massachusetts at night (the same Hanscom where Lewis Katz' Gulfstream crashed almost a month ago). The ILS was out. Not a problem for this guy. He was an actual pilot, not a button-pusher. The co-pilot also showed me how he constructed a "virtual ILS", using the GPS system.
preacher1
preacher1 1
There is a rumor floating around that Asiana passed him on the test rather than fail him, in order that he not be disgraced.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Are you suggesting that reality may be the ultimate check pilot?
AlLemke
Al Lemke 1
They need Respect 2.1 installed in their piloting system.
rarebear14
Dolf Brouwers 1
Culture can play a very crucial rule in the cockpit !
Lets not kid ourselves....even in our Western culture
its not always simple as a copilot to question the captain.
In Eastern cultures like the Korean, the captain is the
absolute boss !
nasdisco
Chris B 1
Thank you for posting.
Frankly scary lack of attentiveness to the reality of the scenario unfolding. Think it would be good for people used to working solo to have a second set of eyes as your own cross check.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
And being a Boeing, that second set of eyes, being the airbus computer (HAL?) was not there.
preacher1
preacher1 1
LOL. You know, what makes the whole ting even more weird, and I haven't never flown on, but that dude had several thousand hours in a 747 I believe. The avionics setup is similar. You'd think he would have known that, UNLESS, they just both panicked at having to do a manual approach. Funny thing though, Asiana and many other foreign flag airlines were in SFO before and after. That was not the first day the ILS was out nor the last. Maybe they were just a couple of dummies.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Senior Captain. It don't matter that he can't fly the plane good. He's senior. New instructor intimidated by seniority wouldn't say anything. They all went into the ground. Granted long flight but I can't see where they should be tired with a relief crew and really don't think fatigue played a factor. I actually lay more at the PM;s feet because he should have been monitoring all that crap. 777 is not certified for 1 man operation, yet the only callout was about sink rate from the guy in the jump seat.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
During the NTSB Hearings, the pilot had been "very concerned" about attempting a visual approach without instrument landing aids, which were not in operation. The Cockpit Equipment was designed to offer pilots choices so that they could fly the plane, with warnings when conditions warrant. "Pilot Automation" is to aid the pilot NOT to replace the pilot.
By the way the 2/3 passengers were expelled from the aircraft. They weren't wearing a simple safety item called a seatbelt.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
He was concerned because he was being a spectator and not a pilot
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I guess they do not teach GPS approaches in Korea.
AlLemke
Al Lemke 2
GPS---? 100 mile visibility---and you need gps?
I!m surprised he didn't land at LAX!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
If his concern was the ILS was out, then he could fly an LPV.

If any commercial pilot doesn't know by this date they need to retire.
devsfan
ken young 1
Is that true? Some of the PAX were not using the restraints?
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
Yes. They faild to wear the seatbealt. Very unfortunate.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That's what they said. I think 2 of the 3 killed weren't wearing them. Door got the 3rd one but she may have been unrestrained as well.
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 1
While I do not believe the ATC has any burden to bear in this case, one has to wonder that the ATCs that watch the radar and see these guys coming in continually day in and day out, they get used to seeing the planes approaching certain fixes/points at certain altitudes and certain speeds. I would've thought something would've flagged somebody upstairs on final.
avihais
Martin Haisman 0
Its ATC responsibility to separate and manage traffic and not use guesswork and confuse pilots. Just to take the piss out of Auzzies - yeh, na , yeh, na...

[This poster has been suspended.]

jst1592
jst1592 1
While true that ATC's job is to give low alt. alerts, it IS NOT their job to fly the airplane. The flight was cleared for a visual approach. If ATC's "job" was to monitor the approach, they would have and then therefore known and advised that the flight was way above the appropriate G/P. ATC controls traffic. Pilots are supposed to fly airplanes. And, Eastern Airlines never crashed a 747 in Florida. It was flight 401, and a L-1011. All that said, it is the Flight Crews responsibility to actually fly the airplane. This accident, simply, should have never happened. Pilots are supposed to fly airplanes. They did not fly the airplane.
jst1592
jst1592 2
Aviators are supposed to know the rules...Airspeed and Altitude. Lose either, you make the news. Anybody that cant hand fly, or monitor a coupled Visual Approach, is not a pilot.

[This poster has been suspended.]

jst1592
jst1592 5
And I still will not trust any "driver" of a car in front of me! :) Turn signal usage still appears to be optional, because they don't know where they are going. Automation cannot think for itself...unless that's a good thing. Automation is supposed to assist, not drive. See Airbus accidents. My daughter drives a manual transmission car. Automation is great, right up until the point that it's actually in complete control. I guess I don't care, I'm old enough to be retired from flying, and drones transport everyone/everything. Again, see Airbus "logic". I also realize that automation never fails...or is improperly applied. It's a tool to be used as assistance, not to be completely trusted. The BP oil spill was automated too. With "minimal" human intervention.

[This poster has been suspended.]

jst1592
jst1592 1
I am not arguing with you at all. My point was, and is, that the folks flying should be doing the actual "flying". This did not occur in this instance. I agree with you completely. I see no fault with the A/P system. As you have said, it seems to work just fine. My issue is, and will continue to be, that the Auto-Mode, needs to be monitored and verified as to "what" it is doing. This accident was a result of "not flying" the airplane. I use Auto Flight systems daily. I also make sure it does what it is supposed to, and not rely upon it to actually do my job. In this accident, it's clear that nobody was "minding the store". To think that a 777 could actually be involved in such an accident in this manner, is unfathomable. But it did. And my argument is, it happened due to a lack of basic simple airmanship. They could not fly a Visual Approach. With all due respect James, I believe you will agree with that statement. At least in the U.S., we all learned to fly at first in some sort of dated C-150! I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I visit this site daily, the "blame game" is wholly upon the flight crew. They did not fly the thing.

[This poster has been suspended.]

jst1592
jst1592 1
I hear you. It somehow appears we are arguing over the same things we agree upon, which makes no sense. I think we are both just p/d over the entire events and are trying to make sense of it. The UPS accident is very much the same, I agree. I haven't seen as much on the UPS accident, but seems very similar. Thanks for the discourse and debate, and be well! Thank you James!
hkanter
Herman Kanter 1
Just wondering if pressing the "FLCH SPD" would have been appropriate during an approach on other Boeing airliners or if this works differently on the B-777? And, does dis-engaging the A/P and A/T during a visual approach procedure differ among other airline policies? If yes, why is this so?
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
"The magenta people" strike again. Basic airmanship - know your aeroplane, airspeed...

NASA introduced the crew loop and CRM in 1979 so there is absolutely no excuse for a crew and especially training captain to ignore basic principles and procedures. Thousands of rotations and hours completed by pilots of the 777 knowing their aeroplane and flying it.

Then four front seat passengers ruin it. Every aeroplane has its intricacies and that is why we have training inclusive of CRM and human factors, which they obviously lacked.
devsfan
ken young 1
This appeared to be a total breakdown in approach protocol.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
In that approach protocol calls for one to land with one's aircraft in one piece, I am forced to agree with you.
8-)
devsfan
ken young 1
Yes. Wheels down...Safely. That would be what is known as 'a good thing'.
All kidding aside, based on the report it appears the flight crew failed to not only monitor and check but also failed to communicate and follow procedures.
genethemarine
Gene spanos 1
There are old pilots....there are bold pilots but there
are no Old and Bold pilots.

[This poster has been suspended.]

iflyfsx
iflyfsx 3
I don't know how stupid they are. Maybe they are geniuses at landing with all the computers. But that's not the point. They have to be able to fly the airplane under any conditions. If the airline does not provide the necessary training or enforce high standards, and decent working conditions, they have a big chunk of the responsibility, too.
hvy747
Just fly the plane…..its that simple.
preacher1
preacher1 5
Yeah; sad part is that if they would've, we all wouldn't be having this conversation.
executivedriver
El Thirtynine 0
There weren't any pilots on board, only incompetent systems operators.
JakeWythe
Jake Wythe -2
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

NTSB Finds Pilot Error Caused Asiana Crash in 2013

The National Transportation Safety Board said that the flight crew that crashed a Boeing 777 aircraft against the sea wall at San Francisco International Airport was to blame for the accident that killed three people and left more than 180 injured. The Asiana pilots, according to the NTSB, missed multiple cues that they had done something wrong in the seconds before the crash that occurred the morning of July 6, 2013.

http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2014/06/ntsb-finds-pilot-error-caused-asiana-crash-in-2013/
preacher1
preacher1 9
Yeah but if you look at the report, you'll see they also drug Boeing into this party, saying there AT system and FDS was too complicated and not easily understood per their training manuals. How come no other 777 driver or airline has come forward complaining about them. All they have done is set Boeing up to be sued when, in actuality, if they hadn't built such a damn good airplane there would have been more than 3 killed by those bumbling buffoons in the pointy end. They at least determined that 2 of those 3 weren't strapped in.
preacher1
preacher1 5
And Zumwalt is an idiot. He may be a former airline pilot but if he didn't understand the system, he shouldn't have flown it.
s2v8377
s2v8377 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Animation of Asiana Flight 214 accident sequence

The National Transportation Safety Board will meet to determine the probable cause of the July 2013 crash of Asiana Airlines flight 214 in California.

On July 6, at about 11:28 a.m. (PDT), the Boeing 777, was on approach to runway 28L at San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, California when it struck the seawall at the end of the runway. Three of the 291 passengers on board flight 214 died and over 180 other passengers and crewmembers were injured. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire.

.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2014/asiana214/presentations.html
Shadowstarz
Shadowstarz -1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Pilots blamed for Asiana crash

(CNN) -
Pilots botched the approach and landing of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 in San Francisco nearly a year ago, causing a crash that killed three people and injured 187 others, U.S. safety investigators concluded on Tuesday.

But the National Transportation Safety Board also found that crew training and the complexities of a key flight system on the Boeing 777 and how it was described in operating manuals contributed to the July 6 disaster.



http://m.click2houston.com/news/Pilots-blamed-for-Asiana-crash/26638700
Shadowstarz
Shadowstarz 1
I don't see how this is a duplicate squawk. It may be related to the same issue, but it's a different article.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
They combine articles from the same time short period when the subject matter is the same. In this case, the report on the accident.

Entrar

¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos, y más!