Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Some Updates on Asiana
Pictures taken by a camera mounted on a SF firefighter's helmet. (news.yahoo.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I take it that American pilots do not cause accidents, at least not the serious kind ? So FAA and NTSB can and should modify laws and systems in favour of American pilots and the flying community. And all related laws should be withdrawn as being futile and waste of tax payers' money.
I don't understand your confused comment. My comment was long, but clearly written.
The strict oversight in US, combined with cultures commited to safety at airlines result in safety. The daily routines and processes create safety. I wouldn't change what's already working (part 121).
I might invite all part 129 carriers to step up to part 121 oversight. Many would have to make many systemic changes that would lead to greater levels of safety that will just happen automatically.
The strict oversight in US, combined with cultures commited to safety at airlines result in safety. The daily routines and processes create safety. I wouldn't change what's already working (part 121).
I might invite all part 129 carriers to step up to part 121 oversight. Many would have to make many systemic changes that would lead to greater levels of safety that will just happen automatically.
My simple response and let me close this dialogue/argument , at least from my side.
You are the one who helped me reach the relevant laws. ThanX for that.
The CFR Part 14 interalia, empowers FAA and the Feds of Civil Aviation in DC to allow or disallow any person/s to operate in USA. They are also empowered to ensure that those permitted to operate HAVE to comply with the laws of USA Aviation. Or go ! Banish them .
A simple law enforcement exercise. And no body can object or keep a grudge!
All very elementary. I guess.
You are the one who helped me reach the relevant laws. ThanX for that.
The CFR Part 14 interalia, empowers FAA and the Feds of Civil Aviation in DC to allow or disallow any person/s to operate in USA. They are also empowered to ensure that those permitted to operate HAVE to comply with the laws of USA Aviation. Or go ! Banish them .
A simple law enforcement exercise. And no body can object or keep a grudge!
All very elementary. I guess.
Unfortunately, as has been mentioned before, enforcement of part 129 is very binary. Either an entire airline or an entire country's airlines are given permission to fly within the sovereign airspace or not.
There are little nuanced in-between. There is no oversight with any enforcement teeth. No surprise inspection of the airlines' headquarters. No regulatory influence over pilot training or pilot manuals, apart from regulatory oversight of the airplane manufacturer itself.
In some cases, airlines are barred from operation to the US or Europe.
Such drastic action comes with ramifications both political and economic. Doing so, would affect not only each airline, but the airline's alliance partners all over the world, even domestic partners in the jurisdiction in question.
Would help if there were regulatory frameworks for helping foreign carriers improve their operation, short of barring them, in such a stark binary In-Out Yes-No manner.
Putting foreign carriers under US regulation is not as easy as it sounds. There is the potential for accusations of interference of foreign carriers business, or of acting against the economic interests of a foreign state (potentially an ally). There is the possibility of retaliation against US carriers or other US interests. There would be the reciprocal desire to have have foreign regulator oversight over US carriers. This could be problematic if internal politics in that country cast actions by US regulators in the name of safety as actions against the people and interests of that country.
I don't see where any of this is easy.
There are little nuanced in-between. There is no oversight with any enforcement teeth. No surprise inspection of the airlines' headquarters. No regulatory influence over pilot training or pilot manuals, apart from regulatory oversight of the airplane manufacturer itself.
In some cases, airlines are barred from operation to the US or Europe.
Such drastic action comes with ramifications both political and economic. Doing so, would affect not only each airline, but the airline's alliance partners all over the world, even domestic partners in the jurisdiction in question.
Would help if there were regulatory frameworks for helping foreign carriers improve their operation, short of barring them, in such a stark binary In-Out Yes-No manner.
Putting foreign carriers under US regulation is not as easy as it sounds. There is the potential for accusations of interference of foreign carriers business, or of acting against the economic interests of a foreign state (potentially an ally). There is the possibility of retaliation against US carriers or other US interests. There would be the reciprocal desire to have have foreign regulator oversight over US carriers. This could be problematic if internal politics in that country cast actions by US regulators in the name of safety as actions against the people and interests of that country.
I don't see where any of this is easy.
I will not respond like a lawyer that I am.
Simply put as a layman, either play for the galleries (for personal and political gains) and compromise safety of people, OR take unpopular decisions for a safe working!
Laws every where are always powerful. What is lacking is to will to invoke and use that power !
Simply put as a layman, either play for the galleries (for personal and political gains) and compromise safety of people, OR take unpopular decisions for a safe working!
Laws every where are always powerful. What is lacking is to will to invoke and use that power !
Part 129 laws are not powerful. They defer to the foreign regulator to provide oversight.
Note how the Asiana crew didn't have to pee in the bottle, nor taken to the hospital for "observation" and "voluntary blood serum toxicology studies" like the crew for Southwest 345 (involved in a much more minor crash).
Note how the Asiana crew didn't have to pee in the bottle, nor taken to the hospital for "observation" and "voluntary blood serum toxicology studies" like the crew for Southwest 345 (involved in a much more minor crash).
Note how the Southwest 345 nose gear collapse was relatively insignificant in injuries, and with repairable damage and with US pilots. The commenters here did not let up on those pilots either, and there were some weather conditions to complicate the already technically more challenging approach at LGA. (Note that at SFO, they had a long straight approach in beautiful clear weather.)
Nationality aside, there are many more reasons to be concerned about the Asiana 214 crash:
1) loss of life
2) severe life-long disabilities
3) loss of aircraft
4) uncomplicated visual approach
5) beautiful clear, calm weather with light winds
Southwest 345
1) no loss of life
2) minor injuries (prob more from evacuation than crash)
3) repairable aircraft
4) approach somewhat complicated by crowded airspace and nowhere near as straight
5) some thunderstorms and other weather conditions and weather-related operational delays and complications.
Still, those US pilots have not gotten a free pass. There is also substantial interest in determining the cause of the SW crash.
The difference in treatment of the pilots' nationality is not as racist as you may perceive. I'm not saying some are not racist. Some are.
But the difference in treatment of the two groups has more to do with endemic characteristics of each group of pilots.
It will be difficult to find a pilot at a major US carrier that would find a visual approach intimidating. At Korean carriers, it is a common for pilots to not be as comfortable with visual approaches and with instrument landings.
The deficiencies of pilots at Korean carriers is a well known phenomenon, that led to numerous fatal crashes. Concern over these crashes led to much additional flight training and oversight by outside contractors to correct underlying pilot dificiencies uncovered by those fatal crashes.
After nearly a decade of more intensive training and oversight, many thought the problem had been rectified.
The crash is significant in that it highlights the possibility that Korean commerical passenger aviation is not as safe as assumed.
Many outside contractors reported resistance at the Korean carriers to procedures and standards that would be normal at US carriers. In light of this recent fatal crash, those reports take on increased significance.
In Korea, there was resistance to failing a senior pilot's check ride. In the US, pilots have to repeat their check ride for relatively minor infractions.
Korean pilots would show up at training having memorized the training manuals, sometimes knowing the manuals better than their outside instructors. OTOH these Korean pilots would often have trouble with, and resist the demonstration of skills that would be accepted by US pilots without protest.
So it is not the race of each group that is at issue but the difference in competency and proficiency of pilot skills that is the concern.
Korean pilots are likely not the worst in the world. They havd had a decade of intensive pilot training to help step up their game. There will likely be a need to push even harder to increase their skills to a higher standard.
I could understand that there may be some from emerging markets where airline growth leads to hiring lots of relatively inexperienced pilots, may have issue with holding all pilots from around the world to the same tough standards as in the US. Maybe their own backyard will be discovered to be worse than the Korean's.
No race is inherently bad at piloting. What you need is systematic safety. You need both a good regulator with high standards and a carrier that is committed to safety in its' policies, pilot training, aircraft maintenance, etc.
Any shortcuts in the commitment to safety lead to the crashes and fatalities, not the pilot's ethnicity nor their cultural norms that they use as justifications to shortchange their commitment to safety.
Don't get lost in the cultural/ethnic considerations. Pay closer attention to the policies and practices in the training and daily operation of passenger aircraft.