Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Pilot in Asiana 214 "very concerned about attempting visual approach"
Lee Kang Kuk, a 46-year-old pilot who was landing the big jet for his first time at San Francisco, "stated it was very difficult to perform a visual approach with a heavy airplane." (www.wral.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
(Boeing's chief of flight deck engineering, Bob Myers, testified that the company designed the automated system to aid — not replace — the pilot. If there's a surprise, he said, "we expect them to back off on the automation" and rely on their basic skills.) I agree and disagree, yes pilots should not trust 100% on automation, but at the same time when you create a system to back up the pilots is case they also fail this system should work.
The system works only in the hands of the properly trained and capable of operating as well as monitoring all aspects of its operation.
I've seen enough single-engine instrument pilots screw up with all the resources in a G1000. It boggles my mind a high-time ATP does so in a heavy jet.
There should be no surprises but based on my knowledge of some of the issues in the Airbus glass, I'm not surprised in some cases. I'd have a greater trust in Boeing.
I've seen enough single-engine instrument pilots screw up with all the resources in a G1000. It boggles my mind a high-time ATP does so in a heavy jet.
There should be no surprises but based on my knowledge of some of the issues in the Airbus glass, I'm not surprised in some cases. I'd have a greater trust in Boeing.
That's all valid but human mind works different than machine, some ppl still blindly trust their automation, actually they are trained to do so, it's like when you're kid and you think i can do this and if anything goes wrong my parents will be there for me.., if Boeing created a system that doesn't work, this is a false sense of security which is worse than nothing at all.
The plane didn't malfunction. The pilots did.
The plane did not make the pilot afraid to fly a manual landing. His own inadequate training and failure to perform manual landings make him lacking in basic skills.
The plane did not make the training pilot anxious about failing his ride. That was his deal.
The plane did not make him choose the wrong flight mode. Flight level change is for moving to a different altitude with automation at altitude (NOT ON APPROACH NEARTHE GROUND!!!) The plane didn't force the pilot to use te flight level trap that has been extensively trained as a major problem at low altitude.
That close to the ground, there are more appropriate modes, not least of which to hand fly the plane with the right hand on the throttles. The plane didn't fail to allow the pilot to fly fully manual.
The plane did not prevent the monitoring pilot from monitoring altitude and airspeed.
The plane didn't fail to keep the plane on the flight path. That was the pilot.
The plane didn't fail to keep the plane at the appropriate altitude. That was the pilot.
The plane didn't fail to keep the plane at airspeed. That was the pilot.
The plane didn't fail to monitor. That was the pilots.
The plane didn't fail to recognize how screwed up the approach was. That was the pilots.
The plane didn't fail to go around in time. That was the pilots.
I conceed that the plane could be reprogrammed to maintain minimum airspeed on approach in ALL MODES. That's not how the plane is programmed and all pilots are trained in using appropriate modes when necessary. Flying a commercial airliner with revenue passengers in a cross-oceanic international route for a major airline is not a hobby. It is a professional job that requires a modicum of proficiency.
In this instance, it might've saved the plane from incompetent pilots. But it wouldn't have made the pilots any more proficient. Maybe the pilots would've found something else to flub.
I wouldn't blame the plane. The plane performed exactly as expected. In constant, the pilots did not perform to a minimum level of acceptable execution for any commercial pilot.
The plane did not make the pilot afraid to fly a manual landing. His own inadequate training and failure to perform manual landings make him lacking in basic skills.
The plane did not make the training pilot anxious about failing his ride. That was his deal.
The plane did not make him choose the wrong flight mode. Flight level change is for moving to a different altitude with automation at altitude (NOT ON APPROACH NEARTHE GROUND!!!) The plane didn't force the pilot to use te flight level trap that has been extensively trained as a major problem at low altitude.
That close to the ground, there are more appropriate modes, not least of which to hand fly the plane with the right hand on the throttles. The plane didn't fail to allow the pilot to fly fully manual.
The plane did not prevent the monitoring pilot from monitoring altitude and airspeed.
The plane didn't fail to keep the plane on the flight path. That was the pilot.
The plane didn't fail to keep the plane at the appropriate altitude. That was the pilot.
The plane didn't fail to keep the plane at airspeed. That was the pilot.
The plane didn't fail to monitor. That was the pilots.
The plane didn't fail to recognize how screwed up the approach was. That was the pilots.
The plane didn't fail to go around in time. That was the pilots.
I conceed that the plane could be reprogrammed to maintain minimum airspeed on approach in ALL MODES. That's not how the plane is programmed and all pilots are trained in using appropriate modes when necessary. Flying a commercial airliner with revenue passengers in a cross-oceanic international route for a major airline is not a hobby. It is a professional job that requires a modicum of proficiency.
In this instance, it might've saved the plane from incompetent pilots. But it wouldn't have made the pilots any more proficient. Maybe the pilots would've found something else to flub.
I wouldn't blame the plane. The plane performed exactly as expected. In constant, the pilots did not perform to a minimum level of acceptable execution for any commercial pilot.
Left one out...
The plane didn't keep the plane from flying straight on a beautiful afternoon. That too was the on the pilots. The failure to fly the plane in a straight line, but instead to swing left and right from the glideslope is all about the failure of the pilot in performing the most basic of piloting skills.
----------------
It truly is hard to find anything the pilots did right in those last few minutes of flight. They still almost accidentally landed on the runway completely sealed out. Buy that would've been all about luck and almost nothing about great piloting skills.
The pilots could've flown a slightly less steep descent and squires the glideslope over the threshold. Their stall ouldnt happened over the ground (hopefully over the concrete of the runway, but as long as the United 747 waiting tondepart didn't find itself in the path of the Asiana plane any landing on the airport would've been better than landing short and tail striking the seawall.
The pilots could've have a much steeper descent and acquired the glideslope much earlier in the approach. This way lady minute changes to acquire the glideslope wouldn't reveal an unstabilized approach only at very low altitude. The pilots would've had much longer to make a change (either to add thrust or to go around).
Maybe the plane wouldn't have been following another 777. The need to keep out the the other plane's wake turbulence might not have restricted the plane's ability to maintain speed in descent.
Maybe there wouldn't have been another plane on it's 8'o clock, keeping the Asiana I'm sight, and landing on a parallel runway. The need to provide for separation pit restrictions on both planes' airspeed and altitude.
Any of these variables might either not have been present or been different enough to not result in a crash. But any competent commercial airline pilot should be able to handle any of these factors. It's all in a day's work got a good pilot.
The plane didn't keep the plane from flying straight on a beautiful afternoon. That too was the on the pilots. The failure to fly the plane in a straight line, but instead to swing left and right from the glideslope is all about the failure of the pilot in performing the most basic of piloting skills.
----------------
It truly is hard to find anything the pilots did right in those last few minutes of flight. They still almost accidentally landed on the runway completely sealed out. Buy that would've been all about luck and almost nothing about great piloting skills.
The pilots could've flown a slightly less steep descent and squires the glideslope over the threshold. Their stall ouldnt happened over the ground (hopefully over the concrete of the runway, but as long as the United 747 waiting tondepart didn't find itself in the path of the Asiana plane any landing on the airport would've been better than landing short and tail striking the seawall.
The pilots could've have a much steeper descent and acquired the glideslope much earlier in the approach. This way lady minute changes to acquire the glideslope wouldn't reveal an unstabilized approach only at very low altitude. The pilots would've had much longer to make a change (either to add thrust or to go around).
Maybe the plane wouldn't have been following another 777. The need to keep out the the other plane's wake turbulence might not have restricted the plane's ability to maintain speed in descent.
Maybe there wouldn't have been another plane on it's 8'o clock, keeping the Asiana I'm sight, and landing on a parallel runway. The need to provide for separation pit restrictions on both planes' airspeed and altitude.
Any of these variables might either not have been present or been different enough to not result in a crash. But any competent commercial airline pilot should be able to handle any of these factors. It's all in a day's work got a good pilot.
Thumbs up to both parts.
The aircraft was airworthy fully. The pilots were trained to fly. As well as paid to fly.
Yet THEY FAILED TO FLY a fully functional aircraft.
Simple.
A perfect open and shut case.
The aircraft was airworthy fully. The pilots were trained to fly. As well as paid to fly.
Yet THEY FAILED TO FLY a fully functional aircraft.
Simple.
A perfect open and shut case.
"the pilots were trained to fly"
The pilots were not properly trained. Until their check rides 1) properly evaluate pilots for manual flying and 2) properly fail pilots who are marginal and require remedial training for deficient pilots, these airlines can't get their pilots up to the standard that passengers take fir granted.
The American pilots ate nit better because they're innately better at piloting because of geographic birthplace, but simply because they are held to a higher standard, to which they are tested and expected to perform routinely. Pilots from other places can be excellent pilots too. They and their airlines and their ceritifying agencies must conspire to insist on that excellence. It the only way to make excellence consistent and routine across an entire system.
The pilots were not properly trained. Until their check rides 1) properly evaluate pilots for manual flying and 2) properly fail pilots who are marginal and require remedial training for deficient pilots, these airlines can't get their pilots up to the standard that passengers take fir granted.
The American pilots ate nit better because they're innately better at piloting because of geographic birthplace, but simply because they are held to a higher standard, to which they are tested and expected to perform routinely. Pilots from other places can be excellent pilots too. They and their airlines and their ceritifying agencies must conspire to insist on that excellence. It the only way to make excellence consistent and routine across an entire system.
I guess this case must be an eye opener for America, FAA and Americans, to strictly enforce the existing laws on foreign airlines and their crew/staff. And make US air space a safe place.
If FAA continues its past policies of being soft, Asiana 214 will be repeated, by them as well by others, any where in the world.
If FAA continues its past policies of being soft, Asiana 214 will be repeated, by them as well by others, any where in the world.
It's another Catch-22*. Most want to tell others what to do. Most don't want others to tell them what to do. The balancing of the two is diplomacy.
* We want your pilots to follow our rules and to subject them to criminal prosecution on our soil. But when our pilots find themselves on your soil, we'd like an exemption from your rules and your prosecution.
* We want your pilots to follow our rules and to subject them to criminal prosecution on our soil. But when our pilots find themselves on your soil, we'd like an exemption from your rules and your prosecution.
Well said, both comments.
FAA is fully empowered by Federal Laws to take severe action against Asiana. Like withdrawing or suspending licence to enter US air space. The NTSB is fully empowered and equipped to supply the necessary data for any and every action needed to be taken at FAA. Using conclusions drawn and recommendations by NTSB as experts.
And if FAA still fails to take stringent action against Asiana, I am afraid message will go down about lack of political will at the Capitol Hill !