Jump to content

KSFO 777 incident


Ed Cesnalis

Recommended Posts

Just for educational purposes... The 777 has two crew cabins upstairs for the off duty crew. Forward there is a 2 birth cabin for the off duty pilots and rear there is an 8 person cabin for the flight attendents. The off duty pilots do not co mingle with the first class passengers (as far as assigned seating goes). Thats not to say they can't get out and stretch their legs and walk around a bit. While its not bad, it is very cramped. The cockpit is also equipped with jump seats.

 

boeing-777-crew-rest-compartment-0305-2a.jpg

boeing-777-crew-rest-compartment-0305-1a.jpg

 

After a long flight I doubt anyone was snoring up in the crew cabin, I'd bet for sitting in the cockpit jump seats but thats speculation and really doesn't matter. At the time of landing the Training Captain was in command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just for educational purposes... The 777 has two crew cabins upstairs for the off duty crew. Forward there is a 2 birth cabin for the off duty pilots and rear there is an 8 person cabin for the flight attendents. The off duty pilots do not co mingle with the first class passengers (as far as assigned seating goes). Thats not to say they can't get out and stretch their legs and walk around a bit. While its not bad, it is very cramped. The cockpit is also equipped with jump seats.

 

boeing-777-crew-rest-compartment-0305-2a.jpg

boeing-777-crew-rest-compartment-0305-1a.jpg

 

After a long flight I doubt anyone was snoring up in the crew cabin, I'd bet for sitting in the cockpit jump seats but thats speculation and really doesn't matter. At the time of landing the Training Captain was in command.

 

I noticed one of the reports said the F/O of the non flying flight crew was in one of the jump seats and the other capt was in the cabin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For educational purposes - so no one gets their panties in a wad - the term would be 2 berth cabin. Berth as in bunk or sleeping quarters. I doubt if anyone was parturating up there.

 

I stand corrected professor. I will screen my Engrish ( :D ) better in all future posts so as to avoid public condemnation when a letter in a word is off and changes the meaning. I didn't realize posts were subject to grading. Thank God my text messages are not or I'd be in serious trouble!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.deadline....newscast-gaffe/

 

Asiana is suing KTVU over the pilot name debacle for hurting its reputation?

 

According to media reports, Asiana said today in Seoul that KTVU “seriously damaged” the carrier’s reputation with the report on its noon broadcast last Friday. Asiana spokeswoman Lee Hyo Min said the airline is taking the “strong steps” to sue KTVU because the report was racially discriminating. KTVU issued an apology on the newscast and the National Transportation Safety Board also apologized for confirming the fake pilot names to KTVU, citing the handiwork of an overzealous summer intern. Per the Associated Press, Asiana has chosen not to sue the NTSB because it said it was the station’s report, not the agency, that damaged the airline’s reputation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The demeaning story by the alleged erstwhile CRM trainer and the name debacle are both indicative of a cultural bias that from Asiana's point of view probably makes it difficult to believe that NTSB, the media and world opinion can arrive at a fair,objective finding. What do you think would be the result of this kind of bad mouthing in an American trial?

The pilots may well be incompetent, but if they are, it should be possible to demonstrate that without resorting to calling them childish names or questioning their culture.

Oh, one cites the Zimmerman trial.........how droll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Chicago law firm says it plans to sue aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co. on behalf of 83 people who were on the Asiana Airlines flight that crash-landed in San Francisco.

Ribbeck Law Chartered says in a news release that it filed a petition Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago to help preserve evidence in the July 6 crash. Three people were killed when the Boeing 777 clipped a seawall at the end of a runway.

Ribbeck says additional pleadings will be filed against Asiana Airlines and several component parts manufacturers.

The firm says the crash might have been caused by a mechanical malfunction of the auto-throttle. It also says some sliding ramps reportedly opened inside the plane, injuring passengers and blocking their exit.

 

 

Source:

 

 

Seems like Boeing should be applauded not sued. Asiana, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

So that captain admitted to the NTSB that he was under a high level of pressure because he had to visually fly the approach. His instructor admitted that he was not progressing normally in learning to fly the 777. Undoubtedly all 3 pilots knew they were in deep poop flying the visual, a sad day for aviation indeed.

 

With all 3 pilots monitoring the approach they all missed the fact that the auto throttles began to climb as soon as they were programmed and therefore were programmed wrong. They all 3 missed that retarding the throttles to terminate the climb and to begin a new descent resulted in another mis-setting of the auto throttles, one where they were relying on them for minimum speed and they were no longer set to maintain speed. All 3 failed to initiate or call for a go-around as they went thru 500' or as they got low and slow.

 

I"m stuck on the thought that there were hundreds of passengers in the cabin and none had a clue that they were in big trouble because the pilot himself was scared and lacked basic skills. In fact the entire flight crew was lacking as a team capable of landing from a 10 mile final on a clear calm day.

 

Now there will be more focus on hand flying, great. How about a requirement that these guys can fly when the automation isn't there not just more focus?

 

New video release:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy should be charged with manslaughter for the deaths he caused.

 

You, sir, are a very low time pilot with precious little experience.

 

You are in no position to pass such harsh judgment on an experienced flight crew, each of which had many, many times your hours and far more training.

 

Mistakes happen. You will make many, as will I.

 

Let's learn from this tragedy rather than chastise the pilots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it came across as a personal attack, I apologize. It was not meant as such.

 

Someone with 100 hours can certainly be right on a matter, while someone with 10,000 hours can be wrong on the same matter.

 

But when someone with 100 hours starts passing judgment on the mistakes of a professional flight crew, I don't think its a personal attack to point out the discrepancy in both hours and experience.

 

From Wikipedia (bolded mine):

The aircrew was three captains and one first officer. Captain Lee Jeong-min (Hangul: 이정민; Hanja: 李鄭閔), aged 48, in the right seat (co-pilot position) filled the dual role of a check/instructor captain and pilot in command, responsible for the safe operation of the flight. He had 12,387 hours of flying experience of which 3,220 were in a 777. This was his first flight as an instructor.

Captain Lee Kang-kook (이강국; 李江鞠; variant Lee Gang-guk), aged 45, in the left seat (captain's position) was the pilot receiving his initial operating experience (IOE) training and was halfway through Asiana's IOE requirements. He had 9,793 hours of flying experience, of which 43 were in a 777 over 9 flights, and was operating the controls under the supervision of the instructor in the right seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Korean crew was a product of its environment. It is predictable that these guys would become dependent on automation and culturally unable to correct.

 

I blame the airline for fostering an environment where its pilots do not develop and maintain the skills necessary to land their aircraft when the need arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Korean crew was a product of its environment. It is predictable that these guys would become dependent on automation and culturally unable to correct.

 

I blame the airline for fostering an environment where its pilots do not develop and maintain the skills necessary to land their aircraft when the need arises.

I agree. I put the shortcomings directly on the training department and Crew Resource Management folks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again,

 

Keep in mind that captain had flown over 12,000 hours without incident (that I know of).

 

Yes, we must learn from this, point out the contributing factors and tweak the training to avoid a repeat.

 

But this does stand out as a very rare occurrence, indicating the training did work the vast majority of the time.

 

And this could have been a truly excellent aviator, far better than any of us, who just screwed up one time.

 

No one is immune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blogs.kqed.or...14-crash-at-sfo

 

Asiana Pilot Was ‘Very Concerned’ About Landing at SFO Before Crash

 

[Lee] was asked whether he found the accident approach easy or difficult or in the middle. He said it was very stressful, very difficult to perform a visual approach with a heavy airplane, always. From the planning phase it was very stressful because the glideslope was very, very helpful to making an approach. He knew the NOTAMs [Notices to Airmen] said it was out of service, but everyone else had been doing the visual approach, so he could not say he could not do the visual approach. That had been “a very stressful factor”. Asked whether he was concerned about his ability to perform the visual approach, he said “very concerned, yea”. Asked what aspect he was most concerned about, he said, “the unstable approach”. He added, “exactly controlling the descent profile and the lateral profile, that is very stressful.”

 

Eddie,

 

The passengers deserved a pilot that could fly a visual approach, their lives depended on it. Cultural reasons prohibit that at least with this airline, that needs to change. This is not a simple case of a bad day. By his own admission he had to fall on his sword because others could do it. He could not be embarrassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee was nervous about attempting to land using "stick and rudder" flying skills. Pilots spend more time managing computer systems than manually flying planes, systems that are more precise and use less fuel than a human pilot.

When asked if he was concerned about his ability to perform the visual approach, Lee said "very concerned, yeah."

"This pilot should never have taken off," said attorney Ilyas Akbari, whose firm represents 14 of the passengers. "The fact that the pilot was stressed and nervous is a testament to the inadequate training he received, and those responsible for his training and for certifying his competency bear some of the culpability for the tragedy of this crash."

Lee said he told his instructors about his concerns in the flight's planning stages. He told investigators that as he realized his approach was off, he was worried he might "fail his flight and would be embarrassed."

Another Asiana pilot who recently flew with Lee told investigators that he was not sure if the trainee captain was making normal progress and that he did not perform well during a trip two days before the accident. That captain described Lee as "not well organized or prepared," according to the investigative report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wireStory/ntsb-asiana-captain-worried-visual-landing-21180005

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Asiana incident is a clear case of pilot error. He is trying to blame the 'automated throttle' which is baloney. The PIC is still responsible for checking air speed, altitude, and glide even if on ILS approach. This guy should be charged with manslaughter for the deaths he caused.

 

Then I guess you should be charged with "operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner" for almost running a brand new aircraft out of gas.

 

Who are we to judge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie Tango,

 

I do not disagree with you.

 

I do disagree with charging the pilot with manslaughter.

 

This accident, like most, had many links in the accident chain. Each of those links must be examined and corrected to make a repitition unlikely.

 

But as long as there are humans in the chain, mistakes will happen. In airplanes large and small and by pilots of all experience levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NTSB Hearing of Asiana Flight 214

 

 

 

 

"It's even worse than I thought.

 

They were the proverbial "asses and elbows" as they flew that visual approach.

 

Very sad."

 

 

This is not a typical accident chain. Unlike japan Korea has failed to fix the cultural issues that make training airline pilots difficult and embarrassment a primary issue. They have as well failed to maintain a pilot fleet that are better than 'children of the magenta'

 

The captain here couldn't be embarrassed so he flew an approach that scared him, the crew failed to monitor the automaton and ultimately failed to monitor the approach or even fly the airplane. ( the captain was pitching up at the last moment to recapture the glide path but he was 50mph slow and no-one advanced the throttles, that wouldn't work in my CT let alone a heavy 777)

 

I'm am not calling for the prosecution of the captain but I am calling fro the prohibition into US airspace of crews that lack skill development and CRM necessary to land the planes they fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess you should be charged with "operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner" for almost running a brand new aircraft out of gas.

 

Who are we to judge?

 

There is a big difference in a one passenger seat plane vs. the blind trust passengers have on a commercial flight- The CFI (pilot in command) flying with CTLSi decided there was enough fuel to make the trip- and it was- however slight a margin. However, the Asiana passengers did not have the benefit of knowing the training and experience of the pilot- so they had to go on blind trust. If the pilot was uncomfortable, or lacked the experience of landing in SFO- he should have admitted it and not been the pilot of that flight. At the very least, at the last moment, he could have asked to be diverted (if he was that uncomfortable) to another airport in the area (San Jose is 10 minutes by air away). I think the families of the dead passengers are probably making a lot of judgements right now about that pilot and that airline. Even we low time pilots have to have personal minimums and limitations, based on the judgement of our skills.

 

I have to agree with Charlie Tango and CTLSi- the airline is responsible for training and the pilot is responsible, regardless of automation. They may not charge him with anything criminal, but he should not be flying thousands of passengers around the world - I will never fly that airline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...