Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With each second literally counting, people can damn well leave their sh.t behind. Airlines and aircraft designers don't dream up this sort of stuff because they like watching their passengers' stuff go up in flames. They actually do test evacuation scenarios under controlled circumstances. Including, btw., carry-on luggage in the aisles.
If each of the first 100 passengers futz around with their bags for 0.6 of a second, that's a full minute of aggregate lost time.
Yet many of them did take their bags with them, and every single person (including the casualties) on the plane was able to get off, before the aircraft was engulfed in flames. But 100% success is not good enough for you? You are going to betch about it anyway, to create a problem where one doesn't exist.
Nobody is "rushing to judgement". This was clearly and undeniably pilot error - individually or collectively - either way, it is still pilot error. There was nothing wrong with that airplane that some thrust applied to idling engines wouldn't have fixed.
.
You are "rushing to judgment" without all of the facts. You do not know if something was wrong with the plane or not. It's possible that you are right, but that's just speculation. Sorry, not buying it.
This tap dance smacks of the "blue code of silence" in the world of law enforcement and I can only assume that as your motivation. It may work well on your grandchildren, but it's not going to sell here tonight.
These guys blew it - big time - just like amateur hobbyists do every day flying Microsoft Flight Simulator. Except that it's ok for hobbyists flying a simulator to attempt the landing anyway despite their full knowledge that they botched another one. I did it dozens of times when I was learning the basics of flight. Sometimes I pulled it off....and sometimes I did exactly what the Asiana pilots did on Saturday - on my computer. And you know as well as I do that when you botch an approach, you know it long before you reach the runway threshold. And you go around.
You clearly have an axe to grind here and it is not helpful to the quest for truth or to the continued improvement of commercial airline safety.
People should understand that flying a Microsoft simulator on a home computer is not equivalent to flying an actual Boeing 777 in the real world.
Your rush to crucify the pilots without having all of the information reminds me of the wild west days:
"Thar's the varmit what murdered my woman. I know cus I saw him clearly on that dark night, even without my glasses; let's hang him on the highest tree."
It's the same rush to judgement that the FAA did in the early days. They made huge mistakes by taking the easy road and blaming the pilots, thereby missing the actual cause of accidents by taking that easy road. Fortunately, the unions and others put a stop to that practice.
Because of the thorough investigation procedures that are in place today, many lives have been saved by examining "all" of the data, determining all of the contributing factors and making any recommended changes in procedures or aircraft design as a result of the findings.
We have no knowledge of what the Asiana pilots did, nor why they did, or didn't do, whatever they did or didn't do. We have no knowledge of why the engines were only went to 50% power when they apparently made an attempt to go around. We have no idea why the airplane speed was slow.
At this point, one can only speculate and say that the information that has been published shows that pilot error is a "possibility".
During the 1970s, Pan Am had a rash of accidents where a lot of people were killed. Thorough investigations showed that one overriding cause of some of those accidents was pilot error, and that was a result of the the way the cockpit was being managed, or rather mismanaged by some of the pilots. Consequently, Pan Am changed their operating procedures and cockpit management method to include the "crew concept" of managing the cockpit.
I was working in the training department right after the new procedures were put in place, and taught the crew concept management procedure to our pilots, and other pilots that Pan Am contracted to train.
Pilots from some foreign airlines came to us for training, and I trained some Korean Air Line pilots during that time. We would train a full crew, captain, co-pilot, and flight engineer, at the same time. They had a different culture and it was very difficult for them to make the change that we required, but they succeeded. I don't know if this culture thing played any part in this accident, so I'm not going to go into detail. I would like to think that all foreign airlines have adopted the crew concept of cockpit management because it's extremely effective. I discuss crew concept in more detail in a book that I wrote.
Because of my experience as a Pan Am airline pilot and as a trainer of airline pilots, I do not condone cockpit complacency. I do not tolerate pilot sloppiness in flying. I always taught the pilots in training, and my co-pilots, to be ever vigilant and use precision in flying. If the NTSB determines the cause of this accident to be pilot error, then I will not cut the pilots any slack. But as of this time, the NTSB has not made that determination, and neither will I make a hasty conclusion that could be faulty.
The information that the NTSB has released, and a statement that the media says the Asiana President made, appears to point the finger at the pilots. It could very well turn out to be pilot error, and I certainly agree that the possibility is there. However, until all of the data, including statements from the crew, weather and wind conditions, engine condition, hydraulic, electrical, and all the other airplane systems, is investigated, no one can know what factors may have contributed to this tragic accident.
Last edited by Captain Bill; 07-09-2013 at 07:51 AM..
Have a look at flyingprofessors.net for a good, professional discussion of what happened, based on actual data available to the public. It's pretty interesting. Their conclusion is that it was due to an unstable approach: the pilot came in a bit above the glide path (as most do) and then, about three miles out, over corrected by initiating a too-rapid rate of descent at too slow a speed, that he was not able to correct in time. Before i saw the data i thought maybe it could have been because the aircraft weight punched into the flight computer was too low. But now, i'm not so sure after reading the analysis.
The conclusion that you make is not the conclusion that the article makes. The author is only "conjecturing" as to what may have happened based on the small amount of information available.
The author clarified in the beginning, with this statement:
"Below, I outline the data that's available at this time, and why I think that's a possibility.
But first, a disclaimer: There's not nearly enough data to determine the cause of the accident.
The below is speculation, based on the data available to me, which is not even a few percent of the data that will be available to the NTSB.
Most speculation this early in the process is wrong, precisely because so little data is available.
So anything below that may appear to be stated as a fact is really a conjecture. "
I could make the same conjectures, but doing that is dangerous because as has happened here, some people would misinterpret, and erroneously conclude that I was making a statement that this is pilot error. The author of that article DID NOT state that this is pilot error. He said it is a "possibility" based on very limited information. He was very careful to state, "Most speculation this early in the process is wrong, precisely because so little data is available."
The question right now is why was the aircraft's air speed on final about 30 knots below the recommended minimum, and why didn't the captain and first officer, or the relief pilots, notice the low air speed and the inevitable stall until the last few seconds? I would think with no ILS, and the Auto-Throttle off, they would have paid more attention to the air speed, or at least the rapid descent rate on the altimeter. An air speed of slightly above 100 knots on final may be suitable for a Boeing 737-700 or an Airbus A319, but certainly not a Boeing 777-200.
They are saying that the aircraft was too high in the glide slope, and under such circumstances, pilots would have deployed the spoilers to descend to a suitable altitude and keep the air speed within the desired range, I am wondering if the pilots at the controls deployed the spoilers and forgot to retract them, and I'm sure the investigators will be looking at that possibility.
Last edited by Magnum Mike; 07-09-2013 at 08:40 AM..
Yet many of them did take their bags with them, and every single person (including the casualties) on the plane was able to get off, before the aircraft was engulfed in flames. But 100% success is not good enough for you? You are going to betch about it anyway, to create a problem where one doesn't exist.
You bet I am. Self-centered a-holes who disobey evacuation instructions aren't entitled to one iota of respect, even if they got lucky this time.
Kudos to Boeing for making a plane that held together so well in a crash.
I have been reading this a lot, about how well the plane held together. Am I the only one who doesn't see this?
First, the tail section that bore the brunt of the impact, totally disintegrated. The back of the cabin severely crumpled (all most pancaked) trapping some passengers. Many of the escape slides seemed to be defective. The fuselage broke/bent in at least two places. And worst of all, the skin seemed to melt unbelievably fast.
I will give it points for the seats staying attached to the floor, even in the parts of the plane that had the most damage, and the fire burned slow enough to give time for all passengers to escape.
But over all I think if you look at enough take off / landing crashes, there is nothing remarkable about how well this aircraft held together. IMHO.
Captain Bill - Thank you for your patience with this crew. Also thank you for sharing your knowlege of aircraft and flying procedures. I will wait for the results of the investigation to be published.
The question right now is why was the aircraft's air speed on final about 30 knots below the recommended minimum, and why didn't the captain and first officer, or the relief pilots, notice the low air speed and the inevitable stall until the last few seconds? I would think with no ILS, and the Auto-Throttle off, they would have paid more attention to the air speed, or at least the rapid descent rate on the altimeter. An air speed of slightly above 100 knots on final may be suitable for a Boeing 737-700 or an Airbus A319, but certainly not a Boeing 777-200.
They are saying that the aircraft was too high in the glide slope, and under such circumstances, pilots would have deployed the spoilers to descend to a suitable altitude and keep the air speed within the desired range, I am wondering if the pilots at the controls deployed the spoilers and forgot to retract them, and I'm sure the investigators will be looking at that possibility.
Mike, someone may be speculating with the high on the glide slope info. The head of the NTSB, in her discussion of the cockpit data and voice recorder didn't mention anything about the airplane being high. I'm not saying it wasn't, but just that the NTSB, who had the information, did not mention that. If it had been high, and made a rapid descent, then I would expect that there would have been a power increase and a change in pitch attitude as it reached the desired altitude; yet, no mention has been made of that.
The questions do remain as to why they were low, why they were slow, why they delayed a go around, and why was the power advanced only to 50%, as reported by the NTSB.
The information, as reported, does indicate that the aircraft was entering a stall. It's reported that the stick shaker did go off, and at that instant full power should have been used because it was so low to the ground. Then a passenger reported that the aircraft began shaking, which indicates to me that the aircraft had entered the stall at that point. If they had in fact entered a stall, then it would have taken more altitude (which they didn't have) in order to recover.
Here is a comprehensive and interesting report from the United aircraft that was on the taxiway when Asiana crashed. He mentions seeing the two girls on the runway and called for help for them.
I keep reading reports that the pilot did not have experience landing in SFO in the 777. That is a non-issue. SFO runway 28 is not a difficult approach and does not require any special training. Many times pilots fly into SFO for the first time on any aircraft. And this pilot had flown into SFO in the 747, according to reports.
It's only airports like Hong Kong's Kai Tac, and a few others around the world that require special training, usually by watching a video of an approach, and studying the nav aids for that airport, and/or flying into the airport with another pilot in the cockpit who has landed at that airport. SFO is just a regular airport with no difficult approach procedures.
I think part of the problem causing the wild speculation is that the NTSB has released partial information before even interviewing the pilots, and before learning all the facts. There is also growing speculation about the cultural hierarchical situation being a possible cause, because of a couple of their accidents 25 years ago.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, in the 1970s I trained Korean Air Line pilots who lived by this hierarchical situation in the cockpit and we had to train them to overcome that situation and learn to use the crew concept of cockpit management. I don't know, some 40 years later, if their training includes crew concept procedures today, or if they are still operating under the old system of not being able to correct your superior.
We should all read about what the flight attendants did to assist passengers, and injured flight attendants, to get safely off the airplane.
One flight attendant was trapped under an escape chute that inflated into the aircraft and she apparently was being choked by the weight.
They deserve a lot of credit for getting everyone off that airplane as safely as possible under the circumstances. The pilots also assisted, but this focus is on the flight attendants, and rightly so. Asiana Flight 214 attendants lauded as 'heroes'
The flight attendants are on the airplane primarily for the safety of passengers. They are not just glorified waitresses, as some uninformed persons might argue.
Unfortunately, people today don't even listen to their safety announcements prior to departure, which is a sad commentary on our short attention span society, because when they don't listen to the announcements, the mistakes they make during an emergency could cost someone else to lose their life.
Passengers should never take the time to get their bag when departing an aircraft in an emergency. In this case, some who did, lucked out. But that extra few seconds to get that bag could result in that person losing their life by not getting out of the airplane fast enough.
Listen to the flight attendants when they give their announcements, and listen to them again in an emergency situation. It may save your life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heroic actions of Asianic flight attendants
