Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-29-2013, 11:25 AM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,447,778 times
Reputation: 14266

Advertisements

They know how to push buttons and interpret computer programs. That's great up until something goes wrong and they actually have to manually take control, at which point they evidently don't know what the hell they're doing.

If you value your life, do not ever fly Asiana again until they actually insist that their pilots become fully competent at their jobs.

PATHETIC.

SFO worries over Asiana’s landing record | Matier And Ross | an SFGate.com blog

Quote:
After the crash, airline industry officials went through six weeks of records and found a “considerably higher” number of aborted landings by Asiana than would be expected, said our sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not cleared to make the information public.

Asiana’s number of aborted landings, or “go-arounds,” is six to eight times greater than would be expected given the airline’s total number of flights into SFO, according to sources familiar with the numbers.

One such aborted landing happened July 19, just days after SFO reopened the runway where Flight 214 crashed. The Asiana jet pulled out of its early-afternoon landing just 14 seconds from touchdown.

 
Old 07-29-2013, 11:44 AM
 
486 posts, read 1,255,641 times
Reputation: 770
Are you a unionized United Airlines worker or something?
 
Old 07-29-2013, 11:55 AM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,447,778 times
Reputation: 14266
Quote:
Originally Posted by countofmc View Post
Are you a unionized United Airlines worker or something?
I am someone who wants the pilots of the plane I'm on to actually know how to fly the damn thing by hand when necessary and not be like a deer in the headlights when the automation isn't there to save them.
 
Old 07-29-2013, 12:07 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 15,797,741 times
Reputation: 5478
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I am someone who wants the pilots of the plane I'm on to actually know how to fly the damn thing by hand when necessary and not be like a deer in the headlights when the automation isn't there to save them.
You would need to know a lot more before forming an opinion on their capability.

My view would be that many heavy pilots are not very current at manual VFR procedures. I would also suspect that the long haul guys are less competent that the short haul ones.

I would also note that internal procedures and back checking may have a significant effect on go arounds...the question is stability achieved at the proper height. Some airlines are tight others are not.
 
Old 07-29-2013, 12:16 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,447,778 times
Reputation: 14266
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
You would need to know a lot more before forming an opinion on their capability.

My view would be that many heavy pilots are not very current at manual VFR procedures. I would also suspect that the long haul guys are less competent that the short haul ones.

I would also note that internal procedures and back checking may have a significant effect on go arounds...the question is stability achieved at the proper height. Some airlines are tight others are not.
I know that they have unusually high abort rates on VFR approaches compared to other airlines. What does that tell you???

I also know that there are a lot of anecdotal reports of American pilots who found these guys to be unusually weak at manual flight control. While all pilots are susceptible to core skills degradation due to over-reliance on automation systems, American pilots still have a significant aspect in their training placed upon manual flight control skills.

The whole point is that South Korean pilots have structural deficiency in their training. And they are probably not alone in that. It is a clear problem that needs to be exposed and addressed.
 
Old 07-29-2013, 12:28 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 15,797,741 times
Reputation: 5478
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I know that they have unusually high abort rates on VFR approaches compared to other airlines. What does that tell you???

I also know that there are a lot of anecdotal reports of American pilots who found these guys to be unusually weak at manual flight control. While all pilots are susceptible to core skills degradation due to over-reliance on automation systems, American pilots still have a significant aspect in their training placed upon manual flight control skills.

The whole point is that South Korean pilots have structural deficiency in their training. And they are probably not alone in that. It is a clear problem that needs to be exposed and addressed.
You are presuming things that are not in the record. Certain prejudices against non US pilots are the norm. That does not make them real. I would expect the training program for pilots was picked up from a standard source. Thus likely identical to some US programs.

Just last week a SW pilot appears to have landed nose wheel first. Last airline where I would expect such an error. I would think they will examine SWA procedures as well.

I would in fact think that the error in SF was of an automation screwup...these things do not really ever land in full manual mode. In fact they do not really have one. Two quite senior pilots did not do a proper instrument scan. I do not care which airline...that is absolutely basic stuff.

It will be interesting to see what the investigation determines.
 
Old 07-29-2013, 12:46 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,908,243 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
I would in fact think that the error in SF was of an automation screwup...these things do not really ever land in full manual mode. In fact they do not really have one. Two quite senior pilots did not do a proper instrument scan. I do not care which airline...that is absolutely basic stuff.
I don't know, I'm not a pilot, so I can't truly know the details of what's going on in the cockpit. But I do know a few pilots quite well as close friends/acquaintances (which is quite random because I don't work in the airline industry), and they all have said the same thing regarding this incident and what their standard procedure is on landing planes.

I know 4 pilots who currently work in the industry: 3 work exclusively on domestic flights (one works for a small regional airline in PA, one works for Delta, one works for American), and 1 is a long-haul pilot (works for United and flies continental US to Europe, used to fly to Asia). And they all have said pretty much the same thing.

1) This accident appears to be primarily due to human error. Even if there was some automation error (which was possible), there were a lot of human factors that were involved that doomed them. They let the airspeed get way too low. They wanted to do a "go around" 1.5 seconds before impact. It's all just odd. Even if there's "automation" there are back up pilots/people that are supposed to be constantly monitoring airspeed/altitude...these things just should never get that bad to begin with, automation or not.

They all agree that this would never happen if they were flying. Someone in the cockpit would have yelled at them about their airspeed, or that they were too low; or simply, the other pilot just would have taken it out of their hands. In their minds, "seniority" goes out the door when the plane is in danger of crashing/is about to crash.


2) When the weather is clear/visibility is great, they enjoy landing the plane "manually". It might not be a full "manual" mode (like you say, this doesn't really exist on today's planes), but they most certainly enjoy having the control of the plane as much as possible so they can land the plane safely themselves. They like doing it for the practice (especially important for long-haul pilots who don't get as many landings), and because they're pilots and they want to show off (i.e. "look how smooth I can land the plane").

When the weather is bad, or visibility is low, they do go to more automatic flying modes. In some instances, pretty full automatic. They all agree that most commercial jets today can pretty much land themselves. Problem is, when things go wrong, the pilot needs to know how to land the plane! Which is why they really try to do manual take offs/landings as much as possible.


These are just anecdotal accounts a from a few pilots I know, but they all point out that the majority of pilots they have talked to agree with these points. It does seem to be that Asiana is an outlier in the industry when it comes to pilot training. I'm not sure what the problem is exactly, but I hope that they figure out how to fix it.

I personally don't think it has anything to do with "Asian pilots" or any other stupid stereotype, since the majority of Asian airlines are very safe, and have the track record to prove it.

Last edited by HockeyMac18; 07-29-2013 at 12:56 PM..
 
Old 07-29-2013, 01:08 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 15,797,741 times
Reputation: 5478
The reports indicate the auto throttle was improperly set or malfunctioned. Which is actually immaterial. The real error was they failed to pick up the airspeed decrease. All else flows from that.

That is a virtually impossible error for any experienced pilot.

The SWA pilot landed nose first. Did not flare the airplane. That is even more impossible than the Asiana one.

So we wait and see how four experienced pilots screwed up the basics. The very basic.
 
Old 07-29-2013, 01:09 PM
 
1,650 posts, read 3,518,533 times
Reputation: 1142
Or is it possible that SFO is not technologically advanced enough to handle routine automated landing while most modern Asian airports are better equipped for that?
 
Old 07-29-2013, 01:12 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,908,243 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadhi01 View Post
Or is it possible that SFO is not technologically advanced enough to handle routine automated landing while most modern Asian airports are better equipped for that?
I'd hope the pilots could land the plane manually. The system you mention is rarely used on clear and good weather days.
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top