Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

[negreanu]

If Asiana was using this flight as a training flight, the least the company should have done was inform the passengers before the flight that it was going to be a training flight, and that a discount would be offered due to the higher risk of the flight......

See above post.

I'll simplify it (A lot - This is not airline specific but approximations)

By the time a pilots Airline training has reached the section of training carrying passengers on a commercial sector he will:

1. Completed 2-4 weeks of ground based study of aircraft systems and other airline policy etc.

2. Completed 1 week of fixed base simulator sessions.

3. Completed 2 weeks of Simulator training on the aircraft type

4. Completed simulator tests by aviation authority authorised examiner

5. Possibly completed a certain amount of Takeoff and landings on actual aircraft (Depends on a number of factors whether this is necessary)

6. Will only fly with Airline Training Captains and possibly safety pilots for the first few sector. Then will continue to fly with Training Captains for a certain amount sectors. Before further test and release from training.

Now remember that is just the airline training. Prior to joining the airline he will obviously obtained a Professional airline licence (exams, flight tests etc. which are not easy and can take 18 months in the quickest option) and possibly many hours experience on smaller aircraft types. His experience and flight time must meet aviation authority and airline requirements before he would even be considered for the position with an airline.

In conclusion just because a commercial flight has training occurring on the flight deck in no way compromises the safety of the flight.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[EyesWideOpen]

From the book Outliers discussing Korean Air operations. Not sure if this was a factor or not. But clearly one pilot flew the plane into the ground, while the other pilot watched it happen......

" Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline in the world for a period at the end of the 1990s. When we think of airline crashes, we think, Oh, they must have had old planes. They must have had badly trained pilots. No. What they were struggling with was a cultural legacy, that Korean culture is hierarchical. You are obliged to be deferential toward your elders and superiors in a way that would be unimaginable in the U.S.

But Boeing (BA, Fortune 500) and Airbus design modern, complex airplanes to be flown by two equals. That works beautifully in low-power-distance cultures [like the U.S., where hierarchies aren't as relevant]. But in cultures that have high power distance, it’s very difficult.

I use the case study of a very famous plane crash in Guam of Korean Air. They’re flying along, and they run into a little bit of trouble, the weather’s bad. The pilot makes an error, and the co-pilot doesn’t correct him. But once Korean Air figured out that their problem was cultural, they fixed it."

Edited July 8, 2013 by EyesWideOpen

[manarak]

and the fact that pilots requested emergency vehicles before the crash

Is there a source for this detail? I haven't read/heard a mention of this request. Did the flight deck made this request well out from the airport?

yes, please check my earlier post:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-3#entry6586519

The pilots are calling for emergency services after they have hit the tail.

wow, who would have thought that

[manarak]

The pilots are calling for emergency services after they have hit the tail.

Incredibly, that seems to be the case based on a survey of media reports. If true, I'm wondering how radio power was maintained. Any Boeing 777 systems experts to explain radio power sourcing? Perhaps the APU was running or there is a battery/inverter source, since they apparently lost both engines (one literally) shortly after belly-down?

planes have several generators - obviously, the power to the cockpit's systems is critical, so I expect that power source to be redundant er even present in triplicate... Since the plane remained in one piece, most of its internal systems would have been working after the crash.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I'd be curious to know what Asiana's policies are on what level of direct experience a pilot needs to have on a particular aircraft and a particular arrival airport before they're put in the captain's chair for landings...

From a passenger perspective, if someone told me the pilot handling my flight's landing on a transcontinental flight had only 43 hours total flight time in my 777 jet and hadn't previously captained that jet to my destination airport, I might not feel the greatest level of confidence.

But even moreso, in this instance, the plane seemed to be following an off-target glide slope for a long distance heading into SFO... And yet from the info that's been publicly released thus far, the only references to a correction needing to be made seemed to come at the very absolute last seconds of the flight. What was the senior pilot (apparently in this case co-pilot) doing all that time?

[negreanu]

If true, I'm wondering how radio power was maintained. Any Boeing 777 systems experts to explain radio power sourcing? Perhaps the APU was running or there is a battery/inverter source, since they apparently lost both engines (one literally) shortly after belly-down?

Aircraft Batteries provide power to VHF 1. APU was missing as per the Tail. Engines APU will have been shutdown and secured and fire agents discharged as per procedure. Batteries will be selected off shortly afterwards.

I'd be curious to know what Asiana's policies are on what level of direct experience a pilot needs to have on a particular aircraft and a particular arrival airport before they're put in the captain's chair for landings...

From a passenger perspective, if someone told me the pilot handling my flight's landing on a transcontinental flight had only 43 hours total flight time in my 777 jet and hadn't previously captained that jet to my destination airport, I might not feel the greatest level of confidence.

One word Simulators. Category D Full Flight Simulators.

It is possible that your Captain on a flight these days has ZERO hours flying the actual aircraft on your international flight. (Zero Flight Time Conversion) But of course the flight deck will have a Training Captain along and authority/airline policy depending a third qualified pilot for safety.

Relax have another gin and tonic and enjoy the IFE. Don't worry the guys up the front of your 777 are all qualified and meet all aviation authority and airline experience requirements.

A lot of passengers think that the flight deck crew must have flown into their destination airport SF in this case before. Not necessary for most airports (There are a few exceptions in the world). Whether flown in to that airport before on any aircraft type or flown in to the airport before on current aircraft type - basically irrelevant.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[F430murci]

I find it quite extraordinary that the airline company has been quoted in several media resources as having repeatedly said that both pilots were “ veterans “ whereas today one British newspaper claims one pilot was on his maiden training flight and had only 43 hours experience at the controls of a Boeing 777.

Pilot was attempting his first Boeing 777 landing at San Francisco airport, airline says

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/07/boeing-777-crashes-at-san-francisco-international-airport/

Don't the trans Pacific flights have an extra crew on board? I think 1 extra crew member for 8+ hours and 2 extra crew members for 12 + hour.

So not so extraordinary as two or three could have been senior pilots with one junior pilot.

[MaxYakov]

Not to me. When it is ever a good idea to train a pilot, even when supervised, with over 300 passengers and crew on board? Whatever the state of the pilot's skills on type or CRM (Cockpit Resource Management), the end result is telling.

What? You have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Airline Training procedures or how the training course for conversion/upgrade/recurrent training is constructed and implemented.

Line training with passengers happens everyday in airline operations....Its nothing new and will always be that way.

You will have been on flights with pilots under training as a passenger more times than you imagine. Its a normal approved part of a pilots training... probably 25% or more of all airline flights per day are training / checking.

The media picking up that he had never flown into SF on that particular aircraft is quite frankly irrelevant.

CRM (Cockpit Resource Management)

It's actually Crew Resource Management.... CRM is not confined to the flightdeck.

Thanks for the correction on the CRM acronym, I realized the mistake too late to edit it. Sound familiar?

Yes, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. One never knows on TVF, does one?

But I was simply asking a question and an expert like you has enlightened us, yes? So you're saying it is a good idea just because it's 'always been done that way' or some such rationale? Is there some minimum level of simulator and flight-deck-crew-only training that is required before they are allowed 'go live', so to speak?

Frankly, at this point, I'm beyond the 'training' issue. I'm thinking negligent homicide or manslaughter charges. People died in that crash and others were critically injured, no matter how it's spun by the media or the airline industry. It wouldn't be the first time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

[negreanu]

Is there someminimum level of simulator and flight-deck-crew-only training that is required before they are allowed 'go live', so to speak?

Yes.

See previous post above is a simplified approximation of what will occur for airline training for conversion onto a specific aircraft type.

Frankly, at this point, I'm beyond the 'training' issue. I'm thinking negligent homicide or manslaughter charges. People died in that crash and others were critically injured, no matter how it's spun by the media or the airline industry. It wouldn't be the first time:

Sadly accidents do occur on every type of transportation, whether road, air, sea, train. Going forward the investigation will conclude and the professionals in the industry will analyse it and learn from the incident to make future flights safer for all.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I'd be curious to know what Asiana's policies are on what level of direct experience a pilot needs to have on a particular aircraft and a particular arrival airport before they're put in the captain's chair for landings...

From a passenger perspective, if someone told me the pilot handling my flight's landing on a transcontinental flight had only 43 hours total flight time in my 777 jet and hadn't previously captained that jet to my destination airport, I might not feel the greatest level of confidence.

One word Simulators. Category D Full Flight Simulators.

It is possible that your Captain on a flight these days has ZERO hours flying the actual aircraft on your international flight. (Zero Flight Time Conversion) But of course the flight deck will have a Training Captain along and authority/airline policy depending a third qualified pilot for safety.

Relax have another gin and tonic and enjoy the IFE. Don't worry the guys up the front of your 777 are all qualified and meet all aviation authority and airline experience requirements.

A lot of passengers think that the flight deck crew must have flown into their destination airport SF in this case before. Not necessary for most airports (There are a few exceptions in the world). Whether flown in to that airport before on any aircraft type or flown in to the airport before on current aircraft type - basically irrelevant.

May sound fine to you, but doesn't sound very reassuring to me.

Maybe all those provisions were in play here... But from all indications thus far, the plane made a bad approach and didn't try to correct it until far too late in the game.

Then add in, a pilot not very familiar with 777s and perhaps even less familiar with SFO, an approach over water and the depth perception issues that can create, a non-functioning ILS system at the airport....

Something obviously broke down in all the procedures and systems that are supposed to ensure a safe flight and landing.

Pilot error certainly seems to be a likely prominent factor in the end judgment. It will be interesting to ultimately see how much blame is apportioned to various of the different potential causal factors for the crash.

[NeverSure]

...meanwhile here is the ATC, probably a little hard to follow unless your one our TV Experts:

http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3

Do I understand correctly that there was talk of an emergency already when the plane was at a height of 3,500 to 3,000 metres? "Emergency vehicles are responding". "Emergency vehicles are on their way"

I'm a pilot, used to the abbreviations and chatter. I can't understand much of it but usually I can easily. Perhaps it is a recording of the frequency for approach, where multiple planes are talking to approach (tower.) Maybe it isn't just a recording of the 777 and the tower.

I will say that this, if it's just one plane and tower for final approach, is a ton of talk for a landing. Usually there is very little if any talk after the plane is lined up and cleared to land from quite a distance out. Then the plane is handed off to ground radio for taxi, which obviously didn't happen here.

I get very little until the very end.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Relax have another gin and tonic and enjoy the IFE. Don't worry the guys up the front of your 777 are all qualified and meet all aviation authority and airline experience requirements.

Except, one or more of those "qualified" guys appear to have crashed the plane in the apparent absence of any mechanical failures or unexpected external factors like wind sheer, etc.

Edited July 8, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[negreanu]

Pilot error certainly seems to be a likely prominent factor in the end judgment. It will be interesting to ultimately see how much blame is apportioned to various of the different potential causal factors for the crash.

most aircraft incidents/accidents are a combination of several factors and the majority fall into the Swiss cheese model.

Except, one or more of those qualified guys appear to have crashed the plane.

100% safety in any form of transportation is unobtainable. With or without human input.

However the airline industry is one that works 24/7 to strive for that 100%.

Boeing should be praised for the design of the B777 and the amount of people that it has protected during the worst case scenarios of this incident and the BA LHR B777 incident. A truly awesome airplane which continually receives praise for the flightdeck crew and engineering who work with it.

May sound fine to you, but doesn't sound very reassuring to me.

As an individual you make analysis of everything you do and you personally assess your risk when making a choice to use transportation or not.

People are highly (unfairly??) critical when a aircraft incident occurs to the industry.

Partly the reason that we are so highly regulated and professional that incidents are rare that the those outside the industry see it as such a safe form of transport when a infrequent incident does occur people are shocked and angry because its perceived as so safe thanks to the work of those involved.

Have a think next time you step into a bangkok taxi to the airport with no seatbelts in the back seat doing 140km/h down the expressway. Or that Minibus trip to Udon Thani during songkran... Risk analysis

I hate to use the term but It is still the safest form of transport due to the professionalism and the regulation.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[Rust Never Sleeps]

www.theage.com.au/world/south-korean-plane-was-flying-too-slowly-to-reach-runway-before-crash-20130708-2plfr.html

And when I am dying I will consult the ThaiVisa bible on how to survive.

[EyesWideOpen]

If Asiana was using this flight as a training flight, the least the company should have done was inform the passengers before the flight that it was going to be a training flight, and that a discount would be offered due to the higher risk of the flight......

See above post.

I'll simplify it (A lot - This is not airline specific but approximations)

By the time a pilots Airline training has reached the section of training carrying passengers on a commercial sector he will:

1. Completed 2-4 weeks of ground based study of aircraft systems and other airline policy etc.

2. Completed 1 week of fixed base simulator sessions.

3. Completed 2 weeks of Simulator training on the aircraft type

4. Completed simulator tests by aviation authority authorised examiner

5. Possibly completed a certain amount of Takeoff and landings on actual aircraft (Depends on a number of factors whether this is necessary)

6. Will only fly with Airline Training Captains and possibly safety pilots for the first few sector. Then will continue to fly with Training Captains for a certain amount sectors. Before further test and release from training.

Now remember that is just the airline training. Prior to joining the airline he will obviously obtained a Professional airline licence (exams, flight tests etc. which are not easy and can take 18 months in the quickest option) and possibly many hours experience on smaller aircraft types. His experience and flight time must meet aviation authority and airline requirements before he would even be considered for the position with an airline.

In conclusion just because a commercial flight has training occurring on the flight deck in no way compromises the safety of the flight.

I understand what you are saying. I am a private pilot, and my brother has owned a small airline. However in this case, the safety of the flight WAS comprised, as events clearly showed by serious pilot error...

[negreanu]

the safety of the flight WAS comprised

This statement I agree with. Why we will have to wait and see and what factors were involved.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

most aircraft incidents/accidents are a combination of several factors and the majority fall into the Swiss cheese model.100% safety in any form of transportation is unobtainable. With or without human input.

However the airline industry is one that works 24/7 to strive for that 100%.

Boeing should be praised for the design of the B777 and the amount of people that it has protected during the worst case scenarios of this incident and the BA LHR B777 incident. A truly awesome airplane which continually receives praise for the flightdeck crew and engineering who work with it.

As an individual you make analysis of everything you do and you personally assess your risk when making a choice to use transportation or not.

People are highly (unfairly??) critical when a aircraft incident occurs to the industry.

Partly the reason that we are so highly regulated and professional that incidents are rare that the those outside the industry see it as such a safe form of transport when a infrequent incident does occur people are shocked and angry because its perceived as so safe thanks to the work of those involved.

Have a think next time you step into a bangkok taxi to the airport with no seatbelts in the back seat doing 140km/h down the expressway. Or that Minibus trip to Udon Thani during songkran... Risk analysis

I hate to use the term but It is still the safest form of transport due to the professionalism and the regulation.

I agree with most of what you say above...

I'm not shocked or angry about the crash. The 777 is, by all indications, a very safe jet with a good safety record. Air travel overall is relatively safe, probably the safest form of mass transport overall.

And yet, something went seriously wrong here, two people dead and many more seriously injured. I know the NTSB takes its mission and work seriously, and has a creditable record as well.

Hopefully, if there were human factors that caused or contributed to the crash as seems likely will be the case, the relevant authorities will learn from that and institute measures designed to prevent the same or similar mistakes from happening again in the future.

Edited July 8, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[skippybangkok]

Might be of interest - http://flyingprofessors.net/what-happened-to-asiana-airlines-flight-214-2/

Voted best link - I doubt anyone could say it better

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From the above link, this is what I had referred to earlier... It's pretty clear that SFO's ILS was down at the time of the crash, and in fact for a period of months.

But there also have been reports that the airport's PAPI system might not have been functioning as well, or perhaps, not functioning well.

There are reports that the ILS glideslope was unavailable, but that the PAPI (precision approach path indicator) for runway 28L was functional.

There are some conflicting reports that the PAPI was unavailable as well.

Be interesting to hear the factual outcome on both of those systems at the airport.

So what the above analysis is basically saying as I understand it, for the non-technical among us, is:

The Asiana Airline began a descent to SFO that was too high and too steep for normal, then continued downward until the plane crossed below the normal glidepath as it neared landing, then tried to pull and power up in the final seconds, albeit too late.

Edited July 8, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[puck2]

Nobody talks about the real culprit as it seems, the airport (management).

There are reports that some important safety tools/-systems have been stopped functioning since several weeks, i.e.

- Precision Approach Path Indicator ( PAPI)

- flare path (for the right approach angle)

There isn't any «Ground Based Augmentation System» (GBAS).

Very short time interval for the landing aircrafts is a reckless airport managemnent just under the condition of some missing safety systems.

These safety deficiencies are well known between the pilots of big aircrafts. Even with the safety systems functioning the landing procedure at SFO airport had already a dubious fame among them. Remember the legendary Chesley Sullenberger.

Now there will be the question who is more responsible, the Asiana Airline with the unexperienced pilot or the airport-management with this incredible safty management ?

[jamhar]

I dont know if someone posted this vid of the actual crash,

but its truly remarkable that ANYONE survived this.

CNN vid of plane crash on cam Link

[SeaVisionBurma]

Nobody talks about the real culprit as it seems, the airport (management).

There are reports that some important safety tools/-systems have been stopped functioning since several weeks, i.e.

- Precision Approach Path Indicator ( PAPI)

- flare path (for the right approach angle)

There isn't any «Ground Based Augmentation System» (GBAS).

Very short time interval for the landing aircrafts is a reckless airport managemnent just under the condition of some missing safety systems.

These safety deficiencies are well known between the pilots of big aircrafts. Even with the safety systems functioning the landing procedure at SFO airport had already a dubious fame among them. Remember the legendary Chesley Sullenberger.

Now there will be the question who is more responsible, the Asiana Airline with the unexperienced pilot or the airport-management with this incredible safty management ?

Some important safety tools/systems have stopped functioning....the "flare path" system?

I'm sorry, what system is this again?

[negreanu]

Nobody talks about the real culprit as it seems, the airport (management).

There are reports that some important safety tools/-systems have been stopped functioning since several weeks, i.e.

- Precision Approach Path Indicator ( PAPI)

- flare path (for the right approach angle)

PAPI's were serviceable according to NTSB briefing.

Secondly the Glideslope was unserviceable and details were published of that (Localiser fully serviceable).

Now even if the glide slope is unserviceable. The crew are fully trained to fly non precision approaches. Note that a lot of international destinations at major airports do not even have a ILS facility (Localiser and Glideslope) installation and pilots have a range of choices for non precison approach methods.

The talk of the airport being a culprit due to a unserviceable NOTAM'd glideslope. Not really, It is possibly a factor in the "Big picture" but I would not accuse them as being a culprit.

It is NORMAL procedure for crews to make approaches without a ILS and not uncommon and crews are trained for it.

Final responsibility lies with the commander of the aircraft. He would assess the airport's facilities and weather bearing in mind the facilities available to him and then make the decision whether to make an approach at that particular airport or not.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[cloudhopper]

Nobody talks about the real culprit as it seems, the airport (management).

There are reports that some important safety tools/-systems have been stopped functioning since several weeks, i.e.

- Precision Approach Path Indicator ( PAPI)

- flare path (for the right approach angle)

There isn't any «Ground Based Augmentation System» (GBAS).

Very short time interval for the landing aircrafts is a reckless airport managemnent just under the condition of some missing safety systems.

These safety deficiencies are well known between the pilots of big aircrafts. Even with the safety systems functioning the landing procedure at SFO airport had already a dubious fame among them. Remember the legendary Chesley Sullenberger.

Now there will be the question who is more responsible, the Asiana Airline with the unexperienced pilot or the airport-management with this incredible safty management ?

The PAPI was working, which is just as accurate as a ILS glide slope, but neither would have been needed for this approach anyway.

Like AF 447 this accident appears to be another shocking example of airline pilots forgetting (or never having really learned) the basics when something goes wrong with the automation.

[negreanu]

Like AF 447 this accident appears to be another shocking example of airline pilots forgetting (or never having really learned) the basics when something goes wrong with the automation.

Its a hot topic in the industry at the moment. As aircraft systems develop and are ever more complex. Crews dependance on automation is a concern. Most airlines are now recognising this and implementing appropriate training regimes in the crews recurrent training programs.

The PAPI's are indeed not required however they are of great assistance to the widebody airliner crew in making a visual approach.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[manarak]

I dont know if someone posted this vid of the actual crash,

but its truly remarkable that ANYONE survived this.

CNN vid of plane crash on cam Link

at last!

I have been looking for this vid for ages!

impressive indeed - it's a miracle the plane remained in one piece

[SeaVisionBurma]

The PAPI was working, which is just as accurate as a ILS glide slope, but neither would have been needed for this approach anyway.

Like AF 447 this accident appears to be another shocking example of airline pilots forgetting (or never having really learned) the basics when something goes wrong with the automation.

Massive difference between this accident and the Air France one. So big a difference I find it hard to draw a comparison with them as you have.

Flight was on final approach in clear weather operating under VFR. One of the fundamental basics of final approach under VMC is the positioning of the approach point through the cockpit windows, and adjusting your speed and attitude accordingly.

[negreanu]

I find it hard to draw a comparison with them as you have.

He is commenting basically on human-automation interaction with advanced aircraft. And subsequently the modern day airline pilots abilities to operate the aircraft without automation due to failure or otherwise.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[Mosha]

Nobody talks about the real culprit as it seems, the airport (management).

There are reports that some important safety tools/-systems have been stopped functioning since several weeks, i.e.

- Precision Approach Path Indicator ( PAPI)

- flare path (for the right approach angle)

There isn't any «Ground Based Augmentation System» (GBAS).

Very short time interval for the landing aircrafts is a reckless airport managemnent just under the condition of some missing safety systems.

These safety deficiencies are well known between the pilots of big aircrafts. Even with the safety systems functioning the landing procedure at SFO airport had already a dubious fame among them. Remember the legendary Chesley Sullenberger.

Now there will be the question who is more responsible, the Asiana Airline with the unexperienced pilot or the airport-management with this incredible safty management ?

Some important safety tools/systems have stopped functioning....the "flare path" system?

I'm sorry, what system is this again?

I have a friend who is an ATC operator. He reports PAPI was working until the 777 clobbered it.

[Tywais]

I have a friend who is an ATC operator. He reports PAPI was working until the 777 clobbered it.

That was my understanding when reading the confusion on other boards where some say the OTS (out of services) NOTAM for the PAPI was after the incident.