Asiana 777 Crash at SFO

[billy pilgrim]

If that's what happened, they crashed a plane in day VFR conditions because of messing up the autopilot, that says a lot about pilot proficiency in the world of commercial aviation. Not talking about knowledge or being able to manage the avionics. Talking about stick and rudder flying, situational awareness etc...

[TarHeelPilot]

If that's what happened, they crashed a plane in day VFR conditions because of messing up the autopilot, that says a lot about pilot proficiency in the world of commercial aviation. Not talking about knowledge or being able to manage the avionics. Talking about stick and rudder flying, situational awareness etc...

The civilian training I've received confirms this. It's Automate-Aviate-Navigate-Communicate. 180 degrees out from military flying.

If the jet isn't doing what you want, click and autopilot is off. Back when I was a UPT instructor 5+ years ago, the students weren't allowed to use the autopilot in the first block of training. I'm curious if that's changed by now.

[fox two]

Relevant: (again)

"Children of Magenta"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

The civilian training I've received confirms this. It's Automate-Aviate-Navigate-Communicate. 180 degrees out from military flying.

If the jet isn't doing what you want, click and autopilot is off. Back when I was a UPT instructor 5+ years ago, the students weren't allowed to use the autopilot in the first block of training. I'm curious if that's changed by now.

That's still the case... No autopilot until after trans check. I don't care what phase my student is in, if they demonstrate that automation of any kind (autopilot, flight director, MFD map, etc) is a crutch I take it away and force them to do it manually, and most IPs here have the same mentality.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Napoleon_Tanerite

[moosepileit]

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/75814-asiana-777-crash-sfo-38.html#post1442287

Great background post. Long, so just the link.

[ExBoneOSO]

Update from AvWeek:

Autothrottle Confusion?

“He told [the left-seat] pilot to pull back [on the control wheel],” says Hersman of the interview. “He had set the speed at 137 kt. and assumed the autothrottles were maintaining the speed.” Autothrottles, if armed and turned on, will automatically increase or decrease engine thrust to maintain a preset speed, in this case 137 kt., the reference landing speed for the 777-200ER that day. The NTSB is investigating why the autothrottle did not work as the instructor had expected, an issue that could include mode confusion related to the interaction of various auto-flight modes.

[Spur38]

The Lowdown on Korean pilots:

From a retired UAL Guy: Very Interesting!

After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the 400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana.

When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster.

Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.

One of the first things I learned was that the pilots kept a web-site and reported on every training session. I don't think this was officially sanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a database was building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran the sessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for.

For example; I used to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO and I would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG. Many of the new captains were coming off the 777 or B 744 and they were used to the Master Caution System being inhibited at 80 KTs.

Well, for the first few days after I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden they all “got it” and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). The word had gotten out; I figured it was an overall PLUS for the training program.

We expat instructors were forced upon them after the amount of fatal accidents (most of the them totally avoidable) over a decade began to be noticed by the outside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, Transport Canada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program or face being banned from the skies all over the world.

They hired Boeing and Airbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana has another. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conducting training KAL and about 40 at Asiana. Most instructors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with a few stuffed in from Europe and Asia. Boeing also operated training centers in Singapore and China so they did hire some instructors from there.

This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce “normal” standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able to master basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 knot crosswind and the weather CAVU. I am not kidding when I tell you that requiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... with good reason. Like this SFO Asiana crew, it didn't‚ compute that you needed to be a 1000’ AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min.

After 5 years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their training and sometimes if I just couldn't pass someone on a check, I had no choice but to fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistance against me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turned out he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on the fleet I was teaching on.

I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL was not going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check and continued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain Brown was.

Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describe these events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. By the way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administered them. This captain requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for the approach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested “Radar Vectors” to final. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would have cleared him to the IAF and then “cleared for the approach” and he could have selected “Exit Hold” and been on his way.

He was already in LNAV/VNAV PATH. So, I gave him vectors to final with a 30 degree intercept. Each time he failed to “extend the FAF” so he couldn't understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and three missed approaches before he figured out that his active way point was “Hold at XYZ.” Every time he punched LNAV, it would try to go back to the IAF ... just like it was supposed to do.

Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their own rules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen major errors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork. He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL).

This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are not more, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in the future unless some drastic steps are taken [to teach third world pilots basic flying]. They are already required to hire a certain percentage of expats to try to ingrain more flying expertise in them, but more likely, they will eventually be fired too.

One of the best trainees I ever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) who flew C-141's in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hired by KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and of course, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few years and he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start a pilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs on international flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED!

Koreans are very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an airplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hour before the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) with the entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But, putting that information to actual use was many times impossible.

Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure it out completely, but I think I did uncover a few clues. Here is my best guess. First off, their educational system emphasizes ROTE memorization from the first day of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learning. so they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM, never-challenge-authority still exists either on the surface or very subtly. You just can't change 3000 years of culture.

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are OK. I guess they don't trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea.

But, they don't have the kids who grew up flying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They do recruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and get them their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with the ex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a Naval Aviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I would get experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terrible pilots if they had to hand fly the airplane. It was a shock!

Finally, I'll get off my box and talk about the total flight hours they claim. I do accept that there are a few talented and free-thinking pilots that I met and trained in Korea. Some are still in contact and I consider them friends. They were a joy! But, they were few and far between and certainly not the norm.

This is a worldwide problem involving automation and the auto-flight concept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US or Australia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. In accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged at 250 feet, just after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Not even one minute. Then he might fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below 800‚ after the gear was down, flaps extended and on airspeed using the auto throttle.

Then he might bring it in to land. Again, how much real “flight time” or real experience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, it’ the same only they get more inflated logbooks.

So, when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean Captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVU weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Spur38

[disgruntledemployee]

^^ Yeah, what Moose just said.

[WeatherManC130]

I thought that was a pretty good read. I think the problem is that they teach automation from the get go and do not focus on stick and rudder fundamentals. Automation can be a wonderful thing if used properly. I still hand fly every chance I get.

WxMan

[Herk Driver]

I thought that was a pretty good read. I think the problem is that they teach automation from the get go and do not focus on stick and rudder fundamentals. Automation can be a wonderful thing if used properly. I still hand fly every chance I get.

WxMan

Unrelated to this thread directly, but the C-130J teaches and pushes the automation from the get go as well...to the detriment of basic stick and rudder skills.

[Pakin]

Holy shit, they just showed a picture a passenger took. There were ######ers carrying their bags. If I am getting out of an aircraft that just crashed and you grab your bag, you are getting throat punched.

Throat punching would be too conservative, it probably won't phase them, especially if you are stuck in the middle.

Ever been on a Chinese domestic flight (or any flight where the large number of pax are Chinese)?

It happens all the time. Their bags are for the most part worth more than anything else, including their own lives. You would have passengers unstrapping during taxi or even while in descent, and drove of families fighting their way to the front before taxi clear. If this was on a Chinese local carrier, everyone would be dead (if it is any surprise).

[matmacwc]

The PAPI shouldn't have been out. It was returned to service on July 2. It is NOTAM'd out now due to the fact that it was destroyed by the crash.

Who uses PAPIs?

[Butters]

Who uses PAPIs?

MOMIs

[Buddy Spike]

MOMIs

Mormons?

[sixblades]

Unrelated to this thread directly, but the C-130J teaches and pushes the automation from the get go as well...to the detriment of basic stick and rudder skills.

I'd have to disagree with this statement to a certain degree. Automation involves a lot more than autopilot usage IMHO and using it effectively enhances a lot of the aircraft's and user's capabilities. When you have reliance on the automation, you get accidents like this, and it's disheartening to see pilots take a backseat to flying.

[Herk Driver]

So what part of the statement do you disagree with? That JMATS pushes automation or that it is to the detriment of stick and rudder skills?

Edit: I am not saying that this has led to any mishaps at this point, but there are multiple overspeeds, etc that can be directly attributed to automation mis-management.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Herk Driver

[sixblades]

That increased automation results in poorer stick and rudder skills. You won't hear me say that JMATS is doing that great of job, but I'd also be hard-pressed to say that automation is the primary cause of said issues. If you're gonna be aggressive and fly the plane near the limits you put yourself that much closer to overspeeding something, now you have a computer that's going to record that 1kt overspeed whereas you probably would have gone on with your day with no worries.

[Fuzz]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/asiana-flight-214-ntsb-pilot-blinded/2507059/

"Federal crash investigators revealed Wednesday that the pilot flying Asiana Airlines flight 214 told them that he was temporarily blinded by a bright light when 500 feet above the ground."

[Royal]

Is it normal to have this much information being released in the midst of an investigation before the NTSB reaches a final conclusion?

[Lord Ratner]

Is it normal to have this much information being released in the midst of an investigation before the NTSB reaches a final conclusion?

My humble opinion: This is a clear cut case (assuming it's clear-cut to them, I have no clue personally), and Boeing is leaning hard on all parties to ensure no one thinks this was their plane's fault. Not after the 787 mess.

Why else would the airline and NTSB release so much info pointing to non-aircraft related factors?

[Maverick77]

https://www.usatoday....linded/2507059/

"Federal crash investigators revealed Wednesday that the pilot flying Asiana Airlines flight 214 told them that he was temporarily blinded by a bright light when 500 feet above the ground."

It was sunny and clear, so my guess is that he caught some sun reflecting off a another aircraft, maybe the one in front of him on approach.

[HerkFE]

Who uses PAPIs?

We know who doesn't.

ETA: Besides you really don't have to "use" them, but they are nice to "reference" occasionally <technique only>.

Edited July 11, 2013 by HerkFE

[HerkFE]

https://www.usatoday....linded/2507059/

"Federal crash investigators revealed Wednesday that the pilot flying Asiana Airlines flight 214 told them that he was temporarily blinded by a bright light when 500 feet above the ground."

Funny. He should have taken that opportunity to look inside at his airspeed. Sounds like a line right out of Korean pilot "save face/SERE" school." Maybe it was the PAPI when it went into "WTF, are you kidding me mode." Yep, that's a new mod to the PAPI...you get that when you go even lower than red/red

[Champ Kind]

Unrelated to this thread directly, but the C-130J teaches and pushes the automation from the get go as well...to the detriment of basic stick and rudder skills.

I was thinking about this the other day. I remember going through JMATS and hearing about how guys had gotten downgraded (or worse) for NOT using automation. After a few flight in the -J at my next units, I realized that automation was a great tool, but something that could not be relied upon in a pinch. I would say that the emphasis on using automation has changed since the initial AD unit stood up. You hear a lot more talk about clicking the stuff off if it is not performing the functions you want it to do. Sounds simple, but when your instructions on your first sim ride are "rotate, out of clips, couple clicks of trim, pitch sync, ball-on-ball, autopilot on", you come out of that environment expecting it.

That increased automation results in poorer stick and rudder skills. You won't hear me say that JMATS is doing that great of job, but I'd also be hard-pressed to say that automation is the primary cause of said issues. If you're gonna be aggressive and fly the plane near the limits you put yourself that much closer to overspeeding something, now you have a computer that's going to record that 1kt overspeed whereas you probably would have gone on with your day with no worries.

Flying your plane near the limits? We're not talking about VD overspeeds... He was talking about 100 flap approaches on final and guys forgetting that they can just click the autothrottles off if they can't keep up and (GASP!) control their airspeed manually. Or, the overspeeds that have occurred on the escape because guys forgot to raise their flaps, probably because they were waiting for a flight engineer to remind them.

[Herk Driver]

Is it normal to have this much information being released in the midst of an investigation before the NTSB reaches a final conclusion?

Yes, NTSB is about finding the causes but also about reassuring the flying public...you will never see this from an AF Safety investigation.

Flying your plane near the limits? We're not talking about VD overspeeds... He was talking about 100 flap approaches on final and guys forgetting that they can just click the autothrottles off if they can't keep up and (GASP!) control their airspeed manually. Or, the overspeeds that have occurred on the escape because guys forgot to raise their flaps, probably because they were waiting for a flight engineer to remind them.

Bingo...

Like I said, not directly relatated but a chance for the J community to take away a nugget from an accident.