Asiana flight 214 (777 from ICN) crashes at SFO

[xyzzy]

I've taken that flight before. Always gives one a strange feeling.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us/california-plane-incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[pdogg]

307 onboard

181 injured of whom 49 are in serious condition

2 dead RIP

 

 

Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said in an e-mail that she had been scheduled to take the flight, but switched to a United flight to cash in air miles for family members. 

[SiamSam]

It is a miracle there weren't more fatalities. I am getting on a triple 7 tonight to head back to North America from Asia. Got the heebie geebies. 

[pacman]

I had an interesting conversation last night with a senior Airline Captain for one of the world's largest airlines. He described this crash as the worst case of incompetence ever in the history of modern aviation. There was no weather factor, visibility was perfect, the plane was modern, the strip is easy to land on, there was zero excuse for crashing the aircraft.

 

The problem is the complete incompatibility of Korean culture with the mindset needed to operate an aircraft. He told me Korean airline companies lose on average one plane a year. Or hull as he called it. It is a completely unacceptable statistic for any airline company but one that gets overlooked in Korea because it would disrespect the Captain involved plus the management of the company.

 

I asked him if it was a 'face' problem where no one on the flight deck dared question the Captain. He said it's worse than just that. One word of disagreement is enough to get someone sacked or demoted. Young pilots wanting a career in one of the Korean companies know to keep their mouth shut. 

 

In other airline companies there are strict protocols covering landings. He said on his flight deck it would have been impossible for this to have happened because well before it was too late to do anything, the order would be given to go round. Something I never knew, if anyone on the flight deck makes the call, the Captain is obliged to go round. He has no authority to question the First Officer or Navigator as to the need. Once they make that call, it happens regardless.

 

He said everyone in the industry hopes this will be the catalyst for a change in the way the Korean airline companies train their pilots. He said if the don't start getting outside (as in foreign) companies to take over the training & change the cockpit culture at the same time, they will just continue to crash planes. He wouldn't allow any of his family or friends to ever take a Korean flight. As he said, as soon as he heard the news about the crash, he felt immediately it had to be either Asiana or Korean Air. 

 

 

 

[SiamSam]

Very Interesting and doesn't surprise me in the least. Wonder what the protocol is in Thai cockpits.

[mardhi]

Very Interesting and doesn't surprise me in the least. Wonder what the protocol is in Thai cockpits.

 They have no such issues Sam - they are all asleep, so no need for a disagreement.   

 

But seriously I also wondered about that when I came into HKG in the middle of a Typhoon.  Luckily I was on Cathay, however it was co-incidence to travel with a HKG based colleague.  Ordinarily I would fly TG to HKG had I been on my own.    I would rather a Cathay Pilot in that situation than TG for sure.  Not just because he is a white guy, but more for the fact that its his home airport and they train continually for this type of landing as it happens every year.   

 

However, my gut feeling tells me, it would be no different to what seems to have happened as per Paccer's comments.   I doubt a Thai co-pilot would question the captain.   

[email]

Pacman I'd give your captain a red card and suspect he has a hidden agenda. Did he get denied employment at Asiana or Korean Air? Did his Korean wife left him?

 

He told you that Korean airlines lose on average 1 aircraft a year. They've lost a 747 freighter 2 years ago, but you'll need to go back at least 12 years before that crash since they've lost another aircraft.  Asiana lost a total of 3 aircraft since it was founded in 1988, Korean Air lost 9 aircraft. This information can easily be verified on the internet. No need to analyze the rest of his comments.

[mardhi]

However, to keep this in some perspective. The worst airline fatality crash was caused if I am not mistaken by a Dutchman. The chief pilot no less of KLM who crashed into a Pan Am jet in Tenerife a long while ago causing some 800 deaths.    It was the same issue - the subordinates would not question the Captain's plainly crazy breach of rules and taking off without clearance.  The Pan Am jet was landing at the same time as I recall but I do stand to be corrected as too lazy to google it.  

[ArchieBunker]

The day of the accident they were using VFR-Visual Flight Rules which is exactly how it sounds.  Theres the runway, land on it.  The airport has been doing maintainence for a while on that runway on the runway lights I believe.  The weather was nice and clear so none of that played into it.

 

All US based carriers must have all cabin staff get trained in something called CRM-Crew Resource Management.

 

In the past, there was the same mentality/deference to the captian in US cockpits.

 

When I learned some FACTS from the NTSB a couple of things were very odd and I thought there might be a CRM issue.

 

The main thing that shocked me was why didnt ANYONE say something/correct the fact that their speed was so low on approach.  That appears to be the main issue  When they attempted to "power up" in order to do the go around (or sometimes they are called a touch and go) it was too late. 

 

Crashes have been caused by a pilot or pilots so focused one one aspect i.e. a mechanical issue they get tunnel vision and lose sight of something painfully obvious.  There have been a couple of crashes due to pilots focused on mechanical issues or poor weather issues they actually ran out of fuel and crashed.  This happened tp an Aviance flight about 30 years ago not 5 miles from where I am sat right now.  they think that the co pilot ever spoke up due to deference and lack of CRM skills.  Another one happened about 35 years ago in Portland, Oregon.  Same thing they ran out of fuel while dealing with another problem.

 

The NTSB also said the pilots told the cabin staff NOT to evacuate the aircraft after the Purser went to the cockpit and spoke with the Captain.  This is another problem.  The flight attendants should NOT be waiting for the PILOT'S permission to evacuate.  I know people like to rag on flight attendants but they MUST be trusted as to when or when not to initiate an evac.. We all know how huge those aircraft are, right?  Often the situation at the front is way different than the situation at the back and vice versa.

 

As for one of the pilots complaining about getting "blinded" momentarily.  Yeah they have to check into it but I call bullshit.  Apparently, there was no mention of it whatsoever on the voice recorder..................

[ArchieBunker]

However, to keep this in some perspective. The worst airline fatality crash was caused if I am not mistaken by a Dutchman. The chief pilot no less of KLM who crashed into a Pan Am jet in Tenerife a long while ago causing some 800 deaths.    It was the same issue - the subordinates would not question the Captain's plainly crazy breach of rules and taking off without clearance.  The Pan Am jet was landing at the same time as I recall but I do stand to be corrected as too lazy to google it.  

 

Thats yet another example of poor CRM skills and thats exactly what happened.  Evidently, that captain was known to be a bit of an arrogant asshole.  I think he lived though......

[mardhi]

The KLM captain died - that much I remember. I think the Pan Am flight crew survived though.   

[mardhi]

Pacman I'd give your captain a red card and suspect he has a hidden agenda. Did he get denied employment at Asiana or Korean Air? Did his Korean wife left him?

 

He told you that Korean airlines lose on average 1 aircraft a year. They've lost a 747 freighter 2 years ago, but you'll need to go back at least 12 years before that crash since they've lost another aircraft.  Asiana lost a total of 3 aircraft since it was founded in 1988, Korean Air lost 9 aircraft. This information can easily be verified on the internet. No need to analyze the rest of his comments.

 

That is still a huge loss of aircraft in relative terms to take off's and landings.   South Korea is NOT that large a country and does not have huge movements like the US for example.   In international terms, both airlines are (relatively) tiny.    Its a significant hull loss no matter how you look at it.  

 

One Big MNC I managed did not allow any staff to fly on these airlines unless they were based in South Korea and had no choice.   That is actually quite common among MNC's

[azza33]

Pacman I'd give your captain a red card and suspect he has a hidden agenda. Did he get denied employment at Asiana or Korean Air? Did his Korean wife left him?

He told you that Korean airlines lose on average 1 aircraft a year. They've lost a 747 freighter 2 years ago, but you'll need to go back at least 12 years before that crash since they've lost another aircraft. Asiana lost a total of 3 aircraft since it was founded in 1988, Korean Air lost 9 aircraft. This information can easily be verified on the internet. No need to analyze the rest of his comments.

Im only guessing but pehaps they refer to hull loss and not crashes as a reference to damage caused by heavy landings.

[mardhi]

Im only guessing but pehaps they refer to hull loss and not crashes as a reference to damage caused by heavy landings.

 

Maybe same as Qantas did at BKK LOL.  Repair it no matter the cost, we are not losing an aircraft....

 

Remind me of Trigger's broom.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1VNNbSYdt0

[ArchieBunker]

Remember that scene in RAINMAN when Raymond would only fly Quantas???  LOL that was funny......

[pacman]

Pacman I'd give your captain a red card and suspect he has a hidden agenda. Did he get denied employment at Asiana or Korean Air? Did his Korean wife left him?

 

He told you that Korean airlines lose on average 1 aircraft a year. They've lost a 747 freighter 2 years ago, but you'll need to go back at least 12 years before that crash since they've lost another aircraft.  Asiana lost a total of 3 aircraft since it was founded in 1988, Korean Air lost 9 aircraft. This information can easily be verified on the internet. No need to analyze the rest of his comments.

 

Huh! Agenda? He has no agenda. This was a private conversation over dinner & I raised the subject. And he doesn't have any history with Korea or their airlines except for his long flying career where he has had plenty of time to observe the problems with Korean pilots.

 

I questioned him about the loss of hulls. I had never heard of it myself but he repeated the comment. He may not have been referring solely to the two international carriers. I will ring him & ask after he returns from his current trip just whose hulls he meant. I will post his response. He's not inclined to dramatic exaggeration. (Unlike me...        )

 

Your post is most curious. Instead of offering an opinion you want to discredit his message of systemic problems with Korean airlines even resorting to the old tactic of arguing that if one part of my post is wrong then the rest can't be right either. Point out the discrepancy by all means but why are you so keen to defend the indefensible? 

 

My motive was nothing more than to raise the issue of a cultural problem with Korean pilots. Your reply is to question my friend's integrity in a bid to disparage his entire message. So my question to you is  -  why?

[Hoot]

I think the names of the pilots is more telling about the accident than anything else...

 

 

[email]

That is still a huge loss of aircraft in relative terms to take off's and landings.   South Korea is NOT that large a country and does not have huge movements like the US for example.   In international terms, both airlines are (relatively) tiny.    Its a significant hull loss no matter how you look at it.  

 

One Big MNC I managed did not allow any staff to fly on these airlines unless they were based in South Korea and had no choice.   That is actually quite common among MNC's

 

Korean Air Cargo is the world largest cargo airline. Seoul - Jeju is the world's busiest domestic route. In addition to Korean Air and Asiana there are several other airlines, none of them with hull loses. 

 

Im only guessing but pehaps they refer to hull loss and not crashes as a reference to damage caused by heavy landings.

 

Yes, you're only guessing. Define a hard landing and the necessary damage to qualify as one. 

 

Huh! Agenda? He has no agenda. This was a private conversation over dinner & I raised the subject. And he doesn't have any history with Korea or their airlines except for his long flying career where he has had plenty of time to observe the problems with Korean pilots.

 

I questioned him about the loss of hulls. I had never heard of it myself but he repeated the comment. He may not have been referring solely to the two international carriers. I will ring him & ask after he returns from his current trip just whose hulls he meant. I will post his response. He's not inclined to dramatic exaggeration. (Unlike me...        )

 

Your post is most curious. Instead of offering an opinion you want to discredit his message of systemic problems with Korean airlines even resorting to the old tactic of arguing that if one part of my post is wrong then the rest can't be right either. Point out the discrepancy by all means but why are you so keen to defend the indefensible? 

 

My motive was nothing more than to raise the issue of a cultural problem with Korean pilots. Your reply is to question my friend's integrity in a bid to disparage his entire message. So my question to you is  -  why?

Understood your motive but by quoting your friend your post lacks credibility. Korean Air had it's share of problems but reorganized themselves very well over the past decade. With no accidents in over a decade as a result. Your friends comments, are hugely exaggerated. As an aviation professional he should know better. Asiana's crash is very unfortunate, but by no means an indication of a cultural problem in the cockpit. The pilot landing the aircraft was not the captain. The theory of not overruling the captain has no ground here. 

 

 

 

I think the names of the pilots is more telling about the accident than anything else...

 

 It tells more about the news station than anything else really. 

[azza33]

Email as you try and oddly counter someone relaying information, perhaps you should provide your credentials to give us any reason to consider any of your points as being valid. Btw is it you.. The Studly by any chance?

I did find the jeju seoul-route interesting. Very overated place is jeju. Crappy beaches and an overglamorised volcanic rock.

Over popularised as a consequence of the extremely patriot citizens of dae han min kuk.

Ive heard mount halla is nice to climb, but prefered eating kimbap in town instead of the former option. For whats its worth i did enjoy riding around cow island on a motorbike, but forgive me as i digress.

I flew out of jeju on asiana and had one of the shittiest landings in busan airport history.... okay i may also be exagerating.

The entire occupants of the plane erupted in clapping once we finally pulled up, except for me of course... Cool in a crisis.

Now defining hull loss in terms of a hard landings. I would have thought that would be fairly obvious - well to me anyways. I wont read a text book and parrott off an answer for you, instead ill give it an educated guess.

How about....

Damage caused in landing that comprises the structural integrity and air worthiness of the craft and necessarily requires repairs in order to make the said craft airworthy.

Fuck i like it!!

Now a heavy landng... Do i really need to explain? Ive been in maybe 1-2 ... To the best of my knowledge they werent hull losses.. As defined by myself.

[azza33]

I should also point out that hull losses can occur during takeoff when the plane pulls up too rapidly and a tail strike occurs.

Good example is flight 407 emirates from melbourne to dubai.

So i Shall thus redefine a hull loss to be...

Damage caused in ordinarily operating an aircraft that compromises the structural integrity and air worthiness of the craft and necessarily requires repairs to make the said craft airworthy or renders the craft permantently unusable.

I prefer that definition.

[pacman]

Understood your motive but by quoting your friend your post lacks credibility. Korean Air had it's share of problems but reorganized themselves very well over the past decade. With no accidents in over a decade as a result. Your friends comments, are hugely exaggerated. As an aviation professional he should know better. Asiana's crash is very unfortunate, but by no means an indication of a cultural problem in the cockpit. The pilot landing the aircraft was not the captain. The theory of not overruling the captain has no ground here. 

 

Again I wonder what your involvement in the Korean airline industry is & why you say everything is fine. I appreciate that you have pointed out mistakes in my first post but you go beyond that & insist there is no cultural problem with Korean pilots. 

 

Yet here we have the most definitive proof imaginable that there is a major problem in the Korean pilot's ability to fly planes. On Asiana flight 214 there were two pilots, one a senior Captain training another company pilot & between them, they couldn't land a Boeing 777 in perfect conditions. Well, they did land it but at huge cost. That plane will never fly again.

 

This is a landmark crash that will be written about for many years. In the annals of 'Controlled Flights Into Terrain' (an industry term I'm sure you are familiar with) there has never been anything like this. And I would have thought the principle of overruling the Captain is at the heart of this matter. When 300 lives plus a multi-million dollar aircraft are at stake, i cannot accept this plane write-off was "very unfortunate". It's completely outrageous & no one will care after the event whether a subordinate interrupted a senior Captain. Or vice versa. 

 

Despite this tragedy you don't see this as a cultural problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. I have heard stories about Korean pilots who could only land using the Automated Landing Systems. Here's one: a Korean pilot was asked to do a visual approach landing to save time. He had been consigned to a code share flight & was flying with a foreign crew. He had never done a manual landing before & he became so frightened he started screaming "we're all going to die". 

 

I can't add specific details but I was assured it happened & this story is considered typical given their training. And another thing to consider - there are 17,000 wide bodied airliners due to be delivered to Asian airlines over the next few years. There are not the experienced pilots needed to fly them. And there aren't the normal avenues of recreational flyers available here in Australia for example in which the airlines can recruit these new pilots. They will be chosen on academic scores & ability to pass various tests. 

 

It doesn't auger well for the times when spontaneous reactions will be required in order to save aircraft. 

[email]

Email as you try and oddly counter someone relaying information, perhaps you should provide your credentials to give us any reason to consider any of your points as being valid. Btw is it you.. The Studly by any chance?

I did find the jeju seoul-route interesting. Very overated place is jeju. Crappy beaches and an overglamorised volcanic rock.

Over popularised as a consequence of the extremely patriot citizens of dae han min kuk.

Ive heard mount halla is nice to climb, but prefered eating kimbap in town instead of the former option. For whats its worth i did enjoy riding around cow island on a motorbike, but forgive me as i digress.

I flew out of jeju on asiana and had one of the shittiest landings in busan airport history.... okay i may also be exagerating.

The entire occupants of the plane erupted in clapping once we finally pulled up, except for me of course... Cool in a crisis.

Now defining hull loss in terms of a hard landings. I would have thought that would be fairly obvious - well to me anyways. I wont read a text book and parrott off an answer for you, instead ill give it an educated guess.

How about....

Damage caused in landing that comprises the structural integrity and air worthiness of the craft and necessarily requires repairs in order to make the said craft airworthy.

Fuck i like it!!

Now a heavy landng... Do i really need to explain? Ive been in maybe 1-2 ... To the best of my knowledge they werent hull losses.. As defined by myself.

  

I don't see how your experiences at Jeju are of any relevance to this topic. Besides, there's no need to go to Jeju to eat kim bap, next time try black pig meat or sam kjob sal from tong dweaji.

As I mentioned before the 9 hull losses of KE and the 3 of OZ are the only hull losses. There's no data on hard landings or tail strikes available. Any number thrown out is purely speculation as no airline would publicly give out such information if it can be avoided. BTW, Who's The Studly?

 

Pacman,

 

There are several crashes that can be contributed to pilot error, even tough comparison might be premature as the NTSB still needs to publish its final findings. A Qantas 744 overran the runway at Dong Muang in 1990 after confusion between the captain and the first officer on whether to go around. The aircraft was fixed in order to prevent a hull loss on an otherwise spotless QF record, even tough a write off would have made more sense economically.  A crash has almost never a single cause but is nearly always the result of a chain of events.

 

Furthermore I need to point out that there's nowhere near 17000 wide-bodied airliners to be delivered in the next few years, worldwide. Let alone to Asian airlines. In fact the current backlog of widedody aircraft orders between the 2 dominating aircraft manufactures, Airbus and Boeing, is about 2500 aircraft worldwide. 

[pacman]

There are several crashes that can be contributed to pilot error, even tough comparison might be premature as the NTSB still needs to publish its final findings. A Qantas 744 overran the runway at Dong Muang in 1990 after confusion between the captain and the first officer on whether to go around. The aircraft was fixed in order to prevent a hull loss on an otherwise spotless QF record, even tough a write off would have made more sense economically. A crash has almost never a single cause but is nearly always the result of a chain of events.

Qantas made a commercial decision to repair that 747 but that has no bearing on Korean cultural issues.

Furthermore I need to point out that there's nowhere near 17000 wide-bodied airliners to be delivered in the next few years, worldwide. Let alone to Asian airlines. In fact the current backlog of widedody aircraft orders between the 2 dominating aircraft manufactures, Airbus and Boeing, is about 2500 aircraft worldwide.

I thought 17000 seemed high but that's what I read. It may be referring to the number needed over the next decade or more. I could go back & look for the quote but I am happy to be corrected.

Back on the subject, I think you might find this comment posted on the Professional Pilots forum interesting. BTW, their thread on the Asiana crash goes to 116 pages with 100's of posts expressing disbelief that it could happen.

I hope these screen shots are readible, I couldn't edit them for some reason.

[email]

I mentioned QF as the cause of the crash was bad communication between the flight crew.

 

About the screenshots. The first part is written by someone who was fired by KAL, sounds like nothing more than sour grapes. I did mention before that KAL did great efforts to improve their safety, as can be read in your screenshots, which resulted in crash free flying for over a decade now. Air France lost 4 aircraft in the same period, American Airlines 2, US Air 6 between 1986 and 1994, not counting hijacked aircraft. Obviously even after 50 years of crash free flying one can always refer back to the period before that to try to make a point and call them unsafe. It's easy to shout after the accident, I knew it would happen... If it was such an ingrained problem as some of them claim, why don't we see more of these accidents happen? Again, a very unfortunate accident. If it involved a United 777 nobody would cry foul.

 

The Airbus and Boeing 20 year market outlook are pretty similar and hoover around 8500 widebody aircraft worldwide.

[pacman]

The three screen shots are one continuous post all written by the same guy. I needed three separate grabs to get the whole post. Your comment that it's all sour grapes because they fired him takes a very biased view. When I read it, it seems more like they wanted him gone because he crossed a few senior pilots who couldn't deal with the loss of face. I can't see how someone of his experience all of a sudden became an incompetent trainer who could no longer do his job. He did his job too damn well by the sound of it.

 

Comparing KAL & Asiana to the airlines you list who have also crashed isn't the point here. Yes, other airlines have crashes & hull losses but they have yet to plow a modern aircraft into the ground in perfect landing conditions. That thread in the pilot's forum on the SFO crash goes on & on about how could this happen. And if they can do it despite all the interventions you talk about designed to change the culture of the Korean airlines, I am inclined to agree with the theory that this won't be the last time they fly a perfectly good plane into the ground. Time will tell...