Landing Incident @ SFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
To borrow this from pilot and author Patrick Smith:

Lastly, we're hearing murmurs already about the fact that Asiana Airlines hails from South Korea, a country with a checkered past when it comes to air safety. Let's nip this storyline in the bud. In the 1980s and 1990s, that country's largest carrier, Korean Air, suffered a spate of fatal accidents, culminating with the crash of Flight 801 in Guam in 1997. The airline was faulted for poor training standards and a rigid, authoritarian cockpit culture. The carrier was ostracized by many in the global aviation community, including its airline code-share partners. But South Korean aviation is very different today, following a systemic and very expensive overhaul of the nation's civil aviation system. A 2008 assessment by ICAO, the civil aviation branch of the United Nations, ranked South Korea's aviation safety standards, including its pilot training standards, as nothing less than the highest in the world, beating out more than 100 other countries. As they should be, South Koreans are immensely proud of this turnaround, and Asiana Airlines, the nation's No. 2 carrier, had maintained an impeccable record of both customer satisfaction and safety.
Whatever happened on final approach into SFO, I highly doubt that it was anything related to the culture of South Korean air safety in 2013. Plane crashes are increasingly rare the world over. But they will continue to happen from time to time, and no airline or country is 100 percent immune.


**************************************************************************************************8

South Korea of the 80s and 90s is not the South Koera of today 2013. It is far better, far safer, with better CRM than in the 80s and 90s. Would you like to compare air safety in the USA in the 70s, 80s, and 90s compared to today? It is also better and safer. I wouldn't use this as red herring and say OMG! Cabotism! This proves it is dangerous!
Click to expand...

As he started out his article saying, let's not jump to conclusions. Maybe culture didn't have anything to do with, maybe it did. I certainly wouldn't take it off the table, and I know the NTSB won't either. I've lived in Asian countries (China and Indonesia) for 7 years and though they are not S. Korea, Asian culture has lots of similarities just as western cultures have many similarities. For someone whose thesis of his whole article was, "Don't jump to conclusions in what you're reading in the media" to then conclude "culture didn't have anything to do with this accident" is pretty hypocritical.
 
RedBaron2000 said:
As he started out his article saying, let's not jump to conclusions. Maybe culture didn't have anything to do with, maybe it did. I certainly wouldn't take it off the table, and I know the NTSB won't either. I've lived in Asian countries (China and Indonesia) for 7 years and though they are not S. Korea, Asian culture has lots of similarities just as western cultures have many similarities. For someone whose thesis of his whole article was, "Don't jump to conclusions in what you're reading in the media" to then conclude "culture didn't have anything to do with this accident" is pretty hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Re-read. Patrick Smith is a good author.

"Whatever happened on final approach into SFO, I highly doubt that it was anything related to the culture of South Korean air safety in 2013. "

Highly doubt. Not a "conclusion that culture didn't have anything to do with it."
 
Boris Badenov said:
CC has been vying mightily for most-laughed-at clown-troll on the internet for years. I wouldn't let it bother you, and I certainly wouldn't take the smelly, week-old bait.
Click to expand...


m6BKoYD85dyW81D4LwAu1SA.jpg
 
canadian_atc said:
I've done probably 30-40 actual spins, which for some pilots is not even worth mentioning, but the majority of "new" commercial pilots in the USA, it's 30-40 more then they've done.

If anything it makes you respect letting the airplane get too slow, a lot more than just stall training.
Click to expand...

I see folks that can recover from spins in their sleep, but can't control airspeed adequately, fly a heading, or maintain an altitude. I think I have benefited from my spin experience, but I doubt experience spinning a 172 would have benefited this Asiana crew.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Re-read. Patrick Smith is a good author.

"Whatever happened on final approach into SFO, I highly doubt that it was anything related to the culture of South Korean air safety in 2013. "

Highly doubt. Not a "conclusion that culture didn't have anything to do with it."
Click to expand...

Still a pretty bold statement for something that is VERY much on the table. You could say, "I highly doubt there was a fuel starvation issue" or "I highly doubt it was wake turbulence." Things like culture, fatigue, CRM, etc. are much more complex so that's a pretty bold statement to make for someone who isn't even part of the investigation.
 
Inverted said:
I have, but AMF doesn't count as real 2 crew, with the exception of maybe the Bro.
Click to expand...
It should count for brownie points, I mean we're else are you PIC, CFI, and English instructor while getting a whole $5 per flight hour extra to baby sit I mean " mentor".
 
I found it to be nothing like training for the Lear. The Korean FO sitting in the right seat at AMF has no responsibility, therefore, cannot really be depended upon to alleviate the captains duties. Sure they can operate the radios, but they aren't held to any crew, or legal responsibility. Hell they can't even preflight the airplane...

At FSI or CAE there is really no emphasis on single pilot operations in an aircraft that requires 2 crew. At AMF you did like 1 or 2 sim sessions as two crew, the rest were single pilot. Plus you are literally teaching these guys how to fly, where as at the airlines, or any other operation similar, the pilots have much more experience.
 
More info from the briefing.

She said the pilots reported setting airspeed for 137 knots, the target approach speed, and the instructor pilot "assumed the auto throttles were maintaining that speed.'' By 200 feet above ground they realized they were still low and "He recognized the autho throttles were not maintaining speed.''
She said the pilot went to push the throttle forward to apply more power and found the left-seat pilot had already done so.'' The plane struck the seawall seconds later.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/09/pilots-of-asiana-flight-interviewed/2502979/
 
Seggy said:
You really want to play this game?
Click to expand...

It's not a game. What's the proof? AMF doesn't count.


Still a pretty bold statement for something that is VERY much on the table. You could say, "I highly doubt there was a fuel starvation issue" or "I highly doubt it was wake turbulence." Things like culture, fatigue, CRM, etc. are much more complex so that's a pretty bold statement to make for someone who isn't even part of the investigation.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't a bold statement. The bold statements are by pilots here posting flightaware screenshots and Tuesday morning quarterbacking a crew and their decisions, which still aren't fully known yet. Thankfully the NTSB has some cool heads and will take their time to report on the probable cause. It seems most here have already found the cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top