Asiana Airline's High Rate of Go Arounds at SFO

Southwest has a ton too, but way more flights. With the wreck still sitting on 28L, OZ214 had a last second wobbly go-around about 2 days after the crash. I'd poop a brick from the way it looked if I was on board.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
"Cleared RNAV Z runway 28R..."
Click to expand...

Oh gosh...they can't handle a visual, let alone decypher the phrase " RNAV Zulu". I was departing SQL last week and the controller told a foreign (I couldn't figure out who it was as I only speak English) heavy to expect one of the RNAV's into SFO, and the guy couldn't figure out what the controller was talking about. After about 5 repeats from NorCal, the guy just repeated the clearance in what sounded to me more like a question than a readback. All I could do was pray for those people on board...and push up the power to get myself out of that circus.
 
Speaking of, friend sent me this link he found on airliners:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Foreign-airlines-urged-to-use-GPS-for-SFO-landings-4692348.php

Really? Really? So the FAA is basically saying "Its come to our attention pilots from some countries can't fly airplanes, just manage computer systems". :ooh:

What's next? "Its come to our attention American CFI's are discouraging their Asian students from following the magenta line on PPL XC flights, looking out the window goes against the wishes of the sponsored air carrier, please correct this at once". Sheesh.
 
A buddy of mine flew Asiana today. Not to SFO per se but this was his post arrival commentary

"Its very obvious when Asiana pilots take the plane off autopilot. Can u say full aileron deflections left and right?"

:bounce:
 
Until the day the risk of fuel exhaustion becomes a significant problem, we shouldn't be knocking anyone's go around rate. There should NOT be any stigma attached with abandoning an approach when the crew decides continuing would be unsafe and the situation would be better with another attempt.
 
Minuteman said:
Until the day the risk of fuel exhaustion becomes a significant problem, we shouldn't be knocking anyone's go around rate. There should NOT be any stigma attached with abandoning an approach when the crew decides continuing would be unsafe and the situation would be better with another attempt.
Click to expand...

Of course, a go-around could have saved 3 peoples lives a few weeks ago. But at the same time...when a daily flight goes around regularly, especially after that flight has been involved in a fatal accident, obviously concern is going to grow about why the crews consistently end up in an "oh crap" situation.
 
Minuteman said:
Until the day the risk of fuel exhaustion becomes a significant problem, we shouldn't be knocking anyone's go around rate. There should NOT be any stigma attached with abandoning an approach when the crew decides continuing would be unsafe and the situation would be better with another attempt.
Click to expand...


Then let's not consider it a matter of stigma, but of asking the question- why is one particular carrier racking up such a high percentage of the go-arounds? Could it be that their pilots lack the skills to execute stabilized approaches? It certainly begs the question.

A stabilized approach is usually the culmination of a scripted series of events and actions. So how are we arriving at the point where so many go-arounds occur? Is it the company's operating criteria? Pilot training? I think this statistic may prove telling.
 
Asiana can no longer accept a visual approach into anywhere per new company rules. They must use an IAP with vertical guidance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top