Asiana Airline's High Rate of Go Arounds at SFO

Inverted said:
Asiana can no longer accept a visual approach into anywhere per new company rules. They must use an IAP with vertical guidance.
Click to expand...

This is interesting to me. It's SOP at my outfit to use any and all offered IAP guidance even if authorized to fly a visual approach. We do on occasion fly a visual approach without vertical guidance possible, but that's a rarity.
 
juxtapilot said:
I've done 3 go arounds this week. Should I have landed on the airplanes that were on the runway so you guys wouldn't question my competency?
Click to expand...
No.

And your next PC will likely be that much easier. Excuse me. I have to go miss some approaches.
 
Well since everyone else is making statements based on absolutely no fact, merely statistical and quantitative analyzation (speculation even), I would say that it's possible the non-foreign pilots are not going around enough. Why? Because pilots are goal oriented "get'er done" types, who don't want to be shamed by people on forums for going around. I think a lot of pilots lack the basic maturity to go around when they should, and a lot has to do with attitude, some has to do with training.

One study shows that 96% of unstablized approaches do NOT end with a go-around. I know this is true at most US carriers. One could say that the non-foreign pilots are not going around enough, and that the Asiana crews are going around as a result of an unstable approach (or one of a million other factors.) Asians are pretty logical thinkers. If while on approach their criteria are not met they'll go around. "It's only logical." So ya'll can speculate on why they do go arounds so frequently, that's fine. I'm going to sit back and wait for the NTSB report and ask why they did not attempt a go around sooner on this particular approach.
 
juxtapilot said:
Well since everyone else is making statements based on absolutely no fact, merely statistical and quantitative analyzation (speculation even), I would say that it's possible the non-foreign pilots are not going around enough. Why? Because pilots are goal oriented "get'er done" types, who don't want to be shamed by people on forums for going around. I think a lot of pilots lack the basic maturity to go around when they should, and a lot has to do with attitude, some has to do with training.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you and Seggy have a terrible delivery. I highly doubt people would argue with you guys right now if you explained yourselves a bit better and used more tact. Use bullet points if you have to to outline the facts without your opinion/negative responses drowning them out. People will not listen if you are condescending to them (Seggy). More tact and less arguing would help. Yes both sides have issues with their delivery, but the people with the experience dealing with this stuff are just as bad if not worse.

Go-Arounds are an indicator of a potential problem. You can not ignore that. The problem may be what we expect or could be a come to Jesus moment for us. We wont know unless we look. That is the point of the investigative process the NTSB is using. Until they finish their investigation everything will be pure speculation.
 
juxtapilot said:
One study shows that 96% of unstablized approaches do NOT end with a go-around. I know this is true at most US carriers. One could say that the non-foreign pilots are not going around enough, and that the Asiana crews are going around as a result of an unstable approach (or one of a million other factors.) Asians are pretty logical thinkers. If while on approach their criteria are not met they'll go around. "It's only logical."
Click to expand...

It could be a combination of US carriers not going around enough as per the study you showed, and they could still have a high go around rate even if 100% of U.S. unstabilized approaches did go around instead of 4%. The truth is somewhere in the middle. It would not surprise me if they find legitimately, that some of these foreign carrier's pilots have an issue with actually putting the airplane where they want it. Ultimately that is what all these discussions come down to. The ones who can put the plane where they want it 99.99% of the time are the ones that struggle a lot less with making stabilized approaches, hand flying the airplane, or even through automation management keeping the airplane on a proper descent profile coming out of the flight levels when ATC changes things up.
 
As Seggy mentioned, go-around stats, without any context, are meaningless. The solution is to include the context not avoid the collection and analysis of data. If we can accurately collect and analyze approach stability data, all the better.

It goes without saying that the collection methodology should not result in negative outcomes.

I come from a background where most landings are supervised and graded. When it comes to civil aviation, should we welcome the opportunity to analyze performance with that specificity?

I don't know anything about the Asiana/SFO data, but extreme outliers are often worthy of further investigation.
 
Maurus said:
The problem is that you and Seggy have a terrible delivery. I highly doubt people would argue with you guys right now if you explained yourselves a bit better and used more tact. Use bullet points if you have to to outline the facts without your opinion/negative responses drowning them out. People will not listen if you are condescending to them (Seggy). More tact and less arguing would help. Yes both sides have issues with their delivery, but the people with the experience dealing with this stuff are just as bad if not worse.
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHAHA, oooooohhhh boy, wiping away tears of laughter with that one.
:-)
 
juxtapilot said:
Well since everyone else is making statements based on absolutely no fact, merely statistical and quantitative analyzation (speculation even), I would say that it's possible the non-foreign pilots are not going around enough
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is possible that they are both going around too much and not enough.

Too much, because they suck. Too few, not recognizing that they suck.
 
No one statistic will point out the reason for Asiana's overall numbers of go-arounds or why the accident crew didn't go around.

This sort of thing is a multi-faceted scenario involving things like pilot training, fatigue, safety culture, societal protocol, standardization of procedures, profiles, and real-time real world conditions.

It's not even not seeing the forest for the trees, it's only seeing one tree that becomes the problem here.
I still think this particular number is somewhat telling, but because it's a symptom of a greater systemic disease, not the sole cause.
 
Firebird2XC said:
No one statistic will point out the reason for Asiana's overall numbers of go-arounds or why the accident crew didn't go around.

This sort of thing is a multi-faceted scenario involving things like pilot training, fatigue, safety culture, societal protocol, standardization of procedures, profiles, and real-time real world conditions.

It's not even not seeing the forest for the trees, it's only seeing one tree that becomes the problem here.
I still think this particular number is somewhat telling, but because it's a symptom of a greater systemic disease, not the sole cause.
Click to expand...


Going off a hunch, and what I know of korean culture, I think this will be a pretty big factor in the crash. I could be totally wrong, but as I said it's just a hunch.
 
Firebird2XC said:
No one statistic will point out the reason for Asiana's overall numbers of go-arounds or why the accident crew didn't go around.

This sort of thing is a multi-faceted scenario involving things like pilot training, fatigue, safety culture, societal protocol, standardization of procedures, profiles, and real-time real world conditions.

It's not even not seeing the forest for the trees, it's only seeing one tree that becomes the problem here.
I still think this particular number is somewhat telling, but because it's a symptom of a greater systemic disease, not the sole cause.
Click to expand...

I think most of us are probably in agreement here. We know we can't pay too much attention to go-around rate UNLESS it is something unusual, an outlier
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I think most of us are probably in agreement here. We know we can't pay too much attention to go-around rate UNLESS it is something unusual, an outlier
Click to expand...

It's kind of like high cholesterol. The number alone doesn't say much, but it sort of tips your doctor off that you're living on a diet of pure bacon... ;)

juxtapilot said:
Going off a hunch, and what I know of korean culture, I think this will be a pretty big factor in the crash. I could be totally wrong, but as I said it's just a hunch.
Click to expand...

I read a rant by a guy who claimed to be sim trainer for Asiana, and if it is to be believed, the societal protocol in Korea is a pervasive problem. I'm a firm believer in the 'train like you fight' mentality, and it sounds like saving face is more important than a functional knowledge of what to do with the airplane.

The interesting part is how we debate what 'piloting by script' would do to the number of crashes domestically, and I think this highlights the problem. At the end of the day, good judgement and airmanship is what counts, and I think a failing of that is what crashed this plane, and that problem started back in the simulator.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I come from a background where most landings are supervised and graded. When it comes to civil aviation, should we welcome the opportunity to analyze performance with that specificity?
Click to expand...

It is already being done, more accuracy I would even say, than the Navy does it with FOQA data. Every takeoff/flight/landing with thousands of parameters at some places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top