Asiana Airline's High Rate of Go Arounds at SFO

ChasenSFO said:
The vast majority of the Asiana fleet is widebody, so I'd imagine, at least as second or junior first officers, many new-hires go straight into the 777, 767, A330, or 747 over there. Many are hired on with wet commercials from the states after completing 141 programs, so I doubt they have much more than 250 hours. How long the upgrade is to being full fledged right seat in the heavies, I'm not sure, but guys on pprune claim pilots have ended up in the left seat of wide-bodies with less than 10 years at the company. Not that surprising since Asiana hasn't been around all that long compared to most Asian airlines serving the US and they expanded rapidly with mostly big airplanes.
Click to expand...


Yikes, if thats true, that's pretty sketchy.
 
Seggy said:
Yeah, I know you were specifically looking at carrier's go around rates, which still makes no sense. For example, Alaska Airlines does a lot of flying in Southeast Alaska. Are you saying we should look to see what the problems are at Alaska if they go around more than say Spirit does?
Click to expand...
No, I was suggesting that statistics could be used to identify potential problems. Obviously, you need to compare apples with apples. Certainly, you would expect more go-arounds in some regions.

In the wake of the Asiana accident, it is worth asking if any information could have revealed a problem at Asiana prior to the SFO accident. I'm not ready to draw any conclusions from one statistic without context. I'm not sure if they have normalized for aircraft type, time of day, weather conditions, runway, landing aids, etc.
 
Look, at Colgan we used to have to write an IROP report for going around (once ALPA was on property that was changed). They said it was to collect data, but in reality it was a way to intimidate pilots. First of all, a 'high go around rate' is impossible to identify as carriers work in different environments and that is difficult to compare and quite frankly pointless. Secondly, what we are trying to identify and stop are unstable approaches. That is easily done with FOQA data.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I'm not sure if they have normalized for aircraft type, time of day, weather conditions, runway, landing aids, etc.
Click to expand...

Welp. If we accept the notion that the controller cleared them for a visual approach in accordance with his/her guidance on the subject, we can assume that it was at least 3 miles visibility. That's VFR in that airspace. So now we're arguing about whether or not it's reasonable to expect FIVE pilots to land an airplane on an 11,000 ft runway in perfect conditions under VFR. This does seem to be a borderline case! Let's get some Aviation Experts and the Safety Committee in on this one to render a judgment! Wouldn't want to be rash!
 
SeanD said:
Yikes, if thats true, that's pretty sketchy.
Click to expand...

Hey, at least they have 250 hours. In some countries, the majority of your initial flight time is you paying someone to log fake flights to meet the minimums for hire. The things I learned when I was seriously considering moving to the Philippines. :)
 
Seggy said:
Yeah, I know you were specifically looking at carrier's go around rates, which still makes no sense. For example, Alaska Airlines does a lot of flying in Southeast Alaska. Are you saying we should look to see what the problems are at Alaska if they go around more than say Spirit does?
Click to expand...
If you're talking about go-around rates at the same airport, then sure. Last I checked, Spirit doesn't serve Yakutat.

If airline A has to go-around twice as much as everyone else going into a given airport, then clearly they're having a problem with that approach that nobody else is having. The original post was about go-arounds in SFO, not system wide.
 
pete2800 said:
If airline A has to go-around twice as much as everyone else going into a given airport, then clearly they're having a problem with that approach that nobody else is having. The original post was about go-arounds in SFO, not system wide.
Click to expand...

Do you know the reason for the go arounds Asiana supposedly had in SFO? Maybe it was for traffic on the runway? Maybe it was weather related? Mechanical issues? ATC spacing?

Once again the number of go arounds are pointless. The number of unstabilized approaches an airline has are the number we should be focusing on.
 
Seggy said:
Do you know the reason for the go arounds Asiana supposedly had in SFO? Maybe it was for traffic on the runway? Maybe it was weather related?

Once again the number of go arounds are pointless. The number of unstabilized approaches an airline has are the number we should be focusing on.
Click to expand...
Weather and traffic don't discriminate against one airline.

Unstable approaches lead to go-arounds. For the purposes of a news article, it's likely easier to count go-arounds than it is to try to explain FOQA and stabilized approach criteria to the general public. I do agree with you, though... For useful investigation, unstabilized approaches should be the target rather than just counting the GA's.

There is enough of a correlation between the two that excessive go-arounds are still worthy of attention, though.
 
pete2800 said:
Weather and traffic don't discriminate against one airline.

Unstable approaches lead to go-arounds. For the purposes of a news article, it's likely easier to count go-arounds than it is to try to explain FOQA and stabilized approach criteria to the general public. I do agree with you, though... For useful investigation, unstabilized approaches should be the target rather than just counting the GA's.

There is enough of a correlation between the two that excessive go-arounds are still worthy of attention, though.
Click to expand...

Once again, what is an excessive go around rate? How do you identify that? Four out of my eight (from what I remember) go arounds in the 121 world have been in BOS, is that excessive?
 
I have first hand experience with these folks and can say with a high level of certainty....they have NEVER been properly taught how to control an aircraft nor can they really do it when left to their own device. AB INITIO...their airmanship and general handling skills are lack...AB INITO. (latin for "from the beginning" for those in Rio Linda). And for this reason, I have vowed to never ride in the back of a plane piloted by an Asian. Not a bigot or racist, just a realist. That being said, it comes as no surprise to me to hear that San Francisco is trying to stop another Asiana triple 7 from hitting the dirt before they get to the runway given the circumstances ie no glideslope available for a coupled approach.
 
I can qualify my statements by saying that in a total of 13 years combined experience training and checking these folks I have had much success with teching my students how to control their aircraft all the way to the ground and to the ramp and properly so. not because I am a genius but because I had someone else who has more experienced than I teach me the right way to teach these people. from a checking standpoint I can tell you that these guys can fly fabulous on instruments but it all goes to hell when is time to look up and hand fly the airplane especially during short final and landing roll out
 
Seggy said:
Once again, what is an excessive go around rate? How do you identify that? Four out of my eight (from what I remember) go arounds in the 121 world have been in BOS, is that excessive?
Click to expand...
No one claimed we should look at it pilot-by-pilot. Trends are important. What is excessive? It's relative to the other operations in the environment.

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...
facepalm.jpg
 
pete2800 said:
No, it's really not. Again, traffic conflicts wouldn't cause one carrier to have wildly more issues than any other carrier at the same airport.
Click to expand...



Source?

I've done 3 go arounds this week... I have done a total of 6 go arounds in my last 1000 hours. Could be a string of bad luck. Or I'm a hack...
 
Is there anything to be made from the fact that approaches to SFO RWY 28L & 28R are over water? Yes, you cross the San Mateo bridge and the SF peninsula is out the left window, but many of the visual cues from terrain are missing.
 
juxtapilot said:
Source?

I've done 3 go arounds this week... I have done a total of 6 go arounds in my last 1000 hours. Could be a string of bad luck. Or I'm a hack...
Click to expand...
Source? Law of averages. Why would one airline be a constant traffic-magnet over an extended period of time? That makes no sense. We're all separated by the same controllers.

I've done plenty of go-arounds, for a wide variety of reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top