Asiana officially blames crew for flt 214...and the autothrottle.

ChasenSFO

hen teaser
http://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...sb-san-francisco-boeing-autothrottle/6574165/
Asiana Airlines acknowledged for the first time that the "probable cause" of the fatal crash in San Francisco last July was its pilot flying too slow, according to documents federal investigators released today.

However, the airline also said "inconsistencies" in the Boeing 777-200ER's autothrottle contributed to the crash. The airline's positions submitted earlier this month were part of hundreds of pages of documents the National Transportation Safety Board will consider while investigating the crash that killed three passengers and injured more than 200.
Very interesting read. Two things that stick out to me:
In the latest documents, Asiana said the plane's autopilot changed "for an unknown reason" as the plane was about 1,600 feet off the ground approaching the runway. The autopilot changed from so-called "pitch" mode to "flight-level change" mode, which commanded the plane to climb back to 3,000 feet as if it had missed its targeted approach, and raised its speed and height.

In interviews after the accident, none of the three pilots in the cockpit recalled the flying pilot "or anyone else pressing the (flight-level change) button," according to Asiana.

But in Boeing's filing, the manufacturer said the click of the button being pushed at 1,600 feet can be heard on the cockpit voice recorder.
When I was working as CS at Air New Zealand back in the day, I asked a 777 crew what the FLCH button did with the autopilot. All 3 F/Os looked puzzled as if they were searching for an answer, then they laughed and asked the C/A if he knew. The C/A gave me an explanation and said they didn't use it much. I thought it was interesting that they didn't understand it's function well enough to explain it.

The FAA had "strongly" encouraged Boeing to enhance its software so that the autothrottle would "wake up" during large changes in air speed, after an FAA test pilot raised the same concern while flying the manufacturer's 787 for certification in 2010.

But Boeing hasn't done so. At the December hearing, Robert Myers, Boeing's chief engineer of flight-deck engineering, said if pilots are surprised by the automation, they are expected to use basic skills and manually fly the plane.

"If the airplane is not doing what they expect it to do, that they can disconnect the automation altogether and fly manually," Myers said.
Yup. While more "just in case" features can't hurt, what it comes down to is pilots need to be able to hand-fly their airplane. Electronics are nice to have, but there's humans up there for a reason. I would not want to anyone I know to be in the back of any plane if the PIC is not comfortable with a visual approach on a perfect sunny day. I guess I shouldn't be shocked that Asiana still thinks Boeing could have done anything more to prevent their pilots from coming in dangerously low and slow, but I sort of am at this point.
 
Last edited:
Flight level change does not work well in some planes, and we never use it for that reason... Same generation avionics as 777...

We don't need more systems babysitting, we need pilots with at least half a brain in the pointy end of those damn things...
 
I've got thousands of hours in small jets ranging from citations and lears to CRJ 700s. When flying an approach (visual or otherwise), I just don't see what the big deal is with managing power manually, particularly when you have trend vectors.

Can one of you Boeing or Airbus guys explain to me why ATs are almost considered essential to a lot of pilots in the "bigger" stuff? Clearly I'm not understanding something... Not wanting to babysit the thing over NAT tracks, yeah I get it. But a visual? Why would anybody even bother with ATs for something like that?
 
I've got thousands of hours in small jets ranging from citations and lears to CRJ 700s. When flying an approach (visual or otherwise), I just don't see what the big deal is with managing power manually, particularly when you have trend vectors.

Can one of you Boeing or Airbus guys explain to me why ATs are almost considered essential to a lot of pilots in the "bigger" stuff? Clearly I'm not understanding something... Not wanting to babysit the thing over NAT tracks, yeah I get it. But a visual? Why would anybody even bother with ATs for something like that?

It's usually up to the airline SOP. I believe the majority would say a auto thrust on is a normal procedure, and if you want to do autothrust off, then a quick brief/mention to the other pilot is expected. Nearly all guys I fly with will mention in the approach brief if they plan on autothrust off. From what I've seen at company, I'd say about 75% are authothrust on landings. In the Airbus especially, the autothrust is designed to be on. It is very different than the Boeing autothrottle system. There is no manual 'throttle hold.' In the Bus it's in one of three detents, with the thrust levers spending 99.9% of their time in the CL detent. Of course, you can turn it off and fly it like any other airplane.
 
I've got thousands of hours in small jets ranging from citations and lears to CRJ 700s. When flying an approach (visual or otherwise), I just don't see what the big deal is with managing power manually, particularly when you have trend vectors.

Can one of you Boeing or Airbus guys explain to me why ATs are almost considered essential to a lot of pilots in the "bigger" stuff? Clearly I'm not understanding something... Not wanting to babysit the thing over NAT tracks, yeah I get it. But a visual? Why would anybody even bother with ATs for something like that?

I like my autothrottles. You set a speed and it maintains the speed. The closer I get to the ground the more I make sure I'm on speed. The autothrottles respond slowly in some situations but they are easy to override and I just put the thrust levers where I want them. I don't mind overriding as necessary. It's just no big deal. They would have saved Colgan. They save your ass when you're tired and your scan is slow or your distracted. What's not to love?
 
I like my autothrottles. You set a speed and it maintains the speed. The closer I get to the ground the more I make sure I'm on speed. The autothrottles respond slowly in some situations but they are easy to override and I just put the thrust levers where I want them. I don't mind overriding as necessary. It's just no big deal. They would have saved Colgan. They save your ass when you're tired and your scan is slow or your distracted. What's not to love?

That makes sense. However, is it also possible that consistently using them will erode one's skillset? I feel that managing power really keeps me in the loop with what's going on during an approach, particularly with winds and that sort of thing. I guess what I'm alluding to is do you think ATs can lead to an over reliance on automation? Children of the Magenta and all that jazz?
 
I've got thousands of hours in small jets ranging from citations and lears to CRJ 700s. When flying an approach (visual or otherwise), I just don't see what the big deal is with managing power manually, particularly when you have trend vectors.

Can one of you Boeing or Airbus guys explain to me why ATs are almost considered essential to a lot of pilots in the "bigger" stuff? Clearly I'm not understanding something... Not wanting to babysit the thing over NAT tracks, yeah I get it. But a visual? Why would anybody even bother with ATs for something like that?

It depends on the pilot as well as the airline's policies. I fly about one approach with the AT on each month. The rest are all manual thrust. That's held true for all the fleets I've flown. The 757 and 319/320 are particularly fun and responsive with the AT off. I particularly do AT off when it's windy so I can manage the energy more effectively.... I've found the sensation in my butt is typically ahead of the airplane reacting to the airspeed shifting.

They do a pretty good job (particularly in airbus and boeing... the md-88 you really had to watch), and are great when you're really tired... it frees your mind for better decision making.
 
Last edited:
That makes sense. However, is it also possible that consistently using them will erode one's skillset? I feel that managing power really keeps me in the loop with what's going on during an approach, particularly with winds and that sort of thing. I guess what I'm alluding to is do you think ATs can lead to an over reliance on automation? Children of the Magenta and all that jazz?

Yes it can and it does. That's why many pilots do AT off landings at some point. For some guys it's as infrequent as once a month. Some do it once in a 4-day trip. Rarely some will do it very often, like nearly every landing. You'd be surprised how quickly it can go out of your scan if you don't turn the AT off.

On windy days, I'll leave AT engaged and monitor it. I let ground speed mini do its thing and let the AT compensate.
 
Automation or not, there is a pilot in the seat to scan the instruments. SO many accidents on record from lack of attention to the automation. Add this one to the list.

I've not flown the heavy iron but with the automation I've had the pleasure of using in smaller jets and turboprops, I truly relish the opportunities to hand fly a visual approach because I have already spent so many tedious goddamn hours watching an autopilot fly the airplane for me. Of course I'm also a diehard advocate of the clutch pedal in cars, so maybe I'm in the minority.
 
It depends on the pilot as well as the airline's policies. I fly about one approach with the AT on each month. The rest are all manual thrust. That's held true for all the fleets I've flown. The 757 and 319/320 are particularly fun and responsive with the AT off.

They do a pretty good job (particularly in airbus and boeing... the md-88 you really had to watch), and are great when you're really tired... it frees your mind for better decision making.

And ALL your CAs have been cool with that?
 
That makes sense. However, is it also possible that consistently using them will erode one's skillset? I feel that managing power really keeps me in the loop with what's going on during an approach, particularly with winds and that sort of thing. I guess what I'm alluding to is do you think ATs can lead to an over reliance on automation? Children of the Magenta and all that jazz?

Going up through the various levels of automation is easy. Going back down is really tough. This was stressed from day 1 in GIV ground and you really get complacent, even in the sim.
 
Why wouldn't they be? Turning the stuff off is encouraged at DL.... fly the dang airplane.

Maybe I could have asked better. What I meant was there are guys out there who just don't like that general idea. They may not say anything but in their seat, you can see them squirm in some ways. They are rare. But I don't think I could ever do a full month minus one leg of manual landings without at least one or two guys making a passive-aggressive comment (eg, hey my workload goes up, I gotta watch the speed now) etc. There is also one guy I know for sure will most likely reach up and hit the ATHR button when you click it off. Maybe it's just the 5% rule.
 
Going up through the various levels of automation is easy. Going back down is really tough. This was stressed from day 1 in GIV ground and you really get complacent, even in the sim.

Yeah, I get it. I went from all an all glass, FMS proline 21 cockpit with VNAV capable autopilot to a Brasilia 6 pack a few years ago. It was an interesting experience! It was actually very good for me, and one of the reasons I'm asking these guys about how ATs and automation affect them.
 
Maybe I could have asked better. What I meant was there are guys out there who just don't like that general idea. They may not say anything but in their seat, you can see them squirm in some ways. They are rare. But I don't think I could ever do a full month minus one leg of manual landings without at least one or two guys making a passive-aggressive comment (eg, hey my workload goes up, I gotta watch the speed now) etc. There is also one guy I know for sure will most likely reach up and hit the ATHR button when you click it off. Maybe it's just the 5% rule.

I've never encountered that attitude at DL. The only thing I've encountered from time to time is when occasionally someone wants the FD's back on once you've maneuvered onto the LOC/GS with them off. Whatevs.

*click click* (chirps) *click click* (ding) "ok, don't screw it up.. I'll hold your beer."

The "I gotta watch the speed now" comment both amuses and alarms me. What is he doing otherwise? That attitude is the fundamental cause of this Asiana thread in the first place!
 
That makes sense. However, is it also possible that consistently using them will erode one's skillset? I feel that managing power really keeps me in the loop with what's going on during an approach, particularly with winds and that sort of thing. I guess what I'm alluding to is do you think ATs can lead to an over reliance on automation? Children of the Magenta and all that jazz?

I don't think so. The autothrottles are a tool to keep me on speed, which is my goal. If the tool isn't working I make it do what I want like a Cessna 150. If the tool isn't helping you reach your goal, then you need to stop using it. It's no big thing.
 
If the tool isn't helping you reach your goal, then you need to stop using it. It's no big thing.

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!

tom-haverford-amirite.gif
 
Back
Top