SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The markings were correct. Signs were well illuminated. I found nothing confusing about it.
Well, you're just a perfect pilot, aren't you?

The markings were correct. Signs were well illuminated. I found nothing confusing about it.
Boris Badenov, it is not an excuse. We are trying to make the systems safer. HUGE difference.
This one hits home a bit. Can you give me a pass on this one?Well, you're just a perfect pilot, aren't you?![]()
This one hits home a bit. Can you give me a pass on this one?
Which is a laudable goal, by all accounts. So you tell me. How could "the system" conceivably make it any safer than two highly experienced pilots flying a visual approach to a gigantic runway in weather straight out of the Elysian Fields?
This one hits home a bit. Can you give me a pass on this one?
Have you not read the posts about the culture that exists at Korean airlines?
More than happy to trash Polehinke, but much of my disgust has to do with how he handled himself after the crash.It hits home for me, too. The FO was one of my instructors way back when. He paid an incredible price. Try to think about the fact that when you trash fellow aviators here, there's a very strong likelihood that other members know them.
While I whole heartily agree with the ALPA statement, the NTSB is in a difficult position with the media in today's day and age. That position forces them to release information they haven't in the past because it is going to get out anyway (ask me how I know).
Some parties to the investigation have information at hand (before the plane hits the ground) that points liability away from them and a doubt about their products. This information gathered outside of the official investigation can easily be leaked by these parties outside of the NTSB Investigation. So, if you are the NTSB, do you tell that information officially in a more control manner? Or do you allow that information to fester, allowing for the individual parties to grow agitated and put them in a position where they are going to release information through their channels (once again ask me how I know). This is the reality we live in today. Not saying it is right, just saying, it is what it is.
I am glad ALPA put out this statement, taking the moral high ground, and protecting the membership, but they are pissing into the wind here.
Certainly I have. I didn't realize that was the system that we were talking about. Yes, absolutely. If there's an unsafe culture at Korean airlines, I'd love for it to be fixed. I'm not sure that's our culture to fix, though, is it?
It is our responsibility to learn from their mistakes.
A fix to the system I can see coming from this is the 3 landings in 90 days. Not sure what other airlines require by regulation or company policy around the world, but I don't think 3 landings in 90 days is enough to stay proficient.
<deleted inappropriate response>.
Congrats. You get my "first post I've ever reported" trophy.
But did he go 747 to 330 to 777? Or 330 to 747 to 777?
Interesting take from Patrick Smith. I like his criticism of the media
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped...es-flight-214-a-pilot-s-perspective-1.5647734
He slams the media for speculating and cautions everyone not to believe all the speculation, then concludes by saying, "I highly doubt South Korean culture had anything to do with this accident." Seems he needs to follow his own advice or else get off his high horse.[/quot
He admits it.
"Already I'm speculating more than I intended to. Whether this was human error, mechanical failure, or some combination of the two remains to be determined"
According to this he had A320,737 and 747 experience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/world/asia/asiana-airlines-san-francisco-plane-crash.html?_r=0