Pilots Cited in Asiana Crash

DL's training is nothing like what you describe, CC. That is also not the case at any other mature AQP programs in the states. In fact, hand flying with the a/p and a/t off has been major emphasis for at least the past year in DL's recurrent sim events.

Not sure what ya'll have at VX.
 
Last edited:
We got to where we were calling it out in maneuvers training as a memory jogger to get the auto throttles back.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
DL's training is nothing like what you describe, CC. That is also not the case at any other mature AQP programs in the states. In fact, hand flying with the a/p and a/t off has been major emphasis for at least the past year in DL's recurrent sim events.
Click to expand...

Having just completed training, you are absolutely correct.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
DL's training is nothing like what you describe, CC. That is also not the case at any other mature AQP programs in the states. In fact, hand flying with the a/p and a/t off has been major emphasis for at least the past year in DL's recurrent sim events.

Not sure what ya'll have at VX.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are correct I did not mention AQP airlines. AQP is the way to go. We have PCs but slowly switching to AQP "soon." AQP is a more realistic and IMO more "connected" method of teaching recurrent. I'd love to go through a multi-day AQP event. I think I would learn and gain a lot more from that than just a standard PC.
 
CaptBill said:
It's still an IFR approach. Visual approaches are widely available and commonly used in the US. By seeing the airport or the traffic you are following, ATC can issue you a visual approach with a few conditions if needed. It also saves them some in-trail restrictions and a little baby sitting. Here's the thing though: even though you are shooting a visual approach you usually have all navajds available like an ILS or at least a localizer to reference. It's not all or nothing. If the Asiana guys were confused on a visual approach to 28L, they should of tuned in the 28L ILS and referenced the data all the way to landing. It still would have complied with a visual approach clearance.
Click to expand...
This.
I've accepted visual approaches before where I don't have any part of the airport in sight, but I have the proceeding aircraft(usually at night). What happens then is I keep my own spacing from the aircraft in front of me and give myself vectors to the final approach course and fly whatever glideslope(ILS,LNAV/VNAV,LPV) down. If you don't have the SA to vector yourself to final, essentially what every visual approach is, then you need to go somewhere safe, and figure out what is going on.
 
ChasenSFO said:
On a related note, their first A380 is about to be painted up and will start flying from ICN-LAX/JFK. Plane is appropriately registered F-WWAP, for the sound it'll make as it busts a seawall.
2353887.jpg
Click to expand...

I thought Allitalia had reserved that tail number...;)
 
Derg said:
I'd love to get my hands on the NTSB report to dig through it.

Being on a heavily automated airplane, training emphasis was on what you asked the aircraft to do, and what it's actually going to do. Sure the autopilot or flight director says X, but is the symbology telling you it's going to do Y and where is the disconnect between anticipated performance and actual performance.
Click to expand...

You're overthinking. I'm pretty sure a missile put 'em into the wall.
 
Derg said:
Ooooh. Smokin'.

Fly big jets far places, my friend. There's no other way to fly.
Click to expand...

Try dusting. Or bush flying. Then tell me that. The only international flights I want are taking Thrushes and Airtractors to Africa or Indonesia. Little planes to really far places trump your big stuff every day til Sunday. ;)
 
dasleben said:
I think he meant that he felt pressured to take the visual, rather than ask for an ILS.
Click to expand...

Well, heck, it's pretty much SOP to load up the LOC and concomitant GS during any visual approach. I'm beginning to have no patience left for pilots who just can't fly airplanes. Or, perhaps these boneheads were so lame they never even thought to do that, or that it was illegal because they had been assigned a visual. It's especially irksome when these folks are getting paid big bucks to "fly" great big airplanes when they couldn't even keep the rudder coordinated in say, a Citabria. Lame, lame, lame. Losing fail.
Too harsh? Tell it to the parents of the dead girls.
 
I work in Europe, where we follow the One True Brief, but reading the transcript to me, the brief was pretty confused and I wasn't clear about what he was trying to do. If don't brief and set up properly, chances are it's going to go wrong

(Long time lurker, first time poster)
 
Well saying ATC running VAs reduces ATC work load has never been a controller in a really busy terminal , saying that ATC running VAs puts the separation on the pilot are only half right. Ive watched plenty controller here at C90 put themselves down the crapper trying to use VAs when it would have been 10 times easy to run ILSs ( got em in sight, got em in sight , got em in sight) , and clearing an aircraft for a VA to the airport when they dont have the proceeding aircraft in sight puts separation in the controllers lap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top