777 down at KSFO

[campbeme]

Real hope all got off okay.

[BadPvtDan]

That's my airport! Terminal 3 is home away from home.

[Firebird]

Way too early for a cause, or even good guess, but what is obvious is that the debris goes right up to the waters edge. In which case it was very close to not making land.

[MIKE JG]

Broke the damn tail right off at the rear pressure bulkhead. That's one hell of a tailstrike. Why they hit that hard and with that much pitch up attitude, that short of the landing threshold will be the key to understanding what happened.

Another throttle rollback like BA at Heathrow a couple years back perhaps?? That or just really bad piloting.

[Firebird]

It was a thought I had, Mike. This plane had PW engines. All previous fuel starvation incidents were with RR engines.

The bizarre thing was that as I was looking for this info the amount of aircraft info sites that had already updated their sites with crashed on and written off. it's almost like it's the first thing that crossed peoples minds.

[relfel66]

Looks like they dodged another bullet, few casualties considering what happened

[campbeme]

Got to agree it looks like the pilots were really trying hard to keep it out of the water. Another thing was out of all the debris shots did anyone see the second engine, I didn't.

[maddog65]

yeah I think I saw it shoot down the runway. it was on the feeds from CNN. It could have just been an animation on what they think happened though.
The right engine was tucked up next to the fuselage.

If you look at this vid
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2533183725001/ it appears to be to the left of the aircraft.

[MIKE JG]

Those guys seriously screwed the pooch on this one. No excuse for this, 10 hour Pacific crossing or not.

[fishlips]

Engine power in idol position is not uncommon in the final seconds on landing but being below the glide speed was always going to lead to a catastrophic touchdown going by the info released by the NSTB. One odd puff of tail wind and its all over when your seven seconds above the threshold. It seems strange that they advised the tower of a go-around 1.5 seconds before impact. That is like the pilots had lost situational awarness totally in the glide slope and thought they were capable of doing a go-around.
I guess we'll find out in coming months what happened but you have to ask whether this aircraft was even fit to be in the skies over the USA, what happenned to all the cabin alarms and callouts.
I can't say much for the training of the emergency services attending either.

[delbydoo]

These are, apparently, the FDR readings of the speed of the aircraft as it approached KSFO

Autopilot disengaged at 1600 feet
1400 feet Airspeed 170 knots
1000 feet Airspeed 149 knots
500 feet Airspeed 134 knots
200 feet Airspeed 118 knots
125 feet Airspeed 112 knots
3 seconds before impact Airspeed 103 knots
Impact Airspeed 106 knots

Vref 137

I just hope there was an underlying mechanical problem, otherwise it's not looking good for the crew.

[MIKE JG]

Just some light reading from the professional pilot forum I belong to:

After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the –400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.

One of the first things I learned was that the pilots kept a web-site and reported on every training session. I don’t think this was officially sanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a database was building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran the sessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for. For example; I used to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO and I would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG and many of the captains were coming off the 777 or B744 and they were used to the Master Caution System being inhibited at 80 kts. Well, for the first few days after I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden they all “got it” and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). The word had gotten out. I figured it was an overall PLUS for the training program.

We expat instructors were forced upon them after the amount of fatal accidents (most of the them totally avoidable) over a decade began to be noticed by the outside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, Transport Canada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program or face being banned from the skies all over the world. They hired Boeing and Airbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana has another. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conducting training KAL and about 40 at Asiana. Most instructors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with a few stuffed in from Europe and Asia. Boeing also operated training centers in Singapore and China so they did hire some instructors from there.

This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce “normal” standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able to master basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 kt crosswind and the weather CAVOK. I am not kidding when I tell you that requiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... with good reason. Like this Asiana crew, it didnt’ compute that you needed to be a 1000’ AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min. But, after 5 years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their training and sometimes if I just couldn’t pass someone on a check, I had no choice but to fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistance against me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turned out he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on the fleet I was teaching on. I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL was not going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check and continued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain Brown was.

Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describe these events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. By the way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administered them. He requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for the approach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested “Radar Vectors” to final. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would have cleared him to the IAF and then “Cleared for the approach” and he could have selected “Exit Hold” and been on his way. He was already in LNAV/VNAV PATH. So, I gave him vectors to final with a 30 degree intercept. Of course, he failed to “Extend the FAF” and he couldn’t understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and missed approaches before he figured out that his active waypoint was “Hold at XYZ.” Every time he punched LNAV, it would try to go back to the IAF ... just like it was supposed to do. Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their own rules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen major errors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork. He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL).

This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are not more, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in the future unless some drastic steps are taken. They are already required to hire a certain percentage of expats to try to ingrain more flying expertise in them, but more likely, they will eventually be fired too. One of the best trainees I ever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) who flew C-141’s in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hired by KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and of course, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few years and he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start a pilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs on international flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED!

The Koreans are very very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an airplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hour before the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) with the entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But, putting that information to actual use was many times impossible. Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure it out completely, but I think I did uncover a few clues. Here is my best guess. First off, their educational system emphasizes ROTE memorization from the first day of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learning and they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM/CLR, it still exists either on the surface or very subtly. You just can’t change 3000 years of culture.

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are Ok. I guess they don’t trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea. But, they don’t get the kids who grew up flying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They do recruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and get them their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with the ex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a Naval Aviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I would get experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terrible pilots if they had to hand fly the airplane. What a shock!

Finally, I’ll get off my box and talk about the total flight hours they claim. I do accept that there are a few talented and free-thinking pilots that I met and trained in Korea. Some are still in contact and I consider them friends. They were a joy! But, they were few and far between and certainly not the norm.

Actually, this is a worldwide problem involving automation and the auto-flight concept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US or Australia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. After takeoff, in accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged at 250’ after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Hardly one minute. Then he might fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below 800’ after the gear was down, flaps extended and on airspeed (autothrottle). Then he might bring it in to land. Again, how much real “flight time” or real experience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, it’s the same only they get more inflated logbooks.

So, when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVOK weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

I didn't want to requote the entire thing, but this is EXACTLY what is going on in the Asiana US flight training programs at flight schools here in the US.... I don't want to mention my former school by name as I don't want to inflame anyone or burn a bridge...
The first group of students we had, were the roughest... they didn't know what to expect, we had no idea of the culture etc etc....If it is not ROTE, they do not know it, or if they do, and it's not the rote answer you're looking for, but something else to see if they can correlate... not going to happen... There is NO ADM, it's an unknown concept to them, they cannot think for themselves. As a check airman for the school, I was not allowed into the Asiana program because I was too tough. A dangerous precedent was set very early on... if the student pair(they trained in a pair, ground and flights) thought the instructor was too tough or demanded too much of them, they got a change of instructor, ASAP, we needed to keep them happy so we could get more classes. it's been passed down now who is tough and who is not. Almost every time, the tough instructors will get a change of instructor request right off the bat, and then they are no longer a part of the Asiana group...

After several cycles of this, the Koreans now dictate which instructors will get Asiana students. They all come to the states with gouge from the previous groups. Every thing is rote memorization, they are not able to think for themselves.... The problem comes along, as I said multiple times... "eventually these guys are going to be the captains of these airliners. I understand that we need to be politically expedient in how we handle this program or they'll go elsewhere. But what are we doing in putting people with a wet commercial ticket with NO ability to think or reason, or any sort of ADM in the right seat of an airliner? We are eventually going to get a lot of people killed, you mark my words".

Now, they allow Koreans to come over and train who are not in the Asiana program, to get their training and certificates. In exchange they INSTRUCT other Korean students FOR FREE until they reach 1500 hours and then go back to Korea. The Korean that handles that program has total control over the instructors assigned to these folks, and ensures that the Korean instructors get and continue to get students, even if they are not good instructors. And for the last year or so, there are enough of them now to start instructing ONLY KOREAN students....in the airplane, only korean is spoken, except for radio calls... Everything is ROTE.... As an example, on an Instrument Final Progress Check(they are ready to take the Instrument Practical test) they are given an airport to flight plan to, usually somewhere just far enough that they have to use different charts than the PHX area chart, and have to figure something out for WX.... 9 times out of 10, something as simple as "please tell me if you need an alternate for this airport based on the current WX for that airport" will get you an answer such as, "Sir, If the Weather 1 hour before my departure is....." No, thank you, that is how you determine if you NEED an alternate, correct?" Yes...Okay, here is the weather for your destination.... do you need an alternate...?" It is like that for nearly every subject or situation. You cannot use scenario based teaching with them, they don't get it because it's not rote....I could go on for hours and hours about this.

Fly on Asian carriers at your own risk.

[delbydoo]

Jeez, that's extremely scary reading, and very worrying that the culture will not allow free-roam thinking, especially in a flexible environment like the cockpit. You need to think "outside the box" - I'm not a pilot and even I can understand that! If this is the case, then I am very surprised that there haven't been more incidents. But maybe that just qualifies how safe flying actually is - in that they have been very, very lucky......

[Firebird]

I saw something similar on an Air Crash Investigation proggy about a KAL 747 freighter that went in because the Captains instruments were faulty and neither the co-pilot nor flight engineer felt that they were able to challenge the situation. So they stayed silent and watched him fly it into the ground. Captain was senior ex-ROKAF officer, co-pilot junior ex-ROKAF officer.

[MIKE JG]

I saw something similar on an Air Crash Investigation proggy about a KAL 747 freighter that went in because the Captains instruments were faulty and neither the co-pilot nor flight engineer felt that they were able to challenge the situation. So they stayed silent and watched him fly it into the ground. Captain was senior ex-ROKAF officer, co-pilot junior ex-ROKAF officer.

That was this accident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801

Sadly things haven't changed a bit.

[fishlips]

Sadly a lot of these pilots don't know how to fly an advanced aircraft, they are merely button pushers working off a check book. Asian culture is something that is driven into these people at a very early age, to attempt to switch that off is going against all respect that there culture demands of them. I've heard stories where these pilots have refused instruction from ATC because it didn't suit them at the time. I think most ATC give them as much room as they can spare and try to avoid having them in a holding pattern during nasty weather events, etc.

[Garysb]

I saw something similar on an Air Crash Investigation proggy about a KAL 747 freighter that went in because the Captains instruments were faulty and neither the co-pilot nor flight engineer felt that they were able to challenge the situation. So they stayed silent and watched him fly it into the ground. Captain was senior ex-ROKAF officer, co-pilot junior ex-ROKAF officer.

That was this accident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801

Sadly things haven't changed a bit.

Steve is on about the crash at Stansted UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air ... light_8509

Gary

[MIKE JG]

Jeez, even I hadn't heard of that one. Lucky these were both cargo only flights.

[Firebird]

Yep, that is the one, Gary. Absolute blinding stupidity.

[MIKE JG]

The media in this country is so stupid these days, it's just embarrassing. They're clueless, they really are.

As evidence I present: http://youtu.be/L1JYHNX8pdo

If they pull it, search KTVU Asiana fail