Asiana Plane Crash at San Francisco International

[BeBop]

Two people apparently perished, with ten more sent to the hospital. For a plane load (Boeing 777) of 250+, it's good news, but sad for the dozen. As much as I fly (250000miles/400000km per year), I'm able to keep the safety of flying in good perspective.

[Chuck Nessa]

Good news indeed. Safe travels to you.

[Hardbopjazz]

With the damage to the plan, the few casualties is amazing. Yes, sad for the two that died and the 10 that are in the hospital.

[BeBop]

Some kinda weird news a little while ago, here at SFO. Five hours after the crash, sixty people are missing? How'd they lose sixty people? Why is this just coming out? Well, it is pretty chaotic...

[Big Wheel]

BBC says only one person unaccounted for. The figure of 60 may have been computed by simply subtracting the number reported to have walked off uninjured (190) and those definitely taken to hospitals according to hospital sources (49) from the total known to have been on the plane (307). 307-190-49= 68 passengers who some reporter is not sure what happened to them, not 68 passengers who first responders are trying to locate.

update: BBC now reporting all passengers are accounted for.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Big Wheel

[Scott Dolan]

Two people apparently perished, with ten more sent to the hospital. For a plane load (Boeing 777) of 250+, it's good news, but sad for the dozen. As much as I fly (250000miles/400000km per year), I'm able to keep the safety of flying in good perspective.

At any given time there are 6-7 thousand planes in the air globally. Hell, even if there were a plane crash every single day that would still be an amazing saety record in the grand scheme.

[BeBop]

BBC says only one person unaccounted for. The figure of 60 may have been computed by simply subtracting the number reported to have walked off uninjured (190) and those definitely taken to hospitals according to hospital sources (49) from the total known to have been on the plane (307). 307-190-49= 68 passengers who some reporter is not sure what happened to them, not 68 passengers who first responders are trying to locate.

update: BBC now reporting all passengers are accounted for.

At SFO, we were getting all kinds of wacky info. At one point, it was announced that this was a cargo jet. Huh? All one had to do was look at the arrivals board... (they don't announce the arrival of cargo planes, of course)

[Soulstation1]

Coulda been worse...

[sonnymax]

As I followed the breaking news on this event, I saw numerous outlets reporting that Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg was scheduled to be on that flight, but she changed her plans at the last minute. Frankly, my initial reaction was "so what?", believing that a COO is no more important than the people who actually suffered in this accident.

[Blue Train]

One of the two teenage girls that died might have been run over by one of firetrucks responding to the crash. It allegedly was also the first time the pilot had attempted a landing at San Francisco.. Flown in and out of into that airport so many times.

Two people apparently perished, with ten more sent to the hospital. For a plane load (Boeing 777) of 250+, it's good news, but sad for the dozen. As much as I fly (250000miles/400000km per year), I'm able to keep the safety of flying in good perspective.

At any given time there are 6-7 thousand planes in the air globally. Hell, even if there were a plane crash every single day that would still be an amazing saety record in the grand scheme.

It's the first time anyone has died as result of any 777 crash. That's 19-years and 1,113 planes and WTF? knows how many tens of thousands of flights and millions of miles flown.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Blue Train

[alocispepraluger102]

http://deadspin.com/ntsb-blames-summer-intern-for-confirmation-of-fake-as-763330815?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

"From the NTSB:

The National Transportation Safety Board apologizes for inaccurate and offensive names that were mistakenly confirmed as those of the pilots of Asiana flight 214, which crashed at San Francisco International Airport on July 6.

Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft.

The NTSB does not release or confirm the names of crewmembers or people involved in transportation accidents to the media. We work hard to ensure that only appropriate factual information regarding an investigation is released and deeply regret today's incident.

Appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that such a serious error is not repeated."

[Tim McG]

I was in Burlingame the same day this happened. Got there about four hours after the accident, but I could still hear tons of sirens headed North on the 101. I could see the wreckage from a park across a Bay inlet from the airport. Media frenzy was an amazing thing to witness. Even more amazing was there were absolutely no planes in the sky; coming or leaving.

The news today reported a third girl died due to her injuries.

A very rare and very tragic occurrence at SFO, but my son flies into SFO in a few weeks from Europe. Though I know he'll be safe, it still gives me pause for worry just the same.

Edited July 13, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[GA Russell]

I received this email today...

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 didn't 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.

[Big Wheel]

I received this email today...

After I retired

tl;dr

Because if there's any source I trust on air safety, it's some jackass who starts chain emails.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0712/Asiana-Flight-214-Was-the-pilot-training-program-to-blame

[Rooster_Ties]

I received this email today...

After I retired

tl;dr

Because if there's any source I trust on air safety, it's some jackass who starts chain emails.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0712/Asiana-Flight-214-Was-the-pilot-training-program-to-blame

re: tl;dr...

I thought it was well worth the read, actually (and appreciated it having been posted here).

It seemed to have the ring of truth to my ears (or at least one truth), from what I think seems like one informed perspective. Who knows, maybe it was all BS, but there was enough technical detail, and generally didn't come off as someone who had an axe to grind -- that it sure seems like the real deal to me. "Some jackass who starts chain e-mails" this did not read like.

[Scott Dolan]

It might have been penned by an opportunist with a great deal of technical knowledge, but I agree with RT that it was an interesting read nonetheless.

[Blue Train]

It seems all the non-Americans on the plane are going to get screwed in terms of going to court. There is an international treaty that covers international flights that will force them to go to court to sue the airlines in Asia. Meaning if they do win (it's much harder to win in Asia) they will get a much smaller amount than the Americans who were on the flight.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Blue Train

[Big Wheel]

I received this email today...

After I retired

tl;dr

Because if there's any source I trust on air safety, it's some jackass who starts chain emails.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0712/Asiana-Flight-214-Was-the-pilot-training-program-to-blame

re: tl;dr...

I thought it was well worth the read, actually (and appreciated it having been posted here).

It seemed to have the ring of truth to my ears (or at least one truth), from what I think seems like one informed perspective. Who knows, maybe it was all BS, but there was enough technical detail, and generally didn't come off as someone who had an axe to grind -- that it sure seems like the real deal to me. "Some jackass who starts chain e-mails" this did not read like.

I had a long reply here that got eaten when I hit my browser's back button by mistake, but suffice it to say that I disagree. One google search for some of the letter's text shows that it most definitely is a chain email already and is turning up on every paste-eater's conservative blog. And it's a chain email that seems to have been carefully written to appeal to the whole raft of rightwing prejudices (that other countries' militaries are incompetent, that American free enterprise is the secret to air safety, that only fired American martyrs can save Korean pilots from themselves...I could go on). The author most definitely does have an axe to grind - the subtext of the whole letter is that if the Koreans hadn't fired him as a result of their purportedly broken corporate culture, then this accident probably would never have happened!

Edited July 15, 2013 by Big Wheel

[clifford_thornton]

Yeah, I thought that this "culture of obedience" was recently disproven.

[king ubu]

... that American free enterprise is the secret to air safety ...

I had a good laugh when I got to that point in the scam letter!

[mjzee]

While I have no direct knowledge of the issues raised in the email, note that the entire doubt about Mr. Brown stems from this one sentence in the CSM article: "Asiana Airlines had no record of a Tom Brown working for the organization." It's certainly in their self-interest to cast doubt on the issues raised in the email.

[Big Wheel]

While I have no direct knowledge of the issues raised in the email, note that the entire doubt about Mr. Brown stems from this one sentence in the CSM article: "Asiana Airlines had no record of a Tom Brown working for the organization." It's certainly in their self-interest to cast doubt on the issues raised in the email.

If the guy never worked for you, why would you legitimize any of his nonsense claims about your business practices by trying to rebut them in detail? Such a standard would force any organization to constantly be fighting anything that any random crank says about them.

Also: the "entire" doubt?! "Hey, here's some guy who sent an email to my friend's dad's contractor's navy buddy's nephew. His email address is strangely no longer on the email chain so we can't contact him. He mentions websites were written by Koreans that mention him but omits mention of any URLs so we can see for ourselves. He says he worked for a subsidiary of a major aerospace company and his client was a major international airline, yet he is mysteriously difficult to find via Google, and has no Linkedin profile or other easily found presence on the Internet. Zero of the people he mentions - friends and foes - have names given for them. SOUNDS COMPLETELY CREDIBLE TO ME!"

Edited July 15, 2013 by Big Wheel