Asiana Airlines 777 crash at SFO

[eaglewing7]

So you've got a senior captain, who is PNF, he's used to being the PIC, odds are he's not all that happy not being the PIC...

 

The F/O, who for all intents and purposes, is the lackey, is now the PIC, he's used to being the PNF.

 

So, when shit hits the fan, the F/O, flying as PIC is suddenly left to fend for himself, while the Capt. sits back and watches it all unfold.  Could be a case of a spiteful captain just feeding the F/O to the proverbial wolves... 

 

Sounds about right, CRM as usual is next to non-existent.

 

Interesting write up, from AvCanada, basically one guy's opinion about what airlines are like (not exactly true of North American or European operations, but likely is quite accurate about Asiatic airlines):

 

Every time you overshoot out
of an dangerously unstabilized approach, does your 
CP publicly and ritually strip you of one of your gold 
bars, followed by a required Walk of Shame  
out of the room, in front of all of your fellow pilots
shaved closely and dressed in their finest, pressed and
dry-cleaned uniforms, with the drummer slowly keeping 
time with your step, going tick-tick-tick on the metal 
edge of the drum with his wooden stick.

'Cause, that's how it looks to the rest of us.

[Nicola_M]

Hmm, I get the logic about the spiteful captain bit, but you'd have to be a real warped character to put yourself in a situation that is 50-50 you'd survive just to get one over on your F/O..  If this CRM stuff is to be believed, then the F/O would be bowing and scraping to the captain. Not for an F/O to put his captain a hairsbreadth away from being in a wooden box - he'd be doing all he could to keep the captain happy.

 

Curious, too, that apart from the captain sitting in the right hand seat with 12K hours, all the rest had 10K each, give or take a few.  So the second crew captain and F/O both had similar hours. I would've expected captains to have had more hours than their F/Os.

 

In any event the NTSB have said they "will not reach a determination of probable cause in the first few days that we're on an accident scene" so it's going to be a while before anything substantive comes up.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Nicola_M

[Mario Donick]

Hmm, I get the logic about the spiteful captain bit, but you'd have to be a real warped character to put yourself in a situation that is 50-50 you'd survive just to get one over on your F/O.. If this CRM stuff is to be believed, then the F/O would be bowing and scraping to the captain. Not for an F/O to put his captain a hairsbreadth away from being in a wooden box - he'd be doing all he could to keep the captain happy.

Curious, too, that apart from the captain sitting in the right hand seat with 12K hours, all the rest had 10K each, give or take a few. So the second crew captain and F/O both had similar hours. I would've expected captains to have had more hours than their F/Os.

From reading weblogs of Swiss and German airliner pilots, I got the impression that regardless if you are PIC or PNF, it's negotiated between the two before the flight who will land where. For example, for one flight from Zürich to KJFK, the captain asked the first officer if the FO wants to land during the LSZH -> KJFK or vice versa. The FO chose the first option and had the fun to fly the (difficult) Canarsie approach for his first time -- despite him having less experience than the captain.

Each FO should be able to perform all the captain's flying tasks without problems. Otherwise, he would not be FO.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Mario Donick

[AnonymousUser68]

Does make me wonder about the term Pilot in Command. Is that by definition the one with the stick, or the senior one who is supervising?

 

Interesting question...

 

In my earlier post I referred to the F/O as the PIC (in this odd occasion) because:

• He was flying the approach
• He was sitting in the left hand seat
• The Captain seems to be referred to as a supervisor and it sounds although he is almost removed from the cockpit environment.

It sounds to me like a badly handled situation. After the unexperienced F/O screwed up the approach (assuming no mechanical failure) the captain was acting as a supervisor in the wrong seat of his aircraft and nothing was done before it was too late.

 

I think the cockpit voice recorder will be a big help in determining the cause of the crash.

[Andyrooc]

It's a bit odd to call someone with 9700 hours in commercial jets 'unexperienced'[sic]. And I'd be more than a little surprised if the FO (very experienced 777 pilot) thought "oh, I'll just let him crash it as part of his training...".

 

Anyway, Priorities in the modern world...

[Nicola_M]

And I'd be more than a little surprised if the FO (very experienced 777 pilot) thought "oh, I'll just let him crash it as part of his training...".

That's why I queried the definition of the PIC, because to my way of thinking the Captain was flying as PNF but still supervising - inferring overall control - means he'll still carry some of the blame. He wouldn't therefore let his "student" deliberately do something that'd drop them both in it.

 

And something's very badly wrong at a basic level if a very experienced (for that's what he is) pilot F/O with nearly 10,000 hours can't land a plane manually (everyone here can do that, for god's sake), which is why I hope the cause is mech/tech.  Because if it is down to pilot error, then that entire part of the world's aviation industry is in the toilet.

[Andyrooc]

Totally agree. I just can't imagine this being pilot error. If anything, you're doubly diligent when you're training and doing something new. Something led them to believe that the aircraft was properly configured and the airspeed was adequate.

 

If they realised 7 seconds out there was a major problem, then they would have gone to TOGA straight away. They should have had significant power within 2 or 3 seconds and near maximum within 5 seconds as per industry standards. While it doesn't lead to an immediate increase of airspeed, it doesn't appear to have helped at all - which is odd.

 

Man, I'm impressed with the survivability of this aircraft though. It seems most people simply walked away. Amazing.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Andyrooc

[Nicola_M]

What has really amazed me is not just the survivability of the airframe, but how so many people suffered spinal injuries and were able to get off. If the plane had gone up in flames immediately, like so many aircraft seem to, the fatality toll would have been much, much higher.

[greggerm]

The cockpit voice recorder and data recorders will be very important to this investigation. It'll help the investigators determine if the crew discussed anything amiss, the flight parameters along the glidepath, and any mechanical issues which may have cropped up on the approach. The CVR will also help demonstrate if the PNF did any verbal coaching along the glidepath, or if he let the PF take it all the way in. I believe the data recorder will also log the control inputs provided on either control column, as well as the throttles, giving investigators insight into who took what action, and when, in coordination with any mechanical anomalies, should they exist.

 

If you haven't yet, watch the amateur video taken from the shore which catches the last quarter mile or so of the airplane's approach - it looks all too much like some of the approaches I've flown in a flight simulator - plowing through the air at very low altitudes just feeling for the runway with my main landing gear after coming up short on my descent.  And to see the fuselage bounce, pitch up and roll, and get flung around like a sheet of cardboard only to pancake on the ground hard... and to have 99.4% of those onboard survive?

 

Despite what may have caused the incident, I think amazing luck joined forces with amazing engineering over in San Francisco the other day. Wow.

[jetjerry]

Pilot error!

Couldn't hand fly the airplane as he should be able to.  An epidemic world wide these days.

I believe if you use the AP for a fast descent in a 777 and use the FLCH mode without disarming the FD the AT auto disconnects.  If they thought the AT was still going to command pwr when needed at the bottom of descent...and didn't get it, then that would explain (their fault) why they were slow to react and add pwr to the app.

If you're checking out to be a capt in a heavy jet you should know your aiplane better than that!

In the USA that's precisely the kinda stuff they put you thru in the simulator so you remember.....what not to do.

[Nicola_M]

Pilot error!

Couldn't hand fly the airplane as he should be able to.  An epidemic world wide these days.

I believe if you use the AP for a fast descent in a 777 and use the FLCH mode without disarming the FD the AT auto disconnects.  If they thought the AT was still going to command pwr when needed at the bottom of descent...and didn't get it, then that would explain (their fault) why they were slow to react and add pwr to the app.

If you're checking out to be a capt in a heavy jet you should know your aiplane better than that!

In the USA that's precisely the kinda stuff they put you thru in the simulator so you remember.....what not to do.

 

But at the moment that's pure conjecture, not for definite what happened.

[jetjerry]

Yes, of course it's only conjecture.  My opinion.

The NTSB will make the only official ruling.

[Nicola_M]

Although the NTSB have told us the speed was [significantly] low, TOGA carried out too late, throttles applied too late, something like the throttles staying at idle could be down to something electrical for all we know, not necessarily pilot error.

Even taking into account the CRM stuff, I'm finding it really hard to buy the idea that a pilot with 10K hours would make such a monumental screwup and that someone next to him with 12K hours would sit there and let him.

 

Watched a tv program a week or so back about a LOT flight where landing gear failed due to a circuit breaker popping and no one thought to check. Could a circuit breaker in charge of A/T have failed, leaving it at the last setting, ie idle?

[Airbus]

Here is a video of a KSFO 28L with no ILS.

Gives a interesting perspective of the runway!  I've only flown in as a passenger; at night you can hardly see the water below. Its quite eerie!

[eaglewing7]

Although the NTSB have told us the speed was [significantly] low, TOGA carried out too late, throttles applied too late, something like the throttles staying at idle could be down to something electrical for all we know, not necessarily pilot error.

Even taking into account the CRM stuff, I'm finding it really hard to buy the idea that a pilot with 10K hours would make such a monumental screwup and that someone next to him with 12K hours would sit there and let him.

 

Watched a tv program a week or so back about a LOT flight where landing gear failed due to a circuit breaker popping and no one thought to check. Could a circuit breaker in charge of A/T have failed, leaving it at the last setting, ie idle?

 

 

Mechanical issues were ruled out by the NTSB, not exactly surprising in my opinion, because no emergency was declared prior to the approach.

 

As for for why the throttles were at idle, and stayed there, could have been A/T off, or (from what i've read, could be a few different combinations of autopilot settings):

 

"...level of automation: 

A/p on a/t on

here you have chose a vertical flight mode-vs or flch or fpa or vnav (path or speed)

flch will close thrust lever and try to descent to selected altitude eg 500' above runway or even circling mda, which ever is selected. when close by the minimum usually the g/a altitude is selected

if you are still in flch the airplane will try to strt climb back to the set altitude incl adding power unless you hold the throttles and the throttle indication is HOLD, vs.fpa or vnav will maintain the decent 

a/p off a/t on -normal we don't tun ofF at on the 777 unless in the sim

all off and use flch,,,maybe not smart unless you have your hand on the thr lever

or maybe ap on an at off not likely

turning a/p or a/t or both will complicate things with flch especially when you are tired, being trained, etc

depending on your focus like coming in high with high descent rate

A bit of an incoherent story..."

 

Odds are pretty good that the regular captain, acting as F/O, would just sit there and watch, he's used to being the captain, and used to being in charge, so he essentially is indifferent to what happens to the "new guy" in the left seat.

 

KAL801 comes to mind, where Asiatic pilots were allowed to do stupid things by their crews.

 

But, there is one case that also comes to mind, where a Japanese Captain actually owned up to the fact that he made a mistake (JAL2 - crashed just off San Francisco as well)...

 

The Eastern/Asian culture is one deeply rooted in respect and honour, strange things happen when a culture like that gets Westernized practices like CRM introduced, because it goes against the grain of their society.

Edited July 8, 2013 by eaglewing7

[greggerm]

The picture continues to trend towards cockpit management/crew errors. Now we're getting word that this flight was the PNF's first flight as a trainer/senior pilot (Link). While this still doesn't solidify what occurred on Sunday in the slightest, the news continues to lend itself towards the classic "chain of errors" which often precede an accident such as this.

[Peter T.]

the captain only has around 40+ hours of flying in 777s....thats almost nothing.

[Andyrooc]

+36 hours in the 777 sim training. Plus 737 & 747 ratings. Plus the FO (instructor) had 3700+ hours. That is a lot of experience on the flight deck.

[Nicola_M]

the captain only has around 40+ hours of flying in 777s....thats almost nothing.

Where on earth are you getting your figures from ???

The one with 43hrs was not the captain.  He was PIC, but not the captain.

 

Quote my post #25

"Yes and no. The man sat in the captain's seat was F/O Lee Kang-gook. He's the one with 9,763 hours, 43 of which on the 777.  He had previously flown to SFO 29 times on different aircraft. (Reuters).

It was, though, his first attempt at landing at SFO. 

And was being supervised by:

Capt Lee Jeong-min, who was sat in the co-pilot's seat, and had 12,387 hours, 3,220 on the 777."

[Nicola_M]

+36 hours in the 777 sim training. Plus 737 & 747 ratings. Plus the FO (instructor) had 3700+ hours. That is a lot of experience on the flight deck.

See the post above.

[Peter T.]

Sorry, not captain.

[Ryan M.]

Highly controversial topic here...

[Norman]

Jep. but alot/everything sounds like speculation.

We ll know more when the ntsb publishes the first report.

[Nicola_M]

Highly controversial topic here...

Not really.  The NTSB have told us what happened, which matches what we've seen on the news videos. They haven't told us Why.  We don't know that it's pilot error so we just have to sit and wait to see what the NTSB says the cause was.

 

I have to say I'm disgusted with pprune; the amount of people there slamming the Asiana crew in the absence of any facts is awful.  Glad I don't work in that industry and have to regard them as colleagues.

[eaglewing7]

PPRUN seems to me to be the worst collection of aviation prima donnas to ever walk the earth.

 

I once followed a link over to that forum once, never went back, the atmosphere even for just a reader like myself was venomous at best.

 

Seems like the folks over there certainly are superior to all, and regularly walk on water, and all that BS.

 

But, pilot error is pilot error, humans naturally make mistakes, and while I certainly have no problem posting my theories on what I feel may have contributed to the accident, I certainly do not feel the need to get abusive or rude.  

 

I've almost been hit midair by another aircraft, and it certinaly doesn't take much to make you chnage your attitude on flying, things happen quickly, and you either do the right thing, or your dead...