Asiana 214 crash

Would you be able to fly a plane with only 1 engine on one side working or would you have to just glide the plane for emergency landing?

I was on a commercial flight in 2006 where one of the two engines failed.
I thought it was pretty cool how well the plane flew with thrust on only one side.
We did divert to a safer airport for landing though.

I had some questions about what had happened and got answers
from a pilot here on Prime.
 
A little more harsh compared to cork screw landings or combat landings in a c130.

:D

So one of the 2 teenagers that was killed was purported to have been killed when our emergency vehicle hit her - according to coroners.

We always brief to run away from the fire trucks and rescue vehicles because that does happen. They don't see the people on the ground. All they see is a burning airplane they get to put out.

__________


Waiting to hear all the facts/data come in. We're paying alot of attention to this case. CRM is no joke.
 
Waiting for full investigation.

I can tell you what that full investigation is going to show. The CA stalled the airplane at 100' because he wasn't paying attention. His First Officer didn't say a word about the low airspeed and neither did the check airman. That's some CRM you have going there.

We had an incident (non-public info) where one of our airplanes nearly crashed doing a simple go-around in LGA. I heard the CVR and saw the FDR data and computerized animation of the event.

Daytime conditions, perfect VFR conditions, and ATC told the plane to go-around due to traffic on the runway. Preceding plane landed long and didn't clear the runway in time. CA (who I know) was a shitty pilot and a wierdo for that matter. One of those guys who's nice enough but when you tell him you have to go to get away from him, he starts following you and keeps talking. The First Officer (who I also know) was a good pilot and good guy. CA pitches the plane up, calls for flaps up, gear up, but never increases the power. FO says, "hey man, you're getting slow, you need to push the thrust up." CA doesn't do it. FO reachs up and pushes the thrust up. CA gets pissed off and says "what are you doing?" and pulls the thrust back. Right then the stick shaker goes off indicating an impending stall. The FO yells, and I mean yells "my fucking airplane." Reaches over pushes the thrust levers to the stops, holds the pitch riding the shaker while the airplane accelerates. The FO saved that plane and everyone on board.

The CA was pulled off line, and given a sim evaluation which he failed. Then the FAA gave him a sim evaluation and he failed that too. They stripped him of his ATP.

Is it cultural? Not necessarily. The American Airlines Flight 1420 in LIT is an example of a very senior pilot (Chief Pilot) flying with a junior pilot where the FO didn't speak up and let the CA essentially fly the plane into a bad situation. But there is without a doubt a cultural problem in Asian cockpits that has to do with authority. As well, my buddies that are over there training tell me that they train them to fly the automation. They discourage, in fact, they are not allowed to hand fly the plane in the sim during training. Gear up, flaps up, climb check, speed mode, heading mode, autopilot on at 400'. They are training people to monitor systems, not fly the plane.
 
Last edited:
I was waiting to fly out of PBI when the news of Asiana got flashed on all the tv screens in the waiting area. Nothing like waiting on delayed equipment while watching the crash unfold. After two hours the plane was finally approaching and it was obvious the plane was "struggling" and tilting to one side. They aborted and did a go around and I heard passengers talking about being told of wind shears. Then the crew came off and talked about flap and landing gear issues which resulted in mechanics coming out and working on it for another hour.

Needless to say, I wasn't comfortable getting on that plane and managed to book a different one leaving a half hour later into another airport. We had an aborted landing on the way in when the captain said they had "changed directions of the runways" and we were now coming in the wrong side. I find it hard to believe we would be cleared to land and then at about 500 feet learn for the first time they "reversed the runways" and that made us do a go around.

I don't know how prevalent such equipment problems are but after watching the events of Asiana play out while waiting for a flight that had difficulty landing I figured for peace of mind I would rather be inconvenienced by switching planes and flying into a different airport.
 
Last edited:
:D
We always brief to run away from the fire trucks and rescue vehicles because that does happen. They don't see the people on the ground. All they see is a burning airplane they get to put out......

They really tell u guys to literally run? I thought in emergencies u should walk.
 
Haha, my flight into Cinci a couple weeks ago, we definitely did a cross-wind landing. Between that and some of the turbulence coming in (flying aboard a CRJ 900) I was having a blast. I love turbulence, because, I like watching people freak out. The way I look at it is 99.9% of pilots probably want to crash the plane as bad as I want them to (which is obviously not at all).

I've never piloted a plane, nor do I have any intention to, but I have worked for an airline as a maintenance planner, my father has been in the maintenance end for going on 30 yrs now, my boss and a co-worker were pilots prior to this job so I am pretty familiar with it. I would say that crash is more than likely a piloting error as well.

What was the plane that went down off the coast of CA? The one with the Jack Screw failure? I remember my dad and I watching the news and a witness or someone describing it and he instantly said "Jack screw failed, I guarantee it" way before it was ever public knowledge.

As with any tool in any industry, it can only be as good as the person operating it.
 
They really tell u guys to literally run? I thought in emergencies u should walk.

When you're the one giving the brief, yes, and then you get out whatever door/exit through which you can fit.
 
Email from a Asiana and Korean Air Lines sim instructor.....

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.
 
Last edited:
If it's SOP for the autopilot to be engaged that early, I imagine there could be disciplinary action against pilots who decide to actually fly for extended periods, especially in Asian carriers. How could pilots who wanted to actually improve get more time on the stick?
 
So I think moral of the story is to fly on reputable airlines with properly trained pilots?
 
Back
Top