Asiana blames -- Boeing. For not fixing the pilots mistakes

You mean you weren't expecting that? Not my fault. Must be your fault. Sickening.
 
docmirror said:
http://news.yahoo.com/asiana-jet-partly-blame-california-crash-214221920.html

Yup. Asiana today blamed Boeing for the jet not curing the bad flying by the pilots. :mad2::eek:
Click to expand...
"However, Asiana argued that the pilots and co-pilot reasonably believed the automatic throttle would keep the plane going fast enough to reach the runway — when in fact the auto throttle was effectively shut off after the pilot idled it to correct an unexplained climb earlier in the landing."
​
...
"Cox, president and CEO of Safety Operating Systems and a former airline pilot and accident investigator, likened it to the cruise control in a car. If a driver sets it for 55 mph (88.5 kph) and then accelerates to pass a car, the driver would expect the cruise control to re-engage when the speed slows to 55 mph (88.5 kph) again."
​
Hmm. I would have thought the analogy of idling the auto throttle was like that of tapping the brakes of a car to slow down - which permanently disengages the cruise control on all the cars I've driven.
 
It's not about who's right, it's about who's got the biggest wallet. Those late night asbestos commercials aren't about helping people they're about finding more revenue streams !
 
ScottM said:
Familiarize yourself with the 'elastic truth' when dealing with the Korean culture
Click to expand...

Yeah, because planes never crash when they are flown by white guys. (/sarcasm)

Looks like Asiana is taking a page from the crash of Eastern 401, in which the autopilot was accidentally bumped out of altitude hold mode without any visual talkback showing the change being noticed.
 
Can't say that I'm surprised.
 
Lee was an experienced pilot with Asiana but was a trainee captain in the 777, with less than 45 hours in the jet. He has told transportation safety board investigators that he did not immediately move to perform an emergency "go around" because he felt only the instructor pilot had that authority.
Click to expand...
Wow. Just...wow.

But it's the plane's fault.
 
Talk to someone who has flight instructed Asian students, for whatever cultural/genetic/tiger mom reason this is common.
Jim_R said:
Wow. Just...wow.

But it's the plane's fault.
Click to expand...
 
If this was the first time the pilots had ever been in a B777 I might have some sympathy. However, Asiana had presumably decided that these pilots were qualified to go out and fly one around full of passengers. This implies that they would have been trained to fly the damn thing properly, including how to use the well known and documented autothrottle.

This accident, along with Air France 447, make me very angry. People died purely because pilots did not know how to do their jobs. They either didn't recognise these deficiencies in themselves, or didn't care, both of which are entirely inexcusable.
 
I read in another article:

"Capt. Lee Kang Kuk, told the National Transportation Safety Board last year that he found it "very stressful, very difficult" to land without the glideslope indicator that helps pilots determine whether the plane is too high or too low during approach."

Really? Can't be bothered to look at the airspeed and he can't look out the window and determine if he's too high or too low.

Moron.
 
If I was Boeing I wouldn't sell them another damn airplane and wouldn't support any Boeing sold to them. Probably best that I don't run Boeing.
 
jesse said:
If I was Boeing I wouldn't sell them another damn airplane and wouldn't support any Boeing sold to them. Probably best that I don't run Boeing.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Then I put my Dale Carnegie hat on and decided I would sell them another plane, but they would come with a 'stupid pilot' extra fee to make up for the potential litigation costs specific to Asiana. Maybe an added $10 mil would do it.
 
3393RP said:
Asiana is also blaming ATC...



Those instructions and procedures pretty much told them 'Reduce altitude, slow down, turn left a couple of times, cleared to land'.

What nonsense.
Click to expand...
So basically is Asiana is claiming that their pilots are not qualified to operate a technologically advanced aircraft in complicated airspace.
 
ScottM said:
So basically is Asiana is claiming that their pilots are not qualified to operate a technologically advanced aircraft in complicated airspace.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, they are qualified if nothing unusual happens, like a VFR approach on a clear day. But they are not qualified to hand fly any non glideslope approach. :mad2:
 
From my perspective as a flight instructor of foriegn cultures.

I used to instruct SwissAir students and the school had many Asian students as well as Middle Eastern students. (No jokes..we did have some famous 9/11 students as well after I left.)

Anyway, the Asian students are very wrapped around the axel when it comes to 'respect'. The captain is ALWAYS right. There are stories of FOs not wearing sunglasses because that might be viewed as disrespectful.

Also, there is a major shift in assumptions when it comes to communication. In the west if there is a misunderstanding we assume the sender didn't send the message properly. As a result, the sender keeps sending until they figure the receiver gets it. In Asian cultures it's the other way around. If there is a misunderstanding then the fault is subconsciously placed on the receiver. Therefore, if the sender sends it and doesn't get the cues that the receiver got it then, 'oh well...it's his fault'.

There are many crashes where the crash could have been avoided if the problems communicated were simply understood or repeated. A pilot sees something and says some vague thing thinking he's done his job in telling the other guy the problem but the other guy doesn't connect what's being said to a problem and does nothing. The sender stops sending and the problem escalates. People have died as a result.

In my own dealings with SwissAir students we were instructed to give more training on visual approaches. They found that new pilots were great at flying all sorts of approaches to minimums and landing safely. But take the same pilot and give him a clear day and a clearance to land and they balled it all up resulting in an expensive go-around.

Low time may be an issue with that. But after we started training random visual approaches the feedback we got was that the problem was corrected and they were very pleased with the results.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Hmm. I would have thought the analogy of idling the auto throttle was like that of tapping the brakes of a car to slow down - which permanently disengages the cruise control on all the cars I've driven.
Click to expand...

Well ... a few high end cars have a limited ability to prevent the driver from crashing by applying brakes. Collectively, we are expecting our tech to protect us from us more and more.

Examples are everywhere. The Windows UAC, the fact that GMail has features to prevent "drunk emailing", many washers will not start the wash cycle with the lid open, my chainsaw has a guard on the tip, etc.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Well ... a few high end cars have a limited ability to prevent the driver from crashing by applying brakes. Collectively, we are expecting our tech to protect us from us more and more.

Examples are everywhere. The Windows UAC, the fact that GMail has features to prevent "drunk emailing", many washers will not start the wash cycle with the lid open, my chainsaw has a guard on the tip, etc.
Click to expand...


Engineers create things that train the general populace to be more and more ignorant.
 
Barely capable people using technologically advanced devices which, when they fail, kill the user. A Darwinism twist designed to clean up the gene pool.
How would an aircraft be programmed to respond if it determined you were too slow? Punch the throttles to full and execute a go around? Scream in the pilots ear? Light off the master caution? Shake the stick? Everything at once?
Were I Boeing, I'd immediately ground every one of their aircraft Asiana owned.
 
silver-eagle said:
Barely capable people using technologically advanced devices which, when they fail, kill the user. A Darwinism twist designed to clean up the gene pool.
How would an aircraft be programmed to respond if it determined you were too slow? Punch the throttles to full and execute a go around? Scream in the pilots ear? Light off the master caution? Shake the stick? Everything at once?
Were I Boeing, I'd immediately ground every one of their aircraft Asiana owned.
Click to expand...

That's only a firmware upgrade away.

I wonder if Airbus or Boeing has "idiot resistant" firmware in their labs? Something they shelved as unnecessary.
 
Pi1otguy said:
That's only a firmware upgrade away.

I wonder if Airbus or Boeing has "idiot resistant" firmware in their labs? Something they shelved as unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Cool, I can see that now:

Firmware version v32.5.7b and above is only for competent crews. Allows the pilot full authority. Firmware version v31.4.8a and below are idiot versions and provide full management of flight to the computer. The pilot will need an override unlock code from Boeing to enable things like throttle authority, full pitch range, or anything outside of the FMS dial-a-flight profile. :D
 
docmirror said:
Cool, I can see that now:

Firmware version v32.5.7b and above is only for competent crews. Allows the pilot full authority. Firmware version v31.4.8a and below are idiot versions and provide full management of flight to the computer. The pilot will need an override unlock code from Boeing to enable things like throttle authority, full pitch range, or anything outside of the FMS dial-a-flight profile. :D
Click to expand...


Maybe they need a version that immediately gives control to a Boeing pilot in Seattle, sitting at a UAV console. Hit the "blue button"!
 
Matthew said:
Maybe they need a version that immediately gives control to a Boeing pilot in Seattle, sitting at a UAV console. Hit the "blue button"!
Click to expand...

Now we're on to something!

"HAL - open the pod bay doors."

"I'm afraid I can't do that Dave...." :lol:

<edit: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is Luk-seung your - well, I was going to say pilot, but I'm the guy sitting up front. We are making an arrival to San Francisco airport, so I have given control of the aircraft to Bill in Renton Washington, and he will be piloting the aircraft today. Thank you for flying Asiana.">
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Now we're on to something!

"HAL - open the pod bay doors."

"I'm afraid I can't do that Dave...." :lol:

<edit: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is Luk-seung your - well, I was going to say pilot, but I'm the guy sitting up front. We are making an arrival to San Francisco airport, so I have given control of the aircraft to Bill in Renton Washington, and he will be piloting the aircraft today. Thank you for flying Asiana.">
Click to expand...


Nice!

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your REAL captain speaking. We will be on the ground shortly (Hey, you guys forgot my rings! And I wanted the brisket, not pork!). Please follow the instructions from your flight attendants."
 
Machines break. "What is it doing now?" is a lament heard in cockpits the world over - and it happens enough - from programming errors - that pilots need to actually, you know, supervise the machines to make sure they are doing what you want them to do . . .

Came across an old edition of "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and right in the section on takeoffs and landings:

" . . . if it is realized that the airplane is below the desired glidepath , a more nose-up attitude without an increase in power will simply allow the airplane to fly more slowly, and . . . eventually produce a greater rate of descent."
Click to expand...

Seems relevant to both Asiana and Air France . . . but hey. It was all the computers fault.
 
comanchepilot said:
Machines break. "What is it doing now?" is a lament heard in cockpits the world over - and it happens enough - from programming errors - that pilots need to actually, you know, supervise the machines to make sure they are doing what you want them to do . . .
Click to expand...


Sadly the machines are rarely broken when that phrase is uttered. The machine is doing exactly what it was told to do by another fallible human who's safely home in bed, after a nice scotch.

Then we all hope the guy sweating in the driver's seat actually remembers how to drive without cruise control. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top