Asiana Crash and Flight Training

[TexasPilot71]

I've read most of the posts in the original Asiana 777 thread, but admittedly not all of them. Forgive me if I bring up a subject that has already been mentioned.

But let's try to put a positive spin on this crash. Or at least a positive RESULT of this accident. A common thread in this conversation has been about the flight crew's lack of proficiency and maybe more importantly the culture. And when I say culture, I mean it in regards to the initial flight training Asian and other foreign flight crews receive.

Somebody mentioned that private ownership of an aircraft is illegal in S. Korea. While I have no knowledge on that subject, I do know that many countries that have major airlines do not allow or certainly don't promote private aviation. Their flight crews are trained internationally and only to some set of standards that were developed many years ago. It has been said (and I think proven) that the crew in question lacked basic airmanship skills. Why is that? If they had been "brought up" in Cessna 150s in their own country, wouldn't they be in a much better initial situation prior to jet training? It would seem so.

One step in the right direction might be to convince these countries to champion private aviation by pointing out the deficiencies of their professional flight crews and addressing them instead of not renewing the foreign sim instructor's visa (as was testified in one of those posts in the other thread). Come on IATA, ICAO, AOPA, EAA, NBAA, or whoever is best positioned in the international aviation arena. Private aviation is worth it!

 

[jbarrass]

I'm not sure what your proposing but FWIW private ownership of aircraft on Korea is legal. It's just not useful, it's a small country with a lot of restricted areas and MOA. I've flown GA there but it is not that practical.

 

[TexasPilot71]

I'm not sure what your proposing but FWIW private ownership of aircraft on Korea is legal. It's just not useful, it's a small country with a lot of restricted areas and MOA. I've flown GA there but it is not that practical.

Good point about Korea. Like I said I am unfamiliar with their laws, but I can see your point regarding GA's usefulness. I'm not naive enough to think a post in this forum will affect anything, but rather publicly wishing GA could become a more global industry and possibly use a tragedy such as this one to help propel that idea in the vein of safety and training.

 

[Ted]

Small countries can go one of two ways with GA. For instance, Belize is very small and all flying is VFR other than into the one international airport. So a diversion means ending up in a different country. GA there is extremely useful because it's the only way to get places. However, most of the GA I saw was 135 operators (or whatever their equivalent is).

Most foreign countries send their pilot cadets to the US or Canada to be trained. So you end up with someone very green in a large plane. Not a good combo.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I've read most of the posts in the original Asiana 777 thread, but admittedly not all of them. Forgive me if I bring up a subject that has already been mentioned.

But let's try to put a positive spin on this crash. Or at least a positive RESULT of this accident. A common thread in this conversation has been about the flight crew's lack of proficiency and maybe more importantly the culture. And when I say culture, I mean it in regards to the initial flight training Asian and other foreign flight crews receive.

Somebody mentioned that private ownership of an aircraft is illegal in S. Korea. While I have no knowledge on that subject, I do know that many countries that have major airlines do not allow or certainly don't promote private aviation. Their flight crews are trained internationally and only to some set of standards that were developed many years ago. It has been said (and I think proven) that the crew in question lacked basic airmanship skills. Why is that? If they had been "brought up" in Cessna 150s in their own country, wouldn't they be in a much better initial situation prior to jet training? It would seem so.

One step in the right direction might be to convince these countries to champion private aviation by pointing out the deficiencies of their professional flight crews and addressing them instead of not renewing the foreign sim instructor's visa (as was testified in one of those posts in the other thread). Come on IATA, ICAO, AOPA, EAA, NBAA, or whoever is best positioned in the international aviation arena. Private aviation is worth it!

It isn't about whether you fly a 150 or a 777. The basic airmanship skills are the same. The problem is that there are many people in this world who have what I would describe as an exaggerated faith in technology and automation that leads to an over-reliance in said automation to the detriment of basic airmanship skills.

That group is not limited to Koreans. Plenty of Americans and Europeans who are strong advocates/proponents of the fully automated approach. I think I pointed this out in the other thread - there seem to be two schools of thought in the pilot community with regards to the American Airlines 'Children of the Magenta' presentation. One group feels that it is hopeless outdated and technology has overcome all problems for which the video was created while the other group feels it is as relevant as ever.

You don't necessarily need to put pro pilots in 172s to solve the problem. You can train/emphasize those basic pilot skills in the sim. Nothing prevents you from periodically clicking off the automation and hand flying a visual approach in a Level D sim.

These issues we are seeing with the SFO crash are easily addressable in the sims....IF you take the right approach to training.

 

[Ted]

I think one of the definite issues is that American pilots have gone up a lot more rungs of the ladder and spent time flying planes that emphasize basic airmanship prior to hopping in big planes. Many parts of the world don't have FOs that have done that as much.

Sure, American pilots do that sort of thing too, but in my daily flight safety news, I see far more crashes from Asian, African, and Russian airlines than American. We do a better job.

Not saying you can't get put left seat in a transport category aircraft with low time and do well, but especially for something like a 777 where you don't even perform a takeoff and a landing on a long flight (just one or the other), it is definitely harder to build skills at any substantial rate.

 

[Everskyward]

I think one of the definite issues is that American pilots have gone up a lot more rungs of the ladder and spent time flying planes that emphasize basic airmanship prior to hopping in big planes. Many parts of the world don't have FOs that have done that as much.

Sure, American pilots do that sort of thing too, but in my daily flight safety news, I see far more crashes from Asian, African, and Russian airlines than American. We do a better job.

Not saying you can't get put left seat in a transport category aircraft with low time and do well, but especially for something like a 777 where you don't even perform a takeoff and a landing on a long flight (just one or the other), it is definitely harder to build skills at any substantial rate.

I think at least part of this is that you won't last long in this country if you don't have basic skills. As soon as you start flying with other people they will be reporting to others if you are lacking. When people talk about "culture" I think this is partly what they are referring to. Americans, including Canadians, aren't shy about sparing your feelings. I've flown with at least one person on a professional level who didn't quite get it. I found that out for sure after letting him fly a leg into KASE. It wasn't like he hadn't been there before, just not in the Lear. Others had the same opinion so he didn't last very long. I found out he didn't make it at his next job either.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I think at least part of this is that you won't last long in this country if you don't have basic skills. As soon as you start flying with other people they will be reporting to others if you are lacking.

I think that is generally true, but unfortunately Colgan 3407 demonstrated that isn't always the case.

 

[Everskyward]

I think that is generally true, but unfortunately Colgan 3407 demonstrated that isn't always the case.

True. It would be interesting to know what other pilots thought about his skills before that happened.

 

[Ted]

I think at least part of this is that you won't last long in this country if you don't have basic skills. As soon as you start flying with other people they will be reporting to others if you are lacking. When people talk about "culture" I think this is partly what they are referring to. Americans, including Canadians, aren't shy about sparing your feelings. I've flown with at least one person on a professional level who didn't quite get it. I found that out for sure after letting him fly a leg into KASE. It wasn't like he hadn't been there before, just not in the Lear. Others had the same opinion so he didn't last very long. I found out he didn't make it at his next job either.

That's a good point as well. I also think the expected level of skill is based in part on what the rest of the community can do. I think overall many non-US carriers have a lower bar because the domestic captains were promoted from domestic FOs who had the same background that set them up for failure.

I think that is generally true, but unfortunately Colgan 3407 demonstrated that isn't always the case.

You're always going to have people who slip through the cracks in any system. The question is how many cracks exist to slip through. The US system does a better job of reducing the number of cracks to slip through than other countries in my opinion, at least at the commercial level. What the individual crashes help us to identify are which cracks still exist so that we can try to figure out how to fix them.

 

[wabower]

Having served as an international training captain taking US biz-jet crews to Europe (either for the first time as pilots or the first time in big biz-jets) it's interesting and enlightening to watch them trip over their protuberances when the game changes slightly.

Even though we brief and emphasize and brief some more that they will get slam-dunked into most European airports and need to be ready earlier with all ducks in a row, they still fall woefully behind, simply because they aren't used to doing it here the way they do it there. That doesn't mean they can't or don't get the airplane on the runway at the right spot, it just shows them that their calm cool professionalism gives way to anus and elbow when they get behind, just like the other mere mortals.

I think one of the definite issues is that American pilots have gone up a lot more rungs of the ladder and spent time flying planes that emphasize basic airmanship prior to hopping in big planes. Many parts of the world don't have FOs that have done that as much.

Sure, American pilots do that sort of thing too, but in my daily flight safety news, I see far more crashes from Asian, African, and Russian airlines than American. We do a better job.

Not saying you can't get put left seat in a transport category aircraft with low time and do well, but especially for something like a 777 where you don't even perform a takeoff and a landing on a long flight (just one or the other), it is definitely harder to build skills at any substantial rate.

 

[Ted]

Having served as an international training captain taking US biz-jet crews to Europe (either for the first time as pilots or the first time in big biz-jets) it's interesting and enlightening to watch them trip over their protuberances when the game changes slightly.

Even though we brief and emphasize and brief some more that they will get slam-dunked into most European airports and need to be ready earlier with all ducks in a row, they still fall woefully behind, simply because they aren't used to doing it here the way they do it there. That doesn't mean they can't or don't get the airplane on the runway at the right spot, it just shows them that their calm cool professionalism gives way to anus and elbow when they get behind, just like the other mere mortals.

Certainly another human factor to consider.

One person I flew with for a while who was a great stick but learned to fly in the sticks definitely had a few times early on when similar happened going into some big Class B airports. Getting thrown out of your box does make things more challenging for anyone.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

but especially for something like a 777 where you don't even perform a takeoff and a landing on a long flight (just one or the other),

Depends on the airline. UAL doesn't do it that way.

 

[Ted]

Depends on the airline. UAL doesn't do it that way.

How do they do it? Curious.

 

[Everskyward]

Certainly another human factor to consider.

One person I flew with for a while who was a great stick but learned to fly in the sticks definitely had a few times early on when similar happened going into some big Class B airports. Getting thrown out of your box does make things more challenging for anyone.

That reminds me of someone I gave IOE to years ago in the King Air. He told me he was uncomfortable going into small airports without instrument approaches. This was back when every airport didn't have an RNAV (GPS) approach. I was astonished since my prior experience had been 99% VFR. We were both outliers in opposite directions.

 

[Ted]

That reminds me of someone I gave IOE to years ago in the King Air. He told me he was uncomfortable going into small airports without instrument approaches. This was back when every airport didn't have an RNAV (GPS) approach. I was astonished since my prior experience had been 99% VFR. We were both outliers in opposite directions.

I certainly have similar issues. Since by 120TT I had my instrument rating and have flown almost everything on instruments since. Plus I learned at a towered airport. I have no problem with VFR flight but you seldom see me squawking 1200, and even if VFR I usually have flight following. It's also rare to see me flying below 5000 ft in cruise.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

How do they do it? Curious.

Captain and Flying First Officer are in the control seats for takeoff and landing. They split the cruise portion of the flight with the relief pilots.

We do not have two captains and two first officers. We have ONE captain and THREE first officers.

 

[Ted]

Captain and Flying First Officer are in the control seats for takeoff and landing. They split the cruise portion of the flight with the relief pilots.

We do not have two captains and two first officers. We have ONE captain and THREE first officers.

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I'd assume then that a given pilot would get an average of one TO/landing out of every four?

 

[Pilawt]

You don't necessarily need to put pro pilots in 172s to solve the problem. You can train/emphasize those basic pilot skills in the sim. Nothing prevents you from periodically clicking off the automation and hand flying a visual approach in a Level D sim.

How much does it cost to operate a Level D sim (including instructor) compared to a C-172, and how available are they?

Not rhetorical questions, I'm ignorant but curious.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I'd assume then that a given pilot would get an average of one TO/landing out of every four?

In theory, the captain would get every other one. And what we call the flying first officer would get every other one.

It is kind of hit or miss for the relief pilots. If they are relatively senior, they may get enough landings to stay FAR current and not have to go to the training center for a landings class.

Sometimes, they can go as long as 6 months without actually landing the airplane, other than in the simulator. In fact, before the rules changed, it wasn't too uncommon for a junior 747 pilot to go years without getting a landing in the airplane. There was an incident in San Francisco many years ago that precipitated a bit of a change in that regard. Now a pilot has to have at least 4 legs in the control seat in the last 6 months with at least one landing or they have to do a mini OE.

 

[Fearless Tower]

How much does it cost to operate a Level D sim (including instructor) compared to a C-172, and how available are they?

Not rhetorical questions, I'm ignorant but curious.

Dunno, my ride was free, courtesy of a friend who was a sim instructor at a major.

 

[Ted]

In theory, the captain would get every other one. And what we call the flying first officer would get every other one.

It is kind of hit or miss for the relief pilots. If they are relatively senior, they may get enough landings to stay FAR current and not have to go to the training center for a landings class.

Sometimes, they can go as long as 6 months without actually landing the airplane, other than in the simulator. In fact, before the rules changed, it wasn't too uncommon for a junior 747 pilot to go years without getting a landing in the airplane. There was an incident in San Francisco many years ago that precipitated a bit of a change in that regard. Now a pilot has to have at least 4 legs in the control seat in the last 6 months with at least one landing or they have to do a mini OE.

More interesting still. So are the relief pilots (FOs who do part of the cruise portions?) assigned to that role permanently ie they won't get landings with any regularity?

These long trips always strike me as having the greatest potential for lapses in proficiency.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

More interesting still. So are the relief pilots (FOs who do part of the cruise portions?) assigned to that role permanently ie they won't get landings with any regularity?

Whether or not an FO gets a flying slot vs. a relief slot is pretty much based on seniority. Those with the seniority to hold it will. Those that don't, won't.

I try to bid for flying slots to Asia because of the time off. But I don't always get them because those more senior to me want them. I can be the "flying guy" to Europe when Europe is available, but for most of the summer, due to staffing issues, Europe hasn't been available.

The joys of the seniority system, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

These long trips always strike me as having the greatest potential for lapses in proficiency.

No doubt. It is a good thing that the bigger airplanes tend to be pretty easy to fly.

 

[Everskyward]

Dunno, my ride was free, courtesy of a friend who was a sim instructor at a major.

My 777 ride was courtesy of a friend too. Thanks Greg!

I think my recurrent class in the CE-680 is in the neighborhood of $15,000 but that is for 3 days of sim (2 hours as flying pilot each day) and the checkride which is another 2.5, plus about 20 hours ground school.

Here is a guy who spent $500 for a few hours in a 777 sim.

It costs $50 million. It set me back $500. It was the best $500 I ever spent at the controls of an airplane, period. Out of all my real 2500 hours flying time, the few hours I spent in the cockpit of the real Level D full motion Boeing 777 simulator, was certainly the best few hours I've ever had flying. It was better than all the real flights I've ever taken, or any of the real places I've ever flown to. It may always rank number one in the excitement field, until the day comes I fly a real 777.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/conte...t-FlightSafety-s-Boeing-777-Level-D-Simulator

 

[Ted]

Getting some sim time is on my list of things to do. Still never done it. Part of me has wanted to do a type rating, but it doesn't make any sense to spend the money on something I'll never use.

 

[Everskyward]

Part of me has wanted to do a type rating, but it doesn't make any sense to spend the money on something I'll never use.

Best strategy is to get someone else to pay for it. However, if you have money burning a hole in your pocket...

 

[Ted]

Best strategy is to get someone else to pay for it. However, if you have money burning a hole in your pocket...

Since I'm out of the professional pilot world, it's unlikely that anyone will buy me a type rating. Since I'm also cheap and would rather spend my money on useful things, it's unlikely that I'll do it anywhere in the near future.

 

[Clark1961]

Best strategy is to get someone else to pay for it.

Hey, doesn't your employer need someone to fill in for a few weeks? I've got some vacation coming and I'm sure the upgrade wouldn't be any problem...after all I've got a whole 700 hours and everything (well, just about that anyway and I can tell the difference between a propeller and a jet engine two times out of three).

 

[Art VanDelay]

It isn't about whether you fly a 150 or a 777. The basic airmanship skills are the same. The problem is that there are many people in this world who have what I would describe as an exaggerated faith in technology and automation that leads to an over-reliance in said automation to the detriment of basic airmanship skills.

That group is not limited to Koreans. Plenty of Americans and Europeans who are strong advocates/proponents of the fully automated approach. I think I pointed this out in the other thread - there seem to be two schools of thought in the pilot community with regards to the American Airlines 'Children of the Magenta' presentation. One group feels that it is hopeless outdated and technology has overcome all problems for which the video was created while the other group feels it is as relevant as ever.

You don't necessarily need to put pro pilots in 172s to solve the problem. You can train/emphasize those basic pilot skills in the sim. Nothing prevents you from periodically clicking off the automation and hand flying a visual approach in a Level D sim.

These issues we are seeing with the SFO crash are easily addressable in the sims....IF you take the right approach to training.

I am a 777 pilot and partially disagree with you on this. I notice a very succinct difference between pilots that fly GA in their off time and pilots that do not. The difference is mostly apparent when we come together for our quarterly sim rides and less apparent while flying the line.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I am a 777 pilot and partially disagree with you on this. I notice a very succinct difference between pilots that fly GA in their off time and pilots that do not. The difference is mostly apparent when we come together for our quarterly sim rides and less apparent while flying the line.

Ok, so what differences DO you see?

 

[Everskyward]

Hey, doesn't your employer need someone to fill in for a few weeks? I've got some vacation coming and I'm sure the upgrade wouldn't be any problem...after all I've got a whole 700 hours and everything (well, just about that anyway and I can tell the difference between a propeller and a jet engine two times out of three).

I don't want them to spend money on training anyone. Even you!

After all, I want the chance to come back, even if it takes longer than the 12 weeks guaranteed FMLA.

Granted, I don't think I'm in any danger unless it takes way longer than I think.

 

[hindsight2020]

I am a 777 pilot and partially disagree with you on this. I notice a very succinct difference between pilots that fly GA in their off time and pilots that do not. The difference is mostly apparent when we come together for our quarterly sim rides and less apparent while flying the line.

Are you suggesting that professional pilots who happen to fly small piston aircraft in their off time have superior hand-flying proficiency across the board, than those who do not? Because I happen to agree with that idea

 

[Fearless Tower]

I am a 777 pilot and partially disagree with you on this. I notice a very succinct difference between pilots that fly GA in their off time and pilots that do not. The difference is mostly apparent when we come together for our quarterly sim rides and less apparent while flying the line.

I totally agree that flying GA helps, but I think you can address a lot of the issues we are seeing using the sim. From a cost standpoint it makes more sense than adding a bunch of piston planes to the training fleet when you still have to maintain the sims.

 

[Art VanDelay]

I think that is generally true, but unfortunately Colgan 3407 demonstrated that isn't always the case.

Colgan 3407 was the CLEAREST case of a lack of FOUNDATION. And their situation and background mirrors that of Asianna (and many other foreign carriers) that very rapidly bring their fledgling pilots thru a poorly designed flight academy curriculum. Both the Colgan and very obviously the Asianna pilots were moved into equipment that was beyond their abilities and understanding too SOON in their careers.

The Captain had progressed thru his career at a time in Regional hiring when he did not even need to spend anytime building hours outside of the classroom. He was not even a CFI. The First Officer IIRC was but only for a very brief period of time, if at all. Probably one of the most useful experiential tools we have here is time spent as a CFI. When you take a manuever and break it down to teach it to someone else you cannot help but learn it better yourself, I know I always did. And since everyone learns a little bit differently you are constanly having to change and see things from very different perspectives. Ask anyone who has both a CFI and an ATP which was the harder rating to earn and they will almost always say CFI.

If the Colgan pilots had come up in more "ancient" times like I did wherein you HAD TO HAVE at least 2000 hours before you could even get asked in for an interview I can GUARANTEE you one of two things would have happened :
A. They would have seen and been exposed to so much more that by virtual survival to that hour level they would have been the kind of pilots that DO NOT make those kind of BASIC mistakes
Or
B. They would have realized that the flying profession is not worth that much work to them and would have gone to something else.

If someone is going to have the HONOR and RESPONSIBILTY of someday flying your children and loved ones around in ALL kinds of weather can the bar ever be set too high ?????

 

[Art VanDelay]

I totally agree that flying GA helps, but I think you can address a lot of the issues we are seeing using the sim. From a cost standpoint it makes more sense than adding a bunch of piston planes to the training fleet when you still have to maintain the sims.

How much Level D Sim time do you have Chief ?

 

[comanchepilot]

Fearless is right - to a point. To answer the OP - look at it this way . . .

1000 hours a year. A month off. So you burn up 1000hrs in 11 months - or about 90hrs average a month - you can't fly that much so your trips are limited to perhaps 80 on the schedule. 900 hours a year or so. you fly most trips TransPac. Those are 10.5 hour legs on average - 10 eastbound and 11 or so west bound - 21 hours per trip - you do, essentially - 4 trips a month - away from home 12 days working.

You are the scheduled flight crew for this trip. There will be two take offs and two landings on the trip - so - you each get a stint as PF. Thus, you get 4 take offs and 4 landings a month.

How many of those are visual approaches with no Autopilot driving the bus down the final course?

Even assuming you get 4 landings a month, and even assuming you click off the AP for the last 1000' of the approach - how proficient would you feel after 3 or 4 months of that if thats the extent of your flying?

Yes you can deal with it somewhat in the sim - but - the problem with the sim is that you will be doing the same approaches all the time - since there are a limited number that work in the sim given the need to look over your shoulder perhaps to find the airport and the lack of being able to look over your shoulder in the sim to keep the runway in sight.

 

[Art VanDelay]

Ok, so what differences DO you see?

I am not a clinician nor a research scientist so the plainest way I can sum it up to you is that they just have an overall better "Air Sense" then the guys that play golf on their days off. Hands down, the best landings (greasers) come from guys that fly tailwheel aircraft.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I am not a clinician nor a research scientist so the plainest way I can sum it up to you is that they just have an overall better "Air Sense" then the guys that play golf on their days off. Hands down, the best landings (greasers) come from guys that fly tailwheel aircraft.

Ok. That is what I thought you meant.

So my 750 hours of TW time is good for something.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Stick and rudder skills are not the problem, the problem is not having full automation. Don't the meatbags hand fly the plane and the odds of surviving go up.

 

[Doggtyred]

I certainly have similar issues. Since by 120TT I had my instrument rating and have flown almost everything on instruments since. Plus I learned at a towered airport. I have no problem with VFR flight but you seldom see me squawking 1200, and even if VFR I usually have flight following. It's also rare to see me flying below 5000 ft in cruise.

Yet you still have no problem flying a visual approach without navaids, I'm guessing... or autopilot...