I dont have a problem with it. They are reporting facts. They have not released to the actual recording (to my knowledge). They have made it clear they are not drawing any conclusions, just stating facts as they find them.

Updating during the investigation is proper protocol.
It is certainly better for those who have an actual safety interest (for their own and the flying public) to be getting real time information AND it is better than listening to the media speculate on wild theories and misperceptions.
Hersman is doing an outstanding job in my opinion.

I am not in the pilot business, but have spent a career in another business where accidents, death and injuries is much more common than in the airline business and I have been among the ones that had to make public statements about events.
It is my experience that being open, forthcoming and non-conclusive is by far the best approach for all involved. Yes it leads to errors in reporting and misinterpretations, but among professionals and even in litigation that does not mean very much.
Providing facts as they are quantifies serves all but any guilty party the best.
The news reporters will mess it up if you inform them and the will mess it up more if you do not, heck it was reported that the plane was dissenting 1400 feet per second (and said with a straight face).
Most people can decipher what Deborah Hersman is saying without a journalist regurgitating it, without her you would only have the journalist ... and perhaps an expert flight attendant from an LCC.

I landed on 28R a few hours ago. It's a surreal scene. The trail of all the bits and pieces are still there. It looks like it just happened. Very weird and very distracting. I imagine a great deal of data related to cabin survivability will come out of this investigation.

The TFR over SFO is certainly interesting. Is it necessary in the Bravo surface area? Can they not exercise complete control there already?

Plot thickens.

Asiana pilot says he was blinded by light prior to crash

I turned final into a CA airport at sunrise, and managed a reasonable go-around. We couldn't see a damn thing!

On arrival/downwind it looked fine. So, on downwind again, we located a large hanger next to the runway, and I mentally made a picture of where the runway should be in relation to the hanger.

The next try, I just lined up relative to the hanger where I thought the runway was. When we got down to the last few feet we could finally see the runway enough to land safely.

cliff
PVG

Of course... the Koreans are a face-saving culture, and are simply unable to face criticism without wilting. When they do face criticism, they frequently commit suicide (S. Korea has the highest suicide rate of industrialized countries, and suicide there is the leading cause of death of those under 40). But before that, they make up stories like this one.

Looking forward to hearing the CVR with the audio of the pilots' complaints on said blinding light :rolleyes: And I'll go on the record now to predict that there will be multiple suicides by crewmembers of Asiana 214.

I've been lazed while flying and it went something like this: "...I can't see, you have the aircraft...". I'll give the benefit of the doubt for the guy getting "bright light" in his eyes, but what about the other three guys? What's their story?

And I'll go on the record now to predict that there will be multiple suicides by crewmembers of Asiana 214.[/QUOTE]

Crap. I have to deadhead on Asiana in two weeks from Inchon to Hong Kong. Hope nobody decides to do it then. :eek:

Is a laser effective in broad daylight, just before noon, on a sunny day? I've been blinded when landing into sunrises and sunsets, but never just before noon. Maybe the sun was reflecting up off the water and he was having trouble judging his height above the water, and distance from the runway?

FAA is well aware of some scary things Asiana has done and gotten away with. Co-worker of mine said he heard them on the radio once and they were completely lost.

Another time they were just a few miles from an airport and over 5000 feet too high.

And lastly, it was determined not too long ago that they landed short at a particular airport about a few years ago. The proof was right there because I could see the tire marks in the grass that were later measured and matched with the wheel base of a 767. They landed at least 50 feet short and again, in the grass.

Said airport has no other 767's come into it besides Asianas 767's. I actually spoke with an FAA fed about a month ago about that incident and according to the fed, Asiana denied it. Had to have been a hell of a hard landing and the sad thing is, that crew skated away as far as I know. The tower at that particular airport saw nothing because I believe it was at night.

Sickening. Especially for an airline that is so highly regarded in terms of customer service and so forth.

Great point and I'm glad you brought it up. Not passing judgement as it's too early in the investigation, BUT if what a lot of you are reporting about the Asiana and other Asian airlines cultures is true, then I'll take a Western carrier with less customer service AND stricter training standards/qualification of pilots every day of the week.

Also, I've read that the pilots initially told FA who checked on them after impact to keep the pax in their seats and not evacuate. :eek: While I'm sure their vision was obscured, thank God the FAs saw the fire and conducted the evacuation while using extinguishers.

Congrats to the FAs who undoubedtly saved hundreds of lives and best wishes for a speedy recovery to the 3 who were ejected from the back of the aircraft.

Wouldn't there be ILS/LOC antennae or lighting stantions in the way?

Lets not group all Asian carriers together shall we! Besides, in the good'ol USA we have had enough runway overruns, misuse of flight controls, CFIT crashes for lack of SA, pilot induced stalls etc, etc. I don't really think that we have the moral high ground to point fingers. This is the nature of the business, it takes you from a hero to a bum in a second flat:rolleyes:

Glideslope antenna are off to one side and a 1,000' or so feet down from the approach end.
Localizer antenna arrays would be further than 50' off the end of the runway, but only there is the opposite direction runway had a system in place.
ALSs - well that would depend on what kind - but that one would be a hard one to explain.
If av8r74 would be willing to give up the airport identifier - I'll find out the specifics.

Except that ALPA is saying the NTSB info release is unprecedented and it can taint the well on pilot blame....

Yes....well....ALPA is THE best accident investigative organization in the world now isn't it - - with no other motives or agendas other than the traveling publics safety at heart. Sorry Snarge - I'll have to stick with the NTSB's views on this one - though I will say that ALPA probably knows a thing or two about manipulating the media.

One of the most difficult things I had to learn when going from a non FMS aircrat (KC-135/727) to a fully automated aircraft (757) at FedEx was the visual approach to a runway without an ILS. The 757 was very clean and difficult to slow down and go down. The first few visuals during IOE involved me turning off all of the automation and hand flying to a point about 3 miles off the end of the runway (using the map display) at about 1000 feet and then crosschecking the PAPIs and airspeed that was set by speed following and controlled by autothrottles. I would configure quite early and have the checklist done early. Everything else was sort of secondary. Had an LCA on one IOE trip (former MD-11 guy) who tried to put everything in "the box." When we got a visual approach I was not really listening to him or even sure he was with me as we turned base and final. After I got more time in the aircraft I started to figure out all of the neat automation stuff, but for the first few flights it was pretty much basics.
I would joke that you could always tell which aircraft a guy came from. The 727guys would get frustrated with the automation and just shut it off. The MD-11 guys would try to put everything in the FMS and the Airbus guys loved vertical speed.

I'm sorry - and it must be horrific - but this type of information actually slows up the first reposnders, can jam phone lines, and causes confusion.

Quote from the full article in the link below:
''No ambulances out here': 911 calls detail horror of Asiana crash - CNN.com

It is hard when you see a tragedy, but I'm not exactly sure here what laymen are expecting from first responders.

So why is the NTSB breaking precedent with the info release?

the NTSB was created strongly in part because ALPA fought for a third party to investigate accidents, because the CAB was placing blame on pilots......

So your biased of ALPA and their experts is sacrosanct? What are your qualifications? APC mod?

ALPA has it's issues no doubt, however, not sure why their opinion in the matter is counter productive... given history....

And who says that the NTSB is breaking precedent? ALPA?
And your qualifications to question the NTSB's investigative processes are? APC poster?

I guess we both have opinions Snarge and as usual - ours differ.
I'm good with that.

You Are Correct
 

I'll certainly agree that the KAL accident/incident rate did decrease and that is wonderful. The infusion of qualified simulator instructors, a revamping of flight operations procedures and new safety initiatives did have the desired effect and your comment is correct MD-11 Freight Dog.

BTW, I'm a member of the FDPA (Freight Dog Pilots Assn.) although I'm not longer an active member. I miss "howling at night" !

G'Night Mate:)

Doing it Correctly
 

I didn't know that the NTSB was breaking precedent with a release of factual information regarding an accident investigation.

Given the very high profile of this terrible accident, I for one, think that Deborah Hersman is doing an outstanding job of keeping the public informed throughout the progress of the investigation. Let's face it, the flying public is generally uneducated about the technical issues of flying large aircraft that those on this forum take for granted. By releasing factual information as investigators uncover it, she is educating the public and thwarting a lot of "mis-information" before the media starts their own speculation.

I think she is very professional in her approach, well educated and well spoken. She is giving information without speculating or without conjecture. As a result, you may notice that the questions from the media are becoming much more objective, intelligent and the wild speculation has all but ceased.

Read her bio. She is an impressive advocate for safety and probably the best Chairperson the NTSB has had in years.

G'Day Mates:)

It's easy to present facts when the fdr and cvr are found right away, countless videos of the accident exist, 3 UAL pilots get a front row view and the pilots are alive to provide insight. The data is there for the chairperson to give to the public. We could wait a week, a month or a year but it won't change the facts. Now the talking heads in the media can move on to screw up the next big news story.

I never stated I had qualifications... as an ALPA member I defaulted to ALPA and its 80 years of experience in accident investigations... ALPA participates in accident investigations with the NTSB ... can you suggest why?

It's not my opinion, rather ALPA's.... all I did was stated that ALPA suggest that too much info too soon created bias to pilot error. What is your reasoning? I actually have one for you, if you can't articulate it....

The issue here is... you have an opinion that is counter to ALPA's critique that so much information shouldn't be release because it taints the well so to speak...

So I simply asked, why do you think so? And what qualifies your answer? because you are you and that is what you think? And how does that compare to ALPA's opinion with 80 years of history, party to accident investigations and advocate of creating the NTSB?

Hersman might be articulate...

Are you an ALPA member? Meaning, have you seen this?

ALPA CALLS FOR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF ASIANA FLIGHT 214 ACCIDENT; WARNS AGAINST MAKING CONCLUSIONS BASED ON PARTIAL DATA


The Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l, released the following statement regarding the crash landing of Asiana Flight 214 in San Francisco on Saturday, July 6, 2013.

First and foremost, our thoughts are with those who were involved in the accident this past Saturday. From the crew to the passengers to the families and first responders, we hope they can gain some comfort during this difficult time.


ALPA is stunned by the amount of detailed operational data from on-board recorders released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) this soon into the investigation. The amount of data released publicly during the field portion of the accident investigation is unprecedented.


It is imperative that safety investigators refrain from prematurely releasing the information from on-board recording devices. We have seen in the past that publicizing this data before all of it can be collected and analyzed leads to erroneous conclusions that can actually interfere with the investigative process.
The release of individual data points from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder—without the context of the entire body of factual investigative data—represents a potential detriment to flight safety. It encourages wild speculation, as we have already seen in the media, about causes of the accident before all the facts are known, before investigators have the ability to determine why the events occurred, and in this case before the flight crew had even been interviewed.


This premature release of partial data is often taken out of context and creates the impression that the NTSB has already determined probable cause even before the investigation has started. Since each factor of flight, landing, airport environment, and crew is part of safe air travel, we need to ensure that reckless release of information is not sensationalized by the media for the purpose of a few headlines.
ALPA has long supported an objective accident investigation process that is based on the fundamental principle of obtaining all the facts to perform accurate analysis in the context of all factors that may have led to an accident. We stand ready to assist the NTSB or any state investigative agency in obtaining those facts and ensuring that an appropriate operational context is maintained.


ALPA urges the NTSB to make sure that the objective investigative process continues by gathering all the facts and relevant information before leading the public to believe that a cause has been determined.

And I said I did?

Yes - because in the interest of safety the NTSB asks for participation from a variety of sources. You seem to strongly suggest that the NTSB would not be around if not for ALPA. The earliest origins of thre NTSB came before ALPA was formed, so I tend to disagree with your point on that matter too. How it evolved into its latest form is probably a much more intricate process than either of us know; but I'm willing to bet a doallar that the NTSb would still be around if ALPA wasn't.
ALPA probably is pretty good at HELPING to investigate aviation mishaps, but it is still not the world's leading investigative body - or would you argue differently?

Yes - please put words into my mouth. It is always interesting.:rolleyes:
So......to much accurate information (also called FACTS) is a bad thing because in place of facts the media will be quite and not speculate on the pilot's/crew's actions. Or do you think that ALPA's concern is that the NTSB Chairperson, repeating facts already discovered by the investigative process and relaying them to the traveling public, is going to taint the actual safety investigators and therefore they will be unable to complete their mission without bias?

Yes. And you seem to have the opinion that releasing factual information somehow misinforms the public. As I stated in the previous post - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
You didn't say anything about the NTSB breaking precedent.
Would you care to share the other high profile investigations where the NTSB did not provide factual updates?

Question for USMCFlyer or anyone else familiar with this but why is it foreign crews aren't subject to the mandatory drug/alcohol testing US crews are following an accident/incident? I was shocked when I heard it and it almost sounds like diplomatic immunity. I am in NO way suggesting this was a contributing factor, but curious nonetheless. Seems strange to me and not in the interest of the flying public. Also, are US crews afforded the same in foreign countries?

Thanks!

That was a first that I had ever heard too. I was surprised about that.
But US rules - FAA or airline specific - would required drug/alcolhol testing for US crews - same with the military. Doesn't matter where you are when you have that mishap (even deployed to a war zone) - you'll be giving a sample.

Thank you for the quick reply and relieved I'm not the only one who was surprised by this! ;) It doesn't make any sense to me as it's akin to a foreign citizen not having to submit to testing following a car accident. Mind-boggling and I hope maybe whoever is responsible for this loophole/oversight corrects it.

Focus... I asked you to reconcile your opinion and why you think your opinion has value, especially compared to ALPA's involvement and history in accident investigations.


Probably time to check records... IIRC ALPA lobbied the CAB for an independent accident investigation organization from the govt.



I didn't say that... they are great at participation within the accident investigation to represent pilots...


The media isn't the authority on accident investigations.... the NTSB is, and should be, according to ALPA, more responsible with the information....

One reason for the NTSBs release of info... is the internet, etc.. Flightaware, mobile phones, etc... have changed the game.. so better the NTSB to put it out than... other sources... you were getting to that weren't you? :rolleyes:


As I said... I default to ALPA... and posted the ALPA press release. Didn't you get it? or IIRC, you work for jetblue. Correct?

Your homework: determine ALPA's involvement in the creating of the NTSB...

Also, what are your credentials compared to ALPA for opining on B777 accidents and NTSB policy and procedure? (that is why I advocate pilot representation, because I realize I know almost nothing and glad ALPA is there to represent me. You? What do you currently fly?

OH! Focus.....sorry about that. Because I trust in the NTSBs ability to conduct an investigation.
Your reasoning for NOT trusting them?

Funny - the NTSB is independent - but it is PART of the government.

Yes - I'm sure they are, but you still haven't given me a reason why I should believe that ALPA's reasoning is any stronger than the NTSB's other than our differeing opinions.

Yep - seemsto be the crux of the discussion. A difference in opinion.

If I was putting out that the NTSB provides updates during investigations - ask and answered. Are you keeping up too? ;) I guess the NTSB did NOT provide these updates to the public prior to cell phones and the internet?

Is this some attempt to point out that JB is not an ALPA carrier?

An interest in safety as most professional pilots have and a trust in the capabilities of the NSTB's processes. The mighty Air Conditioned, Pressurized, and Radar Equipped King Air 300 - - and this affects my opinion of the NSTB professionlism in what way?

I don't think what the NTSB is doing is unprecedented. I clearly remember Jim Hall, the then chairman, giving a press conference shortly after the Southwest accident in Burbank where he stated that the aircraft touched down at 162 knots in the same halting delivery that Hersman displays.

Bingo. They have always put out the factual data as soon as it is available. ALPA just looks foolish in that release that they put out.

Drug/alcohol testing of employees is actually illegal in some countries (not sure about RoK). ICAO does not require that all countries adhere precisely to FAA or EASA rules.

While operating in US airspace (and vice versa) foriegn pilots must comply with FAR flight rules, but internal operating procedures including training, checking, and management of crews is in accordance with that nation's rules.

The FAA does not require blanket drug/alcohol testing following an accident. FAR part 121 requires that, but only for those operating under part 121(135, subpart K?). Foreign airlines must comply with part 91 flight rules, but they are not governed by part 121 (they of course have their own equivalent).

It's a double-edged sword...if we start laying our requirements on foreign pilots, then we'll have to deal with unique, and different, requirements in every nation we fly into.

I seriously doubt the RoK pilots were drunk...although I'm sure they were impaired by their circadian rhythm.

Let the public read it in the final report.

News to me. I fly the 777 for a foreign carrier and fully expect to be tested if I were to have an accident or incident. As a matter of fact we get routine tests regularly, I've been tested three times already for the year.

Foreign Air Carriers operate under FAR 129, not 91. FAR 120 only applies to part 119 certificate holders and 120.123 specifically says it does not apply overseas. So no samples given by US crews outside of US territories under the DOT program.

I'm surprised by them not having to be tested per US regs.
I'm even more surprised that they would not have to be tested by their own regs.
rickair says there isn't anything in ICAO requiring testing for all. Surprising.
It is hard to imagine that an airline operating international flights has a safety program that doesn't include some sort of regular testing much less post-mishap testing requirements.