Gdube...

Awesome! Thanks for the post.

Asiana is suing KTVU over the pilot name debacle for hurting its reputation? Seriously, Asiana? I think that's the least of your problems and reasons for your reputation being sullied.... Talk about deflection!!! :rolleyes:

Yep. Anything to try and distract and draw the spotlight off of thier mess.

Might be better in the long run if they take a pass on this ,just saying.

Still debating on whether not to post a sim.instructors full commentary from Yahoo.

Oh, go ahead. It's 10 pages and 3 days since the last time it was posted.

Let me guess, retired UAL -400 standards captain? :rolleyes:

Please, not the UAL Captain again.

GF

HAY GUYZ. I FOUND DIS ON DA TOOBZ. FOUND IT INTRESTEENG.

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 is 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 dont 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 couldnt 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 so-and-so 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 couldnt 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-141s 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 cant 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. Its actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are Ok. I guess they dont trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea. But, they dont 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 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 ft 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, its 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.

Hey, where's that bunkies report... :rolleyes:

I'd say this thread has about run its course.

Did you hear the one about the UAL Captain's article that got quoted more times than FDR?

I just know that guy’s article is headed for the Library of Congress as much as it’s been tossed around.

And all just because he spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express. :D

Don’t shut this thread down just yet!

I just heard that a local Bay area TV news station is about to release an updated list of the names of the Asiana flight crew. Should get as much replay time as the UAL Captain’s article.

Glad it hasn't gone the way of the National thread at least.

decision to allow PF in OE to effect ldg at SFO with G/S 28L OTS NOTAMed is questionable.
but kudos to the crew for...initiating GA....pulling the nose up...just in time...else the impact could have been head-on...consequences much worse.

Letting this particular pilot try to do it was a mistake based on the results. Letting any experienced pilot fly a visual approach to 28L in SFO doesn't really seem like a bad call, IMO.

Isn't this sort of like giving someone kudos for pulling their hand out of a pot of boiling water after they watched it start boiling and stuck their hand in?

Timing is everything.

This is part of the problem I see too much focus on the automation. I have seen far too many guys try to follow the Chinese glide slope below minimums in the sim, at that point it is a visual maneuver. They are following the flight director while going high on the VASI or needing to correct laterally. Also all approaches do not have to be backed up by a approach procedure. I have flown many approaches in a wide body aircraft to a runway with just a VASI or PAPI and even some without a visual aid. I always put the runway in the prog page and do a 3 to 1 in my head, I have also side stepped to another runway for a visual landing. Any approach except a autoland becomes a visual maneuver at the end.

If you cannot fly a visual on a sunny day, in any aircraft, after sim training, you need to find another job. The guy was coming from the 747.

Now we know what happens when you follow the Korean glide slope below minimums....:rolleyes:

All kidding aside, I agree w/ HIFLYR. It good form/use of tools to backup a visual approach with something. To declare it must be done is a little extreme. Are you going to go hold or make your PM stop doing the "M" and start typing on final so you can put whatever backup, kung-fu stuff you need in the box when Tower gives you a side-step? Yeah, you could refuse, I suppose. If you can't take a jet from 7 miles to landing on a CAVU day with a PAPI unless you got the ILS or stuff in the fix page or runway in the legs page or a [insert nationality] glide slope you need to find another line of work.

I occasionally fly with an FO who's a super-anal SOP and automation freak. In a small airplane, we get switched to the parallel a lot...this guy will be heads down looking up/tuning the ILS freq or re-programming the box while I'm at flight idle in the flare. He's afraid he'll get violated if he doesn't follow the SOP suggestion that visuals be backed up with something.

I've tried to talk him down until I'm blue in the face. He's fairly new but if he doesn't start seeing the big picture soon I'm talking to pro standards. As an FO, he's a joke...as a CA he'll be dangerous.

I was amazed at the lengths that other pilots would go through to load something into the box when I first started flying in my current job. I didn't have the opportunity in my previous flying xperience 99% of the time so I thought it strange that they would rush, rush, rush to load the ILS into nav/comm and bring up the appropriate display on the EHSI and dial in the course and such all while I am basically already established on a visual approach or maybe an extended base leg for example.

After reading on this forum about more of the P121 operations, and pax carrying P135 operations, I see that is a fairly standard practice in other parts of aviation, but there are times when I'd still rather have my co-pilot looking outside than have their heads buried in the boxes in the terminal area.

According to the news in Seoul last week, he was coming off the 737. Also, if you're expecting an Asian carrier to do a pure visual, you will be disappointed. That's not how they do it right or wrong. I've had to land with a 10 knot tailwind because there wasn't an approach to the other end. Can get interesting on a 9-10k foot runway and 170 knot app speed.

So what? Flare picture looks different but he never even got to the flare. Are you trying to say a guy that used to fly a 737 doesn't know what 4 red PAPIs mean or that having the threshold of the runway in the upper half of your windscreen on final is bad?

Apparently this Asian carrier was giving it a try, right?

I did this once into Djibouti and decided it was a mistake. Next time I used the VOR w/ RNAV overlay & vertical guidance to the opposite runway to avoid the tailwind and it worked great. No option like this for you guys?

I think he was just correcting an earlier misperception that the pilot was coming off the -747 (which he had flown earlier), but he was in truth NOT transitioning from the -747 to the -777.

I should have clarified. It wasn't because I couldn't fly a pure visual or build a prof path. It was because the Asian carriers couldn't and that was how the airport was landing. Can't get them to turn the airport for one flight.

USMC is correct. The 737 comment was a correction nothing more.
Lighten up Francis.

Follow the SOP's
 

I can't speak about other carriers SOP's; however, I have been on the jumpseat of just about every major carrier at least a half dozen times and there aren't that many SOP variances.

On any approach, the briefing is done, the PNF/PM loads the approach or back-up for a visual and the PF verifies it. The appropriate checklist, with the obvious exception of "Before Landing Checklist" with the gear extension, are completed. On a visual, everyone has his/her eyes outside of the cockpit and the PF uses the visual cues with the instrumentation already selected as a back-up. In the terminal area, everything has been completed, usually below FL180 or definitely below 10,000". I don't expect to see "heads buried in the boxes", especially in the CAT X airports.

Don't know how we wandered off the subject of the Asiana crash but then again, they were off of the extended runway 28L centerline as well.

G'Luck Mates:)

I received 4 different emails on that commentary .
http://imageshack.us/a/img853/9536/4...857e6605f5.jpg

for all the Automation vs Manual debate...

Automation is in there for a good reason...to fly the flight profile optimums with flight envelope protection...the key is to optimize crew-comp interface.

RNAV
 

Sorry if I missed a previous comment on RNAV. As a Regional guy we usually back-up a similar situation with an RNAV approach, with vertical guidance (snow flake).

Would there be a reason why this crew did not do that?

The coroner confirmed that one of the 16 year old girls survived the impact and was killed by a maneuvering ARFF truck during the initial fire attack.

As we talked about before, this can unfortunately happen (she was covered in foam and they never saw her or felt her when they hit her) despite everyone's best efforts. There is just so much chaos at that point.

We were talking about this earlier today at work. It has to be a hard pill for SFFD to take. They saved so many lives that day, but the chauffeur of that piece will still have to deal with this accident and the emotional fallout that will come with it. SFFD Chief Joanne Hayes-White stated there won't be any disciplinary action taken. This was simply a horrific accident.

When we go out the door it is to help people. My heart goes out to the family of the victim and to the brother or sister FF who was driving.

How do we know they did not do that? Obviously if they did, they didn't have the F/D or autopilot hooked up to it. Has the NTSB said what type of approach was loaded in the FMS? I did hear Ms. Hersman say they had disconnected the Autopilot at 1,600'.

The question is, why? If, as we have heard from many sources, the Asians like to use all the automation, all the time, and they were not doing a last minute runway change, (NTSB said it was a 17 mile straight in to 28L) why did they disconnect the A/P at 1,600'? Was it not doing what they wanted it to do?

Or was he just hand flying for practice?

Or was there a wrong approach in the FMS? I.e. maybe they didn't interpret the ATIS correctly, or missed the note about the ILS being out, and loaded the ILS approach, and pushed APP thinking it would capture the LOC/GS, and it didn't, because the ILS was out that day. Then they got high, so he disconnected the A/P, maybe clicked off the Auto throttles as well, and pulled the boards up, threw the gear out, and dove down to capture...something.

Then maybe the LCA went heads down to try to load -something- into the FMS, to get some type of vertical guidance, while the pilot in the left seat was hand flying it down, to low and slow, and he didn't realize the auto throttles had been clicked off?

There are so many possibilities, until we get more info from the NTSB (and did they get silenced all of a sudden? Haven't heard much lately) we won't know exactly what happened, but those two pilots know. The question is, will they ever tell us the truth?

PF in OE... meant PM was 'heads up' on visual...ALL 'heads up' on visual meant...they missed A/T retard to Idle.:o

u do that on finals...don't bother finding another job...u will find ur grave to bury in:cool:

on that note thinking out loud...possibilities of BOEING going standard with HUDs on 777/767/747 fleets.

wouldn't be surprised if NTSB comes up with this recommendation after 214.

Having used one for a couple of thousand hours, the HUD is the answer. But, it isn't automatically learned and you still need to know how to fly, in the first place.

GF

I've never flown an airplane with the HUD, but I've listened to many of our 737 drivers who claim to have become, "HUD Cripples". I'm guessing that means they can't fly without it? Must be good stuff!

Not sure I want to get addicted to that too, I mean, auto throttle addiction is bad enough! But I'll wait until I actually get to use one, to 'see' if I like it or not.

How would you miss throttles going to idle (no matter where your head is)? In a Boeing aircraft, they still move (Thank goodness). If your hands are where they are supposed to be, unless your arm is paralyzed you CAN'T miss them moving.

If you're assuming the AT will always do its job and fly with both hands on the yoke, they might as well not move or even be displayed.

And yes they can be missed even though they move. Seen it many many times.

I'm not sure if I'm following your statement, so excuse me if I'm not interpreting it correctly.

PF in OE should not mean PM is "heads up" (attention out of cockpit) for the approach. IMO, no matter what kind of approach is being flown and what phase of currency the PF is, the PM needs to be monitoring everything. Something as basic as airspeed management is always a priority for both pilots, no matter what the approach is. Obviously on a special approach like a Cat-2/3, autoland, etc. there are specific things to monitor at specific times.

Gentlemen read the comments in context of 214...we r speculating on their deviations.

Who here actually likes the idea of HUD's..? Just curious... Never used one, can't comment aside from perception, but I don't know how much I like the idea of them. I honestly think it would distract me PERSONALLY...