TheFly

Not sure if this was posted already.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...crash-20508802


Pilots, Airline Fault Equipment in Asiana Crash
WASHINGTON October 8, 2013 (AP)
By JOAN LOWY Associated Press

Share
20

Share on email5 Comments

The pilots of Asiana Flight 214, which crashed in San Francisco in July, as well as the airline, are raising the possibility that a key device that controls the Boeing 777's speed may have malfunctioned, an aviation expert familiar with the investigation into the crash said Tuesday.

National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said early in the crash investigation that her experts had found no mechanical problems with the plane, but were investigating further. One of the three pilots in the Asiana cockpit told investigators after the accident that he thought the plane's automatic throttle was maintaining speed as the plane descended to land, but later discovered it wasn't sending power to the engine, Hersman told reporters in briefings following the accident.

The autothrottle controls engine power and thus speed. Without enough speed, a plane can lose lift and sink quickly. In the case of Flight 214, the plane was flying low and slow as pilots attempted to land. The 777's landing gear struck a seawall just short of the runway. The impact ripped off the back of the plane, tossed out three flight attendants and their seats and scattered pieces of the jet across the runway as it spun and skidded to a stop.

There are many ways in which a pilot can engage and then inadvertently disengage an autothrottle. But the South Korean air carrier and the pilots involved have raised the possibility with investigators that the autothrottle disengaged on its own, said the expert, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly about the matter .

There have been previous incidents involving other Boeing planes — 757s, 767s and newer 737s — in which automatic throttles that were engaged have disengaged for no known reason, the expert said.

Boeing spokesman Bret Jensen declined to comment, saying that as a party to the investigation the aircraft maker is prohibited from speaking publicly about the accident.

The Asiana pilots' contention that the autothrottle may have malfunctioned was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

NTSB investigators have left open whether the autothrottle was ever fully engaged. Inspectors found that the autothrottle had been "armed," or made ready for activation, Hersman said in her early briefings. But she said investigators still were determining whether it had been engaged. In the last two minutes, there was a lot of use of the autopilot and autothrottle, and investigators were going to look into whether pilots made the appropriate commands and if they knew what they were doing, she said.

The flight was coming from Shanghai and Seoul. Two Chinese students were killed and 180 injured in the crash. A third student survived the crash but died after being run over by a fire truck.

The NTSB has scheduled a public hearing on the accident for early November.

TheFly

In most cases, it is a poor workman who blames his tools. However, I don't fly the T7, nor do I have any first hand knowledge of its qwerks.

DC8DRIVER

The Auto throttles could have malfunctioned seven ways to Sunday and the crew STILL should have flown the plane to an uneventful landing.

Pilot error. Period.

8

HappyCrew

+1,000,000....

9780991975808

It's amazing how it's always the same, last link in the chain that's tagged with the "error" label. We don't hear Manager of Flight Operations error, Director of Flight Training error, Head of Crew Scheduling error, Chief Contract Negotiator error, Budget Director error, Chief Financial Officer error, Corporate Director error, etc. And only seldom do we hear Design Engineer error, Systems Analyst error, Regulator error, and so forth. It's truly sad when even some of our own kind are quick to draw their labeling gun when they see a fellow pilot, yet remain silent when incompetence or criminal negligence higher up is obvious.

The human being is just a biological machine. If its operator doesn't understand how it works or deliberately exceeds its limitations, then the machine will likely break down. So there's some truth to the comment, above (#2), "it is a poor workman who blames his tools." It is an incompetent (or spineless) Management that blames its personnel.

USMCFLYR

When any of those bolded positions you talk about can take physical control of the aircraft then I'm sure we'll see it. Those positions you mention can be causal and often are cited in the reports as you well know, but in the end if you have an airplane that is controllable, and I'll go out on a *limb* here before the report is out and assume that 777 was controllable, then it is expected that the crew of PILOTS should have been able to land the airplane even if the ATs quit working for whatever reason.

kronan

The Buck stops here.

I once had the opportunity to observe a pretty cool Capt handle a disagreement with our dispatcher. Capt was requesting a change the dispatcher felt wasn't warranted. So, the Capt finally acquiesced---then asked the dispatcher what hotel he should plan on going to? Dispatcher puzzled, asked What do you Mean? Capt replied that it's a joint responsibility and we are at an impasse, so since the plane's not moving until we both agree, I naturally assumed you were going to replace me with a different Capt who might agree with you. The Buck stopped there, no ranting-no raving-just a calm cool discussion of who was ultimately responsible for operating the plane.

Personally, I would be ashamed to be the Capt or Instructor grasping at equipment malfunctions to explain why I let the airplane slow so drastically.

9780991975808

Looking at rocks occasionally rolling down the slopes of Mount St. Helen before she blew up revealed nothing about what lay beneath. Likewise, looking at these pilots' actions before the accident reveals nothing about their causes. In both cases, only probing deep could provide answers.

I don't disagree with you: they "should have been able to." But for some reason, they obviously weren't - unless they were suicidal (not likely). Air Florida 90, too, should have been able to clear the 14th Street bridge. Same goes for Arrow Air MF1285. It, too, should have been able to climb away. But neither was (able to). Yet, I don't know of anyone who blamed the airplanes. In the first case, the operator (the pilot) apparently didn't know why his "flying machine" didn't perform as he hoped it would. He didn't understand that if he operated it the way he did, it couldn't do what he wanted it to (do). In the second, the operator (the Air Carrier) simply exceeded his "flying machine's" limitations. He expected his airplane to do something he knew it couldn't do except by encroaching on margins built into the system to provide tradeoff capability. He stretched his plan to the point where it had nothing to trade. Simply put, he gambled and lost. In both cases, it's the "machine operator" who's is at fault, not the "machine" (though the true causes of his failure are industry taboos). So how can the "human machine" (the crew) be reasonably blamed for its operator's (Management's) failures? To do so, is pure scapegoating, IMO.

Yes, pilots ought to be part of the line of defense. But they ought not be expected to carry more of the defense burden than what's humanly possible. So subscribing to the principle, "the buck stops here" (kronan's comment), while commendable, is a noble but unrealistic hope if there are more or bigger "bucks" hurled at the pilot than what he can stop. Could the industry produce stronger, more capable pilots? Yes it could - to a limit - the same way it can make stronger wings and engines. Does it do it? No, it doesn't. Whereas equipment budgets seem to be limitless, pilot training budgets are under constant attack by Finance. That's what happens when decisions specific to Operations are made by Managements that run grocery store chains one day, airlines the next. Since deregulation, the industry has stopped being in the business of Air Transportation: it's now in the business of pocketing profits, bleeding airlines dry, and throwing the empty carcass on the auction block, leaving the people who built their airlines as high and dry as the metal in the Arizona Desert.

IMO, only industry stakeholders who are in the game for the duration, the professionals - pilots, controllers, engineers, etc. - can stop this carnage. And they can only do it by taking an active role in shaping their industry. My 2c.

USMCFLYR

[QUOTE]I disagree with your premise. The "human machine" has controls and is operating the aircraft.
You seem like a defense attorney who who actually help me try and sue Ford if I were to purposefully drive a F-150 head on to a tree and then wonder why Ford didn't stop me.

I will again assume that the crew of Asiana was not asked do do anything outside of human ability We are talking about Asiana aren't we?

mexipilot84

1800 be a pilot....