Back to Squawk list
  • 24

FAA no longer letting foreign airlines land alongside another plane at San Francisco airport

تم الإرسال
 
U.S. aviation officials are no longer allowing foreign airlines to land alongside another plane when touching down at San Francisco International Airport in the wake of the deadly Asiana Airlines crash. (www.washingtonpost.com) المزيد...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 30
If the FAA has concerns about the competence of foreign pilots to complete an approach (IFR or VFR) they should do as the European Union does and ban the airline from flying in US airspace until the FAA is satisfied about their safety standards. To ban parallel approaches for all foreign carriers is arrogant and flawed. It assumes that ALL US registered carriers are competent and all foreign carriers are incompetent including Lufthansa, Qantas, BA Air France (I am aware that Qantas does not fly to SFO but you understand what I am saying).
I assume that regulatory authorities abroad will adopt a similar approach to US carriers flying in to their airspace.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
I am sympathetic to your concern thar there are some great foreign carriers with great pilots who wouldn't have any trouble performing VFR or IFR parallel side by side approaches at SFO's close runways.

The problem with discriminating even for appropriate reasons without refkection or due process is:
1. Need to implement rule quickly for safety's sake
2. Creating a list of acceptable and unacceptable foreign carriers at a moment's notice without any due process will create a hornets' nest of recriminations and accusations of discrimination and wanton destruction of their carriers' businesses.
3. It is easier to give back a privilege to select carriers (after showing that can gandle it) than to take away a previledge from only a few carriers without damaging their business and being retaliated against by their nation state for doing such damage to their country.

It's not arrogant to start this new rule uniformly. It is political expediency.

----
On a side note, while I don't disagree with your list of some potentially qualified foreign carriers, it was a Lufthsnsa pilot that wrote an apologetic piece that made an attempt to blame SFO and the 777 (can you imagine) and held the pilots mostly blameless, in a that-could-be-me sort of way, and seeing nothing wrong with pilots being overly dependent on automation, and didn't acknowledge the value of manual piloting skills proficiency. He put himself into the boat with the Asiana pilots.

That defense of pilots who screwed up royally gave me pause. I don't see any problem with lumping all foreign carriers (or more specifically part 129 carriers) into one group to be sorted out later.

I don't see how you can sort them out officially without some sort of official due process. I say let the airlines decide for themselves, which would be willing to hold themselves to the part 121 standards, and which prefer to remain part 129 with greater restrictions. That seems fairer, and gives the airlines some control of their own destiny without taking away the FAA role of regulatory oversight.

It seems more arrogant to think that the FAA can decide with no reflection, which foreign carriers are worthy and which foreign carriers are not worthy of special treatment in enforcement of this rule.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Not arrogant at all. Let's call if politically expedient.

How do you devise a list of approved foreign carriers and unapproved foreign carriers issued by the FAA for the purpose of enforcing thus rule. Such a list would be accused of discrimination, no matter who makes the cut, or because of it. You'll tend to havd more Anglo nations on the approved list because if their standards. But that's not how ut would get played in the press.

They're just avoiding a hornet's nest.

It's easier to approach a few select foreign airlines with top notch pilots, pilot training, and airline policy, and invite them to apply for a waiver.

Don't worry, the problematic airlines wouldn't consider to publicly request a waiver and be turned down. That would be a marketing nightmare for them.

Get foreign carriers in competition to meet standards. Raise the bar across the board. Challenge all airlines to not only meet American standards not only on US soil but back in their own countries. The best will rise to the challenge. The worst will complain.

It's time for America to lead again. For too long, the Americans have been acting like a dog with its' tail between its' legs, in an uncertain world of globalization and mixing values.

Let's say unequivocally that safety and pilot competence are endearing values above all others in aviation. Set tough standards for both American and foreign pilots. Let foreign carriers complain about the tough standards. Allow people to make flight purchase decisions by who meets tough standards and who complains.

Aviation will be better for it. The world will be better for it. Globalization need not be a race to the lowest standards, but a competition to achieve the highest standards.
KPGirard
Kevin Girard 1
Lots of really dumb laws are born out of political expediency. Sadly, I think that's what people crave these days, are knee jerk reactions. We need to stop doing that and make laws that make sense long term.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
This time political expediency was in the service of the quick implementation of a rule to increase the safety of the flying public.

There is time for nuance later, making exceptions for airlines that can show that they deserve to be exempt from this rule after they show they deserve such special treatment (eg. they accept regulation and enforcement equal to part 121).

In the meantime, don't mix this effort with other idiotic government actions that don't have such a strong case for action.
KPGirard
Kevin Girard 2
You're right... Let's not mix your type of political expediency with laws like this:In the middle of the night (because it's expedient!), CT passed a law that prohibits the purchase of magazines that hold greater than 10 bullets and banned "assault" weapons in the wake of the Newtown shooting. Newtown was a sad event, but the knee jerk that followed was "political expediency" in action. Democrats who wanted stronger gun control expediently preyed on public feeling over the event and passed some really stupid laws. Political expediency somehow usurped people's 2nd amendment rights! Because this "badly needed" law's in place, we won't have any new school shootings in CT. After all, no one can shoot up another school now that clips can only hold 9 bullets and the guns require you to manually pull the trigger 9 times to empty the clip. And of course, criminals will abide the law and not buy those magazines and weapons in another state nearby that allows them. And the kids that are bullied are very familiar with this law and will think twice before they "borrow" mommy's guns to go do it.

Question for you: "Globalization need not be a race to the lowest standards, but a competition to achieve the highest standards." - Shouldn't this statement apply to our law(rule)making too?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
> "Question for you: "Globalization need not be a race to the lowest standards, but a competition to achieve the highest standards." - Shouldn't this statement apply to our law(rule)making too?"

What I'm saying is not have some countries or airlines with stricter safety standards (which has a cost) and the resultant great safety records, being unduly pressured to compromise their commitment to safety, because other countries/ airlines operate with much less regard for safety but sell many tickets because they're able to sell at a lower price with greatly reduced safety, maintenance or pilot training costs.

The same can be said of companies in other industries in regards to environment impact, worker safety, etc.

It is better to help other countries step up to better standards, then feel completive cost pressure to give up our commitments to customer safety, worker safety and environmental safety. At the least, better airliner crash prevention safety standards would be better than pressure tk cut corners and to lower standards.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Congress acting the way they did on 3407 was for political purposes. Changes needed to be made to rules for 121 qualifications. But not hard core laws that will drastically change fulfilling those requirements. That was a knee jerk reaction by those who were clueless.

This was not a law nor even a rule change to the FARs. It was merely a change to local procedures given the questions of foreign operators and the very close proximity of two, parallel runways.

Asiana 214 was off center as it was. They barely missed the approach light array extending out into the bay. Given what we know thus far, I'm nearly surprised they were not as far off laterally.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I would think there has been (and maybe there still is ongoing) a review of all approaches at SFO (that was inspired by the Asiana 214 crash).

The creation of this rule, that treats pilots from foreign carriers differently from local pilots, strongly suggests that there was a greaty divergent performance in one group as a whole vs. the other group as a whole, in their landings at SFO.

The safety of the flying public is reason enough to implement this rule immediately applying it to all pilots of the underperforming group. Even if some pilots in underperforming group are just a good as the higher performing group.

There's time to make adjustments to the implementation of this rule later, to better account for any differences in performance of the underperforming group.

Safety first. Politics later.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Kindly educate me on obligation to comply with local laws, US CFR Title 14 in present case. In particular Volume 1, Chapter I, Parts 60-109(#91 specially).
BEFORE Asiana could fly in or over US air space there has to be a bilateral agreement to abide by ALL provisions of Title 14! And that clearly includes every pilot's ability to follow VFR besides IFR as prevailing in US.
This is applicable to every airline operating in and over US airspace. And same is true when air space of other countries is involved!
Present case is clearly breach/violation of law/terms of agreement.
I am open to corrections.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
You're talking legal obligation, but everyone else who is familiar with FAA enforcement personally, suggest that part 129 comes with no regulatory enforcement teeth.

Didn't you notice that the Asiana pilots were not taken for a voluntary (cough, cough) pee in a cup, nor a hospital check-up and observation, with voluntary (cough, cough) blood serum toxicology studies?

If they can't investigate directly the foreign pilots use of substances immediately after smashing a widebody at a major international US airport, then that tells you that they can't do jack in terms of regulatory oversight with any bite to it.

But others provide more valuable examples, like surprise FAA inspection of training facilities, any substantial FAA inspection of their facilities, or regulatory influence over their training, etc.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
Yes, this seems like a serious lapse. I can not answer how and why it happened. Chances are these questions may come up at some later stage with justification.
Honestly, it may not matter much. Because they were in sound mind when their bickerings based on ego started while trying to land.
As I have tried to read and understand these Parts of CFR, the min. FAA can do is cancel their flying licence over US air space which has been granted by THEM.. Various provisions of Part 14 and sub parts provide for it as well as Fed. transport deptt. of USA provide for it. This is one the prime objectives of FAA.
I for one will not be surprised if FAA/NTSB make such indications overtly or covertly, through the final report or some other document.
preacher1
preacher1 2
As I have said before, I think this whole deal will come down to individual action and not against the airline. That said, I think it will be done discreetly and when the final NTSB report does come out, it will be written in DIPLOMATEASE so as not to offend anyone, instead of letting the chips fall, like they normally do. Given the current attitude of our country, they would not want to offend anyone.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
However, Asuana as an organisation will have to come forward to own some of the responsibility, whether voluntarily by or through some other means.
Judges are known to add their candid observations not as a part of verdict but as a part of jurisprudence, generally known as obiter dicta, by referring to 'moral' responsibility of Asiana for conduct of her employees.
CRM routine will also find sufficient mention in reports by NTSB ably commented upon and supplemented by the judge, I am sure.
Let me assure you, legal and judicial circles in SFO must be following the events very keenly. Who knows in whose docket(of the judge) the suit may fall.
I am not referring to suits concerning monetary claims/damages which will follow the verdict of basic suit.
preacher1
preacher1 3
I thought I had heard somewhere that a group of Chicago area lawyers had already reached out to some of the victims and had already made some filings on the personal side. You are correct on the corporate part of it, I think, in that there has not been any action brought against the airline yet, and probably won't be until the NTSB report is finalized.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
Perhaps the respondent is Boeing. And per prelims of NTSB, the aircraft was ship shape! So Boeing seems in the clear.
To my understandings, all suits even if filed will have to be stayed for want of evidence which HAS to be based on NTSB report plus some other material. The plaintiffs are obliged to declare cause of action and the basis of their claim or the evidence they want to rely on. And that is not likely to be available for some time.
No one can prevent any body to file a suit, substantial or frivolous! Too early or too late. The court can only ponder after it is filed, listed and heard!

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 3
Be nice.LOL
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 3
ThanX.
"Equally wise are those who are not Americans" - with apologies to H.G.Wells
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
In the end, there really is no bite regardless of an agreement. Not even ICAO has any real authority with regard to establishing and insuring minimum flight standards and enforcing any change.

The FAA has authority only over US carriers and foreign carriers using US-registered aircraft. I'm not sure how much of the latter takes place.

Until there's a procedure and agreement to allow the FAA unfettered access to any foreign carrier's training facilities with regard to both setting standards and protocols as well as asserting power over those factors there's not a thing that can be done outside of curtailing their privileges over US airspace. For now, they're limiting how they can operate into SFO and that may expand to similarly designed airports.

A serious factor in Korea is their protocol for seniority. In the US, the low-time pilot of a new bird being trained on would not be sitting in the left seat. They give more weight to age and overall flight experience as opposed to experience in type. That hurt Korean Airlines some years ago and supposedly that was changed. But, obviously not.

Let's say I have ten-thousand hours flying a Skyhawk on traffic watch then go get a 777 type rating with not even fifty hours. Assume the other pilot has only 5,000 hours, the last 1,000 is in type and he's younger than me. By their continued standards, I'd be captain.

But I'd have a ways to go. I have only a couple hundred hours flying traffic watch. It was kind of fun while it lasted!
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
Law/protocol of international convention permits FAA to cancel/revoke permission to any carrier(airline) to operate over her space. Plus other remedies as may be available under international laws on aviation for local violations.
General reading of all provisions listed under part 91 make compliance an obligation of the permitted airline. Sub Parts A & B make a useful reading!
Leniency must not be construed as complacency or non compliance.
Yes a line has to be drawn for being "lenient"!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Do a general reading of part 129. 91 is primarily for private carriage.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
ThanX for the info. The Section 129.5 states
§ 129.5 Operations specifications.
......
(b) Each foreign air carrier conducting operations within the United States must conduct its operations in accordance with the Standards contained in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), Part I (International Commercial Air Transport—Aeroplanes) or Part III (International Operations—Helicopters), as appropriate, and in Annex 8 (Airworthiness of Aircraft) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
....
Where can I find Annex 1 stated above. This must specify the standards applicable for Pilots' licencing. For domestic as well as foreign airline pilots.
Can you help?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I would think that somewhere it should be tied to 129 but I'll just have to look for it later today.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
ThanX, I found it and others through 'google search'.
And as I had 'suspected' these are the provisions relating to flying proficiency standards applicable to ALL pilots from all countries that were signatory to the Convention followed by Protocol. Pilots from USA, UK, Russia, China, India, Korea and every one. Plus some additional obligations of one nation to another.
Hence pilots from country A have to be as good as those of from country B, if not better. These A and B can be US-India, or US-Korea, or India-Korea etc.
Laws are always interesting and really simple to understand. Yes, one has to search and re search!
Research is not necessary for every day life. ;-p
ThanX again. .
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, there are good Apples and then there is apple sauce; the nationality matters not. The airline management can subscribe to and mandate whatever they want and have good intentions, but they really can't control what happens in the cockpit and unless something happens like 214, they'll never know. I think this will boil down to the individuals, in one way or other.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
Yes. Right. The liability and responsibilities will always be on universal and uniform principles.
I learnt recently that Indian authorities are thinking of installing cameras in cock pits as an after effect of some staff member of airline travelling as passenger took over control unauthorisedly!
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
BTW, these Ann. can not be found WITH 129 or any thing related to CFR!
Google search was the only solution. Not even the web site of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) - http://www.icao.int/about-icao/Pages/default.aspx
ha! ha!!
preacher1
preacher1 2
That's our illustrious gum'mint for you.LOL
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
Please do not blame them. Various handbooks on the subject will contain ALL related laws, rules, regulations, conventions, protocol etc. Another category will be commentaries, containing laws and full explanations with case law for the country concerned.
What I could check was the material easily available for FREE.
The hand books and commentaries are priced every where. Even if published by Govt.
preacher1
preacher1 -1
One reason, among others, that English is the universal aviation language is that we have been a leader in times past, in about everything. I personally think it is time for us to assume that leadership again and quit apologizing to every little 3rd world country that comes along. I personally don't care if someone gets offended. Change your ways and get over it. Unlike some folks, I am very proud of this country.
Sanderjay
John Sander 2
Actually Preacher, the universal language of aviation are the words and phases mandated by ICAO in Montreal. They can be in any language that a contracting state decides. The contracting state is also mandated to provide an ATC service in the English ICAO language to international air traffic and pilots are required to use the English ICAO language flying internationally - using the words and phrases dictated by ICAO, not the United States.

Thats why you hear Chinese spoken in Chinese airspace, French spoken in French airspace and Russian spoken in Russian airspace. Previously there was no requirement for any pilot or ATC to have the ability to actually understand or speak the English language when using international ATC services - just learn the ICAO language of aviation in English and you could fly around the world! You never had to have the ability to actually carry on an actual conversation in English. This obviously caused problems so in the last 10 years or so, ICAO instituted language testing so now you have to be tested to a certain standard of English if you want to fly internationally or give an ATC service to international traffic.

The problem remains, however given the various accents you hear when someone whose first language is not English. Trying to understand a Chinese air traffic controller or a Korean pilot is hard work even if they meet the minimum standard of English. It is even worse when ATC and a pilot try to converse when English is not the first language of neither. Even those countries where English is the first language has problems. Fly over Australia and I guarantee that you will understand only half of what ATC says. And of course, in let's say half of the countries of the world where corruption is endemic, you can buy your English language proficiency certificate. Or, using the example of the new democracy of South Africa, you can have someone else stand in for your exam - as what happened with 32 SAA pilots who had stand ins for their ATPL exams. And they were only the ones who got caught. Or, if you are state owned airline where most pilots cannot converse in English, it is a simple matter to order the designated examiners pass the candidates to keep your international flights going.

There is only one country in the world that refuses to conform to the international language of aviation as mandated by ICAO and used by every other country of the world. That is the United States of America. America stands alone in that it does it's own thing. And that is why in the published briefing notes of our company and others - where English is spoken fluently and is the language of the cockpit - there are warning notes for all airports that we fly into the United States -" WARNING NON-STANDARD R/T" . A flight safety hazard - you bet, that's why the warning is there.

One of the biggest problems that we have at our company is getting our new American pilots to speak the universal language of aviation. They have the hardest time adapting to speaking the aviation language that is universally spoken around the world except the United States of America,

For you to presume that the United States is a leader because "English is the universal aviation language" is completely wrong . Drop what we internationally call your "American Slang " and join the rest of the international aviation community on the R/T and stop perpetuating the myth that English is the language of aviation. It is the words and phrases of ICAO, not the United States, that is the world language of aviation. Change your ways and get over it.

preacher1
preacher1 3
I stand by my post. For years, the United States was top dog in Aviation. Only as the other countries started coming on, did ICAO come along to try and bring some semblance of order to things and most of their standards came from the US as their was nothing else to go by. As far as your statement about home language being spoken. It may be, but it's not supposed to be, due to the fact that there may be an international planes in the area. As I told a Frenchman one time when he was bitching about having to speak English. I said " We could have stayed home and you'd be speaking German". Now, as far as changing my ways and getting over it, at 63, Vietnam Vet, 36 years and over 20000 hrs of flying Big Iron, I DON'T THINK SO.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Safety is not whether a pilot is forced to speak ICAO phrases or not.

Safety is whether a pilot is able to land a large airliner with 300 souls in beautiful weather on an 11,000 ft runway without crashing and burning the plane, and injuring and killing passengers and/or crew. Safety is whether your airline has the policies and pilot training to ensure your safe and proficient completion of your pilot duties. Safety can also be a strong regulator with the ability to inspect your facilities with and without notice, and that can use data and investigative findings to promulgate rules and training that creates an environment where safety happens routinely and systematically.

---
Who cares if an airline uses ICAO phraseology, if its' pilots can't reliably land the plane in ideal conditions. Having priorities is important. Having the right priorities is even more important.
Sanderjay
John Sander 1
Photofinish - I quite agree with you that safety is is whether your airline has the policies and pilot training to ensure your safe and proficient completion of your pilot duties. Using the correct ICAO phraseology is also an essential part of that training and airline policy , just as important
as landing an airplane in ideal conditions. Shame that American pilots like you don't see correct phraseology as an essential part of flight safety.

"Who cares if an airline uses ICAO phraseology...."

Well you could ask the crew of Flying Tigers Flight 66 if they were still alive.

From the internet:

In-depth

This crash was said to be a result of human error because there was a breakdown in communication between the air traffic controller (ATC) in Kuala Lumpur and the Crew of flight 66.
The cockpit voice recorder (blackbox), which was recovered, revealed the conversation between both parties. The significant and major cause of the accident was the misinterpretation of the clearance given by the ATC. The video, posted below, reveals that, upon approach to Kuala Lumpar airport, the ATC had instructed the crew to descend to 2400ft; but the crew misinterpreted the clearance and descended to 400ft.
By the words of the ATC, he was in the wrong in the beginning as he hadn't used the correct phraseology required under the ICAO standards. Instead of saying "descend and maintain two thousand four hundred feet (2400ft)”, which was the intended clearance, he simply and bluntly instructed as so: "descend two four zero zero".
Investigators found that this clearance was very misleading to the pilot because of the way the ATC phrased his sentence. The "two" could have been misinterpreted for "to". The numerical "two" was misinterpreted as the English preposition "to".
Investigators further found that the crew made communication errors as well. The captain also had not used the proper phraseology in response to his ATC clearance. He should have replied, as a way of rechecking, as so: "Roger, descend and maintain four-hundred feet". However, he did not do so, and like the ATC he also bluntly replied saying "okay, four zero zero".
As a result, the crew descended to 400ft. The accident still could have been avoided had the Captain and First Officer showed the right attitudes towards the task. The First Officer, who was the pilot in control, identified that he could not see the airport or the runway. However, he had not pursued this discovery further. When he mentioned it to the Captain, he responded saying that he knew the airport and the runway approach well and they would be fine.

Conclusion

There were multiple errors involved in this accident. All of which were attributable to human error. Communication breakdown along with the improper use of ICAO standardized phraseologies and poor situational awareness, are factors which induced the crash. (source (wikipedia.aviationknowlege.wikidot.com)

This accident caused the creation of the GPWS escape maneuver which all airlines now use[citation needed]. It further stressed the need for increased awareness and training of crew resource management techniques and standard operating procedures. This accident is used as an example of 'what not to do' by flight training organizations such as FlightSafety International. The FAA video production[2] using the original CVR transcript is still used to study the events and how to improve current techniques. Much of this information is derived from that video. (source Wikipedia)

Yes Photofinish, I quite agree having priorities are important. As Flying Tigers unfortunately found out, of of those right priorities is correct ICAO phraseology - just as important as being able to land
in ideal conditions without crashing. Correct phraseology is part and parcel of the many ingredients of flight safety. You are no more "forced" to speak correctly than you are "forced" to do a before take-off check. Another ingredient of flight safety mentioned above - which may apply to you - is having the correct "attitude", something that we see quite a bit of in our new hire American pilots,especially when it comes to the flight safety and SOP requirement to use standard R/T.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
A controller in an ICAO standards tower not using ICAO standards tells you that controller screwed up.

It tells you nothing about the US system that predates the ICAO terminology. US aviation has never been less safe than aviation around the world that is of much less uniform safety and quality despite the uniform ICAO standards.

The US system standards may differ from ICAO, but they've been around longer and working better than the entire sum of ICAO-using parts of the world.

Quit your straw man and acknowledge that the strict oversight, airline commitment to safety and competency of pilots in the US, has kept US aviation safer than the grand total of all other commercial aviation.

You cab make them all say the same phrases. But if there is inadequate regulator oversight, there is inadequate carrier commitment to safety through smart policies and great pilot training, and they hire pilots who can't fly themselves out of a paper bag, you'll never natch the safety record of the US system.

Remember that the ICAO standardization was an effort to fix deficiencies in non-US aviation. These efforts have helped some, but have not yet brought global aviation to the standards of US aviation.

If you ever get ICAO to provide the kind of regulator oversight, carrier commitment to safety, and pilot proficiency that is standard and uniform in the US to become not only ubiquitous around the world (would be better) or at least as uniform around the world as it is in the US (ideal) than I would concede on phraseology.

In the meantime, don't mess with a good thing that's working (US) to fix a hornet's nest of dissimilar and non-uniform systems all over the world of varying degrees of commitment to safety and quality.

Methinks you have much mote to worry about and get right than ICAO phraseology. First is to deal with head in the nether regions disease that is common among pilots in many non-US carriers. Learning to fly a plane should be the absolute minimum qualification for a commercial airline pilot, that should NEVER be violated. You just don't get US aviators flying widebody airliners that don't have years of demonstrated competency in flying jets. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for aviators for all carriers around the world.

When you fix the big issues, come back and we can discuss ICAO phraseology.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
It was not the controller that crashed the plane... It was the pilot. Every should know that regardless of anything else, you fly the plane. That means keep it under control. That does not include shearing your gear off on the sea wall because you allowed the plane to get too slow, stalled the plane and crashed. This was clearly pilot error.... Any other determination will be to safe face for a foreign country. Remember "Tenerife" air disaster with the 2 747's... It took years before they reverted the decision because the KLM captain did what he wanted to do, even when he did not have the permission to do so killing all of those people. The Dutch Government's golden boy was too high up to be questioned... Why are we trying to pull punches with the Koreans.... They blew it, now they need to face it.
Sanderjay
John Sander 1
Of course that controller screwed up. Thats what the accident report said. And so did the American pilots - by failing to use standard ICAO phraseology and questioning the controllers non standard clearance. Had they done so, as the report states, they could very been alive today.
It is obvious that you fail to see the importance of ICAO phraseology in everyday use or experienced the flight safety advantage of using standard R/T especially when flying over and to countries where the standard of ATC English is poor or heavily accented. Unless you use standard ICAO - you are setting yourself up to pilot/controller miscommunication. Which of course is a flight safety concern.
We have pilots from 50 different nations in our company - all rated English level 6 (the highest level of English language proficiency) flying our big shiny jets Every single one of them has been brought up in their aviation careers speaking the same international language of aviation- ICAO. The only nationality that is out of sync are our American pilots. Sadly many have the same attitude as you and have a very hard time adjusting to speaking the international language of aviation. When reminded that if they play in our sandbox with our shiny toys they must play by our rules- they then convert or their attitude gets the better of them and they go back home ( or are sent back) to the good ole USA. Too bad they can't talk as good as they fly.
It's tough enough flying internationally using ICAO phraseology. Just imagine if every country had their own version of American slang. As I said before, standard phraseology is part and parcel of the big Flight Safety picture. If you want to fly overseas, speak standard ICAO, it's the best thing that we have. In the meantime, the warnings for American airports will remain: WARNING - NONSTANDARD R/T.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Capt.We Too Low and his right seat guy ought to have known how to make a visual approach, regardless of what language was coming out of the tower. They understood it enough to know that's what they were supposed to do. The WHY THEY DIDN'T is what the investigation will show.IMHO
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
This goes back to my common statement to students...

Accident chains start almost always because the pilot did something stupid. In this case, it was failure to maintain the requisite power, pitch and speed.

In another case it started with pulling a breaker because the alarm on the ground was irritating.
preacher1
preacher1 1
And in the for what it's worth dept, there are more U.S. ExPats working around the world than any other single country. I have flow worldwide, and after 36 years, haven't had any language trouble yet, except maybe with an accent, but not phraseology. I think I goes back to individuals, just as we will see when the final 214 report comes out.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
All phraseology in the world, even if the controller was speaking klingonese does not explain the basic fact... Why did they let their airspeed get that slow... The cause of the crash was too low of airspeed, and a go around called way too late. Forget the language barrier... Who was the PNF... he is the one to blame.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
In both cases the pilots screwed up.

1. Who descends to 400 ft, except in clear sight of a perfectly visible runway, anyway, no matter how much clearance you get from the tower. Hello. Situational awareness. As a pilot, you're still solely responsible for setting the plane down safely. Preferably on a marked runway, at a known fixed point on the charts. Certainly not into terrain.

2. There's just no excuse for the Asiana 214 pilots. They screed up as clear as day, all pun intended. What more needs be said.

----
BTW I have no problem with an ICAO standards airline requiring all of their own pilots to use the same system. When in Rome, do as the Romans, and all that.

But the US system ain't broke, so there's no need to fix it.

More important than getting US aviators to use ICAO language would be to get US quality in non-US aviation. That would actually do quite a bit to improve aviation safety globally. US-quality pilots, US-quality airlines, US-quality oversight, US-quality mx, US-quality pilot training and the such would go far in improving non-US aviation.

The problem is not that the US pilots are not enough like everyone else. The problem is that every other system is not enough like the US system. When every other system is lime the US, and every airline as good as their US counterparts, then I'll give you whatever phraseology you want. Whether US or ICAO doesn't matter. Either would be fine

But there's a lot still left to fix in global aviation of much greater significance than worrying about US phraseology in the US. In some countries, they don't even use English domestically. Having international flights operating in environments where they don't understand anyone else can't be better than your issue with US aviators.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 1
But is it necessary to punish the entire world because there are a few airlines/pilots out there with questionnable standards/abilities? Placing this requirement on all airlines is analagous to punishing the entire class for the actions of 1 kid.
preacher1
preacher1 1
They are not punishing the entire world, as we in the U.S. are very much part of that world. That said, it is restricted to foreign carriers only that we cannot walk in the office and inspect/audit as we do here. As another comment says here, there are some that will apply for an exemption and probably receive it by meeting certain standards. That is a sovereign right of every nation. Our airspace and territory is not free. It is subject to the laws that govern it. If those laws are not acceptable, please stay home, or if you are already here, then leave. It may not be the correct way to do things but it is the most fair and expedient thing to do. In any situation like this, you always have some bad apples that spoil the good.
preacher1
preacher1 5
As an added note, getting off my patriotic soapbox, Asiana landed here daily prior to the crash and as far as I know, has landed here daily since the crash. We could very well have 3 pilots that had a bad case of head up the hiney disease that day.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Actually the error was likely a tiny one, just inexcusable and with drastic ramifications.

Both pilots misunderstand which FD mode was applied or misunderstand the AT settings of the mode. Seems they expected the auto throttles to maintain speed, at the end of the flight as airspeed decayed.

Unfortunately this mistake happened in the context of a carrier where many pilots are intimated of visual approaches, in general, but in this case, both pilots failed to properly monitor altitude and airspeed.

The combination of failures led to a catastrophic performance failure, which resulted in hull loss, loss of life and severe injuries.

A flick of a switch, a glance at the airspeed earlier or a push of the hand on the throttles seconds earlier, would had a drastically different outcome - a surprisingly almost smooth landing.*

* and possibly a desire to review the settings, or to get back into the sim for a few hours of directed attention to visual approaches.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I do not call that a tiny error... Misunderstanding your FD and AT settings is quite severe. Even with the AT on or off, of of the PNF's duties is to monitor the airspeed. This is a major over site. They waited to long and did too little.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Failure to monitor (airspeed and altitude on approach) is just plain lack of proficiency of the duties to pilot and co-pilot an aircraft. That's the most severe of pilot dificiencies.

The little mistake is to accidently or unknowing setting the wrong FD mode or failing to couple the auto-throttles. The little mistake is recoverable if you're monitoring your craft (both plane and professional skills).

Whatever little mistake, was aggravated and compounded by an absolute failure in performance of the pilots to properly manage their approach.


We're all human. Anybody can make a mistake. The failure is to not fly in a manner to watch for and fix any such mistake.

With 3 dozen hours on type, I can give the pilot leeway to misunderstand a setting. But not a 3 thousand hour pilot instructor. That's why we have two, including one with lots of experience to compensate for the guy learning the type.

In neither case, does either the PF or the PNF have any leeway at all to crash and burn on impact nor to kill or maim. Pilot proficiency is about not letting little mistakes become big ones.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
My main disagreement in what you said is "TINY"... It was not a TINY error. It is all in the basics... Keep up with your airspeed is a very basic and if you loose track of it then it is anything but tiny... Of course in this case, there were a of tiny parts spread across the runway from a not so tiny over site.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I agree with you failure to monitor airspeed and altitude on approach is huge. That is the definition of proficiency.

The mistake of accidently setting a FD mode or failing to couple the auto throttles is much smaller mistake in comparison, especially after only 3 dozen hours on type. a pilot can easily make such a mistake. Proficiency is all about not letting a small mistake become a big one, or as you desrcibed, lots of little small pieces all over the runway.

Proficiency is all about not letting mistakes bring down the airliner. We're never going to gave a world without pilots making mistakes. They must maintain situational awareness to keep mistakes or unexpected situations from compromising the safety of the flight and its' occupants.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
All 3 pilots were in error of the A/P, A/T, and F/D functions. This is very obvious... But only an idiot does not keep up with what the automation is doing when your life depends on it.

I would rather someone look like an idiot, than walk away from the plane where people had died... Had one pilot to write up Hydraulic 3B system is inop, my answer was it is on MEL, we know that... But even though he failed to see it in his books, he was smart enough to check his systems. Same here, you have to watch your systems, and there is nothing minor about it. Electronics Fail... These did not, they were just turned off (inadvertently as it would appear)
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I agree with you.

Their piloting showed lack of proficiency. Specifically, their failure to monitor the aircraft airspeed and altitude on final approach, allowed a small mistake (whatever improperly set FD or autothrottle setting) evolve into a catastrophic event resulting in loss of aircraft, loss of life and life-long disability.

Inexcusable.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
A error was tiny, but it had drastic ramifications.

The error was misunderstanding the AT settings of the FD modes they selected. Sounds like both pilots expected the auto throttles to kick in when their flight a
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 4
Many accident chains start out with something small and seemingly insignificant.

Who would have thought a couple pieces of tape covering "holes" in the airframe would bring down an airliner?

Well, it will when the pilots don't know how to apply basic principles of power and pitch. When this isn't used, it leads to catastrophic consequences every time.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
A Bigger question here is.. What kind of pilot would fly a fully coupled approach, in CAT III environment when you cannot even see out of the plane, with the computers doing all the work except lowering the gear and flaps and not be monitoring at minimum the aircraft's airspeed... In any environment this is unacceptable. I know mistakes happen, but some are unacceptable. Electronics fail and the crew needs to monitor the basic flight indications. Those BIG TV screens are up there for a reason, and it is not just for entertainment.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
In fact, exemptions should be based on agreement to accept part 121 standards.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!! and then, once they all have accepted 121 that will, do away with 129
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
Or, put bigger teeth in 129 if they want US airspace privileges.

Right now, unless it's a US-registered aircraft that part is essentially worthless. The rest can be pencil-whipped.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Agreed... 129 gets by with too much.
honzanl
honza nl -1
1) US airplanes never crash, US pilots never make mistakes ?
2) "Our airspace and territory is not free. It is subject to the laws that govern it. If those laws are not acceptable, please stay home, or if you are already here, then leave."
Strange: the US government and politicians seem to think that all other countries must behave according to US laws: if bank X in country Y does business with Iran, according to the UN rules and regulations and according to the rules of its own country; then the US thinks it still has the right to punish both X and Y.
preacher1
preacher1 2
No, but it definitely has the right to prevent them from doing business here. As with the Airlines, it has that sovereign right, as do other countries, especially since they are not subject to part 121, which does allow them to walk in unannounced, for an on site inspection/audit.
preacher1
preacher1 2
And it's not saying that the foreign pilots are any better or worse than the U.S. pilots; it's just saying that we don't know because we can't inspect them, so we are proceeding on the side of caution. Besides, the only objections so far have been in this column, not from any airline.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
It's a step in treating all foreign carriers we have no regulatory control over with the same standard short of banning them access to US airspace.

Picking and choosing would be a political nightmare and I don't know the existing state department would be so kind toward that action let alone who ultimately runs it. The position of late is one of compromise and submission rather than asserting our role as the best in the world.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The only practical way to get to a rule with mixed enforcement that discriminates better operators from worse ones without inordinate controversy is to start with a uniform rule for all foreign carriers, that both assures safety and no one can complain that it is not fair (as it us being enforced uniformly).

Exceptions for foreign carriers with stellar records can be processed later (or not).

In the mean time, you have an easily implementable rule that created immedaure safety dividends for passengers flying today.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 0
Agree this is arrogant. Several countries (Canada for sure) have standards that appear to be at a minimum on par with American requirements.

[This poster has been suspended.]

andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 4
Invented what? I would be interested to hear the basis for you assumptions that US pilots are better than the rest of the world. Is this based on where you were born or where you were trained?
I enjoy spirited debate but not xenophobic crap like this. Get back in your rudd or rut

[This poster has been suspended.]

NF2G
David Stark 1
Jethro has always been so proud of his sixth grade education.
pdixonj
pdixonj 14
Hard to believe that this won't create a big handicap to landing operations at SFO. Also, along with the new advisory for GPS use during landings, one has to ask why a foreign pilot who can't conduct a simple visual approach to an unobstructed 11,000 foot runway is even allowed to fly an airliner at all...
SootBox
SootBox 6
...with a 17 mile final wasn't it?
preacher1
preacher1 6
Something like that
MimosaDrive
MimosaDrive 10
I like one of the comments made below the Washington Post article - "If you can't land a perfectly good airplane on a long runway in perfect weather without electronic "guidance" you should be sitting on a couch with your laptop."
preacher1
preacher1 9
I wonder if anyone has considered the fact that we just might have had a winning combination of pilots on that flight. Seems to me that Asiana was in there daily prior to the crash, and they have been in there since. We may just need to look at individuals here rather than the airline. Several of the foreign flag carriers have their pilot training schools here in the U.S., Lufthansa for one. Another knee jerk reaction before all details are known. That said, maybe the FAA is getting a preliminary feed from the NTSB that we don't know about.
LancairESP
LancairESP 3
Does the FAA set training standards for US flagged aircraft? Perhaps lack of control over foreign airlines standards makes their level of expertise "undocumented" and therefore suspect. Not necessarily worse, just unproven.
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 6
I think that to label all foreign carriers alike is incorrect. If there is belief that they are "undocumented" then the airlines of that nation (under the supervision of their regulatory authorities) should be banned period until they demonstrate competence. Garuda and Philippine Airlines have been banned from the EU for years because of this along with several other carriers with questionable records.
aviation020
pete norway 2
How does an Asiana 777 flight crew, not know how to preform a visual approach? The First Officer was a rookie and, the PIC was a flight instructor. They both were making they're very first approach, into the San Francisco area. ILS for 28R was out but, 28L was active and available at the time. Why didn't they request a side step to 28L? That whole approach was a mess from the start, don't know if not allowing foreign Airlines, to land alongside other Planes is going to solve the problem.
Asiana needs to train they're flight crew's better!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
It was not their first time into SFO. Both PF and PNF had been in there several times. But the PF, also acting CA, previously flew 747s. This was his first flight in a 777.

The other and bigger problem is culture. A senior pilot is the senior pilot. That "captain" could have been flying nothing but metroliners for thirty years but when he's moved to a 777 he's still considered captain and the senior flight officer. The PNF who was better qualified on that bird was subservient to that senior "captain" and did not attempt to correct him when he should have called his plane and taken over completely.

In the US, when you move to a significantly different airframe, you're going to the right seat. The only Boeing models I'm aware of that are so similar are the 757 and 767 in spite of the 767 being a wide-body jet. A combined type rating applies. Even then, I believe initial experience on the other bird is going to be in the right seat.

Performance numbers and operation of the "captain's" prior bird and this one changed drastically. He had no business being in the left seat. So, blame it on his ego, cultural stupidity and just flat out pathetic lack of basic flying skills.
preacher1
preacher1 1
The transition between 757/767 is trainers choice as far as seat goes. As I had 23 years on the 757, I was given left seat. I really think it would depend on your current position on the 757. Truthfully, other than cockpit size, and a little slower response in the 767, there is not that much difference. Under normal conditions, about a half hour on the ground and a time or 2 around a pattern will suffice. As I had been retired for a bit,the guy that took my place took me up, we went out and played a couple of hours. LOL
preacher1
preacher1 1
And, I'm flying on memory, as this happened back in July, but it wasn't his first flight in a 777 as he had about 40 hours in it.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Actually the FO was the trainer and the PF was the one being trained, with less than 40 hours in type but from a culture standpoint he was senior, hence probably bypassed any CRM. PF had been into SFO before but not in that AC type. Simple mistake in that when AT was cut of when AP was disconnected, he did not REARM them; they were in active mode but not armed, sort of a standby mode, hence they did not maintain airspeed. This may have come from the difference in Airbus and Boeing but I would think if he was used to using them, he should have known that. I think the ILS was out, period.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The only FO was in the jump seat (on the relief crew). The other three flight crew were all captains (relief crew captain, PIC instructor captain, and senior captain in type training with 33 hours on type at time of landing.

The captain in training was sitting in the left seat, and was senior to the instructor captain who was sitting the right seat (Probably the first time in right seat in years, and with a more senior captain as a trainee sitting in the left seat).

The relief crew captain wasn't even in the cockpit during approach. He was sitting in First Class.

All 4 failed to 'fly the plane' and either lost situational awareness, or failed to act in an appropriate manner when the circumstance required.

I can't imagine they can get past this incident without issuing a recommendation all carriers require all flight crew working that flight be in the cockpit for approach (and possibly take-off too).

The NTSB hearings in December seem to have pilot awareness (in an automated environment) as one of several issues that are to be considered.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I really think that we had a flight deck full of pilots with head up the hiney disease that have made it bad for everyone else, not the least of which are their brethren at Asiana. I think the FAA had to do something to show that it was not sitting idly by, and that this was probably the quickest and most politically expedient thing they could do. Had it gone to encompass other airports and been more far reaching, we would have already been hearing the outcry. Just one airport, with all that has been attached to it, shouldn't be a problem.
Derg
Roland Dent 3
If the FAA leadership had had some strong leadership over recent times they would not have such a mountain to climb.
preacher1
preacher1 3
I really don't think that there's a whole lot they can do until the final NTSB report comes out. This may be a snippet of early release inter agency of something NTSB thought was urgent but I imagine they'll have to wait on the rest to see if any further corrective action needs taking.
Derg
Roland Dent 2
I mean in the past few years...being subject to political interference from vested interests who put $$ before life and limb. Talking about the very top management of the FAA. I would not work for them.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Politics and power/$ have corrupted a whole lot of people.
Derg
Roland Dent 3
NTSB is the only one that does the job correctly.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
True since the invention of politics and money.
Does seem to be worse lately (last 20 years or so)
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
> "Had it gone to encompass other airports and been more far reaching, we would have already been hearing the outcry."

They've probably only looked at SFO approach data, so the rule applies only at SFO at the moment.

SFO has parallel runway centerline separation of only 750' with significant foreign carrier service. They may also look at Seattle with 800' or Newark with 900', maybe Vegas with 1000' or Philly with 1400'. Other airports may also have similar limited separation, but either don't get as much foreign carrier service or aren't aren't as busy so there isn't as much pressure to operate simultaneous runway operations.

I would think they'd look at the data and make appropriate rules and enforcements.

Maybe it's more a foreign pilots at SFO thing, maybe it's a foreign pilots anywhere with challenging conditions thing. Maybe they'll tease out the differences in performances between foreign carriers. ie. Maybe it's a only certain foreign carriers things.

Let the data tell us how to proceed (with time to analyze the data), and let the chops fall where they may.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Will this policy continue after the ILS returns to service?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Good question, although it specifically says side by side, foreign carriers
toolguy105
toolguy105 2
I believe the NTSB is holding hearings this week. This means we should see a preliminary report soon after. I will be very surprised if the report fault nothing more then pilot error and the culture of the foreign cockpit. I've also read that because of the Asian culture for authority the board will cite deficiency's in training and management with in the flight deck.

This was cited as a primary cause in a crash of a B747 cargo jet belonging to Korean Airlines. The copilot allowed the Captain to crash the plane rather than challenge his authority is basically what the safety board said. The problem was a pilots artificial horizon. The copilots was working correctly and he could have saved the plane.

The copilot, a more experienced airman and an instructor on this type, should have taken control when he noticed they were low and slow, he didn't . He failed as an instructor and he failed his passengers and crew by not doing so.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You are probably correct and we will hear nothing but lack of training. You won't hear an out and out naming of that culture or authority thing. We will just have to read between the lines. For those of us that have had an exposure to it, it would be hard to believe anything else. You are very correct that even though he may have been junior in social status, he did not exercise his 4 bars of authority in that cockpit. I first got exposed to it about 1971, as KAL was getting their first 747s and was talking to one of the Boeing training Captains. He said it was a nightmare, even compared to our ways back that far.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Agreed. They'll never mention cultural impact outright. They will talk about situational awareness and the importance of CRM, and appropriate cockpit communications between pilots to help maintain situational awareness.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I can't wait to see the final report. I can't believe all of us can be wrong. LOL
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Just because the final report does not concur with your conclusions does not mean you are wrong.
It could just be the Gospel according to Politics.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Ha! Ha!

I see where this is going.

If the report supports your conclusions, then you know that you're right. But if not, then the report is wrong.

All joking aside. I don't expect to report to ever say that the instructor captain was too influenced by culture. But I do expect it ro read that he failed to perform his duties as an instructor and as a monitoring pilot proficiently, and that as a result 3 people died and many were permanently injured. It will read that he failed to communicate properly with the PF the valid concerns about keepig within the defined flight envolope of thar aircraft, and/or not taking control when it became clear that the aircraft might depart it's flight envolope, or simply fixed the problem by applying thrust to keep the plane in position.

I don't expect the report to state that the PF was too preoccupied with his superior social status to be able to take criticism about his piloting ability from a socially junior instructor pilot, despite the instructor pilot being 4 years older, having over 3,000 hours greater total flying experience and greater than 3,000 hours more on type and being the designated instructor pilot for the flight. But I do expect it to state that he failed to properly command the plane, that he failed to properly set his flight director (hi was off), failed to properly arm his A/T (in standby) and failed to apply thrust after not setting the plane to do so.

So even if culture may have impacted communication and/or willingness to take appropriate action, the mistakes are real and clear failures in piloting. They need only list them, explain how each mistake helped to cause the crash and how pilots can correct for these mistakes in the future to avoid a repeat.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I was just going from the perspective of seeing and occasionally participating in wordsmithing government reports.

I think you may be prophetic on the report contents.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Guess I was also saying that if the investigators only focus tightly on the facts of the crash and the proximate causes that are part of the direct causal chain, we'll might not ever get any clarity on the cultural component.

I don't think that the report will dwell on ultimate causality (at least not any that can be ascribed to cultural influences). They may suggest that pilot training is inadequate, insofar as the CRM and airline protocol were not theist important criterion for decision making. And so they may only suggest that training transmit the primacy of airline CRM and airline protocol on flight deck interaction, communication, and decision making.

That might be the closest we'll ever get to a knock on cultural considerations. The report will never come out and disgrace another culture. So no one who believes that culture was the underlying cause, can hang their hat on the expectation that the report will confirm that suspicion. Even if culture was underlying the events of te Asiana 214 crash, the report will never come out and say so, in so many words.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
* insofar as the CRM and airline protocol were not THE MOST important criterion for decision making
preacher1
preacher1 1
I have been the biggest proponent on the cultural thing and I have also said I'll have to read between the lines on the report, as I don't think a government agency would want to offend one of our strongest allies. That don't change the fact that they totaled out a perfectly good multimillion $ aircraft and killed 3 people on what should have been a routine approach & landing.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I agree with much of your cultural discourse, and acknowledge that culture could've had a profound impact on the events in that cockpit that day. You might not know it, from my comments since I want them to be incompetent pilots who made a mistake, rather than pilots who knew what was happening, but failed to act because of a cultural notion if face saving. That desire is not based on fact but my own yearning that this deaths and injuries didn't happen because the pilots refused to do their job knowing full well what was about to happen. I would feel better that they didn't know, that they were not competent in this operation (manual approach) and just got behind their plane, and simply didn't notice the security of the problem until too late.

That said, a report that is silent on cultural impact (which is what I expect) will not confirm the position of those who reject the impact culture may have had on the crash. Those who reject even the discussion of cultural impact, based on their false notion that these discussions might be racist, are missing the true import of the cultural influences in the cockpit.

The report will not likely give us any clarity on this matter.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
* not competent, and just got behind their plane, and simply didn't notice the SEVERITY of the problem until too late.

It's much easier to teach manual piloting to pilots that aren't very good at manual operations, than to unteach thousands of years of cultural expectation and cultural understanding.
preacher1
preacher1 1
As I said, they definitely screwed up. The reason is the key. It would be more acceptable if it were as you say but we may never know for sure
preacher1
preacher1 1
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
As long as there's politically correct dancing around the truth, there WILL be more deaths as a result of their stupidity.

If Asiana Air, Korean Air and similar airlines do not change their structure based on experience and skill in type, the FAA and US should outright ban their entry into US airspace. But odds are, all the PC fools in Congress and most certainly this administration would defeat such an effort.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You are probably correct. To read some of the ExPat guys stuff that were over there recently, it isn't any better than it used to be. KAL may have the upper hand just by virtue of being around longer but in their early days, they were just as bad. Hell, in 1971, their newly appointed 747 Captains couldn't hardly get thru the Aircraft door because their heads were swelled so big, according to one of the Boeing training Captains that was there at the time.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Any of the wxpat accounts even recently, reminisce about how things were when they were 'over there' working as contractors to 'fix' te situation.

He supposition is that things are still as bad as ever because of the resistance they felt at trying to instill order 'back then'.

It's still an open question about how much of that cultural influence is still interfering with modern cockpit CRM. It is possible that traditional cultural norms having interfered with good cockpit communication/ action. If so we'll hear about it. But the failure of individuals to act as expected will be attributed to their individual failures, and not to whatever cultural unsrrstnadijgs Ma have interfered with them doing their job as expected.

If we don't hear about fatigue being a significant contributory cause, then it's all exactly as preacher is saying, but the reports won't say it in so many words. They'll dance around the cultural contributory cause. But as long as they show that the pilot's failure to perform at the level expected of any 777 pilot, whether failing to apply the correct flight mode or failing to speak up or to take the plane and correct the too low and too slow approach, they'll be telling us exactly what kind of incompetence led to the crash.

That it was very 'experienced' pilots that let the bird fall out of the sky is shocking. If their experienced pilots can flub so badly, how bad are their pilots with little experience?
preacher1
preacher1 1
In a nutshell, it was 2 things. They were used to using auto throttles or they wouldn't have set them in the first place. For whatever reason, the mistake was made in not re-arming them for that set. As I said, that was the mistake and a simple one. The reason that somebody did not notice the speed/attitude drop AND say/do something about it is where the problem lies, whether culture or whatever. As I said somewhere in one of these threads, I was PF on our 767 the other day on a DFW hop and return. On the way back, we were on top and I had the AP and AT's engaged. When I turned off the AP, the AT's went to the ACTIVE mode but weren't armed. I hand flew the rest of the way down so I never went back to them but if he did not rearm them, they were basically off line in a standby type mode. Same setup that is on a 777
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
That was a concise and perfectly written description of both aspects of the pilot failure.

1. The first was the PF's mistake is setting the auto throttles. (belieiving that A/Ts would control airspeed, but not setting them to do so)

2. The PNF's failure to monitor airspeed and altitude or failing to take any corrective action if he did properly monitor.

I just reread the account in Wikipedia. It suggests the the FO in the jump seat calked out sink rate repeatedly during the last minute of flight. (I didn't check their source.) If true, that would be even more damning of the performance of the pilots at the controls.

There was even the complication that the plane deviated from the centerline, after dropping below the glidepath. So the distraction with lateral position took away the pilot's attention at the exact wrong moment, when altitude and airspeed were crucial. This likely results from poor stick skills from PF being on the A320 type for the immediately prior years.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
As I've repeatedly told flight students.... the majority of accidents happen because the pilot did something really stupid.

This is just another example.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Very much so
preacher1
preacher1 1
I'll just take your word on the Wiki account, but in reality, the pilot in the jump seat really had no official capacity. If they changed as they should have, he was just sitting in the jump seat as the other guy was in 1st class. The PNF, in this case the instructor, should have been monitoring and calling all that. Left and right seat are the one's on duty to land the plane. As Ken says below, SOMETHING REALLY STUPID
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
> "The copilot, a more experienced airman and an instructor on this type, should have taken control when he noticed they were low and slow, he didn't . He failed as an instructor and he failed his passengers and crew by not doing so."

Yes. That is one of only two possible scenarios. The other was that the instructor captain sitting in the right seat was fatigued and was slow to respond and/or failed to monitor airspeed and altitude or some combination of the two: failed to monitor due to being fatigued.

Only he knows for sure, whether he was aware that the plane was low and slow and failed to act. I can't imagine a pilot allowing a plane filled with passengers crash, especially an instructor captain, whose specific role is to do that if and when necessary for the safety of the plane and its' occupants.

Waiting (impatiently) for a more definite report on the matter. That may be a question posed to the captain if he is in attendance at these hearings.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I think in the prelim leading up to this hearing, that they have already interviewed all 4 pilots and have traveled overseas to review Asiana in general. They are about 2 weeks behind on account of the shutdown or it would have already been held. Regarding the fatigue, on the 121 folks 2 crew, Captain flies out about 1 1/2 hrs, then to bed and relief crew takes over until about that far out, Captain flies in and lands(or tries to). If that procedure was followed, fatigue should not have been a factor. Now, I say, SHOULD NOT have been a factor.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I agree, but a perfectly good airplane is perfect weather SHOULD NOT crash short of the runway.
FlySFO
Rohit Rathor 2
Hmm...anyone know why just foreign airlines as opposed to domestic ones as well? I've seen more domestic aircraft go-arounds at SFO than international aircraft go-arounds
preacher1
preacher1 2
I think the comment above about them being SUSPECT because they are unchecked goes a long way toward this.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I also have to wonder why just SFO. They have a high volume of International traffic, BUT, they are not the only airport in the U.S. that has parallel runways and foreign flag carriers.
pdixonj
pdixonj 2
SFO is one of the very few airports in the country that allow simultaneous visual approaches to parallel runways that are so close to each other. STL is the only other large airport I can think of that allowed this (however, it was in use more during it's TWA-hub days than it is today).
preacher1
preacher1 1
I hadn't really thought about the closeness there. Most do have quite a bit more separation. I think ATL has room for either 4 or 5 to stack on the high speeds to cross
SootBox
SootBox 1
What's the ratio of domestic to foreign traffic? If it's 1:1, you have a case.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
For what it's worth, I took a sample of SFO flights off FA and looked up country of carrier. N=520, United States 447, (86%) All others 73 (14%). (Asiana N=3). No go around data. Sample was not random, just copied from departures til I got tired of copy/paste.
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 2
I KNEW we would have some idiot who proclaimed that US pilots (not sure if he meant
US trained or US born) are superior to any others. Training and competency are just that. Who that is and where they are from is irrelevant. I concede that language is an issue potentially but it does not appear to be a factor in this case.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Don't be preoccupied with xenophobic comments.

But there's no getting away from the reality that US carriers exist in a stricter regulatory framework than most foreign carriers, certainly as related to part 129 carriers operating within the US with little oversight, and virtually no enforcement actions available.

Most US carriers gave a strict safety focused operation. (ValuJet being an obvious exception that helps prove the rule.) It's not easy for a pilot to make his or her way to the left seat of major commercial airliner in the US. It often involves years PF flying and instructing, followed by years flying at a commuter or regional airline, finally followed by hopefully getting an FO job at a major. In the US, there us also a very vibrant GA that gives pilots exposure to planes and flying long before being hired by a major. No majors in the US ever hire a pilot without experience and train him from scratch on big iron using IFR/automation almost exclusively from day one. It happens elsewhere.

In the US, the only shortcut to a left seat at a major is a remarkable aviator career in the military. Many foreign carriers send their pilots to the US for pilot training for a reason.

But I wouldn't say that every US aviator is amazing. Typically, they just had a much more demanding path to the cockpit, which helps make sure the best make it. So as a bunch, they're normally very proficient at their job.

But any pilot cam let their skills become lazy.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 1
I agree completely with your remarks on training and competency of US pilots. My point, as I have attempted to make above, is that there are other countries in the world which have nearly identical standards, and in some cases arguably superior. If the FAA wants to single out Asiana for sanctions, great!...but don't label all foreign carriers as being similar.
preacher1
preacher1 2
PhotoFinish is right on in his remarks. This action by the FAA is the quickest and most politically expedient way to do so. You are only talking about 1 airport to boot. As I have said in previous posts, Asiana landed there before and has landed after 214 with no problems. This will come down to individuals before it's over with.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Rightly so. It is their(FAA) credibility at stake. Accident happened in broad light. Literally and figuratively!
Though a typical CSI sop language - 'open and shut case'.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
The FAA is currently examining all of the go arounds and other errant approaches on 28L at KSFO. The NTSB is working through 1400 variable parameters available for them to examine on the data recorders. Some could argue that KSFO had a "duty of care" to call out to errant approachers that they have strayed off the accepted safe approach path.

The FAA is no stranger to being called "a political puppet" unlike the NTSB. The fact that KSFO has no comprehensive ILS facility cannot be understated in this event. There are five didfferent modes of throttle command on this machine and it appears that all three pilots on the flight deck assume that one of them was in use.

At around 1000 feet one of the three pilots on the flight deck called out "sink rate". So despite having 10's of thousands of hours experience total between the three of them at least one pilot realised and called out the altitude loss rate as "not normal".

I cannot see why parallel landings should be restricted when they are so common elsewhere but I can see that unless you have a very clear command of the English language you should not be attempting to land at all.
preacher1
preacher1 1
My friend, I only disagree with 2 things in your comment. SFO had the PAPI lights, hence no obligation to tell the pilots. I doubt they would be able to see that good anyway to say hi or lo, and while notable, the lack of an ILS should not have been a factor. It had been out close to a month and planes landed every day, including that day.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Wayne I have total respect for you..no question. I agree plenty of people have told me that no ILS was not an excuse. I take my info direct from the NTSB briefings and I don't read newspapers at all. Without the ILS kit would KSFO ATC have been able to see that the Asiana was too low? Or does this facility come with the ILS kit alone? As you know many airports with parallel runways are over densely populated areas and the ATC is more "on the ball" if the path deviates to the low side. Could it be that here at KSFO they were less vigilent because the incoming airplane was over water? In my view it is a "duty of care" that an TC facility has enough trained staff to advise an incomer if there is a deviation. I do not believe there is a requirement for this. They certainly were aware that the EVA flight was low and the EVA flight went immediately to the TOGA. Now I am not seeking here to point a finger and say it was a certain person(s) who were negligent. What I am seeking to do is understand the reasons. The FAA, thank God, seem to have taken the logical step to look at all the data recorded for KSFO's 28L to see if there is a pattern that can be exposed. There are a few accounts of how the Asia crews are trained but for me listening to the audio traffic between the Asiana and KSFO tower it is the lack of the command of English that the Asiana displayed that was concerning. Of course the PAPI lights were the key, but as far as I know so far, the nose of the a/c was high and no one was looking ahead for a visual. One of the crew stated he was blinded by a flash of light..so far that is all we know.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, the EVA PILOTS determined they were low, as they should have, and called TOGA. I think the flash of light was BS and just a CYA excuse. They had already saw the PAPI, as the NTSB said they looked at it, determined they were low, and ALSO at that point, determined they were about 3kts slow. There should have been, at the very least, a power increase right there, if not an outright go around should have been made.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
I thought the EVA was advised by the ATC that they were low and on the advice they went to TOGA. The lack of throttle control always has me totally dumb founded. I just cannot see, automation or not how any pilot cannot check both speed and throttle position. I my view this is 10 seconds well spent. Two pilots cannot be expected to monitor the whole power deivery process like in the old days with three on the flight deck.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You may be correct on the EVA but if they did, it was just a happening or an awareness after 214, but no requirement. ATC requirement is "Cleared for landing, runway **". There may be 5 modes on the auto throttles but not a one of them work if not linked up to one of the other automated functions, such as the auto pilot that they had already turned of. This is well known on a Boeing aircraft of any type. I don't think Airbus is that way and that may be where his thinking was. Problem is, it's stuff like that is the reason you get typed on different aircraft. When you're in the pointey end, you're supposed to know stuff like that.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Bingo..you just nailed it! Most of em had lots of hours on the AB products. Yup another one laid to rest..Thanks wayne!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Tell me if I have wrong thinking here...

Let's say you're on a stable approach, in IMC for the sake of argument. You don't have a lot of wiggle room at a 200' MDA for a missed on a bird that big and heavy.

It only stands to reason if you have an unstable approach and dropping far too fast (They were reporting 1400/min vertical speed) you should have been making that missed call back up at a thousand feet.

In either scenario, you've got a lot of weight to start climbing not to mention time for engines to spool up. And, would common sense dictate to establish higher minimums when gaining experience in a new type with different parameters?

Other thoughts...

He had substantial time in a 74 so is there a noticeably less time to realize power when spooling up four engines rather than just two on a similarly weighted airframe?

I continue to put great blame on their culture that allows an older, higher total time pilot in command over the more experienced in type. I'm convinced that if the "FO" who should have been the four bars in the left seat (and only four-bar on the flight deck) had exercised his rightfully earned authority this event would not have happen.

A note on Airbus... a local, former check airman for US Air did ground training and one of the things he discovered is there were items in the training manual related to interaction of the computers that was not in the pilots flight manual. I cannot recall the specifics. When he inquired of Airbus they said the pilot didn't need to know. Given concern for safety he copied that information and started distributing it to pilots.

He went to France several times to pick up new birds. His personal minimum was a new airframe should have demonstrated at least forty hours of safe flight before he'd cross the pond with it. Their engineers responded by saying that wasn't necessary. It makes me wonder what their standards are for shakedown of new designs compared to Boeing's sixteen hour, 9,000 mile endurance flights while never leaving CONUS.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I believe your thinking is correct but common sense seem to have died a good while back and can't be relied on. I have said that culture has played a part in it all along. We will see. As far as Airbus,(cough, cough) they know what they are doing.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
AB communication skills and attitude. They assume you are clairvoyant. Not sure if the new Embraers have the waggle stick..I hope not. AB is heading for a one man operation. No one has challenged me on this assertion. If you think it through that is the only logical deduction. At airshows and demos this will impress the dinner party execs...simple as that.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Actually not so easy.

PF was a flight school instructor on the A320 and spent the last few years on that type despite flying 747s and 737s previously. So, he might have transition difficulties after only dozens of hours on type.

But PNF was a 777 in-flight instructor (even of this was his first ever flight as a 777 instructor) after getting over 3,000 hours on the 777.

PNF has no excuse to not be intimately familiar with the FD mode settings and the operation of the auto throttles on the 777.

I can understand that a pilot with only a few hours on the type might confuse the settings. That's why there are 2 pilots, and a highly experienced captain sitting in the right seat as an instructor.

Not only did he miss the FD mode setting, he also failed to monitor the airspeed and altitude (which as PNF would also be his responsibility).

I wonder if he was just tired after a 10 hour flight, and hadn't gotten enough rest.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 1
OK, we are going in circles a but here in that we both agree with PhotoFinish's take on US pilots.....I also agree that the FAA's actions here were politically expedient rather than objective and logical. I would, however, like to be hypothetical for a moment....let's say that a grievous pilot error happened at Pearson International (remeber Air France a few years ago) involving a United aircraft, and Transport Canada imposed this limitation on all foreign carriers landing at Pearson, including American carriers....I can hear the cries of "bloody murder" from here!
preacher1
preacher1 1
It will all be interesting
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I could see them do something similar but consider non-north american (Canadian and US) as a their definition of foreign.

But by far the most numerous pilots landing at Pearson would be flying for Domestic carriers. The next biggest group would be American carriers, and so the most obvious non-Canadian category to consider up front for inclusion in local aviators, or possibly for an exception in a bit too distant time later. Then other carriers from further away with decreasing numbers of flights could also be considered for exemptions.

But whether Canada only or Canada and US as local, setting up a foreign pilot rule quickly for reasons of safety, would be perfectly acceptable, even if some feathers are temporarily ruffled.

Until Canadians vote to become the 51st state, I see no reason to object to being included in a category that includes all other nations.

Back to the SFO rule, it is not clear that Csnada should receive special non-foreign treatment without any reflection. It is likely that Cabadian aviators would be perfectly qualified. But there are also other countries whose aviators would just as deserving of exemption from rule, maybe UK, maybe others. But all these determinations will take time.

It would be foolish to delay the rule's implementation, thr safety it promotes, and the message it is signaling, to spend time in deliberating which countries/carriers fall into which category. Such a list of good and bad carriers/countries up front would be shocking. It's smarter to ease into some number of exemptions upon application/ reflection and determination WITHOUT delay in implementation of the safety rule.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Nah..can't be done. All foreigners should be included immediately and that has come to pass. It certainly would be the zeitgeist or fashion to make exceptions but it would cause a lot of bad feeling. Upset aviators are not good people to be around.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
An extra ounce of precaution never hurts any one, at least not the righteous ones. Also once bitten twice shy is also applicable.
Believe me, chances are that erratic or careless pilots or airlines may resent various ad hoc arrangements/strictures.
All the excessive caution may be withdrawn or may be amended once the NTSB reports are out.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 2
all I can do is shake my head and chuckle
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Forget the simultaneous approach I described above. 750 feet separation is too close for any commercial airliner to fly an approach that close to another aircraft. Plus, I believe it's also an ILS approach, so forget about it at SFO.

Simultaneous departures are sometimes allowed on parallel runways without the minimum separation, as long as the aircraft have diverging flight paths. So, at SFO (where this rule is being applied) the import is that 2 planes can't depart simultaneously, when a foreign carrier is departing.

As part of recent FAA flight path experiments, I've seen 2 passenger airliners departing simultaneously, with under 1,000 ft of separation, for a good long stretch of time. You never forget that sight, seeing large planes that close together in the sky overhead, even if they are diverging.
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 1
It is nice to see that done safely isn't it? :)
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I believe one of the considerations at SFO is the center lines are not even a thousand feet apart; not much separation. They may do simultaneous *visual* approaches at that distance but I'd think not.

If training and skill are questionable for a given carrier I can understand making those approaches much more staggered for greater separation. They can specify carriers and countries but that would subject the decision to even greater attack for discrimination. So, they make it all foreign carriers where they have a limitation on dictating their procedures, standards and training protocol.

I'm sure Air Canada and BA both have excellent training standards. But this rule keeps the goal more "politically correct" for the sake of foreign relations. It may even expand to other airports where there is as little center line separation.
wwharris
Bill Harris 1
"I believe one of the considerations at SFO is the center lines are not even a thousand feet apart; not much separation. They may do simultaneous *visual* approaches at that distance but I'd think not."

Maybe, maybe not, but on a lovely late afternoon about fifteen years ago, I was pax in a left-side window seat on a UAL 737 SEA-SFO. We landed on 28R on what I believe was the version of the Bridge Visual approach in use at the time. (UAL provided ATC on one of the inflight audio channels, and I seem to recall that we were cleared for that approach.)

It was memorable for the experience of looking out the window during the right turn onto final and, as the wing settled down into horizontal, finding that we had rolled out immediately abeam of a UAL DC-10 at what seemed to be a lateral distance of about 1000 feet. It was probably greater separation that that, but the visual impression from my seat was pretty striking.

We were moving slightly faster down the approach and the DC-10 fell behind out of my view before we touched down.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Sometime after soloing but before getting private ticket I was landing rwy 31 MDW ( where I was taking lessons) and a 727 was sliding by me on the parallel while we were fairly short final. Never forget all those people staring at me. Circa 1967. Lol
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
There's the "Quiet Bridge Visual RWYS 28L/R".
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1308/00375QUIETBRIDGE_VIS28LR.PDF
Note they still provide the localizer frequencies for quick reference so the pilot can set the receiver for backup to both lateral and vertical guidance.

There's even a warning for wake turbulence which only make sense. I imagine that DC10 caused a little for the 737 as it passed. The 73 will be faster. It's a riot to watch the FedEx MD11 depart Austin on the right side while I'm on the left. Center lines are a mile apart and there's maybe two miles separation between their departure and mine in a Skyhawk. It still seems like they're not going anywhere compared to my speed. But I wouldn't want to be close to them given the "Low, slow and heavy" causing a huge a vortex. I'd cross under a path on the right side to land on the left and feel it at times. Ya just gotta be aware.

A couple other things that I wonder about... I might be turned east to cross the course for the left side and an SWA bird will pass in front of me maybe a mile or so away. I can't help but wonder what folks are thinking when they look at the window and see this little plane headed their way... as if I could catch up!

The other was after returning from an instrument lesson in IMC with a student and there were a bunch of big birds parked on the Sierra ramp that were hanging out after being diverted from Dallas. The controller has us taxi through Sierra to allow another plane to to take Charlie. As we're moving among a half dozen or more MD-80s and otherwise, the controller asked, "Feeling small?" I chuckled then later thought there has to be some passenger looking at us and wondering, "They let that little plane fly. Why can't we fly???"
tjweber
TJ WEBER 1
I agree with Andy below. Pilot proficiency is key. However, to single out all foreign airlines and a single airport is a little ridiculous. I'm based in Chicago, and we have 3 simultaneous approaches in use during rush hours, as well as multiple departures. If this requirement were for all airports, as well as holding departures for an arrival, we might have a problem. Also, for what it's worth, I've always been critical on RW 27 landings and 32L departures just in case a 27 landing (either RW but more concerned about 27L) has to do a go around while a jet is on a roll it's a recipe for disaster.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
When they land in the US, citizens here that board probably ASSUME they adhere to the same standards as our airlines. Just sayin.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Until 214 came along, I think EVERYBODY WAS. Part 129 has probably received more publicity since the crash than since it's inception.
NF2G
David Stark 1
Lawyers et al in SFO may salivate all they want. Any lawsuit by Americans against a foreign company will be heard in Washington, DC courts. However, I've seen little to indicate that there are Americans with legal standing to bring any action against Asiana. Were there any American citizens aboard?
preacher1
preacher1 1
toolguy105
toolguy105 1
I'm not one for political correctness, especially were saftey is concerned. I would rather ruffle some feathers than have to recover bodies off a runway because pilots of foreign carriers do not fly to the same standards as U!S pilots. Understandably it is not all foreign carriers that fit this concern. Those carriers can be waivered or apply for a waiver. It is expedient to initially apply this rule to all foreign carriers operating at SFO. Of course reconnecting the ILS would be the best or preferred solution
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
IMHO, the preferred solution would be that all pilots could land safely. Just sayin'
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, will they change the order then and un-restrict it? I thought the order just flatly said no parallel approaches for foreign carriers period, no regard to types of approach.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
They will be reconnecting the ILS after the construction is complete... This is only a temporary change.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
It is easier to make the ruling apply to all foreign carriers (in the interest of safety. Then allow individual airlines to apply for an exemption. Those that are able apply. Those that can't, know better than to even make application for an exemption.

This way a subset of substandard airlines are not identified publicly, creating shame for their airline/nationality, encouraging accusations of discrimination. But we get the increased safety benefit.

In the end thus needs to lead to phase out of part 129 over a period of years. airlines should be able to meet part 121 standards to fly into or through the US. It will become the global international standard.

Not to mention, that it'll help US carriers earn important reputational benefits for having their priorities. Who cares how luxurious the service in the back, if you can't count on the guys up front to get you and your fellow passengers out of a situation without extensive damage, bodily harm and death.

I fully support not delaying domestic carriers' flights due to ATC issues because of the new rule. If foreign carriers inability to perform at the same level as US pilots, then let them have their own rate of delays.

It would be a shame to penalize carriers with a large presence at SFO (or at any other airport with lots of foreign carriers where the rule is applied).
MrAflac9916
Mr Aflac 1
That's one of the stupidest thing I've heard.... oh stupid government.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I wouldn't disagree with STUPID GOVERNMENT, but that is a whole 'nuther story in itself. In this case it is an expedient action. PhotFinish's comment below pretty much sums it up.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Why is it stupid?

I'm interested in reading a convincing argument.
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 1
I call it "Kamakazism"
NF2G
David Stark 1
Thanks for the info. Most coverage I've seen is about the Korean schoolgirls aboard.
tginmn
Gregg Harcus 1
I am confused. What does stalling have to do with parallel approaches? The Asiana flight made it to the right runway just a bit short when it stalled.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, he was low, slow, the nose pull up was probably what brought on the stall with that AOA and being slow, AND, he was off of the centerline. Apparently it just has to do with the capability to do a VFR approach. that's all I can figure.
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 0
Then they woke up in the seat of a flight sim with a bad smell?
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
A student didn't end up killing me when he put the plane into a spin.

So, I guess that makes their action okay.

I didn't cut off his training. I started climbing higher to allow more wiggle room for initial stalls; especially accelerated stalls.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
"The Asiana flight made it to the runway, didn't it?"

Implementation of this rule suggests that the recent review of parallel runway approaches at SFO (undetaken after Asiana crash) yielded greatly divergent proficiency demonstrated by foreign pilots (as a group), as compared to US pilots (as a group).

Plus, at SFO, the distance between parallel runway centerlines is only 750 ft.

That proximity between runways makes the approaches more difficult. Only one side can come in straight. The plane coming in on one of the runways has to cone on at an angle to the runway. Only if there is visual on the nearby aircraft are both planes allowed to proceed to touch down. Otherwise that other plane has to go around.

My guess is that is apparently too difficult for *some* pilots, and a risk to the safety of the aircraft and its' passengers.

I see no reason to unwittingly risk the lives of the passengers and cabin crew, if the flight crew can't perform routine landings in good weather. Let them circle and wait for an opening when they can land alone and without extra complication, that may test the limits of their proficiency. I don't want to find out how bad this group of pilots is by crashing more planes.

Put in some reasonable safety precautions for now, while more is done to tackle the real problem head on. Train this group of pilots to at least a minimum level of proficiency, or get them out of the pointy end of the plane.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Not all of the plane made it to the runway... The Main Gear stayed behind at the sea wall where it sheared off. I guess most of the remainder of the plane made it to the runway... Even though not all in one piece.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
A small, but statistically significant, sample?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Forget the simultaneous approach I described above. Parallel runway centerline separation of 750 feet is too close for any commercial airliner to fly an approach that close to another aircraft. Plus, I believe it's also an ILS approach too, so forget about it at SFO.

Simultaneous departures are sometimes allowed on parallel runways without the minimum separation, as long as the aircraft have diverging flight paths. So, at SFO (where this rule is being applied) the import is that 2 planes can't depart simultaneously, when a foreign carrier is departing.

As part of recent FAA flight path experiments, I've seen 2 passenger airliners departing simultaneously, with under 1,000 ft of separation, repeatedly, for a good long stretch of time. You never forget that sight, seeing large planes that close together in the sky overhead, even if they are diverging.
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 1
They just want to make sure that the guys are paying attn. to and controlling a landing without waving at each other? bahahahaha
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
It may be that 'lessening the distractions' is an excuse for doing what they think needs be done without pointing fingers.
pjbonner
pjbonner 1
American Pilots are so on-the-ball, they never fall asleep and miss the Airport they are supposed to be landing at.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 2
Yes, true professionalism.
Some non Americans too are as good.
No?
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 1
Yes there a very many foreign pilots that are totally competent. I just don't want to fly on a plane with any that aren't. The US and Canada have many safeguards,requirements,and no culture problems that insure safety.
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 0
I'm sure Britain, Australia and Germany have the same also
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 0
well the thought of Minneapolis what put me to sleep too lol.
guitars
Alan Killick -2
You speak completely arrogant crap. I would choose a British trained pilot, and a British airline , every day over one from the USA.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 4
You're airline is only as good as the pilot no matter where they are from.
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 0
I'm sure the competent maintenance of any particular aircraft also has something to do with it too.
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 0
I'm sure O'Leary is offering you piggy back rides too!
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott -1
Yaaaaaaay! Those mother f**kers couldn't find there asses if it was handed to them! Let those pussy grade pilots handle their own inadaquacies on their own turf!

تسجيل الدخول

ليس لديك حساب؟ سجل الآن (مجانا) لتستمع بمميزات مخصصة، وتنبيهات الرحلات، وغير ذلك الكثير!
يستخدم موقع الويب هذا ملفات تعريف الارتباط. باستخدام موقع الويب هذا وعمل المزيد من عمليات التنقل خلاله، يعني هذا قبولك لملفات تعريف الارتباط.
استبعد
هل علمت بأن خاصية تتبع الرحلة التابعة لـFlightAware مدعومة بواسطة الإعلانات؟
يمكنك مساعدتنا بالإبقاء على موقع FlightAware مجاني بدون مقابل من خلال السماح بالإعلانات من موقع FlightAware.com. نحن نعمل بكل كد لجعل إعلاناتنا ملائمة ومناسبة وأن تكون هذه الإعلانات غير ملحوظة من أجل إنشاء تجربة رائعة. يمكن بكل سرعة وسهولة السماح لـإعلانات القائمة البيضاء الموجودة على FlightAware، أو الرجاء مراجعة الحسابات المميزة الخاصة بنا.
استبعد