Absolutely right. These are real professionals. Deborah Hersman is obviously a very impressive person, with a reputation for intelligence, knowledge, and thoroughness. We're lucky to have her in this position, because these investigations make us all safer. I wish more states would act on her recommendations on distracted driving. This woman knows from whence she speaks, an expert on transportation safety. Too much of the country is still ignoring her in this regard.
Yes, the ILS was OTS. Has been for a while due to construction. But flight crew had PAPI lights on the left side of the runway at the TDZ which gives them visual reference to proper glideslope.
I think that any media outlet that reports speculation and not facts should NOT be allowed to attend another press conference. That would help keep the media from just throwing out speculation just for ratings
Per CVR: "The sound of the stick shaker occurs approx. 4 sec. before impact." No comment on whether the FDR recorded activation of the stick shaker. Only FDR info mentioned was, "During the approach, the data indicate that the throttles were at idle, and airspeed was slowed below the target airspeed. The throttles are advanced a few sec. before impact, and the engines appear to respond normally." Target airspeed of 137 kts was heard on the CVR. Airspeed was "significantly below 137 knots."
Relative to the ILS outage - Glideslope was out, the localizer was not. The localizer gives you lineup info relative to Rwy C/L, but no descent, i.e. glideslope info.
What I read online was that the pilots accidently thought that the autothrust feature of the autopilot was still activated and therefore was taking care of the speed, when in fact it was not activated and that is why the throttles were at idle as mentioned by the chairman. It seems that the process of the crash happened the same way as the British Airways one at Heathrow, except that the cause was different.
They were most likely hand flying..STAB trim is not automatic, unless the A/P is engaged. In approach configuration A/S is controlled by the autothrottles (Or manually, using throttles), but the fact that they were 30K below VREF? (This news just coming out) is indication that A/T were disconnected too. And, crew were late to realize it, for some reason. VREF/Target speed is calculated by the FMS, (based on actual weight) and it was heard discussed in the checklist, during Approach set-up.
If the pilots were hand-flying the approach, could they still have controlled airspeed with the autopilot, and would they have had automatic stabilizer trim while hand-flying, even if setting throttles manually? Could it be they entered the wrong approach speed into the AP? Btw, I noticed there was no mention of whether all pitot-static systems were functioning properly and giving the same data.
I am asking if pilot error usually one of the last things they think was the cause. Do they usually try all mechanical troubles before considering pilot error?
AT was "armed" meaning it was ready but not necessarily activated. However, the article you read seem to be hasty. The activation of AT was uncertain and the investigation was still ongoing. There was no conclusive evidence to say that the AT was inactive.
Aviation is a special field. Cockpits are usually out of people's reach so are the black box and recordings. They are usually classified. I am with you that important parts of recordings should be played to the public. However, considering the quality of the media today, I suppose that would only arouse more chaos.
You're right, but in his defense, if I read correctly, the ILS was out of service. I think that they will find that to be a contributing factor BUT NOT the cause. As always it's just IMHO
Doesn't current technololgy permit the tower and the aircraft to warn the pilots of errors in glideslope or speed on approach well before the point of nonrecovery? Could the accident have been prevented if the ILS sensors were in operation AND linked to an early warning system for the pilots? Granted, the pilots were on visual approach, but systems need to catch human screwups.
But are there not often multiple factors leading up to CFIT incidents? Navigation errors, faulty equipment, weather, aircraft weight, icing, etc. These are often listed as "contributing factors" while the "cause" may be "failure of the pilot to maintain adequate ground clearance." (E.g., the 1996 crash of a USAF CT-43 in Croatia that killed Sec. of Comm. Ron Brown: bad weather, inoperable or missing navigation instruments on the plane, primitive navigation systems on the ground.)
Well, if the pilots think that their approach speed is 137 kph, then the reasonable assumption is that this is what their instruments are showing them. What she said is that their speed was way lower. Which implies that their instruments were faulty.
From wikipedia: "According to Boeing, CFIT is a leading cause of airplane accidents involving the loss of life, causing over 9,000 deaths since the beginning of the commercial jet age.[3] CFIT was identified as a cause of 25% of USAF Class A Mishaps between 1993 and 2002."
ILS was definitely out of service but if you are a pilot of any type of airplane, you should be able to successfully make a visual landing on a clear day with no weather. yes there is always a chain of events that leads to a crash like this but every single link can be human error. the ILS had been out of service and probably 20 other asiana crews had landed the same type of jet at SFO successfully while the ILS was down.
The DFDR shows the shaker activated. Does the CVR back that up? If so, then the pilots need to consider a career change. Not being a jet pilot, I can't speak to having things at idle on final. That's how you do it in a prop job, but as we all know, a C-152 does not a 777 make...
Agreed. Also, from experience I can say that it is a common trend on visual approaches to the 28L/R runways to tend towards too high, if the crew is not cognizant and staying "ahead" of the airplane. This sometimes occurs because of the way ATC "slots" the arrivals..but the DFDR will be useful. Based solely on Prelim, this seems to be a classic un-stabilized approach that went too far. Engines at Flight Idle below 1,000 feet? Poor airmanship, poor planning. Stick shaker? Unforgiveable!!
I'll add that I've never trained on the B777, but its Flight Deck layout is quite similar to the B767-400, on which I have experience. Not exactly same, since the B767 common type rating with B757 requires them to behave similarly. However, the AutoFlight logic on all current Boeings is very similar, just minor differences. (777 has 2 A/T, for instance). Pitot/static problems, very doubtful. 3 independent systems. The fact that the stick shaker activated is pretty damning for the crew.
Pilot error is often the cause. These days you have to worry about pilots becoming poor at hand flying the aircraft because they relying so much on automation. These pilots had almost 10,000 hours of experience each - but it's hard to say if they are good stick and rudder pilots and how much they rely on automation. Preliminary data on this one sounds like it's all pilot error.
Do you say that because the NTSB has the positive role of keeping the masses safe vs. telling individuals what to do? Many greedy people do need to be told what to do, e.g. regulations that right-wingers whine about. I think the government is just a collection of ordinary people trying to do the right thing. Some get lazy, others excel. None can please all Americans. Armchair critics who claim they'd do a "better job" enjoy the luxury of not having to prove it.
Yes, 137 knots of course, sorry. Maybe the problem was coming in too low, trying to gain height, and losing too much speed as a consequence. Hersman's account seems not to point to any particular kind of malfunction or mistake as a cause of the problems.
Since people are asking what's wrong with her, here's why: 1. She's been tasked with addressing an extremely abnormal hull-loss incident with one of the world's safest and most technologically superior aircraft. 2. There are foreigners in the room, especially fro South Korea. And when everyone "hates" the US today, a confused Journalist able to twist the story is a nightmare. 3. Three people died. And another 187 injured. It's sad... So you're gonna cry a little..
Asiana flight 214 crew was most likely DRUNK or Drugged ... but we will never know for sure because US authorities were not allowed to test the pilots for alcohol or drugs. Shouldn't one of the outcomes of this tragedy have been to not allow airplanes to enter US Airspace without a consent of the flight crew to submit to such tests?
What i wanted to say is that almost never is ONLY pilot's error, they have to seek for what caused the to pilots make a mistake, becouse one cause shoud not crash a plane.
This crash occurred from HUMAN ERROR where the pilot(s) made a big mistake & s/he did not follow its target air speed of 137 k in order to approach the runway 28L normally/accurately. The pilot must have set the engine power/throttle at 50% initially in order to maintain 137 k constant. Therefore, the engine power/throttle must NOT have been at idle! during its flight time. It is the pilot(s)’ fault led the flight 214 into disaster, and wise & just decisions must be made from NTSB and FAA.
as deepstructure says they simultaneously go down all paths with different teams. as far as the armchair sleuth community can tell, the crew never established a stabilized decent and it appears that the pilot in command had less than 50 hours on type. some discussion of the FLCH trap as a possible cause as well.
I like that lady. Good communicator, her response is polite but firm and factual.
Absolutely right. These are real professionals. Deborah Hersman is obviously a very impressive person, with a reputation for intelligence, knowledge, and thoroughness. We're lucky to have her in this position, because these investigations make us all safer.
I wish more states would act on her recommendations on distracted driving. This woman knows from whence she speaks, an expert on transportation safety. Too much of the country is still ignoring her in this regard.
This lady is excellent speaker... stating the facts without adding own opinion and very confident
Yes, the ILS was OTS. Has been for a while due to construction. But flight crew had PAPI lights on the left side of the runway at the TDZ which gives them visual reference to proper glideslope.
I think that any media outlet that reports speculation and not facts should NOT be allowed to attend another press conference. That would help keep the media from just throwing out speculation just for ratings
She's being businesslike and as impartial as possible. its what you want from someone in her job. She's not a politician.
Per CVR: "The sound of the stick shaker occurs approx. 4 sec. before impact." No comment on whether the FDR recorded activation of the stick shaker. Only FDR info mentioned was, "During the approach, the data indicate that the throttles were at idle, and airspeed was slowed below the target airspeed. The throttles are advanced a few sec. before impact, and the engines appear to respond normally." Target airspeed of 137 kts was heard on the CVR. Airspeed was "significantly below 137 knots."
Do you guys consider all possibilities, and is pilot error usually the last factor?
NTSB seems to be one of the few American government agencies left that still has its act together.
Relative to the ILS outage - Glideslope was out, the localizer was not. The localizer gives you lineup info relative to Rwy C/L, but no descent, i.e. glideslope info.
when a woman is smart and educated she has the audience full attention
What I read online was that the pilots accidently thought that the autothrust feature of the autopilot was still activated and therefore was taking care of the speed, when in fact it was not activated and that is why the throttles were at idle as mentioned by the chairman. It seems that the process of the crash happened the same way as the British Airways one at Heathrow, except that the cause was different.
They were most likely hand flying..STAB trim is not automatic, unless the A/P is engaged. In approach configuration A/S is controlled by the autothrottles (Or manually, using throttles), but the fact that they were 30K below VREF? (This news just coming out) is indication that A/T were disconnected too. And, crew were late to realize it, for some reason. VREF/Target speed is calculated by the FMS, (based on actual weight) and it was heard discussed in the checklist, during Approach set-up.
If the pilots were hand-flying the approach, could they still have controlled airspeed with the autopilot, and would they have had automatic stabilizer trim while hand-flying, even if setting throttles manually? Could it be they entered the wrong approach speed into the AP? Btw, I noticed there was no mention of whether all pitot-static systems were functioning properly and giving the same data.
I am asking if pilot error usually one of the last things they think was the cause. Do they usually try all mechanical troubles before considering pilot error?
AT was "armed" meaning it was ready but not necessarily activated. However, the article you read seem to be hasty. The activation of AT was uncertain and the investigation was still ongoing. There was no conclusive evidence to say that the AT was inactive.
Aviation is a special field. Cockpits are usually out of people's reach so are the black box and recordings. They are usually classified. I am with you that important parts of recordings should be played to the public. However, considering the quality of the media today, I suppose that would only arouse more chaos.
Would be nice if they could upload it in the correct aspect ratio.
You're right, but in his defense, if I read correctly, the ILS was out of service. I think that they will find that to be a contributing factor BUT NOT the cause. As always it's just IMHO
She keeps emphasizing that 28 left, but didn't the crash occur on 28 Right?
nidurnevets crash occurred on 28L
Doesn't current technololgy permit the tower and the aircraft to warn the pilots of errors in glideslope or speed on approach well before the point of nonrecovery?
Could the accident have been prevented if the ILS sensors were in operation AND linked to an early warning system for the pilots?
Granted, the pilots were on visual approach, but systems need to catch human screwups.
But are there not often multiple factors leading up to CFIT incidents? Navigation errors, faulty equipment, weather, aircraft weight, icing, etc. These are often listed as "contributing factors" while the "cause" may be "failure of the pilot to maintain adequate ground clearance." (E.g., the 1996 crash of a USAF CT-43 in Croatia that killed Sec. of Comm. Ron Brown: bad weather, inoperable or missing navigation instruments on the plane, primitive navigation systems on the ground.)
Well, if the pilots think that their approach speed is 137 kph, then the reasonable assumption is that this is what their instruments are showing them. What she said is that their speed was way lower. Which implies that their instruments were faulty.
I don't understand your answer.
From wikipedia: "According to Boeing, CFIT is a leading cause of airplane accidents involving the loss of life, causing over 9,000 deaths since the beginning of the commercial jet age.[3] CFIT was identified as a cause of 25% of USAF Class A Mishaps between 1993 and 2002."
ILS was definitely out of service but if you are a pilot of any type of airplane, you should be able to successfully make a visual landing on a clear day with no weather.
yes there is always a chain of events that leads to a crash like this but every single link can be human error. the ILS had been out of service and probably 20 other asiana crews had landed the same type of jet at SFO successfully while the ILS was down.
The DFDR shows the shaker activated. Does the CVR back that up? If so, then the pilots need to consider a career change. Not being a jet pilot, I can't speak to having things at idle on final. That's how you do it in a prop job, but as we all know, a C-152 does not a 777 make...
No worries mate, I'm not knocking your opinion... just giving mine. In a perfect world it would never be pilot error we would hope!
she did an excellent job! i want her on my team
All instruments? the primary, secondary and the third instrument? All of which are independent.
It means they allowed airspeed to drop way bellow target speed.....the pilot was manually throttleling the engines !
Were you there?
Agreed. Also, from experience I can say that it is a common trend on visual approaches to the 28L/R runways to tend towards too high, if the crew is not cognizant and staying "ahead" of the airplane. This sometimes occurs because of the way ATC "slots" the arrivals..but the DFDR will be useful.
Based solely on Prelim, this seems to be a classic un-stabilized approach that went too far. Engines at Flight Idle below 1,000 feet? Poor airmanship, poor planning. Stick shaker? Unforgiveable!!
Right. I feel like many pilots become too reliant on the autopilot system and perhaps lose some of that pilots instant when a problem occurs.
Is it just me or is she implying pilot error at 4:28?
Yeah they are really careful with what they say before knowing the answer 100%.
One factor shoud not crash a plane, so pilot error only is almost never the only cause.
And she is gorgeous
I'll add that I've never trained on the B777, but its Flight Deck layout is quite similar to the B767-400, on which I have experience. Not exactly same, since the B767 common type rating with B757 requires them to behave similarly. However, the AutoFlight logic on all current Boeings is very similar, just minor differences. (777 has 2 A/T, for instance).
Pitot/static problems, very doubtful. 3 independent systems. The fact that the stick shaker activated is pretty damning for the crew.
Most of these crashes are a result of multiple failures
Something like 70% of all fatal aviation related accident were either a result of pilot error a combination of poor circumstances and pilot error.
If you listened to the chairman they don't "think" anything is first or last. They follow the evidence and see where it leads.
Pilot error is often the cause. These days you have to worry about pilots becoming poor at hand flying the aircraft because they relying so much on automation. These pilots had almost 10,000 hours of experience each - but it's hard to say if they are good stick and rudder pilots and how much they rely on automation. Preliminary data on this one sounds like it's all pilot error.
It helps that accident investigation is almost a politics-free zone.
Do you say that because the NTSB has the positive role of keeping the masses safe vs. telling individuals what to do? Many greedy people do need to be told what to do, e.g. regulations that right-wingers whine about.
I think the government is just a collection of ordinary people trying to do the right thing. Some get lazy, others excel. None can please all Americans. Armchair critics who claim they'd do a "better job" enjoy the luxury of not having to prove it.
Yes, 137 knots of course, sorry. Maybe the problem was coming in too low, trying to gain height, and losing too much speed as a consequence. Hersman's account seems not to point to any particular kind of malfunction or mistake as a cause of the problems.
visual approach no AP, no A/THR possibly in FLCH or VNAV below 400 ft ....no protection for stall, no a/THR wake up possible...
I am mistaken It was 28 left
Since people are asking what's wrong with her, here's why:
1. She's been tasked with addressing an extremely abnormal hull-loss incident with one of the world's safest and most technologically superior aircraft.
2. There are foreigners in the room, especially fro South Korea. And when everyone "hates" the US today, a confused Journalist able to twist the story is a nightmare.
3. Three people died. And another 187 injured. It's sad... So you're gonna cry a little..
Looks good to me. I think you should look inward.
look up how many accidents are classified as CFIT and you will change your mind about that comment.
Asiana flight 214 crew was most likely DRUNK or Drugged ... but we will never know for sure because US authorities were not allowed to test the pilots for alcohol or drugs. Shouldn't one of the outcomes of this tragedy have been to not allow airplanes to enter US Airspace without a consent of the flight crew to submit to such tests?
And why do you believe this? What evidence do you have?
Of course it's pilot error with an approach speed that slow ... too little too late
What i wanted to say is that almost never is ONLY pilot's error, they have to seek for what caused the to pilots make a mistake, becouse one cause shoud not crash a plane.
This crash occurred from HUMAN ERROR where the pilot(s) made a big mistake & s/he did not follow its target air speed of 137 k in order to approach the runway 28L normally/accurately. The pilot must have set the engine power/throttle at 50% initially in order to maintain 137 k constant. Therefore, the engine power/throttle must NOT have been at idle! during its flight time. It is the pilot(s)’ fault led the flight 214 into disaster, and wise & just decisions must be made from NTSB and FAA.
Yes, professor. they should contact you immediately.
Calm down kid, it's just the internet.
Ho Lee Fuk....
as deepstructure says they simultaneously go down all paths with different teams. as far as the armchair sleuth community can tell, the crew never established a stabilized decent and it appears that the pilot in command had less than 50 hours on type. some discussion of the FLCH trap as a possible cause as well.
you got that right
Why does she talks like she's on something ???? watching her is like watching paint dry , OMG
It's not her job to entertain you. Go watch a gangster video.