A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

[Colonel Sanders]

CID nicely showcases my point. The knee-jerk reaction
to this accident, of the non-pilots like him, will be to forbid
airline pilots from ever turning off any of the automation
under any circumstances, because the pilots are no longer
competent to (hand) fly the aircraft any more.

Those are the guys pushing for zero pilots in the cockpit.
Not one. Zero. To them, pilots are the problem - not
the solution, when stuff doesn't work any more, or as
planned. Because of their lack of real world experience,
they think that their software can handle every situation.

They would be funny, if there wasn't so much future
tragedy associated with their being so wrong.

[2.5milefinal]

When flying my ears are tuned into what my engines are doing and I also look at engine instruments as part of my scan. I know that the there is not a whole lot of engine noise in the front of these big jets but are you big jet pilots not scanning the engine instruments? ...if the auto-throttles aren't holding the proper power shouldn't someone notice.
REFERENCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Ai ... light_1951

[Inverted2]

Apparently after they crashed the flight attendant asked if they should evacuate the burning/smashed aircraft. They initially said no!

These guys might have 10,000 hours of watching their planes fly themselves and sleeping in rest bunks but they are an embarassment!

And if I had a dollar for every time I got a flash of light reflected off a polished AA aircraft or the water I'd be a millionaire.

[CID]

you can bet they didn't program it into their FMS...

Bad comparison. The FMS really isn't a showcase of automation. Certainly not in the context of this discussion.

Those are the guys pushing for zero pilots in the cockpit.
Not one. Zero. To them, pilots are the problem

Not completely accurate but that never stopped you from summing up someone’s comments with ridiculous labels or assumptions.

I absolutely do not think “zero” pilots is the answer. I am simply acknowledging that there are many different types of aircraft. Some are as simple as can be and can be flown safely and consistently without ANY automation. Think of a J3 Cub flying out of a farmers field in Class E airspace.

Now transition into Class D or C and automation suddenly appears. Not in the stick and rudder department but in ATC. A great deal of automation has been developed in ATC from simple ATCRBS to TCAS that relies on other aircraft being equipped with transponders.

But this discussion is about airliners. Machines that would be nearly impossible to operate safely and consistently with 2 crew if there wasn't a tremendous about of automation from engine start to landing. Think of how many engines have been saved from bad starts by automating the engine start process. Think about the substantial decrease in mid-airs collisions and CFIT through the use of TCAS and TAWS. How about control augmentation and FBW and how those systems have prevented the “bending” of airframes due to over-control stresses.

Maybe that American Airlines A300 would not have crashed if there was an extra level of automation that prevented that catastrophic rudder deflection. Maybe those two jokers who decided to fly their CRJ to it's published ceiling would have still been around with some automation that prevented them from doing something so stupid.

Again, we’re not talking about programming a Pitts to do aerobatics, we’re talking about high performance large aircraft that absolutely rely on advanced technology to operate safely. Think about an F-15. We all know that if the flight control computer dies you might as well bail. That airplane has amazing flight capabilities, none of which are possible without a high degree of automation.

Now let’s address how I'm apparently “10 years behind”. ANY pilot training program MUST include emphasis on pilot skills. That’s a no-brainer and if automation is eroding those skills that needs to be addressed. But....flying in airliners is safer now than it ever has been and although global flight hours have grown exponentially the number of accidents has remained steady. Even with the “new” crop of apparently mindless pilots that the world is producing. And if you think that automation is not the primary reason for this, you are woefully misinformed.

CRM of course is a huge factor as well. CRM development has helped airlines (yes even here in North America) change their attitude from “captain is king and should never be challenged or questioned” to “let’s work together efficiently and safely”. But think about it. CRM is less about stick and rudder and “flying” the airplane and more about working together as a team to “operate” the airplane.

[Indanao]

How could automation be responsible for there being , " Mindless Pilots " ? Airlines hire who they want. You are apparently misinformed.

[Gino Under]

CID
Very accurately and eloquently said. I, for one, completely agree with you.

The level of automation and the capabilities it gives the pilot is impressive but many here seem to have either not yet grasped that reality or understand why it needs to be managed. Especially in these new generation aircraft.

Exercising the scan, hands and feet are best left to the real aircraft instead of a simulator. Most airlines are restricted by training curriculum and a 4 hour limit as far as sim time is concerned. Some even discourage hand flying the big jets for passenger comfort.
I'd love to see less of a focus on handling emergencies (especially the V1 cuts) and more emphasis on understanding, managing, and optimizing the use of automation. Manual flying skills are very important and shouldn't be left to atrophy but, mastery of the automation is the greater problem today based on recent accidents. Because automation is not only here to stay, its only going to get used more and become more capable in our everyday flying lives.

Cheers,
Gino

[YYZSaabGuy]

How could automation be responsible for there being , " Mindless Pilots " ? Airlines hire who they want. You are apparently misinformed.

You are apparently unable to read.
CID didn't say automation was responsible for "mindless pilots" - and he used the term "mindless" ironically, by the way.
His point was that automation is the primary factor in improved airline safety, as demonstrated by the increase
in flight hours vs. a steady number of accident occurrences. Asiana was the first mainline loss in the U.S. in what, 11+ years?
I would've thought a point that obvious would've been impossible for anyone to argue with.

[Indanao]

Quite right, misread. Sort of skipped over some of his stuff, as his objective seems more to be perceived as holier-than-thou, politically correct, and all that. That doesn't address any issue. Automation is a good thing, but doesn't replace humans with real experience. And it is Culturally related when it comes to a Country's Airline hiring practices. They don't become mindless due to automation, but rather their lack of real experience started them off that way and they had no chance to improve.

[iflyforpie]

you can bet they didn't program it into their FMS...

Bad comparison. The FMS really isn't a showcase of automation. Certainly not in the context of this discussion.

Ok, that might have been a little off the mark, but nowhere near as far off the mark as this... in the context of this discussion.

But this discussion is about airliners. Machines that would be nearly impossible to operate safely and consistently with 2 crew if there wasn't a tremendous about of automation from engine start to landing. Think of how many engines have been saved from bad starts by automating the engine start process.

This isn't about starting engines, this is about a plane that fell from the sky because of insufficient airspeed and power on approach in day VFR conditions.

Think about the substantial decrease in mid-airs collisions and CFIT through the use of TCAS and TAWS. How about control augmentation and FBW and how those systems have prevented the “bending” of airframes due to over-control stresses.

Yes, but again it has nothing to do with this accident.

Maybe that American Airlines A300 would not have crashed if there was an extra level of automation that prevented that catastrophic rudder deflection. Maybe those two jokers who decided to fly their CRJ to it's published ceiling would have still been around with some automation that prevented them from doing something so stupid.

Those were the results of stupid pilots making stupid decisions. It doesn't matter what kind of aircraft you fly or how much automation there is, you can still push it too far.

Here is an example of an old manual aircraft that pilots pushed too far...

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 19590815-0

Here is an example of an automated aircraft (with several very experienced pilots on board) that wound up as a smoking hole in the ground because the pilots allowed the airspeed to decay after trying to get the automated systems to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Ind ... Flight_129

The additional crew members that were replaced by automation weren't factors in accidents. Syncing and tying generators or monitoring air conditioning packs or controlling cabin descent rate did not factor into an A300 losing its tail or a 777 falling out of the sky. Neither did losing comm on a balky HF radio or entering the wrong data in the INS or not being able to take star shots.

Like I said before, all it would take is ONE pilot who knew how to keep a proper airspeed no matter what... and we would not be having this discussion.

Just about every single accident that has happened recently is as a result of poor hand flying skills. Air France 447, Air France 358, Colgan 3407, American 331, Fed Ex Flight 80... it goes on and on and on....

[CID]

holier-than-though, politically correct

Indanao, you are obviously not interested in buying what I'm selling. You're just trying to poke holes in my statements. The fact that you "skipped over" much of my statement pretty much proves that. The unfortunate thing here however is that you perceive this as an "us against them" issue. You feel that pilots are being attacked. You're not alone.

When accidents happen and they are discussed, pilots view failures in automation as evidence that good flying skills and the ability to override automation is the key to aviation safety. (Yes Colonel Sanders I'm talking to you) Engineers view failures in automation as evidence that the mechanism (the manner in which the automation is integrated) needs to be improved or a whole new level of automation needs to be added.

In the end both "opinions" result in safer skies. But let's look in to the very reason automation has been steadily introduced into airliners.

Statistically, the majority of aircraft accidents (not only airliners) are due to what is loosely referred to as "pilot error". The majority of THOSE accidents were caused by the flight crew deviating from the published operating procedures, limitations and operating rules.

Human beings in a group have this nasty habit of interpreting even simple instructions differently. We have different comprehension skills, we have prejudices, we have notions and ideas all formed over long periods of time that sometimes result in an overpowering urge to apply "common sense" to the operation of an airplane. "Common sense" is quote common but when it deviates from established procedures, it rarely makes ANY sense.

Automation, be it in the form of a simple solenoid that prevents passenger from opening a door in flight or a complex computer that controls the flight path, doesn't suffer from that interpretation variability or from the "common sense" bug. The components do what they were designed to do or programmed to do with a (usually) well defined probability of failure.

The result (echoing my earlier statement) is that airliners are getting safer every year statistically, even in light of the apparent decline in stick and rudder skills. Does this mean that automation has such a positive effect on aviation safety that it is outpacing the ill effects of poor pilots in large airliners? I don't know but it makes you think. Maybe those that are saying airline pilots lack basic skills don't understand that they are talking apples and oranges. (again).

Colonel Sanders, you seem to be quite vocal in this subject and I sort of wonder why? From what I understand you've never flown airliners. Are you concerned with the fact that a fresh right seat pilot on an Airbus wouldn't be able to perform an outside loop? And if so, why?

Automation and aerobatics don't exactly go hand in hand. And the only thing that your Pitts and a 777 have in common is that they fly through the air. Although I'm an airshow enthusiast (I like fast and loud) I don't really care for the aerobatics or the "death defying" stuff like wing walking. I don't think it has any practical purpose and the risk just isn't worth the "entertainment" value. But that's me. I can't speak for anyone else. Now obviously, if a high degree of automation where introduced, you could likely program your Pitts and send it on it's way without a pilot to perform all those gyrations but what would be the point? The people who watch those demonstrations are the same ones who go to Nascar. They want to see a human do something risky.

When I fly on an airliner, that's not what I'm looking for. I want my ride to be as uneventful as possible with the least amount of risk. That means, load this thing up with as much automation as possible (designed and certified to the latest standards) and provide the crew with proper training.

[pdw]

This accident may well be one where Automation failed, and basic flying skills were needed. It was unusual to be visual, after all.

There was discussion before about 10kt downwind landings permitted, where a preferred landing direction at a longer flat-land prairie airport one particular afternoon was denied by ATC (transmission overheard), ... apparently due to the gust increasing beyond 20kts. In checking this out, it's clear the turn-off for quickest-access to the terminal also happened to be more suitable from that direction.

Here at KFSO was an 80degree crosswind mid-runway, a meager 6knots recorded at the surface station for the ATIS, 170V24 with a landing direction of 297degT. Here's the example of a newer factor creeping in to cause the av-accident (ie: see the Bali Airport's mid-runway turnoffs) where cutting the runway-roll shorter (unspoken aim ) means targeting a threshold with less taxi-time in mind, which if true opens up the PIC for stretching their airspeed SHORT cause someone else (or automation) was dictating. Here the crew makes the runway threshold only by stalling it there; in quoting an earlier post (ie 'they probably needed to overshoot at 1400') ...

the accident sequence started long before eye to wheel height would be a factor

... which is more from a 'stick and rudder experience' point of view, ... the computor unfortunately couldn't tell it was high time to overshoot.

EDIT: To correct the quote about "overshoot"

PS: was going to reply here to the 'seabreeze post' ... but it disappeared.
There is a LO out over the ocean; the direction of landing is towards it and lee of the mountains to the east, and little cloud at "1600 feet" from 'less moisture in the air' moving overhead from the East ... the downwind component for the late approach. No "significant winds" at the surface (station pressure 1010hPa) yet the accident actually happens prior to the 28L threshold somewhere between 1007-1008hPA where the air currents are different than the airport terminal. KSFO/"210@6kts 170V240" is almost 2 miles west-of and approx 3-4hPA below where the accident sequence is recognized by the pilots ("103kts"), and 3 miles west of where it actually began (at "500 feet" / "134 knots").

[CID]

iflyforpie,

Tsk tsk. You call me out on statement you say are irrelevant (but are related to the automation side-discussion) then you proceed to provide us with unrelated anecdotes.

Like I said before, all it would take is ONE pilot who knew how to keep a proper airspeed no matter what... and we would not be having this discussion.

But you just stated that the accidents I sited were caused by "stupid pilots" making "stupid decisions". One of the intents of automation is to take critical decisions out of the hands of pilots regardless if they are "stupid".

A simple improvement to the rudder limiting system and required rudder control force on that A300 (automation) would have prevented one of those "stupid" pilots from deflecting it to a degree that caused catastrophic failure. So what would you put your money on? Depending on hundreds of pilots to never exceed the published rudder deflection limits or a device that would prevent them from doing it in the first place?

[SheriffPatGarrett]

Automation "improve safety"...???

Jeez, when any lunatic Iranian Mullahs can commandeer the latest pilotless aircraft,
you want to ride in one of these? Because the Airbus "philosophy" or more accurately "Sophistry"
is getting dangerously close. Their advocates here are comically weak.

Yes they can ban poor countries' Airlines like Santo Dominguo or these African ones like Congo,
but try to ban Japan, India, China or Korea! It will never happen despite of their regarding CRM as a joke
because it look more and more like "they" got the run of things....

Hum...if that fin(NOT rudder) had been built properly, not by a crooked company that make it's own law...
THAT was another huge cover up!..blame the crew...by Airbus:
(It failed at low speed from near normal inputs)

Weak fins and engine mounts...why a DC-8 can go full reverse in flight at VMO
while this break an Airbus wing at ANY speed?

[Flying Nutcracker]

This thread just got derailed. Misinterpretations of posts, skipping parts of posts, judgemental conclusions on misinterpretations is probably in the same neighboor hood as a poor scan...

Just the facts, 'mam, just the facts.

Not holier than anyone, just lost interest...

[goldeneagle]

Discussion and posssibly insight into a major accident, somehow gets derailed into yet another boeing vs airbus pissing match. Par for the course on AvCanada. Those with short memories, will focus on some recent Airbus incidents. Those with longer memories, can still remember a period when 737s were falling out of the sky on a regular basis, and nobody could figure out if it was a rudder or thrust reverser problem. And those of us with lots of grey hair, can still remember a time when twin otters were falling down over reverse issues, one in the harbour in downtown vancouver with lots of folks watching.

Bottom line is, they all have issues at times, and, it's more about identifying and fixing, than getting into a 'mine is bigger than yours' pissing match, but, some folks just cant see past that kind of mud slinging.

You guys can piss upwind all day long, but, the trend is clear. Navigator was first, flight engineer was the next to go. PF is _almost_ fully replaced by the boxes today, but not quite. The real question tho, which is going next, PF or ATC. I'll bet on the seat in center as the next vacant seat in the system, it's going to happen before the PF goes, and the PNF is here for a long time to come.

As far as the Boeing vs Airbus pissing matches, they will be around for a long time to come, and are regularily starting to be yet another reason to avoid reading threads on AvCan that go beyond a page, because that's ultimately where they will end up.

[Indanao]

holier-than-though, politically correct

Indanao, you are obviously not interested in buying what I'm selling. You're just trying to poke holes in my statements. The fact that you "skipped over" much of my statement pretty much proves that.

Human beings in a group have this nasty habit of interpreting even simple instructions differently. We have different comprehension skills, we haveand ideas all formed over long periods of time ...

That is because of your original Rant about Culture. How can you claim superior knowledge over experience Crew who have been to their training centers, and express their experience ? As you say, " Human beings in a group have this nasty habit of interpreting even simple instructions differently. ..... have different comprehension skills, ( and ideas ) all formed over a long period of time." So their Cultural tendencies to advance their own people from high school to left seat without any real experience isn't a factor ? OR, are you just trying to be Politically Correct ? How does that address the issue of Culture? I am connected to Asia through marriage, property ownership there, and my son is in 3rd year University there - but, I can still, " call a spade a spade ". Without being a Racist.

[Driving Rain]

South Korea has the highest suicide rate among OECD nations, 3 times higher than Canada.
I'm sure culture plays a roll in the ranking.
http://klyker.com/countries-with-highes ... 11-photos/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

[Meatservo]

Even accepting the advantages of complex automation and the basic good sense of S.O.P., a plane with competent, well-trained and morally responsible pilots on board who are capable of operating the aircraft in all phases of flight as long as the aerodynamic controls and engines and basic instruments are still functioning, is safer than one which does not. Surely you can all agree with that?

I mean, regardless of whether stability comes from a computerized augmentation system, or merely aerodynamic virtue, there is still a stick-like device that can be used to adjust the craft's attitude, pedals to adjust its directional attitude to the relative wind, and levers to control the "push" from the engines... Being able to correctly manipulate these in order to control the craft's rate of climb and descent, its energy level and which way it's pointing should be fairly fundamental, no? Maybe I'm not understanding the discussion, but I don't think this has to do with aerobatics, or how much more comfortable or easy on the workload the automatics are. If an average pilot can take off, land, steer, shoot an instrument approach or a visual one in a king air or an Avro 748 or something, surely there's no real safety case to be made for a heavy jet pilot not being able to do the same thing? Isn't it basic principles? I think I could almost stand behind full automation if it turns out that pilots can't handle an aeroplane under normal circumstances, and aren't generally thought to be competent to do it, let alone a possible emergency scenario. I mean why would we even WANT to be there if we felt we weren't necessary? Don't we have better things to do?

[CID]

South Korea has the highest suicide rate among OECD nations, 3 times higher than Canada.
I'm sure culture plays a roll in the ranking.

The infant mortality rate in the US is higher than Canada. And Mexico. And Cuba. And Korea. The suicide rate in North America for dentists and air traffic controllers is through the roof when compared to the average Korean. Suicide rates among Canada's aboriginal community make Korea's rate look insignificant.

Unemployment in South Korea is about half the rate of Canada's unemployment rate. Korean born students consistently achieve grades above Canadian students in post secondary education. South Korea is the fifth largest automobile producer in the world and THE largest ship building country in the world.

Now unless you can tell me what the specific deficiency of these accident pilots was and how exactly that relates to proven known traits of male Korean pilots with exactly the same background as the accident pilots then you have nothing.

Just like I don't know if any American in particular will crash his airplane because of the suicide rate in Las Vegas. (Which also makes Korea's pale in comparison).

Egypt has one that is 1/100 Canada's rate but wasn't it an Egyptian pilot that pushed the control column down as the other pilot tried to pull up in that 767 that crashed in the ocean? Funny. Suicide rate doesn't seem to be a big factor.

Meatservo, agreed.

If you have a 777 with a well trained crew, it is safer than one with a poorly trained crew. But that doesn't mean that the crew must have spent time in the bush or with a tail dragger or doing aerobatics or whatever. It just means they must be able to fly that particular airplane safely.

[Indanao]

No. It means they should have some real life flying experience under their belt before being trained as Airline Pilots which is the subject you continue to ignore.

[CID]

Indanao, so you're saying that an airline pilot is supposed to be the most skilled pilot in the industry? Real Life? Are airlines imaginary?

[Indanao]

No Airline Pilots need not be super human. Just know what they are doing - learned only through experience. If you flew, you would know that some things gotta be learned hands on. Not from the right seat under ideal circumstances with a mentor correcting your every move. How many short field landings, occasions to use a side slip, and deviations from intended flight plan to unknown airports will you get from the right seat? Fuel management is learned when it's your ass on the line - not just assumed to be correct because, " they said so ".

If you don't have the experience - don't comment. ( just my opinion )

[sky's the limit]

On second thought, carry on...

[Cat Driver]

When we get away from the infighting here between anonymous posters we are left with some known facts.

A modern well equipped jet airliner was allowed to land short of a runway that was visible from at least ten miles on a clear day with no significant wind factor.

And not only was it landed short of the runway it was at stick shaker speed at the same time.

It may have been suicide or the bright light that the pilot flying claims blinded him that was only seen by him...we don't really know yet.

But we can be reasonably sure that this accident was truly a big one as far as what we will see coming down the line with regard to how airplanes will be flown after all the new rules get put together as the industry tries to compensate for incompetent crews flying commercial jets......regardless of their culture.

[bizjets101]