Boeing 777 has crash landed at San Francisco airport

[Tesseract]

Not sure of the details, but it looks like the plane is mostly in one piece with emergency slides unrolled. Fox online has live coverage, prob other channels too.


21954


21955

21956

[Knowrainknowrainbows!]

http://live.foxnews.com/#/1155606219001

Live video feed ...
KRKE

[Mike Gorman]

Strange, the landing process is largely directed by the flight systems, rate of descent, angle, speed e.t.c perhaps the captain decided to do a manual
landing to keep his skills honed, and ****ed it up? It is just that I have heard most of the flight is automatically handled these days-Fly by wire

[MadMax1]

All i get on the news channels is this story about the planes crash i know it's bad but their is no mention of the train derailment in Canada that has done way more devistation to buildings people and nature but their is no mention of it, i know it's off topic a bit but i am posting this clip so those who have not seen it yet can see it. If i am putting this in the wrong post please move it to where it should be , thanks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/07/06/quebec-train-derailment-fire.html

[KiwiElf]

Numerology aside - which is very interesting btw - there are three likely causes for the tail strike:

* Pilot error
* Wind shear
* Mechanical problem ie loss of power, avionics malfunction

Although the 777 is capable of landing on autopilot, a ground facility is also needed to do so - a "sender" and "receiver" in plain speak. Unfortunately, not the case here - it was a very "manual" landing. Work is apparently being done on the end of that particular runway and otherwise available glidescopes etc were not active, which may have contributed to the crash.

As for the numerology, interested readers may also enjoy the remarkable "coincidences" with the examples given in this article to get a better handle on where Justoneman is coming from:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?31164-The-Greatest-Conspiracy-is-in-the-Numbers

[thunder24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCSn0LqdDgE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

boeing 777 catches fire before landin... five minutes apart, other side of planet, plane goes down... same airline company...

[Jean-Marie]

In this mornings news update, Suspicious0bserver mentions two of these exact model planes having problems exactly five minutes apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCSn0LqdDgE&feature=em-uploademail

Opposite sides of the globe.

[Tesseract]

It’s interesting how the message regarding both the accident itself, and the cause, are changing quite rapidly. Initially we were told that the plane approached at a highly abnormal angle to the runway before crashing. There was a pilot on the air (ABC news I think) who was explaining that it appeared as if the pilots were using that angle to get every last meter out of a malfunctioning incoming aircraft.

Now, however, the story has changed to the plane approaching at a normal angle, but falling short of the runway by a few meters. Now, it is possible that the ‘abnormal angle’ witnesses were reporting literally the last few seconds – that is, if the pilots realised the plane was too low, gave the plane more power and changed its angle of attack to a high angle that looked unusual.

With early reports suggesting a problem with the plane itself, traders were lining up to short sell Boeing stock at the open on Monday, big time. However, the possible gap-down in the stock price, and the short selling that may take place all hinges on the accident not being due to pilot error.

So, what we have now looks like an attempt to protect Boeing, at least in the short term. Take a look at these comments on CNN today:


‘Exactly what caused the crash could take up to two years to determine, said Choi Jeong-ho, head of South Korea's Aviation Policy Bureau’

But then:


Asiana CEO and President Yoon Young-doo said there was no engine failure, to his knowledge.

So, they are ruling things out on day 1 when it’s meant to take 2 years to work it out? Both of these statements protect Boeing. We then get this:


Perhaps one of the reasons so many people survived Saturday's crash was because the Boeing 777 is built so that everybody can get off the plane within 90 seconds, even if half the doors are inoperable.

So, now it has been determined that the plane was not only not at fault – but that in fact you can thank Boeing for saving so many lives. What an amazing turnaround in less than a day and just in time for the opening bell on Monday. This will give all the fat cats a chance to exit the stock painlessly – whereby they will avoid any losses if it does turn out that there was a problem with the aircraft.

I have no idea if there was a problem with the plane or not – it is the possible attempt to protect Boeing investors (only the worst of humanity would own shares of Boeing) that I am suspicious of.

If there are any pilots here I would like to know if airliners have alarms that warn of a short approach.

[Earth Angel]

I have a great deal of personal connections to 7 and 77 and 777 and these connections have always involved tragic events that just don't seem to have occurred naturally.

wow. after you said that I added up the dates of my brothers death at age 26 and it was June 19th....6 + 1 + 9 = 16 = 1 + 6 = 7
I had always thought of 7 as a great number.....but is there a reason they say Lucky 7 ???

[ThePythonicCow]

For a little while, a second thread was merged into this. This second thread was discussing the numerology of all the 7's in this incident. I split that second thread off again, to: Boeing 777 crashes in San Francisco (The sychronicity of numbers) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?60896-Boeing-777-crashes-in-San-Francisco--The-sychronicity-of-numbers-).

As is typical for such splits, it was not entirely clean. It's not always clear which thread a post best fits in. But the focus of the two topics, one on the crash and the other on the numbers, did seem sufficiently distinct to me to justify resplitting.

[Tesseract]

The ILS integrates with the aircraft's cockpit to trigger a audible warning, retired 777 pilot Mark Weiss told CNN. "You hear a mechanical voice that says, 'too low, too low, too low.'" The ILS is "nice to have," Weiss said, "but it's not critical on the 777." There are redundant systems aboard the aircraft that would provide similar warnings if the plane was coming in too low, said Weiss, who has landed 777s hundreds of times.

From CNN. So, if not an engine failure, an alarm failure? Or maybe a zoned out pilot who did't notice the plane was too low when even the passengers did.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Fred Steeves]

I was just watching CNN live, and heard mention of a missing or destroyed engine. It doesn't sound plausible that the engine simply can't be found, as the crash was right at water's edge, and I'm fairly sure an airplane engine doesn't become obliterated in a crash. Has anyone else heard about this?

I searched online, and could not find any print stories concerning this, but every picture sure enough shows the left engine missing from the wreckage. Like the ones below.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/2-killed-182-hospitalized-as-s-korean-jet-crash-lands-in-san-francisco/2013/07/07/4d8c5e9c-e705-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/slideshows/nation-world/asiana-airlines-boeing-777-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/boeing-777-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/slideshow/20950154.cms

Also, being that I'm certainly no expert, can anyone explain to me why the right engine is also unattached, but resting forward of where it should be right next to the plane?

Often times there are very simple explanations that a layperson such as myself simply cannot see or understand, so if anyone can help me out with that I would much appreciate it.

[gripreaper]

Apparently the plane was coming in too low and the tail clipped the sea wall at the head of the runway and sheered it off. No pictures have yet been released to see if the plane had already lost one engine and was attempting to land underpowered with one engine.

As Fred has said, where is the other engine?

[Tesseract]

Also, being that I'm certainly no expert, can anyone explain to me why the right engine is also unattached, but resting forward of where it should be right next to the plane?

I also noticed the engine resting oddly in front of the wing, however if the plane were spinning [witnesses said it was] such that that side of the plane was moving backwards relative to the ground, that may explain how the engine came to rest where it did.

[avid]

There was another identical plane had severe difficulties 5 minutes before this at Athens airport - same airline, same model.
See the other thread on this - but Suspicious0bservers also noted it!

hCSn0LqdDgE

[Tesseract]

Here is video of the accident just released:

sEDZerwU7uE

[Nick Matkin]

Cu'mon folks, let's just sit and wait to see what unfolds.

The media are always over-eager to speculate, pick up and repeat incorrect information or to misinterpret what they hear, which then inevitably leads those so minded to conjure up conspiracy theories and supposed 'cover-ups' where none exist.

Let's just give everyone a break, not point any fingers and see what we will see in due course.

And as MadMax1 said in post number 4, what happened in Canada is much worse.

Nick

[shadowstalker]

Police Prevent passenger of SF Plane Crash from telling his account

Published on Jul 7, 2013
at first it seemed as though this was just an unfortunate accident, however this video appears to suggest that something is going on that the MSM is not telling us. Please fill in the blanks if you folks have uncovered anything about this particular passenger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBrOZAlBYMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBrOZAlBYMc

[Earth Angel]

very interesting.......I know we are often accused of jumping to conspiracy conclusions, but if this is just a normal ' accident' why are they so intent on getting him away from the media?? afraid a little truth will slip through ???


Police Prevent passenger of SF Plane Crash from telling his account

Published on Jul 7, 2013
at first it seemed as though this was just an unfortunate accident, however this video appears to suggest that something is going on that the MSM is not telling us. Please fill in the blanks if you folks have uncovered anything about this particular passenger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBrOZAlBYMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBrOZAlBYMc

[KiwiElf]

CGI Animation of what happened (so far) here with various other links:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/california-plane-experts-cause/index.html

Another explanation here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/california-plane-crash-questions/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

"What appears to be the Boeing 777's right engine is detached from the wing and wedged against the right side of the fuselage. Another engine is a considerable distance from the fuselage in a grassy area to the right of runway 28L. This appears to be the left engine."

Some other points:
* The second 777 was not from the same airline

* The engines are mounted on pylons and designed to snap off with such an impact to lessen the chance of explosion or fire - it's not an infallible design feature.

* Yes, there are glidescope cockpit warnings telling you if you're too high or too low - that still requires a working ground system and pilot input to "fix" - not all runways have these, and this particular one at Runway 28L was [apparently] not operating due to runway maintenence, as mentioned earlier. (However, a good pilot shouldn't absolutely need it in VFR (Visual Flight Rules) weather conditions - as is the case here - it's an "aid", not a necessity ;))

* Jet engines do not provide instant power unlike a piston engine - there is quite a delay in "spooling them up" especially at low speeds as in this case. Airliners of this size have enormous inertia - they cant "react" with the same speed as a small 4-seat Cessna would.

* Aircraft typically land at their stalling speed plus 20%. In a 777 that would be around 140 knots (161 mph). The Cessna, by comparison is about 60 knots (69 mph). This varies with weight, airport altitude and temperature. Generally you're aiming to touchdown on or just after the "piano key" markings on the runway - approx 500 - 1,000 feet from the actual start of the runway. Urmmm... this aircraft hit well before the start of the runway.

[MadMax1]

Their are far to many inconsistentcees with the stories from passengers and eye witnesses i watched this story reports half of yesterday and it constantly changed depending on who the journalist was talking too, the man from the 8th floor of a building said he seen clearly what happened and according to him the tail did not break off like some of the passengers have said. He stated that that back landing gear hit the sea wall first not the tail then the tail hit the ground and peeled off a bit further down. Then you have passengers giving a different statement to the news reporters, when people are in a state of panic after an incident like this their recall becomes foggy thus why all the different versions. The only way to really know what happened is to either talk to the pilot co pilot and navigater or listen to the flight crash data box. Further speculating from the media will just be a load of bulldust as they keep the story hyped up i suggest we all keep focused on the bigger picture and let the speculaters and sheep keep believing what the media is spoon feeding them.

[KiwiElf]

Agreed MadMax - they're largely spouting about something they know little about - Passengers and journalists are rarely pilots, and eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. So far, no-one has produced footage close enough from different angles to reliably ascertain the cause - and there are usually "other contributing factors". Let's just wait for the crash report ;)

[ghostrider]

as for the asian passenger talking to the media, I guess in america in san fran you have the right to do exactly what the police tell you to do ... if the police were being interviewed and someone butts in, all hell breaks loose ...what the hell happend to free speech ??? bull dung, sanitizing information again and again, they can't float their narrative if a passenger onboard gets the word out first ... very telling ...his account goes on all the news stations , then the police give a statement of a diffferent angle somebody's lying ... Why ??? Why control what went down ??? the plane crashed , they can't change that one ...could the pilot have crashed on purpose ??? seems to me they would want all the accounts out and on record , people forget, get it while it's fresh ...

[KiwiElf]

Asiana pilot asked to abort landing before fatal crash
AFP Updated July 8, 2013, 6:05 pm

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/17905570/asiana-pilot-asked-to-abort-landing-before-fatal-crash/

Investigators seek cause of deadly plane crash in San Francisco

The search is underway in the first full day of the investigation into the cause of the Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 that crashed in San Francisco, killing 2 and injuring more than 180. Karen Hendren reports.

Asiana pilot asked to abort landing before fatal crash

Video at Link

SAN FRANCISCO, United States (AFP) - The Asiana Airlines jet that crashed at San Francisco airport was traveling much slower than recommended, US investigators said, as the carrier confirmed that the pilot had still been in training.

The flight data recorder showed that as the Boeing 777 approached the runway its pilots were warned that the aircraft was likely to stall and asked to abort the landing.

Seconds later, the plane smashed into the ground, bursting into flames, killing two people and injuring 182 others.

The request to abort the landing was captured on the cockpit voice recorder 1.5 seconds before the plane crashed, National Transportation Safety Board chairwoman Deborah Hersman, who is leading the probe, said on Sunday.

Her announcement came minutes after a video obtained by CNN confirmed that the aircraft, carrying more than 300 people, clipped a seawall short of the airport and skidded on its belly on to the runway.

The footage showed the nose up with the rear of the plane hitting the ground first, before it rolled on to the concrete, abruptly bounced upward and then spun around 180 degrees.

The two passengers who died were teenage Chinese girls.

Asked about the speed at which the plane was traveling, Hersman, whose NTSB team is examining the wreckage, stressed that it was well below the recommended 137 knots.

"We have to take another look at the raw data and corroborate it with radar and air traffic information to make sure we have a very precise speed. But again, we are not talking about a few knots here or there. We're talking about a significant amount of speed below 137," she said.

The crash sheared off the plane's landing gear and ripped the tail off. Large portions of the fuselage were burned out in the massive fire that erupted.

The findings came as Asiana said pilot Lee Kang-Kuk, 46, had 43 hours of experience in piloting the 777 and was still undergoing training, although he was had more than 9,000 hours of total flight time under his belt.

"It's true that Lee was on transition training for the Boeing 777", an Asiana spokeswoman told AFP on Monday. However, he was accompanied by an experienced trainer, who acted as co-pilot.

On Sunday, Yoon Young-Doo, the CEO of Asiana Airlines, based in Seoul, said "currently we understand that there are no engine or mechanical problems" with the plane, which was bought in 2006.

NTSB chair Hersman refused to comment on whether the flight crew was at fault, noting that the pilots would be interviewed and stressing that it was day one of the investigation.

However she said the plane's low speed triggered an automatic device called a "stick shaker", which warns pilots that a plane is about to stall. The warning came four seconds before the crash -- 2.5 seconds before one of the pilots tried to abort the landing.

Hersman said: "There was a call out for a go around from one of the crew at 1.5 seconds prior to impact. And the call out is a -- is communication between the crew that they want to go around, that means they want to not land but apply power and go around and try to land again."

Analysts said the pilot's request came far too late.

Asiana Flight 214 originated in Shanghai, and had 307 people on board -- 291 passengers and 16 crew -- after it stopped to pick up passengers in Seoul.

Several of the injured were still in critical condition or unconscious, said the San Francisco General Hospital.

Doctors saw "a huge amount of spine fracture, some of which include paralysis," Margaret Knudson, interim surgery chief at the hospital, told reporters.

Some 15 or 16 had yet to regain consciousness, she said.

The passengers included 141 Chinese nationals, 77 South Koreans and 64 Americans.

In total, 123 people aboard the flight escaped unharmed, US officials said.

The accident sent shares in Asiana tumbling as much as 6.4 percent on Monday, with analysts warning that the disaster could have a long-term negative impact on the firm.

The twin-engine Boeing 777 is one of the world's most popular long-distance planes, often used for flights of 12 hours or more.
It was the first fatal crash involving an Asiana passenger plane since June 1993, when a Boeing 737 operated by the carrier crashed into a mountain in South Korea, killing 68.

[Maia Gabrial]

Was this today or yesterday? If yesterday, then Boeing 777 crashed on 7/7....

[Maia Gabrial]

BTW has anyone heard if Snowden is alive? On 2012thebigpicture they suspect that maybe he was on this plane.... Anyone know for sure?

[Spartacus]

Some reporters need to check their sources. Oops...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sat3m3cj-u8

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Here's an animated reconstruction of the accident. Show's you very accurately what happened:

JhoAfgYhhs0

[ParakeetMGP]

I sometimes wonder about this accident (?) So Odd (?) I suspect Pilot Fatigue (?) And I guess when the front Fuselage hit the runway, the left wing hit first, breaking off the Left Jet Engine, while the right engine was trying to go into Thrust for an attempted abort landing to go around. So the right jet engine is what made the fuselage spin counter clockwise in a spin, until the right engine broke off resting where it did. (I know with me, fatigue makes me out of some periods of my awareness for mini seconds at a time before I am able to catch on to what is going on. Being Fatigued and trying to rest assured in putting the Airliner into a coasting idle towards a landing and was probably a bit of some kind of absent mindedness for the moment. (?) ... ) Plus the Warning was slow also. The mechanics shouldn't have allowed so much stall before making a Warning (?) I never been in a Cockpit, but from the Cockpit may not have looked as low in that vantage point (?) If the back end was lower than the front of end of it was. One would be looking up from horizontal in the Cockpit.

[Ron Mauer Sr]

During a daytime VFR (clear day) approach, even a low time pilot can easily recognize when the aircraft is too low on short final. Anyone in the cockpit paying attention to the runway, rapidly rising above the glare shield should have recognized the urgent need for adding more power long before this aircraft struck the ground.

I suspect major distractions in the cockpit.

[Flash]

Years ago, the most unreliable companies in the air were Korean. Nobody could see why they were having so many accidents, it was not the cleaning and taking care of the airplane (garage), it was not the instruments, it was not.... the list was long. The only thing left was the pilots, but they were all very well trained and experienced on average.

So the Korean behavior scientists looked at the pilots behavior in the cockpit closely. They discovered that, in the Korean culture, you cannot contradict a superior, you have to take for granted what he tells you otherwise there is consequences. Except that in the air, the copilot jobs was precisely to contradict his superior if necessary and at the minimum give his opinion.

They realized that most of the accidents, many deadly with commercial airplanes, were due to communication problems in the cockpits based to the cultural biases between superiors (flight captain) and subordinates (co pilots and engineer or stewardesses).

So Korean Airline decided to train all its personnel to brake their cultural communication behavior when in an airplane. The accidents rate reduced substantially afterward.

I bet anything that they have relax the communication training lately in order to cut costs or because someone deciding, and not being contradicted, did not know the story of Korean airliners.

A trainer in the plane, with a captain, who is the superior? Will the captain listen to someone below him in the hierarchy? You see...

Human error all along.

If you look at papers from the early nineties, you will find what I wrote, but I do not have direct quotation. This was utterly interesting to me because of my work at the time. That is why I remember.

[KiwiElf]

Another aspect is the operational transition from Airbus type auto-throttle's to Boeing's system - both are quite different. Who's jumped in a Euro car from a Japanese car (or vice-versa) and accidentally switched on the wipers instead of the indicators? ;)

[Ron Mauer Sr]

Another aspect is the operational transition from Airbus type auto-throttle's to Boeing's system - both are quite different. Who's jumped in a Euro car from a Japanese car (or vice-versa) and accidentally switched on the wipers instead of the indicators? ;)

Can the Airbus and Boeing commercial autothrottle systems be overridden and disengaged by the pilot using some muscle to reposition the throttles, without the need to manipulate a switch?

In the older military fighter and attack jets (F4, F8, A3, A4, A5, A6) when the autothrottle system was engaged it could be quickly overridden and instantly disengaged simply by the pilot using some extra muscle to move the throttle(s). The pilot did not need to use a switch to disengage. The military systems were designed to fail safe by moving the throttle(s) to 100% power if a system failure was detected.

[KiwiElf]

Yes, both can be engaged or disengaged separately from the main autopilot settings, but not usually over-ridden if you mean pushing the throttles forward while engaged (sorry, I'm not absolutely sure of the intracacies of that question ;)). Typically, the Boeing system is flown manually on approach to touchdown but can be set to HOLD SPEED, whereas Airbus's can be configured ("auto throttled") all the way to touchdown (that backfired of course when the infamous first crash of an Airbus into trees occurred at an airshow several years ago: the crew pushed the throttles forward to climb out after a low pass but the computer "thought" the aircraft was landing and kept the thrust at idle - crash bang ouch!).

Airbus consider their system "superior" to Boeings' and vice-versa. Certainly more crashes with Airbus's have occurred over the years as a result of mismanagement of their computerised systems. However, much of this is to do with the appropriate level of training, which has proven to be a problem with Korean culture, as Flash mentioned above.

Here is a (damning) memo from a former Asiana Instructor (below) ... Unfortunately I do not know the original source (it was placed on an Aviation forum without a source), in addition to some technical info about the different auto throttle systems. (It is a bit technical tho!)

Re auto throttles...

Without delving into the human factors side of this saga it is possible to deduce what most likely happened and most Boeing pilots will be aware of one trap when using the FLCH (Flight level change) mode with the Autopilot disengaged.

The aircraft was initially high and fast and on a visual approach (Not VFR as there is a difference). In order to regain an appropriate glide path FLCH would most likely have been selected and at some stage the AP disconnected. Also some operators disconnect the autothrottles when on a visual approach but this has not been confirmed.

So the aircraft would have been descending with the thrust levers closed and the PFD thrust annunciation would go from IDLE to HOLD. When in HOLD it is the pilots responsibility to control thrust when manually flying. There is no speed protection. Eventually they would have regained the correct slope and once established the speed reduced back towards normal. In attempting to stay on slope the pitch would be progressively raised with the thrust still in HOLD mode. If the AP were engaged the thrust would change from HOLD to SPD to maintain the MCP set speed.

This is the Boeing trap with FLCH use and hand flying. I have seen it myself when positioning on a visual approach when on a close-in base turn. The focus is outside getting the turn and descent rate right and if not monitored correctly the speed can go below bug speed. I am not sure why Boeing chose to have it this way and I can only suggest that it probably has something to do with the thrust/pitch coupling that could cause a pilot induced oscillation (PIO) when the two get out of sync.

Now consider all the above and the fact the pilot flying had spent many hours flying AIRBUS aircraft that have thrust levers that do not move. In his mind he is used to not seeing the thrust levers move and that the AT's always control speed when in similar situations.

In a moment of increased stress he may have reverted to what he is most familiar with........

This is one reason why we only fly one heavy piece of tin at a time and don't mix types.

Former Asiana Instructors Letter...


"After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the 400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster.

Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical.. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.

One of the first things I learned was that the pilots kept a web-site and reported on every training session. I don’t think this was officially sanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a database was building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran the sessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for. For example; I used to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO and I would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG. Many of the new captains were coming off the 777 or B744 and they were used to the Master Caution System being inhibited at 80 kts.

Well, for the first few days after I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden they all “got it” and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). The word had gotten out; I figured it was an overall PLUS for the training program.

We expat instructors were forced upon them after the amount of fatal accidents (most of the them totally avoidable) over a decade began to be noticed by the outside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, Transport Canada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program or face being banned from the skies all over the world. They hired Boeing and Airbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana has another.. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conducting training KAL and about 40 at Asiana. Most instructors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with a few stuffed in from Europe and Asia. Boeing also operated training centers in Singapore and China so they did hire some instructors from there.

This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce “normal” standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able to master basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 knot crosswind and the weather CAVU. I am not kidding when I tell you that requiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... with good reason. Like this SFO Asiana crew, it didn’t‚ compute that you needed to be a 1000’ AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min.

After 5 years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their training and sometimes if I just couldn’t pass someone on a check, I had no choice but to fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistance against me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turned out he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on the fleet I was teaching on. I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL was not going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check and continued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain Brown was.

Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describe these events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. By the way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administered them. This captain requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for the approach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested “Radar Vectors” to final. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would have cleared him to the IAF and then “cleared for the approach” and he could have selected “Exit Hold” and been on his way. He was already in LNAV/VNAV PATH. So, I gave him vectors to final with a 30 degree intercept. Each time he failed to “extend the FAF” so he couldn’t understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and three missed approaches before he figured out that his active waypoint was “Hold at XYZ.” Every time he punched LNAV, it would try to go back to the IAF .... just like it was supposed to do. Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their own rules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen major errors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork.

He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL).

This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are not more, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in the future unless some drastic steps are taken [to teach third world pilots basic flying]. They are already required to hire a certain percentage of expats to try to ingrain more flying expertise in them, but more likely, they will eventually be fired too. One of the best trainees I ever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) who flew C-141s in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hired by KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and of course, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few years and he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start a pilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs on international flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED!

Koreans are very very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an aeroplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hour before the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) with the entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But, putting that information to actual use was many times impossible. Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure it out completely, but I think I did uncover a few clues. Here is my best guess.

First off, their educational system emphasizes ROTE memorization from the first day of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learning. so they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM, never-challenge-authority still exists either on the surface or very subtly. You just can’t change 3000 years of culture.

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are OK. I guess they don’t trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea. But, they don’t have the kids who grew up flying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They do recruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and get them their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with the ex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a Naval Aviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I would get experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terrible pilots if they had to hand fly the aeroplane. It was a shock!

Finally, I’ll get off my box and talk about the total flight hours they claim. I do accept that there are a few talented and free-thinking pilots that I met and trained in Korea.. Some are still in contact and I consider them friends. They were a joy! But, they were few and far between and certainly not the norm.
This is a worldwide problem involving automation and the auto-flight concept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US or Australia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. In accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged at 250 feet, just after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Not even one minute. Then he might fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below 800‚ after the gear was down, flaps extended and on airspeed using the autothrottle. Then he might bring it in to land. Again, how much real “flight time” or real experience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, it’ the same only they get more inflated logbooks.

So, when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean Captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVU weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

[Prodigal Son]

Just like with any of the other orchestrated events that take place in this corruption-plagued world, I don't have any solid evidence to offer, but I do know how the cabal operates and we are all getting quite an education on how they behave when they're desperate.

Personally I don't believe that any flight crew regardless of how "inexperienced" they might be is going to let a Boeing 777 slow down to an insane 103 knots on approach for a landing unless something went seriously wrong that was out of their control.

The ASIANA flight was hijacked remotely just like Michael Hastings car.

And, why is it almost always a BOEING?

Unfortunately we always have to look at the big picture in this world, and when we call the global mafia CONTROLLERS we do so for a very good reason. They are CONTROLLING just about everything. Yes, there are certainly "accidents", but when was the last time you saw so much exposure on the MSM for incidents like this and the Boston bombing when only 2 or 3 people are killed? More people than that die just about every day in car accidents on Long Island alone.

Please, open your eyes, everyone.

These guys can't seem to "prove" it either, but I see no reason for them to make shidd like this up .... From Fulford and Wilcock's blog...

http://lightworkersxm.wordpress.com/category/benjamin-fulford-david-wilcock/


....Meanwhile, a boycott aimed at bankrupting the cabal government in the United States is gathering momentum. Purchases of US wheat, rice, beef and other commodities are being curtailed by multiple countries including China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. In addition, the ongoing fires and crashes of Boeing jetliners is apparently part of a successful campaign to shut down the exports of largest US exporter......The other strange incident was the San Fran Crash where all the injured passengers had to meet CIA officials and those that got seen speaking live were removed off air rather abruptly plus the incident that an SOS was issued by the captain of the Asiana airlines plane and hushed up in the Airport. Blamed on Human Error ..mmmm. The TV were very quick to point out that it would be 6 months before any details would emerge from the crash site that could be divulged, How convenient.

Call me gullible, but every word of it fits very nicely into my world view .... that crazy sick Satanist bastards on the verge of losing their Evil Empire and all their lofty goals are doing ALL of this crap because they have the resources, means, and motivation to do it.... not to mention it fits their M.O. to a tee.

[ParakeetMGP]

Hmmm? :ohwell: I am wondering now with the New News about the 737 Southwest Airliner that crashed in LaGuardia, New York Airport July Monday 22, 2013. Yesterday July Thursday 25, 2013 New News came Out. That it wasn't any Fault of the Front Axle Wheel, but the Airliner (Last Second) "Pivoted" in its approach to landing by Landing on the Front Landing Gear Wheels First, instead of the Rear Back Wheels.

Just Similar and Opposite to >>> This ... Crash. Other than it was on the appropriate place over the runway to landing. So what is making the Airliners "Pivot" at the last second?

Yes? I think Asaina 777 Airliner first came in Too High and Fast ... Then as to compensate at trying to bring the Airliner down quicker and slower, "Pivoted" the Tail down more than it should and in all came slow and short. Now this latest Crash with the 737 Southwest in LaGuardia New York Airport is New News coming out and it is almost similar with a little difference to it. :decision:

[ParakeetMGP]

What gets me as I am looking more into this as the subtle part of the News is not fully out to us all in the Major News. Is they didn't want to let us all know about other Asaina 777's that have been trying to land at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Meaning this has been a problem with many of the Landings. That (SFO) has had (Will not Disclose) the Statics of how many other Asania 777's have been aborting their landings and turn around for another landing have been made at (SFO). I was just coming across this in the News, that this information doesn't want to be presented to us. :gaah::angry:

[Tesseract]

What gets me as I am looking more into this as the subtle part of the News is not fully out to us all in the Major News. Is they didn't want to let us all know about other Asaina 777's that have been trying to land at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Meaning this has been a problem with many of the Landings. That (SFO) has had (Will not Disclose) the Statics of how many other Asania 777's have been aborting their landings and turn around for another landing have been made at (SFO). I was just coming across this in the News, that this information doesn't want to be presented to us. :gaah::angry:

Do you have a link to that info/statistics?

[ParakeetMGP]

By the time I came here, I closed out my Tab from that site at the time, but in another search for it, here it is http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/07/28/sfo-worries-over-asianas-landing-record/

(I can read into things, when they don't want to be confiding about things.) Yeah! This was the web site page I read.

[Tesseract]

Great find, thanks. Very concerning...


By the time I came here, I closed out my Tab from that site at the time, but in another search for it, here it is http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/07/28/sfo-worries-over-asianas-landing-record/

(I can read into things, when they don't want to be confiding about things.) Yeah! This was the web site page I read.

[ParakeetMGP]

I'm kind of looking around for another similar occurrence yet more Planes and Aircraft's are still crashing much like this one. Month's later. Is why I like to know why the Information is always not coming forward? I think I heard it in the News (Briefly) that this UPS Airbus A310 Cargo Plane tried to land in Birmingham, Alabama on Wednesday morning August 14, 2013. It came down faster and lower than it should and crashed as the Plane seemed to have the Nose higher than the Tail than normal. And came short and hit the Tail of the Plane first. (Saying it was similar to this 777 Asiana Crash). (I'm not sure this was Korean Pilots on this Aircraft this time?) And I somewhere tried to ask about that 737 that crashed with the nose first at Laguardia, Airport in New York July Monday 22, 2013. And that made and broke the front landing gear. (Pilot Fatigue?) Things in the Altitude, Atmosphere that defies our Alertness? (A Science I think that isn't being taken.)

[Flash]

Great find, thanks. Very concerning...


By the time I came here, I closed out my Tab from that site at the time, but in another search for it, here it is http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/07/28/sfo-worries-over-asianas-landing-record/

(I can read into things, when they don't want to be confiding about things.) Yeah! This was the web site page I read.

It sounds exactly like what I have written in the post above, here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?60870-Boeing-777-has-crash-landed-at-San-Francisco-airport&p=705783&viewfull=1#post705783

It is kind of "know your aviation history - lol. The only reason I knew how Korean behaved in the cockpit is that I had read it for one course on cross-cultural management for one and that the International Civil Aviation head office is in Montréal and we have one Korean days in days out, for years, with his board, in front of that head office, asking us to search Korean Airlines history for killing people. I was passing in front of him every day.

[Tesseract]

Great find, thanks. Very concerning...


By the time I came here, I closed out my Tab from that site at the time, but in another search for it, here it is http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/07/28/sfo-worries-over-asianas-landing-record/

(I can read into things, when they don't want to be confiding about things.) Yeah! This was the web site page I read.

It sounds exactly like what I have written in the post above, here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?60870-Boeing-777-has-crash-landed-at-San-Francisco-airport&p=705783&viewfull=1#post705783

It is kind of "know your aviation history - lol. The only reason I knew how Korean behaved in the cockpit is that I had read it for one course on cross-cultural management for one and that the International Civil Aviation head office is in Montréal and we have one Korean days in days out, for years, with his board, in front of that head office, asking us to search Korean Airlines history for killing people. I was passing in front of him every day.

The head technical person at my work is Korean, very senior - he has set up companies all over the world. He is actually a really nice person, but unbelievably (or perhaps believably) arrogant and it's hard to get him to listen. I can only imagine how subservient people would be to him back in Korea. It's scary, but very believable, to think that those kind of relationships could affect airline safety. I wonder if there are any anomalous statistics for Korean Airlines?

[Flash]

The article describes accidents and incidents on Korean Air and its predecessor companies Korean National Airlines and KAL. Korean Air had many fatal accidents between 1970 and 1999, during which time it wrote off 16 aircraft in serious incidents and accidents with the loss of 700 lives. The last fatal accident, Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509 in December 1999 led to a review of how Korean cultural attitudes had contributed to its poor crash history. Since then, safety has greatly improved, and the airline ranks among the best in the 21st century.[1

Here it is, I am pretty sure it is similar for all Korean Airlines, in terms of culture and attitudes. Bravo wikipedia, makes things easy to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_incidents_and_accidents