Korean Flight 214

[Guest FourAces]

I keep looking at the photos and am amazed that nearly everybody survived and most without any critical injuries.

The saddest part though regarding to the two deceased was released today by CBS news. Its possible that one of the woman who died was actually run over by an emergency vehicle and she might have been alive at the time

[RA1]

Most of those injuries would not have occurred or certainly been a lot less severe with all rear facing seats.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Fascinating! Would plane accidents in general be likely to cause less harm if seats faced rear? Never heard that discussed before.

I once sat in a rear-facing seat, with my back to the bulkhead, on a commuter flight somewhere or other. Takeoff felt a little disconcerting, leaning forward and "down," but I don't recall any other part of the flight feeling unusual at all.

[RA1]

Absolutely. I don't know about today but for many, many years, the US Navy only had rear facing seats in their transport aircraft.

I can personally attest to the efficacy of such. I was catching a ride in a biz jet many years ago and was asked to sit in a rear facing seat. Virtually all corporate type aircraft have at least some rear facing seats - the four seats facing each other are called a club arrangement. We were going from LGA-ALB-BGR and had 3 board of directors on board + 3 "hitch hikers" like me. Actually I was going to get a trade in aircraft at BGR. The weather was very rainy. The runway at ALB is not extra long and was covered with water. We landed going pretty fast, hydroplaned and went off the end doing about 80 MPH. Everyone else was thrown violently into their seat belts but no one was injured. I could have been in my den watching TV because all that sudden deceleration was absorbed by my seat back.

Rear facing seats won't cure every possible injury but would reduce a lot of them substantially. Rarely I have a passenger to object to facing the rear but as soon as I explain do that or stay home they usually are OK. A few think they will have motion sickness or somehow feel uneasy but those are all imagined objections. If it is dark or one does not look outside one never knows.

If offered a rear facing seat, take it.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Seems obvious once you hear it explained. (Obviously. ) It occurs especially that, seated facing rear, the headrest would help guard against neck injuries from the head otherwise being thrown forward on deceleration.

[wayout]

I was glued to CNN on Saturday and was amazed at the survival rate. My heart goes out to those who were injured and to those who lost their lives.

I heard a survivor being interviewed yesterday and apparently he was in business/first class on that plane, which had sleeper seats from what he said. He also indicated that those seats on the plane had a shoulder seat belt in addition to the lap belt (I supposed like the seat belts in our cars). He attributed that as a major reason he was not being injured (although in this case, from what I read about where most injuries occurred, being up front was also likely a factor). It got me thinking perhaps that also could be something that could reduce injury if every seat had one, even though it may not be as effective as a rear facing seat. Would passengers have an issue with those or with rear facing seating more? Personally, I don't think I would have any issue with rear facing seats.

With regards to rear facing seats, here is a decent article from a few years ago that talks about it. Interesting topic and I never had considered it before so I learned something new today. http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/Need-to-Know-Aft-Facing-Seats.html

[RA1]

General aviation rear facing seats have seat backs that are extra tall. Forward facing seats generally have a movable headrest similar to those on the front seats of cars.

GA aircraft that were produced under the latest rules do have shoulder harnesses. They can be retrofitted to earlier production aircraft but are not necessarily mandated to do so.

There is also a current "trend" to have seat belts equipped with air bags which are optional on many GA aircraft but not mandated on any.

Personally I always wear my seat belt when a passenger and in my seat and, of course, always wear it when acting as the pilot.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest zipperzone]

I read several disturbing news items about this crash.

(1) The pilot of the plane had only 77 hours of experience flying this type of aircraft

(2) The pilot had never flown into San Francisco before

If the above two facts are true, would they not be a logical explanation of the crash?

(3) One of the two girls that were killed and found outside the plane had died by being run over by one of the emergency rescue vehicles and had been alive at that time.

[RA1]

Zip-

Your post is exactly the problem with "experts" being quoted by the MSM. The experts sometimes are not experts and the MSM has little to no background to understand what is being related.

1. Whenever an airline pilot changes equipment (usually an upgrade) he or she undergoes extensive training in a simulator of that aircraft. Then, they undergo what is called Initial Operating Experience during which the weather has to be "better". Also there is a check captain on board throughout the IOE. This lasts for several hours of flying and has other logical requirements. No one is born having hours in any aircraft.

2. This captain has landed at SFO before, just not in the 777.

3. The real question is why the check captain did not call for more power until about 7 seconds before the crash. Likely his career will suffer as much or more than the captain undergoing IOE.

4. It has been suggested for quite some time now that airline pilots need more basic aka stick training and need to rely less upon technology. The ILS (Instrument Landing System) was out for maintenance and not scheduled for return to service until 23 August. The weather was clear and the winds calm, so this should not have been a problem for an airline pilot but obviously there was some kind of problem. The crash of AF 441 has increased the calls for more "basic" training and no doubt this crash will exacerbate those calls.

5. Difficult to know if someone was still alive after suffering a crash and then possibly being run over. Interesting to hear what the verdict is.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

RA1 may rap my knuckles for posting this speculation so far in advance of release of much real information about the accident. But it was interesting to see this reader comment posted below a CNN article:

Tim Sall

I am a current airline capt. flying a 767, with 29 years experience. If you understand the automatization modes of a B757,767,747,777 and what they do, or don't do, then it is fairly easy to understand what most likely happened. The ILS was out of service, they were doing a visual approach, not being being backed up by the ILS, which would cause the autothrottles to be working. Instead they were decending down using flt. level change mode, where the autothrottles are not active and they forgot this, because 98% of the time they are backed up by the ILS. Nobody was watching the airspeed, because they are so use to the autothrorttles working. Then when they realized it it was to late.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/07/us/asiana-214/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[wayout]

I was just watching the news briefing by the chairwoman of the NTSB where she mentioned various aspects of the interviews with the flight crew and that the pilot in the right seat mentioned he assumed the autothrottles were active/engaged (I forget the precise termonology used). That seems to be consistent with the comment above by that 767 pilot. Perhaps another piece of the puzzle

[RA1]

So, what is the question? There is no doubt that many, too many, airline pilots rely upon technology every day. The 777 cannot and will not stall if the auto throttles are engaged. Obviously, they were not. Autoland is also not available if the ILS is not fully active and it was not. Therefore here we have an airliner on a pretty day with no weather or wind on a visual approach to a very large airport with a very long runway. What could be better?

If it ever sounded like I was defending the crew, I was not. I merely intend to state facts rather than conjecture unless clearly identified as conjecture.

The pilot flying and the check captain surely will have their careers cease and they should. Blaming them does not necessarily promote aviation.

I received an email from a friend who is currently a 777 captain for FEDEX and an airman I sincerely respect. He knew of no "gotcha" with the 777 and concurred with my assessment that it is a very safe aircraft with an excellent record.

There is no doubt that "technological" systems were disconnected and the pilot flying got too slow too close to the ground. Why this should have happened is still yet to be completely discovered and explained.

So sorry for all those involved.

Best regards,

RA1

[BigK]

I flew into SF today. Arrived 20 minutes early. Another beautiful day. Just ignore the scrap metal just off the runway.

[Lucky]

This actually was on TV in San Francisco, where one would think that Asian names would be respected as culturally different, but not a source of sick humor:

KTVU Channel 2 is apologizing for an on-air gaffe that the station — or viewers – won’t soon forget.

During the noon newscast Friday, co-anchor Tori Campbell, announced that “KTVU has just learned the names of the four pilots who were on board” Asiana flight 214 when it crashed at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday.

She then read from a teleprompter while a TV graphic displayed four fake names that clearly were someone’s idea of a joke.

The first name — “Captain Sum Ting Wong” — should have been a give-away that something really was wrong. But Campbell kept reading… “Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk, Bang Ding Ow.”

Yikes.

After a break, Campbell made an on-air correction, clarifying that the names were clearly wrong — but that they had confirmed them earlier with the National Transportation Safety Board.

[RA1]

This would be humorous in another context but not in this one. One WAG that I know has suggested that this news reader will be the newest senator from CA.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest FourAces]

This actually was on TV in San Francisco, where one would think that Asian names would be respected as culturally different, but not a source of sick humor:

KTVU Channel 2 is apologizing for an on-air gaffe that the station — or viewers – won’t soon forget.

During the noon newscast Friday, co-anchor Tori Campbell, announced that “KTVU has just learned the names of the four pilots who were on board” Asiana flight 214 when it crashed at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday.

She then read from a teleprompter while a TV graphic displayed four fake names that clearly were someone’s idea of a joke.

The first name — “Captain Sum Ting Wong” — should have been a give-away that something really was wrong. But Campbell kept reading… “Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk, Bang Ding Ow.”

Yikes.

After a break, Campbell made an on-air correction, clarifying that the names were clearly wrong — but that they had confirmed them earlier with the National Transportation Safety Board.

WOW totally shocks me and as you mentioned happening in a city with a large Asian population. I wonder if the newscaster knew they were fake or if she was simply reading and not comprehending. I think many of us have been know to sleepwalk through work from time to time.

[Guest hitoallusa]

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2013/07/12/NTSB-apologizes-for-inaccurate-and-offensive-Asiana-pilot-names/UPI-19661373686186/

[RA1]

OK, blame others. It is never the one who utters BS being the one responsible, is it? When will personal responsibility return in the US? Answer: Apparently never.

So sad.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

I've read enough about this story to know that two of the pilots are named Lee, so I'd like to think this wouldn't have got by me. Had that not been the case, however, I'm pretty sure I would have just sounded them out as written and hoped for the best. Maybe by the time I got to 'Fuk', the light would have gone on. I hope so anyway, but I couldn't guarantee it.

Besides, had I been a Fox newscaster for any length of time, I expect I'd have long ago stopped paying attention to most of the horseshit that rolls by on the teleprompter. And apologizing for it would be a full-time job all by itself.

[Guest NCBored]

This may be a bit off-topic, but I read that the FAA has just increased the flight-time requirements for being a co-pilot:

Co-pilots must complete 1,500 hours total time as a pilot under the new rules, which take effect August 1. Previously, first officers were required to have only a commercial pilot certificate, which requires 250 hours of flight time.

How do pilots get these hours before being hired?

[RA1]

Any way they can. Traditionally this has been by being a flight instructor or flying on demand charter either as a co-pilot or captain or paying for the hours themselves. Military pilots have an exception from the 1500 hour rule presumably because they fly higher performance aircraft. However, experience is still experience and the only real way to acquire that is by hours. I do agree that doing touch and goes (take offs and landings) at one hour each for 1500 times is not the same as flying alone cross country in all sorts of weather depending upon oneself for arriving alive.

In the old days crusty old captains told their new co-pilots to sit there and say nothing and do nothing until and unless asked to do so. After a while the co-pilots were allowed to do more and more as well as learn by observation. This seemed to work very well but in today's world political correctness, unions and other factors make this not practical. Too bad.

As a previous on demand charter operator I often thought it was a shame we could not train eager but low time pilots in what we thought was the correct and safe culture of flying passengers. But, they had to pass an FAA mandated check ride even though we may be flying an aircraft that only required one pilot. A very good training environment gone to waste.

You may be interested to know that the FAA is not the prime determining factor in the hiring of on demand charter pilots or corporate pilots. Insurance requirements dictate who, what and why. My insurance policy required our captains to have 5,000+ hours and we got a reduced premium because of that requirement. We did that because the pilots with that amount of time were available and because we knew and trusted them.

The airlines have an entirely different business plan. It does vary from airline to airline and, sadly, it depends upon who is available. Generally they would never hire a 250 hour pilot if another with more time is available. FEDEX basically wants their new hires to have 3,000 hours and 1500 turbine time. As far as I know no other airline is so stringent.

I hope I partially answered your question.

Best regards,

RA1