Asiana B777 Crashes on Landing at SFO

[Guest fountainhall]

One of the safest aircraft in the sky has crash landed at SFO.
 
An eyewitness told the BBC that the weather was calm and fine as Asiana Flight 214 was approaching from the south when the 777 seemed to veer out of control. Another told CNN that the plane appeared to be on too low an approach. The tail then hit the end of the runway. As it and the horizontal stabilisers broke off, the rest of the aircraft ended up in a fireball. Miraculously only two people died.
 

Photo: Global News
 

Stephanie Turner saw the Asiana Airlines flight crash and she was sure that she "had just seen a lot of people die."

Turner said that when she saw a plane preparing to land on the runway, it looked as if it was approaching at a strange angle.

"As we saw the approaching Asiana flight coming in, I noticed right away that the angle was wrong, that it was tilted too far back," she said. "The angle didn't manage to straighten out and the tail broke off."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/asiana-airlines-crash-toll-dead-130-injured/story?id=19595641#.UdjiJ-AihII

[Guest fountainhall]

One interesting fact. This crash bears many similarities to another 777 crash on 17 January 2008. In that case, a British Airways flight from Beijing crash-landed just short of the runway at London Heathrow. Moments before landing, the pilots were unable to increase thrust - there was absolutely no reaction from the aircraft when they adjusted throttles. They then had to glide the plane as best they could to a crash landing.

 

The investigation discovered an unforeseen design issue which severely restricted the flow of fuel to the engines. The flightpath of the aircraft had taken it over some of the coldest airspace above Siberia with exterior temperatures of around -75° celsius. Although the fuel system has heaters, in this case they had not functioned correctly and ice had formed in the fuel pipes. As the aircraft descended, the ice had turned to a sticky substance which would cling on to the pipes and subsequently block the path of the fuel. No matter how hard the pilots tried to increase the flow of fuel, the slush made it impossible.

 

As a result, in March 2009 the NTSB issued an urgent safety recommendation calling for the redesign of fuel/oil heat exchangers on the Rolls Royce engines on 777s. This had been carried out on all 777s by the end of that year. However, the Asiana plane was powered by Pratt & Whitney engines which I believe were not subject to that directive.

 

Judging from accounts of passengers and eyewitnesses, it sounds as though the pilot of the Asiana flight was trying unsuccessfully to increase thrust as he descended close to the airport perimeter. But exactly why he was so low on his approach will have to wait for the official enquiry.

[Guest fountainhall]

CNN has footage of the Asiana flight as it was trying to land. It clearly shows the aircraft at too acute an angle, hitting the sea wall, scraping along the ground and turning counterclockwise in the air before coming to a halt.
 
Preliminary findings from the black boxes indicate the pilots realised they were too low and too slow for the landing. They revved the engines in what seems to be an attempt to abort the landing and go around. But it was way too late for that. Although the airport's instrument landing system was out of action for upgrading, the pilots were aware of that, and a visual landing on a clear morning with little wind should have presented no problems.
 
But as today's Guardian points out, this was the pilot's first landing at SFO in this aircraft -
 

Asiana Airlines said the pilot was in training for the long-range plane and it was his first flight to the airport with the jet.

"It was Lee Kang-kook's maiden flight to the airport with the jet... He was in training. Even a veteran gets training [for a new jet]," a spokeswoman said in Seoul on Monday.

"He has a lot of experience and previously flown to San Francisco on different planes including the B747... and he was assisted by another pilot who has more experience with the 777," the spokeswoman said.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/08/san-francisco-pilots-plane-crash

 

I have several times stayed at the SFO Marriott Airport hotel and watched planes land and take-off from the breakfast room - as in this pic from a few years ago. It always seemed the simplest procedure. 
 

 
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes

[firecat69]

And it definitely should be simple.  This inexperience will continue to show up especially in Asian Carriers where there is so much growth and need for pilots .

 

Supposedly the Senior Pilot had many landings at SFO.  What was he doing that he did not realize the inexperienced pilot flying the airplane was too low.

 

There is little doubt that this will be pilot error and it will be another stain on Asiana and another reason for me not to fly on them.

[Guest fountainhall]

It used to be said that Korean airlines and China Airlines (Taiwan's carrier) were involved in more crashes than others mainly because a large percentage of their pilots came from the air force and would take greater risks than purely commercial pilots. That was also said of mainland Chinese airlines when they had a spate of crashes. But all these carriers have much better records in recent years.

 

I seem to recall that in this period Air France has a worse record than any of the major Asian carriers.

[firecat69]

No problem for me .  They would be one of my last choices in European Carriers.

[Guest travelerjim]

And it definitely should be simple.  This inexperience will continue to show up especially in Asian Carriers where there is so much growth and need for pilots .

 

Supposedly the Senior Pilot had many landings at SFO.  What was he doing that he did not realize the inexperienced pilot flying the airplane was too low.

 

There is little doubt that this will be pilot error and it will be another stain on Asiana and another reason for me not to fly on them.

Press reports say the experienced Pilot landing the plane...it was his FIRST landing of a 777.

He was experienced with other craft, such as 747...but he was in "training" for the 777 plane.

 

The  auto pilot which can land the plane was OFF as it was not used due because it was "waiting for an upgrade".

 

Too late for this plane to get an "UPGRADE"...too late for the Pilot in control to get more training in landing the 777...

and really sad for those Chinese teenagers who lost their lives in the crash...as well as those injured, some critically.

[Guest fountainhall]

Jim, it was the SFO Airport Glide Path system that was not working due to being upgraded. This allows planes to land using automatic pilot. The auto pilot on the plane was fine, but it cannot be used without the Glide Path navigation system being in operation. So the pilots had no choice - they had to land manually using visual flight rules.
 

San Francisco International has turned off the system for nearly the entire summer on the runway where the Asiana flight crashed, according to a notice from the airport on the Federal Aviation Administration's Web site. It showed the system out of service June 1-August 22 on runway 28 Left.

Kevin Hiatt, chief executive of the Flight Safety Foundation and a former Delta pilot, said it was common for airports to take instrument landing systems offline for maintenance on clear days. Pilots use several other instruments and visual cues to land in clear conditions, Hiatt said.

"All of those are more than adequate to fly an aircraft down for a successful landing on the runway," he said.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/07/sfo-landing-system_n_3556336.html

 
What I find strange is that the co- pilot not actually landing the plane should have been giving the altitude readings every few seconds. From the CNN video, there was no sudden drop in altitude immediately prior to landing. So the assumption would surely be that it had been too low for quite a few seconds - certainly long enough to apply full throttle and get the plane up in the air to go around. It will be very interesting to learn what was being said in the cockpit in the 20 seconds or so prior to the crash.

[t0oL1]

Sadly,from autopsies one of the fatalities appears to have died

being run over by a responding emergency vehicle.

[a447a]

At first glance, the fact that an accident of this type should occur is unbelievable and points to pilot error. For one thing, the pilot should have completed at least 20 to 30 "landings" at SFO on the simulator before attempting the real thing. Perhaps he didn't.  Secondly, pilots are certified to fly only one type of aircraft in order for them to become completely familiar with it.  The pilot of this aircraft appears to be still in training on this aircraft.  Thirdly, if he was being monitored by the captain, then the captain should have also had his hands on the throttle and could have easily taken charge. But to expect the engines to respond instantly to increased thrust is just farcical. It was all left far too late.  And what about the alarms going off in the cockpit?? Were they all deaf, dumb and blind? And as fountainhall says, where were the altitude readings? Christ, it was a fine day so they could have even looked out the cockpit window and seen they were at the wrong altitude! And the fact that the Auto Glide System was not in operation is a worry.

The investigation should be very interesting indeed.

[Guest]

Crash landing at what seems to be a fairly normal airport in dry daylight conditions seems like a very poor effort.

 

How would they cope on a short runway on a dark wet & windy night?

[Guest fountainhall]

At first glance, the fact that an accident of this type should occur is unbelievable and points to pilot error.

Despite the calls for patience until the investigators have done their job, I totally agree with a447a. I'm less concerned about the Glide Path equipment being down for maintenance for this seems to be fairly routine practise around US airports. After all, how many other aircraft have crashed at SFO since it was taken out of operation in early June?

 

A key question, though, has to be: were the pilots aware of this? For there is a similarity between this crash and the crash of Korean Air 801 in 1997. That B747 was attempting to land in Guam at night. Again the Glide Path equipment was down for maintenance. But the captain was not aware of this as he came in to land. Sadly, the cockpit crew was also using an outdated map which gave a minimum safe altitude of 1,770 ft. when the correct altitude should have been 2,150 ft. The aircraft was maintaining an altitude of 1,870 ft. when it slammed into a hillside killing 228 of the 235 on board.

 

That apart, the NTSC Accident Report found two other reasons for that crash: pilot fatigue and the lack of flight crew training. It would seem that Asiana, even though that was not one of their aircraft, may not have paid much attention to the latter finding if their pilot only had 43 hours time on a 777. How many of those hours were manually flying the plane - as opposed to in a simulator or when the aircraft was on auto-pilot - we don't know.

 

But we do know that the co-pilot had 3,000 hours flying time on a 777. With his experience and all the bells, whistles and stick shakers going off when the flight was below its intended glide path, it's mind boggling that the aircraft did not land safely. Unless, of course, there was some form of disagreement going on in the cockpit (as happened in the China Airlines MD11 crash at Hong Kong in 1999) or some of the instrumentation was faulty.

[firecat69]

I don't get why it appears they were so low so early. Overwater approach does have some perception difficulties which is why the angle is usually steeper if you are hand flying the airplane. I have not seen the length of the runway listed anywhere but assume it was more then long enough for an aircraft that had burned off the bulk of its  fuel .

[Guest fountainhall]

I have landed on that runway several times, including on 747s. 777s have landed on it probably thousands of times, given that many trans-Pacific carriers now use the 777.

[a447a]

 

 

Unless, of course, there was some form of disagreement going on in the cockpit

You may have pointed to a potential clue, fountainhall. Pilots who fly for western airlines are now given special courses in cockpit communication, where a junior pilot is allowed (in fact, encouraged) to question the actions of the Captain if he feels something is not right. Given the Asian culture, this would be very hard indeed.  So perhaps the other pilots just kept quiet.

[bkkguy]

But we do know that the co-pilot had 3,000 hours flying time on a 777. With his experience ...

 

one of the newspaper reports I read today indicated that this was this co-pilot's first flight as a supervising trainer and this was the first time these two pilots had flown together and this was the flight pilot's first approach to this airport in this aircraft ...

 

I was going to question your comment on lack of training because eventually new (to this aircraft) pilots have to do it in the real world or else we will never have new qualified pilots - but with hindsight this particular combination of "firsts" seems to be potentially fatal!

 

 

You may have pointed to a potential clue, fountainhall. Pilots who fly for western airlines are now given special courses in cockpit communication, where a junior pilot is allowed (in fact, encouraged) to question the actions of the Captain if he feels something is not right. Given the Asian culture, this would be very hard indeed.  So perhaps the other pilots just kept quiet.

 

This has been widely speculated on in the media today often referring back to Malcolm Gladwell's 2008 book “Outliers: The Story of Success” - an interesting and controversial character and an interesting and controversial chapter “The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes”

 

the Wall Street Journal blog "The Middle Seat Terminal" provides an historical perspective from 2008:

 

Malcolm Gladwell on Culture, Cockpit Communication and Plane Crashes

 

but most of the current commentary seems to agree that while in the past there were problems with deference to elders and superiors (in Asia) and a disjoint between ex-military and civilian trained crew (in the west and in Asia) in the cockpit these problems have mostly been overcome by new training programs - the results from this crash investigation may or may not change that impression!

 

Another US newspaper report today also noted the interviews with the pilots have been taking a long time because of the need for interpreters!

 

As much as I try not to let possibly irrational personal impressions of cultural differences impact on my real-life decisions this is not doing much for my peace of mind as I board my next Thai Airways flight - perhaps I should just stop reading Bangkok Post reports about the competing political, civilian, elite and military factions on the Thai Airways board!

 

bkkguy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest fountainhall]

Another utterly incomprehensible command from the pilot on the Asiana flight. According to news reports today, the aircraft's doors were not opened and the emergency slides deployed for 90 seconds after the plane slid to a halt. (The standard time for exacuating a 777 is – 90 seconds!) Apparently the lead flight attendant had asked the pilot if she could begin evacuating passengers. The answer was ‘No’!
 

(NTSB Chairperson) Hersman said the pilots at first told passengers to remain seated, but they reversed their decision and ordered an evacuation after a flight attendant told them he saw fire and smoke outside the window.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/10/19398983-injured-flight-attendants-could-help-explain-why-crashed-asiana-airliner-wasnt-evacuated-immediately?lite

After he has crashed his plane in what was obviously a hugely serious manner and being aware, surely, that fire was going to break out if it had not already done so, every pilot should, again surely, immediately evacuate an aircraft. He would have known that he had the standard amount of fuel still in the tanks to spend time in a stack if SFO was particularly busy and to divert to an alternative airport. That fuel could ignite at any moment.

Secondly, does a Senior Flight Attendant, who must also be aware of the near certainty of fire, actually need the permission of the pilot to evacuate in such an emergency? What if the pilot was unconscious? Surely it is her job to evacuate the passengers as speedily as possible?

It does seem to add to the points discussed earlier about there being something seriously wrong with the communication between the various crew members on that flight.

[Guest fountainhall]

There are 82 pages of comments on this crash mostly from professional pilots on the pprune.org website. Here are excerpts from some from the last 2 days.
 

Three air crew in the cockpit ALL failed to perform the most basic task of fling (sic) an aircraft - monitoring and managing speed. Perhaps the most critical task on short final. The speed was already well below designated at 20-25 seconds out ... and yet none of the 3 flight crew by all appearances noticed until just 7 seconds from impact.

The Captain claims he believed the auto thrust was managing power/speed, which is an incredible admission - at least to me. Just because you THINK the aircraft systems are managing does NOT absolve any pilot from monitoring and taking action if the automated systems are wrong.

I simply cannot wrap my mind around the fact that high time air transport pilots, operating "heavy's" can fail such a base level key task as proper power management/speed control.

 

I have flown in Korea and am aware of Asiana's different attitude towards CRM [corporate responsibility management systems] and other safety issues. I flew with some really competent and modern first officers and met some great captains. From what I could tell, some of the rest would risk 307 lives in a heartbeat rather than break their nationally entrenched seniority code. Add to that some ridiculous idea that one's reputation is severely damaged with a landing that isn't smooth, reinforced by frequent reading of QARs [question-answer relationship]

 

I have landed so many times at SFO on 28L with no GS flying an airliner with zero problems both from the north and south. All of us considered it a non event. All my pilot friends agree. Pilot standards should be raised to force all airline pilots to be able to do this simple approach or get trained so they can.

The video from the amateur video shot shows how totally incompetent these three were in letting this crash happen. Even the holding flight watching the event couldn't believe what they were doing.

 
The holding flight refers to the United 747 that was taxing towards the sea wall prior to take off. It can clearly be seen in the vdo. Another refers again to possible cultural communications issues.
 

The F/O [first officer] sitting on the jumpseat was not about to open his mouth with two captains sitting up front. Read the accident reports for KAL (Guam and Stansted). In both cases the F/O and F/E [flight engineer] knew things were not right and sat there and let the captain kill them. That is the culture you are dealing with. Nothing has changed. As we used to say, "Lose your life but don't lose face". Korean F/O's don't correct Korean Captains. I will bet the F/O's voice is not on the Cockpit Voice Recorder.

 
Lastly, there is one about the various warning ‘clues’ a 777 gives the pilot if there are problems with his speed/height on approach to an airport.
 

The following clues are shown on the Primary Flight Display.

• Normal pitch is around about level on approach. The pitch gradually increases, up to about 10 degrees when you get very slow.
• The airspeed trend vector indicates a decrease in airspeed will happen.
• The airspeed decreases.
• Yellow bars start to appear on the speed ribbon.
• Below those are red bars
• Once you enter the yellow bars you are unable to apply any more nose up trim as the aircraft understandably thinks it is not a good idea.
• The pitch limit indicators appear. If your pitch reaches them you stall.
• On the central Eicas a low speed warning message appears with an aural warning.
• The stick shaker goes off.

Any pilot familiar on type gets very uneasy very early on and would take action to recover at the first clue, throw in jetlag and delayed reactions and it should still happen by the second or third clue.

The problem is all this is happening around about 200 feet at a point when one tends to transition to looking forward at the runway with occasional glance at airspeed and rate of descent. Not being aligned may well have been an additional distraction.

 
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html

[Guest Enchanter]

I fly several times a month and have never felt unsafe. Even more so after reading about this crash. My chances of survival must be fantastic if I'm ever in an accident. 

 

Even if my plane gets burnt to shit, even if my nearest emergency exit is unworkable, even if I get flung onto the run way during a crash landing, there's still a decent chance I'll survive.  How nice. 

 

The only two fatalities were passengers who were thrown onto the run way (one possibly run over by a fire truck) during the accident. Apparently, a couple of flight attendants were also flung onto the runway but survived this. That's pretty amazing. Everyone else survived, though some with serious or permanent injuries from the impact. 

 

Everyone still on board got off safely, despite the fact some of the emergency slides opened the wrong way and I'm sure some of the other slides couldn't be used due to damage or obstruction either. 

 

Apparently the entire passenger cabin is enclosed or partially enclosed in fire resistant material. The fabrics and materials used in the seats must be fire resistant. 

 

The seats affixed to the cabin floor can withstand greater impacts or G forces than seats previously did, thanks to stronger safety requirements put on manufacturers now. This way they don't bang into each other and squash/injure/kill people on impact. If you look at photos of the plane's interior, you'll see most seats are still in place, despite the very hard impact. 

 

If this crash had been on one of the older planes from decades ago, I reckon there would've been far more fatalities. 

 

 

According to news reports today, the aircraft's doors were not opened and the emergency slides deployed for 90 seconds after the plane slid to a halt. (The standard time for exacuating a 777 is – 90 seconds!) Apparently the lead flight attendant had asked the pilot if she could begin evacuating passengers. The answer was ‘No’!
 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/10/19398983-injured-flight-attendants-could-help-explain-why-crashed-asiana-airliner-wasnt-evacuated-immediately?lite

After he has crashed his plane in what was obviously a hugely serious manner and being aware, surely, that fire was going to break out if it had not already done so, every pilot should, again surely, immediately evacuate an aircraft. He would have known that he had the standard amount of fuel still in the tanks to spend time in a stack if SFO was particularly busy and to divert to an alternative airport. That fuel could ignite at any moment.

Secondly, does a Senior Flight Attendant, who must also be aware of the near certainty of fire, actually need the permission of the pilot to evacuate in such an emergency? What if the pilot was unconscious? Surely it is her job to evacuate the passengers as speedily as possible?

It does seem to add to the points discussed earlier about there being something seriously wrong with the communication between the various crew members on that flight.

You might be right there but I wouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly. I think the pilots are supposed to assess other risks before ordering an evacuations, like engines still running etc.  

 

When QF32, the crippled 380 did their emergency landing, I recall reading the passengers remained sitting on the aircraft for something like 15 minutes or more before deplaning. Even though there was high probability of fire with fuel leaking all over the tarmac and hot brakes from the faster than normal landing. They couldn't shut the engines off at first (major danger for anyone coming near or off the aircraft). When they did order passengers to deplane, it was done via stairways and not the emergency slides. 

 

Having said that, QF32 touched down on its wheels and not cracking its arse as this Asiana one did. 

[Guest fountainhall]

One issue arising from the Asiana 777 crash at SFO concerns the nature of the injuries sustained by many passengers. A Report in Aviation Week & Space Technology includes these comments:
 

The (777) seats are designed to meet the 16g crash load certification standard, while the seat tracks were originally designed to cope with stresses of 9g. However, San Francisco hospitals that dealt with the injured report an unusually high number of spinal injuries, the worst of which include crushed vertebrae and torn ligaments, testifying to the excessive lateral and vertical loads sustained during the accident . . . According to Randy Scarlett, board director of the California Brain Injury Association, “there were significant spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries with the first wave of patients. More subtle concussions and spinal cord injuries were in the second wave of those patients coming to San Francisco General [Hospital].” Scarlett expects that while 80% will fully recover, “20% will be affected for a significant time in their lives.”

Commenting on the safety implications, former NTSB Chairman Jim Hall questions the adequacy of the current 16g dynamic seat standard. “I believe that it is time to update aviation seat standards to take a stronger G force, especially in light of the many recent spinal and head injuries,” he says. The regulation requiring all newly developed transport aircraft to use 16g-capable seats was issued by the FAA in 1988

 

One problem with the Asiana crash was the lack of notice to passengers to adopt the brace position. However, it has reopened discussion on a recommendation made some decades ago following other crashes – rear-facing seats.
 

In an impact, the entire weight of the body, including head is taken by the seat structure. This reduces whip lash injuries, and the decelleration forces are absorbed by a much larger area. Currently, the entire forward force is absorbed only by a lap strap. In modern cars, that crash at lower speeds, 3 point harnesses are standard, as are airbags. Why in aviation, where although accidents are a lot more rare, are we still using just a single strap? The result is that in many accidents, passengers survive the crash, but pelvic injuries (and lower limb injury caused by legs hitting the seat structure in front,) prevent a successful unaided evacuation of the aircraft.

 

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/520419-safety-surprises-asiana-crash-investigation.html

 

The fact is that some airlines do have some rear-facing seats in business class. Most British Airways aircraft have rear-facing window seats. I have never found these to be in any way uncomfortable or different from forward-facing ones. But aircraft manufacturers still say the public will not accept them.

 

Would you agree to fly in an aircraft with rear-facing seats?

[Guest]

Considering most passengers do not look out of the window during flights, rear facing seats should be perfectly acceptable.

[billyhouston]

RAF VC10s had rear facing seats and that was for safety reasons, but it was a long time ago. I'm not sure whether the modern transport aircraft have the same configuration.

[Guest anonone]

One issue arising from the Asiana 777 crash at SFO concerns the nature of the injuries sustained by many passengers. A Report in Aviation Week & Space Technology includes these comments:

 

 

One problem with the Asiana crash was the lack of notice to passengers to adopt the brace position. However, it has reopened discussion on a recommendation made some decades ago following other crashes – rear-facing seats.

 

 

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/520419-safety-surprises-asiana-crash-investigation.html

 

The fact is that some airlines do have some rear-facing seats in business class. Most British Airways aircraft have rear-facing window seats. I have never found these to be in any way uncomfortable or different from forward-facing ones. But aircraft manufacturers still say the public will not accept them.

 

Would you agree to fly in an aircraft with rear-facing seats?

 

I fly on backward-facing seats all the time.  About half the business class seats on United Airlines long-haul aircraft face backward.

 

I actually prefer them to the forward facing seats. When in normal flight, the aircraft is at a small, upward angle.  In a flat bed seat facing forward, this means your head is actually below your body.  The backward facing seat means you are ever-so-slightly inclined, which makes sleep better...at least for me. 

 

Interesting that the First Class seats in these airplanes (all forward facing) have a shoulder strap as part of the seat belt system.  It is required to fasten the shoulder strap for takeoff and landings...though not in normal flight when the seat belt sign comes on.

[Rogie]

But aircraft manufacturers still say the public will not accept them. Would you agree to fly in an aircraft with rear-facing seats?

 

I don't see why not. I would certainly be happy to 'try out' such a seat given the chance, and unless I was in some way seriously distressed, the safety aspects would clinch it for me. 

 

The cabin crew's seats are rear-facing (admittedly for take off and landing only, although I'd be interested to know the procedure should a 'crash-landing' be inevitable and imminent, I would assume the intention is to give them a 'head-start' over the rest of the passengers) so that's clearly for a good reason. 

 

First class passengers having superior seat restraints (seat belts) is wrong IMO. A more comfortable seat, mingling with your confrères in the cocktail lounge and superior attention and exclusivity is what you pay for, but when it comes to safety that's another matter. Economy passengers, like all classes of passenger, should benefit from the best safety features currently available. 

[Guest anonone]

First class passengers having superior seat restraints (seat belts) is wrong IMO. .... A more comfortable seat, mingling with your confrères in the cocktail lounge and superior attention and exclusivity is what you pay for

I believe the reason for the shoulder restraint in the UA First Class cabin is due to the way the seat orientation is angled, as opposed to the straight front/back orientation of the other seats.  I seem to recall reading somewhere that due to the angle, the shoulder restraint was required by safety regulations at the time they were certified for use. 

 

And on UA First Class, a comfortable seat is about the only thing you are paying for...UA is no Lufthansa or Emirates.