全部
← Back to Squawk list
Report Says FAA Failing To Ensure Manual Flying Skills
The National Transportation Safety Board in 2014 found that an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 crashed and caught fire at San Francisco Airport in 2013 because the pilot lacked critical skills and the flight crew relied too heavily on an automated system it did not fully understand. Three people died and 49 others were seriously injured in the crash. (news.airwise.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Im just a lowly flight instructor, but I believe (and maintain) that a pilot should know how to proficiently use all the equipment on the aircraft....autopilot and the flight controls,.... flight instruments and visual skills. Yes, eyes and brains are part of the "equipment" on an aircraft, unless it's unmanned.
all pilots must be trained manual flying skills. Don't always believe in digital read-outs.
Now retired since 2000. It is not a surprised FAA is concerned about over reliance on automation. The last AOPA meeting even discussed over dependance on automation and GPS. I agree FAA has no control over foreign air carrier training. My opinion the SFO Asiana crash was inexcusable. It seems the pilot was just along for the automation ride to the scene of the crash. My airline start in props and round dials and onto Electra, Douglas and Boeing. First sim takeoff in the 767 had the instructor lean over and tell me to engage the autopilot at 1000 agl. My response was a preference to get the feel of the a/c before automation. Response was that airline teaches automation. Rated on the 767 and the only a/c I felt unqualified on until about 100 hours after a lot of hand flying. I got tired of new people asking what the a/c was doing now? My response was the a/c is doing what you told it to do. Well, now a complement for automation: CAT 3B at Heathrow with 150 meter minimum pulled us out of the Bovingdon stack top to be the only landing out of of at least 10 others.
Unacceptable...anytime any company provides any goods / services within the borders of the US, they should be held to and subject to the same standards / laws of the US or provide those goods / services elsewhere.
This was a Korean Air line crash, not a aircraft operated by any American airline or crew. The weather at SFO that day was perfect, no clouds, no winds of any kind, unlimited vis. If the crew could not do a visual approach in clear weather without a LOC/GS, what were they doing flying a B-777? Its private pilot 101 for crying out loud.
Sorry, I may be mistaken, but I thought the airline was ANA and they're Japanese? Even so, the same point about foreign operator applies obviously. I think it's interesting that airlines like ANA operate in close alliance with US carriers (in their case United). I quite often get routed (by United) on ANA flights. Beyond the ICAO and the national aviation authority, perhaps the airline alliance partners should take an interest in ensuring they're sending business to airlines using pilots as equally well qualified as their own? Or perhaps the problem is that the US carrier's pilots are equally qualified - in which case we all have a problem...
PF was a senior pilot, had several thousand hours in Airbus, but only 40 odd hours in 777, including the subject flight. Overlooked FMC worked somewhat differently and missed throttle setting. CRM and basic pilot skills inadequate.
Correct except that the winds were reported to be about 5-7knots causing only very small waves which from the altitude they were at during most of the approach would have appeared to be near flat and of little or no use as a visual clue to determine height above surface which I thin may have contributed significantly to the crew ignoring the PAPI lights while on approach and letting the B-777 get so slow and low so far from the end of the runway. Sully also mentioned the depth perception factor soon after the crash.
Combined with their lack of proper training and over reliance on automation were major factors that caused the crash plus the pilot at the controls admitted he was uncomfortable with the situation when the tower gave them a visual approach. Seems he was too proud to admit it at the time and continued the approach, thus committing one of the pilot's most valid rules: when in doubt don't. He should have either condescended to the check pilot(trainer Caption)to take over the approach and landing or declined the visual runway approach and requested an approach for the runway that had the fully functioning ILS, assuming that it would have been long enough for the B-777 to safely land upon.
Combined with their lack of proper training and over reliance on automation were major factors that caused the crash plus the pilot at the controls admitted he was uncomfortable with the situation when the tower gave them a visual approach. Seems he was too proud to admit it at the time and continued the approach, thus committing one of the pilot's most valid rules: when in doubt don't. He should have either condescended to the check pilot(trainer Caption)to take over the approach and landing or declined the visual runway approach and requested an approach for the runway that had the fully functioning ILS, assuming that it would have been long enough for the B-777 to safely land upon.