Epic Reporting Fail

[Beiruty]

My nickname is:

Bay-root-tea!

[tbrown]

I rolled my eyes when the obsolete media called the prank racist.

Would they scream racism if it was an American Airlines flight and the flight crew names were reported as.

• Anita Moore
• Al Tatut
• Kent Mayket
• Rex DuPlaine

[SQLGeek]

I'm Ron Burgandy?

That's exactly what came to my mind as well. I laughed and I'm not going to cop to feeling guilty for it either.

KTVU was one of the local news stations where I used to live so I take a special kind of joy in their misfortune.

[The Annoyed Man]

Ho Lee Cow

No, he was the ground controller.

[Purplehood]

Isn't this the same NTSB that just recently had whistle-blowers call them out on the actual findings of that plane that went down over Long Island, NY about a decade ago?

[VMI77]

Isn't this the same NTSB that just recently had whistle-blowers call them out on the actual findings of that plane that went down over Long Island, NY about a decade ago?

I didn't believe their story in the first place, but haven't heard anything about whistle blowers....have a link? Or more info on what the WB say happened?

[Purplehood]

Isn't this the same NTSB that just recently had whistle-blowers call them out on the actual findings of that plane that went down over Long Island, NY about a decade ago?

I didn't believe their story in the first place, but haven't heard anything about whistle blowers....have a link? Or more info on what the WB say happened?

I simply googled NTSB TWA Flight 800...you will see a flurry of activity on June 11 and mention of a "documentary" due to air on the 17th of July.

[cb1000rider]

I rolled my eyes when the obsolete media called the prank racist.

I could see this being an office prank that went really, really wrong....

Apparently the airline is suing the media outlet over it now. Something about reputation damage to the airline.

[Pacifist]

Apparently the airline is suing the media outlet over it now. Something about reputation damage to the airline.

Ah, yes, it's most definitely the erroneous media report that has damaged the airline's reputation.

[Excaliber]

Apparently the airline is suing the media outlet over it now. Something about reputation damage to the airline.

Ah, yes, it's most definitely the erroneous media report that has damaged the airline's reputation.

Yep.

Using a passenger flight as a training session and having four of their highly experienced pilots fly a perfectly good airplane with over 300 people on board into the ground on a clear, sunny day couldn't have caused nearly the same level of reputational damage.

[cb1000rider]

Using a passenger flight as a training session and having four of their highly experienced pilots fly a perfectly good airplane with over 300 people on board into the ground on a clear, sunny day couldn't have caused nearly the same level of reputational damage.

I thought that was pretty amazing too. That being said, the pilot has a total of 10,000 hours of flight time. He wasn't an inexperienced pilot. Do don't make it to a big jets without being very good, squeaky clean, and pretty darn smart.

Why you'd risk a NEW instructor with a relatively low time in type pilot that's full of passengers pretty much boggles my mind. I understand you can't offer a few hundred hours in type without cargo, but 2 people in new positions is a lot. It's also kinda boggling how 4 pilots all get it wrong and allow that thing to get 30 knots under approach speed... If the shaker is shaking (it was) things are about to get real ugly.

Currently, this looks like human error. I would like to point out how many people fly every day and how FEW accidents we have - regardless of cause... It's just that when an accident happens, the media is on it like flies.

[G26ster]

Calling this a training flight is misleading. Pilots are transitioned from one aircraft to another in an Initial Course using state of the art full flight simulators that replicate the actual aircraft in every way. Then, there are "supervised" flights in the actual aircraft. Asiana required 10 supervised flights. This was flight #8 for the pilot at the controls. The supervising pilot, while a new "instructor," had 3200 hrs in the 777. Also, the flying pilot had landed at SFO numerous times in the Boeing 747. True, mistakes were obviously made, but this training is typical in the airline industry.

[Jaguar]

A coworker of mine sent me the following. He is a former airline pilot with thousands of hours in Airbus and Boeing aircraft flying regional, domestic, and international flights for major airlines. I am only relaying what he sent me after asking permission to distribute it, and I believe his character and professionalism are above reproach which is why I even considered posting this. I received this shortly after the accident at SFO.

JAG

This was sent to me from a retired USAF friend. Thought you would find it interesting. Certainly might shed a little light on "the rest of the story" regarding the SFO 777 mishap this past week.

[name redacted]
-------------------------

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 and many of the 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 kt crosswind and the weather CAVOK. 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 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. But, 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. He 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. Of course, he failed to "Extend the FAF" and he couldn't understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and missed approaches before he figured out that his active way point 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. 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-141's 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!

The Koreans are very very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an airplane 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 and they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM/CLR, it 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 get 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 military 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 airplane. What 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.

Actually, 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. After takeoff, in accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged at 250' after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Hardly 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 (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's 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 CAVOK weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

[CHLLady]

Incredible! I read that the pilot refused an interview because he was not comfortable doing it in English. I thought pilots had to be fluent in English as it is the language used by all pilots.

I also read that the airline is filing suit against the news station for their blunder.

Horribly UN-politically correct of me, but I did laugh. The anchor woman's serious demeanor just made it 10x funnier.

But in all seriousness, that "summer intern" should be fired. I doubt he will ever work for the gov. Again. There were 3 children who died. I wonder who is minding the shop? I wonder if he will take the fifth?

[cb1000rider]

Incredible! I read that the pilot refused an interview because he was not comfortable doing it in English. I thought pilots had to be fluent in English as it is the language used by all pilots.

I can understand how he might be comfortable with the typical language used by commercial pilots but not be well versed in conversational English. I don't blame him for not doing an interview without an attorney.

The airline has indicated that they're choosing not to proceed with a civil lawsuit against the station.