Tag: asiana
Asiana Pilots Switched Off System That Might Have Averted Crash, NTSB Says

Asiana Pilots Switched Off System That Might Have Averted Crash, NTSB Says

By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — A federal safety panel on Tuesday concluded that the pilots flying the Asiana Airlines jet that crashed in San Francisco on July 6, 2013, mismanaged their landing approach and inadvertently shut off an automatic speed control system that might have prevented the accident.

Meeting in Washington, D.C., the National Transportation Safety Board also blamed the crash on the pilots’ failure to monitor their airspeed and altitude and a decision to abort the landing that came too late.

The crash occurred last July when an Asiana Boeing 777 en route from Seoul struck a sea wall and slammed into the runway while attempting to land at San Francisco International Airport. Three people were killed and 187 were injured, 49 seriously.

Investigators have said the pilots came in too slow and too low to touch down safely.

In addition to the main causes, the NTSB concluded that a number of factors contributed to the crash, including the complexity of the Boeing’s automated flight systems and fatigue that likely degraded the performance of the pilots.

The four-member panel also stated that the trainee captain at the controls that day lacked the training for landing an aircraft manually, and the pilot-instructor monitoring in the cockpit provided inadequate supervision.

During the hearing, the NTSB weighed a variety of factors, including the skill and training of Asiana’s pilots and the effect of computerized flight systems on flight crew awareness.

Much of the discussion focused on the design of a Boeing Co. throttle system that automatically adjusts airspeed.

Investigators found that the pilots inadvertently deactivated the device when they did not completely turn off the plane’s automated flight systems during the approach to landing. As a result, the automatic throttle went into a hold mode and could not activate when airspeed dropped.

Late last year, Asiana officials announced they would overhaul the airline’s safety procedures and improve training to sharpen flying skills, such as increasing the hours of flight simulator training for landings without relying on automated guidance systems.

The carrier has vowed to add safety specialists, improve maintenance and hire consultants to evaluate its procedures.

Meanwhile, the South Korean government is considering an increase in training requirements and tougher penalties for accidents that result in casualties.

AFP Photo / Josh Edelson

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Asiana Crew Confused By Aircraft’s Technology; Emergency Response Criticized, NTSB Finds

Asiana Crew Confused By Aircraft’s Technology; Emergency Response Criticized, NTSB Finds

By Steve Johnson and Pete Carey, San Jose Mercury News

WASHINGTON — The deadly crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 at San Francisco International Airport directly resulted from the crew’s confusion over the plane’s technology, federal officials said Tuesday, adding that emergency officials responding to the scene were hampered by communication problems and lack of training.

The flight crew “over relied on systems they did not understand and flew the aircraft too low and slow, colliding with a seawall at the end of the runway,” said Christopher Hart, acting director of the National Transportation Safety Board, during a long-awaited hearing into the cause of the July 6 catastrophe, which killed three teenage passengers and injured 187 others. He added that the agency Tuesday will issue a report making recommendations “that address how humans interact with automation to prevent similar accidents in the future.”

Moreover, the agency’s staff said the flight crew “was likely experiencing fatigue,” and the fact that the person flying the plane and the other pilot monitoring him were both captains “led to confusion about who was responsible” for deciding to abort the landing and reposition the airplane for safer approach.

Officials with the safety board also were critical of San Francisco fire officials at the accident scene, saying some of their “operational decision-making reflected a lack of knowledge and training.”

The commander overseeing the emergency responders “was given erroneous information about the lack of fire at the accident site” and emergency personnel couldn’t speak to each other due to glitches with their communications equipment, they said. In addition, the safety board staff faulted fire officials whose trucks twice ran over a teenage passenger, who had been thrown from the crashed plane and died.

The firefighters had “a short window of opportunity” to assess the scene and avoid the girl after they arrived, “but they did not do so.”
With 12 crew members and 291 passengers — including 70 Chinese students and teachers headed to a summer camp — Flight 214 was inbound to San Francisco on a clear day from Seoul, South Korea, with an experienced pilot being trained to fly the 777, and his instructor sitting next to him. As the aircraft passed over the San Mateo Bridge, about 5 miles from the runway, the pilot executed a series of commands that caused it to lose speed rapidly, a problem the pilot discovered too late to execute a go-around for another try at landing.
What caused the confusion in the cockpit has been a key issue of concern, with much of the focus on the technology that has been added to airlines in recent decades to assist pilots.

Asiana has said the accident probably was caused by its flight crew’s failure to monitor and maintain safe airspeed during the landing and that a contributing factor was the crew’s “failure to execute a timely go-around” as required by company procedures. But the airline also faulted the Boeing 777’s complex automation controls for contributing to the accident, claiming “inconsistencies in the aircraft’s automation logic” led the crew to believe that the airplane was maintaining a safe airspeed. It added that warnings from the aircraft that something was wrong were “inadequate.”

Boeing countered in its own filing with the board that the accident would have been avoided “had the flight crew followed procedures and initiated a timely go-around” as the approach became increasingly unstable.

The NTSB can only make recommendations to regulatory agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and its probable-cause findings are not admissible in court. However, the agency says that more than 82 percent of its recommendations have been adopted “by those in a position to effect change.”

AFP Photo / Josh Edelson

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!