A very informative article

about the 777 crash at San Francisco.

It starts with a disclaimer as it was only about 24hrs after the crash and he only had a

few pieces of info. However at the end it says:-

UPDATE:

"At about 4:45 EDT today, the NTSB held a press conference, and it appears most of our conjecture is correct.

The target approach speed was 137 kt (not 145). Just before impact, the power was indeed at idle, and the

airspeed dropped "significantly below 137 knots and we're not talking about a few knots." Seven seconds before

impact, a pilot called for increased power. At 4 seconds before impact, the stick shaker actuated, indicating

incipient stall. At 1.5 seconds, a pilot called for a go-around, much too late, obviously. So it appears (so far)

that our analysis is more or less correct."

http://flyingprofessors.net/what-happened-to-asiana-airlines-flight-214-2/

I have said for many years that I will never fly with certain Asian airlines and I remain thinking that way.

That's a a very good piece of popular physics writing - with some (as it turns out) well-informed speculation.

Maybe I'm missing something but is this kind of approach more usual for certain Asian airlines? I can't really understand your last comment in relation to the article.

The comments below that article make interesting reading, thanks for posting this

Maybe I'm missing something but is this kind of approach more usual for certain Asian airlines? I can't really understand your last comment in relation to the article.

One or two airlines in South East Asia do have a bit of a reputation, certainly - although I'd have thought East Asian ones were on the whole pretty good. Avoid at all costs an Indonesian airline called Merpati - aka Air Crash, (five accidents in the last four years alone, and three of them occurring during landing).

Maybe I'm missing something but is this kind of approach more usual for certain Asian airlines? I can't really understand your last comment in relation to the article.

I think it's about the perceived lack of quality and experience of the pilots. A colleague of mine is an ex airline pilot and said much the same thing - said there's no way such an inexperienced pilot would be allowed to land a 777 for someone like BA, for example.

I think it's about the perceived lack of quality and experience of the pilots. A colleague of mine is an ex airline pilot and said much the same thing - said there's no way such an inexperienced pilot would be allowed to land a 777 for someone like BA, for example.

As that article and some of the comments rightly highlight, that's not really a primary issue. Everyone has to learn on type at some point, and the pilot in command had plenty of hours on other large types (747's I believe), and, more crucially, was under the supervision of the Captain in the right hand seat, who frankly should've initiated the go-around much sooner, from what I can see.

There has been comments in the past about Korean culture sometimes preventing First Officers from challenging or correcting their Captain because of the apparent lack of respect that it shows, but that has improved a lot since it was first highlighted.

I'm not quite sure what Saint Martini means by 'this kind of approach'...?

One or two airlines in South East Asia do have a bit of a reputation, certainly - although I'd have thought East Asian ones were on the whole pretty good. Avoid at all costs an Indonesian airline called Merpati - aka Air Crash, (five accidents in the last four years alone, and three of them occurring during landing).

and you'd be correct! i can't understand on what evidence the op would want to avoid certain asian airlines (ie asiana), one of the more clueless and knee-jerk comments i've seen on the subject.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/transport/2013/07/asiana_airlines_crash_stop_blaming_sfo_s_runways_and_korea_s_pilots_for.html

"Lastly, we're hearing murmurs already about the fact that Asiana Airlines hails from Korea, a country with a checkered past when it comes to air safety. Let's nip this storyline in the bud. In the 1980s and 1990s, that country's largest carrier, Korean Air, suffered a spate of fatal accidents, culminating with the crash of Flight 801 in Guam in 1997. The airline was faulted for poor training standards and a rigid, authoritarian cockpit culture. The carrier was ostracized by many in the global aviation community, including its airline code-share partners. But Korean aviation is very different today, following a systemic and very expensive overhaul of the nation’s civil aviation system. A 2008 assessment by ICAO, the civil aviation branch of the United Nations, ranked Korea's aviation safety standards, including its pilot training standards, as nothing less than the highest in the world, beating out more than 100other countries. As they should be, Koreans are immensely proud of this turnaround, and Asiana Airlines, the nation's No. 2 carrier, had maintained an impeccable record of both customer satisfaction and safety."

These pilot error crashes are usually as a result of several factors combining. Its a long flight from Seoul to SF, about 10 hours. If the pilots have a disrupted nights sleep prior to the flight, then fly for 10 hours and arrive to find they need to make a visual landing because a piece of automation at SF is unavailable its bound to increase the odds of a mistake.

I read in the Independent that two of the deaths were two Chinese kids of 16 years of age. It's thought that one of them died in the crash and the other survived the crash, and was then killed by being knocked over by a rescue vehicle that was arriving at the scene.

I think it's about the perceived lack of quality and experience of the pilots. A colleague of mine is an ex airline pilot and said much the same thing - said there's no way such an inexperienced pilot would be allowed to land a 777 for someone like BA, for example.

How would a pilot make his first landing in a new aircraft if he wasn't allowed to make that first landing?

I read in the Independent that two of the deaths were two Chinese kids of 16 years of age. It's thought that one of them died in the crash and the other survived the crash, and was then killed by being knocked over by a rescue vehicle that was arriving at the scene.

that is really really really bad luck.

'Wow...I'm alive, how did I survi...' thud.