Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training
Reuters ^ | July 7, 2013 | by Hyunjoo Jin

Posted on 07/07/2013 8:19:47 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Asiana Airlines Inc said the pilot in charge of landing the Boeing 777 that crash-landed at San Francisco's airport on Saturday was training for the long-range plane and that 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 for Asiana Airlines said 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.

Lee, who started his career at Asiana as an intern in 1994, has 9,793 hours of flying experience, but only 43 hours with the Boeing 777 jet.

Co-pilot Lee Jeong-min, who has 3,220 hours of flying experience with the Boeing 777 and a total of 12,387 hours of flying experience, was helping Lee Kang-kook in the landing, the spokeswoman said.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 777; airplanecrash; asiana; asiana214; fl214; flight214; sanfranciscocrash; sfo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Great ... Airlines tell you what type of aircraft you are flying when you make the reservation - I wonder if they are gonna start telling you about the pilots' qualifications ...
41 posted on 07/07/2013 9:10:58 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“has 9,793 hours of flying experience, but only 43 hours with the Boeing 777 jet”

Asiana is about to meet many US ambulance-chasing attorney’s.

Korea will likely invoke the Montreal Treaty on all non-Koreans aboard.


42 posted on 07/07/2013 9:12:55 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpmintx
Consider: The co-pilot, with significantly more B777 experience, did not challenge the captain’s throttle settings, airspeed or anything. The captain was allowed to save face, all the way to impact.

Someone posted on another crash thread yesterday that he is a 777 pilot who flies out of SFO.

He said that asian pilots [due to their culture] give tremendous defference to the pilot in command - even when they see things going wrong.

Something about respecting authority ...

43 posted on 07/07/2013 9:14:15 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GSP.FAN

“Jeez!Admitting guilt unheard of. Well their goes another airline.”

If it were a U.S. Airline, then likely yes, the attorneys would be having a field day.

But this isn’t a U.S. Airline, so the Montreal Treaty applies here.


44 posted on 07/07/2013 9:15:59 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

“It would appear that the trial lawyers have not yet instilled in South Korea the proper fear of truthful statements. I am certain they will learn.”

As I stated earlier, the Montreal Treaty will apply here, if Korea/Asiana choose to invoke it.


45 posted on 07/07/2013 9:18:03 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Before you all get that rope up over the branch, consider a few things. It says he had landed 747s at SFO previously, so it's not like he was a "new" pilot by any means. Also listening to the ATC voice traffic, it sounded to me like he was saying he was having "problems" a minute or two prior to the impact. That tells me it wasn't a case of, "whoops I came in too short." More likely there were issues with non-responsive aircraft controls.

My gut tells me that "pilot error" will not be the final conclusion. I'm going with some kind of equipment failure.

46 posted on 07/07/2013 9:22:42 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Also listening to the ATC voice traffic, it sounded to me like he was saying he was having "problems" a minute or two prior to the impact.

I don't thinks so...I didn't hear that and in fact if they were having issues with the aircraft a full minute or two prior to landing, there would have been much more radio chatter from those in the cockpit to ATC. They would have made this very clear to the tower, since landing is critical, as opposed to cruising at altitude.

47 posted on 07/07/2013 9:28:36 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Very unlikely as we’ve already heard tidbits from the NTSB that indicate the plane performed normally.

“National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said Sunday that it was too early to say whether pilot error or mechanical failure were to blame.

But she said there was no evidence of problems with the flight or the landing until 7 seconds before impact, when the crew tried to increase the plane’s speed and the plane responded normally. The control tower was not alerted to any plane issues.”

Yahoo news report.


48 posted on 07/07/2013 9:33:45 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
. . . that asian pilots [due to their culture] give tremendous defference to the pilot in command - even when they see things going wrong. Something about respecting authority ...

I think not all Asians only Koreans. Watch this one!

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/series/802/air-disasters/141884

49 posted on 07/07/2013 9:41:22 PM PDT by hamboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
If he was training on the aircraft at that airport, perhaps the airline should have rescheduled the training to a date when the glidepath radar was operational?

I'm hearing that it was down because of construction and/or maintenance.

-PJ

50 posted on 07/07/2013 9:42:44 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; All
This confirms what I initially suspected from the start. Someone in the cockpit really screwed the pooch as in a rookie was in command and botched the landing. SFO is not a particularly difficult approach and landing but it has its quirks that can surprise a rookie and have the situation spiral out of control very quickly.

When an airline spokes person said there were 3 pilots in the cockpit with over 10,000 hrs between them and one had over 9,000 hrs that was a red flag as in 1 was very experienced and the other 2 were relative rookies.

There is a pretty good break down of the situation on Ticker Forum by a user Eleua.He appears to be a pilot of B-767-300s and knows SFO quirks.
http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=222505&page=2

The post is about half way down the page.

51 posted on 07/07/2013 10:11:50 PM PDT by Polynikes (What would Walt Kowalski do. In the meantime "GET OFF MY LAWN")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

In training? Most likely he was in training to learn the English Language to fly the plane & take directions in English from ground control. There are 6 levels to English language proficiency for pilots to master. He must have been at the lower end of the 6scale. This has been an ongoing problem w/Korean pilots whether it be Asiana or Korean Air


52 posted on 07/07/2013 11:08:01 PM PDT by dswyndon (haven't found a good one yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I just watched an episode of “Running Man” where a lot of the show took place at an Asiana Airline training facility. wierd


53 posted on 07/07/2013 11:44:37 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

I hope that was a FAIL


54 posted on 07/07/2013 11:45:19 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

This deference to the chain of command resulted in several Korean Air Lines crashes ~15 years ago. As most of KAL’s pilots came up through the military, KAL identified the problem but was unable to wash it out of them.

In desperation, KAL brought in some round-eye pilots and safety men who did succeed in changing this mind set. KAL has since enjoyed a much improved safety record


55 posted on 07/07/2013 11:46:27 PM PDT by punchamullah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

Koreans show respect to elders. Having a younger trainer could very well have been a big problem. Now they could spend years in shame- being chased out of shops by salt throwing ahjummas.


56 posted on 07/07/2013 11:51:37 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Park Kim annd Lee make up something like 40 percent of the names. Rest assured they more likely used titles.


57 posted on 07/07/2013 11:55:42 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

Don’t they normally put big “student driver” signs on the vehicle???


58 posted on 07/08/2013 12:13:47 AM PDT by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: punchamullah

Actually KAL has worst record, second from Aeroplot. Now that there’s 2nd nation’s international airline it will share the same pilot-in-command “supremo-macho” mindset.


59 posted on 07/08/2013 12:55:23 AM PDT by hamboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I think it’s an even higher percentage than that.


60 posted on 07/08/2013 2:08:24 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson