The only guys I've known who were in accidents with fatalities were themselves among the fatalities. They were both pilots at ACA. One was the Captain of the only accident with fatalities that ACA had (January 1994) and the other was a First Officer there who was killed in a light plane accident.

This guess could be way off, but I'd put the number very low...maybe 1-2%.

Starter malfunctions can be expensive. If the guy doing the engine start is slow catching a hot start, the engine can be fried, requiring replacement of the engine. Guys have also broken starters by re-engaging a starter before an engine has completely spooled down after an aborted start attempt, or by changing power on an engine being used for a cross-bleed start.

The only thing like this I can think of is from my days on the MD-88. To start an engine, you had to select the igniters to an armed position. More than once, this was overlooked. So with the starter engaged, fuel would be introduced into the engine and no light-off would occur. This would perplex the pilot conducting the start who would then notice that the igniters were off and he would select them on. Bad move. After dumping fuel in to the spinning engine and then introducing the spark, you get a big boom and a large fireball out the back of the engine. It can cause some damage. The proper response in this case is to cut off the fuel and keep motoring the engine for another 30-60 seconds in order to get rid of the fuel you've dumped into it.

Probably 100k+ for the repair and even more money to the airline when you consider the down time on two airplanes (cancelled flights).

In general, to become a commerical pilot you first learn to fly, then accumulate experience (flight time), and finally apply for a job. You can learn to fly on your own or by joining the military (though that's a competitive process itself). Getting hours is tough and is expensive on the civilian side. The time honored tradition is to get your instructor's license and get paid low wages to teach others and build your flight time. The real trick is getting that first job. It's the old Catch-22: hard to get a job without experience and hard to get experience without the job.

I rarely shut off the auto-throttles until below 500' on any approach, even a visual. The auto-throttles just do a good job of providing the power needed for the airspeed selected. Every once in a while, I'll get a plane whose auto-throttles do a very bad job and there's just too much movement of the throttles. In this case, I'll select them off earlier than normal.

If I suspect a bird strike and I smell that burnt smell (which is a pretty good indication of ingestion), there's no way I'm taking the plane across the country. Who knows what damage was done to fan blades? Just because engine instruments appear normal now, doesn't mean the engine will stay healthy for another five hours of flying. The Captain could have made the decision to return; he is the ultimate authority. In this case, it sounds like he let the guys on the ground influence him. Pilots are mission oriented guys and no one wants to return to base or divert, but it's often the smart choice and we shouldn't be influenced by the fact that it will be costly or might cause some mis-connects for the passengers.

The left wing of the plane is the one on the Captain's side. If you're on the plane, it's your left as you face forward, toward the cockpit. The engines are numbered sequentially from the far left. On a two-engine plane (e.g. the 757), the left engine is the #1 engine.

We stay at a lot of nice places and I'm pretty easy to please. I just like a good shower and a comfortable bed. A nice exercise facility and/or pool is a plus. I guess one of the nicest I can think of is the one we used to stay at in Amman, Jordan. I think it was the Intercontinental. Great gym, beautiful pool and several good restaurants right in the hotel.

As for restaurants, I enjoyed the Churrascarias in São Paulo, Brazil.

Hey W0X0F,

Regarding the Asiana crash, I saw an initial report that said the ILS and VASI were not active due to construction/maintenance. And then I read a subsequent report that said PAPI was active during the approach. Assuming PAPI was active, how could these guys not have recognized they were too low? Also, having landed a plane ONE time in my life , I recall having major focus on my airspeed for landing, like that was literally the most important thing going on. How could they have not realized, or understood the significance of their speed being too slow for landing?

Do you have any guesses on how these two most critical things could have been overlooked or ignored? It seems inexplicable.

I can't argue with the points listed in your post. Times change. When I went to school and had to write a term paper, I had to go to a library and do actual research, physically searching for periodicals and other reference material. Today's students have Google, Wikipedia and the rest of the internet at their fingertips. So the old "skills" of how to do research die. But please don't think that I long for those old days. I only wish I had had the internet when I was a student. I could have amounted to something!

When I flew the J-32 at ACA, it had no autopilot, no auto-throttles (not to mention no lav and no flight attendant) and required hand flying at all times. So I was good because I had to be. Today's modern aircraft require the pilots to be system managers and it's only when things go south that real skill is needed.

But it's not that there was a conscious decision to reduce emphasis on stick-and-rudder skills; it's just a consequence of progress. And I'm not saying that new pilots today don't have those skills. Many of them do and they're just as motivated to be a good pilot as I ever was. It's just that it's possible to get by with sub-par skills in a world where automation can take up the slack and today's modern aircraft don't put the same demands on the pilot to hone his skills.

First of all...great to get a post from you!

Yes, the ILS was down and has been for a while. I'm not sure the runway ever had a VASI, so I'm not sure why that was reported out of service. But it does have a PAPI, which is just another visual glideslope indicator.

Even without a PAPI or ILS, these guys should have been able to tell they were low just from the sight picture. Part of learning to fly is learning to recognize what a normal approach looks like. Aside from that, they should also know to cross-check their altitude using the simple 3-to-1 rule I've mentioned before (i.e. you should have about 300' of altitude for every mile from the runway).

As for airspeed, it is beyond my comprehension how they could get so far below their normal ref speed on this approach. I can't remember the last time I've seen a pilot get even 10 knots slow on an approach. They were over 30 knots slow!!!

My guess is that they were depending on the auto-throttles. They had set in a speed and then didn't notice that the auto-throttles weren't maintaining that speed (probably because they were off and no one noticed). Normally functioning auto-throttles would have gone to max power with the airspeed that low.

As for flying too low on the visual approach, read this very interesting account by a retired United Airlines pilot who spent five years training Korean pilots. Here's a teaser from his piece:

I read the United Airlines piece and it is interesting in that it seems to conflict directly from a piece by Patrick Smith (airline pilot, host of AskthePilot.com, author of the new book Cockpit Confidential) which I read a few days ago. The Op-Ed piece you linked is enough for me to avoid any Korean Airline in the future and it makes me wonder if it extends to other Asian Airlines where the culture is similar.

Asiana Airlines Flight 214: A Pilot’s Perspective
SFO’s runways were not to blame; Korean pilots are not poorly trained; and it’s never OK to grab your carry-on before an emergency exit.



He also made these comments and I wonder if you agree that SFO arrivals are "Challenging"

Thanks. I remember when the pilot said "They're running some diagnostics from the ground" I was thinking "How about we just bring the engine to them!" I'm sure if they had known the extent of the damage they would have landed, but that's exactly the point - they didn't and I guess couldn't know. It bothers me to think that convenience/cost were probably factors in the decision, but I guess they always have to be to some degree.

Either the report is wrong about which engine had the ingestion or I'm remembering incorrectly. The fallibility of memory is fascinating to me - I have such a clear picture in my head of the Captain examining the right engine, it's crazy to think that it's just something my mind created. Which is totally possible!

Tiny derail - there was an amazing "This American Life" about memory. It was mind blowing. Or at least, I remember it as being mind blowing.

Here are fresh docs, up to date as of today July 11th:

PDF - 2p2 thread - 1489(!) pages

And as an added bonus, here is the equivalent PDF summary of the ongoing thread with W0X0F that's also underway on flyertalk.com:

PDF - FlyerTalk thread - 278 pages

Happy Summer!

Boeing 747-8 or Airbus a380?

Have you flown either? As a pilot or passenger?

Thoughts on both models and thoughts on both companies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C76T9_fThH0

Do you happen to know any of these pilots ?

I heard about this, but I hadn't seen the clip. Thanks for the post. I heard that they actually confirmed this with the NTSB before they aired it. A summer intern at the NTSB is the one who confirmed it:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/head-...summer-intern/

EDIT: The link doesn't work because twoplustwo's dirty word sensor won't allow the letters ef-you-kay to pass through. If you want to see it, replace *** with those letters.

Very generic question, but how safe do you think it is to fly in Grand Caravans in places like Africa with a company like this: http://www.wilderness-air.com/cessna_caravan.html

They say a commercial pilot's license is required for pilots

Woxof: Still great thread.

On ATC clips, I've heard something like this several times: "Delta 123, can you fly the XYZ transition to ILS 21L?" What is a"transition?" I'm guessing its a locational fix at which you have to something, but I very well may be talking out my butt.

Thanks, sir.

The Cessna Caravan is a great plane, but before I got in one of these planes in Africa, I'd want to talk to the pilot and size him up. That would be easier for me to do than for you. How long has he been flying? Where did he learn? How many hours does he have? How many hours in the Caravan? (requiring a commercial pilot's license doesn't really mean much; it's required for any flying for hire)

From Wikipedia, I see that the company had a fatal crash of a Cessna 210 in 2010. Only the pilot was on board.

If you give me an exact example, I could tell you the specifics of what they're asking. Several ILS approaches have multiple feeder fixes before joining the final approach course. These are considered transition fixes. But what I'm wondering about with your question is why would ATC ask "can you fly..."? Maybe the one you're talking about is more involved. Usually ATC just clears us for the approach over the transition without asking "can you?"

Regarding the Asiana crash, one report said the 4th pilot was in the back of the cabin during landing. How is that possible? Isn't it required that all working pilots be in the cockpit during takeoff and landing?

I bet he's pretty relieved to have not been in the cockpit.

Hi W0X0F,

Thanks for the thread - I've returned to and read it many times.

I was curious about the link you gave above, but it was dead for me - not sure if the site deleted it? Or maybe I don't have appropriate board permissions. This looks like the same piece:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...t-training.php

It is required at my company, but that might only be a company regulation.

Yes, the link I had is no longer valid, but yours is the same account. Thanks for posting it.

Thanks for the thorough answers.