모두
← Back to Squawk list
NTSB: Crash of Asiana Flight 214 Accident Report Summary
This is a synopsis from the Safety Board’s report and does not include the Board’s rationale for the conclusions, probable cause, and safety recommendations. Safety Board staff is currently making final revisions to the report from which the attached conclusions and safety recommendations have been extracted. The final report and pertinent safety recommendation letters will be distributed to recommendation recipients as soon as possible. The attached information is subject to further review and… (www.ntsb.gov) 기타...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Why require Boeing to come up with additional documentation? Lots of people have been properly trained and had no problems flying and landing Boeing 777s until these guys came along and showed you can't do it if you're not properly trained.
They did not want to throw all the blame on Asiana... Even though it was all their fault. Just political BS...
Just wondering if pressing the "FLCH SPD" would have been appropriate during an approach on other Boeing airliners or if this works differently on the B-777? And, does dis-engaging the A/P and A/T during a visual approach procedure differ among other airline policies? If yes, why is this so?
Lesson, both here and flt 570, don't fly Gook Airlines. But sometimes that is all that is going your way!!!
570! iPad strikes again. Automation strikes again coupled with carelessness. Sound familiar?
The report finds that two of the fatalities would probably have survived had they been wearing seatbelts, but does not make any recommendations based on this. This was a serious failure by the cabin crew, in not ensuring that all passengers were restrained.
Easier politically to blame the machine (Boeing) than the man (ill-trained pilot), but if the safety and accident record of Asiana is reviewed there is a clear indication of 'incompetency' involved in these events - many of which can be directly related to pilot training and familiarity with an aircraft's systems. Flight simulation training has its merits, but cannot replace real world seat of the pants flying time to understand how an aircraft will react under all - including ideal - environmental and flight conditions. Personally, I believe too much complacency that the autoland system would put the aircraft onto the proper glideslope, airspeed and descent rate - and not flying the aircraft you are in command of, not a computer - is a failure seen in more and more younger pilots. Flight (training) time is expensive and to cut costs most airlines (US included) is becoming more reliant upon flight simulator time to build pilot hours and competency. I feel safer on the ground now a days thatn I did 20 years ago if I have to fly commercial.