Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Sources, sources sources, citations, citations, citations...

I am doing an ongoing cleanup of the citations, and I am sure I am not the only one.

At one point we have to ask ourselves, do we need to quote 128 overlapping sources for this? With more citations sure to come.

And finally, I really don't know why anybody would provide this as a stand-alone citation: 91. ^ Quoted from NTSB Chairman's third briefing

Could the guilty party flesh this out and make it actually reachable for anyone who wants to verify it? Personally, I don't know which briefing is the third one.

--Mareklug talk 11:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is why we keep saying when the final report is issued a lot of these citations can be removed (and some of the random facts as well). MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

--Apteva (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so now all 5 briefings have been used multiple times each, and all 5 have the same format with (no. x) in each title, and all live one under the other in the References section, so they are easy to spot. Perhaps this is a step towards chucking out overlapping sources that just parrot these NTSB sources. --Mareklug talk 12:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The briefings are not very accessible, and there is no full transcript available, but would be suitable for s:Wikisource. Apteva (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

"pilots … applied power"

The NTSB stated that the 'the thrust levers were advanced'; we don't know if it was one of the pilots that pushed them forward or the computer. "pilots ... applied power" shouldn't be in the article at present. Inclusion of eyewitness reports is not relevant here; discuss separately. — Lfdder (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

 On hold. Lfdder deleted the chronology in question. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Any statement that any pilot applied power is unsupported by the reference. Because it seems likely to me that it might prove to be a false statement, I removed it. Another editor reverted my change without supplying any support for the dubious claim. We have evidence that one pilot looked at the throttles but nothing that either pilot ever moved the throttles at any time during the approach. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, at the very minimum, we have the eyewitness account of the first officer of Flight UA855, who says they applied what sounded like maximum power, but the aircraft continued on its downward path. You are saying the autothrottle applied this power? I won't address the NTSB evidence because Apteva will do it better. :) --Mareklug talk 12:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Please explain how someone external to the aircraft knows that the pilots rather than the computer applied power. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I see a comment was previously added (by yourself?) saying: "The autothrottles had various modes and were not armed. I do not see how you think that this won't be a contributing factor. Any explanation of autothrottles will necessarily be technical and complex." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote that. Please proceed to make your point. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
So, were autothrottles "armed" or not at the time in question? Do we have actual FDR data to prove this yet? If not, shouldn't we wait until that evidence is provided? But while we are waiting, I don't see what is wrong with including eyewitness reports, provided they have been reported reliably and provided they are presented in an appropriate way. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe that you are speculating without logic. What is logical is that flight envelope protection (which did not require arming) kicked in as the aircraft approached a stall. As the pilot flying pitched up, the only way the computer could prevent a stall was to advance the throttles to maximum. Had a human advanced the throttles, pitching up would have been unnecessary. Thus it is logical to deduce that by the time the stick shaker activated that the computer had commanded full power and that until three seconds before the crash no pilot had taken any action to command more power. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You cannot assert that the pilots applied power based on an eyewitness report from someone who couldn't possibly have seen what actions occurred in the cockpit. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

pilots called for power

minus Removed. I am not cool with the idea of bringing speculation from a user talk page to the article talk page after the issue has already been closed here and the text under discussion has been removed from the article. It gives the appearance that I did not drop the matter. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not dubious that the pilots applied power. The pilots did everything including starting up the engines and skidding the plane to a stop. They just were not planning on landing the plane quite like that. Apteva (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You should keep not making sense. — Lfdder (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The pilots who were actually at the controls are responsible for errors and omissions. Neglecting to do something is not the same as doing something. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alleged statement by NTSB

This statement is found in the article's Lead:

"At an altitude of 1,600 feet (490 m), the autopilot was turned off and the throttles were set to idle."

The problem with that statement is two-fold:

a) Debra Hersman use the word "about" immediately prior to "1,600 feet." I cannot find any rational for removing that word, since that is how Hersman said it. Altering what she said, makes it look like the actions described were PRECISELY at 1,600 ft, instead of "about" 1,600 ft. Changing what she said, because someone doesn't like that word, constitutes WP:OR [[1]]

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

I have read all thru the cite-link provided, and nowhere does it prove that Herman did NOT use the word "about," immediately prior to the "1,600 feet" phrase. So, it cannot be used to support removing the word "about," from her statement.

b) Hersman NEVER said the throttles were set to idle, at 1,600 ft. She only said the throttles were set at idle during the plane's approach. She did NOT state at what point in the approach, the throttles went to idle, and she did NOT say that happened at the time the autopilot was turned off.

Therefore, the statement above: "At an altitude of 1,600 feet (490 m), the autopilot was turned off and the throttles were set to idle."cannot be allowed to remain in the article. It constitutes an WP:OR synthesis of Hersman's remarks, which twist and alter what she actually said.

While we have NTSB RS to say that "At an altitude of about 1,600 feet (490 m), the autopilot was turned off," we do not as yet have any RS source to support the allegation that the throttles were set to idle at 1,600 ft. If anyone can find a NTSB source which verifies the throttles were set to idle at 1,600 ft, then by all means, put it back in the article, along with an appropriate RS to support that claim. But, until that happens, it has to be removed. EditorASC (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the source I provided, Aviation Safety Network, which is only using NTSB as a source? Not only did I provide the in-line citation immediately after the passage with "about" removed, but I quoted at length the source which a) shows that exact phrase (no about), and b) says that throttles were set to idle. And, as I mentioned in in an edit summary, and as it has been mentioned on this page before (and corroborated by another editor, the one with most edits in the article, nota bene), the chairwoman SAID SO, and yes, the throttles were set to idle then. --Mareklug talk 14:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC) P.s. Rather than relying on the video conference, which is subject to chairwoman's quirks of speech, much as some people repeat "like" all throughout their say, please find a different textual source, perhaps an NTSB publication, that uses this "about". --Mareklug talk 14:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with leaving the word "about". The NTSB said it was about 1600, our reference said it was about 1600 (printed, not audio, reference 75[2], so I would not be comfortable with removing the word about. As to disengaging the autothrottle, it has been said that it is not normal to disengage all of the autopilot functions such as autothrottle, which is, as Hersman pointed out, an autopilot function. Most of the pilots leave autothrottle on, and both pilots thought they had left it on. Apteva (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious in the context in which Hersman made the statement that the two actions occurred at about the same time. So yes, she meant that turning off the A/P and idling the throttles happened at around 1600'. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and Hersman specifically stated that the autothrottle was a function of the autopilot (when we think of autopilot, we think of controlling altitude and direction, but today's autopilots are much more sophisticated than that). The pilots did not pull back the throttles, the aircraft pulled back the throttles. The pilots expected the aircraft to push them forward as the speed approached 137 kts but when that did not happen, they did not push them forward until the speed was all the way down to 112, and pushing them forward at that point inexorably allowed the plane to slow to 103 kts before the thrust could kick in. If we add 9 kts of response lag, the autothrottle would have started pushing the throttles forward at 146 kts, had it been engaged (and not just armed; "Armed: In that state, the system will automatically activate when speeds are low regardless of whether pilots have the autothrottle system turned on or off." Really?). Long before the plane reached 137, somewhere between 137 and 146, the pilots should have been aware that the engines were not increasing thrust. The response curve of the other flights shows the autothrottle in the 777 does not allow the speed to drop below the set point, and over reacts slightly, increasing speed slightly after the set point is reached before settling back down to the set point. Apteva (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you are saying that the throttles advanced before either pilot reached for the throttles or TO/GA button. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That is possible, but we will have to wait for a reliable source to say that. Apteva (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Why are we saying that it wasn't so without RS? 71.60.50.60 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Lfdder deleted the chronology in question. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The "(490 m)" adds unnecessary precision to the height. Had the chairman used metric, it is likely that she would have said "about 500 m". 75.208.115.232 (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

QUESTION by Mareklug:

"Why are you ignoring the source I provided, Aviation Safety Network, which is only using NTSB as a source? Not only did I provide the in-line citation immediately after the passage with "about" removed, but I quoted at length the source which a) shows that exact phrase (no about), and b) says that throttles were set to idle. And, as I mentioned in in an edit summary, and as it has been mentioned on this page before (and corroborated by another editor, the one with most edits in the article, nota bene), the chairwoman SAID SO, and yes, the throttles were set to idle then. --Mareklug talk 14:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

ANSWER by EditorASC:

I am NOT ignoring the sources you gave, as RS links to support what you posted. To the contrary, I have read thru each one (which is what you should have done, before you attached them as RS for your postings) and found that they are not valid RS for these points, either because they did not say that, or because they simply got it wrong (i.e., what they said happened, or what they said the NTSB said, did not match what was ACTUALLY said by Hersman, in her briefings). So, because you are forcing me to prove what I have said previously (these are not valid RS for these erroneous Wiki postings), I will report below, the exact reasons why they are not RS:

ASN Smmry [3] :

Here is what ASN, actually said:

"The airplane was configured for landing with 30 degrees of flaps and gear down. Target threshold speed was 137 knots. According to preliminary information from the cockpit voice recorder, the crew did not state and [sic] anomalies or concerns during the approach. The throttles were at idle and autothrottle armed.

"At 1600 feet the autopilot was disengaged." [note the repeated error of NOT including the word "about," that was part of that statement, by Hersman] [Note also, that ASI did NOT link the time of the ATs going to idle, with the time of the disconnection of the AP]

"The aircraft descended through an altitude of 1400 ft at 170 kts and slowed down to 149 kts at 1000 feet. At 500 feet altitude, 34 seconds prior to impact, the speed dropped to 134 kts, which was just below the target threshold speed. The airspeed then dropped significantly, reaching 118 knots at 200 feet altitude. The instructor pilot reported that he noticed four red PAPI lights and concluded that the autothrottle had not maintained speed."

"The stick shaker sounded 4 seconds prior to impact. One second later the speed was 103 knots, the lowest recorded by the FDR. One of the crew members made a call for go a around at 1.5 seconds before impact. The throttles were advanced and the engines appeared to respond normally. The main landing gear and rear fuselage then struck a sea wall, just short of runway 28L. Airspeed was 106 knots. The empennage separated at the rear bulkhead. The airplane then ballooned, yawed left and spun 360 degrees [Closer to 330 degrees -- can be easily measured by looking at photos from above & comparing the angle of the fuselage to the runway] before it came to rest to the left of runway 28L, 735 m (2400 ft) from the seawall."

"A post impact fire occurred when a fuel tank ruptured inboard of the nr. 2 engine, spilling fuel on the hot engine, causing it to ignite." [Another error. Fuel tanks did NOT rupture. OIL, from the engine oil tank, started and then fed the fire]

In short, that source got it wrong, when it did not include the word "about." And, it got it wrong when it said a fuel tank ruptured.

And, finally, ASN did NOT say that the ATs were disconnected at 1,600 ft, NOR at the time the AP was disconnected.

The actual video of Herman's press briefings, comports with the best evidence rule. If that video shows she DID use the word "about," which it does, then it doesn't matter if 10 dozen press sources reported otherwise; they are ALL wrong and the video proves they blew it on that point. Therefore, it is improper to use any of them as a RS ON THAT POINT, since they clearly got it wrong.

Additionally, if they claim she said the ATs were placed at idle, at 1,600 ft. OR when the AP was disengaged, then again, they cannot be used as RS for that point, since she did not say that.

Therefore, this ASN smmry is NOT a RS for supporting those erroneous Wiki postings.

NOTE: I have used ASN accident summaries for many years, and at times I have written them to inform of errors in some of those summaries. They are GENERALLY a good source, but they do make errors and it is our responsibility as Wiki editors to determine if what they say on this accident is 100% accurate, if we intend to use what they say for the purpose of supplying the required inline cites. If they clearly goofed, or did not say what it is claimed they said, then it is not proper to give that link as support for an erroneous Wiki posting. EditorASC (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

starting a sentence with a number written as digits

Is there an actual rule against this? 75.208.115.232 (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See MOS:NUMERAL: Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format, which may produce other problems; e.g. do not use Nineteen forty five and 1950 were important elections for the Labour Party, but rather The elections of 1945 and 1950 were important for the Labour Party. Checkingfax (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 Thanks. I do see how there is such a risk here. Ever since someone mentioned that it kills kittens, I have noticed a particular sentence being recast repeatedly. 75.210.21.191 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Internet rumors

Rejected This page is for discussing improvements to the article not for spreading rumors about living persons. 75.210.21.191 (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional references

An Automation Trap for Pilots?, NBC Bay Area, Stephen Stock, Julie Putnam and Jeremy Carroll, Wednesday, Sep 4, 2013.

" . . . NBC Bay Area put veteran commercial airline pilot, Doug Rice, at the controls of a 737 simulator at Flightdeck in Anaheim to show how he thinks auto pilot and automatic computer functions on airplanes can at times be more harmful than helpful. . . " [Of course, Asiana 214 was a Boeing 777. How relevant this whole line of inquiry is depends on how similar or different this 737 simulator is.]

" . . . The trap occurs when pilots don’t realize the plane is in FLCH, not autopilot and they try to engage engines, but since they are in idle, they get no power and cannot increase speed, which can lead to a crash. . . "

There's an interesting one-page article in the Oct. 2013 issue of Popular Mechanics, Tech Watch, Aviation Safety, "How Airplanes Save Lives," Ben Iannotta, Oct. 2013, page 22.

This Popular Mechanics article attributes the survival of passengers to past improvements:

1) seats that stay attached able to withstand 16 g,

2) floor lighting in the event of smoke and reduced visibility, and

3) improvements in less flammable materials for the cabin interior.

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/5-mysteries-asiana-214

I typically work on the slow side, mulling over a reference for while, often looking for other references. This slow approach has both its pluses and minuses. Feel free to race ahead and use the above references if you like. More power to you! Cool Nerd (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
While the rules do not allow us to use Blogs as RS for comments in the article itself, I agree with most of the comments in that particular blog. It is clear the pilots failed to carry out their required duties.
The pilot actually flying is supposed to keep one hand on the yoke and the other on the thrust levers, AT ALL TIMES during the approach, whether or not the autopilot is engaged, whether or not the auto throttles are engaged. The instant he observes any deviation from Ref+5 Kts, he is supposed to adjust the thrust levers to compensate. That is IN ADDITION to the requirement to manipulate the yoke in COMBINATION WITH the thrust levers, so as to maintain proper sink/descent rate and airspeed.
It is obvious that the PF did NOT have his right hand on the thrust levers, as required. If he had, he would have known instantly that the auto-throttles were not in the engaged mode and he would have manually advanced thrust as necessary, to maintain the Ref+5 Kts, until the time to flare/land. It is also obvious that the PIC (the check pilot in the right seat), was not making the required call-outs during that approach. If he had adhered to THAT SOP, he would have called out the deviations from the target REF speed, and the deviation below the proper glide slope, well before the situation had progressed to a very dangerous point. EditorASC (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
So, over familiarity with the auto pilot? Over reliance on it? And I agree with you on sources. That we can only go with what a (good enough) source say. I favor a range of good sources, and I do not like the trap of perfectionism. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If the utter failure to keep both hands on the controls, as REQUIRED for ALL approaches, constitutes "over familiarity with the auto pilot," then I would say yes to that. However, IMHO, the failure to fly all approaches with BOTH hands in the required position at all times, constitutes willful misconduct. Strictly adhering to that SOP would have prevented the accident. Failure to follow that SOP, is the direct cause of this accident.
One of the important parts of the PIC Instructor's job is to ensure the trainee pilot is following ALL of the required SOPs, during the entire flight. If he observes the trainee pilot failing in some aspect of SOP, the PIC instructor is supposed to call it out without delay. Before he can "sign off" a trainee pilot, the PIC instructor has to fill out a lengthy form, with hordes of check-off boxes, which indicate the trainee pilot has understood and followed all the required SOPs.
One final point: It is not true that "...they get no power and cannot increase speed" if the plane is in FLCH mode. The PF can still advance the thrust levers manually and the engines will respond accordingly. THAT is why it is so important for the PF to keep one hand on those thrust levers, at all times during any kind of approach: As a feedback loop to inform the pilot when the engines are at idle speed, AND as a means to immediately obtain additional thrust, when it is needed to keep the plane on the proper speed and glide path. EditorASC (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> US crash hearing probes auto-pilot reliance >> Speed warning seconds before US plane crash(Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)).

List of news releases

Asiana Airlines releases

ENGLISH

KOREAN

CHINESE

Also: ENGLISH TWITTER:

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

CVR Transcript

The NTSB has released a 38-page transcript of the CVR, covering approximately the last 45 minutes of the descent, approach and crash of 214. Here is the link. [4] I am not sure how to post the link or in what section it should be, so will leave up to other editors who are more erudite on that subject. EditorASC (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I decided to try inserting it myself, at the end of the Investigaion section. "On December 11, 2013, the NTSB released a 38-page transcript of the last 45 minutes of the flight from the Cockpit Voice Recorder. [80]"
It looks OK and the link does lead to that transcript. However, in the footnote (80), this statement is attached in red: "Wikilink embedded in URL title"
I went to the help page listed and tried to fix it, but whatever I do only makes it worse. Since the link in the article does work I think I will leave it that way and wait for another editor to fix , who is erudite on how to make these citation links work perfectly. EditorASC (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

accident summary

I still believe that the wording of the wikipedia summary is misleading. "Hit the seawall short of the runway on approach." almost implies that the aircraft crashed into to seawall - or at least crashed before the runway. The aircraft was too low and ripped the landing off on the seawall and so forth. Even supposing that the seawall didn't exist, the aircraft would still have crashed into the runway short of the threshold. Striking the seawall first increased the severity of the crash. The NTSB summary plainly states that the crash was with the seawall and the runway. 75.247.162.108 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot make much sense out of your complaint above. What did the NTSB say, that you find to be misleading?
It is clear from the NTSB press conferences, that the plane did hit the seawall, short of the threshold for R28L, in a nose high attitude. That resulted in both the landing gear being ripped off and the tail section breaking away. Thus, the first point of impact was the seawall, but since there was a lot of inertia energy left in the machine, the plane continued its impact with the runway itself as it moved forward, until all inertia was completely spent. That seems to me to be very clear from all the videos of the NTSB press conferences, so I do not understand why you think they have misled anyone. Could you be a bit more clear as to what specifically, you are talking about? EditorASC (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that IP thinks the NTSB should emphasize the secondary impact into the runway (or at least we should have that as the lead in the infobox), but that's a result of the primary crash into the seawall. If they'd missed the seawall ... but they didn't and we don't know.htom (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The NTSB got it right. I do not believe that the NTSB misled anyone. The summary in this article incorrectly omits the important fact that the aircraft crashed into the runway. That it snagged the seawall did not cause the crash. NTSB summary: 1. Wikipedia: 0. The wikipedia summary makes it sound like the aircraft crashed headlong into a seawall. In the interest of accuracy, do not elide crucial details from the NTSB summary. 75.208.238.170 (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Crash site.

I fixed it with fatalities from 3 to 2, because I know 2 were dead during landing at San Francisco International Airport! I knew it at July 6, 2013 for the breaking news reported! --AllenHAcNguyen (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What you 'know' is of no relevance to this article - we go by published sources, which make it entirely clear that there were three fatalities in total as a result of this incident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
But they were two of them died during the crash landing, so I think they're two fatalities in total of this incident. But now why three of them now, in sort of a survivors were there and including injuries on the aircraft that they've got on fire! --AllenHAcNguyen (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
They were 2 fatalities on the crash site, not three. --Allen Talk 18:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note that anybody who dies within 30 days of the accident is considered a fatality. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This considers some serious and critical injuries on aircraft with survivors onboard, however two or three on board died. --Allen Talk 19:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

CFIT

The flight crashed due to excessive rate of descent, not a stall. The pilots maintained controlled flight but due to poor planning flew into the sea wall. That's my understanding of all the reports. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The official accident report states 'Descent Below Visual Glidepath and Impact With Seawall' in the title, CFIT is only mentioned once in discussing the EGPWS of the aircraft and the term is not mentioned under probable cause. This part of the report indicates it was uncontrolled at impact 'Shortly thereafter, the control column reached the full aft position, and the stall warning stick shaker activated. Pitch attitude increased to 12 degrees, and, passing 30 feet, the PM called out “go-around.” Seconds later, the airplane struck the seawall.' Full aft control column with stickshaker, probably uncontrolled, stalled or very close. As the official report doesn't mention CFIT, neither should this article. Contrast this with the AA965 official report where CFIT is in the title http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Cali/calirep.html Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with WWP. The plane crashed because it stalled close to the ground and that happened because they allowed the airspeed to fall way below the required and safe 1.3 Vref speed.
While they attempted a go-around during the last few seconds, it didn't work because the wings had stalled. When a stall occurs, the only way to get out of it is to push the engine thrust to MAX, AND to LOWER the nose so that the angle of attack is reduced. That is essential because the air will not begin to flow smoothly over the wings again, if that high angle of attack is maintained (the pitch was about 12 degrees ANU and the control column was full aft). Of course, to do that, the plane must have sufficient altitude above the ground to make that kind of recovery, which in this case it did not.
This was NOT a CFIT accident, precisely because their failure to maintain the required 1.3 Vref speed, led to a loss of control. That is what a stall amounts to: A loss of control, i.e., the plane continues to descend even though the pilot is trying to make it climb. EditorASC (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources modified on Asiana Airlines Flight 214

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Asiana Airlines Flight 214. I managed to add archive links to 5 sources, out of the total 5 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

dmy

A concensus was reached that aviation articles should use dmy with the exception of US Military aviation articles--Petebutt (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to the discussion? I thought the US military was the only organization to use DMY, otherwise the US is MDY. HkCaGu (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Other way round--Petebutt (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
US military is the primary user of DMY in the US. The rest of the nation is MDY. Now, where is the discussion? HkCaGu (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
B***er, can't find the discussion, will have to revert unless someone else has info!! will have to recover the new refs first.--Petebutt (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Done--Petebutt (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asiana Airlines Flight 214. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asiana Airlines Flight 214. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommending switch to sfn for "AAR-14-01 Final Report" cite

At present the "AAR-14-01 Final Report" citation is used 14 times with while paired with {{rp}} to provide the page numbers. I'd like to switch this to using Harvard citations and {{sfn}}. The 'rp' documentation recommends getting consensus per WP:CITEVAR before switching the citation style and also notes about 'rp' that "This template should not be used unless necessary." I'm only proposing to switch the cites related to that single source. The remainder of the cites would not change.

At present the article has things like[1]:111 in the body to reference something on page 111. If you hover on the [1] you are shown the source name/and link. If you click you are taken to the footnotes but no longer see the page number. If we switch to sfn then you will see something like [32] in the body. When you hover on this you will see "NTSB/AAR-14/01 2014, p. 111." If you click you will be in the footnotes area at "NTSB/AAR-14/01 2014, p. 111." If you click in the footnote then you are taken to the top reference where you can then click to view the source. If you had hovered and then clicked you are taken directly to the top reference.

The down side is it adds an extra click to view the source document. There's also a downside in that at present all of the links to this cite are for [1]. Someone familiar with the article will recognize [1] is the NTSB report and if they already have it open then can go to page 111. They would now see a number such as [32] and need to hover to see that it's the NTSB report. The proposed change moves the page numbers from the body into the footnotes list. It's less clutter for the casual reader but results in in someone with the report already open needing to hover to see what page is referenced. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

CFIT

In my opinion this qualifies as a CFIT. Should this be added to the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.226.175 (talk • contribs)

  • Describing an accident with the specific and technical term "Controlled flight into terrain" requires a reliable source that uses that precise term. I don't think the accident reports describe Asiana 214 as that. The plane stalled and the pilots lost control in the last moments, so the "controlled flight" part is missing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    • This is definitatly not a CFIT, it was not controlled. It's a LOC-I (loss of control in flight) which resulted in flight into terrain. Otherwise we should consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951 as a CFIT (which obviously isn't). Sorry I don't know how to correctly edit that's why I'm doing in in the talk section**

Crash Section Images

In the Crash section of the article, the image "Approximate locations ... " does not show the additional detail in the image when it is expanded/zoomed. SquashEngineer (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Schrodinger's Passenger

Paragraph about a 15 year old passenger starts:

"A third passenger, a 15-year-old Chinese girl, died of her injuries at San Francisco General Hospital six days after the accident because she was accidentally run over by an airport crash tender..."

And then concludes:

"On January 28, 2014, the San Francisco city attorney's office announced their conclusion that the girl was already dead when she was run over."

So either she was already at the hospital when she was run over by the crash tender (after being covered by firefighting foam... at the hospital) which seems highly unlikely; OR she died on the runway, and was taken to hospital and kept there for six days before anyone happened to notice that she was dead - and then declared a time of death. Also seems highly unlikely. She was both dead and alive before the truck ran her over; both dead and alive after the truck ran her over; and both dead and alive during her 6 day visit to the hospital.

What is going on here???

24.68.116.221 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Two passengers were not wearing seat belts and were ejected onto the runway when the plane broke up, and were killed. One of those two, who happened to be covered with firefighting foam, was run over by emergency vehicles. There was a dispute about whether she was alive or already dead when she was run over. A third passenger was not ejected but was severely injured when the aft part of the plane broke off. That passenger died several days later. All three were Chinese teenage girls. The passage you quote conflates two different passengers. Read reference 77 for a good overview. There was confusion, at least in part, because the third passenger's parents insisted on privacy. I will correct that passage to eliminate the confusion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


The reports on local news had other passengers give reports that they directly helped that girl on the ground, and that she was alive and well, just with a broken leg. Then she was sprayed with foam from afar and run over accidentally. I have no idea why this wikipedia article completely misses this point. "Teenager Ye Meng Yuan didn't die when a plane crashed at San Francisco International Airport last July. She actually survived the impact, only to die minutes later after a fire truck ran over her." [1]Rook2pawn (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/us/asiana-crash-new-video/index.html

Disclaimer over San Fran source over the roll-over of passenger 41E?

"On 28 January 2014, the San Francisco city attorney's office announced their conclusion that the girl was already dead when she was run over.[43][44]"

I've read the source, and it's quite laughable. They cite 'ample' and 'conclusive' evidence that the passenger was dead at the time of rollover, when their only evidence is very cursory visual assessments, all of which did not necessarily indicate a fatality. The tone of the report is also very consistent with a bias towards lauding, or protecting, the first responders. Despite general consensus that the first responders overall performed well, the report's compliments feel excessive and cast doubt over neutrality. The NTSB report even criticizes the first responders for not having physically evaluated or moved the victim. As it will likely be forever unknown whether victim 41E was fatally injured before or after being rolled over, the authority that San Francisco city attorney's office exudes in giving a wikipedia reader a definite conclusion is seriously called into doubt.

In light of the low quality of the source, is it appropriate to leave a disclaimer in the article? How would one best be implemented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.85.61.126 (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

We would not add a disclaimer but if other reliable sources disagree then they can just be added to the statement something like "The NTSB report (or other reliable source) says it is not clear when the girl died." MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In 2018 San Jose Mercury News released an update [1] including details from the conversation that indicated the girl was literally exploded "Like a pumpkin" by the firetruck. There is no doubt that the firetruck literally exploded her body. Rook2pawn (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/06/firefighter-said-s-happens-after-girl-run-over-at-sfo-in-2013-asiana-crash/

ALPA

ALPA's criticism of the NTSB is just a recent anecdote and is not worth noting. Is it? Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

seats bolted to floor helped reduce death toll

june 2020 I havve a memory tht what helped keep death and injury low was that the airplane had complied with new federal regulation to make sure seats were securely bolted to floor, so seats wouldn't come loose in a crash I couldn't findanything on google about this thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4700:1F70:7C41:C4C9:8882:A319 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Who were the crew?

The "Crew" section, as of 2021-01-23, contains self-inconsistencies and errors:

The aircrew consisted of three captains and one first officer. Captain Lee Jeong-min (Korean: 이정민; Hanja: 李鄭閔), age 49, in the right seat (co-pilot position)[1] filled the dual role of a check / instructor captain and pilot in command, responsible for the safe operation of the flight.[2] He had 12,387 hours of flying experience of which 3,220 hours were in a 777.[3] This was his first flight as an instructor.[4]

Captain Lee Kang-kook (이강국; 李江鞠; variant Lee Gang-guk), age 45, in the left seat (captain's position) was the pilot receiving his initial operating experience (IOE) training and was halfway through Asiana's IOE requirements. He had 9,793 hours of flying experience, of which 43 were in a 777 over nine flights,[5] and was operating the controls under the supervision of the instructor in the right seat.[6]

Captain Lee Jong-joo (이종주; 李江鞠), age 52, who had been also in the cockpit, only suffered minor injuries.

First officer Bong Dong-won (봉동원; 棒動員), age 41, who had been also in the cockpit, received medical treatment for a cracked rib; none of the other pilots needed hospital care.[7]

  • The first clue that something is wrong is that the captains Lee Kang-kook (이강국; 李江鞠) and Lee Jong-joo (이종주; 李江鞠) have the same names in Hanja, even though they are obviously different names in English and Hangul. Lee Jong-joo's name is the one that has the inconsistency.
  • Were there really four people (Lee Jeong-min, Lee Kang-kook, Lee Jong-joo, and Bong Dong-won) all in the cockpit at the time of the crash? The diagram in the NTSB Accident Report shows three seats in the cockpit, and Section 1.5 of the report only details three pilots. If, in fact, there had been four crew members who had been in the cockpit at various times during the flight, but only three in there at the time of the crash, then the wording is misleading.

  • A change that was made 2020-04-26 added unsubstantiated statements about crew injuries and ages. The cited NPR article[7] merely says:

    The first officer who had been in the cockpit received medical treatment for a cracked rib; neither of the other pilots were admitted to the hospital.

    However, over the ages, people have added stuff to the Wikipedia article, so that it now says…

    First officer Bong Dong-won (봉동원; 棒動員), age 41, who had been also in the cockpit, received medical treatment for a cracked rib; none of the other pilots needed hospital care.

    … while still relying on the same citation.

    Furthermore, the same edit inserted the assertion…

    Captain Lee Kang-kook (이종주; 李江鞠), age 52, who had been also in the cockpit, only suffered minor injuries.

    … which is unsubstantiated, and, in fact, erroneous: he was 45 at the time, as stated earlier in the article and in Section 1.5.1 of the NTSB report.

  • Shortly afterwards, on 2020-04-29, the second reference to "Captain Lee Kang-kook" was corrected to "Captain Lee Jong-joo", but left the Hanja unchanged.

As far as I can tell, the version as of 2017-10-23 was still reasonably accurate:

At the time of the crash, relief first officer Bong Dong-won, 41, was observing from the cockpit jump seat. Relief captain Lee Jong-ju, 52, occupied a business-class seat in the passenger cabin.[8][9]

The first officer, who had been in the cockpit, received medical treatment for a cracked rib; none of the other pilots needed hospital care.[7]

— DPoon (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I just rewrote the section. The only thing I'm not sure of is how to correctly write the relief captain's name (Lee Jong-joo, 이종주) in Hanja, so I've hidden it at the moment. If you or anyone else does, please do so. ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ NTSB (July 8, 2013). "NTSB Press Briefing (no. 2)". Press briefing by NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman uploaded to YouTube. San Francisco, California: NTSB. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  2. ^ Wilhelm, Steve (July 10, 2013). "NTSB focuses on pilots' communication, autopilot, in Asiana briefing". Puget Sound Business Journal. American City Business Journals. Retrieved July 26, 2013.
  3. ^ "Asiana Airlines crash: The pilots". ITV. July 7, 2013. Retrieved July 7, 2013.
  4. ^ Ng, Christina; Castellano, Anthony (July 9, 2013). "Two Asiana Airline Flight Attendants Thrown from Plane During Crash". ABC News. Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  5. ^ "Asiana Airlines Crash: Pilot Was in 9th Training Flight for Boeing 777". ABC News. Retrieved July 8, 2013.
  6. ^ "Pilot was at his first landing with a B777". PlaneCrashes.org. July 8, 2013.
  7. ^ a b c Chappell, Bill (July 9, 2013). "Asiana Crash Trip Was Pilot's First As Instructor, NTSB Says". Npr.org. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio. Retrieved July 24, 2013. Cite error: The named reference "NPR7July2013Chappell" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ NTSB (July 7, 2013). "NTSB Press Briefing (no. 1)". Press briefing by NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman uploaded to YouTube. San Francisco, California: NTSB. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  9. ^ "Pilots' memories of crash differ on details". Korea Joongang Daily. Retrieved July 17, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214/Archive_5&oldid=1189985799"