<p>The Columbia titanium vest I wear is slim fitting and has hidden zipper nylon hand warmer pockets. It is princess cut and has spandex side panels for a more flattering silloutte. The pockets also can have things inserted from onside the vest ( between the fleece and nylon). It is not marketed as a travel vest and has a manageable four pockets so I don’t loose stuff in the pockets. I have other fleece vests, but this one is the most fitted and flattering (does fit waistline). Bought it in bright red on clearance at Sports Authority. The vest looks like this one, but from the description, doesn’t sound like this one has spandex side panel. The main drawback is this vest is not very warm. Like the red color much more than expected because its easy to spot and I don’t lose it. </p>
<p>“Wolvervine, do you have any guesses as to why four pilots would have not noticed that they were descending too slow and too low? I’m starting to think they must have been on something to have not paid attention to that”</p>
<p>To add to whatever Wolverine would answer, no, I doubt that they were “on something.” Sure, it’s easy to notice that something feels wrong when you’re sitting in the back of the airplane, with nothing to do but look outside and finish eating your muffin, but there are far more distractions in the cockpit. Since we don’t know what was happening, well, we don’t know what was happening. These pilots didn’t accrue over 10,000 hours of flying time by being stupid. People can get distracted, fixated on watching for other traffic, pay too much attention to a malfunction, we have no idea of what was being said or happening in the cockpit at that time. It’s not like they were low and slow, for minutes. It happens in a matter of seconds. One mistake that nobody catches, one miscalculation, one short fixation on the wrong thing at the wrong time, if nobody breaks the chain of events…you’re dead. And it can happen so quickly. You put fatigue into the mix, and all bets are off. </p>
<p>I don’t even know if all four pilots were in the cockpit, and if they were, it is possible that one of them had no view of the instruments anyways. I’ve sat in jumpseats of many different airplanes, and some of them, you really can’t see much at all.</p>
<p>^^But what I don’t get is how the speed dropped so low. Presumably a pilot had to dial in the ~110 knots (when 150+ was required for landing)? And since air speed is so critical, how can they not look at it?</p>
<p>I sincerely doubt that was what happened, bluebayou, just speculating, of course. Unlikely that someone is going to roll the airspeed down that low, no matter the distraction. We will find out soon enough if there was an instrument failure, or if the autothrottles became disconnected without them realizing it and correcting for it, or what. Airspeed is always in a pilot’s crosscheck.</p>
<p>We have an occasional malfunction on the airplane I fly, with the autothrottle, an electrical glitch that resets the speed selector to 100 knots. You would normally catch that before takeoff, but we did have one crew that didn’t, and they rotated at 100 knots, probably 25-30 knots low, and got a tailstrike, with plenty of damage to the airplane. Sure, they should have caught it, but the programming shouldn’t have failed either. Things happen quickly sometimes.</p>
<p>Getting back to the matter of questionable behavior and panic during an emergency; I’ve been wanting to say this for a long, long time about the Hudson River event a few years ago…</p>
<p>It was a truly foolish passenger that greatly increased the possibility of tragedy once that plane hit the water. One panicked traveler (maybe others, too) insisted on opening the doors the second the plan landed in the water. Subsequent reports stated that the plane was fully capable of floating safely for a time to allow an efficient and safe evacuation. But a bullheaded passenger made his way past the flight attendant and forced open the door, immediately causing the cabin to fill with water, which necessitated getting everyone out pronto. People need to pay attention during the flight attendants’ instructions on emergency procedures.</p>
<p>I wonder if it’ll turn out to be like that flight that crashed in the Everglades in the 70s, where the entire cockpit crew got so fixated on a burned-out landing gear bulb that they forgot to fly the plane.</p>
<p>^^That reminds me of that United crash near Portland, in the late seventies. After that crash is when they started cockpit resource management. The crew got caught up working a gear problem, and ran out of fuel. What really struck me, was that the engineer was monitoring the fuel, making fuel callouts. The pilots were obviously distracted and weren’t even paying attention to him. But his last call, “Two minutes of fuel remaining,” he sounded like a robot. To anyone listening, you’d think, why is this guy not screaming way before that point, “We’re out of gas, land now, screw the gear!” Why is he just reporting that they are going to crash in two minutes, while nobody is listening to him? Preoccupation, blowing off the fuel gauges as incorrect, were considered the major factors. So many accident reports, they would make you crazy if you listened to them.</p>
<p>It sounds like the instructor was on his first lesson, and other pilot was first time at SFO as well as few flights in a 777.
Well built plane though.
:)</p>
<p>I just got an email from a friend of mine, that really makes me question the training of Korean pilots. I realize that all of my assumptions are based on typical pilots and the airlines here in the US. So…this really makes me wonder.</p>
<p>LasMa, I’ve been reading the airliners dot net forum ever since someone mentioned it upthread. Someone posted a very thought provoking post regarding the training of Korean pilots. It is post 117 in the “OZ 777 Crash at SFO Part 7” thread. I don’t think I’m permitted to post a link to it.</p>
<p>I’ve read it several times tonight, and I’m inclined to believe it had some impact on the events at SFO.</p>
<p>FlyMeToTheMoon…Sorry I didn’t reply sooner, I was at work all day…flying!! No, I don’t think that the pilots were on anything that would’ve contributed to this incident. Although that has happened from time to time in the past, it’s very rare and I doubt it’s a factor here. Tox screens for the crewmembers is a standard part of the investigation if a US airline is involved, but I don’t think it applies to foreign pilots. Conspiracy theorists may think something is being hidden if the pilots aren’t tested, but I really don’t think it’s an issue whatsoever.</p>
<p>The investigation seems to be focusing on what their airspeed bug was set to, and whether the auto-throttles were only “set” or did they fully “engage”. To be honest, I’m really having a problem seeing that it makes any difference one way or the other. Whether you are hand flying or using the automation to fly for you, it’s still the responsibility of the pilot(s) to monitor the performance of the airplane. I don’t care if the auto-throttles never engaged, or disengaged at some point, or a wrong speed was bugged, etc. etc…someone on that crew should’ve caught it MUCH earlier than they did.</p>
<p>Any pilot is taught a very simple principle from day one…Fly the Aircraft First!! New pilot in the 777? Fly the Aircraft First. New instructor as your right seat pilot? So what…Fly the Aircraft First. First landing at SFO in the 777? So what…every pilot has to have a first landing at an airport in every new aircraft they’re qualified to fly…Fly the Aircraft First. </p>
<p>As was mentioned upthread, too much reliance on automation erodes basic pilot skills. You become more of a computer operator than a pilot, and you can become complacent and always assume the automation will do your job for you and do it properly. Foreign pilots don’t necessarily train to the same standards that US pilots do, so it’s possible they might use the automation “crutch” even more heavily. These pilots forgot the Golden Rule of Flying, and it’s possible there might be some factors uncovered that help explain it…but it doesn’t excuse it.</p>
<p>I saw that same post that you did, FlyMe, but though it is definitely something to investigate, I don’t know how accurate it would be. You always have to consider the source. It was from someone who was fired, so he could easily have a serious axe to grind. I also have to wonder why someone would retire with a major airlines at 60-65 years old, and then move to Korea to be a sim instructor. Generally, people save their money, take their retirement pay, and well, retire. I can’t imagine keeping on doing it.</p>
<p>So as far as the post, while it sounds pretty incriminating… some of it is trivial and it’s not even worth mentioning as a negative. Plus if things were as bad as he claimed, Korean airlines wouldn’t have such a good safety record (currently). Just a few things I read really make me wonder. I only put so much stock in the airline pilots forums. Some people are just always enraged, and negative and putting everyone down. You really have to take it all with a grain of salt. Then again, there might be something to it. Without knowing the source, I’m not sure.</p>
<p>Presumably, they were seat-belted into the flight attendant jump seats. The seats, plus whatever piece of bulkhead that the seats were attached to, may have provided some protection from the impact.</p>
<p>I read this this morning on CNN about the flight attendant and felt my stomach drop:</p>
<p>As soon as the plane stopped, Lee knocked on the cockpit door to make sure the pilots were OK.</p>
<p>The captain opened the door.
“Are you OK, Captain?” she asked.
“Yes, I am OK,” he replied.
“Should I perform the evacuation?” she asked. He told her to wait, she recalled.</p>
<p>Why would she ask him for permission to evacuate a flight that just crash-landed, and why would he say ‘no.’ It just had ‘respect authority’ written all over it. I think we are going to hear more about this Culture thing all over again. And speaking as a Korean immigrant, very glad I don’t live there anymore in that suffocating environment.</p>