<p>You can’t crash airplanes just because you’re in training, and call it the other guys fault. You really can’t. I am most certain they will both be faulted, along with the pilots observing. I am also sure that both of them will be fired.</p>
<p>The bare minimum standard for any pilot is—you can’t crash an airplane, not just instructors can’t crash airplanes and trainees can get away with it. Are you an aviation lawyer? I’ve read a lot of accident reports, and don’t remember ever reading on a report that Pilot A was at fault, and Pilot B (who was flying) was an accessory to the crash…never heard someone being called “an accessory to the crash” in safety reports. Is that a legal term used in aviation accidents, or are you just making this up as you go along?</p>
<p>In fact, if I google, “accessory to the crash” and aviation, pilot, or flying, I get exactly one result. And it’s the same result from an accident in Moscow, in 1995. Don’t know if I’ve ever found just one result on Google before. So it’s a pretty good guess that you’re applying some logic that has nothing to do with aviation to this accident.</p>
<p>" I forgot the details, but pretty sure the pilot flying had to get something like 5 landings in to be signed off. This was his first landing outside the sim, if I recall correctly"</p>
<p>He had 43 hours in the 777, over nine flights. He probably got most of the landings. This was his first landing at San Francisco in the 777, though he had flown there before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, this is very possible, IF the other pilot has signed off as responsible for your training, which the check captain had to do in this case.</p>
<p>Not sure what the flying pilot will claim, but the company will hold the teacher (check captain) responsible for not teaching properly. The check captain will be blamed for not confirming airspeed and power settings along the different segments of the approach. </p>
<p>But, you might be prophetic: I would not be surprised if the attorney for the flying pilot said he got over-tasked, fixated on the runway alignment, slowed his scan and lost track of airspeed and power settings.</p>
<p>And the next question that will be asked is, “Why did not the teacher (check captain) see that and adjust the power settings or attitude or both to maintain airspeed?” The point is it is the job of the check captain to see such divergence from normal parameters. It will all come back to the check captain in the end.</p>
<p>The blame was probably assigned before the smoke cleared: since the flying pilot was not even signed off or authorized to land the airplane WITHOUT a check captain, the pilot who will be blamed the most is the only pilot who was authorized and signed off to actually land the airplane, i.e., the check captain. </p>
<p>No, everyone in the cockpit was able to land the airplane. I have no idea what, “authorized and signed off” actually means. Now the captain was not yet checked out, he was in the IOE phase and required to have an instructor, and was not qualified on that airplane. But after the simulator phase, you are authorized to do the very first landing in the airplane you are checking out on. The other captain and first officer on that flight (augmented crews are required on flights with high block hours) were completely qualified to land the airplane.</p>
<p>The crew will be faulted. Everyone in the cockpit, particularly the captain and the instructor. The contributing factors of fatigue and training issues will hopefully be adequately addressed. They don’t declare that person A is 25% to blame, and person B is 75% to blame, and so on. There are generally many different factors of things that did or didn’t happen that lead up to an accident. It is not generally one thing or one person only, it is almost always a combination and a sequence of events. And fatigue can make very smart people into very stupid ones.</p>
<p>Well I like the idea of going up in planes flown by pilots who can hand fly if they have to and planes that can be hand flown if necessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There was one pilot in the right seat who had the role of instructor pilot. He will get the most blame and an instructor pilot always has full responsibility for the flight. These were not just co-captains; one was a training-instructor captain. Changes the entire ballgame for him. </p>
<p>One way to think about this is the pilot flying was not allowed to fly the airplane without a more experienced check captain on board. However, the check captain can fly with anyone with less experience than him on board. That is the difference. </p>
<p>That flight, if I recall correctly, was top heavy with captains - three of them, but only one was an instructor-check captain responsible for training the other captains.</p>
<p>“There was one pilot in the right seat who had the role of instructor pilot. He will get the most blame and an instructor pilot always has full responsibility for the flight. These were not just co-captains; one was a training-instructor captain. Changes the entire ballgame for him.”</p>
<p>Not really. Fired is fired, and who is going to hire you as, “Pilot who crashed the Asiana 777,” when there are many thousands of highly qualified pilots out there trying to get jobs. As I said, the safety board doesn’t assign percentage of blame to people, they investigate the many factors, publish it, and the airlines try to compensate for any issues they can. Boeing will need to address system failures. I have heard there are some strange issues involved with the 777 autothrottles.</p>
<p>“Well I like the idea of going up in planes flown by pilots who can hand fly if they have to and planes that can be hand flown if necessary.”</p>
<p>I am definitely with you there. I would never fly in a drone. Even if an airplane was controlled from the ground, it would be crazy to not have someone in the cockpit there, at least to monitor.</p>
<p>Just in the last few years I have had things happen that I doubt could be detected by someone on the ground. Weird airframe vibrations that didn’t give any cockpit warnings, but just felt wrong. Grounded the airplane until they could do an inspection. Bird strikes that didn’t give any cockpit warnings, but we saw and felt the bird. Lightening strike that gave out no warnings, but we heard and felt it. Strange smelling odor in the cockpit that ended up being a battery overheat. Avionics fire indication that we determined whether it was real or not based upon smelling the avionics compartment. Evasive action taken due to seeing other aircraft that were too close. I don’t know how you can feel, smell and see every single thing if you aren’t sitting right there in the cockpit. Especially the feel and smell part. I can’t imagine that it will ever be possible to simulate everything, when will the technology ever be that good? You unnecessarily crash an airplane or two, and any cost savings from having drones will quickly disappear. Plus, who is going to fly on them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt. </p>
<p>But, if the company blames him in their report (which they will), they give serious ammo for civil suits from the dead and injured passengers families. That is very different than a mechanical. He is going to be bankrupt. </p>
<p>I am curious about that. I don’t know how it works as far as civil suits. Can a pilot be sued, or does their union or company have to cover any judgments? No idea. I think if I was any of these guys, I’d be hiding my money as best I could. Though that might be the least of their worries.</p>
<p>Yes - I don’t see where any cost saving would come in. You would still need qualified pilots with the requisite rest time etc. I’m also not sure that I would want to be piloted by a video game jockey who was used to the idea of just restarting if things didn’t go well.</p>
<p>^^That would be today’s generation, I think. And they’d be on Facebook or texting when they got bored.</p>
<p>You don’t need windows to be able to see outside.</p>
<p>“Because electronics never fail.”</p>
<p>Ha ha, there’s a good one!</p>
<p>Something electronic fails every single time I fly (albeit often temporarily and generally minor). Sometimes several electronic items fail.</p>
<p>I hope you know i was being sarcastic.
The bane of H’s existence are electronics.
If he was starting work today, he would probably go into something that just needed hand tools, rather than airplane manufacturing.</p>
<p>Most certainly I know you were being sarcastic. You are often are, which I appreciate.</p>
<p>Anyways, this article was really just about relocating the cockpit, not drones, but conversation about radically changing the way pilots operate always turns into talking about drones. My dad warned me thirty years ago I might not have a job for long, because pilotless airplanes were on the way. Glad I didn’t listen to him. I can’t imagine the cost saved by relocating the cockpit and having few windows is going to ever justify the expense. All it takes is one airplane to crash because of an electronic failure that should have been survivable, and nobody would get on a windowless airplane again.</p>
<p>The current push is to rid of every possible human factor, in regards to aviation. Since they’re trying to get rid of the pilots, how about getting rid of the passengers, too?</p>
<p><a href=“FAA Considering Passenger Ban”>http://www.theonion.com/articles/faa-considering-passenger-ban,44/</a></p>