Boeing 777 crash-lands at San Francisco Airport

[Little-Acorn]

Fox News just showed a picture of the beginning of the runway, and the area before the beginning.

Looks to me like the pilot came in to low, and caught the landing gear on the sea wall before he got to the runway.

There's a debris trail (actually two debris trails, looks like one for each main gear) starting exactly where the sea wall is, then it gets bigger and more spread out as you move toward the runway.

My guess is, the plan landed very short, almost put the wheels in the water bafore the runway, then the wheels (and maybe the engines under the wings) hit the sea wall, ripped off, maybe the tail hit too and came off. Then the rest of the plane slid down the runway and finally stopped.

Scariest part is that it looks like all the fire was INSIDE the fuselage. Gonna be a lot of casualties. Burns, smoke inhalation, this is a nasty one.

If the tail had come off while the plane was still in the air, the plane would have nosed down VERY sharply. If it was high enough, it would have pulled negative Gs until it was pointing straight down. Looks like it didn't do that, thank God.

[Little-Acorn]

It's also possible that the pilots saw at the last minute they were too low, and so pulled up HARD, which shoves the tail down. Maybe the tail was what hit the sea wall, and tore off. Then the rest of the plane slammed down in a fairly flat attitude, hard enough to collapse the landing gear, and slid down the runway until it stopped.

This is pure speculation at this point, a pilot's guess (from 500 miles away) from seeing pictures and video on TV, and mostly ignoring what the announcers are saying.

A fellow on another board who lives in San Francisco, told me there were no fog or clouds this morning in San Fran. If that's so, then it's a real puzzle how the plane could have been low enough to hit the sea wall before the runway, which it obviously did. Maybe a mechanical problem or a fuel problem occurred as the plane was descending toward the runway? Again, this is speculation only.

[Voted4Reagan]

http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20130706&t=2&i=748202333&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBRE9651KO300

[Robert A Whit]

Fox News just showed a picture of the beginning of the runway, and the area before the beginning.

Looks to me like the pilot came in to low, and caught the landing gear on the sea wall before he got to the runway.

There's a debris trail (actually two debris trails, looks like one for each main gear) starting exactly where the sea wall is, then it gets bigger and more spread out as you move toward the runway.

My guess is, the plan landed very short, almost put the wheels in the water bafore the runway, then the wheels (and maybe the engines under the wings) hit the sea wall, ripped off, maybe the tail hit too and came off. Then the rest of the plane slid down the runway and finally stopped.

Scariest part is that it looks like all the fire was INSIDE the fuselage. Gonna be a lot of casualties. Burns, smoke inhalation, this is a nasty one.

If the tail had come off while the plane was still in the air, the plane would have nosed down VERY sharply. If it was high enough, it would have pulled negative Gs until it was pointing straight down. Looks like it didn't do that, thank God.

I have been watching it since you mentioned it and this is the update.

The pilot gave no distress signal.

The eyewitness on the ground watched it crash.

He states it came in nose too high and it hit tail first, breaking off the tail. He says it could not hit the landing gear first due to the tail hitting first.

He says it did a 360 in the air after bouncing back up and came to rest in the present position.

A live video feed shows the top of the airplane is gone and looks to be burned off.

291 passengers with an alleged 2 dead.

The roof is gone from just behind the cockpit area all the way back to the part where the trailing edge of both wings intersects the fuselage. Passengers used a forward sliding chute to escape on the left side and on the opposite side a door is open.

A close up shot of the inside shows it is very black. It seems as if the majority of the passengers were able to escape the airplane sitting on the ground with the tail section missing.

[aboutime]

Unlike every other story usually reported here from the news media. I think a good idea would be.

Allow the REAL facts to be announced BEFORE all of the WHAT IF'S, and hypothetical speculation is permitted to take over.

Not too much to ask. And, last time I checked. Nobody gets any credit here for being the FIRST to announce what THEY believe took place.

[Voted4Reagan]

Unlike every other story usually reported here from the news media. I think a good idea would be.

Allow the REAL facts to be announced BEFORE all of the WHAT IF'S, and hypothetical speculation is permitted to take over.

Not too much to ask. And, last time I checked. Nobody gets any credit here for being the FIRST to announce what THEY believe took place.

Agreed...allow the FAA and the NTSB to do their jobs...

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by aboutime http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650653#post650653)
Unlike every other story usually reported here from the news media. I think a good idea would be.

Allow the REAL facts to be announced BEFORE all of the WHAT IF'S, and hypothetical speculation is permitted to take over.

Not too much to ask. And, last time I checked. Nobody gets any credit here for being the FIRST to announce what THEY believe took place.


Agreed...allow the FAA and the NTSB to do their jobs...

I am not at the airport but have the news on since being informed.

Am I being told off for reporting what the NEWS is stating?

So far, I reported what an eyewitness stated. Later after my report others agreed with that person. And the live video fees shows the plain hit tail first and ended up off the runway.

There is no issue over who posted first since I replied to the poster that posted first. Untill he said it, my channel was not reporting it. I changed channels to find out what is going on.

So far, 2 dead reported. It could have been far worse. I am reporting what I see on TV.

Seems that the passengers got off and later the fire happened. I saw video of the plane crashed with the escape slide on the pilots side deployed and nobody was next to the airplane. The other side shows the open door. I presume some escaped using that door but am not sure.

As I type, the news guy confirms the airplane was short of the runway, appears to have pulled up the nose and added power but the tail simply hit the ground causing the rest of the events to happen.

They announced that soon the airport will reopen. 17 planes so far were diverted to the San Jose Airport.

[jafar00]

My first though was about ILS. In a fog prone city like SF, shouldn't the airport have an ILS and why wasn't the pilot using it?

[aboutime]

My first though was about ILS. In a fog prone city like SF, shouldn't the airport have an ILS and why wasn't the pilot using it?


As if you cared, or bothered to read anything about it Jafar? It was a clear, sunny day in San Fran when that plane crashed. There was no need for ILS in that situation.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I am not at the airport but have the news on since being informed.

Am I being told off for reporting what the NEWS is stating?

So far, I reported what an eyewitness stated. Later after my report others agreed with that person. And the live video fees shows the plain hit tail first and ended up off the runway.

There is no issue over who posted first since I replied to the poster that posted first. Untill he said it, my channel was not reporting it. I changed channels to find out what is going on.

So far, 2 dead reported. It could have been far worse. I am reporting what I see on TV.

Seems that the passengers got off and later the fire happened. I saw video of the plane crashed with the escape slide on the pilots side deployed and nobody was next to the airplane. The other side shows the open door. I presume some escaped using that door but am not sure.

As I type, the news guy confirms the airplane was short of the runway, appears to have pulled up the nose and added power but the tail simply hit the ground causing the rest of the events to happen.

They announced that soon the airport will reopen. 17 planes so far were diverted to the San Jose Airport.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/124813/3103122-captain-obvious.jpg

[aboutime]

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/124813/3103122-captain-obvious.jpg


At least this thread didn't become another FLAP frenzy.

[Robert A Whit]

(Disruptive post) That being from Marcus. As usual, he spots my posts then leaps in to act disruptive.

In talking to my pal in San Diego this day, he informed me he is very suspicious of the instruments on the 777, specifically the air speed indicator and alarm system. He suspects it malfunctioned and that it may not be pilot error as I suspect it is. Vernon designed part of the MD-10 and the MD-12 which was shut down by McDonald douglas. He says when he worked on the DC-12, he also had design material on the 777.

I don't know since the investigation is not complete what caused the crash. I thought the tail was dragging in the bay but Vernon who saw those same videos says what I saw was the turbulence of the heavy airplane kicking up water. He says he is quote certain the tail did not rake the water.

[logroller]

I always just assume its gremlins regardless of the facts.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I always just assume its gremlins regardless of the facts.

worked for William Shatner.

[Robert A Whit]

I always just assume its gremlins regardless of the facts.

I still am in the dark why it crashed but my pal spent half an hour going over it with me and yet he won't tive a definite cause.

Since he designed those heavy airplanes, his word means a lot to me.

He shocked me by relating his health problems. February he had a heart attack and a bypass surgery. He was not home long from the hospital when he was rushed back due to his kidney failing. He had more surgery and due to fluid build up he first had a drain into a part of his body put in but that failed so he had a drain that drained to the outside of his body. That was not bad enough for a man of my age. Vernon tells me that in a few days his Pancreas biopsy will show he has cancer or a benign tumor in his Pancreas. He seemed to cheer up in my call to him. He caused me in high school to shape up. And he taught me Chess.

His father whom i knew died from Pancreas cancer so my prayers as I told him go to him.

He was immediately an airplane designer out of college and graduated from MIT. I have mentioned him in past posts. He is Japanese and as I have previously related was in an American prisoner of war camp during WWII along with his parents and other family. Funny how in high school he had not informed me of that.

When I need aircraft design explanations, I seek his help. He believes he does not have long to live.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650921#post650921)

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650917#post650917) ...And if I proved it to you, you would just piss and moan that I did not prove it...
So, you admit you did NOT prove it. That's a step forward for you, dumb ass.



Last comment is red ends the debate. You admit you did not PROVE it in the OP. Congrats.



I did not admit I had not proved it. However Marcus who admits he is no pilot and really knows a bit from reading, still must think the pilot used flaps.

That airplane flies best with no flaps and that is why normal take offs call for no flaps.

Unless Marcus plans to tell me the pilot did not follow his check list, I believe MArcus is done, stick a fork in him.

[Gaffer]

It will come down to be a simple pilot error case.

[logroller]

It will come down to be a simple pilot error case.
Aka a Gremlin cover-up, and you're likely correct, as the pilot had little flying experience with this type of aircraft. Apparently one of the fatalities has injuries consistent with having been run over, likely by one of the emergency vehicles. Talk about bad luck-- what are the odds that one would be in an airline crash and get run over by a firetruck-- astronomical. Makes me wonder if there wasn't lightning and/or sharks involved.

[Robert A Whit]

It will come down to be a simple pilot error case.

That was my first belief till I talked to a friend who designed those heavy planes. He told me that when the aircraft got under the correct landing speed the warning should have gone off alerting the pilot. But reports are the pilot got warned 1.5 seconds before crash. More news will be available tuesday. He told me that the warning should have gone off at least a half minute prior giving the pilot time to add power.

Here is a link where it is stated the plane was flying far too slow and allow the video to come up so you can watch it.

http://www.necn.com/07/08/13/Low-air-speed-a-contributing-factor-in-S/landing.html?blockID=845859&feedID=11106

[logroller]

Agreed...allow the FAA and the NTSB to do their jobs...
Nah-- we must harass the investigators with outlandish speculation and take their reservations to speak without due consideration of the evidence as tantamount proof of a conspiracy. :coffee:

"We can neither confirm nor deny the involvement of gremlins in the crash."

[logroller]

That was my first belief till I talked to a friend who designed those heavy planes. He told me that when the aircraft got under the correct landing speed the warning should have gone off alerting the pilot. But reports are the pilot got warned 1.5 seconds before crash. More news will be available tuesday. He told me that the warning should have gone off at least a half minute prior giving the pilot time to add power.

Here is a link where it is stated the plane was flying far too slow and allow the video to come up so you can watch it.

http://www.necn.com/07/08/13/Low-air-speed-a-contributing-factor-in-S/landing.html?blockID=845859&feedID=11106
Mr miyagi told me that you should never feed them after midnight.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I did not admit I had not proved it. However Marcus who admits he is no pilot and really knows a bit from reading, still must think the pilot used flaps.

That airplane flies best with no flaps and that is why normal take offs call for no flaps.

Unless Marcus plans to tell me the pilot did not follow his check list, I believe MArcus is done, stick a fork in him.

what does my signature have to do with the thread topic? Stop derailing.

[aboutime]

ROBERT. Do you feel extreme pressure pressing upon the inside of your cranium about now?

With all of the never-ending excuses you bring here. Continuing to drag something on, and on, and on, and on for so long.

I wonder why you aren't TALKING ABOUT ME anymore?

Since you have recently been complaining that my posts are always about me.

Let's talk about YOU, and your FLAPPING gums. (pun intended)

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651020#post651020)
That was my first belief till I talked to a friend who designed those heavy planes. He told me that when the aircraft got under the correct landing speed the warning should have gone off alerting the pilot. But reports are the pilot got warned 1.5 seconds before crash. More news will be available tuesday. He told me that the warning should have gone off at least a half minute prior giving the pilot time to add power.

Here is a link where it is stated the plane was flying far too slow and allow the video to come up so you can watch it.

http://www.necn.com/07/08/13/Low-air...9&feedID=11106 (http://www.necn.com/07/08/13/Low-air-speed-a-contributing-factor-in-S/landing.html?blockID=845859&feedID=11106)


Mr miyagi told me that you should never feed them after midnight.

Does that mean shut the hell up to all posters?

I believe I will go back to the Piper thread to find if you read my notes to you.

[Robert A Whit]

ROBERT. Do you feel extreme pressure pressing upon the inside of your cranium about now?

With all of the never-ending excuses you bring here. Continuing to drag something on, and on, and on, and on for so long.

I wonder why you aren't TALKING ABOUT ME anymore?

Since you have recently been complaining that my posts are always about me.

Let's talk about YOU, and your FLAPPING gums. (pun intended)

Friendly tip

Do not derail posts

I don't happen to be the topic nor am I interested in such.

When you derail, you promote fights.

[aboutime]

friendly tip

do not derail posts

i don't happen to be the topic nor am i interested in such.

When you derail, you promote fights.


​thank you mister 'pot'.

[Robert A Whit]

​thank you mister 'pot'.

.just acting as you act.

Why don't you give a shit about the airplane crash?

[logroller]

Does that mean shut the hell up to all posters?

I believe I will go back to the Piper thread to find if you read my notes to you.
No. It means I too have my sources to support my gremlin theory. How can you tell if I read your "notes"?

[Marcus Aurelius]

No. It means I too have my sources to support my gremlin theory. How can you tell if I read your "notes"?

What is William Shatner, compared to 'Al'? :laugh:

[jafar00]

As if you cared, or bothered to read anything about it Jafar? It was a clear, sunny day in San Fran when that plane crashed. There was no need for ILS in that situation.

ILS is also used on sunny days. It's landing on easy mode. The aircraft lines up and follows an optimum glide slope all the way to the deck.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/pilots-of-crashed-plane-faced-an-equipment-outage-other-challenges-landing-in-san-francisco/2013/07/07/5b4dfac8-e74f-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_story.html


The instrument landing system, or ILS, uses radio signals to create a three-dimensional “glide slope” for planes to follow so they aren’t too high, too low or too far to the right or left. The ILS for runway 28 left, where the plane crashed, had been shut down since June and the beginning of the runway was moved 300 feet to the west to accommodate construction at the airport, according to pilots who use the airport.




National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said Sunday investigators will look at what role, if any, the absence of the ILS may have played in the accident.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by aboutime http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650970#post650970)
As if you cared, or bothered to read anything about it Jafar? It was a clear, sunny day in San Fran when that plane crashed. There was no need for ILS in that situation.


ILS is also used on sunny days. It's landing on easy mode. The aircraft lines up and follows an optimum glide slope all the way to the deck.

Jafar is correct.

I plan to check SFO NOTAMS to see what all the facts are but ILS is there for instrument approaches and due to added features is best used if it works. On that airplane, the feedback to the pilot is invaluable. I expect since it was turned off that the VASI was working. But the plane came in for the landing far too slow. The cause will revolve around the pilot flying too slow. If the flight instruments were not working properly such as the airspeed indicator reading too high, it can get the pilot off the hook.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/07/sfo-landing-system_n_3556336.html

But pilots have grown to rely on the decades-old technology, which is designed specifically to prevent runway misses, so investigators are likely to look closely at the issue.

"The pilots would have had to rely solely on visual cues to fly the proper glide path to the runway, and not have had available to them the electronic information that they typically have even in good weather at most major airports," said Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the former US Airways pilot who gained fame with a successful crash landing on the Hudson River in 2009.

"What that means is that then the automatic warnings that would occur in the cockpit when you deviate below the desired electronic path wouldn't have been available either. So we don't know yet if that's a factor in this particular situation, but that's certainly something they'll be looking at," he told the local CBS News affiliate.

Glide Path is a computerized system based at an airport that calculates a plane's path of descent and sends it to pilots in real time.

San Francisco International has turned off the system for nearly the entire summer on the runway where the Asiana flight crashed, according to a notice from the airport on the Federal Aviation Administration's Web site. It showed the system out of service June 1-August 22 on runway 28 Left.

Kevin Hiatt, chief executive of the Flight Safety Foundation and a former Delta pilot, said it was common for airports to take instrument landing systems offline for maintenance on clear days. Pilots use several other instruments and visual cues to land in clear conditions, Hiatt said.

"All of those are more than adequate to fly an aircraft down for a successful landing on the runway," he said.

[logroller]

ILS is also used on sunny days. It's landing on easy mode. The aircraft lines up and follows an optimum glide slope all the way to the deck.
I don't know what ils is, but the glide slope equipment was disabled at sanfran since june, auspiciously for maintenance.


Authorities are also looking into what role the shutdown of key pilot navigational aid had in the crash. Hersman said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that the glide slope system is a ground-based aid that helps pilots stay on course while landing and it has been shut down at the San Francisco airport since June. The pilots, however, were notified before the crash that the system wasn't available.
Aircraft security experts told Reuters that the glide slope system is not essential for routine landings, but it's not unusual for airports to disable them for maintenance reasons.
"The pilots would have had to rely solely on visual cues to fly the proper glide path to the runway, and not have had available to them the electronic information that they typically have even in good weather at most major airports," said Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who crash landed a plane in New York's Hudson River in 2009, told a CBS news affiliate, according to Reuters.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/08/boeing-777-crashes-at-san-francisco-international-airport/#ixzz2YW9sKcsX
what what
--sully in the hizouse!!!!--- for all you kids playin 'who's got the best expert' at home, that's game set and match! Suck it Al.booya. :dance:

[Voted4Reagan]

They always say it....

Trust your instruments.

Ship or plane... Trust your Radar and Electronics.

[jafar00]

I don't know what ils is, but the glide slope equipment was disabled at sanfran since june, auspiciously for maintenance.


ILS or Instrument Landing System lines you up on the runway and follows the glideslope. Since the system was turned off, you would expect a commercial airline to employ a pilot competent enough to fly what should have been an easy landing, manually.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by logroller http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651081#post651081)
I don't know what ils is, but the glide slope equipment was disabled at sanfran since june, auspiciously for maintenance.

ILS or Instrument Landing System lines you up on the runway and follows the glideslope. Since the system was turned off, you would expect a commercial airline to employ a pilot competent enough to fly what should have been an easy landing, manually.

Yet many pilots landed with no problems that reached the public. I used VASI to land when it was available. VASI works well unless something like fog obscures the lights.

[Robert A Whit]

They always say it....

Trust your instruments.

Ship or plane... Trust your Radar and Electronics.

Well said

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/07/sfo-landing-system_n_3556336.html

But pilots have grown to rely on the decades-old technology, which is designed specifically to prevent runway misses, so investigators are likely to look closely at the issue.

"The pilots would have had to rely solely on visual cues to fly the proper glide path to the runway, and not have had available to them the electronic information that they typically have even in good weather at most major airports," said Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the former US Airways pilot who gained fame with a successful crash landing on the Hudson River in 2009.

"What that means is that then the automatic warnings that would occur in the cockpit when you deviate below the desired electronic path wouldn't have been available either. So we don't know yet if that's a factor in this particular situation, but that's certainly something they'll be looking at," he told the local CBS News affiliate.

Glide Path is a computerized system based at an airport that calculates a plane's path of descent and sends it to pilots in real time.

San Francisco International has turned off the system for nearly the entire summer on the runway where the Asiana flight crashed, according to a notice from the airport on the Federal Aviation Administration's Web site. It showed the system out of service June 1-August 22 on runway 28 Left.

Kevin Hiatt, chief executive of the Flight Safety Foundation and a former Delta pilot, said it was common for airports to take instrument landing systems offline for maintenance on clear days. Pilots use several other instruments and visual cues to land in clear conditions, Hiatt said.

"All of those are more than adequate to fly an aircraft down for a successful landing on the runway," he said.

If crashes were common at SFO, one might try to use the excuse about equipment. Even the pilot just prior to the crash landed with no problems. Pilots were landing there day and night with no problems.

Unless it was a bad instrument or other mechanical or electronic failure, this can be pinned on the pilot.

However, this pilot had over 9,000 flight hours and had long captained other aircraft. As my buddy is thinking, who used to design heavy aircraft, at the moment in order to not blame the pilot, I tend to agree the air speed indicator may have been the problem, showing the pilot a too hi speed reading. For instance, he was flying at something like 106 kts yet he should have been flying at or about 140 kts.

It will come out in the wash I am sure.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yet many pilots landed with no problems that reached the public. I used VASI to land when it was available. VASI works well unless something like fog obscures the lights.

They started replacing VASI with PAPI 10 years ago. If you were a pilot, you'd know that.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If crashes were common at SFO, one might try to use the excuse about equipment. Even the pilot just prior to the crash landed with no problems. Pilots were landing there day and night with no problems.

Unless it was a bad instrument or other mechanical or electronic failure, this can be pinned on the pilot.

However, this pilot had over 9,000 flight hours and had long captained other aircraft. As my buddy is thinking, who used to design heavy aircraft, at the moment in order to not blame the pilot, I tend to agree the air speed indicator may have been the problem, showing the pilot a too hi speed reading. For instance, he was flying at something like 106 kts yet he should have been flying at or about 140 kts.

It will come out in the wash I am sure.

This was his first 777 landing... ever.

[Little-Acorn]

A slightly better video (still not very good) of the plane's approach and crash:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Looks to me like the plane descended to below glide slope, pretty fast. Then levelled out in ground effect, flew level (below the correct glide slope), then descended at the last few seconds (maybe stalled?) to strike the sea wall. 50 feet later the tail surfaces come off, and the plane appears to do almost a complete 360 before coming to a stop.

The airline has said that the plane was flying 40mph slower than it should have been as it approached the runway. Getting too low and pulling the nose up probably didn't help that.

Why didn't the pilot(s) apply power as they passed thru the correct glide slope, maybe 15 seconds before reaching the end of the runway?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Miracle anyone walked away from that at all.

[logroller]

This was his first 777 landing... ever.
I just heard it was his first landing at that airport, not in that plane.iirc, he had 40 some odd hours on a 777 and nine flights. While pilot error no doubt played a role, he wasn't flying solo and the other crew members aren't absolved from any and all responsibility.More info to come, of course, but initial reports from the black box show just seconds of warning and the decision to abort just wasnt soon enough. Six seconds or something, that's the time in between the crash and the copilot's warning of low speed. I can only imagine the pilot is devastated. I don't see much point in raking him over the coals. If lack of experience precluded everyone from piloting an aircraft, nobody could get the experience. Somewhere there's a lesson in this, but I don't believe inexperience is to blame. It's a terrible accident, and perhaps there was some negligence involved; but at this point I just wish the victims a speedy recovery.

PS:ntsb said the engines appeared to be functioning normal....obviously they're trying to rule out gremlins first. :coffee:

[Marcus Aurelius]

I just heard it was his first landing at that airport, not in that plane.iirc, he had 40 some odd hours on a 777 and nine flights. While pilot error no doubt played a role, he wasn't flying solo and the other crew members aren't absolved from any and all responsibility.More info to come, of course, but initial reports from the black box show just seconds of warning and the decision to abort just wasnt soon enough. Six seconds or something, that's the time in between the crash and the copilot's warning of low speed. I can only imagine the pilot is devastated. I don't see much point in raking him over the coals. If lack of experience precluded everyone from piloting an aircraft, nobody could get the experience. Somewhere there's a lesson in this, but I don't believe inexperience is to blame. It's a terrible accident, and perhaps there was some negligence involved; but at this point I just wish the victims a speedy recovery.

PS:ntsb said the engines appeared to be functioning normal....obviously they're trying to rule out gremlins first. :coffee:

I could have read that wrong. I'll see if I can find the article I saw.

[Robert A Whit]

A slightly better video (still not very good) of the plane's approach and crash:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Looks to me like the plane descended to below glide slope, pretty fast. Then levelled out in ground effect, flew level (below the correct glide slope), then descended at the last few seconds (maybe stalled?) to strike the sea wall. 50 feet later the tail surfaces come off, and the plane appears to do almost a complete 360 before coming to a stop.

The airline has said that the plane was flying 40mph slower than it should have been as it approached the runway. Getting too low and pulling the nose up probably didn't help that.

Why didn't the pilot(s) apply power as they passed thru the correct glide slope, maybe 15 seconds before reaching the end of the runway?

My aircraft designer friend explained that and I relayed his explanation. He believes based on the late alarm as to airspeed that the pilot was not aware he was far under normal landing speed.

Ergo, he flew too slow, sank too fast and slammed into the sea wall nose too high.

It makes sense to me.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by logroller http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651140#post651140)
I just heard it was his first landing at that airport, not in that plane.iirc, he had 40 some odd hours on a 777 and nine flights. While pilot error no doubt played a role, he wasn't flying solo and the other crew members aren't absolved from any and all responsibility.More info to come, of course, but initial reports from the black box show just seconds of warning and the decision to abort just wasnt soon enough. Six seconds or something, that's the time in between the crash and the copilot's warning of low speed. I can only imagine the pilot is devastated. I don't see much point in raking him over the coals. If lack of experience precluded everyone from piloting an aircraft, nobody could get the experience. Somewhere there's a lesson in this, but I don't believe inexperience is to blame. It's a terrible accident, and perhaps there was some negligence involved; but at this point I just wish the victims a speedy recovery.

PS:ntsb said the engines appeared to be functioning normal....obviously they're trying to rule out gremlins first. :coffee:



I could have read that wrong. I'll see if I can find the article I saw.

This is the article I saw.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Asiana-Airlines-Pilot-Was-on-His-First-Time-Landing-a-Boeing-777-AP-366489.shtml

Asiana Airlines Pilot Was on His First Time Landing a Boeing 777 [AP]


However, as everything else online seems to say first time at SFO, I think this was a mistake in the title.

[Robert A Whit]

I just heard it was his first landing at that airport, not in that plane.iirc, he had 40 some odd hours on a 777 and nine flights. While pilot error no doubt played a role, he wasn't flying solo and the other crew members aren't absolved from any and all responsibility.More info to come, of course, but initial reports from the black box show just seconds of warning and the decision to abort just wasnt soon enough. Six seconds or something, that's the time in between the crash and the copilot's warning of low speed. I can only imagine the pilot is devastated. I don't see much point in raking him over the coals. If lack of experience precluded everyone from piloting an aircraft, nobody could get the experience. Somewhere there's a lesson in this, but I don't believe inexperience is to blame. It's a terrible accident, and perhaps there was some negligence involved; but at this point I just wish the victims a speedy recovery.

PS:ntsb said the engines appeared to be functioning normal....obviously they're trying to rule out gremlins first. :coffee:

Logroller, per FAA rules, if a crewmember was at fault, the blame rests only on the pilot in command. With 43 hrs in type, i believe he had landed that airplane many times. I tend to believe that prior to flying it, he trained in the flight simulator. He flew over 9,000 hours and that means he is no novice beginner.

I am still going with my friends theory that the airspeed indicator read far too low. Look where the pilot sits in relation to the entire airplane. He was flying a very large airplane and if his airspeed showed him at normal speed, his visuals would maybe have betrayed the pilot.

But if it is not mechanical, then then the pilot is on the hook and will very likely get blamed.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Logroller, per FAA rules, if a crewmember was at fault, the blame rests only on the pilot in command. With 43 hrs in type, i believe he had landed that airplane many times. I tend to believe that prior to flying it, he trained in the flight simulator. He flew over 9,000 hours and that means he is no novice beginner.

I am still going with my friends theory that the airspeed indicator read far too low. Look where the pilot sits in relation to the entire airplane. He was flying a very large airplane and if his airspeed showed him at normal speed, his visuals would maybe have betrayed the pilot.

But if it is not mechanical, then then the pilot is on the hook and will very likely get blamed.

Then explain how the whole flight crew was blamed here...
http://web.tampabay.com/news/business/faa-puts-blame-on-flight-crew-for-crash-that-killed-50/1070230

FAA puts blame on flight crew for crash that killed 50
They broke their own rule?

[logroller]

Rules schmools. If God had wanted us to fly he would have given us wings. Man flying is an abomination...anybody know where the cheapest parking is next to Burbank airport, I'm flying out on a Redeye :laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Rules schmools. If God had wanted us to fly he would have given us wings. Man flying is an abomination...anybody know where the cheapest parking is next to Burbank airport, I'm flying out on a Redeye :laugh2:

I was really expecting him to put in more of a damage control effort on that one. I guess even he knows he f-ed it :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

Pilot in Command means just that. Even during the final stage of the Buffalo NY crash, it was the duty of the Captain as pilot in command to properly handle problems and land the airplane.

While there are times the pilot may escape blame, it normally involves a malfunction of a flight instrument or a catastrophe with the airplane. We can't blame the Pilot if both engines fall off or the vertical stabilizer with rudder fall off, but those are very rare.

The FAA term PIC or pilot in command means that in almost all cases, the pilot gets the blame. Even if a crew makes an error, the pilot as commander takes the hit for not properly exercising command.

As to the crash at Buffalo, some years ago, some reporter is not the final word. The accident report is the report to be relied on.

As to the article supplied to the forum, it also says this.

**************
But the first officer aboard Continental Connection Flight 3407, Rebecca L. Shaw, 24, set a separate program using ordinary speeds. Shaw has also been criticized for sending text messages before takeoff, possibly distracting her. She also had a bad cold.
When the alarm finally triggered, Renslow reacted improperly.
Evan Byrne, a psychologist on the safety board staff, said the captain's response was "consistent with startle and confusion."
Renslow pushed the throttle forward for more power, but not far enough; the first officer did not notice. Then he pulled back on the control column, forcing the nose into the air — the opposite of what he should have done. The plane was not actually stalling until the captain pushed the nose up, the safety board staff said, and there was very little ice on the plane.
But the basic problem was poor response to the alarm, the staff said. Handling the low-speed alarm, Dr. Byrne said, "did not require exceptional skills or inputs on the flight controls."
"Neither pilot made any call-outs or commands associated with the company's stall-recovery procedure," Dr. Byrne said.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Pilot in Command means just that. Even during the final stage of the Buffalo NY crash, it was the duty of the Captain as pilot in command to properly handle problems and land the airplane.

While there are times the pilot may escape blame, it normally involves a malfunction of a flight instrument or a catastrophe with the airplane. We can't blame the Pilot if both engines fall off or the vertical stabilizer with rudder fall off, but those are very rare.

The FAA term PIC or pilot in command means that in almost all cases, the pilot gets the blame. Even if a crew makes an error, the pilot as commander takes the hit for not properly exercising command.

As to the crash at Buffalo, some years ago, some reporter is not the final word. The accident report is the report to be relied on.

As to the article supplied to the forum, it also says this.

**************
But the first officer aboard Continental Connection Flight 3407, Rebecca L. Shaw, 24, set a separate program using ordinary speeds. Shaw has also been criticized for sending text messages before takeoff, possibly distracting her. She also had a bad cold.
When the alarm finally triggered, Renslow reacted improperly.
Evan Byrne, a psychologist on the safety board staff, said the captain's response was "consistent with startle and confusion."
Renslow pushed the throttle forward for more power, but not far enough; the first officer did not notice. Then he pulled back on the control column, forcing the nose into the air — the opposite of what he should have done. The plane was not actually stalling until the captain pushed the nose up, the safety board staff said, and there was very little ice on the plane.
But the basic problem was poor response to the alarm, the staff said. Handling the low-speed alarm, Dr. Byrne said, "did not require exceptional skills or inputs on the flight controls."
"Neither pilot made any call-outs or commands associated with the company's stall-recovery procedure," Dr. Byrne said.

Point 1: You've now gone back into your normal spin mode, and backtracked, as usual. You said...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651148#post651148)

Logroller, per FAA rules, if a crewmember was at fault, the blame rests only on the pilot in command.

...yet now you've backtracked to say...

...The FAA term PIC or pilot in command means that in almost all cases, the pilot gets the blame...

So, which FAA rule, you claimed, is correct? The one where the pilot gets all the blame, or the one where the pilot almost always gets all the blame?

As for the part you posted under the *******... all that does is bolster my original post, where the FAA blamed the entire flight crew.

http://i.qkme.me/3v4c1e.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

Trying to spin my posts is your only expertise.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Trying to spin my posts is your only expertise.

And where is the link to ANY post where I claimed 'expertise'?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Still waiting for Robert to link to the FAA Rule that states the pilot bears full/sole blame/responsibility if any of the flight crew are to blame for a crash... come one... SPIN Robert... SPIN!!!!!!:laugh:


In the meantime...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/us/asiana-airlines-crash/index.html


The pilot at the helm of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was training to fly a Boeing 777 and was sitting next to a man in his first trip as an instructor pilot when their plane's main landing gear hit a seawall around San Francisco's airport, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

A 'flight' pilot in experienced with the 777, next to an 'instructor' pilot who had never been an instructor pilot before.

Yeah, that can only be good.:rolleyes:

[aboutime]

Marcus. Here is my contribution to Robert and his possible SPIN....5221.

[Robert A Whit]

A slightly better video (still not very good) of the plane's approach and crash:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Looks to me like the plane descended to below glide slope, pretty fast. Then levelled out in ground effect, flew level (below the correct glide slope), then descended at the last few seconds (maybe stalled?) to strike the sea wall. 50 feet later the tail surfaces come off, and the plane appears to do almost a complete 360 before coming to a stop.

The airline has said that the plane was flying 40mph slower than it should have been as it approached the runway. Getting too low and pulling the nose up probably didn't help that.

Why didn't the pilot(s) apply power as they passed thru the correct glide slope, maybe 15 seconds before reaching the end of the runway?

I picked this up today.....

http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-findings-sf-plane-crash-133726993.html

My note:

The pilot who may get the blame in my opinion will be the instructor pilot .



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- After departing from Shanghai and stopping in Seoul, Asiana Flight 214 makes its final approach into San Francisco International Airport following a 10-hour flight across the Pacific Ocean. A preliminary review of the crash by U.S. investigators turns up the following:
—APPROACH PROCEEDS NORMALLY: Pilot Lee Gang-guk, making his first landing at San Francisco in a Boeing 777, is at the controls. His training instructor, Lee Jeong-min, is the co-pilot. They receive clearance from air traffic control to land without instrument landing system. Visibility is about 10 miles with winds out of the southwest at 7 knots. There are no distress calls or special requests in the air traffic control tapes that captured the discussion between the tower and the Asiana pilots.
—PLANE DESCENDS: At 1,600 feet and 82 seconds before impact, the autopilot is disengaged, a normal procedure. At 1,400 feet and 73 seconds before impact, the plane's speed is about 170 knots. At 500 feet and 34 seconds before impact, the speed has dropped to 134 knots, just below the optimal landing speed of 137 knots that the pilots believe has been programmed into the "autothrottle." Lee Jeong-min recognizes the plane is coming in too low and tells Lee Gang-guk to "pull back."
—16 SECONDS OUT: Plane is at 200 feet and traveling at 118 knots. The Precision Approach Path Indicator that uses red and white lights to tell pilots if they are approaching correctly is all red, indicating the plane is much too low. Lee Jeong-min recognizes the autothrottle isn't maintaining the proper speed.
—8 SECONDS OUT: At an altitude of 125 feet, the plane is traveling at 112 knots when the throttles begin moving forward.
—4 SECONDS OUT: The stick shaker, a yoke the pilots hold, begins vibrating, indicating the plane could stall.
—3 SECONDS OUT: The plane is traveling at 103 knots, the slowest speed recorded by the flight data recorder. The engines begin increasing power from 50 percent.
— 1.5 SECONDS OUT: From the cockpit comes a call to abort the landing and go around for another try.
—CRASH: The plane, which has increased its speed to 106 knots, clips the seawall at the end of the runway with its landing gear and then its tail, which breaks off. Two flight attendants in the back of the plane are ejected but survive. The plane spins on the runway and slides to a stop. The controller declares an emergency and rescue vehicles rush to the scene.

[Robert A Whit]

Marcus. Here is my contribution to Robert and his possible SPIN....5221.

Tell us all about your time as the ships captain. Talk about spin.

[aboutime]

Tell us all about your time as the ships captain. Talk about spin.


Too bad for you Robert. I must burst your bubble and tell you. Unlike you. I have never pretended to be the Captain of anything.

[Robert A Whit]

I have introduced Al to the forum. Al's son Dick has a lot of time as captain of business Jets and many other airplanes. He was kind enough to forward to Al who sent this to me.

I do not supply links to my e mail.

=============================

This is from Dick. I thought that you might like to read it...............Al

Got this from friend of a friend who is retired United 747 Captain.



After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the –400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it’s a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.

One of the first things I learned was that the pilots kept a web-site and reported on every training session. I don’t think this was officially sanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a database was building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran the sessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for. For example; I used to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO and I would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG and many of the captains were coming off the 777 or B744 and they were used to the Master Caution System being inhibited at 80 kts. Well, for the first few days after I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden they all “got it” and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). The word had gotten out. I figured it was an overall PLUS for the training program.

We expat instructors were forced upon them after the amount of fatal accidents (most of the them totally avoidable) over a decade began to be noticed by the outside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, Transport Canada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program or face being banned from the skies all over the world. They hired Boeing and Airbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana has another. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conducting training KAL and about 40 at Asiana. Most instructors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with a few stuffed in from Europe and Asia. Boeing also operated training centers in Singapore and China so they did hire some instructors from there.

This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce “normal” standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able to master basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 kt crosswind and the weather CAVOK. I am not kidding when I tell you that requiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... with good reason. Like this Asiana crew, it didn't’ compute that you needed to be a 1000’ AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min. But, after 5 years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their training and sometimes if I just couldn’t pass someone on a check, I had no choice but to fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistance against me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turned out he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on the fleet I was teaching on. I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL was not going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check and continued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain Brown was.

Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describe these events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. By the way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administered them. He requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for the approach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested “Radar Vectors” to final. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would have cleared him to the IAF and then “Cleared for the approach” and he could have selected “Exit Hold” and been on his way. He was already in LNAV/VNAV PATH. So, I gave him vectors to final with a 30 degree intercept. Of course, he failed to “Extend the FAF” and he couldn’t understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and missed approaches before he figured out that his active waypoint was “Hold at XYZ.” Every time he punched LNAV, it would try to go back to the IAF ... just like it was supposed to do. Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their own rules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen major errors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork. He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL).

This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are not more, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in the future unless some drastic steps are taken. They are already required to hire a certain percentage of expats to try to ingrain more flying expertise in them, but more likely, they will eventually be fired too. One of the best trainees I ever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) who flew C-141’s in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hired by KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and of course, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few years and he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start a pilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs on international flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED!

The Koreans are very very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an airplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hour before the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) with the entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But, putting that information to actual use was many times impossible. Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure it out completely, but I think I did uncover a few clues. Here is my best guess. First off, their educational system emphasizes ROTE memorization from the first day of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learning and they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM/CLR, it still exists either on the surface or very subtly. You just can’t change 3000 years of culture.

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are Ok. I guess they don’t trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea. But, they don’t get the kids who grew up flying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They do recruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and get them their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with the ex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a Naval Aviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I would get experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terrible pilots if they had to hand fly the airplane. What a shock!

Finally, I’ll get off my box and talk about the total flight hours they claim. I do accept that there are a few talented and free-thinking pilots that I met and trained in Korea. Some are still in contact and I consider them friends. They were a joy! But, they were few and far between and certainly not the norm.

Actually, this is a worldwide problem involving automation and the auto-flight concept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US or Australia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. After takeoff, in accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged at 250’ after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Hardly one minute. Then he might fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below 800’ after the gear was down, flaps extended and on airspeed (autothrottle). Then he might bring it in to land. Again, how much real “flight time” or real experience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, it’s the same only they get more inflated logbooks.

So, when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVOK weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

Tom

[Robert A Whit]

Too bad for you Robert. I must burst your bubble and tell you. Unlike you. I have never pretended to be the Captain of anything.

I have not claimed to be captain of anything. I do happen to be a pilot. So when you want to poor mouth a pilot, let it be after you are a pilot.

[Little-Acorn]

At 500 feet and 34 seconds before impact, the speed has dropped to 134 knots, just below the optimal landing speed of 137 knots that the pilots believe has been programmed into the "autothrottle."

(later)

Lee Jeong-min recognizes the autothrottle isn't maintaining the proper speed.

This to me is highly significant.

Apparently an "autothrottle" is a computer-controlled mechanism that pilots can activate if they want to, that automatically uses engine power to keep the speed of the plane constant, usually used during landings. Sounds almost like an airplane version of a car's Cruise Control.

Aircraft speed becomes critical during times of relatively slow flight. If a plane flies too slowly, the wings can lose their grip on the air, and the plane will suddenly fall like a stone. Pilots call this a "stall". At higher speeds (like when the plane is up high and flying normally toward its destination) this isn't important, because the plane is a long way away from its stall speed, and slight variations in speed don't endanger it.

During landings, though, the plane is flying much more slowly, and pilots must (or should be) keeping a VERY close eye on speed. If they tilt the plane into a nose-up attitude without increasing engine power, it's like riding a bicycle up a hill without pedalling any harder: The bike will slow down rapidly and may fall over. This "auto-throttle" sounds like a handy way to automatically "pedal harder": apparently when the plane slows down below a certain speed, the autothrottle applies more engine power to avoid slowing down.

But if the account here is correct, it sounds like the pilots assumed the autothrottle was turned on, when in fact it was not. They pulled the nose up, apparently expecting the autothrottle to automatically increase engine power. When they finally noticed the power wasn't increasing, the plane had slowed so much that it was one inch away from losing its grip on the air and falling like a stone, and in fact it DID start falling, as can be seen in the videos earlier in this thread. Engine power finally started increasing, literally at the last second, but it was too late, and the plane clipped the sea wall before the beginning of the runway.

It's starting to sound like the pilots relied too heavily on a fancy gadget, and maybe didn't set it up correctly when landing. Or maybe they did set it up correctly but it malfunctioned, I don't know.

Every flight instructor I've seen (though I've never been in training for flying a big airliner) teaches its pilots two different basic ways of landing:

1.) Start the landing high up, reduce engine power to zero, and basically glide down to touch the runway where you want and at the speed you want, without using engine power at all.

2.) Start the landing lower, and come in at a very flat angle, using some engine power to keep the plane's speed up and "stretch the glide" to reach the end of the runway.

Most aircraft I've seen, from small planes to big airliners, use Method 2, in part because the engines nowadays are very reliable and can be trusted to respond as needed. But "back in the old days", engines were not so reliable, so the idea was to do all your close-to-the-ground maneuvering without relying on the engine at all. Even if your engine quit unexpectedly, you can still get to the runway safely.

To me, it's hard to imagine a pilot using Method 2 ("carrying power") without having one hand on the throttle lever(s). If you're going to use it as a flight control, how can you NOT be monitoring it every second, as you monitor the other flight controls (ailerons, elevator, rudder, flaps). How could they possibly go that long below their desired speed, and NOT notice that the power did not come on as it should have?

Even if the autothrottle malfunctioned, they should have been in a position to shove the throttles forward immediately, long before the plane slowed to its stall speed.

Autothrottle or no autothrottle, this is sounding more and more like pilot error to me.

Either they failed to properly set up this "autothrottle".... or they set it up properly but then it malfunctioned. And whichever way it happened, someone's hand should have been physically on the throttle levers, just in case, ready to apply power if (somehow) the autothrottle didn't when it was needed. All pilots know you don't have much room for error, when you're flying that close to the ground, and at (relatively slow) landing speeds.

Relying 100% on an active mechanical device at such a critical time, when you don't have to, sounds shockingly negligent to me. Even if it worked right the last hundred times.

If you're carrying a gun, you always make sure it's been made safe (unloaded, and/or with safety on, hammer down, and no round in the chamber)... AND THEN YOU STILL ALWAYS CARRY IT POINTING IN A SAFE DIRECTION, just in case you goofed one time in unloading it.

As is the case with nearly every plane crash, it sounds like it took more than one error to bring this plane down.

The autothrottle, for whatever reason, didn't apply power when it should have.

And the pilots weren't alertly monitoring speed, but apparently trusting the autothrottle totally. And so they were too late in shoving the throttles forward when the autothrottle didn't do it for them.

And maybe a third error: The pilots didn't check to make sure the autothrottle was correctly engaged and set to the correct speed - surely there is a way to verify that long before throttling action is actually needed.

[aboutime]

I have not claimed to be captain of anything. I do happen to be a pilot. So when you want to poor mouth a pilot, let it be after you are a pilot.



That's really a good, funny one Robert "POOR MOUTH?" Makes no sense, and oh, by the way I am a SKY PILOT. At least I was on several Sunday's at sea, when our Chaplain was laid up with various physical problems.

Never flew any aircraft...other than the Balsa Wood kind attached to two wires, and a handle that made me dizzy until the crash.

[Robert A Whit]

That's really a good, funny one Robert "POOR MOUTH?" Makes no sense, and oh, by the way I am a SKY PILOT. At least I was on several Sunday's at sea, when our Chaplain was laid up with various physical problems.

Never flew any aircraft...other than the Balsa Wood kind attached to two wires, and a handle that made me dizzy until the crash.

OK

Whatever you want to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Marcus Aurelius]

I have introduced Al to the forum. Al's son Dick has a lot of time as captain of business Jets and many other airplanes. He was kind enough to forward to Al who sent this to me.

I do not supply links to my e mail.

=============================

This is from Dick. I thought that you might like to read it...............Al
,,,

Tom

From Dick, via Al, signed Tom

Oh holy crap :laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

...

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly....

First, there is a NORTH Korea, and a SOUTH Korea at the moment... not just Korea.

Second, if that is true, explain this...

http://www.aircraft-charter-world.com/airports/asia/southkorea.htm
11 Private/Civilian airports... fully 1/3 of the total.


http://candidate.catstest.com/locations/osan-aero-club/
Why does C.A.T.S have a private pilot testing center in Osan, South Korea?

http://aerosoftseo.com/machaviatrix/country/SouthKorea/
Why does Aerosoft offer pilot training on a Cessna-152, a Cessna-172, Piper Aztec, in South Korea?

Please............ I could do this all day.

[aboutime]

From Dick, via Al, signed Tom

Oh holy crap :laugh2:


MARCUS. I know this guy who Robert calls Dick....5227. He really GETS AROUND!

[Robert A Whit]

This to me is highly significant.

(A) Apparently an "autothrottle" is a computer-controlled mechanism that pilots can activate if they want to, that automatically uses engine power to keep the speed of the plane constant, usually used during landings. Sounds almost like an airplane version of a car's Cruise Control.

(B)Aircraft speed becomes critical during times of relatively slow flight. If a plane flies too slowly, the wings can lose their grip on the air, and the plane will suddenly fall like a stone. Pilots call this a "stall". At higher speeds (like when the plane is up high and flying normally toward its destination) this isn't important, because the plane is a long way away from its stall speed, and slight variations in speed don't endanger it.

(C)During landings, though, the plane is flying much more slowly, and pilots must (or should be) keeping a VERY close eye on speed. If they tilt the plane into a nose-up attitude without increasing engine power, it's like riding a bicycle up a hill without pedalling any harder: The bike will slow down rapidly and may fall over. This "auto-throttle" sounds like a handy way to automatically "pedal harder": apparently when the plane slows down below a certain speed, the autothrottle applies more engine power to avoid slowing down.

(D)But if the account here is correct, it sounds like the pilots assumed the autothrottle was turned on, when in fact it was not. They pulled the nose up, apparently expecting the autothrottle to automatically increase engine power. When they finally noticed the power wasn't increasing, the plane had slowed so much that it was one inch away from losing its grip on the air and falling like a stone, and in fact it DID start falling, as can be seen in the videos earlier in this thread. Engine power finally started increasing, literally at the last second, but it was too late, and the plane clipped the sea wall before the beginning of the runway.

(E)It's starting to sound like the pilots relied too heavily on a fancy gadget, and maybe didn't set it up correctly when landing. Or maybe they did set it up correctly but it malfunctioned, I don't know.

(F)Every flight instructor I've seen (though I've never been in training for flying a big airliner) teaches its pilots two different basic ways of landing:

1.) Start the landing high up, reduce engine power to zero, and basically glide down to touch the runway where you want and at the speed you want, without using engine power at all.

2.) Start the landing lower, and come in at a very flat angle, using some engine power to keep the plane's speed up and "stretch the glide" to reach the end of the runway.

Most aircraft I've seen, from small planes to big airliners, use Method 2, in part because the engines nowadays are very reliable and can be trusted to respond as needed. But "back in the old days", engines were not so reliable, so the idea was to do all your close-to-the-ground maneuvering without relying on the engine at all. Even if your engine quit unexpectedly, you can still get to the runway safely.

To me, it's hard to imagine a pilot using Method 2 ("carrying power") without having one hand on the throttle lever(s). If you're going to use it as a flight control, how can you NOT be monitoring it every second, as you monitor the other flight controls (ailerons, elevator, rudder, flaps). How could they possibly go that long below their desired speed, and NOT notice that the power did not come on as it should have?

Even if the autothrottle malfunctioned, they should have been in a position to shove the throttles forward immediately, long before the plane slowed to its stall speed.

(G)Autothrottle or no autothrottle, this is sounding more and more like pilot error to me.

Either they failed to properly set up this "autothrottle".... or they set it up properly but then it malfunctioned. And whichever way it happened, someone's hand should have been physically on the throttle levers, just in case, ready to apply power if (somehow) the autothrottle didn't when it was needed. All pilots know you don't have much room for error, when you're flying that close to the ground, and at (relatively slow) landing speeds.

Relying 100% on an active mechanical device at such a critical time, when you don't have to, sounds shockingly negligent to me. Even if it worked right the last hundred times.

If you're carrying a gun, you always make sure it's been made safe (unloaded, and/or with safety on, hammer down, and no round in the chamber)... AND THEN YOU STILL ALWAYS CARRY IT POINTING IN A SAFE DIRECTION, just in case you goofed one time in unloading it.

As is the case with nearly every plane crash, it sounds like it took more than one error to bring this plane down.

The autothrottle, for whatever reason, didn't apply power when it should have.

And the pilots weren't alertly monitoring speed, but apparently trusting the autothrottle totally. And so they were too late in shoving the throttles forward when the autothrottle didn't do it for them.

And maybe a third error: The pilots didn't check to make sure the autothrottle was correctly engaged and set to the correct speed - surely there is a way to verify that long before throttling action is actually needed.

(A) This is how Deborah Hersman described it
(B) When they stall, they do "lose grip". When the wing stalls, the plane is no longer flying, but is falling. I agree with your entire post.
(C) The reports are the auto-throttle was armed. I posted a report by a retired Airline captain about the unique way pilots from Asia and Korea operate airplanes. As you point out, a good pilot has his hand on the throttle and carries enough power to quickly do a go around.
(D) I was trained that power not only adds airspeed, but you gain lift. Due to how the Asians were trained, where they rely too much on computers, as you say it looks to me like the instructor pilot will end up being blamed short of some failure in flight instruments. Still, we were trained in the USA to fly the airplane at all times. To the non pilot, this means that no matter what, the pilot still must be in total control.
(E) Too hard to tell for sure right now.
(F) I normally use #2. It is way too hard on me to simply float down to land.
(G) In this country, it is very hard for the PIC (in this case, the flight instructor sitting in the co pilots seat) to escape blame. This is why we pilots are trained to do emergency landings.

Today I watched a Captain in a simulator on CBS do the normal landing at SFO and as he explained, if you are in trouible at 500 feet, you do a go around.

I referred to the VASI but today learned that at SFO the VASI is more complex and is called a PAPI

VASI shows on landing red lights and white lights. The system at SFO also has red lights and white lights but there are more of them and they call them I think, PAPI (I could be calling it the wrong thing and plan to find out to ensure correct information is posted by me)

USing PAPI many pilots land safely and thus the pilot on this doomed flight should easily have landed safely. The ILS is a bonus but aircraft must be equipped to make use of it. Commercial airliners are equipped.

As Deborah Hersman said today, the pilot has a duty to ensure he is getting from the auto system what he is supposed to get.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651383#post651383)
...

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly...


Robert replies
You are trying to pretend that Tom's words are my words Marcus. As I told the forum, you live to whine and deceive and use out of context words as your tag line. I also add that Tom qualified his remarks. See if you can explain to all of us what his qualifier was?



First, there is a NORTH Korea, and a SOUTH Korea at the moment... not just Korea.

Second, if that is true, explain this...

http://www.aircraft-charter-world.com/airports/asia/southkorea.htm
11 Private/Civilian airports... fully 1/3 of the total.


http://candidate.catstest.com/locations/osan-aero-club/
Why does C.A.T.S have a private pilot testing center in Osan, South Korea?

http://aerosoftseo.com/machaviatrix/country/SouthKorea/
Why does Aerosoft offer pilot training on a Cessna-152, a Cessna-172, Piper Aztec, in South Korea?

Please............ I could do this all day.

Fuckin eh you can. You are legendary for tying to fuck up forums.

[Robert A Whit]

MARCUS. I know this guy who Robert calls Dick....5227. He really GETS AROUND!

SAy ABout time, why can't you simply stick to the topic?

You now claim to know Dick Melcher?

What is next? That you captained ships?

[aboutime]

SAy ABout time, why can't you simply stick to the topic?

You now claim to know Dick Melcher?

What is next? That you captained ships?


Thanks again Robert. Another funny from ya? My goodness. When will this ever stop?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I referred to the VASI but today learned that at SFO the VASI is more complex and is called a PAPI

VASI shows on landing red lights and white lights. The system at SFO also has red lights and white lights but there are more of them and they call them I think, PAPI (I could be calling it the wrong thing and plan to find out to ensure correct information is posted by me)

USing PAPI many pilots land safely and thus the pilot on this doomed flight should easily have landed safely. The ILS is a bonus but aircraft must be equipped to make use of it. Commercial airliners are equipped.




you're too big a pussy to even admit I called you on VASI already in this thread.


They started replacing VASI with PAPI 10 years ago. If you were a pilot, you'd know that.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651383#post651383)
...

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. It’s actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly...


Robert replies
You are trying to pretend that Tom's words are my words Marcus. As I told the forum, you live to whine and deceive and use out of context words as your tag line. I also add that Tom qualified his remarks. See if you can explain to all of us what his qualifier was?






http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651403#post651403)

First, there is a NORTH Korea, and a SOUTH Korea at the moment... not just Korea.

Second, if that is true, explain this...

http://www.aircraft-charter-world.co...southkorea.htm (http://www.aircraft-charter-world.com/airports/asia/southkorea.htm)
11 Private/Civilian airports... fully 1/3 of the total.


http://candidate.catstest.com/locations/osan-aero-club/
Why does C.A.T.S have a private pilot testing center in Osan, South Korea?

http://aerosoftseo.com/machaviatrix/country/SouthKorea/
Why does Aerosoft offer pilot training on a Cessna-152, a Cessna-172, Piper Aztec, in South Korea?

Please............ I could do this all day.







Fuckin eh you can. You are legendary for tying to fuck up forums.

interesting. Instead of addressing the fact that I caught you in yet another 'goof', you simply attack and whine.

Nothing about how there ARE private pilots and airports in South Korea, and even flight schools, so it CANT POSSIBLY BE ILLEGAL?

As for your 'friend' AL/Dick/Tom. or whatever you are going to call him tomorrow, Sorry... but most people on this forum would take what they can verify online from multiple credible sources, rather than what you 'claim' is an email from 'a friend'.

It's that little thing called... proof. You know, the concept you has so much trouble understanding.

[aboutime]

http://youtu.be/3_HIcbpzpZw

For WHOM it may concern.
This video demonstrates the use of Flaps prior to landing.
After watching this. You will see another video of a TAKEOFF...using Flaps.

END OF STORY.

[Marcus Aurelius]

(G) In this country, it is very hard for the PIC (in this case, the flight instructor sitting in the co pilots seat) to escape blame. This is why we pilots are trained to do emergency landings.

YOU claimed that it was an FAA rule that the pilot bears sole responsibility in the event any of the flight crew are found to have caused/contributed to a crash.

I link showing an entire flight crew getting blamed was provided, proving you incorrect. Again.

You were asked repeatedly to link to said rule, which you failed to do.

You then went into 'spin' mode, and claimed 'usually' the pilot would get the blame.

Still in 'spin' mode I see.

[Robert A Whit]

Thanks again Robert. Another funny from ya? My goodness. When will this ever stop?

Well, you say such strange but funny things, no doubt to satisfy your craving for attention so as long as you perform, I plan to notice.

AT, I have read your many lies told about me. I notice how a thread starts out fine and then you chime in. And I reply. And you get that much needed attention. So, how funny is that?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651128#post651128)
They started replacing VASI with PAPI 10 years ago. If you were a pilot, you'd know that.


So fucking what?

And no, I do not read all of your posts.

I am a pilot. I don't owe you any explanation. I have never flown any airplane to land at SFO do don't get pissy because I did not know they are using PAPI and all it amounts to is a few more lights in the system. VASI and PAPI are nearly the same thing.

If you still think I am not a pilot, you are more stupid than you look.

[Robert A Whit]

I get a kick out of this boob Marcus. Supposedly as he told me, he is no expert.

But no matter what I post, even commentary by others, he leaps to his computer ready for battle. To him this is no joy, it is some damned war.

Today he accused me of not being a pilot using the excuse that airports are converting to PAPI and acting like since I have never logged a landing at SFO somehow that brands me as not a pilot is dumb shit. All he is doing is talking smack as if he is a teenager. smack.

My last flight was in 1998 but pilots licenses are issued for life. I am not dead yet.

I want you to study my local airport where I flew from a lot. Notice it not only has PAPI on runway 28 R, the short runway, but on the long runway it has VASI.

So smart ass, why PAPI on the short runway but VASI on the long runway?

I rented Pipers from what is now AC Schools and oddly enough my flight instructor bedded down in some part of the building.

Airports I flew to often were the Livermore Airport, Tracy Airport, and less often to many other airports including Stockton, Salinas, San Jose, Calistoga, and less often to Tahoe and Truckee as well as Colombia Airport.

http://www.hayward-ca.gov/CITY-GOVERNMENT/DEPARTMENTS/PUBLIC-WORKS-ET/HEA/documents/2012/gai/Airport_Map.pdf

[Kathianne]

I get a kick out of this boob Marcus. Supposedly as he told me, he is no expert.

But no matter what I post, even commentary by others, he leaps to his computer ready for battle. To him this is no joy, it is some damned war.

Today he accused me of not being a pilot using the excuse that airports are converting to PAPI and acting like since I have never logged a landing at SFO somehow that brands me as not a pilot is dumb shit. All he is doing is talking smack as if he is a teenager. smack.

My last flight was in 1998 but pilots licenses are issued for life. I am not dead yet.

I want you to study my local airport where I flew from a lot. Notice it not only has PAPI on runway 28 R, the short runway, but on the long runway it has VASI.

So smart ass, why PAPI on the short runway but VASI on the long runway?

http://www.hayward-ca.gov/CITY-GOVERNMENT/DEPARTMENTS/PUBLIC-WORKS-ET/HEA/documents/2012/gai/Airport_Map.pdf

Are you saying, regarding the bolded, that someone licensed in 1998 or earlier as a pilot, has their license for life? They can decide in 2013 to get in a plane they were licensed for and just fly?

No renewal tests? No furthering hours with instructor?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I get a kick out of this boob Marcus. Supposedly as he told me, he is no expert.

But no matter what I post, even commentary by others, he leaps to his computer ready for battle. To him this is no joy, it is some damned war.

Today he accused me of not being a pilot using the excuse that airports are converting to PAPI and acting like since I have never logged a landing at SFO somehow that brands me as not a pilot is dumb shit. All he is doing is talking smack as if he is a teenager. smack.

My last flight was in 1998 but pilots licenses are issued for life. I am not dead yet. .......



wrong again, lying dumb ass...

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/64122/

3.) The PPL is good for as long as your medical certificate is good for. A Third Class is good for 3 years. A Second Class is good for 2 years. A First Class is good for 6 calander months. It must be said that once a First Class medical expires it reverts to a Second Class and thus takes on those limitations. When a Second Class expires it reverts to a Third Class.

In addition, you must get a BFR. A BFR is a Bi-Annual Flight Review. That must accomplished every 24 calander months. For that you must attend a minimum of 1 hour of ground school (refresher course) and 1 hour of instructor time (that means that you have to fly with an instructor).


There is a chart here...
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=be797c4e2979c262a4ac483ac04fcfeb&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.1.1.17
...which shows the duration for a third class medical certificate... REQUIRED for an active PPL.


<tbody>
Age 40 or older
a recreational pilot certificate, a private pilot certificate, a flight instructor certificate (when acting as pilot in command or a required pilot flight crewmember in operations other than glider or balloon), a student pilot certificate, or a sport pilot certificate (when not using a U.S. driver's license as medical qualification)
24th month after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate.


</tbody>

I seriously doubt that if your 'supposed' last flight was in 1998, 15 years ago, you've bothered to keep your third-class medical certificate up.

Even if you were a pilot, which i seriously doubt, you are not one now.

Game, set, match, Sparky.


Spin out of that, dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651458#post651458)
I get a kick out of this boob Marcus. Supposedly as he told me, he is no expert.

But no matter what I post, even commentary by others, he leaps to his computer ready for battle. To him this is no joy, it is some damned war.

Today he accused me of not being a pilot using the excuse that airports are converting to PAPI and acting like since I have never logged a landing at SFO somehow that brands me as not a pilot is dumb shit. All he is doing is talking smack as if he is a teenager. smack.

My last flight was in 1998 but pilots licenses are issued for life. I am not dead yet.

I want you to study my local airport where I flew from a lot. Notice it not only has PAPI on runway 28 R, the short runway, but on the long runway it has VASI.

So smart ass, why PAPI on the short runway but VASI on the long runway?

http://www.hayward-ca.gov/CITY-GOVER...irport_Map.pdf (http://www.hayward-ca.gov/CITY-GOVERNMENT/DEPARTMENTS/PUBLIC-WORKS-ET/HEA/documents/2012/gai/Airport_Map.pdf)





Are you saying, regarding the bolded, that someone licensed in 1998 or earlier as a pilot, has their license for life? They can decide in 2013 to get in a plane they were licensed for and just fly?

No renewal tests? No furthering hours with instructor?

see post 81. Can't wait for the spin on this.

[Robert A Whit]

YOU claimed that it was an FAA rule that the pilot bears sole responsibility in the event any of the flight crew are found to have caused/contributed to a crash.

I link showing an entire flight crew getting blamed was provided, proving you incorrect. Again.

You were asked repeatedly to link to said rule, which you failed to do.

You then went into 'spin' mode, and claimed 'usually' the pilot would get the blame.

Still in 'spin' mode I see.

What the fuck are you talking about?

First you admit you are no expert. You admit you never took flight training. You admit you never went to ground school. You have not even started up an aircraft engine and took off.

But you pretend you can lecture me?

What crew was responsible for the Buffalo Crash?

The Pilot in command gets the blame. As the man in charge, he gets the shaft even if the crew messes up. The crew is under his command. I laughed when you refused to use the actual accident report but rather went to another non expert, some newspaper reporter.

When I was trained, when I went to ground school, my training was that when humans are involved, the pilot bears all the responsibility.

You are no expert and were you nice. I would forgive you for being a dumb ass.

[Kathianne]

What the fuck are you talking about?

First you admit you are no expert. You admit you never took flight training. You admit you never went to ground school. You have not even started up an aircraft engine and took off.

But you pretend you can lecture me?

What crew was responsible for the Buffalo Crash?

The Pilot in command gets the blame. As the man in charge, he gets the shaft even if the crew messes up. The crew is under his command. I laughed when you refused to use the actual accident report but rather went to another non expert, some newspaper reporter.

When I was trained, when I went to ground school, my training was that when humans are involved, the pilot bears all the responsibility.

You are no expert and were you nice. I would forgive you for being a dumb ass.

I asked a basic question, http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41706-Boeing-777-crash-lands-at-San-Francisco-Airport/page6&p=651460#post651460, no snark involved. Please answer.

[Jeff]

Are you saying, regarding the bolded, that someone licensed in 1998 or earlier as a pilot, has their license for life? They can decide in 2013 to get in a plane they were licensed for and just fly?

No renewal tests? No furthering hours with instructor?

The last ICC physical I went for there was a pilot there getting his physical card as well so although the Lisc. may or may not be for life I know ya cant fly without getting a physical , also I know the ICC regulations say in order to hold onto your Class A lisc. you must have a current physical so at least in trucking if I hadn't drove since 98 chances are I wouldn't of spent the money for a physical so my Lisc. was suspended to drive as soon as I let the physical lapse and something tells me to be a pilot the rules are probably a bit more strict

[Marcus Aurelius]

What the fuck are you talking about?

First you admit you are no expert. You admit you never took flight training. You admit you never went to ground school. You have not even started up an aircraft engine and took off. I've never built a car, gone to mechanics school, etc., but I know how cars operate, what the laws are and how to repair anything on them. Your point????

But you pretend you can lecture me? Anyone can lecture you. You're simply not smart enough to understand most of us here.

What crew was responsible for the Buffalo Crash? The flight crew, according to the NTSB, dumb ass. Go back and review the link I posted stating so.

The Pilot in command gets the blame. As the man in charge, he gets the shaft even if the crew messes up. The crew is under his command. I laughed when you refused to use the actual accident report but rather went to another non expert, some newspaper reporter. YOU claimed the pilot getting the sole blame was an FAA Rule. You've yet to link to that rule. Ergo, you're either stupid, or lying. Which is it?

When I was trained, when I went to ground school, my training was that when humans are involved, the pilot bears all the responsibility. Yet you cannot link to the actual FAA Rule you claimed existed. Why is that>???

You are no expert and were you nice. I would forgive you for being a dumb ass. I never claimed to be an expert. That line of argument on your part is what's called a straw man. Look it up, dumb ass.



my comments in red above

[Robert A Whit]

Are you saying, regarding the bolded, that someone licensed in 1998 or earlier as a pilot, has their license for life? They can decide in 2013 to get in a plane they were licensed for and just fly?

No renewal tests? No furthering hours with instructor?

I was issued a license for life in 1980. I don't own an airplane so when I go to rent one, per FAA rules, I must have a flight instructor check me out. All pilots are subject to being checked out by flight instructors. The Jet that crashed had a pilot being checked out so as you can see, that checkride does not mean nor imply one is no longer a pilot. Matter of fact, he was not fully vetted in the 777.

At the FBO, they will inspect all of my papers. I have to have a current medical certificate by an FAA flight surgeon. And I must show them my logbook as well as my radio license & of course my pilots license..

Let's say you were educated at college and got teaching creditentials. But you deccide to not teach for 10 years and do not take continuing education.

Does this mean you are no longer a teacher? Do they yank your teaching creditentials?

But pilots flying private don't lose the license except for cause and a FAA hearing.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Let's say you were educated at college and got teaching creditentials. But you deccide to not teach for 10 years and do not take continuing education.

Does this mean you are no longer a teacher? Do they yank your teaching creditentials?

I can't believe even YOU are stupid enough to try that analogy.

[Jeff]

I was issued a license for life in 1980. I don't own an airplane so when I go to rent one, per FAA rules, I must have a flight instructor check me out. All pilots are subject to being checked out by flight instructors. The Jet that crashed had a pilot being checked out so as you can see, that checkride does not mean nor imply one is no longer a pilot. Matter of fact, he was not fully vetted in the 777.

At the FBO, they will inspect all of my papers. I have to have a current medical certificate by an FAA flight surgeon. And I must show them my logbook as well as my radio license & of course my pilots license..

Let's say you were educated at college and got teaching creditentials. But you deccide to not teach for 10 years and do not take continuing education.

Does this mean you are no longer a teacher? Do they yank your teaching creditentials?

But pilots flying private don't lose the license except for cause and a FAA hearing.

Robert by no means am I calling you a liar because I am not educated in this matter but I do know you dont have to go to a Flight surgeon to receive a physical , the pilot that was getting re certified when I was there went to the same Doc as me a Doc that worked with people getting hurt at work , he also did drug test and physicals but he wasn't a surgeon Edit he was a occupational doctor that's what his title was

[Robert A Whit]

The last ICC physical I went for there was a pilot there getting his physical card as well so although the Lisc. may or may not be for life I know ya cant fly without getting a physical , also I know the ICC regulations say in order to hold onto your Class A lisc. you must have a current physical so at least in trucking if I hadn't drove since 98 chances are I wouldn't of spent the money for a physical so my Lisc. was suspended to drive as soon as I let the physical lapse and something tells me to be a pilot the rules are probably a bit more strict

See, the difference in you and me Jeff is I don't hold a license to drive trucks so I would not dream to compare your license to my license.

Bear in mind I never stated I am current. I have not got a flight physical since 1998 and to rent an airplane, one must have a current medical. They last 2 years. FAA told me when I got my pilots license it might be the only license issued for life.

I believe your license is issued by a state but my license was issued by the US Government. My SS card does not expire until I die as well.

Only FAA flight surgeons are allowed to issue a medical certificate.

I told Kath what I must do to rent an airplane. Believe me, the FBO will make sure my medical is current. Those expire. My radio license does not expire.

The way they make sure pilots are not unfit to command is they must rent the airplane or if they own one, they must fly with a FAA flight instructor who will not sign off their logbook unless and until they know the pilot is up to date and able to perform all the duties of pilot in command.

That SFO crash had a pilot in training at the helm and of course he still was a pilot. But he was not qualified in the Boeing 777.

Thus i will always be a pilot until FAA demands my license. If they do that, they must hold a hearing.

I wonder why Acorn is not catching the shit the way I am over this issue. He is also a pilot.

Nobody is calling him a liar and acting pissy.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert by no means am I calling you a liar because I am not educated in this matter but I do know you dont have to go to a Flight surgeon to receive a physical , the pilot that was getting re certified when I was there went to the same Doc as me a Doc that worked with people getting hurt at work , he also did drug test and physicals but he wasn't a surgeon Edit he was a occupational doctor that's what his title was


Don't ask me why but FAA calls them flight surgeons.

My last Medical Certificate on FAA Form 8500-9 does not mention flight surgeon and the doctor put MD after his name. But not all doctors can do flight physicals. Mine is the third Class Medical Certificate. My restriction was to wear glasses.

The term flight surgeon does not mean the doctor performs surgery. It is like the Surgeon General of the USA who may not have ever done surgery. I don't know but I suspect part of all doctors training involves some form of surgery.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Bear in mind I never stated I am current. I have not got a flight physical since 1998 and to rent an airplane, one must have a current medical. They last 2 years. FAA told me when I got my pilots license it might be the only license issued for life.



Which is an admission you are NOT a pilot. A pilot would have an active, current license, and current third class medical certificate. You have none, ergo, you are not a pilot... 'if' you ever were.

[Jeff]

See, the difference in you and me Jeff is I don't hold a license to drive trucks so I would not dream to compare your license to my license.

Bear in mind I never stated I am current. I have not got a flight physical since 1998 and to rent an airplane, one must have a current medical. They last 2 years. FAA told me when I got my pilots license it might be the only license issued for life.

I believe your license is issued by a state but my license was issued by the US Government. My SS card does not expire until I die as well.

Only FAA flight surgeons are allowed to issue a medical certificate.

I told Kath what I must do to rent an airplane. Believe me, the FBO will make sure my medical is current. Those expire. My radio license does not expire.

The way they make sure pilots are not unfit to command is they must rent the airplane or if they own one, they must fly with a FAA flight instructor who will not sign off their logbook unless and until they know the pilot is up to date and able to perform all the duties of pilot in command.

That SFO crash had a pilot in training at the helm and of course he still was a pilot. But he was not qualified in the Boeing 777.

Thus i will always be a pilot until FAA demands my license. If they do that, they must hold a hearing.

I wonder why Acorn is not catching the shit the way I am over this issue. He is also a pilot.

Nobody is calling him a liar and acting pissy.

Robert I didn't even know you where still on tonight so I was answering Kat period and as I said in my first post by no means am I educated in this matter so no I am not giving you shit I really dont want to play with Larry Curly and Moe but was just answering Kat on something I do know and guess what you answered the question the same as I did other than you said you need a surgeon to get a physical and the Doc I saw give the physical to a pilot was a occupational Doctor other than that I could care less about being a pilot hell I dont like to fly , what goes up must come down :laugh:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Don't ask me why but FAA calls them flight surgeons.

Only for the military, dumb ass...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_certifications_for_pilots

Flight physicals Military and civilian pilots must pass routine periodic medical examinations known informally as "flight physicals" in order to retain the medical clearance or certification that qualifies them to fly. Military pilots go to a flight surgeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_surgeon), an armed forces physician qualified to perform such medical evaluations. With the exception of glider pilots, balloon pilots and sport pilots, civilian pilots in the United States and most other nations must obtain a flight physical from a civilian physician known as an Aviation Medical Examiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Medical_Examiner) (AME). AMEs are physicians designated and trained by the FAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAA) to screen individuals for fitness to perform aviation duties. Pilot medical assessment by way of the flight physical is an important public health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health) function.

[Jeff]

Don't ask me why but FAA calls them flight surgeons.

Could be that when you got your Lisc. that is what they called them , I have no idea , or if the FAA is anything like the ICC they changed the rules about 15 times since you got your lisc. :laugh:

[Marcus Aurelius]

well, I'm off to bed. It gets tiring smacking Robert's nonsense all around the thread like this. I'll respond to any more of his nonsense in the morning.

[Jeff]

well, I'm off to bed. It gets tiring smacking Robert's nonsense all around the thread like this. I'll respond to any more of his nonsense in the morning.

Dont crash now the night is young :laugh: Have a good Night Red LOL Dam I always want to call you Red when I see that avatar

[Kathianne]

I was issued a license for life in 1980. I don't own an airplane so when I go to rent one, per FAA rules, I must have a flight instructor check me out. All pilots are subject to being checked out by flight instructors. The Jet that crashed had a pilot being checked out so as you can see, that checkride does not mean nor imply one is no longer a pilot. Matter of fact, he was not fully vetted in the 777.

At the FBO, they will inspect all of my papers. I have to have a current medical certificate by an FAA flight surgeon. And I must show them my logbook as well as my radio license & of course my pilots license..

Let's say you were educated at college and got teaching creditentials. But you deccide to not teach for 10 years and do not take continuing education.

Does this mean you are no longer a teacher? Do they yank your teaching creditentials? Yes. With a MSEd, it's good for 5 years. BA or BS only 3.

But pilots flying private don't lose the license except for cause and a FAA hearing.

I'm sort of confused here, you brought up teaching and I responded with the parameters. What I find confusing is that teachers without required training may or may not screw up some kids, but a pilot may take out not only themselves and passengers, but also those on the ground.

While teachers may or may not make students' lives richer or poorer, it's unlikely they'll cause death in an immediate sense. Not so pilots that aren't up to standards.

[Kathianne]

I was issued a license for life in 1980. I don't own an airplane so when I go to rent one, per FAA rules, I must have a flight instructor check me out. All pilots are subject to being checked out by flight instructors. The Jet that crashed had a pilot being checked out so as you can see, that checkride does not mean nor imply one is no longer a pilot. Matter of fact, he was not fully vetted in the 777.

At the FBO, they will inspect all of my papers. I have to have a current medical certificate by an FAA flight surgeon. And I must show them my logbook as well as my radio license & of course my pilots license..

Let's say you were educated at college and got teaching creditentials. But you deccide to not teach for 10 years and do not take continuing education.

Does this mean you are no longer a teacher? Do they yank your teaching creditentials?

But pilots flying private don't lose the license except for cause and a FAA hearing.

Again, I may be not understanding, but we've now moved from 1996 to 1980. I'm assuming that between 1980 and 1996, you furthered your training? During those years, you completed the book and air hours necessary and were licensed? That's my assumption.

So, let's say that you haven't logged anymore hours and haven't been up with flight instructors, all those planes you've qualified between 1980 and 1996 you can go tomorrow and fly on your own? Is that what you are saying?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651467#post651467)
What the fuck are you talking about?

First you admit you are no expert. You admit you never took flight training. You admit you never went to ground school. You have not even started up an aircraft engine and took off. I've never built a car, gone to mechanics school, etc., but I know how cars operate, what the laws are and how to repair anything on them. Your point??
Dumbass, then go fly an airplane. You really think you are smart don't you? Well you are not too smart.You don't even know why the FAA calls us pilot in command.

But you pretend you can lecture me? Anyone can lecture you. You're simply not smart enough to understand most of us here.

​No, it is really you and Abouttime. I am much smarter than either of you.

What crew was responsible for the Buffalo Crash? The flight crew, according to the NTSB, dumb ass. Go back and review the link I posted stating so.

Oh yeah. The flight crew was pilot in command. Dumbass.

If you knew what you were talking about, you might be a tenth as smart as you think you are.

The Pilot in command gets the blame. As the man in charge, he gets the shaft even if the crew messes up. The crew is under his command. I laughed when you refused to use the actual accident report but rather went to another non expert, some newspaper reporter. YOU claimed the pilot getting the sole blame was an FAA Rule. You've yet to link to that rule. Ergo, you're either stupid, or lying. Which is it?

Don't worry dumb ass. I plan to jam it down your throat.

So you are now claiming that as PIC. I can blame somebody else in the airplane for it crashing?

Shit, my flight instructor never told me that.

When I was trained, when I went to ground school, my training was that when humans are involved, the pilot bears all the responsibility. Yet you cannot link to the actual FAA Rule you claimed existed. Why is that>???

So, now you run the board?

You want the rule, here it is.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-3.html

FAR part 91

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft) is the person aboard the aircraft who is ultimately responsible for its operation and safety during flight. This would be the "captain" in a typical two- or three-pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviator) aircrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew), or "pilot" if there is only one certified and qualified pilot at the controls of an aircraft. The PIC must be legally certified (or otherwise authorized) to operate the aircraft for the specific flight and flight conditions, but need not be actually manipulating the controls at any given moment. The PIC is the person legally in charge of the aircraft and its flight safety and operation, and would normally be the primary person liable for an infraction of any flight rule.



You are no expert and were you nice. I would forgive you for being a dumb ass. I never claimed to be an expert. That line of argument on your part is what's called a straw man. Look it up, dumb ass.

So, shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.

[Kathianne]

I may be misunderstanding what's transpired here, but seems now that Robert is saying that basically he has held a pilot's license at some point, thus he's a pilot. Without both check rides and medical clearance he'll still be a pilot, he just can't fly.

Sort of like someone who goes through teaching program in college. Passes the tests required by state for certification in required areas. Doesn't teach or do what's necessary to update creds. They may honestly call themselves a 'teacher,' but they can't legally teach in accredited schools without updating skills and creds.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651472#post651472)
I was issued a license for life in 1980. I don't own an airplane so when I go to rent one, per FAA rules, I must have a flight instructor check me out. All pilots are subject to being checked out by flight instructors. The Jet that crashed had a pilot being checked out so as you can see, that checkride does not mean nor imply one is no longer a pilot. Matter of fact, he was not fully vetted in the 777.

At the FBO, they will inspect all of my papers. I have to have a current medical certificate by an FAA flight surgeon. And I must show them my logbook as well as my radio license & of course my pilots license..

Let's say you were educated at college and got teaching creditentials. But you deccide to not teach for 10 years and do not take continuing education.

Does this mean you are no longer a teacher? Do they yank your teaching creditentials?

But pilots flying private don't lose the license except for cause and a FAA hearing.


Again, I may be not understanding, but we've now moved from 1996 to 1980. I'm assuming that between 1980 and 1996, you furthered your training? During those years, you completed the book and air hours necessary and were licensed? That's my assumption.

So, let's say that you haven't logged anymore hours and haven't been up with flight instructors, all those planes you've qualified between 1980 and 1996 you can go tomorrow and fly on your own? Is that what you are saying?

Why did you ignore the commentary about if you are a teacher?

FAR regulation 61.19 (c) ... "Any pilot certificate, (other than a student pilot certificate) issued
under this part, is issued without a specific expiration date."

1980 I received from FAA my pilots license.
1998, my last flight as pilot in command.

After I got my pilots license, I took further training in the Mooney 201. But it is a complex airplane where the Pipers I llew were not considered complex. Several times to keep flying I took a flight instructor with me who certified I was up to date and fully safe to fly airplanes I was rated to fly. I don't know what book you are talking about. As I told you, I flew with various flight instructors to be legal to fly.

One more time, to legally fly aircraft I am rated in, I must fly with a flight instructor, have a current medical certificate and show the FBO all documents to rent an airplane. I must show threm my logbook which contains my flight record.

Should i wish to fly a plane I am not rated in, I must first take training to qualify for those airplanes.

Let's say I want to fly a Lear Jet. I am not rated. But it does not mean i don't have my license.

[Robert A Whit]

I may be misunderstanding what's transpired here, but seems now that Robert is saying that basically he has held a pilot's license at some point, thus he's a pilot. Without both check rides and medical clearance he'll still be a pilot, he just can't fly.

Sort of like someone who goes through teaching program in college. Passes the tests required by state for certification in required areas. Doesn't teach or do what's necessary to update creds. They may honestly call themselves a 'teacher,' but they can't legally teach in accredited schools without updating skills and creds.

Um no

I did not used to have one, I have had one 24/7 for 365 since 1980. They do not expire.

Um yes, Though I have my license, I am not able to fly as PIC until I get a new medical and go with a flight instructor who is also legal who has to certify that I meet all FAA requirements to pilot with passengers. To fly at night with passengers, I must also land 3 times at night.

So, it is sort of like your comments of teaching. A difference is that as a pilot, I would be responsible for passengers lives.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm sort of confused here, you brought up teaching and I responded with the parameters. What I find confusing is that teachers without required training may or may not screw up some kids, but a pilot may take out not only themselves and passengers, but also those on the ground.

While teachers may or may not make students' lives richer or poorer, it's unlikely they'll cause death in an immediate sense. Not so pilots that aren't up to standards.

Such as that instructor pilot did at SFO is what I believe you mean. The pilot in the pilots seat really won't be blamed for the crash. The flight instructor flying co pilot gets that task.

Bear in mind, the instructor was fully rated yet 2 passengers died.

Fortunately even in small planes, very few passengers die.

[Kathianne]

Such as that instructor pilot did at SFO is what I believe you mean. The pilot in the pilots seat really won't be blamed for the crash. The flight instructor flying co pilot gets that task.

Bear in mind, the instructor was fully rated yet 2 passengers died.

Fortunately even in small planes, very few passengers die.

Wrong in all assumptions.

I was still addressing the claim you made about 'lifetime' license. Doesn't make sense, with the exception of saying, 'I held a license' between these years.


If you choose not to do what is necessary to renew, well, you are out of compliance.

[Robert A Whit]

Could be that when you got your Lisc. that is what they called them , I have no idea , or if the FAA is anything like the ICC they changed the rules about 15 times since you got your lisc. :laugh:

So, you claim they don't call them flight surgeons now? When did they make that change?

The FAA does change rules a lot. But they still blame the Pilot for crashes unless something simply can't be helped. That flight 800 ended up not being blamed on the pilot.

See, I don't talk about the ICC license since I never had one.

[Robert A Whit]

Wrong in all assumptions.

I was still addressing the claim you made about 'lifetime' license. Doesn't make sense, with the exception of saying, 'I held a license' between these years.


If you choose not to do what is necessary to renew, well, you are out of compliance.

Well, I don't match you for wrong assumptions. Such as you assume my license is not for life. As I posted the FAR rules, you should have figured it out.

There is a difference in having the FAA pilot's license vs being up to date to fly.

The Person flying left seat was a pilot yet he was not able to just take off in the 777 and fly as pilot in command.

That does not mean he has no license. Same for me.

I can fly left seat tomorrow. I can go to the FBO, rent the airplane, take the flight instructor and be flying tomorrow.I do not have to apply for a license.

[Kathianne]

Well, I don't match you for wrong assumptions. Such as you assume my license is not for life. As I posted the FAR rules, you should have figured it out.

There is a difference in having the FAA pilot's license vs being up to date to fly.

So pilots don't fly? Is that what the FAA has decided?

Wow. I thought they were f up regarding teaching. Seriously.

[Kathianne]

There must be a 'pilot's license' for flying and another for credentials. I guess the two do not meet.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/rfs/awp/
Regional Flight Surgeon Contact Information

Print (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/rfs/awp/#)

FAA Western Pacific RegionStates and insular areas in the Western Pacific Region
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Wake Island
Stephen H. Goodman, M.D., Senior Regional Flight Surgeon
<address style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 17px; font-style: normal;">Federal Aviation Administration
Aerospace Medicine Division
P.O. Box 92007
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
(310) 725-3750
Fax: (310) 725-6835</address>

[Robert A Whit]

There must be a 'pilot's license' for flying and another for credentials. I guess the two do not meet.

nope, FAA rules state it is good for life.

[Robert A Whit]

So pilots don't fly? Is that what the FAA has decided?

Wow. I thought they were f up regarding teaching. Seriously.

I can be flying an airplane tomorrow if I can get a flight physical.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert I didn't even know you where still on tonight so I was answering Kat period and as I said in my first post by no means am I educated in this matter so no I am not giving you shit I really dont want to play with Larry Curly and Moe but was just answering Kat on something I do know and guess what you answered the question the same as I did other than you said you need a surgeon to get a physical and the Doc I saw give the physical to a pilot was a occupational Doctor other than that I could care less about being a pilot hell I dont like to fly , what goes up must come down :laugh:

I posted in this thread material on the flight surgeon. They have not changed the name. If that was a pilot and he took a physical for flight purposes,by law the doctor is called a flight surgeon.

And he also can be an occupational doctor.

We are ok buddy. You are always kind to me.

[Kathianne]

nope, FAA rules state it is good for life.

So the government holds teachers, hair dressers, and butchers to higher standards than pilots.

Why am I not surprised?

Well, unless of course, Bobby has this wrong.

[Marcus Aurelius]

[/I][/COLOR]
Dumbass, then go fly an airplane. You really think you are smart don't you? Well you are not too smart.You don't even know why the FAA calls us pilot in command. Straw man. PIC has nothing to do with your false claim that the FAA Rules state that the PIC takes sole responsibility in a crash if any member of the flight crew is at fault.

​No, it is really you and Abouttime. I am much smarter than either of you. There's that bogus MENSA mentality showing again.
Oh yeah. The flight crew was pilot in command. Dumbass. Wow. Did you really just say one person, is the entire flight crew?From your own source... http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_27-1523.html?marked=flight%20crew

The workload of individual crewmembers
It's interesting how previously, you acted like the flight crew was more than one person, but now claim it to be only the PIC.
Wowsie... lookie there, dumb ass. Your source, talking about crewmembers (PLURAL). The PIC is NOT the entire crew, dumb ass. I can't believe you even tried to claim that. You're slipping, old man.
If you knew what you were talking about, you might be a tenth as smart as you think you are. Oh, I'm sure I am as smart as I think I am.You, on the other hand, are proving with each passing post you're dumber than I thought you were.
Don't worry dumb ass. I plan to jam it down your throat. :laugh2:


So you are now claiming that as PIC. I can blame somebody else in the airplane for it crashing? No idea where you came up with that nonsense.

Shit, my flight instructor never told me that.neither did I, dumb ass.:laugh:


So, now you run the board? Again, no idea where you came up with that nonsense. Maybe you're tired, and seeing things?
You want the rule, here it is.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-3.html
Interesting you link to the rule you claim supports you, yet don't actually post said rule and instead, post some unrelated nonsense from Wiki. Here is the rule you linked to...


(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
Part (a) simply says the pilot is in charge on the aircraft. As he or she should be.
Part (b) simply says the pilot can deviate from standard FAA rules during an emergency. Again, as it should be.
Part (c) simply says that if a pilot deviates from the rules, he has to send a written report.

Nothing in there meets your nonsensical claim that FAA Rules say the pilot takes full blame/responsibility should a crash be caused by any member of the flightcrew (remember, the flightcrew is a GROUP of people, not just the pilot... dumb ass).


FAR part 91

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft) is the person aboard the aircraft who is ultimately responsible for its operation and safety during flight. This would be the "captain" in a typical two- or three-pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviator) aircrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew), or "pilot" if there is only one certified and qualified pilot at the controls of an aircraft. The PIC must be legally certified (or otherwise authorized) to operate the aircraft for the specific flight and flight conditions, but need not be actually manipulating the controls at any given moment. The PIC is the person legally in charge of the aircraft and its flight safety and operation, and would normally be the primary person liable for an infraction of any flight rule.
Says nothing about crash responsibility. Straw man.

So, shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about. It is painfully obvious that with a few minutes of GOOGLE searching, I know more about who can be blamed by the NTSB or FAA than you do. Your claims were comical, and the nonsense you tried to spin in support of your claims was even funnier:laugh:



You so badly fucked up the quote feature, I made it simple and just copied mostly your comments in blue... my responses in Red, dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

nope, FAA rules state it is good for life.

Nope... FAA rules, as I posted, state it is good as long as you have a valid medical certificate and take the required refreshers with a trainer.

Dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/rfs/awp/
Regional Flight Surgeon Contact Information



Print (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/rfs/awp/#)

FAA Western Pacific Region

States and insular areas in the Western Pacific Region
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Wake Island
Stephen H. Goodman, M.D., Senior Regional Flight Surgeon
<address style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 17px; font-style: normal;">Federal Aviation Administration
Aerospace Medicine Division
P.O. Box 92007
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
(310) 725-3750
Fax: (310) 725-6835</address>

Dumb ass. The FAA does not call them flight surgeons 'by law'. There are flight surgeons, and AME's.

Your source from the earlier post...
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_67-411.html


(a) The FAA has designated flight surgeons of the Armed Forces on specified military posts, stations,
and facilities, as aviation medical examiners.</pre>
(b) An aviation medical examiner described in paragraph (a) of this section may give physical examinations
for the FAA medical certificates to persons who are on active duty or who are,
under Department of Defense medical programs, eligible for FAA medical certification as civil airmen.
In addition, such an examiner may issue or deny an appropriate FAA medical certificate in accordance with
the regulations of this chapter and the policies of the FAA.</pre> (c) Any interested person may obtain a list of the military posts, stations, and facilities at which a flight surgeon has been designated as an aviation medical examiner from the Surgeon General of the Armed Force concerned or from the Manager, Aeromedical Education Division, AAM-400,Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 26082, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125.


Link to FAA document regarding the AME's...
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/Order%208520.2E.pdf


Regional flight surgeons are delegated the authority to manage the AME system within the boundaries of their responsibility and to:

(1) Designate and terminate designations of physicians as AME's
(2) Assist in the planning, development, administration and evaluation of medical education programs in support of the AME system.
(3) Monitor the AME system within their geographical area of responsibility and ensure that AME's properly carry out their duties and meet all requirements and conditions of their designations.


Flight Surgeons are 'management.' The examinations are typically done by the Aviation Medical Examiners, per the setup of the AME system, as described by the FAA above, and stated by me previously.


Dumb ass.

[aboutime]

[/I][/COLOR]
First you admit you are no expert. You admit you never took flight training. You admit you never went to ground school. You have not even started up an aircraft engine and took off. I've never built a car, gone to mechanics school, etc., but I know how cars operate, what the laws are and how to repair anything on them. Your point??
Dumbass, then go fly an airplane. You really think you are smart don't you? Well you are not too smart.You don't even know why the FAA calls us pilot in command.

But you pretend you can lecture me? Anyone can lecture you. You're simply not smart enough to understand most of us here.

​No, it is really you and Abouttime. I am much smarter than either of you.

What crew was responsible for the Buffalo Crash? The flight crew, according to the NTSB, dumb ass. Go back and review the link I posted stating so.

Oh yeah. The flight crew was pilot in command. Dumbass.
If you knew what you were talking about, you might be a tenth as smart as you think you are.
The Pilot in command gets the blame. As the man in charge, he gets the shaft even if the crew messes up. The crew is under his command. I laughed when you refused to use the actual accident report but rather went to another non expert, some newspaper reporter. YOU claimed the pilot getting the sole blame was an FAA Rule. You've yet to link to that rule. Ergo, you're either stupid, or lying. Which is it?

Don't worry dumb ass. I plan to jam it down your throat.

So you are now claiming that as PIC. I can blame somebody else in the airplane for it crashing?

Shit, my flight instructor never told me that.
When I was trained, when I went to ground school, my training was that when humans are involved, the pilot bears all the responsibility. Yet you cannot link to the actual FAA Rule you claimed existed. Why is that>???

So, now you run the board?

You want the rule, here it is.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-3.html

FAR part 91

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft) is the person aboard the aircraft who is ultimately responsible for its operation and safety during flight. This would be the "captain" in a typical two- or three-pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviator) aircrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew), or "pilot" if there is only one certified and qualified pilot at the controls of an aircraft. The PIC must be legally certified (or otherwise authorized) to operate the aircraft for the specific flight and flight conditions, but need not be actually manipulating the controls at any given moment. The PIC is the person legally in charge of the aircraft and its flight safety and operation, and would normally be the primary person liable for an infraction of any flight rule.



You are no expert and were you nice. I would forgive you for being a dumb ass. I never claimed to be an expert. That line of argument on your part is what's called a straw man. Look it up, dumb ass.

So, shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.



ROBERT. If we followed your statement to the letter, insisting that nobody is qualified to talk about any topic you discuss here, unless they have become....IN THIS CASE...a pilot, would.... Be just as illogical as telling us ECONOMICS Professors MUST be rich, because they claim to know Everything there is to know about ECONOMICS.
Which begs the question.
"WHY AREN'T THERE MORE BILLIONAIRE, or MILLIONAIR Economics Professors, if they KNOW everything?"

SO...Just for you Robert. Take your own Childish advice and So, shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/rfs/awp/
Regional Flight Surgeon Contact Information



Print (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/rfs/awp/#)

FAA Western Pacific Region

States and insular areas in the Western Pacific Region
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Wake Island
Stephen H. Goodman, M.D., Senior Regional Flight Surgeon
<address style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 17px; font-style: normal;">Federal Aviation Administration
Aerospace Medicine Division
P.O. Box 92007
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
(310) 725-3750
Fax: (310) 725-6835</address>

Proof you are a complete, total and utter fraud and dumb ass... FROM Dr. Stephen H. Goodman himself!

Here is the body of an email I got directly from the good doctor. I will fwd the actual email to Jim, or logroller, or any admin or mod you choose, to verify it's authenticity in the source.






Re: Fw: General Information‏


(https://bay172.mail.live.com/mail/#)


Stephen.Go​odmanMD@faa​.gov (Stephen.GoodmanMD@faa.gov)
Add to contacts (https://bay172.mail.live.com/mail/#)
1:24 PM
https://bay172.mail.live.com/mail/clear.gif



To: REDACTED@hotmail.com





https://a.gfx.ms/ic/bluemanmxl.png

(https://bay172.mail.live.com/mail/#)

https://a.gfx.ms/is/invis.gif (https://mail.live.com/?rru=compose&to=Stephen.GoodmanMD@faa.gov&ru=https%3A%2F%2Fbay172.mail.live.com%2Fdefault.as px%3Fid%3D64855%26owa%3D1%26owasuffix%3Dowa%252f)









The Regional Flight Surgeon position in the FAA is a nonclinical
administrative/management aerospace medicine position. The Regional Flight
Surgeons do not perform physical examinations for aviators nor Air Traffic
Controllers who work for the FAA. The exception is in Alaska where the
Regional Flight Surgeon does perform examinations for FAA Air Traffic
Controllers and aviators that work for the FAA. This exception is permitted
because of the remote location of Alaska. Other than Alaska we have 3
clinical FAA Flight Surgeon positions located at the Air Route Traffic
Control Centers in the USA that do perform physical examinations for Air
Traffic Controllers. They are in Salt Lake City, Utah, Albuquerque, New
Mexico and Long Island, New York. These Flights Surgeons work for the FAA
and are supervised by the Regional Flight Surgeon or Deputy Regional Flight
Surgeon in that Region of the FAA.

All AME's are designated to perform physical examinations for aviators.
Some AME's are designated as AME/FAA Employee Examiners for Air Traffic
Controllers where there is no FAA Flight Surgeon available in that
geographic location.

You can go the FAA.Gov and search Aerospace Medicine for more information.

From YOUR SOURCE, dumb ass. Regional Flight Surgeons do NOT do medical certification exams, they are ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY.

Spin that.

[aboutime]

Proof you are a complete, total and utter fraud and dumb ass... FROM Dr. Stephen H. Goodman himself!

Here is the body of an email I got directly from the good doctor. I will fwd the actual email to Jim, or logroller, or any admin or mod you choose, to verify it's authenticity in the source.




From YOUR SOURCE, dumb ass. Regional Flight Surgeons do NOT do medical certification exams, they are ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY.

Spin that.


Noted....again. Maybe we can help him......5230again????

[Robert A Whit]

So the government holds teachers, hair dressers, and butchers to higher standards than pilots.

Why am I not surprised?

Well, unless of course, Bobby has this wrong.

Damn

I quoted you the FAR and all you need to do is look up FAR 61.19 (c)

Since you clearly are too lazy to look it up, I took a bit of time and located it for you.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part61-19-FAR.shtml

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONSHome (http://www.risingup.com/) > Aviation Regulations (http://www.risingup.com/fars/) > Parts Index (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/) > Part 61 (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/61-index.shtml) > Sec. 61.19 - Duration of pilot and instructor certificates.




Sec. 61.19 — Duration of pilot and instructor certificates.(a) General. The holder of a certificate with an expiration date may not, after that date, exercise the privileges of that certificate.
(b) Student pilot certificate.
(1) For student pilots who have not reached their 40th birthday, the student pilot certificate does not expire until 60 calendar months after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate.
(2) For student pilots who have reached their 40th birthday, the student pilot certificate does not expire until 24 calendar months after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate.
(3) For student pilots seeking a glider rating, balloon rating, or a sport pilot certificate, the student pilot certificate does not expire until 60 calendar months after the month of the date issued, regardless of the person's age.
(c) Other pilot certificates. A pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) issued under this part is issued without a specific expiration date. The holder of a pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license may exercise the privileges of that certificate only while that person's foreign pilot license is effective.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Damn

I quoted you the FAR and all you need to do is look up FAR 61.19 (c)

Since you clearly are too lazy to look it up, I took a bit of time and located it for you.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part61-19-FAR.shtml

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS

Home (http://www.risingup.com/) > Aviation Regulations (http://www.risingup.com/fars/) > Parts Index (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/) > Part 61 (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/61-index.shtml) > Sec. 61.19 - Duration of pilot and instructor certificates.




Sec. 61.19 — Duration of pilot and instructor certificates.

(a) General. The holder of a certificate with an expiration date may not, after that date, exercise the privileges of that certificate.
(b) Student pilot certificate.
(1) For student pilots who have not reached their 40th birthday, the student pilot certificate does not expire until 60 calendar months after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate.
(2) For student pilots who have reached their 40th birthday, the student pilot certificate does not expire until 24 calendar months after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate.
(3) For student pilots seeking a glider rating, balloon rating, or a sport pilot certificate, the student pilot certificate does not expire until 60 calendar months after the month of the date issued, regardless of the person's age.
(c) Other pilot certificates. A pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) issued under this part is issued without a specific expiration date. The holder of a pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license may exercise the privileges of that certificate only while that person's foreign pilot license is effective.

useless without the current medicate certification and requisite refresher time with a trainer.

[Marcus Aurelius]

can't wait to see your spin on post 119, dumb ass :laugh2:

[aboutime]

can't wait to see your spin on post 119, dumb ass :laugh2:


Marcus. Of course. All of that depends on whether he can go back to find post 119, read it, and understand what it actually says?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus. Of course. All of that depends on whether he can go back to find post 119, read it, and understand what it actually says?

good point

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus. Of course. All of that depends on whether he can go back to find post 119, read it, and understand what it actually says?

Maybe he put me on 'ignore' again, so he can later claim he never saw post 119, thus avoiding the need to respond to it.

[aboutime]

Maybe he put me on 'ignore' again, so he can later claim he never saw post 119, thus avoiding the need to respond to it.


Wonder if he's smart enough to "IGNORE" the "IGNORE"???

[Robert A Whit]

I just located the flight surgeon site and using it one can locate a Medical examiner in the person's area such that one can easily get a medical exam. My exam happens to be on form FAA form 8500-9 as I said yesterday. As I further stated, the Doctor is a FAA approved Doctor.

[aboutime]

http://youtu.be/RP4abiHdQpc

[Marcus Aurelius]

I just located the flight surgeon site and using it one can locate a Medical examiner in the person's area such that one can easily get a medical exam. My exam happens to be on form FAA form 8500-9 as I said yesterday. As I further stated, the Doctor is a FAA approved Doctor.

so, you're really going to ignore all the bullshit you said about them being called flight surgeons by law, and ignore the fact that YOUR OWN SOURCE said flight surgeon is an ADMINISTRATIVE position only, contrary to what you repeatedly claimed, are you?

What a fucking dumb ass you are. With that little mental erasure of your past comments, you cement now and forever your position as board dumb ass.

Congrats. You're completely full of shit.

It further proves that everything you say is bullshit.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651637#post651637)
I just located the flight surgeon site and using it one can locate a Medical examiner in the person's area such that one can easily get a medical exam. My exam happens to be on form FAA form 8500-9 as I said yesterday. As I further stated, the Doctor is a FAA approved Doctor.



so, you're really going to ignore all the bullshit you said about them being called flight surgeons by law, and ignore the fact that YOUR OWN SOURCE said flight surgeon is an ADMINISTRATIVE position only, contrary to what you repeatedly claimed, are you?

What a fucking dumb ass you are. With that little mental erasure of your past comments, you cement now and forever your position as board dumb ass.

Congrats. You're completely full of shit.

It further proves that everything you say is bullshit.

Game... set... match.

[Marcus Aurelius]

9 pages of smacking Whitless around and proving he's a dumb ass... that was fun!

[aboutime]

9 pages of smacking Whitless around and proving he's a dumb ass... that was fun!


Don't give up yet Marcus. There's another thread he created, on the heels of this one he refused to answer.
Most important.......on an airplane.

More fun for the weekend.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFA7t1sHxBI

Did anyone see this? The pilot names were initially reported on air, with graphics, and then turned out to be bogus.

These are the initially reported names...



Sum Ting Wong
Wi To Lo
Ho Lee Fuk
Bang Ding Ow


I shit you not. Watch the video.

[Robert A Whit]

Somebody at FOX ought to be fired. This is the SF Bay Area local FOX channel. Yes, I confirm. I saw her say the announcement with the graphic of the so called names.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Somebody at FOX ought to be fired. This is the SF Bay Area local FOX channel. Yes, I confirm. I saw her say the announcement with the graphic of the so called names.

I'm surprised you have the balls to enter this thread again, after being proven to be a lying little fucker for 9 pages.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm surprised you have the balls to enter this thread again, after being proven to be a lying little fucker for 9 pages.

Off topic

[Marcus Aurelius]

10 pages of smacking Whitless around and proving he's a dumb ass and a liar... that was fun!

[Robert A Whit]

10 pages of smacking Whitless around and proving he's a dumb ass and a liar... that was fun!

Off topic

[Marcus Aurelius]

Spot on topic, dumb ass.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png originally posted by marcus aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651652#post651652)


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png originally posted by robert a whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=651637#post651637)
i just located the flight surgeon site and using it one can locate a medical examiner in the person's area such that one can easily get a medical exam. My exam happens to be on form faa form 8500-9 as i said yesterday. As i further stated, the doctor is a faa approved doctor.



so, you're really going to ignore all the bullshit you said about them being called flight surgeons by law, and ignore the fact that your own source said flight surgeon is an administrative position only, contrary to what you repeatedly claimed, are you?

What a fucking dumb ass you are. With that little mental erasure of your past comments, you cement now and forever your position as board dumb ass.

Congrats. You're completely full of shit.

It further proves that everything you say is bullshit.

[Robert A Whit]

More hateful Marcus vomit.

Keep it flowing punk.

[Marcus Aurelius]

More hateful Marcus vomit.

Keep it flowing punk.

averse to the truth you are, I see. Much FAIL in you.

[Robert A Whit]

God, the stench of his punk posts. More vomit from the wise ass.

[jimnyc]

I gotta be honest, the feuding/fighting and continual ruining of threads is getting old and tiresome. You guys REALLY need to place one another on ignore, for the benefit of the rest of the board who can't get involved in so many threads due to you guys fighting.

[Marcus Aurelius]

God, the stench of his punk posts. More vomit from the wise ass.

perfectly good thread, ruined because YOU cant stop LYING to try and make yourself look more than you are. Here, the CCC machine gun nonsense you already back tracked on... it never fucking ends with you. You're pathetic.

[Robert A Whit]

I gotta be honest, the feuding/fighting and continual ruining of threads is getting old and tiresome. You guys REALLY need to place one another on ignore, for the benefit of the rest of the board who can't get involved in so many threads due to you guys fighting.

Count the times Marcus attacked me since he showed up.

Not that you will, but you will learn a lot.

Then look up his posts where he says something only to find me launching attacks against him.

Very few are started by me.

I admit I hit back, but he is Trayvon vs me on the concrete being called all sorts of things. I thought though, and I agree it needs to end RIGHT NOW, that he is allowed to shit all over me in the cage where I can try to put a stop to it.

That said, that fucker has got my final reply.

Watch, he will keep pulling his shit and of course some posters believe his crap.

Jim, can you supply me with some decent links where I might not get attacked daily?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Count the times Marcus attacked me since he showed up. Zero. I've pointed out your outrageous fabrications, lies and errors... which pissed you off as you were trying to look all important and relevant and shit.

Not that you will, but you will learn a lot. You continually attack Jim, Why? He's reprimanded me, in public, several times. Yet do I go after him? nope. Take my example, dumb ass.

Then look up his posts where he says something only to find me launching attacks against him.See? You admit you launch attacks against me.

Very few are started by me. Riiiiiiiight. Another admission you start shit.

I admit I hit back, but he is Trayvon vs me on the concrete being called all sorts of things. I thought though, and I agree it needs to end RIGHT NOW, that he is allowed to shit all over me in the cage where I can try to put a stop to it. Comparing yourself to either of those two is disgusting. A person DIED, dumb ass. You should be banned for that alone.

That said, that fucker has got my final reply. So you keep saying, yet you somehow manage to respond to my posts, either directly, or as a stand alone responding to a comment I made. NO ONE believes you have me on ignore, or ever will.

Watch, he will keep pulling his shit and of course some posters believe his crap. The only shit involved here, is you.

Jim, can you supply me with some decent links where I might not get attacked daily?

www.robertcangofuckadonkey.com
www.robertisalyingasswipe.com
I can find a few more if you like, Whitless.



my comments in RED above.

[jimnyc]

Count the times Marcus attacked me since he showed up.

Not that you will, but you will learn a lot.

Then look up his posts where he says something only to find me launching attacks against him.

Very few are started by me.

I admit I hit back, but he is Trayvon vs me on the concrete being called all sorts of things. I thought though, and I agree it needs to end RIGHT NOW, that he is allowed to shit all over me in the cage where I can try to put a stop to it.

That said, that fucker has got my final reply.

Watch, he will keep pulling his shit and of course some posters believe his crap.

Jim, can you supply me with some decent links where I might not get attacked daily?

I'm not counting anything and I have no responsibility to do so. You guys obviously BOTH want to fight, or you would use the ignore feature. Going forward, one starts with the other, they are tossed from the thread. If the other replies in kind before I can get to the thread, both get tossed. It's that simple. Of course it's even simpler with the ignore feature, but I'm not going to waste my time begging for that anymore, to people who have no desire to do so and WANT to fight with others.

[Marcus Aurelius]

...That said, that fucker has got my final reply...

And as predicted, he is responding to me in the CCC thread. A thread he started to subvert his thread ban.

You just can't make this stuff up, folks.