Pilot that crashed 777 in SF had a little more experience than the 911 hijackers

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


Lee had 43 hours of experience flying the B777-200, he said.

They will also question Lee Jeong-min, who was sitting in the co-pilot's seat, Choi said.

Asiana CEO and President Yoon Young-doo has said there was no engine failure, to his knowledge. South Korean investigators will work alongside U.S. investigators.

The NTSB has ruled out weather as a problem and said that conditions were right for a "visual landing."

But investigators are looking into whether construction at the airport may have played a role.

Construction to extend a runway safety area temporarily shut off the so-called glide slope system, which is one of several options pilots have to help them land planes safely, Hersman said.

Internal damage to the plane is "really striking," she said, and officials are thankful there weren't more deaths.

Doesn't sound like many hours of experience to be landing at an airport like SF.

The 777 is Boeing's first "fly-by-wire" airliner.

Meaning this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by_wire

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Bob wrote:The 777 is Boeing's first "fly-by-wire" airliner.

Meaning this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by_wire

Fly by wire isn't new technology. It has been around since the early 1970s; first used in fighter jets.

This was clearly a pilot error crash, as many air crashes are.

Well the puzzler to me is with all of the artificial intelligence incorporated in a 777, why didn't that artificial intelligence give the pilot plenty of warning that his glide path was too low in time to sufficiently correct it.
So you're right, obviously it did give him that information and he didn't respond to it the way he should.

But there's one thing about airline travel which really fascinates me.
Since airline travel has now replaced bus transportation,  there are a helluva lot more flights than there ever were in the past.
And at the same time two things are also occuring.

1.  It's all being done on the cheap and you have to wonder if the obsession with cutting costs is not also reflected in the age and maintainence of this huge fleet of airliners.  Which I imagine are being pushed to the limit to satisfy the demand for air travel.

2.  Coupled with the fact that the air traffic control system is not being upgraded to accomodate all this.

BUT,  here's the interesting thing.  Before this incident, I can't even remember when we had the last fatal incident.  
What I'm getting at is that,  at the same time the system is experiencing the negatives in "1" and "2" above,  we seem to be having fewer accidents.

So what is the explanation for this?  Is it improvement in the technology?
Or what exactly?

I would never board a plane that had a pilot that you could blindfold with a piece of dental floss.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/08/asiana_crew_attempted_to_abort_landing/?source=newsletter

The co-pilot had more experience with the 777, but this sounds like pilot error.

Coroner: Officials probing if rescuers ran over San Francisco plane crash victim

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57592581/coroner-officials-probing-if-rescuers-ran-over-san-francisco-plane-crash-victim/

Very sad if that's what happened. Poor girl.

I learned something from this that I never knew about.
When these modern airliners are close to stalling, the stick starts shaking to warn the pilot that stalling is imminent.

But of course that warning is not going to do any good unless the pilot has enough altitude to pull out of it. Which he obviously did not have in this case.