South Korea Orders Asiana Airlines To Suspend SFO

ryu2 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:27 am

Koreans overreacting... the government looks like it's being run by teenagers.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...eoul-boeing-777-safety-violations/

Quote:
Asiana Airlines has been ordered by the South Korean government to temporarily stop flying to San Francisco International Airport, following last year’s crash that killed three passengers and injured more than 180 people.
According to the South Korean news agency Yonhap, the government is forcing Asiana to suspend all flights to San Francisco for 45 days

LAX772LR · Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:00 am

...and suspending the service nearly a year and a half after the fact, is going to resolve what exactly?

cedarjet · Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:08 am

Maybe it's a punishment, like a fine — which it should be. Putting three guys at the controls of a $200m jet full of fuel and precious humans, who can't fly* a straight-in visual approach on a sunny day to a 2 mile runway is a national scandal.

* not only is the proof in the disastrous outcome, but they admitted in the investigation that when they learned at the preflight briefing in Seoul that the ILS was out, they became nervous and worried about it during the flight; shameful

xiaotung · Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:35 am

Perhaps a hefty fine would have been more appropriate than inconveniencing thousands of travellers already booked on these flights.

jetblue1965 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:44 am

The oz crash killed 3 (inc one on the ground by incompetence)

Meanwhile the ferry killed 200+

So their solution is penalizing OZ ??

Loadsheet · Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:59 am

so after 45 days everything is back as it should be?

looks like somebody fro South Korea has contacted somebody in the North to ask them how they would punish their airline .....

teme82 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:46 pm

Quoting Loadsheet (Reply 5):
looks like somebody fro South Korea has contacted somebody in the North to ask them how they would punish their airline .....

All the staff of the airline would end up in a "training camp" in North Korea. I think this is stupid way to punish the airline. Hefty fine would be better

S75752 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:11 pm

Oh dear this leaves UA as the only *A member on SFO-ICN, with a 744. This is punishing us here in SFO too!

Seriously, what does this accomplish in any way but putting passengers through annoyance and inconvenience on both sides of the Pacific? Fine the airline and make them pay further reparations to the families of the deceased if possible, but stopping flights?

global2 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:19 pm

Quoting teme82 (Reply 6):
. Hefty fine would be better

I read that punitive damages are an unheard of concept in South Korea (this was in regards to the captain of the ferry that sank).

jetblue1965 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:32 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 7):

Don't forget SQ

the normal schedule is

3x Star
1x Skyteam
0x oneworld

par13del · Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:42 pm

So how about in the future they suspend all flights into SFO when there is a NOTAM issued related to instrument landings, or a company change in regulations that they will not operate into an airport that has degraded ILS functions?

legacyins · Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:29 pm

I posted about this in the SFO thread. The article listed above appears to be leaving out some information.

The Korean authorities may levy a fine or order a suspension of flights. They also are working with Korean Air to pick up the slack if they do suspend.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/..._dir/2014/11/14/2014111400916.html

egph · Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:30 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 10):

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry to announce that your Asiana Airlines flight to San Francisco has been cancelled due to the crew receiving information that the ILS approach system into San Francisco's airport is down. Unfortunately our crews are not trained to carry out unaided approaches and are therefore unable to carry you to San Francisco today!"

S75752 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:46 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 9):

Don't forget SQ

the normal schedule is

3x Star

Ahh, good catch! I can't believe that one slipped my mind!

par13del · Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:52 pm

Quoting EGPH (Reply 12):
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry to announce that your Asiana Airlines flight to San Francisco has been cancelled due to the crew receiving information that the ILS approach system into San Francisco's airport is down.

If that was the way it works I agree it would be hilarious, usually when such items are going down for maintenance it is scheduled with enough time to allow a NOTAM to be issued, even today with electronic devices in the cockpit - tablets, laptops etc - advance notification is still given. In the case of SFO, I believe equipment was down for more than a week.
However, in the event that a unscheduled failure occurs, they can always use their diversion airport, after all, it must be included in the flight planning, so just adding another item to cause a diversion to the alternate.

If you assume that the decision to cease SFO is punishment then so be it, if they deem it a safety issue and their pilots need re-training in the interim or they need the time to re-evaluate their procedures then options exist.

longhauler · Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:54 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 7):
Oh dear this leaves UA as the only *A member on SFO-ICN, with a 744. This is punishing us here in SFO too!

I know this is meant in jest ... but hell, I'd choose UAL any day.

You don't see them flying a perfectly well functioning aircraft into the ground because they can't figure out how to fly. Maybe I am old school, but capabilities in front of the cockpit door always trumps cabin service behind it!

col · Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:58 pm

Who in the Government came up with this idea, the Janitor?

par13del · Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:03 pm

A related question, prior to the crash, was Asiana regarded as a professional airline run by folks who knew what they were doing?

IMissPiedmont · Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:04 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 14):

"In the event an unscheduled diversion......."

We now live in a day when it is acceptable for a (presumed) top,of the line pilot cannot fly an airplane without a computer telling him or her how to do so? I think I will avoid aircraft at all cost.

747WanSui · Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:19 pm

The S. Korean government has done things like this before: after Korean Air's 1997 crash in Guam, the government suspended KE's flights to Guam from late 1999 until 2001.

nikeherc · Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:19 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (reply 4)

I would call your attention to the fact that the ferry captain avoided the death penalty with a 36 year sentence in a Korean prison.

longhauler · Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 17):
A related question, prior to the crash, was Asiana regarded as a professional airline run by folks who knew what they were doing?

I am not sure about "before", but with added curiosity one does note some incidents since. For example, I find this one rather odd ...

http://avherald.com/h?article=47374dee&opt=0

After receiving an EICAS oil filter warning, instead of shutting the engine down and diverting, the Captain elected to keep the engine running and continue another four hours across the Pacific to the intended destination!!! (And destroying the engine in the process).

Whether these two examples of poor airmanship are just a fluke, or an indiction of airline policies that need review are up for anyone's interpretation.

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 18):
We now live in a day when it is acceptable for a (presumed) top,of the line pilot cannot fly an airplane without a computer telling him or her how to do so? I think I will avoid aircraft at all cost.

Maybe not all aircraft, but certainly some airlines .... and no one thinks it's "acceptable".

par13del · Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:56 pm

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 18):
We now live in a day when it is acceptable for a (presumed) top,of the line pilot cannot fly an airplane without a computer telling him or her how to do so?

I would say no, but how would we know as a pax until such an incident occurs, certainely we are not usually privy to airline rules and procedures for such.
I only trying to make sense of the directive other than saying it is for punishment or something political, in which case I leave well enough alone.

jetblue1965 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:02 pm

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 20):

I would call your attention to the fact that the ferry captain avoided the death penalty with a 36 year sentence in a Korean prison.

in my opinion that's too light of a sentence for what he has done, but we're digressing here.

SK should be ordering a review of OZ's landing and safety procedures, not suspending a destination. Anyone who has landed at SFO (especially from the south bay approach, the one that the ill-fated OZ flight also used) knows that it's a straight line over-water with no obstacles along the way.

I wonder if UA has a spare plane to backfill the capacity during the suspension ?

hoons90 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:50 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 15):

I know this is meant in jest ... but hell, I'd choose UAL any day.

Agreed, and this is coming from someone that never flies on UAL...

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 1):
...and suspending the service nearly a year and a half after the fact, is going to resolve what exactly?

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 3):
Perhaps a hefty fine would have been more appropriate than inconveniencing thousands of travellers already booked on these flights.

I guess the "rationale" (and I'm using the term loosely) is that this punishment will have a shaming component to it, in addition to a financial/monetary one. No doubt that this punishment will damage what little reputation this airline has left...

Korean Air has made an official statement criticizing the punishment, stating that Asiana is getting away with a very light, token punishment.

avek00 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:31 pm

In Korea, the loss of face is far more impactful than a pecuniary fine. The shame of having one of Asiana's longest-running and important longhaul routes suspended will permeate the entire airline, and serve as a strong motivator to make real changes that improve safety.

Coronado990 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:33 pm

Couldn't they just go to OAK for 45 days?

twincommander · Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:46 pm

If you could work with Asiana on a daily basis, and see how they operate, then you might just see that there is a serious problem at the core of this airline.

I would never fly on them, after the experiences I've had dealing with them. They have a lot of work to do to become "safe".

AR385 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 2):
Putting three guys at the controls of a $200m jet full of fuel and precious humans, who can't fly* a straight-in visual approach on a sunny day to a 2 mile runway is a national scandal.

And what about the South Korean aviation regulators that obviously have no idea that the airlines they are supposed to oversee have pilots in their employment with a degree of incompetence than if not for the tragic result, would be comical. They are not getting punished?

Because Korean Air was the same basket case of lousy airmanship in the 90s.

There are no inspectors in South Korea?

thekorean · Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:42 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 28):

But what about the FAA who let Asiana fly in to the US? Its not like they have not banned unsafe airlines from US air space.

If we are gonna question the Korean Civil Aviation Authority for this, why is FAA not held accountable considering their past actions regarding unsafe airlines? Just saying.

ukoverlander · Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:48 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 7):
Oh dear this leaves UA as the only *A member on SFO-ICN, with a 744.

This should be considered a human rights abuse. Nobody should be subjected to such cruel and unusual punishment unless they have a fetish for masochism.

thekorean · Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:49 pm

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 30):

LOL UA Asian flights are not that bad. I have troubles with their European flights though.

AR385 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:05 pm

Quoting thekorean (Reply 29):
But what about the FAA who let Asiana fly in to the US? Its not like they have not banned unsafe airlines from US air space.

If we are gonna question the Korean Civil Aviation Authority for this, why is FAA not held accountable considering their past actions regarding unsafe airlines? Just saying.

You seem to have misinterpreted my post, and have arrived at the conclusion that I am attacking the Korean Government or at least its Civil Aviation authority. That´s not the case.

I am simply saying that blame must be spread around more fairly. While Asiana did a bad job of training its pilots, they seem to be getting all the flak for it. While the very regulators who should oversee airlines in South Korea seemed to be getting a free pass.

I am also saying that it is not the first time the technical crew of an airline displays such lack of skills in South Korean. It happened before with Korean Air, repeatedly. To me that indicates that there is a systemic problem with the South Korean Aviation regulators. And, until they get punished or disciplined too, no matter how many flights an airline is forced to cancel or how many Captains are forced to work as check in agents, these types of accidents will continue to happen.

Of course I will retrack my statement and apologize if you find a source that states that the Aviation regulators in South Korea have also faced discipline. In my opinion, the entire Aviation regulator body, whichever it is, should be overhauled.

I don´t see why the FAA is brought up, and even if it had any relationship to my post, the FAA does not allow such shoddy technical crew skills in the US.

thekorean · Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:12 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 32):

My mistake although if you did want to shift some blame to Korean civil aviation authority I would not blame you one bit.

I only bring up FAA because whatever happens on US airspace is their responsibility and they do have rights to ban unsafe airlines. They have the responsibility to investigate or if needed, BAN Asiana.

If FAA thinks Asiana is ok, its kind of hard for KCAA to not leave Asiana alone.

Honestly things are probably not ok at Asiana and there has to be a reform in South Korean aviation industry but it cant be THAT bad. Aside from SFO incident what else do they have on their record?

[Edited 2014-11-14 13:15:53]

VCEflyboy · Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:49 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 25):

In Korea, the loss of face is far more impactful than a pecuniary fine. The shame of having one of Asiana's longest-running and important longhaul routes suspended will permeate the entire airline, and serve as a strong motivator to make real changes that improve safety.

Post of the week!
In Korean culture, this public shaming will be much more effective than a fine.
The CEO could care less about a fine. It's not like it's his own money.
Legally, there doesn't seem to be ground for criminal charges, which are the norm, for instance, in France and Italy, where negligence is a felony.
If this can have a positive effect on the airline's safety, so be it!

longhauler · Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:51 pm

Quoting thekorean (Reply 33):
Honestly things are probably not ok at Asiana and there has to be a reform in South Korean aviation industry but it cant be THAT bad. Aside from SFO incident what else do they have on their record?

As I said above ... one of their Captains recently ignored a QRH command to shut down an engine, flew over 1000 nm of open water with that engine running, to arrive at the destination with .... a destroyed engine!

That ONE Captain was disciplined, and I think that is the main error. If Asiana, or the Korean Authorities think disciplining ONE Captain without investigating further, they only ensure that the ONE Captain doesn't repeat the error.

It almost appears to be a faulty philosophy within the airline itself. But therein lies another problem, it is far easier to blame one man that to admit the whole airline needs to rethink its methods.

By comparison, where I fly ... after AF447, EVERY one of our pilots was dragged into the simulator to see, recognize and practise high altitude stalls. It wasn't that they thought AF447 was caused by faulty stall recovery (that hadn't yet been determined), it was that they realized we never get the chance to perform that manoeuvre. After OZ 214, we were all reminded to fly with a lot of automation shut down when conditions permit, and the last series of simulator sessions on all aircraft types was done with autopilot and autothrust off.

What has Asiana or the Korean Authorities done in response ... other than to (hopefully) assume it was the fault of one (or three) man/men?

LHRResident91 · Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:53 pm

The only people who will really feel the pinch here, are the passengers wanting to use it

thekorean · Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:57 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 35):

Hopefully something dramatic but who knows. I am Korean-American but I wont hesitate to criticize Korean government or companies. Nationalism over safety is stupid.

If FAA is fine with Asiana flying in to the US I am comfortable flying Asiana. Maybe I put too much faith in to FAA but US government does seem to get safety right, more so than a lot of countries.

upwardfacing · Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:59 pm

I hope this issue can be resolved through other means than a suspension.

shengzhurou · Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:04 am

if that's the way the government and airline solve the problem, they should just suspend the whole airline from flying until their pilots are properly trained. suspending SFO won't do the company/pilots any better, it made me thinks that they are trying to covering or forgetting their mistakes and not learn from it.

thekorean · Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:09 am

Quoting shengzhurou (Reply 39):

Truth.

But thats the result of government's inept regulation. Would have to suspend all airline operations from Korea.

jeb94 · Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:24 am

IMO its sounding like OZ is having some serious issues with poor training of the pilots to make proper judgement and proper cockpit resource management. Suspending a destination is ridiculous, sure. Suspending all ops or all ops of a certain fleet type due to inadequate training would be more acceptable. If they can't fly a basic approach into one airport with severe clear conditions, what makes anyone think their pilots can fly an approach into anywhere else with less ideal conditions? Should the FAA consider blocking them from US skies? I think so. At the very least they should do a very serious and thorough safety audit.

S75752 · Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:39 am

Quoting thekorean (Reply 31):

LOL UA Asian flights are not that bad. I have troubles with their European flights though.

You must have never flown on one of UA's 744's, nor seen one of them. Their European flights aren't bad, but the 744 asia flights are the worst of the worst, and arguably the worst option across the pacific. Especially to HKG.

Luckily, we still have SQ and KE.

longhauler · Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:54 am

Quoting thekorean (Reply 37):

If FAA is fine with Asiana flying in to the US I am comfortable flying Asiana.

The FAA has very little control over other country's governing bodies. They would have as much to tell the Koreans as say the Germans telling the Japanese how to fly airplanes.

I hate to tell you the list of carriers flying into the US with dubious records. There is very little the FAA can do.

Remember a few decades ago, the very poor record of Korean Air? There was nothing FAA could do. In fact, if I recall, it wasn't until Delta Air Lines publicly said they could no longer put their code on KA flights, as they feared for their passenger's safety ... that KA did a top to bottom overhaul, and presently they are a safe and respected carrier.

That is all OZ needs, in my opinion.

thekorean · Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:28 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 43):

They cant fix Asiana you are correct, but they can stop unsafe airlines from flying to United States.

longhauler · Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:52 am

Quoting thekorean (Reply 44):
They cant fix Asiana you are correct, but they can stop unsafe airlines from flying to United States.

But only if they continually break the law when flying in US airspace. For example, Canada banned Cubana from Canadian airspace until (language) issues were solved.

FAA, (and any country's governing bodies) set out ops specs for operation in each other's countries. Things like training standards and licencing limitations (for example) are left up to the governing body of the country registering the aircraft.

For example, when I was a B737 Captain (many years ago), Canadian licencing standards required that I be able to perform a single engine NDB circling approach. However, the FAA did not require it for American (the country, not the airline) B737 Captains. So when flying into Canada, Transport Canada accepted FAA licencing standards.

The same reciprocal agreement between the US and Korea. FAA accepts Korean licencing standards.

thekorean · Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:04 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):

You would think logically that if FAA finds the pilots were poorly trained they would further investigate the airlines and take further actions.

I guess not,

longhauler · Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:20 am

Quoting thekorean (Reply 46):
You would think logically that if FAA finds the pilots were poorly trained they would further investigate the airlines and take further actions.

Well, there is "poorly trained" and there is flying a perfectly well functioning B777 into a sea wall. But as you yourself stated, OZ 214, was the first major accident of Asiana. I have to imagine that as the investigation continues, FAA and the NTSB will enquire if there have been any changes to improve safety .... Asiana better have some answers.

But in answer to your initial question, no ... just because they are flying to the US, don't think there is an FAA seal of approval on the tail!

For example, I have family in HKG, and I visit on occasion. With close to 100% LFs, I can never get on AC flights, so I will only fly CX, UA and DL. CX is superb, and DL is improving, but people always ask about UA. I just laugh ... yeah the planes are kind of beat up, and yes the F/As are as old as my Grandma, but ... I am 100% certain, beyond a shadow of doubt that the aircraft is being flown safely.

For some odd reason, that is more important to me than AVOD, hot towels in Y and young pretty F/As.

thekorean · Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:26 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 47):

EASA blacklisted airlines so I assumed FAA did something similar but FAA isnt EASA.

RWA380 · Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:29 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 1):
...and suspending the service nearly a year and a half after the fact, is going to resolve what exactly?

Zip, Zero, Nada ..... The consequences should have been instant, not 18 months later.

Quoting Loadsheet (Reply 5):
looks like somebody from South Korea has contacted somebody in the North to ask them how they would punish their airline .....

So who is going to show up dead from a "suicide" at OZ? All kidding aside, I think the idea of a suspension of service to that one city where their crew lost a 777 & three lives, is an absurd measure of punishment, especially since this was an avoidable accident.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net