Initial Thoughts on Asiana 214

I am getting increasingly annoyed with the coverage of the Asiana 214 crash in San Fransisco.  Every pilot I know - including myself - would want the benefit of the full findings of the investigation before being beaten and bruised in the media.  On one level, I understand that there is an interest to know what happened.  However, the media is trying to wrap this up before covering the next Obama family vacation and cannot wait the long time that the NTSB will take. 

Instead, we are going to talk about the "inexperience" of the pilots [if they were clear, it is relative inexperience in type - but at least the captain was a very experienced pilot], there is the focus on the alleged lack of safety in a "visual approach" [completely absurd - EVERY pilot first learns how to make visual approaches, and may later learn instrument approaches.  All airline pilots are instrument rated], talking about the problem with a nose-up landing attitude [if you didn't put the nose up, the nose gear would touch down first and damage the plane... and it might make the landing VERY eventful], and even a language barrier [FAA and JAA requirements state that one must be proficient in English to conduct international flights - at least those coming or going from the United States - I listened to the tapes, and while accented the English seemed fine]. 

What is actually known at this point is that the the plane struck the ocean barrier short of the runway touch down zone, and that it was the tail plane that hit first.  This means that the aircraft was not in a "landing attitude" but something more pitched up than this.  There is also apparently some information from the flight data recorders suggesting that the aircraft was well below the speed at which it was supposed to cross the runway threshold (Vref).  I have seen reports that the aircraft "stalled," meaning that the wings stopped producing sufficient lift to sustain flight.  While pilot error is certainly a possibility (and perhaps if we were gambling the one I would bet on), there are also some other potential explanations for what went wrong.  We should wait to rule them out. 

One thing that has not gotten much discussion that I would be interesting in learning more about is the "human factors" or the psychology of what has gone wrong.  This flight was about 10 hours, which is a long time to be flying an aircraft.  It will be interesting to learn more about what their days were like prior to getting into the cockpit.  I'm not passing judgment, but it is well known that the human systems aspects of flying contribute to incidents and accidents.  This is why from early in training we are taught to look at ourselves with the "I'M SAFE" checklist - Illness, Medications, Stress, Alcohol and other drugs, Fatigue, and Eating.

But all of these things interact with the mission and the aircraft.  Being a little tired from getting up early and hungry from not eating because you're going to your favorite $100 pancake breakfast at a familiar airport may require a different go/no go decision than if you're flying to an unfamiliar airport in a relatively new to you aircraft all while in hard-IFR.  As my DPE for my private ticket said in our conversation about these things, "it's difficult and not really desirable to have hard and fast rules, but rather than you've asked yourself if you're really up for this flight." 

Jet Blue Pilot Goes "Nuts"

JetBlue Captain Clayton Osbon has made quite an impression with his reportedly erratic behavior on a flight from New York to Las Vegas, which required diversion and passenger intervention to subdue the captain. No doubt this was a horrifying experience for those on board this flight, and kudos are due the first officer and cabin crew for their intervention. I have had more than one patient ask me my opinion about this situation, and thought I would share some ideas.

First, a very important caveat. I am not diagnosing Capt. Osbon with anything. Rather, I am asking questions that I believe are ultimately an attempt to be charitable to him without excusing poor behavior. With that said...

I saw a number of stories about the requirements for a first class medical certificate as well as the frequency with which a pilot of Captain Osbon's age would be required to have another medical exam. But I am not sure that any exam could have caught this problem. While it is possible for someone to lie about just about anything on that form, I have serious questions at this point about whether or not that is a useful explanation. Let me explain: the behavior described by passengers suggests paranoid ideation. Capt. Osbon reportedly was ranting about terrorists, Iran, others who don't like America very much, and the sins of "Sin City." When the general public hears this, they tend to think of serious mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder with psychotic features. But it is unlikely that a person would have a first psychotic break in his 50's. Those who have known this pilot for years are simply shocked about what has happened here, yet if he were truly suffering from a serious mental illness then those who have known him would have seen strange behaviors and thought patterns. Person's with life-long struggles with that kind of serious mental illness are not usually able to hide it quite this well. Personally, I would not fly with someone I new had a penchant for this type of behavior.

There are other explanations worth considering. I started to wonder about medication changes, some type of toxicity, or the development of a new physical illness that could cause delirium. I hope that in addition to a proper psychological workup, Capt. Osbon was also given a thorough medical examination to rule out these types of problems.

Based on the evidence in the media at this point, it seems that some compassion may be in order. There is no evidence that this pilot wished ill on anyone, or that he has ever had any type of incident of this sort. If that existed, my guess is the media would tout it. And that brings me to another point: the causes of psychological distress are many, multifaceted, and complicated. There is often not a simple explanation, and certainly no single explanation covers all instances. Rather than focusing on failures of the medical certification system or the alleged psychosis of the pilot, perhaps it is better to wait until all the data are available before making a conclusion. If you were involved in some type of incident, would you not want the same consideration? Would you want to be tried and crucified in the media? I wouldn't.