Originally Posted by
jamienbaker
How is this not correct? In the case of Korean (which, incidentally, crashed a few miles from my apartment - so I'll admit some bias here), the co-pilot and flight engineer were widely criticized for failing to confront the pilot as he botched the approach.
I am sure I saw this on ACI (or whatever the program is called in the various countries). I am not questioning the fact that the plane crashed, or did so because of some error. But, what I am saying is that the crash happened because of an accident or a failure to follow procedure/policy. It was not intentional or reckeless on the pilots behalf. Maybe not a good judgement, granted, but not the worst decision made either.
So, maybe that is two flights in many 10's of thousands (possibly more - I am no plane crash expert). But, this is not a problem in the industry, nor is it any indication that it could happen any more regularly than an random event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801
There was heavy rain at Guam so visibility was significantly reduced and the crew was attempting an instrument landing. Air traffic control in Guam advised the crew that the glideslope Instrument Landing System (ILS) in runway 6L was out of service. Air traffic control cleared Flight 801 to land in runway 6L at around 1:40 am. The crew noticed that the plane was descending very steeply, and noted several times that the airport "is not in sight". At 1:42 am, the aircraft crashed into Nimitz Hill, about 3 nautical miles (5 km) short of the runway, at an altitude of 660 feet (201 m).
This crash or the others still does nothing to back
Cathayboy's statement that "aviation crash history has shown all too often that pilots are forced to fly due to corporate culture". This is statement is plainly (no pun intended) wrong.