Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2  
User currently offlinemoderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 505 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 125253 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

The previous thread became lengthy. In order to continue the conversation and have the ability to find new news quick Part 2 is being created.
Part 1 can be found here OZ 777 Crashes At SFO (by FlyDeltaJets Jul 6 2013 in Civil Aviation)
Our thoughts go out to all onboard the aircraft.
Regards,
The Moderator Crew

[Edited 2013-07-06 18:28:12 by jetblueguy22]


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
257 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineaerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4676 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 125803 times:

Not only landed short of the runway but well right of centerline...


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3158 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 125551 times:

'7442' was a '74'....'7742' was a '77'.


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2492 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 125229 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 1):

I noticed that myself.

From CNN:

"If you had been onboard you may have heard some thumping, and some scraping. You may have also had some overhead bins opening up."

REALLY?! I never would have guessed! I guess they're just filling some time until they get more info.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinegulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 125110 times:

Such a testament to the 777, the fact that she lies in one piece.


I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2326 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 124716 times:

For all those denying witness claims that the plane cart wheeled . . . I think they meant it cart wheeled horizontally, not vertically (like UA DC10 Sioux city). Seeing that the engines are ripped off, the RH wingtip significantly damaged, I find that totally plausible at this point.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineMiami From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 643 posts, RR: 41
Reply 6, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 124780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What a real shocker, of a 777.

I'm dying to know the full story. I believe the landing gear hit the sea wall and that's what forced the plane to crash land.

CNN reports that the wing was coming off. Passengers say it was the tail.

Rumors keep on coming and going...



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
User currently offlinebioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 124700 times:

KTVU 2 is reporting from SF Fire that there are two fatalities.


Next flight: AA 1710/1452 SFO-DFW-AUS
User currently offlineMcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 128 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 124188 times:

Anyone have a preliminary casualty list? I'm seeing two transported to the hospital, only one serious injury, and survivors. No mention of anybody missing.

Shit son, that's a true testament to the 777's design, especially given the brutality of the fire on the aircraft's roof.

EDIT: At least two dead. Geez.....

[Edited 2013-07-06 13:34:17]

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 123764 times:

KTVU is reporting 2 people died as a consequence of this accident.

A very sad day.
And the end of an era for the 777. Considering the origin of this flight, it will be very interesting to see the cargo manifest ( NOTOC ) and see what was on board....

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineat777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 123324 times:

I'd like to hear from the 747 pilots that were taxing right at the beginning of the runway when this happened. They will be able to tell you what happened from outside the airplane.
Could someone pull the ATC from that plane or the plane that crashed?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24339 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 123239 times:

SFO Notam closed till 2200z.

More international diverts

AF84 77W to SEA
EK225 77W to SEA
BA285 744 to SEA
UA902 744 to SEA



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinenicholasjet From United Kingdom, joined May 2013, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 123248 times:

looking at the quotes, they've been taken out of contest and could be real. i am paraphrasing here but the cartwheeling quote was "There was a fireball under the plane and it cartwheeled" As far as i'm concerned, that's the fireball that cartwheeled, not the plane.... and would correlate to an engine that has broken off. As for the wings, those could be the stabilizers, not wings. Not everyone knows what they are called. plus, from a distance, they would look like wings.... I am starting to think it was the starboard nacelle that came off, the engine we can see is perhaps the port nacelle on the wrong side of the aircraft (considering the aircraft had slipped across the path of the engine.- it's possible that the engine flipped sides)

I think most of the debris we can see by the sea wall is the nacelle....

Again, pure speculation, but they could have been doing this approach as non-precision, which is quite common in airlines, to make sure pilots keep up their skills in such manoeuvres...


User currently offlineupperdeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 122735 times:

Quoting gulfstream650 (Reply 4):

She's in one piece?? I swear I saw the tail, MLG and an engine where they shouldn't be.

Fantastic that it appears everyone's OK but no aircraft can take that kind of punishment and stay in one piece.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 121279 times:

While we're bashing CNN, our beloved Dutch website nu.nl uses a picture of the A380 :F




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineOak522 From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 121248 times:

CNN video feed just showed the UA885 being spun around and towed back from the hold position.

User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26517 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 120342 times:

Quoting gulfstream650 (Reply 4):
Such a testament to the 777, the fact that she lies in one piece.

Indeed it held together when it was needed most.

Quoting at777 (Reply 10):
Could someone pull the ATC from that plane or the plane that crashed?

There was a link on original thread.



AEGEAN-OLYMPIC AIR - ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΗ " μέλος στη Star Alliance
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 119718 times:




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 116587 times:

Rosemary Barnes of San Jose Airport is telling by phone they have a big havoc in the airport with people being disembarked in the taxiways.... SFO down for hours would be a big headache....

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 115933 times:

According to KTVU, 2 people have been killed and 61 are injured from the crash. Please not, these numbers are not official yet.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineokie73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 115885 times:

Not to be cold, but this crash only affects one unwary. Why shut down the whole airport?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 115291 times:

Another picture of the 777 before it burned out:




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinethunderboltdrgn From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 114533 times:

Quoting okie73 (Reply 21):
Not to be cold, but this crash only affects one unwary. Why shut down the whole airport?

Perhaps because the airports emergency crews are occupied with this crash?



Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 114011 times:

Quoting okie73 (Reply 21):
Why shut down the whole airport?

One reason, all of the firefighters are attending the Asiana plane. They probably couldn't cover an emergency for flights taking off and landing on the 1s.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineandreag From Norway, joined May 2007, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 113082 times:

Everybody seems to be OK? That must have been quite a slam!
Perhaps same issue as British Airways 777 at LHR few years ago?
Suddenly no power... did they ever found a reliable fix to that one?

A.


User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 791 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 117340 times:

Quoting okie73 (Reply 21):
Not to be cold, but this crash only affects one unwary. Why shut down the whole airport?

Likely for a number of reasons such as FOD potential and crucially that all airport resources including emergency services are focused on this event leaving insufficient coverage for any other arrivals or departures.

ThomasCook



A380 Crew
User currently offlinedenverdanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 116443 times:

Perhaps what passengers mean when they say it flipped was that the pilot pulled back on the column to the point that the aircraft went into a near vertical (or beyond) position, but still travelling forward, before impacting the wall and runway tail first and being slammed back to the ground. The Concorde achieved such a position before it crashed due to stall, right?

If there are casualties, I wonder if they will be by the exit blocked by the no 2 engine. Smoke inhalation probably was what would kill anyone in this crash.

[Edited 2013-07-06 14:24:56]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 27, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 122311 times:

BTW did anyone see the left-hand side engine?


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineGatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 121740 times:

Must have been quite a ride for the F/A's in the rear of the aircraft. Speculation of course, but I wonder if they account for the two fatalities?


Cha brro
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1565 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 120527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'd expect the L side engine to be located in the bay. None of the news copter footage shows the engine on the runway or the area at the a/c. bits of the vertical stabilizer are on the threshold. There are police boats just off the end of 28L now.

User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 486 posts, RR: 8
Reply 30, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 119658 times:

With the aircraft being off the center-line as indicated by the impact, does anyone think this could have been a botched go-around?


American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlineGatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 116922 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 29):
I'd expect the L side engine to be located in the bay.

I may be wrong, but if the tail hit first, I would think the engines would be well above the seawall. It's possible that after the tail hit, the left side of the plane slammed down next, shearing off the left MLG and the engine much further down the runway from where the plane came to rest.



Cha brro
User currently offlinebioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 114412 times:

Local media are now reporting 2 dead, 40 critical, spread out across a few hospitals (SF General, Mills Peninsula, St. Francis Memorial).

[Edited 2013-07-06 14:54:33]


Next flight: AA 1710/1452 SFO-DFW-AUS
User currently offlinePHX Flyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 114444 times:

Where are the FDR and CVR installed on a B777 - inside the pressurized cabin or in the tail cone behind the pressure bulkhead?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 34, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 114863 times:

Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 30):
With the aircraft being off the center-line as indicated by the impact, does anyone think this could have been a botched go-around?

Not sure but according to some eyewitnesses:

> Jet approached without the nose slightly tilted upward as required at the point of contact.
> Nose pitched up as it crossed the threshold, possibly causing the tail to hit the tarmac.

http://twitter.com/jonostrower



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 112641 times:

6-9 pax taken to St. Francis Memorial which is the regional burn center.


Next flight: AA 1710/1452 SFO-DFW-AUS
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 112284 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Asiana still has the aircraft listed as flying.
http://i.imgur.com/Y0XwMdx.png

It blows my mind they still haven't come out with a statement. Not even anything on social media.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21122 posts, RR: 56
Reply 37, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 111613 times:

Quoting okie73 (Reply 20):
Not to be cold, but this crash only affects one unwary. Why shut down the whole airport?

Because all the crash/fire/rescue crews are attending to the Asiana plane, and couldn't cover another emergency if necessary.

Once they resume operations it'll be the 1/19s only, which is either going to make takeoffs on the 19s or landings on the 1s very interesting.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7006 posts, RR: 9
Reply 38, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 112793 times:

Daughter of passenger on flight said her father said "I knew it was coming, plane was too low, pilot tried to fix it last second"
If this is the case don't understand how a professional pilot makes a mistake like this. Of course other factors could be involved but none showed up on ATC.

Also pretty sure CNN had a fake witness saying the plane flipped lots both its wings etc.. Way to go CNN and most other news outlets. They just know nothing abut aviation.

Any word on fatalities?



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinehmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 110816 times:

Well, it's clear from the photos that the gear struck the seawall. It came down way too short off the runway, just like BA038. And it was coming down from a long flight that could have led to icing in the fuel lines, and then a sudden surge of fuel flow could have dislodged a chunk of ice and blocked the fuel/oil heat exchanger. Other than that, I can't see why a 777 would crash land in perfectly good weather at SFO.


An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 110476 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27):
BTW did anyone see the left-hand side engine?
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 29):

I'd expect the L side engine to be located in the bay. None of the news copter footage shows the engine on the runway or the area at the a/c. bits of the vertical stabilizer are on the threshold. There are police boats just off the end of 28L now.
Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 31):
I may be wrong, but if the tail hit first, I would think the engines would be well above the seawall. It's possible that after the tail hit, the left side of the plane slammed down next, shearing off the left MLG and the engine much further down the runway from where the plane came to rest.

It looks to be in the water right before the seawall, as based on the images being shown on TV, there is something in the water there that looks a lot like the top of the engine pylon. If so, perhaps it hit the jetty/seawall first, sheared off and fell into the water as the rest of the plane moved forward. The debris field starts right at the end of the runway, so it seems likely that the #1 engine impacted the jetty.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 41, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 111881 times:

Another picture from someone who was on board that flight:



http://twitter.com/tiffany_trump



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 42, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 109834 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 37):
It blows my mind they still haven't come out with a statement.

At 7am on a Sunday morning in Seoul, I'm not surprised at all.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 791 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 109871 times:

Sky News are reporting that the South Korean Embassy in the US has confirmed 1 dead with a further report of 10 in critical condition in hospital including 2 children.


A380 Crew
User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1228 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 109722 times:

As another poster stated the engine in the photos could be the left engine not the right in spite of its position to the right of the aircraft. It appears the aircraft struck well to the right of the center line and then spun its way toward its final resting place. The fact that the engine in the photo is where one would expect to see the right engine does not necessarily make it so. The missing engine could be in the bay or simply scattered elsewhere than where the main wreckage came to rest.

User currently offlineSenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 109218 times:

As per AV Herald, no one was killed. Media reports seem to be wrong.

Quote:
Emergency services reported all occupants have been accounted for and are alive. Emergency services repeated ALL occupants have been accounted for in response to media reports that two people have been killed and said, these reports are untrue. A number of people were taken to hospitals with injuries of varying degrees.
http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

German news station N-TV says "unconfirmed, but pilot error suspected"


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 108923 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting flymia (Reply 38):
Daughter of passenger on flight said her father said "I knew it was coming, plane was too low, pilot tried to fix it last second"
If this is the case don't understand how a professional pilot makes a mistake like this.

Perhaps he just thought he had enough time to correct it. I know there are landings I have had in training where i think I could safely make it, but a go around was the safe bet. Sine he is a professional pilot perhaps he thought he had the skill to continue the approach and land safe.

Quoting flymia (Reply 38):
Also pretty sure CNN had a fake witness saying the plane flipped lots both its wings etc.. Way to go CNN and most other news outlets. They just know nothing abut aviation.

A lot happened really quick. It doesn't surprise me that a victim may have gotten their story wrong. It isn't all that hard to get disoriented up front, can't be too hard in the back.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 42):
At 7am on a Sunday morning in Seoul, I'm not surprised at all.

Yeah but they aren't announcing a facebook event, their airplane crashed. At least get something out there.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinedesertflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 109028 times:

I just got back from the airport. I was amazed how fast they got the fire out. They were bringing lots of passengers to the terminal via bus, but there were also many, many ambulances transporting people. There was a REACH (Air Medical) helicopter that came in, loaded up, and left (I assume with some of the more severely injured).

User currently offlineawthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 108972 times:

I'm surprised no-one has explained why so many observers thought the plane flipped over.

Its pretty clear to me.

From the only photograph I have seen of the crash enfolding, the starboard wing is indeed very high, appearing to be at the start of an anticlockwise/left flip (relative to direction of travel). Immediately after that glimpse of the starboard wing high in the air, everything is shrouded in a cloud of dust/smoke. Witnesses then assume that the aircraft has indeed continued to roll right over after it became obscured by dust/smoke.

We know that the wings did not separate, however the outer sections of both wings are substantially damaged and have taken quite a beating.

The point I take from the above is that the wings of the 777 have high integrity. This ensured that the port wing did not separate hence preventing the aircraft from completing the flip. The aircraft has simply fallen back to the flat position after it was obscured by the dust cloud. The designer(s) must attract some praise here!


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 49, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 108142 times:

San Francisco General Hospital tweeted they are treating 10 passengers of OZ 214 crash in critical condition.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 107659 times:

SF General (the only level 1 trauma center in the area) reporting that they're treating 10 critical patients, 2 children, 8 adults between the ages of 20-40. 6 female, 4 male.

https://twitter.com/SFGHrebuild

News is reporting that hospitals are looking for Korean translators as many pax do not speak English.



Next flight: AA 1710/1452 SFO-DFW-AUS
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 51, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 107792 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 19):
According to KTVU, 2 people have been killed and 61 are injured from the crash. Please not, these numbers are not official yet.

Doesn't seem to be true, fortunately:

http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

Quote:
Emergency services repeated ALL occupants have been accounted for in response to media reports that two people have been killed and said, these reports are untrue. A number of people were taken to hospitals with injuries of varying degrees.
Quoting bioyuki (Reply 50):
SF General (the only level 1 trauma center in the area) reporting that they're treating 10 critical patients, 2 children, 8 adults between the ages of 20-40. 6 female, 4 male.

Let's hope that everyone makes it through!  

Deceleration must have been brutal – look at how close to the threshold the wreck has come to rest!

The tail and the MLG must both have hit the wall – the tail cone is completely obliterated, and also very close to the edge.

By the way: NBC has a very informative live feed of their chopper online (fortunately without commentary):
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...n-francisco-airport?lite&gt1=43001

[Edited 2013-07-06 15:26:16]

User currently onlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 52, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 105335 times:

Both ILS to RWY 28s are notamed inop at the moment due to construction work on the nearby taxiways. All flights operating into SFO are shooting RNAV or visual approaches.

If this is indeed the result of an unstable approach, my early and uneducated speculation is that the fact that it was a non precision approach to a windy and busy airport might very well be part of the causes.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 53, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 105185 times:

http://oi39.tinypic.com/2wrnol3.jpg


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1565 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 104759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 50):
SF General (the only level 1 trauma center in the area)

Rubbish. Stanford University Hospital is a Level One trauma center along with Santa Clara Valley Medical in the San Jose area.
http://www.facs.org/trauma/verified.html

Many of the injuries here may not require a level one trauma center which means there are many more hospitals that are level two and three which could accept patients.

Please know what you're talking about before spurting out bad information.


User currently offlinethunderboltdrgn From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 104212 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 52):
If this is indeed the result of an unstable approach, my early and uneducated speculation is that the fact that it was a non precision approach to a windy and busy airport might very well be part of the causes.

They have said several times that the wind was only 7 mph and shouldn't have affected the landing.



Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 56, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 103399 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51):
Doesn't seem to be true, fortunately:

Yes there are many reports on Twitter. Now a South Korean official confirmed 1 dead.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinen272wa From Ireland, joined Jun 2007, 410 posts, RR: 7
Reply 57, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 103872 times:

According to Sky News UK:

It (Asiana) has recently tried to expand its presence in the United States, and joined the oneWorld alliance, anchored by American Airlines and British Airways.

??? OneWorld - really!!!

http://news.sky.com/story/1112466/bo...plane-crash-lands-in-san-francisco



Next: (EI)DUB-ORD-DUB, DUB-EWR-IAH-DFW-MSY-AUS-AMA-DEN-EWR-DUB
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 58, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 103999 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 46):
Yeah but they aren't announcing a facebook event, their airplane crashed.

Yeah, but it's like the daughter of the passenger who tweeted her father's pictures and narrative, she was moaning about how the airport hadn't reached out to families yet, and they had to learn of the crash on the news. Come on, how was the airport supposed to do that? Just because we live in an age of instant media, doesn't mean everything happens in a flash.

At my workplace, we have a response team where any major event gets a press release or press conference. All communications have to go through one of the VPs assigned to the team so that the statement is accurate and appropriate. Give them some time, Asiana has a plane crash to deal with from across the Pacific. I'm sure they'll get to a statement shortly.

Are people moaning about how a.net's servers aren't up to the interest from around the world about the crash? No, we're simply living with it.  



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 791 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 102978 times:

BBC News now confirming 2 dead.


A380 Crew
User currently offline802flyguy From United States of America, joined May 2012, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 103220 times:

Hello everyone,
Let's PLEASE stop the idle speculation and irrelevant comments. Idle speculation and irrelevant comments are for TV "journalists" to make.

I suggest that unless ***verified*** and concrete new info comes out ( unlikely in the next few days ) let's not make WAGs about the cause(s). Maybe confine comments to issues like operational impact to SFO (diversions/delays) or examples of stupid comments in news?


Yes, this was a very scary event. But let us not go into full "airnutters" mode, folks.

If a news outlet comes with something new and concrete, please post a link.




User currently offlinebioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 103174 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 54):
Rubbish. Stanford University Hospital is a Level One trauma center along with Santa Clara Valley Medical in the San Jose area.
http://www.facs.org/trauma/verified.html

Many of the injuries here may not require a level one trauma center which means there are many more hospitals that are level two and three which could accept patients.

Please know what you're talking about before spurting out bad information.

Someone's been drinking the haterade. I said 'in the area'. It's great that Santa Clara Valley exists, but it's of no use to the injured pax at SFO.

Obviously there's other level 1 trauma centers in the Bay Area, including Stanford, Santa Clara Valley, and Children's Hospital in Oakland which are further away than SF General from SFO. If you look at the distribution of where the pax are going to, critical patients are going to SF General and non-critical to other areal hospitals.

My information is factually correct so step off dude.



Next flight: AA 1710/1452 SFO-DFW-AUS
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3158 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 103017 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 5):
For all those denying witness claims that the plane cart wheeled . . . I think they meant it cart wheeled horizontally, not vertically (like UA DC10 Sioux city). Seeing that the engines are ripped off, the RH wingtip significantly damaged, I find that totally plausible at this point.

'cart wheeled horizontally' equates to 'SPUN'. Ask any 3rd grader what a 'cartwheel' is. Similarly, whirling Dervish is spinning, NOT doing cartwheels!

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 28):
Speculation of course, but I wonder if they account for the two fatalities?
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 45):
As per AV Herald, no one was killed. Media reports seem to be wrong.

Per the NTSB news conference, the spokesperson has not heard of any fatalities.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 102579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are now some police? officers walking in the runway and the grass area. Looking for the FDR and CVR?


Flying high and low
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 64, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 102975 times:

http://oi41.tinypic.com/2csgnrt.jpg


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1319 posts, RR: 8
Reply 65, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 102313 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27):
BTW did anyone see the left-hand side engine?

They keep putting foam where it should be so I think its hidden under the left wing.

Quoting andreag (Reply 24):
Everybody seems to be OK? That must have been quite a slam!
Perhaps same issue as British Airways 777 at LHR few years ago?
Suddenly no power... did they ever found a reliable fix to that one?
Quoting hmmmm... (Reply 39):
Well, it's clear from the photos that the gear struck the seawall. It came down way too short off the runway, just like BA038. And it was coming down from a long flight that could have led to icing in the fuel lines, and then a sudden surge of fuel flow could have dislodged a chunk of ice and blocked the fuel/oil heat exchanger. Other than that, I can't see why a 777 would crash land in perfectly good weather at SFO.

The BAB airplane had RR engines/system (this was PW) but modifications were made to all of the various engine types to ensure it wouldn't happen again. This was most likely pilot error/incapacitation.

[Edited 2013-07-06 15:44:54]

User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 66, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 101999 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Fox is interviewing Representative Swalwell and he said the runway is 3000 feet long  . Nobody is expecting him to be an aviation expert, but don't present wrong facts.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1565 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 101528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Two runways are now open, (28L and R will remain closed). The european incoming flight bank was diverted to airports such as OAK, PDX, SEA and VS was diverted to LAS. Some a/c which are at SFO are tentatively set to depart international long haul late tonight (we'll need 28R open most likely to allow many of those long haul departures). The open runways are 7,500 and 8,646

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 61):
Someone's been drinking the haterade. I said 'in the area'. It's great that Santa Clara Valley exists, but it's of no use to the injured pax at SFO.

No hate bud but I'm not certain you know how the trauma system is designed to operate. In a major trauma event, all assets in a given area (SF Bay in this instance) are mobilized. That includes medicvac helicopters, amublances etc. All Level One hospitals in the SF Bay area could accept patients if the need arose.

The patient distribution reflects getting patients who need level one trauma care to the closest level one facility. If there are more patients that need high level care than the closest facility can handle, then the others could accept patients. In addition, most injuries don't requrie the full specturm of services of a Level One trauma center. Therefore Level II and III hospital will accept the patients.


User currently offlineunitedchicago From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 100115 times:

Hello,

With all the speculation naturally occurring in the press and on social media, I'm in a bit of a back-and-forth with someone that is saying that the "autolanding" system was suspect. I know - ridiculous.

I wrote back that landings are hand flown. Person then showed YouTube link showing cockpit view of 777 autolanding.

Just want to set him straight as to the facts. Anyone have any insight into the use/non-use of "autolanding". If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but just can't stand the novices that jump to sensational conclusions.

Thanks


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8798 posts, RR: 29
Reply 69, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 100624 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 42):
At 7am on a Sunday morning in Seoul, I'm not surprised at all.

They are awake now:

http://twitter.com/AsianaAirlines



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2326 posts, RR: 12
Reply 70, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 100188 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 62):
Ask any 3rd grader what a 'cartwheel'

Well, I’m not a 3rd grader, but then again, English is not my first language. I do see what you mean. I was thinking that if the spinning was say at 30-40 degrees bank angle, from a distance that could very much look like cart wheeling.



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineSenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 100826 times:

There is a liveatc.net recording up on youtube now. Covering the final phase and then a cut to the emergency responding part and go-around orders.

Not very clear to understand for me as a non native english speaker, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBLM-6dUGs


User currently offlinektachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1781 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 100212 times:

Just looking at those pictures seems that the tail is completely gone?

Are there any rumours going around about what actually happened?



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7347 posts, RR: 32
Reply 73, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 100105 times:

Quoting unitedchicago (Reply 68):
someone that is saying that the "autolanding" system was suspect.

Since the ILS is NOTAMed as OOS - it would be difficult to autoland the plane - right?


User currently offlineb777erj145 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 99290 times:

Very sad day. If the tail hits the ground first and the plane was low, why didn't pilot do something to pull the flight up. My prayers go out to everyone who are effected.

Quoting n272wa (Reply 57):

Yup I saw that on abcnews too


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3040 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 99380 times:

Comparing the current video footage to Google Earth, looks like SFO recently displaced the 28 thresholds slightly (about 200'). Combined with the blast pad, it looks like total Runway End Safety Area (RESA) is no more than 500'. This is well short of the recommended 1,000', which may have made a difference here if available?


FLYi
User currently offlineGatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 98719 times:

Could severe wake turbulence at the wrong time contribute to an accident like this? An ANA 77W landed right before AAR214 and eyewitnesses (insanely unreliable most of the time, I know) reported that the approach was unstable right before touchdown.

[Edited 2013-07-06 15:55:22]


Cha brro
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 77, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 98474 times:

Quoting ktachiya (Reply 72):
Just looking at those pictures seems that the tail is completely gone?

The tailfin and the horizontal tailplane are all there on the threshold, but the tailcone is shredded to tiny pieces, apparently. The remains of the APU seem to be there as well, as is one of the main landing gear legs.


User currently offlinenicholasjet From United Kingdom, joined May 2013, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 97878 times:

The ILS for RW28L and RW28R are indeed out of service, as I mentioned in my previous post, they were operating in VNAV or VS mode, meaning they were manually controlling from at least a good few miles out. Whilst the aircraft would have been in manual flight by that point, with no glideslope reference, and the lack of visual reference (over the bay) the chances are, after a long flight, the crew may have been fatigued and misjudged their version of the glide slope.

Alternatively, they may have ignored the NOTAM and presumed they were on an ILS and misjudged their approach altogether. Either way, the more this keeps on going, I don't think this is a technical issue, sadly.


User currently offline9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 748 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 97373 times:

What could have caused such an approach in perfect weather? If the descent rate was too high, wouldn't the football on the nav display shown them that? It's really strange...

9V-SPJ


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1565 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 96642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 76):
Could severe wake turbulence at the wrong time contribute to an accident like this? An ANA 77W landed right before AA214 and eyewitnesses (insanely unreliable most of the time, I know) reported that the approach was unstable right before touchdown.

Arrivals are spaced to avoid that issue. We can safely assume that this issue will be explored by the NTSB. One of their teams will look at airport operations. I'd really be shocked if that was an issue in this case.

The fact there was no I.L.S. in operation and no mayday does provide some clues. Where the impact occurred provides another. Nevertheless, everything will be examined in detail before conclusions are drawn.

A long night ahead for NTSB and SFO Operations. 28L will be shut for several days most likely. The big question is when they can get 28R open.


User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 425 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 96787 times:

VS 19, a 744 from LHR, is currently diverting to LAS. Other than that, it looks like diverted traffic may be resuming their journey's to SFO: BA 287 is currently enroute SFO, as is LF 454 (which diverted to OAK). Also, UA 886, a 744 from KIX, diverted to SMF earlier today, and is currently diverting to LAX. I guess this is because LAX customs and immigration is better equipped to handle that amount of people, or maybe because SFO doesn't have space on their ramp to park a 747 for more than a few hours. Any other theories?

[Edited 2013-07-06 16:02:45]

User currently offlineplanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 82, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 97466 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 52):
my early and uneducated speculation is that the fact that it was a non precision approach to a windy and busy airport might very well be part of the causes.

Ridiculous comment. A cockpit crew with enough experience to be flying the 777 should be more than capable of landing the aircraft visually in near perfect weather conditions. It'll be a sad day for aviation and airmanship when a crash is caused by the fact the crew can't handle a non-precision approach. Not sure how SFO being a 'busy airport' makes any difference either...


User currently offlineFastphilly From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 96186 times:

It looks like the approach will be on the 1s. Motorists on hwy 101 are in for a unusual sight.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 84, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 95618 times:

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 81):
BA 287 is currently enroute SFO, as is LF 454 (which diverted to OAK).

It looks like the LH A380 was going to land (maybe on the 1s?), but then decided against it.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/D...4/history/20130706/2243Z/KOAK/KSFO



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinemaverick747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 95811 times:

NYtimes has a graphic of where all the airline pieces are http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...siana-flight-214-came-to-rest.html

User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2686 posts, RR: 8
Reply 86, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 95155 times:

I thought I heard "go around" in the ATC transmission. Could it have been the OZ aircraft?


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineB747400ERF From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 94914 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 38):
Daughter of passenger on flight said her father said "I knew it was coming, plane was too low, pilot tried to fix it last second"
If this is the case don't understand how a professional pilot makes a mistake like this. Of course other factors could be involved but none showed up on ATC.

Nobody looking out a side window has any idea whether you are too high or too low.


User currently offlineairlineaddict From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 95573 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can anyone confirm reports if OZ214 pilots reported emergency during descent? ATC recordings I've found are from final approach. Not sure if emergency was declared beforehand.

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1565 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 95050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The LH a/c may have decided to shoot the approach to the west. There will be some cross-wind given conditions at the time which could factor into his decision.

User currently offlinewindshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2325 posts, RR: 11
Reply 90, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 95499 times:

Could this be a stall or too high angle of attack incident? I know this is speculation, but come on we are amateurs, this is what we do for a living  

Boaz.



"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
User currently offlinehmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 91, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 94454 times:

but modifications were made to all of the various engine types to ensure it wouldn't happen again.

I don't think so. Only Trent engines were modified. That's my point. And this one did not have Trent engines. What I am saying is that the circumstances match.


This was most likely pilot error/incapacitation.

Based on what evidence is pilot error, or incapacitation, most likely? My theory at least fits the circumstances.



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently onlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 4
Reply 92, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 94646 times:

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 82):
Ridiculous comment. A cockpit crew with enough experience to be flying the 777 should be more than capable of landing the aircraft visually in near perfect weather conditions

No more ridiculous than immediately suspecting a copy of BA038, to be honest.
Almost as 'ridiculous' as an A330 crew in alternate law being unable to maintain straight and level in cruise at night. Food for thought.

[Edited 2013-07-06 16:16:12]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1319 posts, RR: 8
Reply 93, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 94784 times:

Quoting b777erj145 (Reply 74):
Very sad day. If the tail hits the ground first and the plane was low, why didn't pilot do something to pull the flight up. My prayers go out to everyone who are effected.

The "eyewitness" reports that the nose was higher than normal could mean he was trying to pull up or starting a go-around.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7347 posts, RR: 32
Reply 94, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 95021 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 87):
Could it have been the OZ aircraft?

No - That was the plane behind the OZ aircraft. Obviously the pilots knew they were going around - but they and ATC need to communicate with each other.

It is especially important after something happens on the runway that the process of getting the inbound aircraft turned outbound in a safe manner - to follow procedures exactly.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 95, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 93992 times:

If they can get Runways 1L and especially 1R open, they could get some flights out: for example, UA Flight 885 could take off on a partial fuel load to OAK, top off with fuel and then take off from OAK's Runway 29 to fly to KIX, which fortunately has 24-hour operations due to the fact the airport is located out on an artificial island in Osaka Bay to mitigate noise problems.

User currently offlineAcey From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 93605 times:

Could SFO benefit from about 1,000 ft more of displaced threshold for 28L and R? Still 10,000 ft to land and no real downside that I can think of at the moment. Landers would get through the intersection faster allowing them to better shoot the gap with departures off the 1's.


If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
User currently offlineGatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 93448 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 80):
Arrivals are spaced to avoid that issue.

Certainly, but if there is no wind, wake turbulence has the ability to linger. In spite of spacing, I have experienced WT many times, in some cases violently rolling the aircraft back and forth.

I don't believe this is the cause, just curious as to what would happen if severe WT occurred just before landing.



Cha brro
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 92955 times:

Quoting hmmmm... (Reply 39):
Well, it's clear from the photos that the gear struck the seawall.

Is this an inference from the debris field or are there pictures showing the lip of the seawall? Because I keep seeing stuff like, "gear struck the seawall," but I haven't seen any photos or video showing the lip of the seawall and damge.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21418 posts, RR: 60
Reply 99, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 92513 times:

As for trauma centers, from what was explained after Boston, the most critical pax are medivac lifted to the NON closest hospitals assuming that the extra 5 minutes of flight won't kill them. The less critical will be ambulanced to the closest hospitals. This is because the closer hospitals will be overloaded and the most critical patients would be compromised.

As for the crash, while engine trouble is a possibility it is very likely pilot error due to missed approach without auto land to back them up or due to an altimeter issue. It's pretty clear that the aircraft was lower than the pilots expected and didn't flare, caught its gear on the seawall, flared up and ripped off the tail, then struck the engine due to no gear, spun due to no directional control, and stopped. The black boxes will confirm those details.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinektachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1781 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 92036 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 77):
The remains of the APU seem to be there as well, as is one of the main landing gear legs

Thank you for the information. I don't want to sound pessimistic or anything but when I saw that picture, I just was reminded of JAL123....

Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 79):
If the descent rate was too high, wouldn't the football on the nav display shown them that?

Its way too early to judge anything on what happened, but if the decent rate was too high, the captain would have gone around.



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlinehmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 101, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 92167 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 99):

One picture shows the debris trail starting from the seawall.



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlinen782nc From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 91436 times:

Looks like arrivals are taking place on the 19's. Anyone have any info on departures?


Stairway to Seven
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1274 posts, RR: 6
Reply 103, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 92377 times:

I just listened to the ATC tape--pilots reported problems prior to landing and emergency crews had been dispatched.

One STUPID woman was complaining that the airline had not called her yet about a family member. Gee, what a surprise. They can't even remove the remains until the NTSB gets there. She says "It is so disorganized."

Mental note--next time sign up for the ORGANIZED crash. If he had a cell phone it might be still on the aircraft and hopefully he is not. Otherwise.....

SFO did an outstanding job and saved many lives with their fast response. Now to deal with the fools that stayed on a burning airplane to retrieve luggage holding their dirty underwear. That is so important when human lives are at stake. Those extra seconds of you blocking the aisle to retrieve baggage may have cost people their lives or caused grievous injury. You can't buy that kind of dumb.

And for the CNN/MSNBC/and other news organizations, stop speculating about the cause. You wouldn't know a 777 from a DC-8 but they pontificate like experts. Wait til they retrieve the CVR and Flight Data Recorder.

A BIG shout out to the flight attendants for a textbook evacuation. Fire and blocked exits on the right--deploy chutes on aircraft left. Way to go! You made us proud.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 104, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 91232 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 99):
Is this an inference from the debris field or are there pictures showing the lip of the seawall?

There are better pictures out there I'm sure, but this was a photo of the seawall caught from a TV in the first thread:

See reply #185 (this link should take you there):
OZ 777 Crashes At SFO (by FlyDeltaJets Jul 6 2013 in Civil Aviation)



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineFastphilly From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 90466 times:

So can we expect the trans-ocean heavies to depart on the 19s? Or will they sit at SFO until 28R is operational?

User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1753 posts, RR: 2
Reply 106, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 90433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Fire chief just confirmed 2 fatalities, with 60 missing.

User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 90985 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

ATC recordings here

http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3


User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 425 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 90586 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 84):

FlightAware shows that it just landed on the 19's. I see what you mean about it planning to land on the 1s and then "going around" for another approach.


User currently onlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 4
Reply 109, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 91105 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 104):
I just listened to the ATC tape--pilots reported problems prior to landing and emergency crews had been dispatched.

I heard no such call, except for the pilot talking to the tower POST crash. You can quite clearly hear someone in the background call out the crash as it was happening. The "emergency" call from Asiana came after that.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 110, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 89972 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 66):
Fox is interviewing Representative Swalwell and he said the runway is 3000 feet long  . Nobody is expecting him to be an aviation expert, but don't present wrong facts.
Pat

Airsafe.com founder Dr. Todd Curtis on CNN said SFO runway is just short of two miles.


User currently offlineatomsareenough From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 566 posts, RR: 2
Reply 111, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 89929 times:

Quoting n782nc (Reply 103):

Looks like arrivals are taking place on the 19's. Anyone have any info on departures?

Everything's on the 1/19s. The 10/28s are going to be closed.

Watching the press conference right now. Apparently 60+ people are still unaccounted for as of now.


User currently offlineplanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 112, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 90173 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 93):
No more ridiculous than immediately suspecting a copy of BA038, to be honest.

Speculation is one thing, but essentially suggesting the cockpit crew were completely incompetent at this stage is unfair.


User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 113, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 89920 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27):

BTW did anyone see the left-hand side engine?
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 29):

I'd expect the L side engine to be located in the bay. None of the news copter footage shows the engine on the runway or the area at the a/c. bits of the vertical stabilizer are on the threshold. There are police boats just off the end of 28L now.

I am not sure about this. It would have had to hit the side of the sea wall to rip it off and you would see more damage to the sea wall. There was one part by the piano keys that I thought I saw what might be an engine with out any cowlings and slightly charred. I can't find the image that was up close again, but approx placement was here:



Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 65):
They keep putting foam where it should be so I think its hidden under the left wing.

I don't think so. I don't see a huge bulge or tearing around that section. I would think it it were under there you'd see some evidence of that.


My question is this, why is the right engine IN FRONT of the plane. I would think if it were ripped away, it should be ripped behind the aircraft. That and it rolled towards the fuselage. The location fo the engine and the relative intact-ness of it, makes me very curious as to how the physics involved caused that. I am sure there is an explanation, but I'd love to know it.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 52):
Both ILS to RWY 28s are notamed inop at the moment due to construction work on the nearby taxiways. All flights operating into SFO are shooting RNAV or visual approaches.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 73):
Since the ILS is NOTAMed as OOS - it would be difficult to autoland the plane - right?

I bet at least a partial recommendation that comes out of this is the continual warning the FAA / NTSB has put out over the years about the automation of flying has reduce pilot skill. I bet the investigators will be looking into when the last manual landing was of the pilot flying and how many he has done manually in the last couple of years.

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 76):
Could severe wake turbulence at the wrong time contribute to an accident like this?

I don't think so. The 777 is a big plane and usually wake turbulence effects from larger planes to smaller plane. I don't think Wake Turbulence from a 777 would effect a 777 very much, especially with separation.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 114, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 89522 times:

Quoting ktachiya (Reply 101):
Thank you for the information. I don't want to sound pessimistic or anything but when I saw that picture, I just was reminded of JAL123....

The relative pressure on the rear bulkhead was mostly normalized again at sea level – that it was visibly ruptured in the wreckage seems to be a result of the impact on the sea wall and the runway, not least since the landing gear appears to have been ripped off as well.

I don't really see any plausible connection to JAL123.


User currently offlinescutfarcus From United States of America, joined May 2000, 387 posts, RR: 1
Reply 115, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 89488 times:

I'm quite amazed at how quickly the plane seems to have come to a halt... eyeballing it it would seem like it stopped in barely 1000 feet... maybe 1500. That would create some tremendous forces on the passengers. I'm amazed that alone wouldn't kill people but I guess we can stand more than one might think.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 116, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 88311 times:

This is totally speculative, but could it be that the left engine ended up beneath the fuselage, causing the fire to erupt in the middle section of the plane, or is that completely impossible?

I'm trying to put together 1) where is the left engine, and 2) where are the 60 missing people?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1274 posts, RR: 6
Reply 117, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 88785 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 110):
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 104):I just listened to the ATC tape--pilots reported problems prior to landing and emergency crews had been dispatched.
I heard no such call, except for the pilot talking to the tower POST crash. You can quite clearly hear someone in the background call out the crash as it was happening. The "emergency" call from Asiana came after that.

It was confusing and he had a heavy Korean accent but how could the radios operate with both engines ripped off, disrupted power and heaven only know how many ripped and torn wires from the crash and fire? What would be the electrical power source? Unless he still had some battery power--the transmissions were kind of faint.

In this sort of an accident the pilots would be giving evac commands and shutting down all aircraft systems before they left the a/c themselves. And like Captain Sully--a great captain would check his or her airplane for stragglers before leaving.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 118, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 88216 times:

Quoting atomsareenough (Reply 112):
Apparently 60+ people are still unaccounted for as of now.

Lets hope their math is wrong.


User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 88087 times:

Hi guys. I don't post very often, but I think all these comparisons to BA38 etc and reports of pilot error should be taken into context, what we know as fact is that part of the aircraft, probably the right main gear, but possibly the lower tail area, contacted the seawall, we know for a fact the aircraft was too low. A visual approach with no ILS for vertical guidance could be a contributing factor, but then the conditions were clear at the time. As for fuel icing, the flight path does not go far enough north to be in similar territory to BA38, which unfortunately point more towards crew errors. (Barring any extreme weather conditions. So really all we need to find out now is why the low energy condition occurred - I think the NTSB interviews with the crew of 214 and the crew of the UA744 will provide a large number of answers to this. I would be interested to know if the PAPI was operational at the time and if they had no glideslope indication at all.


77West
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 120, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 87838 times:

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 114):
My question is this, why is the right engine IN FRONT of the plane. I would think if it were ripped away, it should be ripped behind the aircraft. That and it rolled towards the fuselage. The location fo the engine and the relative intact-ness of it, makes me very curious as to how the physics involved caused that. I am sure there is an explanation, but I'd love to know it.

The engine cores are among the densest and heaviest parts of an aircraft. The engine may just have had less friction on the ground when it broke off and thus slid a bit further by its own inertia. Looks like it stuck on until a few meters before its final position and just rolled a bit to the side at last.

Looks pretty plausible to me.


User currently offlinetfad2010 From Australia, joined Feb 2012, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 87192 times:

From Flightaware, Incheon Int'l (RKSI / ICN) to San Francisco Intl (KSFO):

"Distance Direct: 9,095 km Planned: 9,121 km Flown: 11,679 km"

Could it have run out of fuel?


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1319 posts, RR: 8
Reply 122, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 87616 times:

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 98):
Certainly, but if there is no wind, wake turbulence has the ability to linger. In spite of spacing, I have experienced WT many times, in some cases violently rolling the aircraft back and forth.

I don't believe this is the cause, just curious as to what would happen if severe WT occurred just before landing.

From all reports it looked like a normal approach, just "landed" short.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 88):
Nobody looking out a side window has any idea whether you are too high or too low.

  

Quoting planesarecool (Reply 113):
Speculation is one thing, but essentially suggesting the cockpit crew were completely incompetent at this stage is unfair.

"Stuff" happens.

Quoting hmmmm... (Reply 92):
I don't think so. Only Trent engines were modified. That's my point. And this one did not have Trent engines. What I am saying is that the circumstances match.


This was most likely pilot error/incapacitation.

Based on what evidence is pilot error, or incapacitation, most likely? My theory at least fits the circumstances.

True, the circumstances are similar, however, although PW & GE engines may not have been modified they were put through the same rigorous tests as RR after the incident to ensure that they could not have the same problem. Time will tell.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7006 posts, RR: 9
Reply 123, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 87064 times:

CNN is reporting 2 fatatlies with 60 unaccounted for. I thought I might have saw some yellow tarps on the videos. Hoping for a small to no fatality account.


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 486 posts, RR: 8
Reply 124, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 86285 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 118):
What would be the electrical power source? Unless he still had some battery power--the transmissions were kind of faint.

This would certainly have been battery power.



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 86275 times:

Quoting tfad2010 (Reply 122):

How accurate is flightaware in regards to planned distance? I would think only the airline dispatch would know this sort of info. Also, if I was flying almost 2000km further than planned, a diversion would have been top of my list of things to do! But yes, interesting theory.



77West
User currently offlinelitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 86945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 114):
There was one part by the piano keys that I thought I saw what might be an engine with out any cowlings and slightly charred. I can't find the image that was up close again, but approx placement was here:

It was noted a few posts back that this was likely the APU, which is (after all) a small turbine engine without any cowlings.

- litz


User currently onlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2586 posts, RR: 4
Reply 127, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 86851 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 118):

It was confusing and he had a heavy Korean accent but how could the radios operate with both engines ripped off, disrupted power and heaven only know how many ripped and torn wires from the crash and fire?

Batteries my dear fellow.

The pilot of BA038 was transmitting (albeit accidentally) after their crash landing. With slightly less damage granted, but no engine power as with this situation.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 128, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 86170 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 118):
It was confusing and he had a heavy Korean accent but how could the radios operate with both engines ripped off, disrupted power and heaven only know how many ripped and torn wires from the crash and fire? What would be the electrical power source? Unless he still had some battery power--the transmissions were kind of faint.

The electrical systems usually fall back to battery power for essential needs such as communication if no generators are online any more. That could still have worked after the crash.

Quoting litz (Reply 127):
It was noted a few posts back that this was likely the APU, which is (after all) a small turbine engine without any cowlings.

Yes, I thought it was too compact for a propulsion engine, it still seemed to have some of its case and it was near the remaining tail and tailcone debris.

[Edited 2013-07-06 16:40:29]

User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 85649 times:

Quoting nicholasjet (Reply 78):
Alternatively, they may have ignored the NOTAM and presumed they were on an ILS and misjudged their approach altogether.

How can you presume you're on an ILS if there's no localizer and no glideslope?


User currently offlineKDTWflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 826 posts, RR: 1
Reply 130, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 85944 times:

Per the METARs it doesn't look like the wx wasn't too crazy which is good...

KSFO 061856Z 21007KT 170V240 10SM FEW016 18/10 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP098 T01830100
KSFO 061756Z 21006KT 10SM FEW016 18/10 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP097 T01780100 10183 20128 51005

Pretty eerie how it seems so similar to BAW38   I know there was a giant fix action for the fuel ice issues but still it seems from scant observation that the plane was trying to land on the runway at a high angle of attack ie low and slow :/

[Edited 2013-07-06 16:39:02]

[Edited 2013-07-06 16:43:21]


NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
User currently offlinetopgun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 86163 times:

Not sure if it was mentioned....but according to Flightaware the plane was down to 109 knots at 100ft altitude. Is this normal or too low?


I'd rather be flying.
User currently offlinewindshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2325 posts, RR: 11
Reply 132, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 86089 times:

I definitely heard Asiana call go around!


"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
User currently offlineAcey From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 85683 times:

Quoting tfad2010 (Reply 122):
"Distance Direct: 9,095 km Planned: 9,121 km Flown: 11,679 km"

Could it have run out of fuel?

Maybe, but that's not the number that would indicate that.



If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
User currently offlineSligo From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 85762 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 124):
CNN is reporting 2 fatatlies with 60 unaccounted for. I thought I might have saw some yellow tarps on the videos. Hoping for a small to no fatality account.

I assume OZ does not self-handle?

So might they have 10 ops people total at SFO who are OZ employees?

Might this be the cause of the hang-ups in counting and general lack of information?

Assuming they dont self-handle, who handles them?


User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 85492 times:

Quoting topgun3 (Reply 132):
Quoting topgun3 (Reply 132):
Not sure if it was mentioned....but according to Flightaware the plane was down to 109 knots at 100ft altitude. Is this normal or too low?

This is to slow for a 777. I would have expected 130 or higher even.



77West
User currently offlinepilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2537 posts, RR: 51
Reply 136, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 85790 times:

I just got home from a flight and got word of this crash, being an accident investigator I am very happy that there are pictures, an actual wreckage and crew members that are alive, this means there will be little room for error during the final report.

Judging from the experience I have from being on accident sites and from being a pilot myself, I can come up with a couple of theories...

1. The aircraft may have been hand flown and possibly misjudgment may have crept it. Must look at crew fatigue, pilot flying, position of sun and what approach mode the aircraft was in, ILS? NON precision or other lateral and vertical guidance. For the aircraft to be off centerline it makes me feel that it was being hand flown during those stages.....

2. The elevators and tail fin are quite close to one another, this means that they fell off at the same time, so the impact was like a snap off rather than slow scrape off....either the plane hit extremely hard (remember the MD test video that lands super hard) or the aircraft pitched up enough for the tail to physically contact the ground...we will see.....

3. As for the airplane being to the left of 28L, would have to look at the drift angle of the aircraft and any flight control input following a potential bounce...

4. Reasons for lower than normal approach path: dual engine failure, smoke in the cockpit limiting visibility, pilot incapacitation at the controls or just basic error....

These are what I have to offer, I know many of you on this forum, so I hope we will get some good clean discussion going here....The distance of the aircraft from the initial touchdown is not far, reminds me of the Amsterdam accident I worked on, the wreckage didn't spread much meaning the approach speed was around where it should have been...



The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offlinewindshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2325 posts, RR: 11
Reply 137, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 84803 times:

Quoting topgun3 (Reply 132):

Not sure if it was mentioned....but according to Flightaware the plane was down to 109 knots at 100ft altitude. Is this normal or too low?

For a 777 it's for sure a un flyable speed, but I don't think flightaware is reliable in terms of speeds at 100ft



"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
User currently offlinefrmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1690 posts, RR: 1
Reply 138, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 84469 times:

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 88):
Nobody looking out a side window has any idea whether you are too high or too low.

Only once did I ever think a commercial flight came in too high, and commented to fellow passengers. We did a go around.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 104):
One STUPID woman was complaining that the airline had not called her yet about a family member.

Do you suppose she may have been more than normally upset?



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 139, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 84028 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 46):
Yeah but they aren't announcing a facebook event, their airplane crashed. At least get something out there.

Facebook would be the last place I would expect the company to "announce" the accident on - it's a social filled with teenagers.

I have no doubt that a lot of senior executives have assembled at the home office, trying to find out what has happened and how to write the news release. Between two governments involved, the legal system of two countries, etc. they will approach their releases with care and as much precision as possible.

The other factor to understand is that there also needs to be a massive effort by the company to respond to the accident. Focusing on taking care of pax, communicating with families, etc. Working with the airport, especially with emergency services, but also addressing the needs of those pax who do not need medical care, but needs to get onward travel co-ordinated, etc.


User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 84389 times:

Just for reference, according to Boeing the approach speed for a 777-200ER is: Aircraft

Airport Reference Code and Approach Speeds for Boeing Airplanes
Boeing 777-200ER C-V 139

Now before anyone jumps on me, I realize that this does vary, but still 109kt is too slow unless you have already landed!



77West
User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1424 posts, RR: 3
Reply 141, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 84773 times:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer just said: "67 people are unaccounted for, maybe they got sucked out with the tail when it came off". It's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60, that people didn't get sucked through the bulkhead (which is visible in the video). Not to mention, so far I haven't seen any bodies on the RWY.

I really think they should just stop talking if they don't know what they're talking about. Fox is just as bad, they're quoting twitter users who allege they were on the flight...

It doesn't really bother me that the media doesn't know anything about aviation. What bothers me, is that they say these stupid things and *other* non-aviation people believe them. "I saw it on the news!"



Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24339 posts, RR: 47
Reply 142, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 83712 times:

Regarding airline ops at SFO

AA - Cancelled all SFO departures rest of the day.
DL - Several cancels and some major reschedules till later in evening.
WN - Cancelled all SFO departures rest of the day
UA - 69 cancels to far. Will attempt to operate 3/4 of redeye bank
US - All departures cancelled except 2 red-eyes
VX - Cancelled SFO departures through 6pm



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 143, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 83074 times:

Quoting litz (Reply 127):
It was noted a few posts back that this was likely the APU, which is (after all) a small turbine engine without any cowlings.

That's valid. Now I am all the more curious as to where the left engine is.


Next question is that the guy who is currently on CNN right now keeps saying they were high and they could see the tarmac below them, it seems pretty clear to me that they weren't high at any point once the tarmac was visible below them. It's seems to be a weird testimony at this point.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 82980 times:

Can someone who knows how to post on of those altitudespeed graph type things that google earth can create off flightaware data? This would give some interesting info as to what was happening in the final phase of the landing.


77West
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2866 posts, RR: 1
Reply 145, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 83101 times:

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 114):
My question is this, why is the right engine IN FRONT of the plane. I would think if it were ripped away, it should be ripped behind the aircraft. That and it rolled towards the fuselage. The location fo the engine and the relative intact-ness of it, makes me very curious as to how the physics involved caused that. I am sure there is an explanation, but I'd love to know it.

There's the rub: We see an engine next to the airframe, however there's no way right now to know whether this is #1 or #2.

The initial photos showed a white plume further down the runway, which might be the other engine, or it may be in the bay, or it may be under the aircraft. This will all be cleared up sooner or later.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1319 posts, RR: 8
Reply 146, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 82584 times:

Quoting topgun3 (Reply 132):
Not sure if it was mentioned....but according to Flightaware the plane was down to 109 knots at 100ft altitude. Is this normal or too low?

Assuming Flightaware is using 29.92 altimeter setting with the 29.82 altimeter noted above in Reply 131 if I did my math right there's your 100 feet and the speed is what ever it was doing sliding down the runway.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1565 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 82028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wolf Blitzer just needs to go away. His speculation and hysterics are not a help to anyone.

We should hopefully find out that those 60 folks flat out bailed once they reached the terminal. Folks who've been though an experience like that just want to GTFO. Given the time it took for the plane to become consumed by the fire (~3 mins?) should give plenty of time for folks to get out.

A BA 744 just landed and the diverted flight to SEA is on its way.


User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 81540 times:

Below are a few of the last data points. I agree with 7BOEING7 that the 109 was probably on the ground. What is interesting is that even at 600ft they were a little slow at 141, and speed continued to bleed off, 123 at 300 would be the clue here, even with altimeter adjustment.

06:26 37.5900 -122.3070 297° West 169 312 1,400 -1,380 Descending FlightAware
06:27 37.5988 -122.3270 299° West 145 269 800 -1,380 Descending FlightAware
06:27 37.6016 -122.3340 297° West 141 261 600 -1,320 Descending FlightAware
06:27 37.6045 -122.3410 298° West 134 248 400 -900 Descending FlightAware
06:27 37.6073 -122.3480 297° West 123 229 300 -840 Descending FlightAware
06:27 37.6103 -122.3550 298° West 109 201 100 -120 Descending FlightAware
06:28 37.6170 -122.3740 294° West 85 158 200 120 Climbing FlightAware



77West
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7347 posts, RR: 32
Reply 149, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 81348 times:

Quoting Sligo (Reply 135):
Might this be the cause of the hang-ups in counting and general lack of information?

It would contribute.

But after such an incident there is general chaos. Some of the pax very likely tried to leave the airport, so might have been successful.

The airline will want ALL the pax and crew to go to a hospital at some point.

The primary response is finding and getting treatment for those injured. The consolidation of passengers take a while and is not an airline function - but the airport emergency services. Then law enforcement usually gets involved because they have the experience of identification of people, collecting initial statements, information on their immediate plans and contact information.

And these folks haven't cleared customs or immigration yet.

Four or five hours after a major incident to develop a plan for dealing with everyone takes time to setup and coordinate.

Since people were being sent to hospitals without a strict identification and control process, that is going to make the numbers a bit inaccurate for 12-24 hours.

And frankly most of the uninjured, barely injured passengers are like not interested in cooperating with three or four counts per hour. They want to talk to their families, they want to leave, and they are not staying still.


EDIT - Also from my personal experience in a mass casualty incident - sometimes it is very difficult to determine exaclty how many deceased are present. If the back of the plane has several deceased persons - that could mess with the numbers. I've heard nothing to indicate that - and I would have expected the Fire Chief to say something if there are bodies in the aircraft.

[Edited 2013-07-06 17:17:52]

User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 150, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 81335 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 147):
Assuming Flightaware is using 29.92 altimeter setting with the 29.82 altimeter noted above in Reply 131 if I did my math right there's your 100 feet and the speed is what ever it was doing sliding down the runway.

I don't think FlightAware is that accurate. My understanding is that speed on FlightAware is mathematically derived from the geo-coordinates and the time between geo-points recording.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offlinedashman From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 81501 times:

RNAV approaches have vertical guidance, though not considered precision as in an ILS. They can appear to be as precise as an ILS glide path. VGSI is not coincident with RNAV glideslope for 28l. It ts all part of the puzzle and I'm tired of hearing people spout pilot incompetence. At this point it could be one thing or a multitude of things that put the aircraft where it ended up. So let's wait a day or two and not try beat the NTSB to the final determination before sundown.

User currently offlinecvervais From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 152, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 81082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is kinda interesting though, the accuracy of the data isn't a given.

http://mashable.com/2013/07/06/flightaware/


User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 81069 times:

Quoting dashman (Reply 152):
RNAV approaches have vertical guidance, though not considered precision as in an ILS. They can appear to be as precise as an ILS glide path. VGSI is not coincident with RNAV glideslope for 28l. It ts all part of the puzzle and I'm tired of hearing people spout pilot incompetence. At this point it could be one thing or a multitude of things that put the aircraft where it ended up. So let's wait a day or two and not try beat the NTSB to the final determination before sundown.

Agreed. I am having a hard time believing two experienced pilots caused this on their own without some external influence, whether NAV related or otherwise. Just does not seem right.



77West
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4357 posts, RR: 27
Reply 154, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 80838 times:

Wow. Coming from the pictures, I'm really glad some of the lucky ones have their roll aboard luggage... Unbelievable. Blood on their hands.


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7347 posts, RR: 32
Reply 155, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 80261 times:

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 151):
My understanding is that speed on FlightAware is mathematically derived from the geo-coordinates and the time between geo-points recording.

Then it would be ground speed, not indicated air speed.


User currently offlineFastphilly From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 80398 times:

Will these heavies have to fly out severely weight restricted due to having to use the 19s for takeoffs? Or will they use 28R that seems to be a reasonable distance from the wreckage. I was in the Burlingame highlands viewing the damaged plane. The plane is between 200-300 yards beyond the edge of the runway and looks like it's resting just west of 28L between the runway and taxiway.

User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 80377 times:

Guys!! unless each of the slats broke off neatly along the hinges on both sides, it *does not look* like the flaps were deployed in the normal landing position! I may be wrong of course, but look at the picture in the NYT article and let me know what you think!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/san-francisco-plane-crash.html?hp

P.S: There's actually a better picture above in the thread.

[Edited 2013-07-06 17:06:33]

User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 79905 times:

Quoting tfad2010 (Reply 122):
Could it have run out of fuel?

A possibility? The fire appears to have been significant but not all that severe. What was the response time for the fire crews (sorry if it's been posted already but I didn't see it)?


User currently offlineua777322 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 159, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 79075 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 155):
Blood on their hands.

If those 60+ unaccounted people were stuck in the airplane and couldn't get out......... I agree

Unfreaking believable. It looks like she got her duty free also


User currently offlineYWG747 From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 160, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 78801 times:

Sad to see this casualty
RIP


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 161, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 78211 times:

Quoting Fastphilly (Reply 157):
Will these heavies have to fly out severely weight restricted due to having to use the 19s for takeoffs? Or will they use 28R that seems to be a reasonable distance from the wreckage. I was in the Burlingame highlands viewing the damaged plane. The plane is between 200-300 yards beyond the edge of the runway and looks like it's resting just west of 28L between the runway and taxiway.

If 28R/10L is reasonably clean, they could get that runway back in operation within at most a few days. That right there would allow the biggest planes such as the LH A380 to resume operations in and out of SFO.

I really hope that the FDR and CVR are studied with a "fine tooth comb" in terms of data to determine why the plane ended up being too low.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1319 posts, RR: 8
Reply 162, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 77152 times:

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 158):
Guys!! unless each of the slats broke off neatly along the hinges on both sides, it *does not look* like the flaps were deployed in the normal landing position! I may be wrong of course, but look at the picture in the NYT article and let me know what you think!

Looks like the LE's on the outbd left wing and the TE's came off the airplane during the "rollout". If he was in the process of a go-around the LE's would have retracted to the midrange position -- hard to tell.


User currently offlineStackhouse007 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 163, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 77264 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Are there no security cameras at SFO aimed at the approach end of the 28's? I remember when the FedEx MD-11 crashed and the only video we had available to actually see what happened was a security camera.


Nikon D60: 18-55mm - 55-200mm / Canon 50D: 100-400mm
User currently offlineFastphilly From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 164, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 76739 times:

Now we are hearing about 60 ppl unaccounted? I've been watching local affiliate KTVU and they have been good vetting their info. That's a concerning number.

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7347 posts, RR: 32
Reply 165, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 76556 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 162):
they could get that runway back in operation within at most a few days.

I suspect the right runway will be in operation late Sunday, and the left runway in operation by sunset on Monday.

SFO has plenty of capability and facilities to move the wreckage to a safe location to study.

Quoting hivue (Reply 159):
The fire appears to have been significant but not all that severe. What was the response time for the fire crews

First - it is obvious that the SFO / San Francisco Fire Department did an EXCELLENT job in responding, evacuation and fire fighting. Well done !!

The ATC tapes have a comment from another aircraft that people are out of the aircraft moving around before the fire crews get there. The evacuation started quickly.

This is pure speculation - but the fire appears to be only the combustible components of the cabin. Likely started by an electrical short failure. Hey the plane crashed - stuff breaks.


User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 166, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 76666 times:

Quoting cvervais (Reply 153):
This is kinda interesting though, the accuracy of the data isn't a given.

http://mashable.com/2013/07/06/fligh...ware/

While I doubt how accurate that is, it would appear that they were initially a bit high on the glidepath, possibly with engines at low poweridle and this caught up with them by the time they got to the runway. With a dirty (flaps+gear) config, speed can reduce pretty quick if you are not careful, especially when beginning to flare.



77West
User currently offlinepilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2537 posts, RR: 51
Reply 167, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 76335 times:

Fuel starvation in my opinion on this route with this aircraft seems unlikely...Some sort of ATC communication would have happened


btw "let's join Richard Quest the authority on aviation" is something I would rethink as CNN....



The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offlinexdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 168, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 76028 times:

Quoting 77West (Reply 154):

Is too early to forget BA


User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 169, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 76251 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 142):
CNN's Wolf Blitzer just said: "67 people are unaccounted for, maybe they got sucked out with the tail when it came off". It's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60, that people didn't get sucked through the bulkhead (which is visible in the video). Not to mention, so far I haven't seen any bodies on the RWY.

He'll probably get a pat on the back from management for this speculation. Pathetic - someone at CNN must have an ounce of scientific aptitude surely?

[Edited 2013-07-06 17:23:48]


Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2492 posts, RR: 4
Reply 170, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 75914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I love how they are asking the British guy about his experiences with the 777 because he had apparently flown it before. Apparently this is relevant. He is also going through the different types of the 777 and saying that he only difference between the variants is that Boeing "kept putting bigger and bigger tanks" in them. CNN is usually my first resource for news but they are really dropping the ball on this one.


\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineGatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 171, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 75242 times:

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 144):
That's valid. Now I am all the more curious as to where the left engine is.

Assumptions on my part, but the left side of the aircraft slammed down after the tail strike, causing the left engine, all flaps (except for the flaperon) and the tip of the left wing to shear off (see the image in reply 53). The engine is probably somewhere in the grass between the taxiway and 28L.

[Edited 2013-07-06 17:20:00]


Cha brro
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6338 posts, RR: 39
Reply 172, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 75677 times:

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 168):

Passenger who CNN spoke to suggests an attempt at a go around before hitting the ground..

And this 'expert'.. Well.. Maybe time to turn the tv off..



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offline77West From New Zealand, joined Jun 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 173, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 74728 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 169):
Quoting 77West (Reply 154):

Is too early to forget BA

Yes it is, I wonder if the fueloil heat exchangers were modified on all of the 777 versions or just 'inspected'. If this is another ice related event, it would look pretty bad.



77West
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 174, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 74703 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 166):
Quoting hivue (Reply 159):The fire appears to have been significant but not all that severe. What was the response time for the fire crews
First - it is obvious that the SFO / San Francisco Fire Department did an EXCELLENT job in responding, evacuation and fire fighting. Well done !!

I wasn't questioning the competence of the SFFD. I was wondering if the relative lack of fire damage to the aircraft might be due to little/no fuel to burn.


User currently offlineAApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 175, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 74728 times:

The media reporting of this crash is absolutely stupid. The sensationalism and jumping to conclusions is ridiculous. It seems that at some point they would get an aviation expert to discuss this rather than some twit who knows nothing more than how to apply makeup properly.....