Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ktachiya
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:16 pm

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.
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1967
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:16 pm

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 99):

One picture shows the debris trail starting from the seawall.
 
n782nc
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:31 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:17 pm

Looks like arrivals are taking place on the 19's. Anyone have any info on departures?
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

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.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:20 pm

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)
 
Fastphilly
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:32 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:21 pm

So can we expect the trans-ocean heavies to depart on the 19s? Or will they sit at SFO until 28R is operational?
 
rj777
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:21 pm

Fire chief just confirmed 2 fatalities, with 60 missing.
 
JoePatroni707
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:58 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:21 pm

 
jporterfi
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:25 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:21 pm

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 avatar
garpd
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:21 pm

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.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9100
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:22 pm

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.
 
atomsareenough
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:42 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:22 pm

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.
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3262
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:22 pm

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 avatar
SuseJ772
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:24 pm

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.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:24 pm

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.
 
scutfarcus
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 3:03 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:25 pm

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.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:28 pm

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?
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:30 pm

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.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9100
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:31 pm

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

Lets hope their math is wrong.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:31 pm

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.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:33 pm

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.
 
tfad2010
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:51 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:34 pm

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 avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:35 pm

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.
 
flymia
Posts: 7137
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:35 pm

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.
 
nutsaboutplanes
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:37 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:36 pm

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.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:36 pm

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.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2384
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:37 pm

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 avatar
garpd
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:37 pm

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.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:37 pm

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]
 
hivue
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:38 pm

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?
 
KDTWflyer
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:51 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:38 pm

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]
 
topgun3
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:27 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:38 pm

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?
 
windshear
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 4:45 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:38 pm

I definitely heard Asiana call go around!
 
User avatar
Acey
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:06 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:39 pm

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.
 
Sligo
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:59 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:39 pm

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 avatar
77west
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:40 pm

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.
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:41 pm

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...
 
windshear
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 4:45 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:43 pm

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
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5054
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:44 pm

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?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:44 pm

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 avatar
77west
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:44 pm

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!
 
RDUDDJI
Posts: 2273
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:42 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:44 pm

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!"
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25550
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:47 pm

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
 
User avatar
SuseJ772
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:13 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:48 pm

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.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:48 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5468
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:48 pm

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.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:50 pm

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.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:52 pm

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 avatar
77west
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:54 pm

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
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:55 pm

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]

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos