OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2

RayChuang · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:42 am

Quoting FirstClass (Reply 191):
I can't help to think that this incident is similar to BAs 777 crash landing. The weather conditions were too good for a pilot error of this magnitude. In both cases the plane came down short of the runway, though the BA flight didn't loose its tail, which indicates a completely different angle at impact.

What engines do the Asiana 777-200ER's use? Hopefully, date from the FDR and CVR will tell us why the plane ended up flying so low (especially with ILS turned off due to taxiway maintenance).

oly720man · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:42 am

With all caveats about the accuracy of flightaware data, & the following may be a red herring, I've plotted the altitude and speed for the Asiana aircraft along with ANA8 (77W) and UAL852 (772) that arrived shortly earlier, all vs latitude. T/D is the nominal touchdown point on the runway (37 36'45" = 37.6125) .

What stands out is that the Asiana aircraft is about 300ft higher than the other 2 aircraft until about 1500ft where the speed is reduced and keeps on reducing.

atomsareenough · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:42 am

SF General Hospital press conference:

5 of the original 10 reported in "critical" condition are still in critical. The other 5 were upgraded to "serious".

34 total people at SF General. 11 children, 23 adults.

DIRECTFLT · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:44 am

Picture of the tail:

Part of the tail from Asiana Flt 214 (HL7742)

atomsareenough · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:45 am

Update from SFO press conference:

181 transported to hospitals out of 307 total. 49 serious, 132 were transported later after on-site triage.

123 people uninjured and in terminals.

2 dead.

1 person still unconfirmed.

Fastphilly · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:46 am

It was originally announced that landings would approach over Millbrae and land on the 1's? Is that stillthe case or are landings coming over the Bay on the 19s? Sometimes in a big deal like this reports can be conflicting. I was planning on going to Millbrae for some evening plane spotting. Can anybody give me some details of the flight ops out of SFO this evening including which direction are landings and departures? I'd appreciate it.

pilotaydin · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:46 am

Quoting oly720man (Reply 202):

quite a drop in speed there in the last few seconds and also after 300 ft the a/c dips down...looks like a low level loss of control....

rfields5421 · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:47 am

So I was wrong above - the 'little colored piece" is about 40 to 50 feet long, not the 20 ft I estimated.

77west · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:48 am

Quoting oly720man (Reply 202):
With all caveats about the accuracy of flightaware data, & the following may be a red herring, I've plotted the altitude and speed for the Asiana aircraft along with ANA8 (77W) and UAL852 (772) that arrived shortly earlier, all vs latitude. T/D is the nominal touchdown point on the runway (37 36'45" = 37.6125) .

What stands out is that the Asiana aircraft is about 300ft higher than the other 2 aircraft until about 1500ft where the speed is reduced and keeps on reducing.

This sort of shows what I was thinking, high on final, idle power, realized to late that they were on the wrong side of the curve.

jreuschl · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:48 am

Thankfully based on the press conference just aired the 60 missing is incorrect.

No wonder information online isn't always correct, the authorities cannot get it correct, either.

DesertFlyer · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:49 am

Quoting Fastphilly (Reply 206):
It was originally announced that landings would approach over Millbrae and land on the 1's? Is that stillthe case or are landings coming over the Bay on the 19s?

The local news showed footage of a KE 777 and LH A380 landing on the 19s.

cjg225 · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:52 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 105):
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)

Thanks. I had not seen that photo yet. I do agree it hit the seawall, then. All I'd seen up until then was photos that showed a debris trail heading back up the runway from the crash site, but nothing that actually showed the lip and/or any damage to the seawall.

I mean, I know the inference can be drawn fairly easily since there was debris in the water, but I still hadn't seen anything specifically showing it.

Silver1SWA · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:53 am

Quoting AApilot2b (Reply 176):

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.....

Like I said in the earlier thread, they (at least CNN) were speaking to aviation experts, but the anchor had selective hearing and twisted the expert's words to make things sound more dramatic. It's pathetic!

PHX Flyer · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:53 am

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 207):
looks like a low level loss of control....

Looks to me like an unstabilized approach - coming in too high initially , increased descent for correction, approach remained unstable and decision to go around was too late.

kann123air · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 am

I can't imagine being on a plane with the tail striking this unforgiving wall:

Must have been very very terrifying!

hivue · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 am

Quoting oly720man (Reply 202):
I've plotted the altitude and speed for the Asiana aircraft along with ANA8 (77W) and UAL852 (772) that arrived shortly earlier

Thanks much! Very interesting.

indcwby · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 am

Reading some of the news reports on this crash, I'm seeing a lot of passengers being morons complaining that they can't travel and are asking for compensation because SFO closed. Seriously, people have died and they want to act like this, that too in front of the media?

peterinlisbon · Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:58 am

Is it just me or does this look just like the BA 777 that crashed just short of the runway at LHR because the engines wouldn't spool up. I wonder if the same thing happened here, but this time it hit the sea wall before the runway and so the damage was greater.

77west · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:00 am

Quoting indcwby (Reply 217):
Reading some of the news reports on this crash, I'm seeing a lot of passengers being morons complaining that they can't travel and are asking for compensation because SFO closed. Seriously, people have died and they want to act like this, that too in front of the media?

Typical of today, everything must revolve around them and their social life. How dare anything get in their way! Aargh..

7BOEING7 · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:01 am

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 201):
What engines do the Asiana 777-200ER's use?

PW

Quoting N243NW (Reply 179):
And with the ILS out, the crew may not have been using any vertical guidance during the visual approach.

Any pilot flying a 777 should by that point in his career be able to fly a day visual approach without any aids other than looking thru the window at the runway -- it's basic airmanship.

Aaron747 · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:03 am

The best quality local coverage I've seen so far from the Bay Area appears to be from KTVU-TV in Oakland.

Link to their live feed:

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/ktvu-live-news/vtSfR/?updated

AeroWesty · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:05 am

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 218):
Is it just me or does this look just like the BA 777 that crashed just short of the runway at LHR because the engines wouldn't spool up.

We've covered this a number of times in both threads, the last time PHX Flyer gave this excellent answer:

Quoting PHX+Flyer" class="quote" target="_blank">PHX Flyer (Reply 199):
The only similarity is that in both cases a B777 came down short of the runway. BA 38 had problems with fuel flow 2 miles out, whereas here the entire final descent was unremarkable.

rwy04lga · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:08 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 70):
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.

I apologize. I usually don't criticize those with a foreign flag. I didn't notice your flag.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 104):
Mental note--next time sign up for the ORGANIZED crash.

LOL Good one!

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 104):
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.

A BIG shout out, indeed. Unfortunately, being at the rear-most of the plane, some are probably among the dead. May they Rest In Peace!

77west · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:08 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 220):
Any pilot flying a 777 should by that point in his career be able to fly a day visual approach without any aids other than looking thru the window at the runway -- it's basic airmanship.

Very true, but then, how often do 777 pilots fly a visual approach with no guidance but the window? Usually, even when flown visually, there will be an ILS tuned, or PAPI or something to cross check against. Perhaps to much time looking out the window for guidance meant they didnt realize the speed was dropping off? (Please no one get angry, I am just positing an idea)

hivue · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:11 am

Quoting oly720man (Reply 202):
What stands out is that the Asiana aircraft is about 300ft higher than the other 2 aircraft until about 1500ft where the speed is reduced and keeps on reducing.

Looks to me like the speed reduction actually starts at about the 37.58 mark when Asiana is still well above the other two, and just continues to touchdown.

jetblueguy22 · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:12 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 140):
Facebook would be the last place I would expect the company to "announce" the accident on - it's a social filled with teenagers.

I'm not saying that the announcement should be made on facebook. What I meant was they aren't making some facebook event where it doesn't matter when they do it. This is more serious and they should release a statement.

Quoting atomsareenough (Reply 188):
Swalwell is a congressman in the East Bay. Neither San Francisco nor the airport, SFO, is in his district (nor OAK for that matter), so I don't know what he thinks he's doing going on TV to talk about it, when he has no expertise or no direct or indirect connection to this incident. Looks like he's just getting his face on TV.

It was pretty crazy listening to him try and make himself sound like an aviation guy. He mentioned how he has 100,000 miles this year alone and dropped all these "facts."

Quoting FirstClass (Reply 191):
The weather conditions were too good for a pilot error of this magnitude.

You can't just throw something that big out the window. It may seem crazy that it could happen, but it does. They just finished up a long 10 hour flight and crossed the international date line, they could very well be fatigued and not up to par. Or they just could have been set up for a bad approach and ignored stabilized approach criteria.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 196):
Again PLEASE stop the silly speculation!

This is a place where people can speculate and wonder why. Yes some of it may be extreme, but we all are trying to figure out exactly what happened.
Pat

srbmod · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:13 am

Quoting teme82 (Reply 63):

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

Typically police officers are there to secure the scene and have little, if anything to do with the actual crash investigation. They will assist in search and rescue for survivors or casualties alongside the fire rescue crews. They're also there to make sure evidence does not go missing. Much like with a crime scene, a crash scene needs to remain as close to the way it was when the crash happened.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 48):
We know that the wings did not separate, however the outer sections of both wings are substantially damaged and have taken quite a beating.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 77):
The tailfin and the horizontal tailplane are all there on the threshold, but the tailcone is shredded to tiny pieces, apparently.

Which is likely why eyewitnesses reported that "the wings broke off" in early reports.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 117):
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?

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 172):
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.

From a post I made earlier:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 40):
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.

If you look at the following photo from the CNN website, you can see what I am referring to:

hivue · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:14 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 222):
We've covered this a number of times in both threads, the last time PHX Flyer gave this excellent answer:

Quoting PHX+Flyer" class="quote" target="_blank">PHX Flyer (Reply 199):The only similarity is that in both cases a B777 came down short of the runway. BA 38 had problems with fuel flow 2 miles out, whereas here the entire final descent was unremarkable.

My guess is that when the investigation is through no one will be saying "the entire final decent was unremarkable."

peterinlisbon · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:16 am

The fact that the tail got broken off like would seem to indicate it must have hit the sea wall with a low speed and a very high angle of attack. So the pilot was pulling back to try to avoid the wall but there was not enough speed or power to climb. We don't know why not yet, but it reminds me of the BA crash where the pilot pushed the throttles foward but the engines didn't respond. It's the second time a 777 has hit the ground hard during landing just before the end of the runway after an unproblematic long haul flight. The fire must have started after the crash because fuel leaking from the tanks would have come into contact with the hot parts of the engines.

[Edited 2013-07-06 18:22:24]

77west · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:16 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 228):
My guess is that when the investigation is through no one will be saying "the entire final decent was unremarkable."

I agree. Even with innacurate flightaware data, one can clearly see that this flight's approach was different to other preceding flights.

AeroWesty · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:18 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 228):
no one will be saying "the entire final decent was unremarkable."

I'm sure you'll agree having all of the info available to us that we do, we know that this was a powered flight all the way down to when the flight touched earth, quite unlike the BA incident. There would have at least been a radio call by one of the pilots if it wasn't. So in that respect, it was unremarkable.

LAXintl · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:19 am

FAA lifted SFO ground stop.

However massive reduction in capacity with the shorter runways 19L/R in use.

Planned arrival rate is 10/per hour and departure rate also 10/hr.

FAA estimates they can raise this to 18/18 in about 4-hours.

Estimated average delays - almost 6-hours.

atomsareenough · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:20 am

Quoting Stackhouse007 (Reply 164):
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.

It's a major airport; there are plenty of cameras. There should be some footage somewhere if the cameras were pointed in the right direction, though the accident happened at the very far end of the runway which is quite far from the terminal and the tower, so the footage might not be great. Who knows if the public will get to see it, though.

Great, now the press found a passenger who is finally leaving, some poor Indian guy, and they're badgering him as he's walking away. He's just trying to get out, hasn't even talked to his family yet, has a broken collarbone, and the TV crews are shoving microphones in his face and shouting questions. He's being very nice to actually try to answer them.

PHX Flyer · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:22 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 228):
My guess is that when the investigation is through no one will be saying "the entire final decent was unremarkable."

It was unremarkable in that the flight crew did not make any remarks about it - they did not have any technical difficulties. If you read my theory about what happened (see posting #214), you'll find that we both agree that the final descent was indeed NOT unremarkable.

cvervais · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:24 am

Looking at the following picture taken before the fire engulfed the fuselage, I'm noticing severe buckling/separation of the fuselage from the leading wing root over the top of the fuselage.

http://crush.flightaware.com/~dbaker/AAR.jpg

I'm speculating if that's from the front of the plane smacking the runway after the tail hit. Assuming of course that the tail strike theory is right.

JBirdAV8r · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:25 am

Quoting srbmod (Reply 226):

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us/cal...lane-incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Image 8 on this website shows the left engine somewhere along the runway.

DIRECTFLT · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:27 am

Don't know if this was already mentioned.... but a woman staying at the Mariott across from the landing runways, said, to her, it seemed that Flt 214's "right wing struck an airport vehicle, and that caused the plane to filp around".

I know that doesn't make much sense.... I'm just reporting what someone else said.

[Edited 2013-07-06 18:30:53]

Starlionblue · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:29 am

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.

Eyewitness statements from laymen are notoriously unreliable. In addition this person had no instruments and a side view. As any pilot will tell you, the senses can easily be fooled and if you don't have instruments you have no way of evaluating sensory inputs.

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 76):

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.

Everything is possible, but a 777 is a rather heavy contraption and would not be greatly affected by wake turbulence if separation minima were adhered to.

Quoting Fastphilly (Reply 106):

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

They can always do technical stops at LAX, SEA etc...

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.

Battery power for half an hour of operation is a certification requirement. Of course the batteries are not sitting under the cockpit seats but as evidenced by this crash and the BA one they still worked after scraping the fuselage along the ground.

Quoting tfad2010 (Reply 122):
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?

Everything is possible, but it seems unlikely given fuel planning and the fact they did not declare a fuel way earlier.

Quoting FirstClass (Reply 191):
The weather conditions were too good for a pilot error of this magnitude.

Plenty of pilot error accidents happen in good weather. Pilots landing in poor weather might well be more focused.

Methinks the lack of glideslope guidance could be an issue.

Quoting 77West (Reply 145):

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.

Note that this is constructed from flightaware so is probably not entirely accurate.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 60):
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.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 196):
Again PLEASE stop the silly speculation!

This argument comes up with pretty much every crash thread. Here's the deal: We speculate on this forum. There's nothing wrong with it as long as posters separate speculation from fact.

Of you don't like it, this is not the thread for you.

On a side note, if you think this kind of speculation is inappropriate and annoying, stay away from YouTube comments. That stuff will melt your brain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBLM-6dUGs

[Edited 2013-07-06 18:31:36]

[Edited 2013-07-06 18:41:29]

AirKorea · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:33 am

Summaring latest reports(speculations) in Korea,
my opinion about the cause of the accident is
1. horizontal tail in collision with breakwater due to
- sudden drop of the aircraft (maybe engine thrust was suddenly lost) : engine problem. it reminds BA accident in Heathrow.
- failure in horizontal tail
2.Belly Landing as there was landing gear problem
3. Malfunctioning of landing system and thus using 28L which is operated by manual
4. Optical illusion by pilots.
Landing spot of OZ aircraft was not normal, far front, almost near breakwater and the around as debris show.
The most critical clue is communications between pilot and control tawer. they know what problem was before landing.

77west · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:34 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 237):
Methinks the lack of glideslope guidance could be an issue.

Thanks for that graph. Definitely seems unstable on final. Rapid variations in vertical speed that close to landing is not good.

atomsareenough · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:34 am

Quoting DIRECTFLT (Reply 236):
Don't know if this was already mentioned.... but a woman staying at the Mariott across from the landing runways, said, to her, it seemed that Flt 214's "right wing struck an airport vehicle, and that cause the plane to filp around".

The Marriott is a mile away. Unless she was watching with binoculars, I doubt she could have made out an "airport vehicle". Furthermore, there is zero evidence at this point that there was another vehicle involved, either from news reports, or any of the photos. There IS, however, plenty of indication that the seawall was struck.

dtfg · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:36 am

Could it be possible that it is similar to the accident on BA38?

The BA38 flight on Jan 17, 2008, en route Beijing-London Heathrow by a 772ER, crashed at landing due to engines failure

j8 · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:36 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 220):

Thanks, I've had enough of CNN's coverage. This is much better.

fpetrutiu · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:38 am

Update: 2 dead; 1 unaccounted for according to CNN.

It also looks like the second engine is on the airport grounds according to pictures from CNN. It is unclear though the location of this engine. Can anyone tell?

Look at the 8th picture: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us...o-plane-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

My guess is that they can in too low, then the pilots realized late pulled up and striking the empennage into the seawall and ripping the man landing gear off, or striking with the main landing gear (ripping them off) then the empennage. From the pictures, there is no sign of the main landing gear, only the nose gear that is on the runway.

From passenger accounts, the engines were spooled up right before the impact, this alone puts to rest any concerns over icing in the fuel system (ala. London Heathrow 2008).

Speculation:

Scenario 1: Altimeter was set wrong. Flightaware radar data when compared to other flights landing on the same runway minutes before OZ214 they were about 200-300ft below glideslope consistently.

Scenario 2: They were on visual approach misjudged the distance from the runway.

Scenario 3: Stalled at the last second or got a stall warning and the pilots over-reacted by pulling up sharply while increasing the power to the engines instead of just adding power and dropping the nose a degree or two. Looks like there are a pretty good drop in airspeed, so if this data is accurate, there could be some truth in this scenario.

TIME LAT LON HDG KTS MPH ALT VS Source
02:27PM 37.6016 -122.3340 297° West 141 162 600ft -1,320 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6045 -122.3410 298° West 134 154 400ft -900 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6073 -122.3480 297° West 123 142 300ft -840 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6103 -122.3550 298° West 109 125 100ft -120 Descending FlightAware

77west · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:39 am

Quoting dtfg (Reply 241):
Could it be possible that it is similar to the accident on BA38?

This has already been brought up. Also, BA38 was not engine failure, but rather fuel contamination leading to restriction in the fuel flow through a heat exchanger.

tonymctigue · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:41 am

RIP for the two who lost their lives but on the more positive side, well done to all the crew for safely evacuating nearly all of the passengers. They saved alot of lives today.

[Edited 2013-07-06 18:41:35]

NWAROOSTER · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:42 am

Runway 28R must be totally checked for ANY debris or items that could be related to this tragedy, no matter how small. If there is anything, it may NOT be removed ore handled until the NTSB gives the OK to do so. Then that runway must be completely inspected for any damage that it may have sustained and repaired. The runway will need to be cleaned to remove anything, accident related or not, before the runway may be used by any aircraft for taxing, taking off or landing.
Runway 28R could be closed until tomorrow. I am not an aviation expert, but the safety of all aircraft using that runway is item number one.

fpetrutiu · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:42 am

Quoting 77West (Reply 244):
Could it be possible that it is similar to the accident on BA38?

This has already been brought up. Also, BA38 was not engine failure, but rather fuel contamination leading to restriction in the fuel flow through a heat exchanger.

According to passenger accounts, the engines revved up right before the impact. This would rule out any association with BA38 as the engines were running and starved for fuel

indcwby · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:42 am

CBS is already comparing this to the BA crash saying they are very similar.

chrisnh · Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:44 am

Two numbers I will be very interest in hearing are the accumulated hours in the 777 by the crew.

Two witnesses I think we'll be happy to have: The Captain & FO in that UA 744 that was pointed right at the 777 as it approached.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net