Reviewed thread two and saw this one at the end
Korean media is reporting that OZ214 landed on 28L, which was "closed" due to navigational equipment (Presumably ILS) issues. Was 28L in use at the time of the accident?
28L was in use. Both 28L and 28R did not have the ILS operational. This was known to pilots via NOTAMs.
The runways were fully operational.
In the weather at SFO
Saturday local time - if a pilot can't make a visual landing - he/she has no business flying anythin bigger than a C-172 - certainly not a B777.
|Quoting A380900 (Reply 23):|
Also I wonder in a case like SFO, if the airplane can't make it to the runway, wouldn't it be more reasonable to try to ditch the airplane in water.
You have to ditch soon enough to know your aircraft is not going to hit that seawall embankment. The Lion Air landing short of the runway at Bali recently hit the water about a thousand feet short of the runway.
A bigger issue at SFO
is that airport has long approach light structures extending 3,150 feet out into the water. Those structures to hold the lights are strong enough to rip apart an aircraft (see PanAm 1971 takeoff incident info on Wikipedia).
, the pilot would have had to make the decision to ditch and come down into the water a mile to three-quarters of a mile from the end of the runway.
|Quoting aviators99 (Reply 36):|
but a controlled water landing has a very high survivability rate
I'd love to see the statistics, because my understanding is that water landings have a very low survival percentage compared to off runway setdowns.