Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:07 am

Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 67):
The first white plume of smoke, must be from the tail strike and seperation

Before the first plume of smoke, we see the wake in the water of the tail (?) dragging in the water, correct ??

Does the aircraft do 360's before it raises up and does a 180 ? ? ?

I was thinking that 360's in the dirt would dissapte a lot of energy.

[Edited 2013-07-07 23:13:05]
 
Scipio
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:12 am

Now a video appeared showing the evacuation:

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/sf-a...open-from-planes-passengers/v54Cn/

Looking at this:

- I can quite imagine that someone was run over by an emergency vehicle
- Many people seem to have evacuated from the rear right (starboard) side and from the back of the aircraft, rather than from the two chutes that were deployed on the front left
- Emergency workers did get on board and seem to have done a lot of the final part of the evacuation (presumably, the worst injured passengers)
- People seem to do more walking and running than sliding on those chutes, including up ...
- Initially, the fire brigade seemed to be getting the fire under control. At least for long enough for the evacuation to be completed.
- The fire indeed seems to have originated near where that engine was lying.

[Edited 2013-07-07 23:24:15]
 
Context
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:49 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:13 am

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 133):
Another high resolution image, showing the extensive debris around the airplane, and the damage to the wings and crumple damage to the fuselage. Looks like there is mud on the top of the left wing.

http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conte...a.jpg

Thanks for the link, LD4. Very interesting image. This is the most detailed image I've seen so far and it raises a lot of questions for me about what the crash may have been like on the starboard side of the aircraft. This image was obviously taken after fire had consumed the cabin but I'm interested in what looks like a crumpled and perforated area between doors 3R & 4R and apparently interior components scattered around the crash (for sure some interior side walls, the others are pieces of the window assembly but I'm not sure if from the inside or outside). Could the girls who were killed in this accident have been seated near this area and not in row 42 as previously assumed?

Can anyone post a link to some detailed photos of the starboard side of the AC?



Thoughts and prayers go out to all involved in this terrible accident.   

[Edited 2013-07-07 23:40:18]
 
Reggaebird
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 7:43 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:14 am

I just discovered that I had some footage of this pretty bird in better days. I came across it at LAX during Labor Day weekend 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkG_QBxBkU

[Edited 2013-07-07 23:15:44]
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:16 am

Quoting virgin744 (Reply 145):
Trying to get my head around how 1 of the deceased possibly got run over by an emergency response vehicle. Only plausible explanation would be the vehicle driver mistaking/thinking them as debris..
Sad if this ends up being the case that they were killed by the emergency response vehicle and not the plane crash itself.

We don't know exactly what is meant.

Victim alive and standing, hit by vehicle and killed.

Or

Victim alive and injured, laying on ground, hit by vehicle and finished off.

Or

Vehicle ran over already deceased victim's body.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:19 am

Quoting context (Reply 152):
Thanks for the link, LD4. Very interesting image. This is the most detailed image I've seen so far and it raises a lot of questions for me about what the crash may have been like on the starboard side of the aircraft. This image was obviously taken after fire had consumed the cabin but I'm interested in what looks like a crumpled and perforated area between doors 3R & 4R and apparently interior components scattered around the crash (for sure some interior side walls, the others are pieces of the window assembly but I'm not sure if from the inside or outside). Could the girls who were killed in this accident have been seated near this area and not in row 42 as previously assumed?

Looks like that part of the fuselage is seriously ground off...

Possibly the reason for the "road rash" reports?
 
Context
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:49 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:24 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 155):
Looks like that part of the fuselage is seriously ground off...

Possibly the reason for the "road rash" reports?

Maybe so. If the reports are correct that at least two victims were ejected from the crash they may have exited the aircraft from the starboard side rather than door 4L as assumed when we saw the images of the door laying next to the fuselage.

Also curious if anyone has seen a report about which door the FA was near when she was pinned by the chute that deployed inside the aircraft?

[Edited 2013-07-07 23:25:37]
 
rj777
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:32 am

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 154):
Victim alive and standing, hit by vehicle and killed.

Or

Victim alive and injured, laying on ground, hit by vehicle and finished off.

Or

Vehicle ran over already deceased victim's body.

Not to sound insensitive, but personally I'm hoping for #3
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:38 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 143):
Are you looking at 28R and me at 28L ?

No, I'm definitely looking at 28L (though 28R also has a 3.0 degree PAPI).

Quoting zeke (Reply 143):
FAA chart says the VGSI and ILS are not coincident, VGSI 2.85 degrees/TCH 74 ft. ILS 3 degree/TCH 57 ft.

I'm looking at my Jepp subscription, the 10-9A page (effective Jun 27 2013), which lists both PAPIs as 3.0 degrees. Strange - the two are not normally in conflict. Also, the 10-9 page doesn't show the thresholds as being displaced, though the distances on the 10-9A page are the same.

Incidentally, the TCH on the PAPI slope (assuming it is 2.85 degrees) being higher than the TCH on the glideslope would mean that even if they were flying the slightly shallower PAPI as opposed to the glideslope, they should have been higher when they crossed the threshold (by a matter of feet, but still).

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 146):
Side questions: do these hours include sim time?

I would figure that they don't.

-Mir
 
AgnusBymaster
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2001 8:11 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:39 am

Anyone have a guess as to why the top of the plane burned so much? Looking at the photos, the sides of the fuselage look relatively unscathed, but then the top is almost completely burned out. Some speculated duty free booze in the overhead compartments.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15224
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:45 am

Quoting rlx01 (Reply 35):
Maybe we're being a little too quick to blame the pilots. Anything could have happened in the 7 seconds. Stick shaker at 4 seconds is leaving it a little too late.

Actually, I find the pat "it's too early to consider pilot error" comments we always get during these crash threads to be "too quick." The number one cause of aircraft crashes is pilot error. Either completely the fault of the pilots, or pilots reacting incorrectly to adverse conditions. Mechanical failure can be a contributing factor, but many crashes need not have happened even when mechanical failure happens.

But more to the point: if the leading cause of crashes is pilot error, why are so many people more willing to assume mechanical problems until otherwise proven wrong? To protect the human pilots from blame and deflect it to the machine? But aren't those machines also built and designed by humans, maintained by humans, etc. and by attempting to protect pilots, aren't we putting blame onto others who may be just as innocent (and more likely so, considering the odds)?

Aircraft are designed with multiple failsafe mechanisms, where even if things go very wrong, they can be landed by pilots who "do it right". The hudson landing, the BA landing at LHR, the A380 landing, gimli glider, etc. Good airmanship can overcome a lot. And poor airmanship can take what should be an incident report and turn it into a tragedy.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 66):
From the data on Flightaware - it appears that a B777 landed on 28L. Next was an Embraer 120 19 seat turbo-prop. That was the plane were passengers reported 'unusual turbulence'. I have not seen anything that the Skywest pilots reported turbulence.

Landing in a TP is often a scary experience to passengers and it can feel like you are being tossed around. Doesn't mean that there was severe turbulence involved. Just a very light aircraft dealing with normal conditions.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 109):
From auto racing, studies have found that the shredding of parts from race cars like F-1/ Indy Cars takes significant amounts of kinetic energy from the main body. As much as 25-40% in some crashes.
Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 138):
To be precise, magnetic heading divided by 10 with nearest integer roundoff. The local variation (difference between MAG and TRUE headings) changes with time and hence do runway numbers. IAH's 15/33s used to be 14/32s until the late 90s.

Unless there are parallel runways that have too much separation or number more than 3, in which case some are rounded up and some down, as in the case of LAX, IAH, DFW and others.

On visual, if the runway is within 20 degrees of the true heading and you turn to it, you will easily see it and can line up.

Quoting virgin744 (Reply 145):
Trying to get my head around how 1 of the deceased possibly got run over by an emergency response vehicle. Only plausible explanation would be the vehicle driver mistaking/thinking them as debris..
Sad if this ends up being the case that they were killed by the emergency response vehicle and not the plane crash itself.

Same way beach patrol drives over sunbathers and kills them. Because they are focused on large, urgent things in the distance and not entirely on what is directly in front of them. It's a tragic part of human nature.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21060
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:53 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 158):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 146):
Side questions: do these hours include sim time?

I would figure that they don't.

Thx. So it is 32 hours plus sim, and nowadays sim hours for a large airliner are as good as plane hours. Better actually since sim hours are not "wasted" flying around in relatively uneventful cruise. How many sim hours would a new pilot on type have?

Quoting AgnusBymaster (Reply 159):
Anyone have a guess as to why the top of the plane burned so much? Looking at the photos, the sides of the fuselage look relatively unscathed, but then the top is almost completely burned out. Some speculated duty free booze in the overhead compartments.

I know it is a PITA to scan through over a thousand posts but this has been extensively discussed.

Certainly booze burns and it could well have contributed, but IMHO and judging from comments in the thread we're simply looking at the fact that heat goes up and firefighters were busy keeping the exits open and rescuing people. Saving the plane is a distant second.

100-200 liters of booze will make a difference but compared to tons of jet fuel, not so much...
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:54 am

Quoting virgin744 (Reply 145):
Trying to get my head around how 1 of the deceased possibly got run over by an emergency response vehicle. Only plausible explanation would be the vehicle driver mistaking/thinking them as debris..


It is a very disturbing thing to read. Reason could also be that the girl was running out in front of the emergency vehicle. Very tragic under any circumstances.
 
AF185
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:58 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:56 am

After seeing the video of the crash, it seems like a miracle "only" 2 passengers perished, sadly..

Kudos to the FA's who most certainly did a great job taking 300+ passengers out safely under circumstances which are hard to imagine..
 
MakeMinesLAX
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:22 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:02 am

Quoting context (Reply 152):

Thanks for the link, LD4. Very interesting image. This is the most detailed image I've seen so far and it raises a lot of questions for me about what the crash may have been like on the starboard side of the aircraft. This image was obviously taken after fire had consumed the cabin but I'm interested in what looks like a crumpled and perforated area between doors 3R & 4R and apparently interior components scattered around the crash (for sure some interior side walls, the others are pieces of the window assembly but I'm not sure if from the inside or outside). Could the girls who were killed in this accident have been seated near this area and not in row 42 as previously assumed?

Can anyone post a link to some detailed photos of the starboard side of the AC

Reply 104 in part 1 has a good picture of the starboard rear. The crumpled section appears to stretch from the floor downward; the window belt is largely intact.
 
User avatar
Qatara340
Posts: 1692
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 2:07 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:04 am

Quoting celestar (Reply 140):
I have been following this story and just heard from the radio that Asiana official source added the FO was flying the plane under the Captain guidance and indicated the FO has just 40 hours or so on this airplane type.
I am not sure what is the reason behind a statement like this. Placing the blame on the poor FO? To me, that is the problem with Asiana culture that their pilot training program must have some serious issues or loop holes. At any rate, the experienced pilot should be following the whole landing and be in a position to point out what went wrong. In the past, we have heard, how Asian airlines with their culture, that senior member does not get challenged by junior staff and this looks like the reverse. I guess both pilots as well as the relieve crews all survived, would not be hard to find out what exactly went wrong in that cockpit!

I dont think its Asian culture or anything. This is a terrible tragedy and seems to be a pilot error.

Quoting AF185 (Reply 163):
After seeing the video of the crash, it seems like a miracle "only" 2 passengers perished, sadly..

I totally agree. The video the plane clearly almost flipped in the air vertically! Amazing how strong the 777 body is that it didnt break into peices. I wonder if the 787 could tolerate that impact since it is mostly composite.

One annoying thing is that the voice of the woman in the background caring that the guy is video taping the "whole thing" more than the actual diaster. No emotions and no nothing.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:05 am

Quoting AgnusBymaster (Reply 159):
Anyone have a guess as to why the top of the plane burned so much? Looking at the photos, the sides of the fuselage look relatively unscathed

Probably just that, basically, 'hot air rises,' Agnus. I've seen the odd house-fire, even though fires usually start on the ground floor it's always the roof that goes first?

Further, when the rescue guys got working, as the various photographs/videos that people have kindly provided show, they poured water into the fuselage from above. So the fires lower down were the first to be put out?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21060
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:10 am

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 165):
I wonder if the 787 could tolerate that impact since it is mostly composite.

Composite is not necessarily less resistant or more frangible than metal. Composite can be made incredibly strong, or not, depending on the application. It can also be tailored to carry loads of different magnitude in different directions. Basically a very customizable material that in the case of the 787 has to pass all the same certification requirements as the 777 did. Methinks it would be at least as strong.

[Edited 2013-07-08 00:11:51]

[Edited 2013-07-08 00:12:20]

[Edited 2013-07-08 00:13:41]
 
tcfc424
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:56 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:13 am

I too was wondering how the 787 with its composite body structure would hold up to such strenuous forces being placed upon it. I do think that is probably a topic for another thread, however.
 
AF185
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:58 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:15 am

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 165):
I wonder if the 787 could tolerate that impact since it is mostly composite.

I was wondering the same thing while writing my post.. One point is that the overall aircraft is much lighter with composites, hence the impact might generate less strength on the structure than on the heavier B777.
I also doubt Airbus and Boeing, in order to cope with the official certifications standards, would not at least match the levels reached with their previous models.

Just my cents, from someone without any engineering qualifications  

[Edited 2013-07-08 00:20:02]
 
Viper911
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:29 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:28 am

Quoting context (Reply 152):
Could the girls who were killed in this accident have been seated near this area and not in row 42 as previously assumed?

I'll Thank Skydrol for the detailed picture linked, as per NBC video linked previously in the thread, "the body of the girl was found near the evacuation slide, near the left wing of the plane"

NBC Video: http://m.nbcbayarea.com/nbcbayarea/p...entdetail.htm?contentguid=7XQOpIp5

If you look closely, near the evacuation slide of L2, there tire threads clearly visible, as if one made a U turn, and the continue and cross the evacuation direction coming from the slide.


Viper911
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:28 am

Quoting avek00 (Reply 135):
It's absolutely OK -- and sometimes necessary -- to have the airline's corporate response reliant on third parties; however, those third party arrangements should generally be agreed to and contracted for prior to an accident taking place.Asiana utterly failed in this regard, and should (and ultimately, will) be called out in this regard like any major airline that fails to plan for the worst.
Quoting avek00 (Reply 148):
Improv and cluelessness have no place in airline accident response, and that's a lesson OZ, SQ, and KE have all had to learn the hard way.

Is it not a bit too early to jump to the conclusions you have above? Do you know for a fact that third party agreements were not in place? Do you think SFO or concerned regulatory authorities would allow a carrier to operate there without requiring such arrangements are in place as part of standard practice?

"Improv and cluelessness" is a strong charge, and to imply chaos and confusion during crashes are only seen on "vaunted Asian airlines" (your words in a previous post) suggests you perhaps have an ax to grind with them due to reasons not related to the matter at hand.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that crashes that occur in outstations for Western carriers are handled any differently?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17184
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:34 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 158):
I'm looking at my Jepp subscription, the 10-9A page (effective Jun 27 2013), which lists both PAPIs as 3.0 degrees. Strange - the two are not normally in conflict. Also, the 10-9 page doesn't show the thresholds as being displaced, though the distances on the 10-9A page are the same.

I would suggest then the FAA docs be the master, and your Jepps in error. Jepps gets its data from the FAA.

Quoting Mir (Reply 158):
Incidentally, the TCH on the PAPI slope (assuming it is 2.85 degrees) being higher than the TCH on the glideslope would mean that even if they were flying the slightly shallower PAPI as opposed to the glideslope, they should have been higher when they crossed the threshold (by a matter of feet, but still).

I am thinking these are not the normal PAPIs, something temporary for the works in place.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 165):
This is a terrible tragedy and seems to be a pilot error.

Reuters had an article on the wires that kind of indicated (the terminology they used does not make sense to me) the PF was a captain under type conversion training with around 10,000 hrs total and around 20 years of flying experience, 43 hrs on the 777, and he had a training captain next to him as the pilot monitoring with around 12,000 hrs total, with 3000 hrs on the 777.

20,000 hrs of experience, probably 40-50 years of combined experience in the front seats, not counting the relief crew is significant.

http://news.yahoo.com/asiana-says-pi...shed-plane-training-010133596.html
 
il75
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 7:35 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:02 am

A simple question out of ignorance/ curiosity:

The stick shaker was triggered four seconds before impact. Did the pilot have any options to save the plane at that stage?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15224
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:04 am

Quoting tcfc424 (Reply 168):
I too was wondering how the 787 with its composite body structure would hold up to such strenuous forces being placed upon it. I do think that is probably a topic for another thread, however.

Well considering the 777 was not designed to survive a crash like this, it's not really relevant, is it? The aircraft are designed to survive extraordinary but expected flight conditions, a moderate amount of "mis-flying" and still recover, a low speed overrun, and incidents such as belly landings and water landings when executed well.

This was none of those things. This was a miracle, if you believe in those things.

And while it is fortunate that the BA and OZ landings weren't more tragic, it's also an indication that the 777 might be overbuilt, which is why it is heavy compared to the A350, and it is also evidence that Boeing has some weight they can remove. I know that sounds callous, but aircraft are not designed to stay intact under these conditions and trying to design them to is wasteful.
 
tozairport
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:01 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:13 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 174):
I know that sounds callous, but aircraft are not designed to stay intact under these conditions and trying to design them to is wasteful.

Well F you very much, said 289 passengers on the Asiana flight. The other two would say the same thing, but they are unfortunately not able too.

In the end, I hope the results of the investigation are not swept under the rug like AF 447. There is an over reliance on automation with airlines crews and a lack of emphasis on pure stick and rudder flying abilities. If you consistently turn the autopilot on at 200 feet and click it off at 200 feet, then you are setting yourself up for this kind of incident. Congrats to Boeing for building such a wonderful aircraft that saved so many priceless lives on this horrible day.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17184
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:17 am

Quoting il75 (Reply 173):
The stick shaker was triggered four seconds before impact. Did the pilot have any options to save the plane at that stage?

That will be up to the NTSB to determine, my guess is no, IMHO it should have been given away well before that point. The rate of descent below 1000 ft shown thus far on these threads are greater than 1000 fpm which is a trigger for most airlines to commence a go-around from higher up.

The FSF toolkit gives you an idea what most airlines look for in an approach below 1000 ft http://flightsafety.org/files/alar_bn7-1stablizedappr.pdf

It would appear the aircraft was on the wrong side of the drag curve, with the engines at idle, with no height/energy to trade. To add energy into the equation or height can be used to trade potential energy into kinetic, and/or thrust needs to be applied. However even selecting TOGA does not result in instant engine spool up, or even instant acceleration. At best the initial aircraft response will be to reduce the rate of descent as thrust increases.
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:21 am

Quoting il75 (Reply 173):
The stick shaker was triggered four seconds before impact. Did the pilot have any options to save the plane at that stage?


I have made the same reflection. Information seems to point towards that the 777 was on to steep decent with speed dropping below critical level for some time before the crash. Should not a modern airliner with all available technology give an earlier warning?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21060
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:26 am

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 177):
Should not a modern airliner with all available technology give an earlier warning?

Assuming the case here is unstable approach with excessive descent rate etc, I have little doubt that this modern airliner gave plenty of warning, even if it was not explicit. The pilots have eyes and instruments. The vertical speed indicator and the airspeed indicator would have told the tale.

A determined pilot can crash even the safest aircraft.

Quoting zeke (Reply 176):
It would appear the aircraft was on the wrong side of the drag curve, with the engines at idle, with no height/energy to trade. To add energy into the equation or height can be used to trade potential energy into kinetic, and/or thrust needs to be applied. However even selecting TOGA does not result in instant engine spool up, or even instant acceleration. At best the initial aircraft response will be to reduce the rate of descent as thrust increases.

Like what seems to have happened with Lion Air at Bali then?
 
Upperdeck
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:03 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:28 am

Quoting tozairport (Reply 175):
Congrats to Boeing for building such a wonderful aircraft that saved so many priceless lives on this horrible day.



I personally think we should hold off on praising or indeed criticising anyone or anything at this stage. The time will come when we'll know the full story and who is worthy of our adulation or our scorn.

Taking everything that we KNOW into account (number of survivors, relative speed of impact etc), it is clear that a vast amount of luck saved a lot of people's lives.
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:41 am

Quoting tozairport (Reply 175):
In the end, I hope the results of the investigation are not swept under the rug like AF 447.

not that it is relevant to this thread at all, but nothing was swept under the rug.
After thorough investigation it was clearly (a glaring unexpected case of) pilot error.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:00 am

Given that this accident was in some ways an unusual one - in that the pilots survived - I confess to being astonished that all two, or three, or four of them who were on the flight-deck (depending on which press story you read) haven't said anything yet?

There's already no room for doubt that, between them all, they somehow got too low too early on the approach; and then failed to rectify that situation by adding power/levelling out? Not within four seconds of 'landing,' but with plenty of time to spare? Given that visibility etc. was perfect, there's only one possible defence to that 'charge' - some sort of mechanical failure? Either the engines failing to 'spool up' when commanded, or the elevators failing to raise the nose when the PF pulled the yoke back - or both?

Or else they're all incompetent idiots? But that flies in the face of the fact that at least two of them have tens of thousands of blameless/successful hours in their logbooks?

Let's hope we get some 'hard news' soon, from someone. As things stand, the whole episode is just plain inexplicable?
 
bcworld
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:28 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:04 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 181):

Said anything to who?
 
Unflug
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:08 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 181):
Given that this accident was in some ways an unusual one - in that the pilots survived - I confess to being astonished that all two, or three, or four of them who were on the flight-deck (depending on which press story you read) haven't said anything yet?

I'm sure they are talking to the investigators. They may not (and in my opinion actually should not) be allowed to give public statements at this point.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2572
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:10 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 181):
Given that this accident was in some ways an unusual one - in that the pilots survived - I confess to being astonished that all two, or three, or four of them who were on the flight-deck (depending on which press story you read) haven't said anything yet?

Prudence, corporate or even a federal gagging order perhaps?
They're likely in shock too.
 
User avatar
cmoltay
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:22 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:24 am

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 177):
I have made the same reflection. Information seems to point towards that the 777 was on to steep decent with speed dropping below critical level for some time before the crash. Should not a modern airliner with all available technology give an earlier warning?



The pre-crash sequence is notoriously getting similar to the Turkish accident in AMS. A steep descent, an experienced FO in training, non-functioning altimeter in the TK case, ILS missing in the OZ case.

Regards,
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17184
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:27 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 181):
I confess to being astonished that all two, or three, or four of them who were on the flight-deck (depending on which press story you read) haven't said anything yet?

The international convention in all aircraft accidents from member states that are signatories to ICAO is that only the investigators are allowed to authorize the release information. If an interested party would like to release information, be it the company, crew, union, engine manufacturer, aircraft manufacturer, it needs to by run by the investigators for their approval.

The crew and passengers will be interviewed by the NTSB once they have been given medical clearance to do so. The crew will probably also be supported by IFALPA, in SFO these could be pilots from United Airlines. The number of parameters a pilot will remember in the short time leading up to the event will be nothing like what the FDR/CVR already has provided the investigators.

The recommended statement by IFALPA in these circumstances is to simply state you name, address, licence details, rating details, passports details, etc, and that you will co-operate with investigation. They do not recommend any sort of speculation at all in the statement, much like the NTSB did in their press conference.

The purpose if this investigation is not to attribute blame, it is learn from it so it does not happen again. Far too many times on here we see people want to apply rule 303 on anyone involved.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21060
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:33 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 181):

Given that this accident was in some ways an unusual one - in that the pilots survived - I confess to being astonished that all two, or three, or four of them who were on the flight-deck (depending on which press story you read) haven't said anything yet?

There is no obligation to give statements to the public. In fact most investigators and airlines would and should forbid them from doing so.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 181):
There's already no room for doubt that, between them all, they somehow got too low too early on the approach; and then failed to rectify that situation by adding power/levelling out?

There is plenty of room for doubt, even if the facts we currently have in hand seem to indicate this scenario.

Quoting cmoltay (Reply 185):
The pre-crash sequence is notoriously getting similar to the Turkish accident in AMS. A steep descent, an experienced FO in training, non-functioning altimeter in the TK case, ILS missing in the OZ case.

A big difference being that the malfunctioning altimeter was (I assume) not known to the pilots. The out of service ILS was well known and should have been planned for.

Quoting zeke (Reply 186):
The purpose if this investigation is not to attribute blame, it is learn from it so it does not happen again.

EASA regulations specifically state that the purpose of an investigation is solely to learn from it in order to prevent future accidents. I assume FAA regs are the same as AFAIK this is based on ICAO verbiage.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:47 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 186):
The purpose if this investigation is not to attribute blame, it is learn from it so it does not happen again.

Of course I agree in principle, zeke. But 'parties to the investigation' - meaning, at a guess, mainly the sponsor government/airline, but possibly including Boeing as well - are putting out all sorts of 'titbits' like 'PF only had 30-odd hours on type' and 'TOGA only 1.7 seconds before impact ' and so on. That certainly amounts, to my mind, to 'attributing blame'?

Admittedly just a hunch on my part. But there could very well be a 'cover-up' in progress, for whatever reason?

[Edited 2013-07-08 02:54:02]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17184
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:55 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 188):
That certainly amounts, to my mind, to 'attributing blame'?

They are simply facts, in isolation they mean nothing, the NTSB will collate them, and then make a determination. I have only seen comments from the investigators and the airline, I have not not seen the standard "Boeing regrets" email yet.

The photos, video, weather conditions, airport conditions, DCVR, DFDR, airline statement, and the NTSB have not in any way tried to attribute blame.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:59 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 188):
Admittedly just a hunch on my part. But there could very well be a 'cover-up' in progress, for whatever reason?

Why do people love to think there's a conspiracy afoot?
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:04 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 181):
Given that this accident was in some ways an unusual one - in that the pilots survived - I confess to being astonished that all two, or three, or four of them who were on the flight-deck (depending on which press story you read) haven't said anything yet?

The pilots and other cockpit flight crew are probably under instruction, from Asiana Airlines, NTSB, Korean authorities, and any possible unions/organizations they belong to, not to make any public comments at this time. It is highly unlikely that the NTSB and other investigators are done with their questions as well, as they haven't had enough time to fully understand what is happening.

If it is determined to be pilot error they only likely statement they would make is one of apology, but that wouldn't likely happen until the investigation and reports are finalized. Quite honestly, at this point in time, it does no one any good for them to make public statements. It is clear from both the demeanor and responses of the NTSB that they don't want any speculation and only want confirmed facts released at this time, which is as it should be.

While it is likely from everything we have seen that pilot error at least played a large part in the accident, we won't know the reality until NTSB has fully investigated. There are still a myriad of issues/reasons that could in large part mitigate a charge of pilot error that the NTSB could find. The NTSB would want to fully investigate the cockpit, DFDR data, and they surviving instruments along with individual and combined testimony both from those in the cockpit, those in the cabin, and those on the ground before any public statements are made.

And lets not forget that even if it was pilot error, the pilots are still likely largely in shock still.

So slow and methodical is the way to proceed in the public for the NTSB. They are always like this, they only give out confirmed facts as much and for as long as possible. Look how long it took for the report on AF447 to come out. They make sure they have as much facts as possible, and then try to fill in any gaps with testimony and implicit/deductive reasoning.
 
User avatar
Quantos
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:20 am

I have a question! Do airports have CCTV in place to record aircraft take-offs and landings? As far as I know, the one piece of video evidence so far is from a witness (the Fred Hayes video), but I'm wondering how feasible it would be to simply have a bunch of cameras record along all runways. Surely at most we're talking about content that can safely be deleted after a few days when there hasn't been an incident, and quality footage of such incidents would greatly help the NTSB and their foreign equivalents?
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:21 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 188):
Of course I agree in principle, zeke. But 'parties to the investigation' - meaning, at a guess, mainly the sponsor government/airline, but possibly including Boeing as well - are putting out all sorts of 'titbits' like 'PF only had 30-odd hours on type' and 'TOGA only 1.7 seconds before impact ' and so on. That certainly amounts, to my mind, to 'attributing blame'?

The only things being released so far are cold hard verifiable facts. At some point in the future, once all the data from the DCVR and DFDR has been processed, the NTSB will generally release the whole thing, either separately or as part of the final report.

The NTSB is very careful to not even get close to speculating in any public setting on what caused an accident. If possible they try to avoid any speculation at all even in their final reports. The only time they will speculate is when there are holes within the facts that they have to fill, like with the Pitot tubes and AF447. There are/were no facts to state that the Pitot tubes were iced, but given the data they did know, they was by far the most logical conclusion.

It will be many months, even for an accident like this, where the NTSB has both the DCVR and the DFDR and multiple visual reports including video before the NTSB will be comfortable enough to "attribute blame".

And Attributing Blame isn't their goal, merely a side effect of it. The NTSB's goal is to figure out what happened so they can figure out what needs to change or should be done different in the future so that what happens doesn't happen again or again for the same reasons.

One of the outcomes may be a more strict abort/go around policy being implemented for VFR in the future. Say for instance, any glide slope deviation below 1K feet resulting in immediate abort for visual approached on commercial airlines in order to reduce risk of pilot error. If you are too high, if you are too low, if you are too fast, if you are too slow, abort. Or it could be additional mandated warnings wrt energy and energy recovery times below certain DTG.
 
LLA001
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 7:36 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:23 am

What is the procedure for the wreckage now? Will they move the wreckage to a hangar for investigation? If they do move, would they move the hull as a whole ?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21060
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:25 am

Quoting Quantos (Reply 192):
have a question! Do airports have CCTV in place to record aircraft take-offs and landings? As far as I know, the one piece of video evidence so far is from a witness (the Fred Hayes video), but I'm wondering how feasible it would be to simply have a bunch of cameras record along all runways.

This has been discussed in an earlier thread, and in many other threads.

- The cost is not insignificant, as in huge.
- Accidents are thankfully few and far between so most systems would never have any use whatsoever.
- The potential benefit is minimal given DFDR recordings that will all that information and much more anyway.
- Such money would be better spent doing things like extend stopways and so forth...
 
Upperdeck
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:03 am

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:27 am

So the pilot who 'landed' the 777 was in training, had only 43 hours on type and had never flown the approach into SFO.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20756
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:29 am

Quoting tozairport (Reply 175):
In the end, I hope the results of the investigation are not swept under the rug like AF 447.

In what way were the results of the AF447 investigation "swept under the rug"?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 181):
Or else they're all incompetent idiots? But that flies in the face of the fact that at least two of them have tens of thousands of blameless/successful hours in their logbooks?

Let's hope we get some 'hard news' soon, from someone. As things stand, the whole episode is just plain inexplicable?

Unfortunately, like AF447, it will eventually be fully explained and could again be largely down poor airmanship and not following SOP.
 
User avatar
Quantos
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:32 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 195):
This has been discussed in an earlier thread, and in many other threads.

- The cost is not insignificant, as in huge.
- Accidents are thankfully few and far between so most systems would never have any use whatsoever.
- The potential benefit is minimal given DFDR recordings that will all that information and much more anyway.
- Such money would be better spent doing things like extend stopways and so forth...

I see! Thanks for the answer. I suppose that you're right, video is probably irrelevant when you have access to the raw data from the aircrafts anyway ^_^
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 5

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:34 am

Quoting Quantos (Reply 192):
I have a question! Do airports have CCTV in place to record aircraft take-offs and landings? As far as I know, the one piece of video evidence so far is from a witness (the Fred Hayes video), but I'm wondering how feasible it would be to simply have a bunch of cameras record along all runways. Surely at most we're talking about content that can safely be deleted after a few days when there hasn't been an incident, and quality footage of such incidents would greatly help the NTSB and their foreign equivalents?

In general, no. The CCTV infrastructure is primarily focused on security.

As far as feasibility of cameras recording the runways, it depends on what you want. From a cost perspective, that are many COTS camera systems that will provide either HD video @ 30/60 FPS or upwards of 6 FPS of up to 22mp still frames in the cost realm of 1K-6K per camera (pricing is basically Canon EOS entry level to top end MSRP). Almost all have the capability to be networked and the networking would be relatively cheap to do via standard buried network cables to environmentally protected boxes.

Realistically, you are going to want a camera viewing off the end of the runway for the glide slope along with at least 1 or two cameras viewing the landing area. You'll need one set for each end of the runway, so you are looking at between 4K-24K per runway, plus a storage server for the airport. So cost wise it really isn't much. You may also want a distance camera covering each runway end at an additional 2-12K + 2-4K for the long lenses which brings it to 8K-40K per runway for the cameras. Now some of that cost could probably be offset by making the photos available for use (imaging a DB with pictures of every flight's take off and landing! An Anet dream!). You probably need to add another 1K per runways for environmentally protected boxes and say 10K per airport for a server and a couple K for networking. Now if all the equipment has to be FAA approved and tested, add a couple 100k!

But part of the issue is the actual requirement to do it and the cost benefit tradeoffs. For this case, what would it actually provide that all the other data doesn't to the NTSB. What is the actual value to investigators of the video footage of this crash? The altitudes and speeds are available to the NTSB from other methods. And I'm not sure there is a reasonable pilot training use either.

[Edited 2013-07-08 03:36:31]

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