I haven't read all the stuff. The plane might originate in PVG. And many Chinese prefed OZ for quality. It's very sad but I think the crew did their best to avoid the UA744. If they hit it would be tenerife again.

I was wondering, did the United pilot realize the asiana plane was coming too low ?

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 196): So the pilot who 'landed' the 777 was in training, had only 43 hours on type and had never flown the approach into SFO.

As I interpret it, he may not have been "in training" but flying the line before being let loose, he had 43 hours on type but presumably lots more sim hours, and he may well have flown the approach in the sim.

Let's not forget his thousands of hours in jets by the way. Maybe not the same time but still very significant.

You could argue that given the visual approach a runway is a runway.

You could argue that 43 hours, while it may not sound like a lot, is a significant amount of time. In 40-50 hours or so, many people go from zero to their first pilot license. 43 hours is almost two full days. Imagine spending two full days doing something that was not that different from something you had done for thousands of hours before. Arguably, you should pick up the required skills if training properly.

I think at the moment of disaster, the crew did a great job. saving a plane (UA to KIX) and everybody but 2 pax. 7742 is done but that's just metal.

43 is cool because he obviously has some narrowbody time

Information indicates that the pilot flying was highly experienced on the B747 but new to the B777. He also had been to SFO on the B747 but not the B777. The cockpit sight line for landing on the B747 is much higher than the B777, with the cockpit on the upper deck. It may have contributed to a perception by him that he was higher than he actually was.

This still wouldn't explain the significantly lower speed reported, but might have had an effect.

Quoting rlx01 (Reply 35): I'm just going to put this here: http://www.ferndaleenterprise.com/20...-native-witnesses-sfo-plane-crash/ 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.

I agree that this throws some light onto the conditions. What it said:

Quote: Margaret Leonardi described witnessing a plane crash Saturday at San Francisco International Airport. On her Facebook page, Leonardi wrote: Just witnessed the MOST unbelievable thing I’ve ever seen in my life. As my plane landed in SF we hit some turbulence & our plane jolted to the left, turning about 30 degrees before we quickly straightened out-barely making our landing, taking a sharp left & skidding to a stop on the strip between 2 runways. Just as we pulled perpendicular to the incoming runway, we looked up to the left & saw a huge plane (an off duty pilot riding as a passenger on my flight said it was a 777) literally drop from the sky & slam into the ground,

If the witness report of her landing is at all accurate conditions were not benign round about the time of the crash.

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

Actually, the NTSB is simply releasing facts. Everyone else is attributing blame. That is the very opposite of a cover-up. That's jumping to conclusions, and in this case, it's pretty easy to do.

There is a reason for the saying "it's a one in a million chance" looks like OZ 214 was the one millionth time. The NTSB interviews of the flight crew will be critical. Especially the question. "What were you thinking?!!?"

In another note, I find it amazing that after a crash of that magnitude that COMMs were still working and the flight crew called the tower AFTER the crash to request EMS.

Curious question, do the black boxes remain in the custody of the country in which the plane crashed? or the country's home? I.e does Korea have any hold to the black boxes in this case? what if United crashed in Paris, would the NTSB handle that? or do French authorities? Would the US have equal access?

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 165): 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.

I really do not think you can even come to that conclusion from watching a few seconds of a video. Try to imagine you seeing something totally unbelievable at random and the surrealness of it all. Maybe you aren't able to understand her speaking well enough to hear a voice nuance. I do not get any form of non chalance. SHe is amazed this is happening and comments that her husband/other is taping it. She mentions it twice . I have seen an interview with the man and he was wearing sunglasses during the interview and seems pretty somber. and sad. He also specificallly mentions it hit his wife pretty hard.

Really now.

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 179): 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.

You're free to hold off as long as you'd like, but I dont' see a problem with praising Boeing for making which comes across as, to my untrained eye, a rather sturdy aircraft. I will tell you, just from watching all this, I have an even higher respect for the 777 and would not hesitate to fly it tomorrow, in fact I would make a bee line for it now.

Interesting to note, I have read many boards besides anet, and Boeing and the 777 is kudo'd, the Asiana flight attendants are kudo'd, the ground response team is and even the air traffic controller at SFO. But I don't think I have seen one praise to the pilots. That is just an observation, not a critique.

[Edited 2013-07-08 03:55:03]

[Edited 2013-07-08 03:57:55]

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 208): Curious question, do the black boxes remain in the custody of the country in which the plane crashed? or the country's home? I.e does Korea have any hold to the black boxes in this case?

Once the investigators are finished with the aircraft, they are normally returned to the owner, after an accident, that would be the insurer. The insurer then normally pays for the disposal.

Flying Long Haul 43 hours would give you about 2 landings,3 if your instructor is One of the kind bunch and none of the additional Crew members would get a landing....

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 32): After reading the report on the type of injuries sustained by pax, it's all pretty logical except for the 'road rash' type injuries. How would those injuries have been sustained during the crash? The fuselage looks relatively intact, but maybe the cabin floor became compromised as the aircraft slid along the ground?

In addition to what Gatorman said about the slides, its not entirely odd given that the less injured cabin crew and passengers were dragging the more seriously hurt folks off the plane too.

Re: the cabin crew, OZ 214's Cabin Manager had this to say about the evac to the press (how she looks like she's just starting her duty time rather than having worked an overnight trans-pac flight and survived a crash I don't know, but this is OZ after all, they always look immaculate):
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...7d06c40ecb14a38fd348cdcc6.html?c=r

ABC also ran a story on how the cabin crew did well and how passengers helped each other out of the plane:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/inst...ana-crew-saves-passengers-19601555

Quoting DIRECTFLT (Reply 4): The two who piloted the plane at the time of crash were Lee Jeong-min and Lee Gang-guk.

NTSB says that Mr. Kang-Kwok piloted the plane while landing at SFO. Supposedly for him it was a new aircraft type and he has spent only around 50 hours flying it, though he had about 10K hours on 747.

Quoting kellmark (Reply 205): The cockpit sight line for landing on the B747 is much higher than the B777, with the cockpit on the upper deck. It may have contributed to a perception by him that he was higher than he actually was. This still wouldn't explain the significantly lower speed reported, but might have had an effect.

I just had a look at the Boeing ACAP docs to compare 777 and 747 flight deck viewing angles, the 747 and 777 differ by about 10m in angle (first bit of ground visible when seated) and 3-4m in vertical separation. This should not have accounted for an accident like this. (I realize this should not be used for approach planning but illustrates a point.)

This crash occurred at a USA airport. Unlike some countries (like Brazil for example) surviving cockpit crew are not subject to criminal judicial procedures to assure that the 'truth' comes out unless it involves possible intoxication by alcohol or illegal drugs.
The bigger problem and the need for restrictions on all parties as to public statements is civil liability especially with the civil judicial system we have in the USA. There is the strong possibility of large settlements or court 'lottery jackpot' judgments especially for estates for those killed and with major crippling injuries from burns and broken bones although international conventions could put some limits on OZ's liability.

It seems as with a number of airplane crashes, a series or several possible events led to it.
- Incorrect information in critical instruments used as to altitude, position, airspeed
- Incorrect airport information (like glide slope recommendations)
- CRM issues in general and made worse due to cultural conflicts, distractions, too narrow of focus on some flying points and not others.
- On VFR at an airport with it's ILS system not available
- Using VFR when the cockpit crew may rarely use them so skills not up to ideal levels
- Noise abatement and terrene situations that meant a need for very precise flying and not doing so
- Mis-setting of a flap or other lift critical component
- Misjudgment of speed, sink rate, altitude, perhaps going too much by feel and not by the instruments
- Excessive reliance on most flights with automated flight systems.
- Weather and visibility while not factors near the airport, they could have been different further out

All these factors and others will be part of any investigation and considered and may explain what happened here. It is only a matter of a few feet of clearance over the sea wall and not hitting it, a 1/10 of a degree of initial approach angle and they would have landed short but not crashed.

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 208): But I don't think I have seen one praise to the pilots.

There is one here:

Quoting Lufthansa747 (Reply 200): It's very sad but I think the crew did their best to avoid the UA744. If they hit it would be tenerife again.

Quoting Lufthansa747 (Reply 203): I think at the moment of disaster, the crew did a great job. saving a plane (UA to KIX) and everybody but 2 pax. 7742 is done but that's just metal.

IMHO the crew would not be in the position to avoid the UA 744 at all. If you lose control of the aircraft, you cannot do anything to prevent it from hitting something. The UA 744 is "saved" just because it happens not to sit in the path the crashed plane.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 1): The fact that the video was caught by a spotter should elevate our standing in the law enforcement community.

Good luck. The authorities still and will always see us as a threat to security, and safety. I over heard a police officer talking to about spotters about 10 years ago when I was killing time before my flight, saying something to the effect that spotters have the sense of entitlement and that we should just stop what we do around airports and not to take photos and video at airports. I can't say what he actually said as I will get banned. The exact words were "those blankety blank photographers have to be watched all the time and I can't get my blankety blank work done because of those blanks." the security guard agreed with him. I was harassed by security when I was taking pictures from the public parking garage and they took my camera and removed the film and told me after about an hour in their little office that I could have my camera back but I was not to be found on their property again.

If this was their attitude then I doubt we would get any more respect now with all the Nazis in the DHS along with their buddies who don't understand what we could do for them.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 214): All these factors and others will be part of any investigation and considered and may explain what happened here. It is only a matter of a few feet of clearance over the sea wall and not hitting it, a 1/10 of a degree of initial approach angle and they would have landed short but not crashed.

While I agree with the rest of that post, this bit raises a flag, if they pulled up hard to avoid landing short, (which appears to be the case) they would probably have stalled and or collapsed the gear and led to a crash anyhow. The sea wall seems to just be a contributing factor to the whole situation. If we could imaging the landing sans sea wall, I wonder what the rate of descent would be and what the damage threshold is for the 777 gear.

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 208): Curious question, do the black boxes remain in the custody of the country in which the plane crashed? or the country's home? I.e does Korea have any hold to the black boxes in this case? what if United crashed in Paris, would the NTSB handle that? or do French authorities? Would the US have equal access?

My understanding is that if the accident happened within a countries borders then the investigation is the responsibility of that country. In which case, primary custody would be with that country. For accidents in international areas/waters, the investigation is the responsibility of the country of the vessels registration. Though in many cases the country of the operating certificate may not have the experience or capability to do the investigation and will request another country agency to perform it (ex. Egypt Air 990 where egypt lacked the experience/capabilities and requested that the NTSB be the primary).

According to Annex 13, the CVR and FDR are the custody of the US until such time as they are no longer required at which time South Korea may request custody of the CVR and FDR and the US is obliged to comply. This is from 3.5 of Annex 13 dated 18/11/10 which was found after a lot of googling.

On a side note, I've never understood why international organizations like ICAO charge exorbitant fees for access is online versions of international standards documents. It is highly doubtful that they make much or any money charging $300+ for things like Annex 13. And by definition, any citizen of a member country has an ownership stake in the documents and information they produce. After all, we directly and indirectly pay for their production and development. And all restricting access does is make people find out of date versions floating on the internet. It is really in the best interest of international standards organizations to make these types of documents freely available online.

I wish they would stop calling a miracle. People died and are going to be maimed for life due to the incident. A miracle would have been if every one survived and walked away from an intact aircraft and would have just been another exciting landing. There is not anything miraculous about it. The 777 has been so well engineered that people survived, not a miracle allowed them to survive.

Unfortunately, we CAN jump to conclusions now. This was a simple case of pilot error. What exactly transpired and the sequence of events are still being ironed out, but this accident was caused by pilot error and pilot error alone.. The aircraft itself flew just fine.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 202): You could argue that 43 hours, while it may not sound like a lot, is a significant amount of time. In 40-50 hours or so, many people go from zero to their first pilot license. 43 hours is almost two full days. Imagine spending two full days doing something that was not that different from something you had done for thousands of hours before. Arguably, you should pick up the required skills if training properly.

In theory very valid statement. Hopefully he had more than 4 takeoffs and landings post training on a wide body. Knowing that it will be VFR landing, crew made a wrong call letting him land. Again it is Monday morning quarterbacking.

Quoting Lufthansa747 (Reply 203): I think at the moment of disaster, the crew did a great job. saving a plane (UA to KIX) and everybody but 2 pax. 7742 is done but that's just metal.

May be 777 is one tough bird. Both BA38 and OZ214 accidents prove that.

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?

probably being kept safely out of the way until the bosses of Asiana decide how to hang them out to dry.

Quoting Lufthansa747 (Reply 203): I think at the moment of disaster, the crew did a great job. saving a plane (UA to KIX) and everybody but 2 pax. 7742 is done but that's just metal.

Quite what did they do, apart from hang on in a disintegrating aircraft until it came to a halt ?

Quoting cchan (Reply 215): IMHO the crew would not be in the position to avoid the UA 744 at all. If you lose control of the aircraft, you cannot do anything to prevent it from hitting something. The UA 744 is "saved" just because it happens not to sit in the path the crashed plane.

I'd have to agree with you. Once your rear pressure bulkhead has been sheared off, I doubt you have much control of the giant metal tube that's careening down the runway without a rather vital piece of its machinery. In fact, one can quote the BA 38flight deck crew, who said that once they made impact on the threshold they too became passengers on the flight.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 219): The 777 has been so well engineered that people survived, not a miracle allowed them to survive.

I understand where you're coming from, but you've got admit, when you first saw images of the wreckage, did you think all but 2 made it out alive? Not to lessen the tragedy of the deaths of two girls who had their entire lives ahead of them, but 305 people survived, 128 of whom walked away from the wreckage relatively unharmed. This accident should have never happened, but the outcome could have been much worse had the 777 not been such a structurally sound aircraft, or had Asiana's cabin crew not been so well trained.

Just out of curiosity...

if the pilot had that many hours on a plane like the 747- a bigger, heavier and less responsive aircraft- would he not be anticipating rather than retarding his actions?

i mean, airspeed is the most basic of all flying variables... I don't think these guys were idiots.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 214): This crash occurred at a USA airport. Unlike some countries (like Brazil for example) surviving cockpit crew are not subject to criminal judicial procedures to assure that the 'truth' comes out unless it involves possible intoxication by alcohol or illegal drugs. The bigger problem and the need for restrictions on all parties as to public statements is civil liability especially with the civil judicial system we have in the USA. There is the strong possibility of large settlements or court 'lottery jackpot' judgments especially for estates for those killed and with major crippling injuries from burns and broken bones although international conventions could put some limits on OZ's liability.

The Montreal/Warsaw Treaties' international regime of liability will apply here regarding any lawsuits against the airline, as all passengers are international. That will limit the liability to a significant degree.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 224): if the pilot had that many hours on a plane like the 747- a bigger, heavier and less responsive aircraft- would he not be anticipating rather than retarding his actions?

The 747 does have more of a ground effect cushion than other large aircraft. This caused it to float or cushion slightly on the final few hundred feet of altitude. No excuse for being 20kt under your VREF however, no mater what plane you are flying.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 219): I wish they would stop calling a miracle. People died and are going to be maimed for life due to the incident. A miracle would have been if every one survived and walked away from an intact aircraft and would have just been another exciting landing. There is not anything miraculous about it. The 777 has been so well engineered that people survived, not a miracle allowed them to survive.

Should I now say people like you should stop saying what you're saying?? No...and likewise, don't tell any of us what we should or shouldn't call this....thanks  

This crash shows how well built the 777 is, just as with the BA38 accident. Even in this sort of impact, the fuselage did not disintegrate, thus preventing a fire from starting too fast. If the fuselage/wing did disintegrate, fuel would have spilled out much quicker and would have made the evacuation very difficult.
On another note, I have seen this exact aircraft taking off on May 17th, 2013 at ICN. Here are the photos I took: http://imgur.com/a/RldaT

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 222): 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? probably being kept safely out of the way until the bosses of Asiana decide how to hang them out to dry.

Have to agree, bongodog1964 - that's the way 'legal procedures' quite often turn out in these regions/latitudes..........

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 223): when you first saw images of the wreckage, did you think all but 2 made it out alive?

No because we all saw burned out fuselage at first. When SFO Fire Chief told 60+ were unaccounted everyone was expecting for the worst. Luckily most of them survived. Post accident fuselage was intact. Cargo took the brunt of it. Reports suggest crushed seats caused most of the injuries. We definitely have to appreciate cabin crews bravery in helping all passengers out. May be we will see some improvements in seat and seatbelt design.

Quoting MakeMinesLAX (Reply 141): The reason I got into this discussion was to counter the claim that the fuselage rubbing on the runway started the fire.

The fuselage objectively did scrape across the runway and the dirt beside it after the MLG was gone. That is a certainty.

Quoting MakeMinesLAX (Reply 141): I think it's clear that the exhaust of the starboard engine resting against the fuselage was the true cause, and that premise is supported by (a) the location of the fire, and (b) the pattern of scorch marks on the fuselage.

Really? Do you have a good right-side picture at hand? The pictures I've seen didn't look like it.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 174): 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.

I am quite certain that you're wrong about this.

a) Crash survivability is a regular design goal and as far as I'm aware it's also a matter of certifiability. This crash shows exactly what this design goal is all about: Keep as many people on board as safe as possible for as long as possible so they can escape, even after a crash.

b) Damage and fatigue resistance in regular operation (including firm landings and severe turbulence) also mandate robustness of the airframe. While normally built for thousands of cycles, a crash can use up all the strength in a few moments.

I very much doubt that the 777 was "overbuilt" to a significant degree, nor is the 787 or the A350 – they are simply built to last and to survive even in adverse circumstances. It would be great if we'd never find that out for the two newer types, but QF32 is another example for the standards modern airliners are designed and manufactured to.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 231): ndication that the 777 might be overbuilt,

Quoting Klaus (Reply 231): I am quite certain that you're wrong about this.

I agree with Klaus, if the 777 is 'overbuilt' then so must be the A340 AF358 in Toronto. Almost same number of pax, no fatalities, aircraft mostly in once piece until fire. It would be negligent to not design aircraft with crash worthiness in mind.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 230): No because we all saw burned out fuselage at first. When SFO Fire Chief told 60+ were unaccounted everyone was expecting for the worst. Luckily most of them survived. Post accident fuselage was intact. Cargo took the brunt of it. Reports suggest crushed seats caused most of the injuries. We definitely have to appreciate cabin crews bravery in helping all passengers out. May be we will see some improvements in seat and seatbelt design.

I first saw the pictures on Saturday like everybody else but was told that there was only one fatality. Now that I know there were two should that change my mind on what happened?

Quoting checksixx (Reply 227): Should I now say people like you should stop saying what you're saying?? No...and likewise, don't tell any of us what we should or shouldn't call this....thanks

You are telling me how I should express myself? It is my opinion that we should not call it a miracle, I am not telling you that you can't. I am saying I did not think it was a miracle.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 118): * Yes, I know the runway is numbered correctly, but it just seems quite off to me looking at it on maps / satellite / aerial imagery.

The runway is numbered 28 based upon its magnetic heading of 283.5 degrees. The magnetic deviation on the FAA Airport Diagram is 14.3 degrees east. So the true heading of the runway is 297.3 degrees.

Quoting anplatinum (Reply 127): Was the ILS inoperative on the previous day

Yes, it was out since the first of July and scheduled to be out until early August.

Quoting anplatinum (Reply 127): The previous days flight OZ214 had an airspeed of 128 KTS just before landing whereas for the previous 3 days the landing speeds were 135, 135 and 137.

Those are calculated ground speeds, not actual air speeds. Planes fly on Indicate Air Speed.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 130): Any idea what the UA 747 pilots on the Taxiway might have communicated back to ATC during OZ214's approach?

They said nothing.

Quoting virgin744 (Reply 145): Only plausible explanation would be the vehicle driver mistaking/thinking them as debris..

In the UA DC-10 crash at SUX, the airport fire vehicles (operated by the Air National Guard) began to rush toward the 'non-survivable' crash, and almost ran over survivors. They only realized there were people alive because they were walking around.

The reported location of the two bodies has moved a lot. From on the runway, to one the runway beside the plane to beside the plane.

If, big if, a vehicle ran over on of the victims, I'm fairly sure she was lying flat in the grass, obscured by dirt thrown into the air or smoke. The first trucks arrived on scene while the dirt was in the air, and the smoke starting to rise from the fire.

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.

There was a separate thread - it was deleted. EDIT - the thread was moved to Tech Ops - and several replies including mine were deleted in the move - the summary of my deleted response is below:

Short answer - the B777 remained largely in one large piece because the video and other information show that the main pressure vessel was not subject to any hard impact forces on just one part of the vessel (other than the empennage shattering and fracturing the rear pressure bulkhead.

It didn't slam down nose first onto the runway. It floated which allowed the spin to occur. There was never any significant forces upon the wings - they did not break off, and did not break the cabin open in doing so.

There is no reason to believe any composite or other metal based passenger transport aircraft would have had significantly more damage to the passenger cabin.

But remember - every aircraft accident has many unique factors - so comparing two is really just guesswork.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 160): 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.

The point of 'too early to consider pilot error' is to try to avoid the trap of dismissing evidence which does not support pilot error.

If the investigators 'consider' pilot error, they are to focus on evidence supporting that conclusion, and minimize conflicting evidence.

The goal is to approach the investigation as a clean slate, gather all possible evidence - and then evaluate the evidence to see what the evidence says happened.

Of course that is a goal, and humans do tend to not be that completely objective.

As a similar example - the vast majority of murders of married women are done by their husbands. But if police start the investigation looking at the husband as the only suspect, they can, and do, dismiss strong evidence of other persons responsibility.

Aircraft crash investigators try to avoid those mistakes.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 178): A determined pilot can crash even the safest aircraft.

Sadly - very true.

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?

They have all said plenty. They have been interviewed by the NTSB. They have likely talked to their head pilot or union representatives.

They would be incredibly stupid to make any public statement, talk to the press, etc.

While not subject to criminal charges in the US, they would be subject to a lot of anger, and possible violence, from survivors or their families or just plain idiots.

[Edited 2013-07-08 06:00:50]

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 208): Interesting to note, I have read many boards besides anet, and Boeing and the 777 is kudo'd, the Asiana flight attendants are kudo'd, the ground response team is and even the air traffic controller at SFO. But I don't think I have seen one praise to the pilots. That is just an observation, not a critique.

the ground response team might soon be coming under some scrutiny, as they are investigating whether one of the deaths (the 16 year old chinese student) was possibly run over by an emergency vehicle.

that would really be a horrible turn of events if true.

I can't believe ABC News.

Their 'pretty boy talking head' just said the NTSB said the aircraft crew radioed to the tower 1.5 seconds before the impact asking permission to go around, but never received that permission.

Talk about distortion of facts.

There was no radio call - it was a command, comment, request made by someone in the cockpit. The NTSB did not say who made the Go Around statement.

An aircraft doesn't have to ask permission for a Go Around - they notify ATC they are going around.

What should the vertical speed be at 1000ft and then again at about 100ft? I would calculate around 600-700fpm at 1000ft (3 degree glideslope) and they beginning the flare crossing over the seawall this should be progressively reducing, not so?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 234): Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 130): Any idea what the UA 747 pilots on the Taxiway might have communicated back to ATC during OZ214's approach? They said nothing.

Unless there's a fueling truck or something on the runway and the other aircraft clearly does not see it, I don't think a pilot would ever comment on another pilot's approach no matter how bad it looked. If nothing else, there's no way a comment from an onlooker would make the situation better. In fact, such a distraction might well make things worse.

After the crash they would probably have said something only if Tower had not promptly responded.

Quoting 77West (Reply 238): What should the vertical speed be at 1000ft and then again at about 100ft? I would calculate around 600-700fpm at 1000ft (3 degree glideslope) and they beginning the flare crossing over the seawall this should be progressively reducing, not so?

Rule of thumb is that your descent rate in fpm on a 3 degree glideslope is five times your ground speed in knots. Vref was, what, 137? Ignoring wind that gives you 685 fpm descent rate until the flare**. If memory serves the flare height for a 773 is 30 feet, at which point the flare maneuver makes descent rate go way down.

** Using the 1 in 60 rule gives 694 fpm. I'll leave calculation of the exact trigonometric solution as an exercise for the alert reader.

[Edited 2013-07-08 06:18:11]

Couple of facts to add to the mix from an airport planning and design consideration

1) Airports have OTS ILS and PAPIs all the time, any of these items being out of service should not carry any blame for this crash. An airport client I do work for had no ILS for 2 months last fall, with little to no disruption to the commercial operations.

2) The runway/taxiway separation between 28L and where the UA 744 was taxiing exceeds the design standard and what is in place at most other US airports. Suggesting this in an unsafe condition is simply not practical.


On a side note, I have a Single engine land, PPL and have hand flown a full motion 777 Simulator (delta) into LGA and greased it on... If pilot training is the issue here again (AF 447) then I truly hope we see some major changes how we train pilots with regards to technology vs pilotage/actual flying skills.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 231): I very much doubt that the 777 was "overbuilt" to a significant degree, nor is the 787 or the A350 – they are simply built to last and to survive even in adverse circumstances. It would be great if we'd never find that out for the two newer types, but QF32 is another example for the standards modern airliners are designed and manufactured to.

well it depends to what the term "over built" actually refers to. If it refers to the structural tests like the FAA wing load test that go up to 150% ultimate load, then, all airliners subject to such certification goal are "overbuilt".

However, maybe ikramerica referred to this wing test where the 777 wing cracked after 154% percent while today, the engineering may try to approach the 150% load test from below with reinforcements applied after a first fail in order to not to apply excess structure. At least that was said in some thread here when the A380 wing cracked "somewhere between 1.45 and 1.5 ultimate load" and they needed to reinforce structures again.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 240): Rule of thumb is that your descent rate in fpm on a 3 degree glideslope is five times your ground speed in knots. Vref was, what, 137? Ignoring wind that gives you 685 fpm descent rate until the flare**. If memory serves the flare height for a 773 is 30 feet, at which point the flare maneuver makes descent rate go way down. ** Using the 1 in 60 rule gives 694 fpm. I'll leave calculation of the exact trigonometric solution as an exercise for the alert reader.

Interesting. the 600-700fpm came to mind but I assumed they would begin the flare slightly earlier, that said what height should you be at crossing the seawall? It seems they were keeping their descent on track with your calculation but didn't look 15cm to the left and see the other important bit was not where it should be.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 241): Suggesting this in an unsafe condition is simply not practical.

The separation at SFO is 650 ft taxi centerline to runway centerline.

LHR is also 650 feet on both runways.

JFK is as low as 400 feet on some runways, 500 feet on others.

As you said - a non-issue.

Quoting 77West (Reply 243): Interesting. the 600-700fpm came to mind but I assumed they would begin the flare slightly earlier,

30 feet for the flare was a number I heard a 777 Captain throw out. I don't know if there is some sort of slow down before that.

Quoting 77West (Reply 243): that said what height should you be at crossing the seawall?

The aircraft should be at 50 feet height (not altitude) at the threshold. Moving back from that on a 3 degree glideslope and using the 1 in 60 rule, it is 50 more feet of height/altitude for every 1000 feet back from the threshold. I'm too lazy to look up the distance from the threshold to the seawall but it must be at least 500 feet and in that case the aircraft should be at 75 feet of height (not altitude). If the distance is greater, obviously the plane should be higher.

Note that the elevation of the runway is 13 feet so you need to add that to the numbers above in order to get altitude. In any case a small difference since the runway is practically at sea level.

[Edited 2013-07-08 06:38:30]

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 239): Unless there's a fueling truck or something on the runway and the other aircraft clearly does not see it, I don't think a pilot would ever comment on another pilot's approach no matter how bad it looked. If nothing else, there's no way a comment from an onlooker would make the situation better. In fact, such a distraction might well make things worse.

FWIW, there have been at least a couple of cases where someone noticed that a landing aircraft had their gear up on approach, and got that information to them. I can't find the link, but I think there was a Continental aircraft at one end or the other of that a few years ago.

But that would really only be useful from more than seven seconds out.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 245): I'm too lazy to look up the distance from the threshold to the seawall but it must be at least 500 feet and in that case the aircraft should be 75 feet up.

Since the Google Earth image is 18 months old - my quick measurement is right at 500 feet which should be within 10% of the correct number.
.

Quoting rlx01 (Reply 35): These pilots have probably flown into SFO several hundred times. Yes, it looks like pilot error. The real question is *why*.

Actually, it seems the pilot flying had NOT flown into SFO before.

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.../uploads/2013/07/wn20130708a1a.jpg How almost everyone walked away from this is incredible.

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out, but if you look at this image, just to the left of the #9 crash truck beside the port wing, you'll see a yellow 'sheet' covering what appears to be the length of a human body.

If you look at the wheel tracks that lead up to the plane, they go right over top whatever is under that yellow sheet.

I hope to God this isn't what it is.

1011