Hello all,

Part 4 has become quite long. Subsequently part 5 is being created in order to make it easier for members to find new information and to continue the discussion of this unfortunate event.

Part 1 can be found here OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 1 (by FlyDeltaJets Jul 6 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Part 2 can be found here OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 2 (by moderators Jul 6 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Part 3 can be found here OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 3 (by moderators Jul 6 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Part 4 can be found here OZ 777 Crash At SFO Part 4 (by Moderators Jul 7 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Our thoughts go out to all on board.

Regards,

The Moderator Crew

The fact that the video was caught by a spotter should elevate our standing in the law enforcement community.

Posted too late on part 4

Quoting Polot (Reply 260): Just out of curiosity what has UA done?

Asiana has a bare minimum staff at SFO. United stepped up immediately to help the Asiana employees, to help with the passengers, use UA space in the terminal for a secure area for the passengers, arranged meals, helped with travel of passengers onward, and travel of families of injured to SFO. They activated the UA disaster plan to provide contacts at hospitals for Asiana, etc.

I'm also sure UA has/ will make their hanger/ maintenance space available to the NTSB, office space and equipment, etc. Part of that is they want the wreckage moved as quickly as possible and the runway reopened, but they are being very proactive about helping with the situation.

Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 259): but it appears to disappear just before the Asiana B777 passes being the United B744, I think this is the point of impact with the seawall.

Based on the camera angle of 90 to 80 degrees from the runway direction, the point of impact should have been about two to three seconds before that. By the time the Asiana plane passes behind the UA aircraft it is close to 1,000 feet from the seawall.

There are other aerial photos of the scene with the UA aircraft in frame, and they clearly show the plane was about 1,200 feet from the seawall.

EDIT

Also

Quote: Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 263): These guys were looking at a near 10 to 15 foot rock wall coming straight at their noses. I don't think anyone would have been able to not try to pitch up and avoid crashing into that wall. So did they stall the aircraft? Because that would not have helped for avoiding the seawall.

The people at the controls pulled back sharply on the controls - in my opinion.

The plane was getting close to stalling because of the low speed - because the stick shaker activated. The shaker activates before the plan stalls, so pilots have time to avoid the stall.

Whether or not their actions actually stalled the aircraft doesn't matter. What I believe they did is change the attitude of the aircraft to nose-up / tail-down, which increased the impact upon the tail structure.

The question I was answering was would the plane have missed the embankment if the crew had kept the plane level.

Based on the video - I say probably yes - but there is no way they could have been positive of that, and I'm not positive.

It was going to be a very hard landing no matter what they did because they started to respond too late to the low speed. Possibly a broken airplane landing with a lot of casualties.

[Edited 2013-07-07 15:57:47]

[Edited 2013-07-07 15:58:48]

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 1):

Don't count on it.

From reports:

Four pilots were aboard the plane and they rotated on a two-person shift during the flight, according to The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in South Korea. The two who piloted the plane at the time of crash were Lee Jeong-min and Lee Gang-guk.

A federal safety official said Sunday the cockpit voice recorder from Asiana Flight 214 showed the jetliner received a warning that it could stall because it was flying too slowly and tried to increase its speed before it crashed.

National Transportation Safety Board chief Deborah Hersman said at a news conference Sunday the recorder also showed the Boeing 777's crew called to abort the landing about 1.5 seconds before impact.

National Transportation Safety Board chief Deborah Hersman said at a briefing on the crash of the Boeing 777 said the plane was traveling at speeds well below the target landing speed of 137 knots per hour, or 157 mph.

"We're not talking about a few knots," she said.

Hersman also said the aircraft's stick shaker - a piece of safety equipment that warns pilots of an impending stall - went off moments before the crash. The normal response to a stall warning is to increase speed to recover control.

Pilots normally try to land at the target speed, in this case 137 knots, plus an additional five more knots, said Bob Coffman, an American Airlines captain who has flown 777s. He said the briefing raises an important question: "Why was the plane going so slow?"

The plane's Pratt and Whitney engines were on idle, Hersman said. But the normal procedure in the Boeing 777, a wide-body jet, would be to use the autopilot and the throttle to provide power to the engine all the way through to landing, Coffman said.

There was no indication in the discussions between the pilots and the air traffic controllers that there were problems with the aircraft.

[Edited 2013-07-07 15:57:52]

16 of the passengers still unconscious ... 

Relevant links

Crash Video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...oment-of-impact-spotlight.cnn.html

NTSB CVR Breifing:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...s-communications-revealed.cnn.html

NTSB FDR Breifing:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...heds-light-on-flight-214-.cnn.html

Twitter from NTSB

NTSB @NTSB
The throttles were advanced a few seconds prior to impact and the engines appear to respond normally. #Asiana 214

The data indicate that the throttles were at idle and the airspeed slowed below target approach speed during the approach. #Asiana 214

FDR contained 1400 parameters and captured the entire flight. #Asiana 214

Preliminary results revealed: 24 hours of recorded data. #Asiana 214

An initial review of FDR data was conducted. #Asiana 214

Call to go around made approx. 1.5-sec prior to impact. #Asiana 214

Sound of stick shaker began approx. 4-sec prior to impact. #Asiana 214

Target speed for the approach was 137 knots. #Asiana 214

The flight was cleared for the visual approach to RWY 28L, which is confirmed by the crew. #Asiana 214

Recording began in cruise flight. #Asiana 214

Preliminary results revealed: 2 hour recording...good quality. #Asiana 214

An initial review of CVR data was conducted. #Asiana 214

Some good unofficial data compilation and analysis here: http://momav.me/armchair-air-crash-investigator/

Basically, it's probable that the pilots came in too high over the glideslope, then tried to descend too rapidly, causing them to go too low.

Quoting DIRECTFLT (Reply 4): The plane's Pratt and Whitney engines were on idle, Hersman said. But the normal procedure in the Boeing 777, a wide-body jet, would be to use the autopilot and the throttle to provide power to the engine all the way through to landing, Coffman said.

Is there a pilot on here that can speak to this? Would normal procedure be to have autothrottles engaged until touchdown? Is it possible they disengaged them and didn't realize it and simply counted on the autothrottle system to maintain sufficient airspeed for them?

I'm not certain, given the video and photos that we have seen, that the change in attitude changed the outcome. The first question is where the aircraft, and more importantly, which part or parts of the aircraft, impact. Based upon the debris field, I think it is understood that their aircraft impact at or just before the sea wall. In this case, even with a level flight profile as opposed to a nose-up attitude, it is possible that the rear mains could have still impacted the sea wall and been sheared off. I believe you would have to be a physicist with specific knowledge of aircraft structures and behaviors in accidents and incidents to fully understand what the difference in survivability would be for that difference.

Quoting DIRECTFLT (Reply 4): But the normal procedure in the Boeing 777, a wide-body jet, would be to use the autopilot and the throttle to provide power to the engine all the way through to landing, Coffman said.

So Coffman is clueless about this crash - because the ILS was inoperative - the Glide Slope was not functioning - and a landing on autopilot was impossible.

From the very start of the threads and stories, it has been very clear the crew was flying a visual approach manually - because they had to - just like the several other B777s that landed safely before them.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10): So Coffman is clueless about this crash

Thanks, that what I thought when I read it.

SAFETY REVIEW OF OVERHEAD BIN LOCKING MECHANISMS NEEDED ? ? ? ? ?

Passenger Vedpal Singh's 15 year old son said "luggage tumbled from the overhead bins."

Passenger Wen Zhang said "she could feel the plane's tail hit the ground. Baggage was falling around her."

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 5):

They are now saying one of the deceased may not have died from the crash, but may have been run over by a responding ARFF truck. Her injuries are consistent with being run over by a vehicle. Ugh.

Oh my...now they are talking about Boeing having to provide compensation...I think that while it is not a complete certainty, it is fair to say that their aircraft performed as it was designed to, including standing up to quite a lot of stressors placed upon the airframe during the crash. I would put the chances of Boeing carrying compensatory liability in this case at less than 10%. The airline, however, I would place at 80%.

Quoting DIRECTFLT (Reply 12): SAFETY REVIEW OF OVERHEAD BIN LOCKING MECHANISMS NEEDED ? ? ? ? ?

It appears that when the aircraft was re-united with mother earth, it did so with sufficient violence to cause at least one of the cabin doors to be ejected, the tail to be smashed to pieces, and the engines to go their separate ways.

Exactly what sort of overhead bin lock would keep the duty free safely stored above your head in that scenario? The cabin door has pins that go in all directions into the frame of the airplane, and they did not hold. Perhaps the overheads should be welded shut for each flight?

Quoting tcfc424 (Reply 14):

Compensation for what? A pilot flying a perfectly good plane into the ground? Ugh. Media..

Quoting ryu2 (Reply 7):

The glideslope was out of service. They'd have been on the PAPI glidepath. Find a better source for info.

[Edited 2013-07-07 16:18:13]

Quoting tcfc424 (Reply 14): Oh my...now they are talking about Boeing having to provide compensation...I think that while it is not a complete certainty, it is fair to say that their aircraft performed as it was designed to, including standing up to quite a lot of stressors placed upon the airframe during the crash. I would put the chances of Boeing carrying compensatory liability in this case at less than 10%. The airline, however, I would place at 80%.

Where are you seeing that?

Perhaps I need to send them one of my contributions to the last thread... Paging Bobby Jay Bliss.

Further observations regarding the fuselage trajectory after impact.

If the last action performed by the Captain 1.5 seconds prior to impact, according to the FDR was to initiate a Go- Around, he would have selected TOGA Power. So now the Aircraft has a High Angle of Attack the C.G. which would have shifted forward as a result of the missing counter balance provided by the tail section, and finally you would have two Pratt and Whitney Engines spooling up to maximum thrust.

Now if one of the engines seperated soon after the tail section had seperated, as a result of impact with the seawall or the ground (my money is on the port engine) then you would have asymetric starboard thrust which would account for the pivot around to the left as seen in the CNN footage.

All this just speculation on my behalf.

[Edited 2013-07-07 16:58:16]

Quoting DIRECTFLT (Reply 12): SAFETY REVIEW OF OVERHEAD BIN LOCKING MECHANISMS NEEDED ? ? ? ? ?

At the G forces of an impact strong enough to fracture the pressure bulkhead, I'm not sure stainless steel bins with padlocked hasps would have kept the luggage from coming out atop the passengers.

I'm sure the final report will say some the the luggage bins actually broke, and some separated from the ceiling mounts.

(PS - I personally don't think the bins and locks are strong enough, and that the airlines don't bother to take care of them to fix problems soon enough. But this isn't the type crash to complain about stuff falling out of them.)

Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 11): Thanks, that what I thought when I read it.

I was picking on Coffman. He might have been trying to explain normal procedures. Too many experts are not trying to explain the differences between normal and the conditions this crew faced. Almost none of the experts are willing to tell the news people "NO - YOU HAVE IT WRONG"

But all the experts are paid consultants, if they don't feed the news anchor speculation, they will find themselves off the payroll very quickly.

The only 'expert' I've seen worthwile on the coverage of this crash was the NTSB lady.

She was a text book example of how to handle a complicate press conference.

Maybe she took the "Hostile Press Conference" we used to give to Navy captains who were selected for admiral some 20+ years ago. She certainly used every thing we taught.

She was very precise in her remarks, stayed on script, explained technical terms very clearly, abbreviations, etc. She also stayed very close to her script when answering questions from the press, restated their questions to make sure everyone knew exactly the question she was answering and avoided the obvious baited questions - then ended her answers exactly when she had said she was going to do so when the press conference started.

I don't know if this is posted but there is a video.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...e-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 17): Where are you seeing that?

CNN

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 17):

Talking heads on CNN. Funny, it wasn't the aviation attorney.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):

Absolutely agreed, very impressive.

"That's fine to say, but as a result of code share it may be United's job to handle the issue. A lot of code share outstations are minimally staffed by the airline itself."

Not the case here. The operating airline is exclusively responsible for handling matters post-accident (Whether by its own staff or via previously contracted third parties). Asiana basically had nothing in place when the accident happened, so United is basically having to do their job for them.

To be fair, they're not the first vaunted Asian legacy to devolve into an utter sh!tshow after a crash -- Singapore Airlines and Korean Air were similarly useless in the immediate aftermath of tragedy.

Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 18): (my money is on the port engine)

Based on some things in earlier threads, pictures which appear that something - likely the starboard engine - impacted the ground just after the service road alongside the runway - I'm pretty sure the starboard engine separated from the aircraft before it reached the threshold and it is the engine which is a couple hundred feet farther down the runway without a cowl off the right side of the runway.

The port engine is likely the one up against the fuselage.

Does anyone see any indication of the engines still attached to the wings when the plane pivots around? I don't.

The engines would have gone forward like heavy bowling balls, though one digging in might have helped start the pivoting spin movement. Can't really tell from that distance and with all the dust if that happened.

But you may be right and I could be completely wrong.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10): So Coffman is clueless about this crash - because the ILS was inoperative - the Glide Slope was not functioning - and a landing on autopilot was impossible.

The 777, as well as all modern jetliners can fly an autopilot approach using GPS, called an RNAV approach. A standard LNAV/VNAV approach gives the pilots a 'pseudo-glideslope' to use. That is what they should have been using since the ILS was out of service. No, it couldn't have done an autoland, but then we almost never do that out of an ILS either. The RNAV approach would have given them a nice, smooth, 3-degree approach path for a normal landing.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16): They'd have been on the PAPI glidepath.

The PAPI was also out of service, as part of the relocation of the runway threshold.

I've landed on 28L several times in the past couple of months. It's a non-event if you use the appropriate procedures. But if I'm hearing about stick shakers and impacting the seawall, something was very much wrong in that cockpit - not with the plane itself.

HAL

Hi Rfields5421,

From that perspective is the seawall and the taxiway that was visible to the plane spotters camera position not extending all the way to the right, well past the United B744 where the taxiway would have turned left and inwards to meet up with the threshold of the runway and the seawall, placing it just in front of the nose of the United B744.

I was under the impression that the white spray or smoke that appears a few seconds before reaching the B744 was from the seawater as the Asiana B777's tail sliced through the water or the engine thrust kicked up spray as it got close to the seawater.

I hope that makes sense.

Quoting C680 (Reply 15): Exactly what sort of overhead bin lock would keep the duty free safely stored above your head in that scenario? The cabin door has pins that go in all directions into the frame of the airplane, and they did not hold. Perhaps the overheads should be welded shut for each flight?

Perhaps, for safety, the overhead bins should be done away with ??? Or, maybe we should have underseat bins instead ???  

Quoting HAL (Reply 26): The PAPI was also out of service

The NTSB was very clear that the PAPI was functional.

It is out of service now because the aircraft damaged the strucure/lights/wiring during its slide to its final resting place.

Quoting HAL (Reply 26): The PAPI was also out of service, as part of the relocation of the runway threshold.

According to Chairman Hersman in her briefing, the PAPI system was fully-functional for the accident aircraft approach. It was, however, severely damaged by the crash and was NOTAM'd as a result of the crash.

Quoting HAL (Reply 26): I've landed on 28L several times

Slightly off topic, but in reference to a couple other posts in the previous 4 threads on this topic. How often do you or your other cockpit crew members hand fly? Thanks.

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?

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?

Most likely caused by skin contacting the slides or injured passengers being dragged away from the wreckage

Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 27): I hope that makes sense.

If the spotter was located at Bayfront Park - they are about 6,000 feet from the impact point. The yellow line below shows where the OZ B777 would have been as it passed behind the UA B747. The 747 position is based upon images of the scene in the first couple hours before the plane was moved.

Yes there is a section of the water cut off by the angle of the spotter - about 400 feet if the spotter was at Bayfront Park.

However, from the video and other still images from the same location/ group of spotters - I think they were at least a 1,500 feet down the seawall, which would have reduced the cut off angle to less than 150 feet of water before the embankmen.

Also note - this is the 18 month old Google Earth/ Google Maps image. The threshold is now at least 300 feet farther down the runway from the location shown in this picture.

Approximate spotter and aircraft locations

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.

All the previous comments about "culture" don't belong on this forum. It's not like a US based airline has never had a fatality. These pilots have probably flown into SFO several hundred times. Yes, it looks like pilot error. The real question is *why*.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 25): Based on some things in earlier threads, pictures which appear that something - likely the starboard engine - impacted the ground just after the service road alongside the runway - I'm pretty sure the starboard engine separated from the aircraft before it reached the threshold and it is the engine which is a couple hundred feet farther down the runway without a cowl off the right side of the runway. The port engine is likely the one up against the fuselage. Does anyone see any indication of the engines still attached to the wings when the plane pivots around? I don't. The engines would have gone forward like heavy bowling balls, though one digging in might have helped start the pivoting spin movement. Can't really tell from that distance and with all the dust if that happened. But you may be right and I could be completely wrong.

As counter-intuitive as it seems, the engine off the right side of the runway would have to be the port (#1) engine.

If you refer to this picture, you can see a likely left engine impact mark just above the "2", and the post-separation trail starting at the smaller piano keys and running off the right side of the runway ("sooty" mark at lower left of the picture). The aircraft had already begun yawing left at this point - the continuous black line beginning at the same piano keys is the nose gear - and this spinning motion would have created the necessary rightward momentum to send the engine along this path.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19): At the G forces of an impact strong enough to fracture the pressure bulkhead, I'm not sure stainless steel bins with padlocked hasps would have kept the luggage from coming out atop the passengers. I'm sure the final report will say some the luggage bins actually broke, and some separated from the ceiling mounts.

  

During the evacuation tests performed by the manufacturers baggage is strewn through the aisles simulating what would happen in a real crash, so it's not unexpected that the bins won't hold (worse case scenario). It's also pitch black out, nobody knows when it's going to happen and only 50% of the doors are available.

I would love to get some real world pilot perspective on procedures for landing with good visibility and and good weather.

I would assume each airline has different SOPs but at a minimum in this case the crew disengaged the autopilot to land manually. I just don't know if auto-throttle is required or optional.

Is it easy to get too complacent with automation? How often are crews required to fly in manually to maintain proficiency?

I know we need more facts, but I just sense this crash was the result of human error.

Been reading through these today and one thing that strikes me is how incredible it is that in less than a century since aviation began we are arguing about overhead lockers and duty free booze contributing to an accident, not fundamentals like wings detaching. In a relatively short time we have made complex technology that relies on hundreds of humans for each flight to be the safest way to get around. Accidents are often tragic but very rare and that never ceases to amaze me.

From all the discussions here, let me reiterate what I said in the last message thread:

1. Were the flight crew involved do all the proper procedures for safe full-manual landing approach, which was being done yesterday due to ILS being shut down as part of the taxiway upgrade program? Did they even not do an RNAV GPS guided landing?

2. Did the flight crew get misled by possible improper runway threshold markings due to the taxiway upgrade project to slow the plane down more than necessary?

3. Was there issues with in-cockpit delegation of duties, a problem that plagued KE for years until an upper manager from DL overhauled all cockpit operational procedures after 1999? (Cockpit delegation of duty between flight crew was a factor in the KLM and Pan Am 747 collision at Tenerife in 1977.)

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.

Had the pilots flown the approach correctly in the first place, we wouldn't be so quick to blame them for anything.

Even if the ILS was out of service and the crew was flying a visual approach, the Auto-throttles can still be engaged even though the Auto-pilot is off. The A/T would have to be turned off as well.
My thought, is the crew had maybe forgotten the A/T's were dis-armed earlier in the decent (especially if the crew is accustom to A/T Landings) and since there airspeed was higher along with altitude during the decent, say from 5,000 feet, there was never a feeling of added thrust during the decent. Once the airspeed dropped below there VREF speed (137KIAS) or even when the stick shaker started, was when they realized the A/T's were infact dis-armed. And everything from that point is being mentioned from the NTSB right now

[Edited 2013-07-07 17:15:27]

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 41): Had the pilots flown the approach correctly in the first place, we wouldn't be so quick to blame them for anything.

Yes, but I'm just saying in light of the narrative in the link I pasted (which I don't think has been shared on Airliners.net before), there seemed to be something going on that had an effect on another airliner which was landing at the time.

Of course, that could be totally coincidental.  

> Moved from Part 4 >

Quoting Klaus (Reply 241): I think it needs consideration that exactly the crown area that has burned through is actually just empty space on the 777 – the cabin ceiling is substantially below and it has apparently collapsed onto the seats and the fire must have come from there. The burn-through pattern may even be a result of the firefighters concentrating their foam/water cannons on the exit areas, but it could also just be since there were no or fewer seats there which could have burned.

Interesting insight, Klaus.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 241): Sliding on its belly must have generated a lot of friction heat – I wouldn't be surprised if that was the main source of the fire, first burning through the cargo deck and fortunately taking a bit of time before reaching the passenger deck.

I was wondering about that too... if the cargo area was on fire first. But there just doesn't seem to be other fire damage to areas below the windows, aside from the floor-line where the airline title is. There were comments the engine which came to rest by 2R may have been burning, and burned through the fuselage, starting the cabin fire, but friction heat from the dragging belly + insulation blankets may have contributed. Time will tell...


I remember reading an article in the late 1980s about fire safety in commercial airplanes, and the demanding safety regulations which were put into place after fire fatalities (such as AC797) which could have been avoided or lessened if fire-resistant and less toxic smoke-emitting materials (which were already available) had been used. So move ahead 25 years...

If there is a massive fire or explosion from fuel tanks rupturing, that is one thing, but for an accident like this to result in the airplane burning to this extent so quickly? What happened to all the high-tech non-flammable insulation materials, flame-retardant seat covers, overhead bins, cabin wall panels, etc. recommended in the 1980s-1990s? It looks like this is the stuff that burned the quickest. How is this acceptable in 2013? Sorry for rant, but after almost all passengers surviving the impact and lateral forces, it would have been an atrocity for them to then die from smoke inhalation. True, in this case, that didn't happen - evacuation went smoothly, but with shock and confusion (and possible injuries) from the impact and spin, it could have taken half a minute longer, and many could have perished from smoke inhalation.




LD4

Speculation:
Looking at the video, I get the impression perhaps the pilot was trying to stretch the glide by instinctively pulling up. This is a natural instinct since pulling up normally means trajectory up. However on approach that doesn't really work and you just slow down below Vmd (best glide speed) and shorten the glide. It is an instinct which you learn to counter as a private pilot. If you want to stretch it, keep the plane at best glide speed.

In a stressful situation, the instinct to pull up can be very strong even though it is the wrong one.

Quoting tcfc424 (Reply 30): Quoting HAL (Reply 26): The PAPI was also out of service, as part of the relocation of the runway threshold. According to Chairman Hersman in her briefing, the PAPI system was fully-functional for the accident aircraft approach. It was, however, severely damaged by the crash and was NOTAM'd as a result of the crash.

Very interesting.

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

I woulnd't hold my breath.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 2): Whether or not their actions actually stalled the aircraft doesn't matter. What I believe they did is change the attitude of the aircraft to nose-up / tail-down, which increased the impact upon the tail structure. The question I was answering was would the plane have missed the embankment if the crew had kept the plane level. Based on the video - I say probably yes - but there is no way they could have been positive of that, and I'm not positive.

i was going to ask the same thing; would they have been okay if the pilot had not pitched up the aircraft? Watching the CNN video on TV..it looked like he pitched it up significantly before impact. Also, calling for a go around at 1.5 seconds?? Isnt that way after the time it should be called at?

Really saddened to know that one of the fatalities may have been caused by the emergency vehicles arriving at the scene, according to The Guardian newspaper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...8/san-francisco-pilots-plane-crash

"Later on Sunday, the local fire department said that an emergency vehicle rushing to the scene of the crash may have run over one of the two teenage Chinese girls killed in the incident.

San Francisco's medical examiner is now conducting an autopsy to determine the cause of the girl's death, fire department spokeswoman Mindy Talmadge said.

"One of the deceased did have injuries consistent with those of having been run over by a vehicle," Talmadge said." (The Guardian)

That Google image of SFO, does give a much better perspective of plane spotters camera position, I see what you are saying re runway displacement, thanks rfield5421.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19): (PS - I personally don't think the bins and locks are strong enough, and that the airlines don't bother to take care of them to fix problems soon enough. But this isn't the type crash to complain about stuff falling out of them.)

  

Quoting avek00 (Reply 24): Not the case here. The operating airline is exclusively responsible for handling matters post-accident (Whether by its own staff or via previously contracted third parties). Asiana basically had nothing in place when the accident happened, so United is basically having to do their job for them.

Sorry, but what do you expect when an airline suffers a crash at a distant outstation? It's not like Seoul is a stone's throw from SFO and they can just bus in additional staff ... If you are going to assert that it is the operating airline's sole responsibility to handle incidents, then fine. Point accepted. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to adopt that attitude, then you need to give said airline sufficient time to mobilize staff from other locations.