Crash landing at San Francisco mirrors that of BA Boeing 777 crash at London Heathrow five years ago
Crash has parallels to that of British Airways 777 crash in 2008
777 plane came down short of the runway at London Heathrow similar to San Francisco
In both crashes, the wings and fuselage remained intact with the aircraft crashing well before the runway ‘touchdown zone’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html#ixzz2YJZGyDhU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

My money is on the crew stuffing-up.
(Sorry, but …….)

wookiemeister said:

Crash landing at San Francisco mirrors that of BA Boeing 777 crash at London Heathrow five years ago
Crash has parallels to that of British Airways 777 crash in 2008
777 plane came down short of the runway at London Heathrow similar to San Francisco
In both crashes, the wings and fuselage remained intact with the aircraft crashing well before the runway ‘touchdown zone’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html#ixzz2YJZGyDhU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Skeptic Pete said:

wookiemeister said:

Crash landing at San Francisco mirrors that of BA Boeing 777 crash at London Heathrow five years ago
Crash has parallels to that of British Airways 777 crash in 2008
777 plane came down short of the runway at London Heathrow similar to San Francisco
In both crashes, the wings and fuselage remained intact with the aircraft crashing well before the runway ‘touchdown zone’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html#ixzz2YJZGyDhU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Tragic?

“Eighteen of those on board needed treatment for minor injuries. Many were hurt as they came out of the plane on its emergency slides.

There were no fatalities but 47 people sustained injuries; one serious”

Skeptic Pete said:

wookiemeister said:

Crash landing at San Francisco mirrors that of BA Boeing 777 crash at London Heathrow five years ago
Crash has parallels to that of British Airways 777 crash in 2008
777 plane came down short of the runway at London Heathrow similar to San Francisco
In both crashes, the wings and fuselage remained intact with the aircraft crashing well before the runway ‘touchdown zone’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html#ixzz2YJZGyDhU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Well, what’s the odds on something like this happening twice at the same airport within a month?

a few years ago there was something on tv about 737s hurling themselves from the skies

I rang up my step father and told him what i’d seen and about the rudder mech getting stuck throwing the aircraft into a roll into the dirt

he didn’t say why or elaborate any further but told me in a sentence that British airways had changed all those mechanisms years ago.

the better airlines do their own investigations about the air worthiness of their aircraft

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tragic?

“Eighteen of those on board needed treatment for minor injuries. Many were hurt as they came out of the plane on its emergency slides.

There were no fatalities but 47 people sustained injuries; one serious”

Other reports state two dead, 61 injured.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Skeptic Pete said:

wookiemeister said:

Crash landing at San Francisco mirrors that of BA Boeing 777 crash at London Heathrow five years ago
Crash has parallels to that of British Airways 777 crash in 2008
777 plane came down short of the runway at London Heathrow similar to San Francisco
In both crashes, the wings and fuselage remained intact with the aircraft crashing well before the runway ‘touchdown zone’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html#ixzz2YJZGyDhU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Tragic?

“Eighteen of those on board needed treatment for minor injuries. Many were hurt as they came out of the plane on its emergency slides.

There were no fatalities but 47 people sustained injuries; one serious”

ABC New report says “2 dead”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Tragic?

Umm yes.

wookiemeister said:

the better airlines do their own investigations about the air worthiness of their aircraft

The ‘better airlines’ have their maintenance done in countries where proper qualifications are needed by maintenance staff who have enough job security to say out loud that something needs to be done when it needs to be done.

Like Australian airlines used to be.

Skeptic Pete said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Tragic?

Umm yes.

Yes, it would seem that way. So far, no reports have described the situation as ‘comedic’.

captain_spalding said:

Skeptic Pete said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Tragic?

Umm yes.

Yes, it would seem that way. So far, no reports have described the situation as ‘comedic’.

60 people unaccounted for.

Skeptic Pete said:

captain_spalding said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Umm yes.

Yes, it would seem that way. So far, no reports have described the situation as ‘comedic’.

60 people unaccounted for.

Probably all at the Asiana desk demanding refunds.

Ice was blamed in London. I don’t know much about SF weather but ice doesn’t seem likely.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tragic?

“Eighteen of those on board needed treatment for minor injuries. Many were hurt as they came out of the plane on its emergency slides.

There were no fatalities but 47 people sustained injuries; one serious”

That was in 2008.

The one in breaking news is certainly tragic.

And no I wasn’t suggesting my daughter is at risk of being in an aircraft accident, simply that she will be at that airport in a few weeks.

Skeptic Pete said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Tragic?

In what way is it tragic?

Umm yes.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Ice was blamed in London. I don’t know much about SF weather but ice doesn’t seem likely.

At this time of year, no.

But, SF can get pretty damn chilly at times. ‘Sunny California’, indeed.

Skeptic Pete said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tragic?

“Eighteen of those on board needed treatment for minor injuries. Many were hurt as they came out of the plane on its emergency slides.

There were no fatalities but 47 people sustained injuries; one serious”

That was in 2008.

The one in breaking news is certainly tragic.

And no I wasn’t suggesting my daughter is at risk of being in an aircraft accident, simply that she will be at that airport in a few weeks.

An aircraft crashing isn’t tragic. It’s just a small part of the thousands of people who are killed in transport accidents every day.

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

the better airlines do their own investigations about the air worthiness of their aircraft

The ‘better airlines’ have their maintenance done in countries where proper qualifications are needed by maintenance staff who have enough job security to say out loud that something needs to be done when it needs to be done.

Like Australian airlines used to be.

when concorde crashed the BA engineers gathered around to watch the thing on tv and it was the opinion of everyone that the fuel hose was most likely been left loose.

its possible, the spacer for the wheels had been left off the French concorde, the French engineers simply forgetting to put it back on! this is why concorde slewed around and couldn’t gain proper speed for take off

(though the aircrew knowingly took off over weight and the engineer on board switched off an engine without telling the pilot)

Some news reports mentioned that the runway has about 1000 feet of tarmac at the end that’s not suitable to land on, and hypothesised that the plane might have touched down on that bit which could have ruined the landing gear.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Ice was blamed in London. I don’t know much about SF weather but ice doesn’t seem likely.

its not intuitive

the ice builds up in the stratosphere where its always cold, this is where aircraft fly.

as it descends the ice starts melting and close to landing the engines are throttled supposedly and this is when the ice dislodges and blocks the filter

The Rev Dodgson said:

An aircraft crashing isn’t tragic. It’s just a small part of the thousands of people who are killed in transport accidents every day.

Of course.

Silly me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

An aircraft crashing isn’t tragic. It’s just a small part of the thousands of people who are killed in transport accidents every day.

That’s what i thought when i saw that Cessna 337 crash at Bundaberg some years back.

“Happens every day, somewhere or other”, i said, “no biggie.”

Skeptic Pete said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

An aircraft crashing isn’t tragic. It’s just a small part of the thousands of people who are killed in transport accidents every day.

Of course.

Silly me.

Well I hope your daughter doesn’t let it spoil her holiday.

wookiemeister said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Ice was blamed in London. I don’t know much about SF weather but ice doesn’t seem likely.

its not intuitive

the ice builds up in the stratosphere where its always cold, this is where aircraft fly.

as it descends the ice starts melting and close to landing the engines are throttled supposedly and this is when the ice dislodges and blocks the filter

.
What filter?

wookiemeister said:

when concorde crashed the BA engineers gathered around to watch the thing on tv and it was the opinion of everyone that the fuel hose was most likely been left loose.

its possible, the spacer for the wheels had been left off the French concorde, the French engineers simply forgetting to put it back on! this is why concorde slewed around and couldn’t gain proper speed for take off

(though the aircrew knowingly took off over weight and the engineer on board switched off an engine without telling the pilot)

If that’s all correct, then there’s nothing much else they could have done to ensure a crash, other than taking an axe to the cockpit controls.

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Ice was blamed in London. I don’t know much about SF weather but ice doesn’t seem likely.

its not intuitive

the ice builds up in the stratosphere where its always cold, this is where aircraft fly.

as it descends the ice starts melting and close to landing the engines are throttled supposedly and this is when the ice dislodges and blocks the filter

.
What filter?

Well, duhhh… the ice filter – so obvious.

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Ice was blamed in London. I don’t know much about SF weather but ice doesn’t seem likely.

its not intuitive

the ice builds up in the stratosphere where its always cold, this is where aircraft fly.

as it descends the ice starts melting and close to landing the engines are throttled supposedly and this is when the ice dislodges and blocks the filter

.
What filter?

ice doesn’t effect the engine it effects the lift on the leading edge of the wings

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

when concorde crashed the BA engineers gathered around to watch the thing on tv and it was the opinion of everyone that the fuel hose was most likely been left loose.

its possible, the spacer for the wheels had been left off the French concorde, the French engineers simply forgetting to put it back on! this is why concorde slewed around and couldn’t gain proper speed for take off

(though the aircrew knowingly took off over weight and the engineer on board switched off an engine without telling the pilot)

If that’s all correct, then there’s nothing much else they could have done to ensure a crash, other than taking an axe to the cockpit controls.

it has been prove that the concorde wheel picked up debris from the runway and that debris punctured the fuel cell

Riff-in-Thyme said:

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

when concorde crashed the BA engineers gathered around to watch the thing on tv and it was the opinion of everyone that the fuel hose was most likely been left loose.

its possible, the spacer for the wheels had been left off the French concorde, the French engineers simply forgetting to put it back on! this is why concorde slewed around and couldn’t gain proper speed for take off

(though the aircrew knowingly took off over weight and the engineer on board switched off an engine without telling the pilot)

If that’s all correct, then there’s nothing much else they could have done to ensure a crash, other than taking an axe to the cockpit controls.

it has been prove that the concorde wheel picked up debris from the runway and that debris punctured the fuel cell

Yeah, i seem to recall learning of that.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-06/gunmen-kill-dozens-in-school-attack-in-northern-nigeria/4803958

This is tragic. :(

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Ice was blamed in London. I don’t know much about SF weather but ice doesn’t seem likely.

its not intuitive

the ice builds up in the stratosphere where its always cold, this is where aircraft fly.

as it descends the ice starts melting and close to landing the engines are throttled supposedly and this is when the ice dislodges and blocks the filter

.
What filter?

the fuel filter

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

its not intuitive

the ice builds up in the stratosphere where its always cold, this is where aircraft fly.

as it descends the ice starts melting and close to landing the engines are throttled supposedly and this is when the ice dislodges and blocks the filter

.
What filter?

ice doesn’t effect the engine it effects the lift on the leading edge of the wings

no ice in the fuel line to the engines

you get an ice slushy forming caused by water in the fuel

wookiemeister said:

when concorde crashed the BA engineers gathered around to watch the thing on tv and it was the opinion of everyone that the fuel hose was most likely been left loose.

its possible, the spacer for the wheels had been left off the French concorde, the French engineers simply forgetting to put it back on! this is why concorde slewed around and couldn’t gain proper speed for take off

(though the aircrew knowingly took off over weight and the engineer on board switched off an engine without telling the pilot)

Seeing as Airbus engineers check every rivet and screw on their planes 100 times before they leave the factory I would expect that French engineers use checklists. And why would you switch an engine off for take off, especially on a Concorde?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

when concorde crashed the BA engineers gathered around to watch the thing on tv and it was the opinion of everyone that the fuel hose was most likely been left loose.

its possible, the spacer for the wheels had been left off the French concorde, the French engineers simply forgetting to put it back on! this is why concorde slewed around and couldn’t gain proper speed for take off

(though the aircrew knowingly took off over weight and the engineer on board switched off an engine without telling the pilot)

If that’s all correct, then there’s nothing much else they could have done to ensure a crash, other than taking an axe to the cockpit controls.

it has been prove that the concorde wheel picked up debris from the runway and that debris punctured the fuel cell

of course

the concorde crash was caused by air france’s engineering and piloting approach and possibly the way they maintained their airports

wookiemeister said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Michael V said:

.
What filter?

ice doesn’t effect the engine it effects the lift on the leading edge of the wings

no ice in the fuel line to the engines

you get an ice slushy forming caused by water in the fuel

Seriously expecting me to believe that ice from the wings can find it’s way into the fuel? That is just diabolical.

wookiemeister said:

the concorde crash was caused by air france’s engineering and piloting approach and possibly the way they maintained their airports

No it wasn’t.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

wookiemeister said:

when concorde crashed the BA engineers gathered around to watch the thing on tv and it was the opinion of everyone that the fuel hose was most likely been left loose.

its possible, the spacer for the wheels had been left off the French concorde, the French engineers simply forgetting to put it back on! this is why concorde slewed around and couldn’t gain proper speed for take off

(though the aircrew knowingly took off over weight and the engineer on board switched off an engine without telling the pilot)

Seeing as Airbus engineers check every rivet and screw on their planes 100 times before they leave the factory I would expect that French engineers use checklists. And why would you switch an engine off for take off, especially on a Concorde?

the engine was on fire that’s why the engineer shut it down BUT should have waited for the pilot to tell him, the engine could have bene left on to allow the aircraft to gain proper speed. the tyre marks showed the wheels on one side had locked ie swung around and locked thanks to the spacer being left off

supersonic aircraft require particular maintenance to make sure they are air worthy , they aren’t like “normal” aircraft , concorde was a one of a kind

how come wookie knows the truth and everyone else is told it was a bit of runway debris that caused the crash of the Concorde?

wookiemeister said:

the concorde crash was caused by air france’s engineering and piloting approach and possibly the way they maintained their airports

The delta wing design of the Concorde made it far more susceptible to wheel tossed debris to find a critical point on the aircraft. Airports don’t clear debris from runways before every landing and take off unless they know it is there. There was no foreseeable human error.

Arts said:

how come wookie knows the truth and everyone else is told it was a bit of runway debris that caused the crash of the Concorde?

Because he writes the Wookster Report

Riff-in-Thyme said:

wookiemeister said:

the concorde crash was caused by air france’s engineering and piloting approach and possibly the way they maintained their airports

No it wasn’t.

http://www.askthepilot.com/untold-concorde-story/

There’s no denying the jet ran over an errant piece of metal that caused a tire explosion and a resultant fire. But while the fire was visually spectacular — caught on camera, it trails behind the plane in a hellish rooster tail — experts say that aside from damaging the number 2 engine, it was very much survivable, and likely would have burned itself out in a matter of a few minutes. Not only was it survivable, but it was probably avoidable as well, had it not been for a chain of errors and oversights that, to date, nobody wants to talk about — particularly not European investigators.

Concorde F-BTSC went into the hangar at Charles de Gaulle on 18 July, a week before the crash. The part which was lifed was the left undercarriage beam — the horizontal tube through which the two wheel axles pass at each end. In the middle is a low-friction pivot which connects the beam to the vertical leg extending down from inside the wing. The bits of the pivot which bear the load are two steel shear bushes. To keep them in position, they are separated by the spacer: a piece of grey, anodised aluminium about five inches in diameter and twelve inches long. When the plane left the hangar on 21 July, the spacer was missing. After the crash, it was found in the Air France workshop, still attached to the old beam which had been replaced.

Arts said:

how come wookie knows the truth and everyone else is told it was a bit of runway debris that caused the crash of the Concorde?

Second, those who fly the plane say that a loss of engine power will not cause an uncontrollable yaw. The Observer has spoken to five former and serving Concorde captains and flying officers. All have repeatedly experienced the loss of an engine shortly before takeoff in the computerised Concorde training simulator; one of them, twice, has done so for real. All agree, in John Hutchinson’s words, “It’s no big deal at all. You’re not using anything like the full amount of rudder to keep the plane straight; the yaw is totally containable.”

http://www.askthepilot.com/untold-concorde-story/

For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the message was lost. For want of a message the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail

wookiemeister said:

when concorde crashed the BA engineers gathered around to watch the thing on tv and it was the opinion of everyone that the fuel hose was most likely been left loose.

its possible, the spacer for the wheels had been left off the French concorde, the French engineers simply forgetting to put it back on! this is why concorde slewed around and couldn’t gain proper speed for take off

(though the aircrew knowingly took off over weight and the engineer on board switched off an engine without telling the pilot)

—————————————-
That sounds like a Wookiefication of some of the crash symptoms, and not supported by the reports by people that know.

didn’t they actually match the stray piece to the aircraft that did the take off before>

Arts said:

didn’t they actually match the stray piece to the aircraft that did the take off before>

Yes, a Continetal Airlines engine cowling strip.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

l

Seriously expecting me to believe that ice from the wings can find it’s way into the fuel? That is just diabolical.

It can happen. Not wing ice as such, but…

There’s an inhibitor added to jet fuel to prevent it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_system_icing_inhibitor

captain_spalding said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

l

Seriously expecting me to believe that ice from the wings can find it’s way into the fuel? That is just diabolical.

It can happen. Not wing ice as such, but…

There’s an inhibitor added to jet fuel to prevent it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_system_icing_inhibitor

its been on air crash investigations

no conspiracy about that one i’m afraid

Other avoidable factors were further loading the dice, making it still more difficult to rescue the plane. When Marty paused at the start of the runway, his instruments told him that his Concorde had 1.2 tonnes of extra fuel which should have been burnt during the taxi. In addition, it contained 19 bags of luggage which were not included on the manifest, and had been loaded at the last minute, weighing a further 500 kg. These took the total mass to about 186 tonnes — a tonne above the aircraft’s certified maximum structural weight

captain_spalding said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

l

Seriously expecting me to believe that ice from the wings can find it’s way into the fuel? That is just diabolical.

It can happen. Not wing ice as such, but…

There’s an inhibitor added to jet fuel to prevent it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_system_icing_inhibitor

To prevent the fuel from icing up. Not from external ice getting into the system. I suppose Wookie could have been saying that ice build up within the piping dislodges and clogs the filter momentarily. With the pressure in the system I would have thought this unlikely to be catastrophic.

Odd crash fire on the 777. It appears to have started in the cabin itself, rather than an engine or fuel tank.

Stealth said:

Odd crash fire on the 777. It appears to have started in the cabin itself, rather than an engine or fuel tank.

The left engine got ripped off in the crash, it’s likely fuel from the severed fuel lines caught on fire and burnt up through to the cabin.

There is going to be a lot of uninformed speculation about this one as usual but I’d say there was a fight in the cockpit as it was coming into land, probably terrorist related I’d say.
We wont know much about it until the official COVERUP HAS FINALISED IT’S REPORT.

Peak Warming Man said:

…until the official COVERUP HAS FINALISED IT’S REPORT.

Any USN warships within 500nm of the incident?

Anybody with an Arabic name anywhere in the SF area at the time?

Anybody actually SEE an aircraft crash?

What about those contrails? Huh? Huh?

Stealth said:

Odd crash fire on the 777. It appears to have started in the cabin itself, rather than an engine or fuel tank.

There is a detached engine right up against the fuselage on the right hand side in front of the wing.

http://jalopnik.com/twitter-user-accidentally-captures-image-of-boeing-777-687945526

Kingy said:

http://jalopnik.com/twitter-user-accidentally-captures-image-of-boeing-777-687945526

Ho, ho. You expect me to buy that? You’ve been duped!

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

Odd crash fire on the 777. It appears to have started in the cabin itself, rather than an engine or fuel tank.

There is a detached engine right up against the fuselage on the right hand side in front of the wing.

Just watched a vid that shows that RHS engine on fire before the fuselage catches on fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dFtmSybpuw

Nobody has stated the obvious which is that this is gods punishment against gays for winning marriage rights over there!

It’s dreadful, but it could have been SO much worse.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Nobody has stated the obvious which is that this is gods punishment against gays for winning marriage rights over there!

Yeah, He’ll teach those Koreans!

captain_spalding said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Nobody has stated the obvious which is that this is gods punishment against gays for winning marriage rights over there!

Yeah, He’ll teach those Koreans!

As Stephen Colbert might say, ‘When planes start raining down, God’s anger is profound! Look out gays!’

Skeptic Pete said:

wookiemeister said:

Crash landing at San Francisco mirrors that of BA Boeing 777 crash at London Heathrow five years ago
Crash has parallels to that of British Airways 777 crash in 2008
777 plane came down short of the runway at London Heathrow similar to San Francisco
In both crashes, the wings and fuselage remained intact with the aircraft crashing well before the runway ‘touchdown zone’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357585/Crash-landing-San-Francisco-mirrors-Boeing-777-crash-London-Heathrow-years-ago.html#ixzz2YJZGyDhU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is tragic.

My daughter is flying to San Francisco in 3 weeks.

Don’t worry SP, she wont be on that plane

Stealth said:

Odd crash fire on the 777. It appears to have started in the cabin itself, rather than an engine or fuel tank.

Ever wonder where the emergency O2 for passengers is stored?!

…and what gets deployed during a ‘prang’ such as this… O2 most definitely fueled the cabin fire and is why you get the !@#$ out of the aircraft without opening the overhead lockers to grab hand luggage! (something some people seem to have disobeyed on this flight)

bourke said:

Stealth said:

Odd crash fire on the 777. It appears to have started in the cabin itself, rather than an engine or fuel tank.

Ever wonder where the emergency O2 for passengers is stored?!

…and what gets deployed during a ‘prang’ such as this… O2 most definitely fueled the cabin fire and is why you get the !@#$ out of the aircraft without opening the overhead lockers to grab hand luggage! (something some people seem to have disobeyed on this flight)

you mean the 02 masks being deployed?, I would think they would get in the way, and would they be deployed at ground level?

Im putting my money on pilot error, maybe they need to review landing/abort procedures, I read else where that the plane has a perfect safety record

perhaps cockpits need a monitor with a computer projected outline of a “predicated landing” showing the tail being ripped off as it clips the sea wall?

Jet was traveling below target speed before crash
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2013/07/07/asian-airlines-crash-san-francisco-airport-boeing-777/2496275/

from that article

Hersman provided details of what investigators found in their initial review of the plane’s flight data and cockpit voice recorders: “The approach proceeds normally as they descend. There is no discussion of any aircraft anomalies or concerns with the approach. A call from one of the crewmembers to increase speed was made approximately seven seconds prior to impact.”
The “stick shaker,” which gives an audible and motion signal warning that the plane is flying too slowly and is about to stall, sounds “approximately four seconds prior to impact.”
The pilot requested a “go-around” — to abort the landing, fly around the airport and try again, Hersman said.
“A call to initiate a go-around occurred 1.5 seconds before impact,” she said.

===

not much time to play around with

how do crash simulations with pilots in a dummy cockpit deal with this problem?

CrazyNeutrino said:

not much time to play around with

how do crash simulations with pilots in a dummy cockpit deal with this problem?

I don’t quite understand the question …. ?
You mean do we practice getting the plane out of a situation where we train hard to never ever get it?

back when I flew commercial aircraft we kept one eye on the airspeed indicator and another on the stewies behind …

good times.. good times…

Dropbear said:

back when I flew commercial aircraft we kept one eye on the airspeed indicator and another on the stewies behind …

good times.. good times…

It’s good to work with professionals.

Dropbear said:

back when I flew commercial aircraft we kept one eye on the airspeed indicator and another on the stewies behind …

good times.. good times…

bet they didn’t like being taped to the windshield

Spiny Norman said:

Dropbear said:

back when I flew commercial aircraft we kept one eye on the airspeed indicator and another on the stewies behind …

good times.. good times…

It’s good to work with professionals.

they were real stick shakers, let me tell you.

Spiny Norman said:

My money is on the crew stuffing-up.
(Sorry, but …….)

(he was right you know)

Pilot in training. Bugger! :/

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Pilot in training. Bugger! :/

Yeah. That kind of thing really sticks to your permanent record.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Pilot in training. Bugger! :/

Well what was the Captain doing?

Feeling up a hostie as the bear suggested?

Divine Angel said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Pilot in training. Bugger! :/

Yeah. That kind of thing really sticks to your permanent record.

Wouldn’t be easy to get behind the stick again

One would have hoped the supervisor was doing just that: supervising.

And one of the two who died was killed by being run over by a rescue vehicle?

CrazyNeutrino said:

bourke said:

Stealth said:

Odd crash fire on the 777. It appears to have started in the cabin itself, rather than an engine or fuel tank.

Ever wonder where the emergency O2 for passengers is stored?!

…and what gets deployed during a ‘prang’ such as this… O2 most definitely fueled the cabin fire and is why you get the !@#$ out of the aircraft without opening the overhead lockers to grab hand luggage! (something some people seem to have disobeyed on this flight)

you mean the 02 masks being deployed?, I would think they would get in the way, and would they be deployed at ground level?

Im putting my money on pilot error…

He asked why there was fire in the cabin itself – not why the plane crashed.

bourke said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

bourke said:

Ever wonder where the emergency O2 for passengers is stored?!

…and what gets deployed during a ‘prang’ such as this… O2 most definitely fueled the cabin fire and is why you get the !@#$ out of the aircraft without opening the overhead lockers to grab hand luggage! (something some people seem to have disobeyed on this flight)

you mean the 02 masks being deployed?, I would think they would get in the way, and would they be deployed at ground level?

Im putting my money on pilot error…

He asked why there was fire in the cabin itself – not why the plane crashed.

I believe the “oxygen” is supplied via chemical means, and “pulling down firmly” on the mask starts it. Wherever you have combustible fuel (all that clothing in the luggage), heat (electricity and/or metal rubbing along a runway) and an accellerant (Jet fuel), you have a pretty high chance of fire.

>>> Im putting my money on pilot error…

He asked why there was fire in the cabin itself – not why the plane crashed.

===
the stored 02 catching fire I can understand

I was wondering whether if the 02 masks were deployed during the crash at ground level, if so I would have thought they would be in the way

but yes the cause of the cabin fire, it would be interesting to see a plotted path of sparks to starting a fire/s and where it started

Spiny Norman said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

not much time to play around with

how do crash simulations with pilots in a dummy cockpit deal with this problem?

I don’t quite understand the question …. ?
You mean do we practice getting the plane out of a situation where we train hard to never ever get it?

yes, but in a simulator, you mean they dont practice landing/ stalling exercises?

well I thought they would have, but Im not a pilot

if that crash were to be programmed into a simulator, I think pilots in training would get a good idea of what happens

but more importantly it would demonstrate that you dont have much time to correct things

I think all situations should be taught in simulators

otherwise why not?

whats the reason?

Asiana Airlines pilot was training to fly jet that crashed in San Francisco
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-07/doctor-details-injuries-of-san-francisco-plane-crash-survivors/4804502

43 hours training in a 777

NTSB Chairwoman: Plane’s speed significantly below 137 knots; ‘I’m not talking about a few knots here and there’
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGOa0rhEM/2013/07/07/ntsb-chairwoman-planes-speed-significantly-below

so the plane was below 137 knots,

what was the actual speed?

CrazyNeutrino said:

43 hours training in a 777

NTSB Chairwoman: Plane’s speed significantly below 137 knots; ‘I’m not talking about a few knots here and there’
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGOa0rhEM/2013/07/07/ntsb-chairwoman-planes-speed-significantly-below

so the plane was below 137 knots,

what was the actual speed?

No one knows, no one.

CrazyNeutrino said:

yes, but in a simulator, you mean they dont practice landing/ stalling exercises?

Yes we practice many landings with various weather conditions and also various failures.

CrazyNeutrino said:

if that crash were to be programmed into a simulator, I think pilots in training would get a good idea of what happens

We’re trained to not let the aeroplane get into that situation in the first place. You don’t need to show superior skill if you use your superior judgement to keep you out of situations that would require you superior skills.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think all situations should be taught in simulators

They largely are. They aren’t done in the one four hour session but pretty much every emergency in the book is done over a series of sessions. You normally do a session (or two) every six months so every year or two you have covered everything.

CrazyNeutrino said:

so the plane was below 137 knots,

what was the actual speed?

They probably need to ask the Black Box that question. Any number supplied before that will be pure speculation.

A glider pilots saying,

“things that stall,fall”

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

CrazyNeutrino said:

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

and couldn’t because of the low speed

CrazyNeutrino said:

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

I’d say from the anecdotal evidence so far, that is almost certain.

But like Bill has alluded, how on earth di neither pilot realise way earlier that they were not on the correct glideslope?

Even in a Cessna with no instruments you are taught to keep the aiming point (piano keys) in the same spot on your windscreen for most of the final approach.

bob(from black rock) said:

A glider pilots saying,

“things that stall,fall”

pretty much, that says it all.. I’m not reading the whole thread.. the pilot didn’t really have the full flight qualifications.. or if he did, it was only just.

There could have been a chance downdraft but he didn’t give the call for a fly around and re-attempt until 1.5 seconds before he crashed.

Mossad

definitely a Mossad hit.

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

and couldn’t because of the low speed

Well the problem is that when a stall starts, you need to push down on the nose, not pull up.

Not very intuitive when you’re about to drop out of the sky but nonetheless it’s the only thing that’ll get the airspeed back up quickly.

CrazyNeutrino said:

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

yeh they confirmed that this morning that the pilot called a go-around 1.5ish seconds before impact and had advanced the throttles

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

yeh they confirmed that this morning that the pilot called a go-around 1.5ish seconds before impact and had advanced the throttles

And the lag time when adjusting the throttles would be way more than that.

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

yeh they confirmed that this morning that the pilot called a go-around 1.5ish seconds before impact and had advanced the throttles

way way too late.. this pilot didn’t have the experience required.

Skeptic Pete said:

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

yeh they confirmed that this morning that the pilot called a go-around 1.5ish seconds before impact and had advanced the throttles

And the lag time when adjusting the throttles would be way more than that.

yeh they said the engines had responded, so they had started spooling up I guess.. probably just made it worse in the end … hows the fucking luck in getting run over by a rescue truck! jesus

Dropbear said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Dropbear said:

yeh they confirmed that this morning that the pilot called a go-around 1.5ish seconds before impact and had advanced the throttles

And the lag time when adjusting the throttles would be way more than that.

yeh they said the engines had responded, so they had started spooling up I guess.. probably just made it worse in the end … hows the fucking luck in getting run over by a rescue truck! jesus

The only good news is that 127 people walked away relatively unharmed.. It is still a safe aircraft..

roughbarked said:

Dropbear said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

one of the passengers said he felt the plane try to lift just before the crash

so, maybe the pilot was late in trying to abort?

yeh they confirmed that this morning that the pilot called a go-around 1.5ish seconds before impact and had advanced the throttles

way way too late.. this pilot didn’t have the experience required.

.
Yeah, right. 19 years as a pilot with the company? How many years experience would a pilot need to fly a plane?

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Dropbear said:

yeh they confirmed that this morning that the pilot called a go-around 1.5ish seconds before impact and had advanced the throttles

way way too late.. this pilot didn’t have the experience required.

.
Yeah, right. 19 years as a pilot with the company? How many years experience would a pilot need to fly a plane?

To fly the plane he was flying.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

way way too late.. this pilot didn’t have the experience required.

.
Yeah, right. 19 years as a pilot with the company? How many years experience would a pilot need to fly a plane?

To fly the plane he was flying.

.
Well thanks for adding that little bit.

In any case, at what level of experience would you allow someone to fly that plane?

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

.
Yeah, right. 19 years as a pilot with the company? How many years experience would a pilot need to fly a plane?

To fly the plane he was flying.

.
Well thanks for adding that little bit.

In any case, at what level of experience would you allow someone to fly that plane?

I was wondering a similar thing, he has 44 flying hours in a 777, more hours in a 747

but, how many simulation hours at landing a 777

I wouldn’‘t have thought there’d be a big difference in landing speeds between various models of large commercial airliners, so a 777 shouldn’t be radically different to a 747?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

To fly the plane he was flying.

.
Well thanks for adding that little bit.

In any case, at what level of experience would you allow someone to fly that plane?

I was wondering a similar thing, he has 44 flying hours in a 777, more hours in a 747

but, how many simulation hours at landing a 777

I’m No Familiar with the exact details but I am familiar enough to know that that entire experience of the three Captains aboard, wasn’t enough if divided by 3. It would only have been enough if all three were somehow involved at the controls simultaneously.

party_pants said:

I wouldn’‘t have thought there’d be a big difference in landing speeds between various models of large commercial airliners, so a 777 shouldn’t be radically different to a 747?

approach angle is the problem here.

Spiny Norman said:

My money is on the crew stuffing-up.
(Sorry, but …….)

wow!

bob(from black rock) said:

A glider pilots saying,

“things that stall,fall”

there are old pilots and bold pilots but never old bold pilots

mr spencer!!!!!

For fucks sake!

The flight data recorder also showed that the pilots received a warning that the engines were likely to stall as it approached the runway.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-08/asiana-chief-says-human-error-reports-27intolerable27/4807420

nothing like a clusterfuck!

Engines stall?

Lolol

Found this on Pprune –
NTSB: Briefing Prelim Data 82 secs before impact – AP off – 1600 ft alt 73 secs – 173kts 54 secs – 149kts 34 secs – 134kts – 500 ft 16 secs – 118kts – 200 ft 8 secs – 112kts – 125 ft 3 secs – 103kts Impact – 106kts

That means very shortly before the tail hit the rock wall they were about 25 kts slower than the desired approach speed so it’s not the least bit surprising the big plane was very mushy and about to stall. The approach speed is based on 1.3 times the stall speed in that configuration at that weight so the stall speed would have been just over 100 kts …. take a look at the numbers above a few seconds before impact.

the aviation industry needs to add a sea wall to landing simulations

did that pilot in training land a 777 over a sea wall in a simulation

I would think 44 hours is not enough experience to land a 777 over a sea wall

of those 44 hours flying hours, how many of those hours for landing?

how tall is that sea wall?

CrazyNeutrino said:

the aviation industry needs to add a sea wall to landing simulations

did that pilot in training land a 777 over a sea wall in a simulation

I would think 44 hours is not enough experience to land a 777 over a sea wall

of those 44 hours flying hours, how many of those hours for landing?

how tall is that sea wall?

He had landed a 747 there enough apparently.

Pilot: Runway guidance system at San Francisco Airport has been disabled for several weeks for reconstruction and may have contributed to Asiana crash
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/expert-runway-guidance-systems-sfo-disabled-article-1.1392294

from the link

Two navigation systems used to help pilots land were not operating Saturday at San Francisco International Airport, possibly contributing to the Asiana crash that killed two passengers.

Officials disabled electronic and visual systems while the airport’s main landing strip is undergoing a reconfiguration to give pilot’s more breathing space from the bay, pilot Kirk Koenig, 46, told the Daily News

“The landing threshold — sort of where you’re aiming for — it’s going to be moved back” as part of the reconstruction, said Koenig, a pilot with 30 years of experience.

“So they had to turn off the electronic glideslope and they had to disable the light guidance system.”

The systems provide information on a plane’s altitude and distance from the ground.

=

maybe they need to consider new regulations for pilots in training that if certain systems are off line, training pilots are not allowed to land the plane
but they have to be trained somehow

>>>He had landed a 747 there enough apparently.

ok

CrazyNeutrino said:

maybe they need to consider new regulations for pilots in training that if certain systems are off line, training pilots are not allowed to land the plane
but they have to be trained somehow

Simulators.

lots of comments in this article

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/09/us/asiana-airlines-crash/index.html

Asiana Airlines pilots say auto-throttle didn’t maintain landing speed
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sfo-crash-probe-20130710,0,1241740.story

CrazyNeutrino said:

Asiana Airlines pilots say auto-throttle didn’t maintain landing speed
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sfo-crash-probe-20130710,0,1241740.story

if that was the case then he still waited too long to take action.

OK a few things

In the Concorde cash a second engine was shut down after take off. It probably shouldn’t have been. The plane couldn’t fly with two engines shut down and the gear still down.

You can get ice in the fuel. It is unusual though. From memory it is was is believed to have caused the engine throttle down on the UK 777 crash.

In SF they were low and slow. Why? Who really knows yet. Quite possible pilot error exacerbated by pilot training, no glide slope guidance, and maybe auto throttle malfunction.

However if the engines were still operating the situation should,not have happened. You can always push the throttle forward yourself if the speed is too low.

We do often train for these situations after they occur in real life. For instance the Turkish airline stall on approach was a part of the training sequence we did last year. It was a training flight. Stalled on approach. Basically crew got distracted doing training stuff and the airspeed decreased due to auto throttle disengaged. They stalled and crashed.

In the sim they allow the speed to decay way below what we would ever let it get to, quite close to the ground, and then we have to recover. One of the reasons is because with full throttle it may be hard to control the pitch up moment, which makes the stall harder to control.

Martins said:

OK a few things

In the Concorde cash a second engine was shut down after take off. It probably shouldn’t have been. The plane couldn’t fly with two engines shut down and the gear still down.

You can get ice in the fuel. It is unusual though. From memory it is was is believed to have caused the engine throttle down on the UK 777 crash.

In SF they were low and slow. Why? Who really knows yet. Quite possible pilot error exacerbated by pilot training, no glide slope guidance, and maybe auto throttle malfunction.

However if the engines were still operating the situation should,not have happened. You can always push the throttle forward yourself if the speed is too low.

We do often train for these situations after they occur in real life. For instance the Turkish airline stall on approach was a part of the training sequence we did last year. It was a training flight. Stalled on approach. Basically crew got distracted doing training stuff and the airspeed decreased due to auto throttle disengaged. They stalled and crashed.

In the sim they allow the speed to decay way below what we would ever let it get to, quite close to the ground, and then we have to recover. One of the reasons is because with full throttle it may be hard to control the pitch up moment, which makes the stall harder to control.

the concorde thing has always stuck in my head due to the catalogue of errors that are cited

Martins said:

We do often train for these situations after they occur in real life. For instance the Turkish airline stall on approach was a part of the training sequence we did last year. It was a training flight. Stalled on approach. Basically crew got distracted doing training stuff and the airspeed decreased due to auto throttle disengaged. They stalled and crashed.

If it aint deadly it aint training?

the concorde thing has always stuck in my head due to the catalogue of errors that are cited
———————
Most crashes are a catalouge of errors, rather than a single issue.

Stealth said:

the concorde thing has always stuck in my head due to the catalogue of errors that are cited
———————
Most crashes are a catalouge of errors, rather than a single issue.

in this case it was mainly the aircrew that ballsed up in a very basic way

wookiemeister said:

Stealth said:

the concorde thing has always stuck in my head due to the catalogue of errors that are cited
———————
Most crashes are a catalouge of errors, rather than a single issue.

in this case it was mainly the aircrew that ballsed up in a very basic way

Bullshit. Several events happened earlier that if they hadn’t happened would mean the aircrews actions would be irrelevant.

Michael V said:

One would have hoped the supervisor was doing just that: supervising.

And one of the two who died was killed by being run over by a rescue vehicle?

I want to know whether he passed the test! :)

Spiny Norman said:

Found this on Pprune –
NTSB: Briefing Prelim Data 82 secs before impact – AP off – 1600 ft alt 73 secs – 173kts 54 secs – 149kts 34 secs – 134kts – 500 ft 16 secs – 118kts – 200 ft 8 secs – 112kts – 125 ft 3 secs – 103kts Impact – 106kts

That means very shortly before the tail hit the rock wall they were about 25 kts slower than the desired approach speed so it’s not the least bit surprising the big plane was very mushy and about to stall. The approach speed is based on 1.3 times the stall speed in that configuration at that weight so the stall speed would have been just over 100 kts …. take a look at the numbers above a few seconds before impact.

Interesting how at 35 seconds to go their speed/altitude were fine… seems like they:

1. Balls’d-up setting the auto-throttle in the correct mode (e.g. another mode overrode it); and
2. Forgot to confirm the correct air-speed was ever achieved – i.e. 100% pilots error

When an instructor is in a 777, Spiny, who’s responsibility is it to check the airspeed on approach – the flying pilot, or the instructor, or both?

Cheers
Bourkie

bourke said:

Spiny Norman said:

Found this on Pprune –
NTSB: Briefing Prelim Data 82 secs before impact – AP off – 1600 ft alt 73 secs – 173kts 54 secs – 149kts 34 secs – 134kts – 500 ft 16 secs – 118kts – 200 ft 8 secs – 112kts – 125 ft 3 secs – 103kts Impact – 106kts

That means very shortly before the tail hit the rock wall they were about 25 kts slower than the desired approach speed so it’s not the least bit surprising the big plane was very mushy and about to stall. The approach speed is based on 1.3 times the stall speed in that configuration at that weight so the stall speed would have been just over 100 kts …. take a look at the numbers above a few seconds before impact.

Interesting how at 35 seconds to go their speed/altitude were fine… seems like they:

1. Balls’d-up setting the auto-throttle in the correct mode (e.g. another mode overrode it); and
2. Forgot to confirm the correct air-speed was ever achieved – i.e. 100% pilots error

When an instructor is in a 777, Spiny, who’s responsibility is it to check the airspeed on approach – the flying pilot, or the instructor, or both?

Cheers
Bourkie

Both.
To see that two experienced crew let the aeroplane get to approach speed MINUS 25 kts is unthinkable.
It’s why I wrote what I wrote in the 2nd post of the thread. They both just sat there and let it happen.

it makes you wonder why they hadn’t crashed an aircraft already

Spiny Norman said:

bourke said:

Spiny Norman said:

Found this on Pprune –
NTSB: Briefing Prelim Data 82 secs before impact – AP off – 1600 ft alt 73 secs – 173kts 54 secs – 149kts 34 secs – 134kts – 500 ft 16 secs – 118kts – 200 ft 8 secs – 112kts – 125 ft 3 secs – 103kts Impact – 106kts

That means very shortly before the tail hit the rock wall they were about 25 kts slower than the desired approach speed so it’s not the least bit surprising the big plane was very mushy and about to stall. The approach speed is based on 1.3 times the stall speed in that configuration at that weight so the stall speed would have been just over 100 kts …. take a look at the numbers above a few seconds before impact.

Interesting how at 35 seconds to go their speed/altitude were fine… seems like they:

1. Balls’d-up setting the auto-throttle in the correct mode (e.g. another mode overrode it); and
2. Forgot to confirm the correct air-speed was ever achieved – i.e. 100% pilots error

When an instructor is in a 777, Spiny, who’s responsibility is it to check the airspeed on approach – the flying pilot, or the instructor, or both?

Cheers
Bourkie

Both.
To see that two experienced crew let the aeroplane get to approach speed MINUS 25 kts is unthinkable.
It’s why I wrote what I wrote in the 2nd post of the thread. They both just sat there and let it happen.

Could lasers have blinded them both for 20 seconds?

bourke said:

Spiny Norman said:

bourke said:

Interesting how at 35 seconds to go their speed/altitude were fine… seems like they:

1. Balls’d-up setting the auto-throttle in the correct mode (e.g. another mode overrode it); and
2. Forgot to confirm the correct air-speed was ever achieved – i.e. 100% pilots error

When an instructor is in a 777, Spiny, who’s responsibility is it to check the airspeed on approach – the flying pilot, or the instructor, or both?

Cheers
Bourkie

Both.
To see that two experienced crew let the aeroplane get to approach speed MINUS 25 kts is unthinkable.
It’s why I wrote what I wrote in the 2nd post of the thread. They both just sat there and let it happen.

Could lasers have blinded them both for 20 seconds?

Yeh! or dragons!

bourke said:

Spiny Norman said:

bourke said:

Interesting how at 35 seconds to go their speed/altitude were fine… seems like they:

1. Balls’d-up setting the auto-throttle in the correct mode (e.g. another mode overrode it); and
2. Forgot to confirm the correct air-speed was ever achieved – i.e. 100% pilots error

When an instructor is in a 777, Spiny, who’s responsibility is it to check the airspeed on approach – the flying pilot, or the instructor, or both?

Cheers
Bourkie

Both.
To see that two experienced crew let the aeroplane get to approach speed MINUS 25 kts is unthinkable.
It’s why I wrote what I wrote in the 2nd post of the thread. They both just sat there and let it happen.

Could lasers have blinded them both for 20 seconds?

you’d hear the pilots say so in the black box recordings

Dropbear said:

bourke said:

Spiny Norman said:

Both.
To see that two experienced crew let the aeroplane get to approach speed MINUS 25 kts is unthinkable.
It’s why I wrote what I wrote in the 2nd post of the thread. They both just sat there and let it happen.

Could lasers have blinded them both for 20 seconds?

… or single malt ;-)

Yeh! or dragons!