A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
- slowstream
- Rank 7
- Posts: 553
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Canada
A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International
This just happened
http://www.businessinsider.com/plane-cr ... sco-2013-7
i am hoping and praying that everyone is okay
http://www.businessinsider.com/plane-cr ... sco-2013-7
i am hoping and praying that everyone is okay
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
CNN shows a debris field from the waters edge in the lead up to runway. Reports are aircraft pitched up. An "eyewitness" says he saw the aircraft cartwheel and loose both wings (cant figure that one as both wings appear to be still attached). Tail section from rear bulkhead aft is gone.
was it a 777 that landed short in Heathrow when the engines would not spool up?
Hope everyone made it out ok.
was it a 777 that landed short in Heathrow when the engines would not spool up?
Hope everyone made it out ok.
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
For whatever reason they were below the glideslope and struck the tail on the seawall - ripping off the tail.
Why they were low is anybodies guess. The BA accident was fixed by an AD and i believe only applied to a certain engine model.
Why they were low is anybodies guess. The BA accident was fixed by an AD and i believe only applied to a certain engine model.
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
Yeah definitely looks like they came up short.
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
This aircraft had P&W engines, the AD and icing issue only applied to RR engines. Also on the ATC tapes there was no indication at all of an emergency, they acknowledged a normal landing clearance on final a minute or two before they touched down. A United aircraft was holding short and must have got a pretty good view of it.boeingboy wrote:For whatever reason they were below the glideslope and struck the tail on the seawall - ripping off the tail.
Why they were low is anybodies guess. The BA accident was fixed by an AD and i believe only applied to a certain engine model.
They were well below a normal approach path for reasons yet to be determined and sheared the tail off on the break water. Sounds like no one killed, minor injuries only, lucky. (edit looks like that was premature..casualties reported now) Boeing build a pretty strong aircraft by the looks of things.
Last edited by tbaylx on Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
One of the pictures shows passengers walking away from the 2nd forward left side evac slide.......
Carrying among other items, a roll aboard suitcase.
Stupid people taking overhead bin items during an evacuation have knocked others unconscious and impeded the evacuation resulting in the deaths of fella passengers. Sure hope no one was killed or injured by these stupid and selfish actions.
Henry
Carrying among other items, a roll aboard suitcase.
Stupid people taking overhead bin items during an evacuation have knocked others unconscious and impeded the evacuation resulting in the deaths of fella passengers. Sure hope no one was killed or injured by these stupid and selfish actions.
Henry
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
If he hit the sea wall he was not only low on th glide path but was also quite a bit off of runway centerline according to this picture.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: CYPA
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
CBS news just reported 2 fatalities and 60 injured.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/ne ... o/2495099/
This article says no fatalities. Lets hope its the article that is reporting accurately.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/ne ... o/2495099/
This article says no fatalities. Lets hope its the article that is reporting accurately.
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
I thought I saw some NOTAMs there for ILS and Glidepath outages. Non-Precision Approach maybe?
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
Thanks for the info on the engines. I could not remember the full incident.
"eyewitness" on CNN says the gear hit either on or close to the break wall. Least ways they are not saying the wings were ripped off.
"eyewitness" on CNN says the gear hit either on or close to the break wall. Least ways they are not saying the wings were ripped off.
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
Approach Path of Asiana 214
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOhIDCWCUAApHFV.jpg:large
Looks like glide slope is out of use for 28L/R until August 22nd.
http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeronav/ ... Status.pdf
ATC audio with AAR214 at SFO
https://soundcloud.com/martyn-williams- ... c-with-sfo
Too early to speculate but it seems like pilot error at this point. Despite the reports I hope everyone made it off.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOhIDCWCUAApHFV.jpg:large
Looks like glide slope is out of use for 28L/R until August 22nd.
http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeronav/ ... Status.pdf
ATC audio with AAR214 at SFO
https://soundcloud.com/martyn-williams- ... c-with-sfo
Too early to speculate but it seems like pilot error at this point. Despite the reports I hope everyone made it off.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:13 am
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
I would bet anyone here $100 bucks that it was an unstabilized approach, PNF saying diddly squat ( Asian CRM ) VISUAL approach for pilots who are bad at hand flying, Got it a little high, chopped the power to do a greaser early (Another regional fault) NOW got too low and slow and with a slow spool up and LATE overshoot, the tail will hit, with spooling up engines, one breaking off, the other sending the A/C off the runway. OKAY , investigation CLOSED off to another topic
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
The above was taken from a Yahoo news article. It does sound like an unstabilized approach. If he "put gas to it" doesn't sound like they ran the tanks dry.Survivor Benjamin Levy told local a local NBC station by phone that he believed the plane had been coming in too low.
"I know the airport pretty well, so I realized the guy was a bit too low, too fast, and somehow he was not going to hit the runway on time, so he was too low ... he put some gas and tried to go up again," he said.
"But it was too late, so we hit the runway pretty bad, and then we started going up in the air again, and then landed again, pretty hard," Levy said.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/asiana-airline ... .html?vp=1
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
Ok...Crazy aviator
I won't question your experience here, but in order to get that "greaser" you mention in a heavy jet? Not possible if you "chop" that power when you're too high...all that will do is lower your nose and that usually ends up putting you in a worse situation than you might have been already. And if you're too low...splash down! The killer in most accidents like this is the unstable approach. Speed too high, aircraft too low, or speed too low, or too high or not configured properly, and we all can be found guilty of it from time to time no matter WHERE we are from. To be certain, some cultures hate to admit failure and the resulting possibility of loss of face has caused many an aircraft to land short, or run off the end or side of the runway with no support from your crew member(s). Most airlines have a stabilized approach criteria that if not followed must be corrected with a go around. Usually by 1000 feet above ground. (With no jeopardy from the boss to the crew that follow the criteria.) More and more safety departments now teach and follow the Just Safety Culture that allows for a crew to admit a mistake if it was inadvertent with no jeopardy, but must be investigated to ensure company SOP compliance. If that same crew tried to cover up an incident then it's a different problem. Cover ups are not taken lightly. In this case, I would try to ignore the media and their incessant bleating in the race to cover it first, and wait to hear what the reasons were for this to happen. Was there a mechanical issue? Loss of fuel or no fuel? A medical issue? It's way too early to tell. So grab a cold one and have a laugh at CNN or FOX or whoever you're watching and sit tight. The results will be out eventually. Fly safe.
GRK
I won't question your experience here, but in order to get that "greaser" you mention in a heavy jet? Not possible if you "chop" that power when you're too high...all that will do is lower your nose and that usually ends up putting you in a worse situation than you might have been already. And if you're too low...splash down! The killer in most accidents like this is the unstable approach. Speed too high, aircraft too low, or speed too low, or too high or not configured properly, and we all can be found guilty of it from time to time no matter WHERE we are from. To be certain, some cultures hate to admit failure and the resulting possibility of loss of face has caused many an aircraft to land short, or run off the end or side of the runway with no support from your crew member(s). Most airlines have a stabilized approach criteria that if not followed must be corrected with a go around. Usually by 1000 feet above ground. (With no jeopardy from the boss to the crew that follow the criteria.) More and more safety departments now teach and follow the Just Safety Culture that allows for a crew to admit a mistake if it was inadvertent with no jeopardy, but must be investigated to ensure company SOP compliance. If that same crew tried to cover up an incident then it's a different problem. Cover ups are not taken lightly. In this case, I would try to ignore the media and their incessant bleating in the race to cover it first, and wait to hear what the reasons were for this to happen. Was there a mechanical issue? Loss of fuel or no fuel? A medical issue? It's way too early to tell. So grab a cold one and have a laugh at CNN or FOX or whoever you're watching and sit tight. The results will be out eventually. Fly safe.
GRK
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:16 am
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
I agree with all previous posts, however almost
every time we land on the 28 s in KSFO, they leave you high
on downwind because of terrain and traffic and then try
and make you take the visual, when they turn you to base. Having a u/s glideslope
does not help at all. They will call pilot error,
make some recommendations, and carry on as normal.
There are airports in the US that should be closed but they
cannot afford to lose them.
every time we land on the 28 s in KSFO, they leave you high
on downwind because of terrain and traffic and then try
and make you take the visual, when they turn you to base. Having a u/s glideslope
does not help at all. They will call pilot error,
make some recommendations, and carry on as normal.
There are airports in the US that should be closed but they
cannot afford to lose them.
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
Too early to speculate but it seems like pilot error at this point.
....
Classic ...
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:13 am
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
GRK, Wonderful post and i agree wholeheartedly! I do suspect a perfectly good A/C being flown into the "breakwall" and the main factor being cultural norms, followed by lack of hand flying skills, being the cause of this accident (( NO excuse, that is a worldwide phenomenum (error)) , witnessed by the American "Magenta line" speechTo be certain, some cultures hate to admit failure and the resulting possibility of loss of face has caused many an aircraft to land short, or run off the end or side of the runway with no support from your crew member(s).
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
http://www.safetyxchange.org/compliance ... ty-culturecrazy_aviator wrote:GRK, Wonderful post and i agree wholeheartedly! I do suspect a perfectly good A/C being flown into the "breakwall" and the main factor being cultural norms, followed by lack of hand flying skills, being the cause of this accident (( NO excuse, that is a worldwide phenomenum (error)) , witnessed by the American "Magenta line" speechTo be certain, some cultures hate to admit failure and the resulting possibility of loss of face has caused many an aircraft to land short, or run off the end or side of the runway with no support from your crew member(s).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801
Asiana would not be the first Korean airline with this issue, if that is what happened.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:14 pm
Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati
FMA-awareness. It's not "What is it doing now"... It's "What is it NOT doing now"
Been guilty of many things myself, and this looks familiar. Not speculating, just sayin that sometimes when that Magenta line is "not there" it can be hard to remember what the airplane will and will not do. SFO is full of traps. Visual, no vertical path, left high by ATC, traffic (sometimes very close formation)... All that, and having Flight Directors going wonky because you choose the wrong mode...
Trap-hole!
Idle descend to get to a 3 degree path, forget that the FMA is not protecting your speed, slowly but surely... You go too slow! In my case... Caught it at 1500 feet. Judging by Flightaware... OZ214 around 200 feet.
Not speculating, just saying.
Been guilty of many things myself, and this looks familiar. Not speculating, just sayin that sometimes when that Magenta line is "not there" it can be hard to remember what the airplane will and will not do. SFO is full of traps. Visual, no vertical path, left high by ATC, traffic (sometimes very close formation)... All that, and having Flight Directors going wonky because you choose the wrong mode...
Trap-hole!
Idle descend to get to a 3 degree path, forget that the FMA is not protecting your speed, slowly but surely... You go too slow! In my case... Caught it at 1500 feet. Judging by Flightaware... OZ214 around 200 feet.
Not speculating, just saying.