Boeing 777 has crashed in San Francisco on landing. . . :spooked:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 06, 2013, 03:21:22 PM
Boeing 777 has crashed in San Francisco on landing. . . :spooked:
That's going to turn out to be some sort of pilot error. I would almost bet the farm on it.
As an aside, that's the first US crash of a commercial jet since 2009. The ride in the car to the airport is still the most dangerous part of any plane trip.
Quote from: Locutus on July 06, 2013, 05:05:27 PM
That's going to turn out to be some sort of pilot error. I would almost bet the farm on it.
As an aside, that's the first US crash of a commercial jet since 2009. The ride in the car to the airport is still the most dangerous part of any plane trip.
Apparently there was some sort of problem on the aircraft prior to landing, at least from what I have read. SFO had scrambled emergency personnel before touchdown. . .
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/07/06/sot-witness-from-hotel-emotional.ktvu.html (http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/07/06/sot-witness-from-hotel-emotional.ktvu.html)
Here's an eyewitness account though, that seems to imply that the pilot was "too low, too soon", and that the landing gear collapsed.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 06, 2013, 10:57:21 PM
Apparently there was some sort of problem on the aircraft prior to landing, at least from what I have read. SFO had scrambled emergency personnel before touchdown. . .
I read that too but took it to mean that the controllers in the tower said that after the crash, not before. I might be wrong though.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 06, 2013, 11:01:09 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/07/06/sot-witness-from-hotel-emotional.ktvu.html (http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/07/06/sot-witness-from-hotel-emotional.ktvu.html)
Here's an eyewitness account though, that seems to imply that the pilot was "too low, too soon", and that the landing gear collapsed.
Now the question is, why would it have been "too low, too soon" as this witness described. He described a very normal landing in progress right up to the last seconds of flight.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 06, 2013, 10:57:21 PM
Apparently there was some sort of problem on the aircraft prior to landing, at least from what I have read. SFO had scrambled emergency personnel before touchdown. . .
Quote from: Locutus on July 06, 2013, 11:14:04 PM
I read that too but took it to mean that the controllers in the tower said that after the crash, not before. I might be wrong though.
I was right. That all happened after the crash. Everything was normal up until it apparently hit the seawall. The pilot accepted his landing clearance and didn't say anything about any issue.
First 3 minutes of KSFO Tower feed from today's crash of Asiana 214 at the link below. At the very beginning, the controller says, "Asiana 214 Heavy, San Francisco Tower, Runway two-eight left, clear to land." The pilot then acknowledges. Absolutely no indication of a problem.
Link (http://united-technology.com/AAR214-KSFO.mp3)
Audio is courtesy of the website LiveATC.net.
Quote from: Locutus on July 06, 2013, 11:31:31 PM
First 3 minutes of KSFO Tower feed from today's crash of Asiana 214 at the link below. At the very beginning, the controller says, "Asiana 214 Heavy, San Francisco Tower, Runway two-eight left, clear to land." The pilot then acknowledges. Absolutely no indication of a problem.
Link (http://united-technology.com/AAR214-KSFO.mp3)
Yup. Pretty clear there. Had you bet the farm you'd have doubled it. . . Minus some mechanical issue or mis-calibration of navigational instrumentation, that pilot flew it into the ground! :spooked:
:biggrin: :yes:
But there's more. This data is from Flight Aware of the last minutes of that flight:
time k mph AGL
02:27PM 37.5988 -122.3270 299° West 145 167 800 -1,380 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6016 -122.3340 297° West 141 162 600 -1,320 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6045 -122.3410 298° West 134 154 400 -900 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6073 -122.3480 297° West 123 142 300 -840 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6103 -122.3550 298° West 109 125 100 -120 Descending FlightAware
02:28PM 37.6170 -122.3740 294° West 85 98 200 120 Climbing FlightAware
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog
Quote from: Locutus on July 06, 2013, 11:50:15 PM
:biggrin: :yes:
But there's more. This data is from Flight Aware of the last minutes of that flight:
time k mph AGL
02:27PM 37.5988 -122.3270 299° West 145 167 800 -1,380 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6016 -122.3340 297° West 141 162 600 -1,320 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6045 -122.3410 298° West 134 154 400 -900 Descending FlightAware[/b]
02:27PM 37.6073 -122.3480 297° West 123 142 300 -840 Descending FlightAware
02:27PM 37.6103 -122.3550 298° West 109 125 100 -120 Descending FlightAware
02:28PM 37.6170 -122.3740 294° West 85 98 200 120 Climbing FlightAware
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog
Holy hell! Pretty obvious when he hit the seawall by that! :eek:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 07, 2013, 12:00:50 AM
Holy hell! Pretty obvious when he hit the seawall by that! :eek:
The minimum V(ref) for the Boeing triple-7 is 113 kts in a landing configuration. The speeds go up from there depending on weight, but that's the absolute minimum. He was below that at 109 kts, and well below it at the 85 kts when he apparently applied power and tried to climb. It would appear to me that the aircraft was stalling because it was going too slow; the gear clips the seawall because of it; the rest is history.
But we'll have to wait for the NTSB.
Quote from: Locutus on July 07, 2013, 12:05:17 AM
The minimum V(ref) for the Boeing triple-7 is 113 kts in a landing configuration. The speeds go up from there depending on weight, but that's the absolute minimum. He was below that at 109 kts, and well below it at the 85 kts when he apparently applied power and tried to climb. It would appear to me that the aircraft was stalling because it was going too slow; the gear clips the seawall because of it; the rest is history.
But we'll have to wait for the NTSB.
Wouldn't he have received a stall warning at those speeds though? Or shouldn't he have? I took his application of power to be a response to the landing gear hitting the wall. (But there is a reason I am not a pilot). :wink:
That jackwagon won't be flying a kite after this one. :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 07, 2013, 12:12:34 AM
Wouldn't he have received a stall warning at those speeds though? Or shouldn't he have? I took his application of power to be a response to the landing gear hitting the wall. (But there is a reason I am not a pilot). :wink:
There should have been a stall indication, but you stall a heavy Boeing-777 that close to the ground, there's not a hell of a lot you're going to be able to do about it. There's just not enough time to recover.
Quote from: Locutus on July 07, 2013, 12:13:54 AM
There should have been a stall indication, but you stall a heavy Boeing-777 that close to the ground, there's not a hell of a lot you're going to be able to do about it. There's just not enough time to recover.
No doubt. I found that eyewitness video interesting though. He apparently has watched aircraft from that hotel a whole lot to recognize the fact he was too low too soon.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 07, 2013, 12:16:22 AM
No doubt. I found that eyewitness video interesting though. He apparently has watched aircraft from that hotel a whole lot to recognize the fact he was too low too soon.
Yep! He was pretty emotional about what he saw too.
This morning the fact the airport's ILS was not operational came to light.
. . .The ILS integrates with the aircraft's cockpit to trigger a audible warning, retired 777 pilot Mark Weiss told CNN. "You hear a mechanical voice that says, 'too low, too low, too low.'" The ILS is "nice to have," Weiss said, "but it's not critical on the 777." There are redundant systems aboard the aircraft that would provide similar warnings if the plane was coming in too low, said Weiss, who has landed 777s hundreds of times. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
While it isn't necessary I wonder what part it played, if any. Passenger accounts seem to indicate the pilot was indeed too low in his approach, since some say it appeared they were "10 feet above the water". While 10 feet may actually be 50 or 100 feet, given the disproportionate appearances when aboard such a large aircraft, apparently this veteran pilot either had no idea, or was not concerned over it for some reason.
They also say he struck the edge of the runway, and since one external eyewitness says the landing gear was down, it seems probable that the gear was sheered off by the edge of the runway. . . :spooked:
I'll say it again.
Pilot error.
:yes: ;D
Quote from: Locutus on July 07, 2013, 11:55:12 AM
I'll say it again.
Pilot error.
:yes: ;D
It may take the NTSB two years to come to that conclusion, but it appears to be the case. :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 07, 2013, 12:30:13 PM
It may take the NTSB two years to come to that conclusion, but it appears to be the case. :yes:
Yeah, but I think they'll release something preliminary before then though. They usually do.
Quote from: Locutus on July 07, 2013, 12:32:22 PM
Yeah, but I think they'll release something preliminary before then though. They usually do.
6 months to a year later. . .
I do understand though that these kinds of incidents take time to understand and piece together. Lives are lost and it is a serious business, so it must be done thoroughly and accurately.
Interesting that the interior incurred so much damage. From looking at some of the pictures it appears there was an electrical fire of some sort; or perhaps the oxygen mask system deployed on impact and a spark ignited it? Strange how the roof looks melted in spots.
CNN currently has an exclusive video of the aircraft on its approach and of the crash. A guy was video taping it! :eek:
Pretty clear that the tail struck first because he had the nose up, due to the potential stall no doubt.
The gear was probably crushed since it was slammed onto the runway. . .
http://www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com)
Also from CNN's headline:
NTSB: Pilots called for 'go around'
At 7 seconds before impact, crew called to increase speed- At 4 seconds, crew got stall warning
- At 1.5 seconds, crew called for 'go around'
At 4 seconds, the crew got a stall warning.Quote from: Locutus on July 07, 2013, 12:05:17 AM
The minimum V(ref) for the Boeing triple-7 is 113 kts in a landing configuration. The speeds go up from there depending on weight, but that's the absolute minimum. He was below that at 109 kts, and well below it at the 85 kts when he apparently applied power and tried to climb. It would appear to me that the aircraft was stalling because it was going too slow, the gear clips the seawall because of it, and the rest is history.
But we'll have to wait for the NTSB.
:wink: ;D
(CNN) -- The cockpit voice recorder of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 appears to show that the pilots tried to abort the landing just 1.5 seconds before it crashed at San Francisco International Airport, the National Transportation Safety Board chairman said Sunday.
The pilots appear to have increased speed 7 seconds before impact, and they then "called to initiate a go-around 1.5 seconds to impact," Deborah Hersman said.
The NTSB's preliminary assessment of the plane's cockpit and flight data recorders show the flight was coming in too slow and too low. But when asked if pilot error was to blame, Hersman said the crash landing was still under investigation.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
The crash may still be under investigation, and will be for some time, but it's going to end up being pilot error like I said in my very first post on this subject.
Quote from: Locutus on July 07, 2013, 07:09:08 PM
The crash may still be under investigation, and will be for some time, but it's going to end up being pilot error like I said in my very first post on this subject.
Yep. No doubt in my mind about it. :yes:
Did you see where the medical examiner is now investigating into whether a fire truck may have run over one of the Chinese girls that died? It would suck to survive a plane crash, be laying on the ground, and then be killed by a responding fire truck.
Quote from: Locutus on July 07, 2013, 09:40:43 PM
Did you see where the medical examiner is now investigating into whether a fire truck may have run over one of the Chinese girls that died? It would suck to survive a plane crash, be laying on the ground, and then be killed by a responding fire truck.
No. Holy hell! :spooked:
. . .The pilot sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was identified as Lee Kang-gook, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of the South Korea's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. Lee had 43 hours of experience flying the B777-200, he said.
--South Korean and U.S. investigators will jointly question Lee Kang-gook, who was sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Flight 214 on Monday, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of South Korean's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. They will also question Lee Jeong-min, who was sitting in the co-pilot's seat, he said.. . .
:spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked:
Too low, too slow and too slow to fire wall the throttles will get you every time. :yes: :yes: :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 07, 2013, 10:11:36 PM
. . .The pilot sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was identified as Lee Kang-gook, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of the South Korea's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. Lee had 43 hours of experience flying the B777-200, he said.
--South Korean and U.S. investigators will jointly question Lee Kang-gook, who was sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Flight 214 on Monday, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of South Korean's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. They will also question Lee Jeong-min, who was sitting in the co-pilot's seat, he said.. . .
:spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked:
Choi Jeong-ho also identified Sum Dum Fuk and Long Duk Dong as driving the responding firetrucks. :rotfl:
But seriously, only 43 hours?? :mad:
Quote from: The Troll on July 07, 2013, 10:29:03 PM
Too low, too slow and too slow to fire wall the throttles will get you every time. :yes: :yes: :yes:
Absolutely.
I made a comment earlier that if you stall a triple 7 at that low of an altitude, there isn't much you can do about it, and that's true. What I failed to mention is that you can stall a light twin engine Piper Seminole at that same low altitude and there isn't much you can do there either.
You stall any aircraft too low and you might as well be sitting on top of a rock, because you're going to hit the ground.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 07, 2013, 10:11:36 PM
. . .The pilot sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was identified as Lee Kang-gook, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of the South Korea's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. Lee had 43 hours of experience flying the B777-200, he said.
--South Korean and U.S. investigators will jointly question Lee Kang-gook, who was sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Flight 214 on Monday, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of South Korean's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. They will also question Lee Jeong-min, who was sitting in the co-pilot's seat, he said.. . .
:spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked:
Also from that same article:
"According to the recorders, the flight's approach appeared normal as the 777 descended, and "there is no discussion of aircraft approach" among the crew.
The target air speed for the approach of the flight was 137 knots, and the crew can be heard on the cockpit voice recorder acknowledging the speed, Hersman said.
But the speed was significantly below 137 knots, and "we are not talking about a few knots," she said.
At about four seconds before the plane crash landed, the pilots received an "aural and physical" warning inside the cockpit that the plane was on the verge of an aerodynamic stall, meaning it was about to lose its ability to stay in the air.
The warning -- known as a "stick shaker" -- included a verbal warning the plane that was flying too low and a physical warning when the throttle shook."
How does one come to pilot a triple seven with only 43 hours of training? Moreover, how does the entire crew of this same triple seven NOT recognize that the aircraft is approaching or is dangerously near stall speeds, much less below them?
This on a trans-ocean flight with passengers aboard. :spooked:
Was the entire crew new to the aircraft, and if so why?
One certainly has to question the operational practices of this south Korean airline Asiana. :mad:
Mistakes happen, especially when human beings are involved; however, one of the basic premises of having a fully staffed crew aboard such an aircraft is to ensure safe practices and operational initiatives are under way at all times. It is the very same theory utilized with redundancy in the construction of the aircraft and its systems!
Yeah, it was a pretty serious fuck up on the part of multiple people. If you're a training officer sitting in the right seat training another pilot, you have to be damn sure you're watching him, and watching critical things on the aircraft like airspeed.
Quote from: Locutus on July 08, 2013, 09:59:46 PM
Yeah, it was a pretty serious fuck up on the part of multiple people. If you're a training officer sitting in the right seat training another pilot, you have to be damn sure you're watching him, and watching critical things on the aircraft like airspeed.
Unbelievable to say the least. . .
I can remember when I was taking pilot training. I was coming in for a landing and my instructor said, "you're to high", again, "you're to high" and again, "you're to high and he hit the wheel and I was looking straight down at the numbers on the run way. It sure woke me up. :spooked: :spooked:
The co-pilot sure should have hit the throttles and stopped the low speed. :yes:
Federal crash investigators revealed Wednesday that the pilot flying Asiana Airlines flight 214 told them that he was temporarily blinded by a bright light when 500 feet above the ground.
^^
Not sure I'm buying that. That sounds like a CYA lie.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 07, 2013, 10:11:36 PM
. . .The pilot sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was identified as Lee Kang-gook, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of the South Korea's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. Lee had 43 hours of experience flying the B777-200, he said.
--South Korean and U.S. investigators will jointly question Lee Kang-gook, who was sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Flight 214 on Monday, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of South Korean's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. They will also question Lee Jeong-min, who was sitting in the co-pilot's seat, he said.. . .
:spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked:
Not according to this TV station. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
http://www.youtube.com/v/k-GEhArUuZ8
(http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/Smileys3/default/rotfl.gif)
The stupidity goes even further. An intern at the NTSB confirmed those names to the television station before they aired them. ;D
Someone is in deep dodo over that I bet. I can't believe the newscaster didn't see it.
Yeah, I would like to think that I would have caught it if I had been the anchor, but they're trained to read and present. I guess she didn't have time to engage the brain while the words were coming out of her mouth. ;D
It makes me think of ........" I'm Ron Burgundy?" :yes: