Boeing 777 crash at SF

[Jantar]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57592529/plane-crash-at-san-francisco-airport-2-dead/

This one will cause a bit of speculation for a while. At least most people survived including the pilots.

[huff3r]

It's a conspiracy.

[Brian d marge]

Rolls Royce Trent engines ????

Rooting a stewardess

The plane was said to be swaying about and too low and too fast then tried to pull up

We will have to wait , I suppose

Stephen

[Rhys]

The results of the investigation should be out by 2020

[Berries]

I have heard from a reliable source that that geezer Snowden was on that flight and was one of those who was found dead.

[awa355]

I have heard from a reliable source that that geezer Snowden was on that flight and was one of those who was found dead.

I heard from the local Parki dairy owner that the pilot was a muslim. They both attended the same training camp apparently. :wacko:

[Pussy]

With the complete lack of skill that can be observed in a lot of the CPLs that pass through the system nowadays, this accident doesn't surprise me.

[awa355]

Rooting a stewardess

The plane was said to be swaying about and too low and too fast then tried to pull up


Stephen


Those two facts tie in together,

[Scouse]

Triple 7's have had a bit of a problem with there fuel lines freezing up during long power off descents, e.g. the British Airways 777 that gilded just making it into Heathrow several years ago.

[Berries]

I heard from the local Parki dairy owner that the pilot was a muslim. They both attended the same training camp apparently. :wacko:
Shit training camp then, he couldn't even hit the runway.

[SMOKEU]

There's a good thread about it here (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html).

[Jantar]

Triple 7's have had a bit of a problem with there fuel lines freezing up during long power off descents, e.g. the British Airways 777 that gilded just making it into Heathrow several years ago.

That crash also involved a 777 fitted with Trent engines, but it is beleived that the modifications carried out by RR solved that issue. That is why this investigation will be very interesting.


Shit training camp then, he couldn't even hit the runway.

Not true, he did hit the runway. He hit it hard.

[5150]

These guys generally have very reliable reporting.

http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

By the look of the pics, the a/c was way bellow the glidepath, and then tried to pull up at the last moment. Hence the nose up attitude. As some suggested, possibly wrong altimeter setting could be the cause. Will have to wait untill the all parties finish their investigations. I would say this one will be an urgent one considerring number of T7's flying around. But Somehow I doubt it was the equipment fault as all of the approach and landing phase looked normal prior to the touch down (as far as engine performance etc goes anyway)

[Swoop]

The overhead and descent are normal, up to the last mile. It goes downhill from there (pardon the pun).

[unstuck]

I have been watching a bit of that programe about plane crashes( mayday??) just lately, and the investigations into why they crashed. It is amazing how even just a small human error can cause such carnage. Seem to be mostly human error too. Very interesting.

[Banditbandit]

Gravity sucks ... especially if you're in a plane ...

[unstuck]

It is the first time I have seen the head of an airline apologize for a plane crash . Seemed genuine too.

[5150]

Latest on the accident:

On Jul 7th the NTSB reported in a press conference at San Francisco Airport, the crew was cleared for a visual approach to runway 28L, the crew acknowledged, flaps were set at 30 degrees, gear was down, Vapp was 137 knots, a normal approach commenced, no anomalies or concerns were raised within the cockpit, 7 seconds prior to impact a crew member called for speed, 4 seconds prior to impact the stick shaker activated, a call to go-around happened 1.5 seconds prior to impact, this data based on a first read out of the cockpit voice recorder. According to flight data recorder the throttles were at idle, the speed significantly decayed below target of 137 knots - the exact value not yet determined -, the thrust levers were advanced and the engines appeared to respond normally. The NTSB confirmed the PAPIs runway 28L were available to the approaching aircraft before the accident, however were damaged in the accident and thus went out of service again. The localizer was available, the glideslope was out of service, according NOTAMs were in effect. There were no reports of windshear and no adverse weather conditions. The air traffic controller was operating normal, no anomaly was effective, until the controller noticed the aircraft had hit the sea wall. The controller declared emergency for the aircraft and initiated emergency response. ARAIB and Asiana personnel have arrived on scene and have joined the investigation. The Mayor of San Francisco reported runway 10L/28R was cleared for service.

Looks like possibly the crew allowed the a/c to get bellow the minimum VAPP.

[buggerit]

Rolls Royce Trent engines ????

Rooting a stewardess

The plane was said to be swaying about and too low and too fast then tried to pull up

We will have to wait , I suppose

Stephen

Wrong flaps up?;)

[MD]

Latest on the accident:

On Jul 7th the NTSB reported in a press conference at San Francisco Airport, the crew was cleared for a visual approach to runway 28L, the crew acknowledged, flaps were set at 30 degrees, gear was down, Vapp was 137 knots, a normal approach commenced, no anomalies or concerns were raised within the cockpit, 7 seconds prior to impact a crew member called for speed, 4 seconds prior to impact the stick shaker activated, a call to go-around happened 1.5 seconds prior to impact, this data based on a first read out of the cockpit voice recorder. According to flight data recorder the throttles were at idle, the speed significantly decayed below target of 137 knots - the exact value not yet determined -, the thrust levers were advanced and the engines appeared to respond normally. The NTSB confirmed the PAPIs runway 28L were available to the approaching aircraft before the accident, however were damaged in the accident and thus went out of service again. The localizer was available, the glideslope was out of service, according NOTAMs were in effect. There were no reports of windshear and no adverse weather conditions. The air traffic controller was operating normal, no anomaly was effective, until the controller noticed the aircraft had hit the sea wall. The controller declared emergency for the aircraft and initiated emergency response. ARAIB and Asiana personnel have arrived on scene and have joined the investigation. The Mayor of San Francisco reported runway 10L/28R was cleared for service.

Looks like possibly the crew allowed the a/c to get bellow the minimum VAPP.

Getting a bit techi-speaki there for us layman. I suspect a faulty flux capacitor.

Does half the world walk around filming every second of the day. Stuff have video of the landing. Very convenient after the fact. But really, it begs the question why is someone always on the scene filming what, until a disaster occurred, was a really dull mundane scene?

[5150]

Getting a bit techi-speaki there for us layman. I suspect a faulty flux capacitor.

Does half the world walk around filming every second of the day. Stuff have video of the landing. Very convenient after the fact. But really, it begs the question why is someone always on the scene filming what, until a disaster occurred, was a really dull mundane scene?

Just for you then :) Put simply, while on approach to the airport and coming into the landing phase of the flight, they slowed the plane down too much, bellow allowable minimum and caused the plane to stall. The pilots paniked, pitched the plane up and applied full throttles. unfortunately too late. The plane slammed to the ground, sheered off its tail, landing gear and both engines. Then came to rest as it did, remaining fuel and torn electrical wiring probably caused the fire.

Hope that simplifies my technical explanation, which i by the way "borrowed" from another aviation web site. :)

[scumdog]

I have been watching a bit of that programe about plane crashes( mayday??) just lately, and the investigations into why they crashed. It is amazing how even just a small human error can cause such carnage. Seem to be mostly human error too. Very interesting.

Katman needs t know that.

I believe he thinks pilots are infallible... get it?
in fall ible..:rofl::laugh::killingme:pinch::shutup::shutu p::whistle::whistle:

[buggerit]

Katman needs t know that.

I believe he thinks pilots are infallible... get it?
in fall ible..:rofl::laugh::killingme:pinch::shutup::shutu p::whistle::whistle:

Terrible accident, some poeple may even say Kataclysmic:innocent::whistle:

[unstuck]

Now now chaps...:Playnice: Oh fuck it.....:whocares::rockon:

[huff3r]

I have been watching a bit of that programe about plane crashes( mayday??) just lately, and the investigations into why they crashed. It is amazing how even just a small human error can cause such carnage. Seem to be mostly human error too. Very interesting.

Aircraft are getting more reliable everyday. People not so much.

[jonbuoy]

Aircraft are getting more reliable everyday. People not so much.

People seem horrified at the thought of computers alone running flights - majority of crashes in recent times seem to be from pilot error. Maybe they do so little "real" flying they forget the basics!

[unstuck]

Trainee pilot too by the sounds. What happens with his career now, will he be allowed to fly again. Gotta sux knowing you fucked up that big.:(

[Drew]

Katman needs t know that.

I believe he thinks pilots are infallible... get it?
in fall ible..:rofl::laugh::killingme:pinch::shutup::shutu p::whistle::whistle:

You're terrible Marial.

[jellywrestler]

You're terrible Marial.

think you'll find it's Muriel ya waxhead!

[Drew]

think you'll find it's Muriel ya waxhead!She spent the whole movie getting her sister to call her Mariel. When she decided to go back to Muriel, the sister said. "You're terrible Mariel".

I am saddened at myself, for knowing that.

[scissorhands]

Trainee pilot too by the sounds. What happens with his career now, will he be allowed to fly again. Gotta sux knowing you fucked up that big.:(

My dad crashed a spitfire when he trained as a pilot. Just a bent propeller, but he never flew again

[Woodman]

Looks like one of the casualties was run over by a emergency vehicle.

When your numbers up...................:shit:

[Jantar]

I have been following the information as it becomes available on the site provided by Smokeu. I was wrong about the engines, they are not RR Trents but PWs, so the possibility of fuel icing, as experienced at Heathrow, is very small. The ATC trecordings and some of the cockpit voice recordings are now available, and early indications are that the crash is entirely Pilot Error.

Although the pilot in control was still training on type, and was unable to accurately fly a visual approach, it appears that the main fault is with the type of training and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) used in Korea. Pilots there are actively discouraged from using visual approaches and manually flying the aircraft. As a result the approach started off too high and using a slam dunk approach ended up too low and too slow. It amounts to an accident due to the Korean culture, and it is very unlikely that a western trained pilot would make the same mistakes.

[Mushu]

Being the expert that I am (and I must be, I can do the carrier landing on fsx) I thought it was pretty much a no no to have the engines at idle during flight or at least unusual?
Perhaps he forgot to increase the throttle when he applied the flaps?

[Brian d marge]

I have been following the information as it becomes available on the site provided by Smokeu. I was wrong about the engines, they are not RR Trents but PWs, so the possibility of fuel icing, as experienced at Heathrow, is very small. The ATC trecordings and some of the cockpit voice recordings are now available, and early indications are that the crash is entirely Pilot Error.

Although the pilot in control was still training on type, and was unable to accurately fly a visual approach, it appears that the main fault is with the type of training and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) used in Korea. Pilots there are actively discouraged from using visual approaches and manually flying the aircraft. As a result the approach started off too high and using a slam dunk approach ended up too low and too slow. It amounts to an accident due to the Korean culture, and it is very unlikely that a western trained pilot would make the same mistakes.

could well be the case , Ive tried the 747 simulator ( real sim not pc ) , I made korean piolot look like an expert , fk its difficult

Stephen

[5150]

Monitoring your instruments while on approach is the key word. Calculating and then maintaining your approach and landing speeds is an absolute must. Three things that I have been taught are, plan well ahead, execute and monitor. It looks like the trainee pilot did not plan his approach well. When it became clear that he was way off glideslope, he became preocupied with correcting his glideslope path thet he did not monitor his instruments, therefore let the approach speed decay, and allowed the aircraft too stall on approach. Once he realised his mistake, he gunned the engines, but he simply run out of altitute. This is ofcourse my theory, but, the indicators so far point to this exact scenario. They were already well aware that the glideslope beacon was not functioning, so he was forced to do a manual approach, perhaps only using his VOR beacon for lateral navigation onto the runway centreline. But judgeing by the skid marks at the first contact point, he was off centre anyway by a good third of the runway width.

I would suggest, that his long haul flying days are over. Perhaps flying cargo haulers is all that he will be allowed to do.

[unstuck]

Will tell what type of person he is I guess if he does fly again then, I would think that after something like this though, that someone in a position to do so would ground him. Maybe a few more years training before being allowed to fly a comercial airliner would be a good idea.:niceone:

[5150]

Will tell what type of person he is I guess if he does fly again then, I would think that after something like this though, that someone in a position to do so would ground him. Maybe a few more years training before being allowed to fly a comercial airliner would be a good idea.:niceone:

I would say, that even if ih is allowed to fly anything, he will be on a minimum 6 to 12 mnth simulator training before he gets airbourne. Judging by his airmanship, this had nothing to do with him having minimum hours on the T7. This is down to poor planning and execution. I would even go as far as saying that had he be flying any other aircraft that day into KSFO, be it 737, or 747, the end result would have been the same. Nothing to do with the 777, as the principles of flying and navigation are the same, no matter what you fly.

[unstuck]

I have also got to wonder if he was a trainee, why there was not a senior officer sitting next to him keeping an eye on things.:wacko:

[5150]

I have also got to wonder if he was a trainee, why there was not a senior officer sitting next to him keeping an eye on things.:wacko:

Funny thing is that pilot flying (trainee) has loged lots of hours on other types of aircraft, and that he was only finishing his conversion course onto the 777. So he was by no means "fresh" pilot. He has flown 747s before, but never into San Fran. He should have known better. And yes, there was a pilot monitoring with more hours on the type that was suppose to be monitoring the PIC. Why he did not react in time, and took over, rather then just call for speed is anybodys guess.

[unstuck]

Funny thing is that pilot flying (trainee) has loged lots of hours on other types of aircraft, and that he was only finishing his conversion course onto the 777. So he was by no means "fresh" pilot. He has flown 747s before, but never into San Fran. He should have known better. And yes, there was a pilot monitoring with more hours on the type that was suppose to be monitoring the PIC. Why he did not react in time, and took over, rather then just call for speed is anybodys guess.

Fresh member of the mile high club perhaps.:devil2:

[5150]

Latest from the AV Herald :

On Jul 8th 2013 the NTSB reported the pilots' flight bags and charts were located, the proper (approach) charts for San Francisco Airport were in place at the cockpit. There were 4 pilots on board of the aircraft, they are being interviewed on Jul 8th. The cockpit was documented and the switch positions identified. Both engines were delivering power at time of impact consistent with the flight data recordings, the right hand engine found adjacent to the fuselage showed evidence of high rotation at impact. The aircraft joined a 17nm final, the crew reported the runway in sight before being handed off to tower. The autopilot was disconnected at 1600 feet 82 seconds prior to impact, the aircraft descended through 1400 feet at 170 KIAS 73 seconds prior to impact, descended through 1000 feet at 149 KIAS 54 seconds, 500 feet at 134 KIAS 34 seconds, 200 feet at 118 KIAS 16 seconds prior to impact. At 125 feet and 112 KIAS the thrust levers were advanced and the engines began to spool up 8 seconds prior to impact, the aircraft reached a minimum speed of 103 KIAS 3 seconds prior to impact and accelerated to 106 knots. The vertical profile needs to be assessed first. There was debris from the sea wall thrown several hundred feet towards the runway, a significant portion of the tail is ahead of the sea wall in the water.

On Jul 8th 2013 South Korea's Ministry of Transport reported the captain (43, ATPL, 9,793 hours total) of the ill-fated flight was still under supervision doing his first landing into San Francisco on a Boeing 777, although he had 29 landings into San Francisco on other aircraft types before. He was supervised by a training captain with 3,220 hours on the Boeing 777, all responsibilities are with the training captain.


So it seems he has flown into KSFO before.

[bobsmith]

I have been following the information as it becomes available on the site provided by Smokeu. I was wrong about the engines, they are not RR Trents but PWs, so the possibility of fuel icing, as experienced at Heathrow, is very small. The ATC trecordings and some of the cockpit voice recordings are now available, and early indications are that the crash is entirely Pilot Error.

Although the pilot in control was still training on type, and was unable to accurately fly a visual approach, it appears that the main fault is with the type of training and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) used in Korea. Pilots there are actively discouraged from using visual approaches and manually flying the aircraft. As a result the approach started off too high and using a slam dunk approach ended up too low and too slow. It amounts to an accident due to the Korean culture, and it is very unlikely that a western trained pilot would make the same mistakes.

Ummm I don't know. Back when I was in aviation industry, training 5-6 years ago it was well known that airlines in any culture, especially some of the american airlines actively discouraged manually flying the aircraft because autopilot can fly the aircraft far more efficiently than a human can. Because of this most pilots going into busy airports with auto land capabilities were making bare minimum manual landings and getting practices. I don't think this problem is limited to any one culture...

[edit] - even so still finding it difficult to understand how a pilot with 10,000 hours supervised by another pilot with 3000+ hours on the type completely stuffed up a visual approach with PAPI working. From what 5150 said just above it does look like they were on a very steep approach with speed reducing fairly quickly. Between the two pilots, someone should have seen things getting out of shape well before the go around was called.

[unstuck]

I think when I hear the word Trainee, that he must of been sort of green. But if he had many hours on other aircraft it alters that image somewhat. Still, I think it was extremely lucky that he did not kill them all. Dont think I would be flying again if I was him. Not without going back to the basics and relearning a few things.

[5150]

Ummm I don't know. Back when I was in aviation industry, training 5-6 years ago it was well known that airlines in any culture, especially some of the american airlines actively discouraged manually flying the aircraft because autopilot can fly the aircraft far more efficiently than a human can. Because of this most pilots going into busy airports with auto land capabilities were making bare minimum manual landings and getting practices. I don't think this problem is limited to any one culture...

[edit] - even so still finding it difficult to understand how a pilot with 10,000 hours supervised by another pilot with 3000+ hours on the type completely stuffed up a visual approach with PAPI working. From what 5150 said just above it does look like they were on a very steep approach with speed reducing fairly quickly. Between the two pilots, someone should have seen things getting out of shape well before the go around was called.

Unless visibility is a factor, we been taught to manually fly the aircraft from 1000 feet down. Most I known have been waiting untill 500 ft callout before disconnecting autopilot, allowing for stable approach. Different airlines have different SOP's for this procedure, as well as different airfields will have different approach procedures. In this case, the approach was never stabilised.

[Jantar]

..... In this case, the approach was never stabilised.

And that is the main point. Even in a light aircraft this would be a good reason to go around.

[5150]

And that is the main point. Even in a light aircraft this would be a good reason to go around.

I think this case is not so much of what happened, because we know, but why it happened. Why did both pilots allowed unstabilised approach to continue without going around. More importantly, why did the training pilot did not see the cues and did not call out for speed much earlier. I think those will be the questions asked at the inquiry. PIC was preocupied with flying and trying to get the a/c back on glideslope, but the pilot monitoring should have seen that the airspeed was dropping rapidly, and should have called out way before 200ft mark. He would have seen the speed decaying rapidly at about 1000-1400 feet, but did not raised any concerns with the PIC

[Drew]

If nothing else, this thread is teaching me lots of technical terms, to use in wrong contexts for the rest of my life:niceone:

[5150]

If nothing else, this thread is teaching me lots of technical terms, to use in wrong contexts for the rest of my life:niceone:

And here I was thinking that aviation and motorcycling had alot in common. For instance, it takes a a wrong decision and split seccond for things to go horribly wrong in either :laugh:

[unstuck]

But at least on a bike or in a car, you can pull over if your motor shits itself. :shit:

[Drew]

But at least on a bike or in a car, you can pull over if your motor shits itself. :shit:Bet a 777 tries to "pull over" if one engine shits itself too!

[5150]

Bet a 777 tries to "pull over" if one engine shits itself too!

Naah, it keeps flying. But if the seccond one shits it self, then they are fucked. Well, almost. Look at the Hudson river landing :bleh:

[bobsmith]

Naah, it keeps flying. But if the seccond one shits it self, then they are fucked. Well, almost. Look at the Hudson river landing :bleh:

Or you get to join the Galunggung Gliding Club... :whistle:

[unstuck]

Slightly off topic here but........ If you like gliders, watch the glider flight into milford sound sometime. Tis on ewwwtube.:crazy::sweatdrop

[gammaguy]

ironically,the two confirmed fatalities from this crash seem to have been run over by the fire truck racing to the crash scene,so officially it may go down as a road accident

[Drew]

ironically,the two confirmed fatalities from this crash seem to have been run over by the fire truck racing to the crash scene,so officially it may go down as a road accidentSomeone said something similar earlier in the thread. How the fucken hell does that even happen?!!!

[unstuck]

Someone said something similar earlier in the thread. How the fucken hell does that even happen?!!!

I think they got thrown clear, they were down the tail end, and all the smoke and shit, possibilty for something like that is unfortunate but quite possible I would imagine.

[gammaguy]

Someone said something similar earlier in the thread. How the fucken hell does that even happen?!!!

something like this:

teenagers in tail section of plane-tail section of plane breaks off with said teenagers still inside-teenagers end up on runway behind plane-following fire truck didnt see ya mate

squashed teenagers

very sad ,very ironic

[Jantar]

Or you get to join the Galunggung Gliding Club... :whistle:
For Boeing the Gimli Gliding Club would be a better choice. http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

[Drew]

Think of it from poor teenage girls point of view.

"Howry shit, I'm ariiiiive"!...Thud!

I'm in a strange mood today, but I'm really finding my head turning inside out, at how fucken unlucky that shit is!

[5150]

Or you get to join the Galunggung Gliding Club... :whistle:

Wasn't that the 747 BA flight that flew into the ash cloud back in the 80's?

[Swoop]

Slightly off topic here but........ If you like gliders, watch the glider flight into milford sound sometime. Tis on ewwwtube.:crazy::sweatdrop
Watched that a little while back. Impressive and "weird" both at once!

Wasn't that the 747 BA flight that flew into the ash cloud back in the 80's?
Yup.

[unstuck]

For Boeing the Gimli Gliding Club would be a better choice. http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

What an amazing story, cheers for that. WOW:niceone:

[gammaguy]

tail strike in planes is allowed for,but this was beyond expectations


http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01511/sanfranciso_1511085f.jpg


of course the Chinese themselves are not beyond reproach.....

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/421718487_f23290bf41.jpg

[Scouse]

something like this:

teenagers in tail section of plane-tail section of plane breaks off with said teenagers still inside-teenagers end up on runway behind plane-following fire truck didnt see ya mate

squashed teenagers

very sad ,very ironicNot quite like that if you saw the initial pictures of the plane after the crash landing the rear pressure dome was still in place attached to the fusalage so when the tail section came free it would not have had any passengers strapped into it because the passengers are on the other side of the pressure dome.