Quantcast

Boeing 777 has crashed and burned landing at SFO

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
15,404
4,741
directly above the center of the earth
07-06) 12:33 PDT San Francisco -- A Boeing 777 jetliner bound from Seoul, South Korea, crashed and caught fire while landing at San Francisco International Airport at about 11:30 Saturday.

The plane, Asiana Flight 214, came to rest on the side of the runway. The airport remains closed to all traffic and emergency teams are on the scene.

No information is available about whether the airplane was carrying passengers or on the condition of anyone aboard.
290 passengers and 12 crew were aboard

 
Last edited:

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
32,685
3,425
initial reports say the plane hit tail first which caused it to rip off the fuselage
came in too low...plane hits edge of jetty...debris in water....from edge of water down the fvcking runway.

just going by the news.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,947
2,258
AK
Due to construction, the instrument landing system on that runway has been out of service. There are GPS approaches they are using though, and the aircraft flight management computer should still generate an approach path that is essentially the same thing as the instrument landing system, so unless they set up something wrong, it's unlikely that the ILS being out itself is the cause, but it's definitely going to be one of the first things that's looked at. Big aircraft like that don't really fly clear-day "visual" approaches, even though they can and they practice them in the simulator, even on clear-days they usually follow an instrument approach of some kind to ensure they are on the correct approach path, descent rate, etc. Landing big aircraft like that simply from visual indications gets quite tricky.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
85
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Watching on CNN now. **** yeah. And THIS ladies and gentlemen is the result of stringent airworthiness regulations and the result design requiremts. Just like the air France incident in Toronto a few years back. Major Incidents with newer aircraft resulting in almost no fatalities? This is proof that the system works.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,947
2,258
AK
Watching on CNN now. **** yeah. And THIS ladies and gentlemen is the result of stringent airworthiness regulations and the result design requiremts. Just like the air France incident in Toronto a few years back. Major Incidents with newer aircraft resulting in almost no fatalities? This is proof that the system works.
Yeah, that part amazes me too. Most people think flight attendants are there to serve drinks, but they are really there to throw your a$$ out the door in the event of something like this. Being able to evacuate a large airplane in less than 90 seconds (the standard) is pretty amazing. Although there's still much that likely went wrong, survivability has increased dramatically in the last 10-20 years. Mos people don't think about seats much, but a seat failing is absolutely unacceptable and can turn something that should be survivable into something that kills. There are some amazing fire-rescue vehicles that pierce the fuselage with a big spike and then spray foam like crazy and fill it with the stuff so no fire can burn. Those guys train their a$$es off too.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
15,078
1,792
Colorado
Sounds like pilot error. JM is probably right on the tech stuff noted above. Even still, he should be able to land without the electronic aid.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,947
2,258
AK
Sounds like pilot error. JM is probably right on the tech stuff noted above. Even still, he should be able to land without the electronic aid.
Should being the operative word, if they weren't used to programming and flying RNAV approaches, or they thought they had something programmed that they didn't or they were just downright unable to fly with no electronic aids (not all that unlikely) then their actions could have caused it. The phrase "human error" is used a lot, but it often doesn't mean humans were intentionally trying to screw up. Humans are not very reliable "machines" and even when they are trying their best, they still mess up. We'll wait and see of course. Investigating plane crashes is my job :)
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
37,478
4,328
Sleazattle
Tomorrow is my fathers birthday. When I give him a call I expect to be lectured on how this is Obama's fault for at least one hour.
 

eric strt6

Resident Curmudgeon
Sep 8, 2001
15,404
4,741
directly above the center of the earth
Per the NTSB from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders , the pilots said nothing about any issues until 7 seconds before impact when one of them said increase speed. At 1.7 seconds before impact they attempted to abort and go around. Normal landing airspeed is 138 kts the data recorder indicated it was significantly below that ( near stall speed). My wife, the pilot, said in those conditions, if they pulled up the nose at all without a speed increase its stall and impact time
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
85
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
The guy who watched it crash said that it's possible that if the nose hadn't been so high, the tail might have missed the seawall. ....the plane would not have been stalling, it would have been going faster. It sill may not have been pretty, but who knows...it might have been way less ugly.

the lesson? Never flinch.
 
Last edited:

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Interestingly the post crash fire didn't seem to orginate at the wings, where the fuel and hot things are. I'll be super curious how the fire in the cabin started. While it was bad I can only imagine how bad it would have been had 25.853/.856 not been complied with..........YIKES!!!
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
29,560
5,030
Riding the baggage carousel.
Interestingly the post crash fire didn't seem to orginate at the wings, where the fuel and hot things are. I'll be super curious how the fire in the cabin started.
Avionics or batteries? I don't know how the 777 is laid out. It sounds like the gear got ripped out so only teh FSM knows how sh*t got knocked around while power was still applied.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Avionics or batteries? I don't know how the 777 is laid out. It sounds like the gear got ripped out so only teh FSM knows how sh*t got knocked around while power was still applied.
Read one eye witness (yeah yeah I know) that said there was a second explosion a minute or so after the aircraft came to a stop.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,701
290
VT

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,947
2,258
AK
Interestingly the post crash fire didn't seem to orginate at the wings, where the fuel and hot things are. I'll be super curious how the fire in the cabin started. While it was bad I can only imagine how bad it would have been had 25.853/.856 not been complied with..........YIKES!!!
Actually, the fuel and hot things pump air into the fuselage, this has distributed fire like you wouldn't believe in ground-accidents in the past. One I seem to recall was a DC-9 or variant thereof. The pneumatic system spread the fire from one of the engines into the cabin and many passengers died. It's plausible that the pneumatic system could distribute a fire into there if the conditions were right. Then there's also the flash-fire issue opening all of the exits with air rushing into the aircraft and fanning any flames. The fact that it burned the top like that would draw me to the pneumatic system though. Since everything is largely intact it should be fairly easy to determine.
 
Last edited: