|
plgElwood,
The "bitching" that you speak of is the fact that regulatory agencies such as the European EASA, the Canadian Transport Canada, and the American FAA certify that a fully occupied airliner should be able to be 100% evacuated in 90 seconds. Anyone who stops to get their luggage is preventing this from occurring, thereby putting others at risk.
On July 07 2013 16:54 plgElwood wrote:
Is there ANY rumor about someone getting hurt by the ones who secured their bags? I guess not.
There is no "rumor" necessary. The regulations exist for a reason, and that is to prevent people from getting hurt.
Also, fire in an aircraft can and will get hot enough to melt aluminum, hence the top of the plane burning down. I would hope their wouldn't be any idiots preventing me, at the back of the plane, from getting out in less than a minute and a half.
|
terrible accident but hope it doesnt turn people off using their services in the future. still my favourite airline at least
|
People don't have to be busy "being selfish" when they took their luggage with them, it's highly likely that they were under shock and just did it because it seemed the most obvious thing to do.
I've seen people in totaled car accidents freak out over their CD collection which was the only thing that came to mind for the guy for about half an hour. Took him that long to realize that his gf was on her way to the hospital since they were recovered.
|
Canada8031 Posts
On July 07 2013 16:54 plgElwood wrote:
I would probably get my luggage too. I dont understand the bitching at all. I would scared as hell and would not know how I act. Probably just grab my stuff and get out, not realizing what has just happend.
Is there ANY rumor about someone getting hurt by the ones who secured their bags? I guess not.
I would like to know why the top of the plane burned down ??!? For my understanding, it landed without landinggear, spun around, lost it´s tail, but never was upside down.
There's a couple reasons why getting your luggage is a stupid thing to do. First, you risk clogging up the aisles and impeding the movement of others. Second, how are you going to get that bulky piece of luggage down the emergency slide, and how long is that going to take? Third, it'd take up space on the slide for a water landing. Safety is paramount in emergency situations, which is why you're never supposed to take anything to the exits.
In this particular case, it probably didn't result in injury to others, but it was still a hugely selfish move.
|
|
|
On July 07 2013 16:54 plgElwood wrote:
I would probably get my luggage too. I dont understand the bitching at all. I would scared as hell and would not know how I act. Probably just grab my stuff and get out, not realizing what has just happend.
Is there ANY rumor about someone getting hurt by the ones who secured their bags? I guess not.
I would like to know why the top of the plane burned down ??!? For my understanding, it landed without landinggear, spun around, lost it´s tail, but never was upside down.
There aren't such rumors because thankfully, 99% of the passengers aren't complete idiots and selfish to do such things. Imagine if most passengers decided to get their luggage out during an emergency. Suddenly the total surface area (surface area of each passenger + objects that take up surface space) on the floor to evacuate expands 50% - 100% (an average person's surface area on the floor is equivalent to one luggage). That's not counting the idle time that occurs with the line of passengers waiting on others to unload their luggage out of the bins and for people to position their luggage in order to slide down.
|
time for the internet commentators to pass judgement on the people involved in this disaster.
|
We are only attempting to generalize their actions for the purpose of discourse; I don't think any one of us would choose to walk up to a traumatized survivor holding a bag to scold them on their actions. It just so happens that in general, such actions probably should be judged as having a negative impact on the overall outcome.
edit: Who knows, If those people died because they were on the plane for too long after it crashed, then most likely this will be incorporated into the accident report- Judgement at an official level.
|
I never argued that it is indeed stupid to delay evacuation of the plane to get your bag.
I just don´t call those people selfish or make up cases in wich their behaviour would have had fatal consequences.
They were all close to death, behaving non-rational after such experience should not be called selfish.
I don´t judge the behavior of people I don´t know, who have experienced situations I have not enough knowledge about just by a picture wich is not related in a timeline.
Edit:
The engine might be cause for the fire, but it still looks strange. Rather like the cabin itself got on fire and burned hotter where air could come in. Of course the roof would be the hottest and melt. I guess the passengers of these sections were evacuated before the collapse of the roof.
I seemed strange to me that the roof collapsed from with people aboard, who survived this section of the plane.
Edit:
+ Show Spoiler +
I guess the right engine just burned under an exit ( second exit in right site)
|
Being an unemployed airline pilot myself (currently working in operations at a large airliner) I follow this news closely. For news on crashes always check out the website below, best website in the business, maybe c&p this in the OP for people who want mostly factual and technical information
http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0
|
No use arguing, so lets list some facts:
1. Asiana Flight 214 was evacuated after a crash landing at SFO.
2. Some people retrieved luggage during the evacuation of flight 214.
3. It is indeed stupid to retrieve luggage during an evacuation.
4. Occupants with a good grasp of the situation should ensure swift flow of the evacuation, this includes crew and passengers
There is nothing wrong with having an opinion on peoples' actions and discussing it in an adult fashion. It is easier to say I don't judge than to engage in a discussion about cause and effect.
edit: Prox's link does indeed list some factual information about the accident, some of the comments even have technical information (although you should take all information with a grain of salt)
|
What may be the cause of the crash
|
-A similar accident involving the 777 happened at London Heathrow. It was caused by icing in the fuel-oil heat exchanger, causing a loss of thrust.
-Pilots often hand-fly the final approach. It is possible that he simply flew it too slow (or fast) and too low to the ground, and in an attempt to pull up, the tail struck the ground.
-A failure of either the plane's or the runway's automated Instrument landing system (unlikely) causing the aircraft to be too low.
-Bird ingestion causing power loss immediately before landing.
I should think there are a few more possibilities.
|
My instinct tells me an inexperienced pilot who is too used to landing with ILS that was not available, and landed it short. First fatal airline on US soil in over three years too.
|
An unlikely scenario:
All static ports become blocked causing incorrect airspeed information as the plane descends. With the pitot pressure increasing in relation to the now constant static pressure, the air data computer reads an airspeed that is higher than the actual airspeed, causing the auto-throttles to retard or the pilot to retard the throttles, leading to a stall.
Chance of this being the cause: 1 in 100000000000
|
On July 07 2013 18:23 Prox wrote:Being an unemployed airline pilot myself (currently working in operations at a large airliner) I follow this news closely. For news on crashes always check out the website below, best website in the business, maybe c&p this in the OP for people who want mostly factual and technical information http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0
Yeah, I posted that link earlier in the thread.
Another link with more discussed technical information is this one:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5809480
There it was said that the ILS system was in fact not in operation and a visual approach had to be flown.
Someone also compared speed and altitude flightaware data with two flights (red=ANA8, green=UAL852) landing just before this one (blue=Asiana), and results show a rather steep approach which was likely overcompensated at the last minute.
+ Show Spoiler [plotted charts] +![[image loading]](http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/oly720man/speed.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/oly720man/altitude.jpg) With all caveats about the accuracy of flightaware data, & the following may be a red herring, I've plotted the altitude and speed for the Asiana aircraft along with ANA8 (77W) and UAL852 (772) that arrived shortly earlier, all vs latitude. T/D is the nominal touchdown point on the runway (37 36'45" = 37.6125) .
What stands out is that the Asiana aircraft is about 300ft higher than the other 2 aircraft until about 1500ft where the speed is reduced and keeps on reducing.
On July 07 2013 18:41 FlyingFalap wrote:
-A similar accident involving the 777 happened at London Heathrow. It was caused by icing in the fuel-oil heat exchanger, causing a loss of thrust.
-Pilots often hand-fly the final approach. It is possible that he simply flew it too slow and too low to the ground, and in an attempt to pull up, the tail struck the ground.
-A failure of either the plane's or the runway's automated Instrument landing system (unlikely) causing the aircraft to be too low.
-Bird ingestion causing power loss immediately before landing.
I should think there are a few more possibilities.
In that other incident the problem was found in the engines (Rolls Royce) which were subsequently re-designed. The Asiana Boeing 777 has different engines (Pratt & Whitney) afaik.
As the ILS system was down, everything points toward a hand-flown final approach which then proved to be too slow and too low. Passengers reported hearing the engine(s) roar after the first hit and then felt the plane seesawing nose to tail (at the end of which the tail violently strikes the ground and separates).
|
I know the Heathrow aircraft was using the Rolls Royce engine, and yes, Rolls did redesign the fuel-oil heat exchanger after that.
Asiana was flying the Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engine. As this engine was not included in the Rolls Royce redesign, who's to say that it did not incur the same icing issue that the Rolls did?
My money is still on low and slow.
|
On July 07 2013 19:25 Proseat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 18:23 Prox wrote:Being an unemployed airline pilot myself (currently working in operations at a large airliner) I follow this news closely. For news on crashes always check out the website below, best website in the business, maybe c&p this in the OP for people who want mostly factual and technical information http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0 Yeah, I posted that link earlier in the thread. Another link with more discussed technical information is this one: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5809480There it was said that the ILS system was in fact not in operation and a visual approach had to be flown. Someone also compared speed and altitude flightaware data with two flights (ANA8, UAL852) landing just before this one (Asiana), and results show a rather steep approach which was likely overcompensated at the last minute. + Show Spoiler [plotted charts] +With all caveats about the accuracy of flightaware data, & the following may be a red herring, I've plotted the altitude and speed for the Asiana aircraft along with ANA8 (77W) and UAL852 (772) that arrived shortly earlier, all vs latitude. T/D is the nominal touchdown point on the runway (37 36'45" = 37.6125) .
What stands out is that the Asiana aircraft is about 300ft higher than the other 2 aircraft until about 1500ft where the speed is reduced and keeps on reducing. Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 18:41 FlyingFalap wrote:
-A similar accident involving the 777 happened at London Heathrow. It was caused by icing in the fuel-oil heat exchanger, causing a loss of thrust.
-Pilots often hand-fly the final approach. It is possible that he simply flew it too slow and too low to the ground, and in an attempt to pull up, the tail struck the ground.
-A failure of either the plane's or the runway's automated Instrument landing system (unlikely) causing the aircraft to be too low.
-Bird ingestion causing power loss immediately before landing.
I should think there are a few more possibilities. In that other incident the problem was found in the engines (Rolls Royce) which were subsequently re-designed. The Asiana Boing 777 has different engines (Pratt & Whitney) afaik. As the ILS system was down, everything points toward a hand-flown final approach which then proved to be too slow and too low. Passengers reported hearing the engine(s) roar after the first hit and then felt the plane seesawing nose to tail (at the end of which the tail violently strikes the ground and separates).
... Simon, is that you? Let me echo that AVHerald.com is probably the best site in existence for impartial and factual reporting of aviation incidents falling within its purview. (And the comments on such incidents, while still having the occassional troll or idiot, are pretty intelligent on average.)
Kindof confused by some posts in this thread making reference to a "no landing gear" landing - the debris field strongly suggests that the landing gear were in fact down and locked but that the aircraft came down with enough force to essentially shear them off. (One gear was in the water, one on the runway threshhold, the nose gear was on the runway.)
The information right now casts some doubt on the pilots' landing execution but we haven't seen the FDR or CVR read outs yet, much less the modeling that the NTSB will be peforming. It's possible something else caused the aircraft to stall (bird ingestion, or with the engines that low maybe a fish for all I know) or a fuel issue, but the simplest explanation that fits the data available points to pilot error - flying in too low and too fast, then overcorrection on the speed with extra flair (rotation) causing the tail to impact the sea wall. That in turn causes the rest of the aircraft to pitch forward violently, bringing it down with enough force to collapse the gear and completely shear off the remaining tail while the main cabin slides forward. The port engine may have taken a heavy hit on impact as well, since it appears to have mostly disintegrated (the starboard engine is visible but not the port in most photographs) and the lack of fuel at the end of a long flight helped to keep the fire down while the passengers evacuated. (And yes, don't grab your bags. Anything that impedes you or the rest of the people getting off increases the risk for everyone. Kudos to the flight attendants and passengers for getting everyone out before the fire really got going.)
Another possible reason for the specific burning of the roof of the aircraft hasn't been mentioned, but the burn pattern shown is something that matches a lot of other crashes. Speculatively, I think that the strong fire along the top of the aircraft could be related to the positioning of emergency oxygen canisters - aren't they normally placed above the passenger cabin to feed the breathing masks?
There are a number of tail strikes on landing over the course of a year - most planes that are in danger of a tail strike come with a "strike pad" on the fuselage which is just to keep the impact damage to a minimum. I'm pretty sure that this kind of impact would be well beyond that kind of protection, and even then a tail strike can cause severe damage up to and including a total write-off of the airframe because of buckled structure.
Hope everyone that was injured recovers quickly, and my condolences to the families of the two deceased.
Edit: Looking at the map of the aircraft layout, it looks like the engine was snuggled up next to the galley area - could that have made it easier for the fire to get going from the engine fire?
|
|
|
Looks like a lot of bad stuff happens lately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2013/07/06/fb/ca/crash1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2013/07/06/3e/2c/crash9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2013/07/06/a4/90/crash10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sitzplan.net/mediawiki/images/7/7e/Boeing_777_200_sitzplan_b.gif)
