| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
On July 08 2013 10:59 ZeaL. wrote: Holy crap, after watching the video I'm amazed more people didn't die. I'm also amazed the plane didn't just disintegrate after doing a 180 on the left wing. I am also shocked that more people didn't die. Wow. I can't imagine what that must have been like. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 08 2013 12:31 BlueBird. wrote: I am also shocked that more people didn't die. Wow. I can't imagine what that must have been like. Yeah it explains why some people though the plane flipped over it looked like it almost did | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On July 08 2013 07:01 Excludos wrote: "oh whoa, you're filming it! You're filming it. You're filming the whole thing!" Is that really a normal reaction to a planecrash? Thank god we got it on tape? Welcome to the age of social media. Didn't you see the initial picture taken by one of the passengers, in which you could see several other passengers taking pictures as well? 15 years ago, people reactions would be "I GOTTA GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!" nowadays it's "I GOTTA GET THIS SHIT ON MY PHONE!" | ||
|
Ianuus
Australia349 Posts
On July 08 2013 11:09 maartendq wrote: I agree. I would probably quickly grab my bag as well. Granted, I never take a lot of hand luggage with me (just a bag with my tablet and some books and whatnot) and I always stow it under the seats. Besides, in high-risk situations, instincts tend to take over and people don't think clearly anymore. Edit: pretty funny that people scold those women for 'not acting rationally'. Here is some advice: noone, except highly trained individuals, reacts rationally in lifethreatening situations. The normal human reaction is to grab whatever valuables you can get your hands on, be it luggage or a child, and get the fuck out. This happens instinctively, i.e. you don't think, you just act. I highly doubt that the luggage the woman was carrying was just lying around. A bag of that size would have to be stored in the overhead luggage compartments - it's somewhat hard to believe that getting up, going to your locker while blocking everyone else's way, then getting your bag is "acting on instinct". | ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On the topic of getting luggage. They shouldn't be. Flight crew should encourage them not to. I can see how they can be defended, but they really shouldn't get their luggage. I don't care how human instinct works. It is a problem. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 08 2013 07:01 Excludos wrote: "oh whoa, you're filming it! You're filming it. You're filming the whole thing!" Is that really a normal reaction to a planecrash? Thank god we got it on tape? It's a possible reaction, in times of stress people tend to tunnel vision on one aspect of a situation, like this woman here. That video is pretty valuable actually. | ||
|
logikly
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
- The aircraft was indeed coming in much too slow than it should have been. - The pilot at the controls had not completed his training (the company was training him). - The pilot had attempted to go around (he had asked/informed the tower of this decision). - It's quite possible that one of the victims died due to being run over by emergency vehicles. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
"Flight logs, published by the website Flightaware.com, show that the Asiana flight appeared to be approaching San Francisco International a bit fast at just below 2,000 feet elevation, going about 38 knots faster than an Asiana Boeing 777 the previous day. By 1,400 feet altitude, the plane had slowed but was still going 17 knots faster. But by 600 feet altitude, the Asiana flight had slowed significantly to 130 knots, now 32 knots slower than the flight the day before." So that one said the plane was coming in too fast then became too slow. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5740 Posts
So one the one hand its airspeed was too low (as you approach the runway you need to throttle up to make more lift to stop your rate of descent). On the other hand, it was going too fast in terms of its descent/sink rate, which is why it impacted on the seawall. Also, looking at one approach the day before is purely anecdotal; it doesn't establish that the approach was unusual or if so in what ways it was unusual besides what we already know: it crashed, which didn't happen the day before. Here are two pictures with some more information. https://twitter.com/DaveMcLauchlan/status/353665230104039425/photo/1 https://twitter.com/DaveMcLauchlan/status/353692745958830080/photo/1 | ||
|
Gonff
United States686 Posts
On July 08 2013 23:08 oBlade wrote: It would be accurate to say it was going too slow or it was going too fast. It depends how you characterize a descent that was too steep. So one the one hand its airspeed was too low (as you approach the runway you need to throttle up to make more lift to stop your rate of descent). On the other hand, it was going too fast in terms of its descent/sink rate, which is why it impacted on the seawall. Also, looking at one approach the day before is purely anecdotal; it doesn't establish that the approach was unusual or if so in what ways it was unusual besides what we already know: it crashed, which didn't happen the day before. Here are two pictures with some more information. https://twitter.com/DaveMcLauchlan/status/353665230104039425/photo/1 https://twitter.com/DaveMcLauchlan/status/353692745958830080/photo/1 That was a really helpful explanation, thank you. I was thinking to myself, "how could the plane be going both too fast and too sl--oh there's oBlade's post." It's a tragedy that two people died, but I think the Boeing engineers and the Asiana flight attendants are heroes for making sure that number isn't higher. That plane hit the ground reeeally hard and it stayed together just enough to keep the vast majority of its passengers alive and able to walk. I don't know anything about aerospace engineering but I do know that planes generally don't stay together that well when they crash into the ground like that, so props to Boeing. Regarding the flight attendants, apparently the head attendant was the last person off the plane because she was rescuing passengers, and she did it all with a broken tailbone. source: http://news.yahoo.com/asiana-attendant-describes-dramatic-evacuation-101658097.html | ||
|
twndomn
401 Posts
| ||
|
RezChi
Canada2368 Posts
On July 08 2013 12:31 BlueBird. wrote: I am also shocked that more people didn't die. Wow. I can't imagine what that must have been like. Planes are actually VERY safe. It's safer when you're on a plane then actually getting to the airport. When these things happen it's usually pilot error then the plane itself actually at fault. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On July 09 2013 09:50 RezChi wrote: Planes are actually VERY safe. It's safer when you're on a plane then actually getting to the airport. When these things happen it's usually pilot error then the plane itself actually at fault. Planes are quite safe until you (through error, accident, or omission) run them into the ground. One estimate from the airliners.net crowd was that the difference between this outcome and the 50%+ fatality outcome may have been a few feet in altitude. | ||
|
RezChi
Canada2368 Posts
On July 09 2013 09:56 Lysenko wrote: Planes are quite safe until you (through error, accident, or omission) run them into the ground. One estimate from the airliners.net crowd was that the difference between this outcome and the 50%+ fatality outcome may have been a few feet in altitude. Big commercial planes are so dummy- pilot proof now that for those terrible fatality outcomes, the pilot has to mess up BIG time or the plane breaks apart in mid-flight. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On July 09 2013 10:14 RezChi wrote: Big commercial planes are so dummy- pilot proof now that for those terrible fatality outcomes, the pilot has to mess up BIG time or the plane breaks apart in mid-flight. While there will be plenty of time for investigators to confirm and clarify, I would say that this particular "rough landing," under VFR conditions, on a calm, sunny day, will likely result in a determination that "the pilot ... mess[ed] up BIG time." | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pilots-missing-control-systems-led-to-san-francisco-crash-a-909956.html#ref=nl-international | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 09 2013 10:14 RezChi wrote: Big commercial planes are so dummy- pilot proof now that for those terrible fatality outcomes, the pilot has to mess up BIG time or the plane breaks apart in mid-flight. Ridiculous, there has never been a dummy-pilot proof aircraft, unless we're talking about drones. The pilot's training is extremely important when considering security. As proven in this case where an accident occurred through pilot error on what is considered one of the safest airlines ever made. Here is a pretty famous example of a good pilot pretty much saving the day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 (imo calling it a miracle is stupid, the pilot was highly competent, a former Phantom pilot iirc) Edit: On July 09 2013 10:51 Lysenko wrote: Here, by the way, is an interesting article from Der Spiegel, talking about the challenges of landing at SFO without electronic aids. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pilots-missing-control-systems-led-to-san-francisco-crash-a-909956.html#ref=nl-international That article is fucking gold. This actually explains quite a lot. The key to any successful landing is having a successful approach. You need to be on the correct glide scope, which is the same for most aircraft. Being low on the glide scope means that you can hit the runway early than you meant to, or even hit before the runway. That's probably what happened. Being high on the runway means you can overshoot. On touchdown, you may not have enough runway to stop the aircraft in time. That's why almost every airport has a system that allows pilots to find the glide scope and stick to it. It can be a PAPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_approach_path_indicator) or an ILS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system). Or both. But not having something there to help the pilot find the glide scope was definitely an ingredient in this disaster. | ||
|
Derity
Germany2952 Posts
| ||
|
Butterednuts
United States859 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 mouzHeroMarine StarCraft: Brood War 556IndyStarCraft  139ProTech80 Railgan  74BRAT_OK  69trigger  31MindelVK 26Codebar 20JuggernautJason9 Rain Dota 2 1360hero  321Leta  258Larva 185Mini 168Hyun 130Dewaltoss 86Mong 63sas.Sziky 26Movie 20[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
|
|
|
EPT
