EPTInfo is just coming in now, so there is limited information available. The flight apparently came in from Seoul, South Korea.
http://abcnews.go.com/Live/
Here is a live stream of what's going on now.
I hope everyone got out
Plane Crash at SFO (Asiana Airlines)
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CtrLZerG
United States104 Posts
Info is just coming in now, so there is limited information available. The flight apparently came in from Seoul, South Korea. http://abcnews.go.com/Live/ Here is a live stream of what's going on now. I hope everyone got out | ||
|
Fusa
Canada148 Posts
| ||
|
Carti
United Kingdom19 Posts
| ||
|
andrewnguyener
United States548 Posts
Hope there weren't a lot of people on board. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
Thrax
Canada1755 Posts
A Samsung executive was on board, He tweeted https://twitter.com/Eunner David Eun @Eunner 27m I just crash landed at SFO. Tail ripped off. Most everyone seems fine. I'm ok. Surreal... (at @flySFO) [pic] — https://path.com/p/1lwrZb | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5740 Posts
| ||
|
iMrising
United States1099 Posts
That could have been me | ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
This reminds me so much of the show Mayday on the Discovery channel... also, they are extremely lucky that the tail dropped at the airport, firefighters and ambulances must have been alerted pretty quickly I suppose, imagine if it separated above urban areas or something...! | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On July 07 2013 04:49 sorrowptoss wrote: How the hell did the tail separate from the fuselage? O_O This reminds me so much of the show Mayday on the Discovery channel... also, they are extremely lucky that the tail dropped at the airport, firefighters and ambulances must have been alerted pretty quickly I suppose, imagine if it separated above urban areas or something...! Sounds as if during landing the tail hit first. "Dropped" sounds like a poor choice of words, you can see the tail section still on the runway while the rest of the plane skidded of the runway. | ||
|
Msr
Korea (South)495 Posts
| ||
|
Jaeger
United States1150 Posts
| ||
|
Windows 7
United States236 Posts
| ||
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 07 2013 04:52 feanor1 wrote: Sounds as if during landing the tail hit first. "Dropped" sounds like a poor choice of words, you can see the tail section still on the runway while the rest of the plane skidded of the runway. This has just been confirmed on the stream, the tail did hit first. It sounds as if (from stream) that the angle of attack was way too high during approach? Did it perhaps stall? It's really ironic because I fly in an aeroclub and just today (like literally the same time this crash happened), someone who flew before me (on a different aircraft) had actually hit the tail for that exact reason, angle of attack way too high. o_o | ||
|
Zinnwaldite
Norway1567 Posts
| ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
On July 07 2013 04:52 Msr wrote: this is pretty lucky and good compared to what could have happened. never seen this airline is it usually good? It's a major airline. It's generally fine. | ||
|
RiceAgainst
United States1849 Posts
| ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
On July 07 2013 04:48 iMrising wrote: Oh my gosh i got landed at SFO literally 14 hours ago from Istanbul. That could have been me No, it couldn't have been you. It's not the fault of the airport. It was the airplane. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 07 2013 05:00 c0ldfusion wrote: No, it couldn't have you. It's not the fault of the airport. It was the airplane. Yeah I didn't want to say anything. Glad to hear that the passengers are mostly fine. Got a bit worried by I heard about a commercial airplane crash x_x On July 07 2013 05:01 BigFan wrote: wow hope everyone is ok. From the tweet, seems like it so that's good. Wonder why the tail just fell off though :O The tail hit the runway. I wonder if it's the pilot's mistake or if some instrument screwed up or something. | ||
|
playnice
Malaysia300 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/67Xuq9h.jpg) Seems like the fire was pretty bad. Hope the report about not many people getting hurt is accurate though. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On July 07 2013 05:02 Djzapz wrote: The tail hit the runway. I wonder if it's the pilot's mistake or if some instrument screwed up or something. With only having the info that I just heard from the eye witnesses something like that is highly likely to be pilot error. Landing with the tail first can pretty much only happen when you're landing too short (aka you run into something that's in your way, before the actual runway), assumed you were higher than you actually were (pretty hard to fuck that one up) or having the wrong speed and over-correcting it during the landing. Edit: No need to panic after seeing the burned out aircraft on the stream. This picture was taken by a passenger while leaving. Should prolly be added to the OP: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uwJHNBM.jpg) | ||
|
metric.system
United States20 Posts
That was a 777 too, modern plane in a modern airport. Methinks it has to be human error. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
Another video from another angle showing that it went much better than the pictures of the aftermath make it look like: Netizen quote from over there that seems to make sense: Landing gear impacted the sea wall and aircraft pitched high to rip tail off. Pilot wasn't even near the piano keys...landed way short. Not making accusations, but you can clearly see point of impact on sea wall and tail section is completely disintegrated before piano keys. (Crappy) picture of the runway: http://cdn-www.airliners.net/uf/68376/middle/phpvgL4To.jpeg | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5740 Posts
On July 07 2013 05:02 Djzapz wrote: I wonder if it's the pilot's mistake or if some instrument screwed up or something. John Nance explained on ABC that the 777 engines have some history with ice accumulation in the fuel lines. This can cause a blockage that can lead to engine rollback or failure to respond to a throttle increase. And you need engine power during a normal approach to reduce your descent rate. If you're already descending and your engines don't respond, the only way to slow down is to change the plane's attitude (i.e., pull up and crash land tail first). | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
| ||
|
autoexec
United States530 Posts
| ||
|
Koerage
Netherlands1220 Posts
On July 07 2013 05:50 autoexec wrote: Wow. I was just flying yesterday... This is awful imagine seeing it happening while waiting for your own flight... really hope there arent many injuries, curious how it went wrong, it didnt even reach the landing strip did it? | ||
|
MaxField
United States2386 Posts
| ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
| ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:01 CoR wrote: no deaths so we have a bunch of lucky ones here ^^ 2 are confirmed dead according to my local news. | ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
audio from controller and the flight crew. | ||
|
aike
United States1629 Posts
On July 07 2013 04:58 NeoIllusions wrote: Looking at pictures so far, looks like most of the passengers are ok. But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. Well I mean... Planes don't usually look great after a crash landing? | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:10 tuho12345 wrote: http://soberbuildengineer-com.s3.amazonaws.com/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3 audio from controller and the flight crew. Also here (ATC chatter on KSFO Tower Frequency): Sounds like the tower controller did a great job as the emergency was declared. | ||
|
Craton
United States17254 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:27 Proseat wrote: Also here (ATC chatter on KSFO Tower Frequency): Sounds like the tower controller did a great job as the emergency was declared. If this is what the audio normally sounds like, I don't know how anyone makes anything out. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
To the people talking about them having to fly soon, don't you feel it is a little absurd? The time conicidence is absolutely irrelevant. If something, you should feer better seeing that emergenncy procedures are being followed. Flying is still amazingly safe. Of course, this is going to be interesting to hear the analysis of causes, but that is gonna takes weeks. | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
SoCal Fire and EMS @SoCalEMSFire 7m #SFO Newest Numbers: 2 Fatalities 61 Injured. (~15-20 Critical, remaining moderate/minor) 240 AMA/Un-injured. 2:29 PM - 6 Jul 13 · Details USA Today has pictures up showing the ripped off tail section and landing gear: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/07/06/1373142255000-AP-San-Francisco-Airliner-Crash2-1307061626_4_3_rx513_c680x510.jpg?6c3c24a06b2ec04d15c066f5e9a76a10a837ffd4) ![[image loading]](http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/07/06/1373142850004-XXX-Asiana-Airlines-Flight-214-Crash-APS-320-1307061641_4_3_rx513_c680x510.jpg?6c3c24a06b2ec04d15c066f5e9a76a10a837ffd4) | ||
|
Onegu
United States9699 Posts
| ||
|
L0L
United States176 Posts
| ||
|
mostevil
United Kingdom611 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:35 opisska wrote: This is why you should pay attention to the information about emergnecy exits in the plane (they are basically useful only in such a situation - botched, but fairly reasonable landing which invariably leads to fire, but the fuselage is moreorless intact). The reports on injuries seem still conflicting, but overall it seems like the evacuation worked well and that is important to note regarding safety. To the people talking about them having to fly soon, don't you feel it is a little absurd? The time conicidence is absolutely irrelevant. If something, you should feer better seeing that emergenncy procedures are being followed. Flying is still amazingly safe. Of course, this is going to be interesting to hear the analysis of causes, but that is gonna takes weeks. Botched may be premature assessment. Sounds like he'd radio and emergency before he came in, could be he didn't have power to reach the runway and clipped the seawall. It may well be that he did a good job in the circumstances, wait for the facts to in. | ||
|
tuestresfat
2555 Posts
| ||
|
Craton
United States17254 Posts
On July 07 2013 04:58 NeoIllusions wrote: Looking at pictures so far, looks like most of the passengers are ok. But bothers me is how incredibly shoddy the plane looks. Sure, it might have passed inspection but it looks incredibly shaky to me. So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? | ||
|
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:52 Craton wrote: So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Edit: being sarcastic here with Craton. | ||
|
MaxField
United States2386 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:52 Craton wrote: So you expect a plane that has crashed and caught on fire to look factory fresh? I agree. I think most of the parts that look... Shoddy, are the relative unimportant ones. I think the fuselage where all the people are chilling at is fine. Of course the tail and landing gear got a little bit jacked up, but no people are usually hiding on up there. | ||
|
Ig
United States417 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:53 NeoIllusions wrote: Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Care to explain why you say it looked shoddy then? | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
Will have to hold off on any praise for the pilots, depending on what the FDR and CVR show and the NTSB investigation. Still, as long as the reporting holds up that there were no fatalities, it's pretty damn good for everyone that coped with the sudden emergency situation, and helped others that may not have coped as well. Also stands as a bit of a testament to modern airliner construction that everyone was able to get off the plane. The plane looks like a total hull loss, but the emergency response teams were pretty quick judging by the state of the cabin, lack of complete burn down. Hopes and prayers for anyone that was injured in the landing, and everyone on the plane because I have no doubt they're all pretty shaken by it. Also recommend the avherald.com as Simon is a fairly reputable and conscientious reporting agent and has a good track record in reporting aviation incidents. | ||
Kiett
United States7639 Posts
Aside from being glad that he wasn't on it, it's also lucky that his flight was before and not after the crash... SFO is shut down now. | ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:56 Ig wrote: Care to explain why you say it looked shoddy then? yes please. if he's going to bring it up then the least he could do is direct us to the pictures that lead to his reasoning because the ones I see look like any normal aircraft to me. | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
Illustrated map from NowThis News: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOhgqWpCUAAzDha.png:large) Also heli shot: ![[image loading]](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3670/9223473725_42fe4a19df_z.jpg) | ||
|
Ig
United States417 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:13 Terranist wrote: yes please. if he's going to bring it up then the least he could do is direct us to the pictures that lead to his reasoning because the ones I see look like any normal aircraft to me. Not sure if sarcasm or accounting for damage from crash. | ||
|
ilmeeni
Afghanistan72 Posts
I know that it's not uncommon to land a bit short as that will make the taxiing to the terminal faster. I really hope they pilots weren't doing it in this case. | ||
|
Kamais Ookin
Canada591 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:56 Ig wrote: Can see the sarcasm from a mile away, calm down.Care to explain why you say it looked shoddy then? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:32 Craton wrote: If this is what the audio normally sounds like, I don't know how anyone makes anything out. You get used to it pretty easily, just need to train your ear. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:22 ilmeeni wrote: Seems like a pilot error - it's nigh impossible to hit the seawall with auto-land engaged. I know that it's not uncommon to land a bit short as that will make the taxiing to the terminal faster. I really hope they pilots weren't doing it in this case. There is a rumor that the pilot had called in an issue before landing - perhaps we should all refrain from jumping to conclusions and wait for the facts? | ||
|
Ig
United States417 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:31 Kamais Ookin wrote: Can see the sarcasm from a mile away, calm down. That's a terrible time and place to be sarcastic. | ||
|
ilmeeni
Afghanistan72 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:37 Ghostcom wrote: There is a rumor that the pilot had called in an issue before landing - perhaps we should all refrain from jumping to conclusions and wait for the facts? Lol, a rumor eh? The fact is the plane struck the seawall. Feel free to listen to ATC chatter of the plane signing in all the way through it crashing down, it's on liveatc and similar sites. They don't mention anything being wrong. If they DID say something was wrong, there would have been pre-emptive rescue/fire department all over SFO even before the plane landed. | ||
|
GeNi
United States49 Posts
| ||
|
DanLee
Canada316 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
ODKStevez
Ireland1225 Posts
| ||
|
ilmeeni
Afghanistan72 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:50 DanLee wrote: rofl the tail ripped off, dat korean build quality Shitty troll but it's actually really impressive the fuselage stayed intact. | ||
|
Craton
United States17254 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:53 NeoIllusions wrote: Yes, exactly Craton. Entirely what I meant. Edit: being sarcastic here with Craton. Well I'm glad you're utterly incapable of making your point. A fine example you're setting. You made a baseless claim, and now instead of defending it you're acting like an asshole. | ||
|
Ubiquitousdichotomy
247 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:46 ilmeeni wrote: Lol, a rumor eh? The fact is the plane struck the seawall. Feel free to listen to ATC chatter of the plane signing in all the way through it crashing down, it's on liveatc and similar sites. They don't mention anything being wrong. If they DID say something was wrong, there would have been pre-emptive rescue/fire department all over SFO even before the plane landed. Yes, the fact is that the plane struck the seawall, that however does not imply any of the stuff you implied and your baseless accusations are in bad taste. So pipe it down unless you have some actual facts to support your speculations. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32742 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:50 DanLee wrote: rofl the tail ripped off, dat korean build quality What? You do realize Boeing 777s are built in the United States by Boeing, not Korea? Its good this didn't turn into a horrific tragedy, and I wish the best for anyone affected by the crash. As a Korean, I'm still concerned the country hasn't learned from the past of aviation in Korean Air, and hope they take major reforms to fix the issue of Korean airlines. | ||
|
ilmeeni
Afghanistan72 Posts
On July 07 2013 08:19 Ghostcom wrote: Yes, the fact is that the plane struck the seawall, that however does not imply any of the stuff you implied and your baseless accusations are in bad taste. So pipe it down unless you have some actual facts to support your speculations. Striking the seawall does not imply the plane landed way, way short? Combine that with non-precision landing (the ILS for the runway they were using is out of service) and the fact no mayday was called. But sure, let's go with your rumor. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On July 07 2013 08:16 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: This press conference is depressing. They are saying a number of people are unaccounted for ya, around 60 people, would be pretty bad if they were found dead/missing. | ||
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:59 Craton wrote: Well I'm glad you're utterly incapable of making your point. A fine example you're setting. You made a baseless claim, and now instead of defending it you're acting like an asshole. the fuck is your problem. | ||
|
Kamais Ookin
Canada591 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On July 07 2013 08:35 ilmeeni wrote: Striking the seawall does not imply the plane landed way, way short? Combine that with non-precision landing (the ILS for the runway they were using is out of service) and the fact no mayday was called. But sure, let's go with your rumor. Unlike you I did not pretend to know what the cause was. But feel free to accuse a possibly innocent man who is most likely already feeling like shit of committing manslaughter to cut of 10 seconds of taxiing because that seems reasonable to you. EDIT: The rumor wasn't mine - you can take a look at the previous pages. My point was that there were currently multiple explanations, but you went straight to the accusations which is dumb as shit, but I guess very characteristically of an internet tough guy. | ||
|
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
On July 07 2013 07:59 Craton wrote: Well I'm glad you're utterly incapable of making your point. A fine example you're setting. You made a baseless claim, and now instead of defending it you're acting like an asshole. Seriously? You, of all the people that I interact on a regular basis on TeamLiquid, have the audacity to call me an asshole? Are you kidding me, Craton? Alright, you're right, I made a baseless claim off of this picture and indeed the fuselage looks shoddy. Could very well be as a result of the crash, instead of before, idk. But more importantly, who cares? I made a post off of a glimpse of a picture and I can easily admit that 90% (let's say 100%) chance that my comment is wrong. But you decide to jump on my offhand comment and make an equally inane post assuming I would think a crashed plane would be factory fresh. I answer sarcastically and now I'm the asshole? You are quite possibly the biggest hypocrite I know on TeamLiquid now, congrats. P.S. So mature of you to edit in that second line, just to get that comment in about calling me an asshole. Quality poster. | ||
|
ilikeredheads
Canada1995 Posts
Looking at the pictures.....The tail section is missing. The top of the fuselage has been blown off. | ||
|
Ig
United States417 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:29 NeoIllusions wrote: Seriously? You, of all the people that I interact on a regular basis on TeamLiquid, have the audacity to call me an asshole? Are you kidding me, Craton? Alright, you're right, I made a baseless claim off of this picture and indeed the fuselage looks shoddy. Could very well be as a result of the crash, instead of before, idk. But more importantly, who cares? I made a post off of a glimpse of a picture and I can easily admit that 90% (let's say 100%) chance that my comment is wrong. But you decide to jump on my offhand comment and make an equally inane post assuming I would think a crashed plane would be factory fresh. I answer sarcastically and now I'm the asshole? You are quite possibly the biggest hypocrite I know on TeamLiquid now, congrats. P.S. So mature of you to edit in that second line, just to get that comment in about calling me an asshole. Quality poster. Way to overreact to getting called out. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
| ||
LosingID8
CA10828 Posts
http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54791337536/idiots-use-plane-crash-in-san-francisco-to-mock-asians | ||
|
farvacola
United States18834 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:57 LosingID8 wrote: i should stop reading this tumblr, it's so depressing to know that these people exist. http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54791337536/idiots-use-plane-crash-in-san-francisco-to-mock-asians It really makes one wonder: have people always been this hateful, or do platforms like twitter magnify the terribleness of people? Sadly, I think it's a mix of the two | ||
|
bsdaemon
618 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:57 LosingID8 wrote: i should stop reading this tumblr, it's so depressing to know that these people exist. http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54791337536/idiots-use-plane-crash-in-san-francisco-to-mock-asians My IQ dropped 10 points just from reading those posts. | ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
| ||
|
autoexec
United States530 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:59 farvacola wrote: It really makes one wonder: have people always been this hateful, or do platforms like twitter magnify the terribleness of people? Sadly, I think it's a mix of the two There is 1% of people like this who are so stupid. Like, their IQ is around 40. | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:57 LosingID8 wrote: i should stop reading this tumblr, it's so depressing to know that these people exist. http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54791337536/idiots-use-plane-crash-in-san-francisco-to-mock-asians Doesn't come near saying the plane looks "shoddy" as if Asian(a) is a synonym for poor maintenance. | ||
|
OptimusYale
Korea (South)1005 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On July 07 2013 11:21 OptimusYale wrote: I mean, I live in Korea and Koreans REALLY can't drive... There's a time and place for this... and it's not here and now. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On July 07 2013 06:49 mostevil wrote: Botched may be premature assessment. Sounds like he'd radio and emergency before he came in, could be he didn't have power to reach the runway and clipped the seawall. It may well be that he did a good job in the circumstances, wait for the facts to in. I was not trying to asses anything. Sorry, English is not my first language. What I meant is that all the security procedures on board are applicable in a relatively limited set of situations - that is, when the plane sort of lands well, but not quite - whereas a lot of hull loss accidents are hoppeless split-second fell-of-the-sky kind situations, where no amount of emergency readiness saves ayone. But this situation shows that accidents when evacuating the plane quickly and effectively does save lives and that is an important lesson to take, even though we all who fly many times a year can at times get annoyed be the endless repeat of securiy instructions. | ||
|
Ig
United States417 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:51 TheRabidDeer wrote: I would be irritated too if somebody called me out about using something while he himself used that same thing. If he tries to defend his first comment saying it was sarcasm, then its in poor taste and he's setting an equally poor example. If he defends it as a poor assumption and admits he messed up, then its just stupid because why would you say that in the first place? Neo admitted his first post was not sarcasm so it was simply a stupid, baseless claim. His second was sarcastic and was just him dodging Craton's question. His reaction to getting called out after that was flat out terrible. He messed up, replied sarcastically and didn't admit it in the first post afterwards, then got irritated...for being rightfully called out? Whatever Neo says about Craton's other posts is irrelevant, this is about this thread only, and he's the one that screwed up here. My question for you is why should someone who makes a baseless claim not be called out here? Would anyone say anything against someone getting called out in a similar fashion on the SC2 or Dota 2 forums? Hell no, they'd be all for it, so why are you defending the guy who made a baseless claim and also reacted poorly to getting called out on it here? Is it because he's got a red name? Edit: He said Craton jumped on his "offhand remark" when its clear now that remark was Neo attempting to dodge the question with sarcasm. | ||
|
Special Endrey
Germany1929 Posts
![[image loading]](https://o.twimg.com/1/proxy.jpg?t=FQQVBhhbaHR0cHM6Ly9wYXRoYWthY2RuLWEuYWthbWFpaGQubmV0L3Bob3RvczIvZjM2YTU3MjktNmRiNy00MGRiLTljOTgtOTlhYThiNjhkZjRjL29yaWdpbmFsLmpwZxQEFgASAA&s=8BVIqFcDHI88uJA9Ws6EtnVWmMFQrt8wWB22Hnnwtok) | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:57 LosingID8 wrote: i should stop reading this tumblr, it's so depressing to know that these people exist. http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54791337536/idiots-use-plane-crash-in-san-francisco-to-mock-asians Reminds me of similar tweets when the Red Dawn remake came out. http://blog.angryasianman.com/2012/11/racist-idiots-watch-red-dawn-tweet.html | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
| ||
|
TriO
United States421 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:57 LosingID8 wrote: i should stop reading this tumblr, it's so depressing to know that these people exist. http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54791337536/idiots-use-plane-crash-in-san-francisco-to-mock-asians The amount of likes is what annoys me the most. | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
On July 07 2013 11:43 rezoacken wrote: People look relaxed while getting out, and taking a couple of pictures. It's a once in a lifetime experience (albeit a one you wouldn't want to experience) But since they lived to tell the tale, gotta take pictures. | ||
|
Kvz
United States463 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:59 farvacola wrote: It really makes one wonder: have people always been this hateful, or do platforms like twitter magnify the terribleness of people? Sadly, I think it's a mix of the two I literally had to face palm.... The stupid was just too overwhelming. | ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:57 LosingID8 wrote: i should stop reading this tumblr, it's so depressing to know that these people exist. http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54791337536/idiots-use-plane-crash-in-san-francisco-to-mock-asians Dang they thought it was a North Korean plane... that's worse than the not so serious racism. | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:46 ilikeredheads wrote: damn....at least 2 dead and one still missing....RIP Looking at the pictures.....The tail section is missing. The top of the fuselage has been blown off. When the plane came to a stand-still, most of the fuselage was intact (nothing blown off) as can be seen on the picture that's been posted here in the thread a coupla times already where you see passengers leave the plane. The top of the fuselage was destroyed by fire later. Judging by said picture, the right-hand engine was severely damaged and caught fire when the plane came in too low and struck the seawall at the start of the runway (which also led to the gear and tail section getting ripped off). ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/07/07/us/07plane3/07plane3-articleLarge.jpg) This is usually a good place for more information as it comes in: http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0 Interesting link: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/06/us/where-asiana-flight-214-came-to-rest.html | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On July 07 2013 11:31 Ig wrote: If he tries to defend his first comment saying it was sarcasm, then its in poor taste and he's setting an equally poor example. If he defends it as a poor assumption and admits he messed up, then its just stupid because why would you say that in the first place? Neo admitted his first post was not sarcasm so it was simply a stupid, baseless claim. His second was sarcastic and was just him dodging Craton's question. His reaction to getting called out after that was flat out terrible. He messed up, replied sarcastically and didn't admit it in the first post afterwards, then got irritated...for being rightfully called out? Whatever Neo says about Craton's other posts is irrelevant, this is about this thread only, and he's the one that screwed up here. My question for you is why should someone who makes a baseless claim not be called out here? Would anyone say anything against someone getting called out in a similar fashion on the SC2 or Dota 2 forums? Hell no, they'd be all for it, so why are you defending the guy who made a baseless claim and also reacted poorly to getting called out on it here? Is it because he's got a red name? Edit: He said Craton jumped on his "offhand remark" when its clear now that remark was Neo attempting to dodge the question with sarcasm. Not really going to debate it, but Craton's question was hopefully also a sarcastic and rhetorical question. Series of events: Neo makes a statement which is wrong (plane is shaky) Craton makes a comment that is sarcastic/rhetorical/exaggerated ("...to look factory fresh") Neo responds with equally sarcastic response Craton responds by saying Neo is responding like an asshole, even though Craton's first response was just as much of an asshole comment Neo responds with the comment that we are discussing now. Neo's first post was simply an at a glance comment based on some pictures. It was of little substance and Craton tried to make more of it than what was there. Neo never said his first comment was sarcastic. I also dont see any major reason to call out Neo at all. Question what he meant, sure... but he kind of explained that already in the post where you are calling him out on his rant. Not going to talk about it anymore though because it is a dumb argument and wildly off topic. EDIT: This is quite obviously my point of view on the matter, and hopefully sheds light on a possibility of why Neo responded with sarcasm to sarcasm. This is only a point of view, if you see it differently then fine. | ||
|
pRo9aMeR
595 Posts
Condolences to the families of those who didn't make it. offtopic+ Show Spoiler + On July 07 2013 13:19 TheRabidDeer wrote: Not really going to debate it, but Craton's question was hopefully also a sarcastic and rhetorical question. Series of events: Neo makes a statement which is wrong (plane is shaky) Craton makes a comment that is sarcastic/rhetorical/exaggerated ("...to look factory fresh") Neo responds with equally sarcastic response Craton responds by saying Neo is responding like an asshole, even though Craton's first response was just as much of an asshole comment Neo responds with the comment that we are discussing now. Neo's first post was simply an at a glance comment based on some pictures. It was of little substance and Craton tried to make more of it than what was there. Neo never said his first comment was sarcastic. I also dont see any major reason to call out Neo at all. Question what he meant, sure... but he kind of explained that already in the post where you are calling him out on his rant. Not going to talk about it anymore though because it is a dumb argument and wildly off topic. series of events sprinkled with my own opinion | ||
|
Ianuus
Australia349 Posts
On July 07 2013 13:19 TheRabidDeer wrote: Not really going to debate it, but Craton's question was hopefully also a sarcastic and rhetorical question. Series of events: Neo makes a statement which is wrong (plane is shaky) Craton makes a comment that is sarcastic/rhetorical/exaggerated ("...to look factory fresh") Neo responds with equally sarcastic response Craton responds by saying Neo is responding like an asshole, even though Craton's first response was just as much of an asshole comment Neo responds with the comment that we are discussing now. Neo's first post was simply an at a glance comment based on some pictures. It was of little substance and Craton tried to make more of it than what was there. Neo never said his first comment was sarcastic. I also dont see any major reason to call out Neo at all. Question what he meant, sure... but he kind of explained that already in the post where you are calling him out on his rant. Not going to talk about it anymore though because it is a dumb argument and wildly off topic. Difference here is Craton's first comment is sarcastic (which is no crime in itself) but on-topic, using sarcasm to point out that Neo posted what he himself admitted was pretty much a shitpost. Neo's reply to Craton, however, is indignantly defensive and purely an attempt to cover the absurdity of his initial comment by sarcastically attacking Craton's person. If he said what he said later "I made a post off of a glimpse of a picture and I can easily admit that 90% (let's say 100%) chance that my comment is wrong.", or just laughed it off as an offhand comment in that reply, instead of turning the heat on to Craton as he did, he would not have seemed like an overly defensive asshole who won't admit to being wrong. I'm Asian, and the posts on Twitter are amusing, rather than offensive, to me; the absurdity of the comments take the edge off any attack, and makes it seems like comments on stereotyped caricatures rather than the Asian race as a whole. | ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
| ||
|
ExceeD_DreaM
Canada500 Posts
They have identified that there were problems before landing, and therefore communications with the control tower prior to landing. http://news.nate.com/view/20130707n07186 Here is the video from Korean news of the communication. It seems all evacuation and fire trucks were in place and ready for emergency landing. If this is the case (faulty landing gear => Boeing's problem), we should applaud the pilot for making this landing with minimal casualties. Also, hats off to everyone on board that helped people get to safety (Especially that American dude with broken ribs aiding more than 50 people to get off. True hero). What really bothers me is the asian ladies GETTING OFF THE PLANE WITH A FKING CARRIER. UNBELIEVABLE. How can they be so greedy? | ||
|
ilikeredheads
Canada1995 Posts
On July 07 2013 11:32 Special Endrey wrote: man......you are lucky to be alive after your plane just crash landed = Perfect time to take a picture..................-__-; | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
What really annoys me even after experience this kind of disaster, people still trying to take pictures from the phone rather get further away from the aircraft or help a fellow passengers. | ||
|
ExceeD_DreaM
Canada500 Posts
| ||
|
BirdKiller
United States428 Posts
On July 07 2013 14:59 ExceeD_DreaM wrote: Taking a picture after getting off isn't the problem. THOSE women were more than likely (actually, 100%) blocking and clogging the aisles trying to take out their precious luggage that are definitely worth more to them than other passengers' lives. If I was behind them, I'd knock them aside and help everyone else get off first... Definitely. I understand getting your backpack, but something like bringing a luggage to go down that slide in that situation is just asking for the airline crew just to throw it out the door for their owners to pick up once on the ground. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
| ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
My heart goes out to the two people who died today. It is sad that those people had to be the first and only to die in an accident of the 777, but it serves as a testament to how safe an airplane it really is. Like many of you, I am awaiting the NTSB accident reports so we as an industry can analyze the root cause and work to prevent another incident like this from ever happening again. For any fellow TL'ers who are interested in the 777 or any other aircraft's safety record: http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/type-stat.php?type=107 edit #2: Interesting fact, because today marked the 1st fatal accident of the Boeing 777, the survival rate for all occupants in a fatal 777 accident is 99.3%. By comparison, you only have a 0.3% chance of surviving a fatal Airbus 330 accident. -FlyingFalap | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
San Francisco's fire chief says the two people who died in the Asiana Airlines crash were found outside of the heavily damaged jetliner. Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White said late Saturday that she did not know the ages or genders of the victims, but according to South Korean officials, they were both Chinese passport holders. | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
I'm going back to Korea in September for another round trip, but I'll be arriving in Dallas this time instead. Never know when the plane is going to give out on you. | ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
On July 07 2013 15:30 Silentness wrote: Never know when the plane is going to give out on you. At least you can feel much safer than taking a car, ship, train, bicycle, motorcycle, bus, submarine or just about any other form of transportation. It is statistically extremely safe to fly on a commercial airline. edit: Out of 34,434 transportation fatalities in the US in 2011, exactly 0 were killed in an airline accident. source: http://www.ntsb.gov/data/img/pie_chart.jpg -FlyingFalap | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
On July 07 2013 14:54 ilikeredheads wrote: man......you are lucky to be alive after your plane just crash landed = Perfect time to take a picture..................-__-; Anyone else shocked to see them with their hand luggage. If a plane has crashed and is on fire, please for the love of god just get out ASAP. I can't help but wonder the extra time wasted from people pushing around trying to get their overhead compartment luggage out. | ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
-FlyingFalap | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
On July 07 2013 15:52 fearus wrote: Anyone else shocked to see them with their hand luggage. If a plane has crashed and is on fire, please for the love of god just get out ASAP. I can't help but wonder the extra time wasted from people pushing around trying to get their overhead compartment luggage out. Yeah honestly they're fucking idiots. Get the hell off the plane and get the luggage later if possible. Same thing in a house fire. Are you going to go box all your shit and take it out while inhaling smoke? The only thing I got going in my mind was that those two women were stubborn idiots that didn't realize the severity of the incident. | ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
On July 07 2013 16:02 Silentness wrote: Get the hell off the plane and get the luggage later if possible. This. If the luggage was not destroyed in the accident, you will get it back eventually. If the accident was likely to destroy the luggage, like here, where the top half of the fuselage was destroyed by fire, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS STOPPING TO OPEN THE FRIGGEN BINS! GTFO, so everyone else can too. -FlyingFalap | ||
|
oBlade
United States5740 Posts
On July 07 2013 16:02 Silentness wrote: Yeah honestly they're fucking idiots. Get the hell off the plane and get the luggage later if possible. Same thing in a house fire. Are you going to go box all your shit and take it out while inhaling smoke? The only thing I got going in my mind was that those two women were stubborn idiots that didn't realize the severity of the incident. House fire is a little different because there isn't a huge line of people bunching up to leave. Depending on how you assess it you will take some time to collect your pets, maybe a few heirlooms. On July 07 2013 13:23 pRo9aMeR wrote: I've thought before about landings like this where the tail hits something first before the landing gear. This is part of the reason I always try to get a seat closer to the front than the back of the plane. a little scary~ The rear cabin is statistically the most survivable part of a plane. | ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
On July 07 2013 16:12 oBlade wrote: The rear cabin is statistically the most survivable part of a plane. You have a large crumple zone in front of you when the plane crashes nose first (more often than not). Nothing wrong with the back of the plane, it's usually less crowded plus you have two emergency exits right behind you if the shit does hit the fan. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On July 07 2013 16:08 FlyingFalap wrote: This. If the luggage was not destroyed in the accident, you will get it back eventually. If the accident was likely to destroy the luggage, like here, where the top half of the fuselage was destroyed by fire, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS STOPPING TO OPEN THE FRIGGEN BINS! GTFO, so everyone else can too. -FlyingFalap Not to mention they have the type of carry on luggage that's awkward to carry on the aisles without hitting the seats and whatnot, slowing the entire line of people from exiting. | ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
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. | ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
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. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8732 Posts
| ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
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. | ||
Spazer
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. | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
On July 07 2013 16:54 plgElwood wrote: 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. Looking at various pictures from the crash site, the fire likely spread from the severely damaged right-hand side engine into the cabin where it subsequently burned the entire interior and eventually cut through the length of the roof. That right-hand side engine had partly separated from its wing during the crash and came to rest rolling up to and touching the forward section of the fuselage, as can be seen on these pictures: ![[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) The scorch marks are pretty telling, as well as the smoke plumes on earlier pictures. The left-hand side engine seems to have been sheared off completely upon impact with the seawall at the start of the runway. It probably came to rest either in the water body before the seawall or just aft of it when the belly of the plane crashed onto the tarmac with the landing gear gone. | ||
|
BirdKiller
United States428 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 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. | ||
|
GreyKnight
United States4720 Posts
| ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
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. | ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
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 + ![[image loading]](http://www.sitzplan.net/mediawiki/images/7/7e/Boeing_777_200_sitzplan_b.gif) I guess the right engine just burned under an exit ( second exit in right site) | ||
|
Prox
Netherlands174 Posts
http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0 | ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
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) | ||
|
bhuwanbbb
Nepal2 Posts
| ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
-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. | ||
|
scott31337
United States2979 Posts
| ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
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 | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
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). | ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
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. | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
On July 07 2013 19:25 Proseat wrote: 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 (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. 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? | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
ATC conversation, footage of the crash and some other first hand data! "New media" responses to the crash Dinosaurs, Associated press, with a longer piece, including witnes accounts and some conjecture from "experts". A good article on the other dinosaur media center, Reuters (especially the information that the dead were 2 chinese teenager from the rear of the plane who appears to have been thrown off the plane when the tail broke off...) There are several things afficionadas will want to know more about, like flight headings and descent patterns which are available somewhere, somehow on the internet as indicated in the comments on http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0 (Thanks Prox!). The final pieces of the puzzle will only be possible to solve by looking at the footage from the "black box", so we will have to wait to get the exact reasons. Edit: Proseat with some good descent data there! The anomaly seems to be what happened around 1500 ft. Anything special about that hight in terms of a landing? | ||
|
Shana
Indonesia1814 Posts
| ||
|
FlyingFalap
Canada22 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8732 Posts
happened on the 7th of july, 77 koreans were on board and the plane was a 777 7,7,7,7,7,7,7 inb4 illuminati | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
On July 07 2013 20:59 evilfatsh1t wrote: interesting fact about this incident happened on the 7th of july, 77 koreans were on board and the plane was a 777 7,7,7,7,7,7,7 inb4 illuminati 6th of july in california  edit: oh I guess you're going everything by korean point of view | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 07 2013 20:59 evilfatsh1t wrote: interesting fact about this incident happened on the 7th of july, 77 koreans were on board and the plane was a 777 7,7,7,7,7,7,7 inb4 illuminati Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. 'tis my birthday and I want to apologize. Still very glad everybody's alright. ^_^ | ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-francisco-plane-crash-killed-asiana-flight-214/story?id=19598352#.UdmjUW1fzqU | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 08 2013 02:24 c0ldfusion wrote: so 2 people did die from this. Two 16 year old girls. http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-francisco-plane-crash-killed-asiana-flight-214/story?id=19598352#.UdmjUW1fzqU Humm i wonder where they were seated although i guess they could be just unluckier then the 22 critically injured passengers. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On July 08 2013 03:52 semantics wrote: Humm i wonder where they were seated although i guess they could be just unluckier then the 22 critically injured passengers. Both were sitting in the rear end of the plane. One of them was found by the tail, the other was found on the ground closer to the planes final destination... Btw. There are still 6 people in critical condition in the hospital, down from 10. Links: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/07/san-francisco-plane-crash-passengers.html http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-plane-crash-victims-identified-as-two-teens-4650990.php | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On July 07 2013 17:45 BirdKiller wrote: 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. In this particular accident, there were multiple passengers with burn injuries from the fire that ultimately consumed the cabin a few minutes after it was fully evacuated. There were also dozens of people who had to evacuate the plane with broken bones, some of whom had to be cut loose from their seat harnesses by flight attendants with knives that were passed up to the plane by emergency personnel on the ground. It's highly likely that some of those burn injuries were enabled or made worse by the people slowing down evacuation by getting their luggage. To plgElwood: Yes, some people being panicked and acting irrationally is unavoidable in this kind of incident, and some of the people who spent time fiddling with luggage probably would not have done so if they'd been able to approach the situation calmly. However, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem, and one of the functions of crewmembers in these kinds of situations is to insist that people leave their luggage behind. Also to plgElwood: Regarding your question about why the top of the plane burned away, once there's a fire inside the cabin, hot gases from the fire rise. The top of the fuselage didn't burn away until some time after the accident and evacuation, and in earlier photographs you can see that it's intact. If a building fire occurs on a middle floor, usually the floors above will burn or collapse while those below are less affected, for the same reason. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Sad to hear some people have died | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
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. Weather conditions at San Francisco yesterday were in the mid-60s (about 18 C for those overseas) and sunny, and the flight took place in the summer, so I'd be extremely surprised if icing were a cause. The 2008 LHR incident happened in mid-January, where ground temperatures were about 5 C (41 degrees F) and the flight had spent a significant portion of its cruise over Siberia in temperatures (at altitude) of -65 to -74 C (-85 to -101 F). | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
On July 08 2013 04:29 Lysenko wrote: Weather conditions at San Francisco yesterday were in the mid-60s (about 18 C for those overseas) and sunny, and the flight took place in the summer, so I'd be extremely surprised if icing were a cause. The 2008 LHR incident happened in mid-January, where ground temperatures were about 5 C (41 degrees F) and the flight had spent a significant portion of its cruise over Siberia in temperatures (at altitude) of -65 to -74 C (-85 to -101 F). That incident was also in a different type of engine, the Rolls Royce rather than the Pratt & Whitney engines used by this aircraft. Different designs, and even the RR engines have been changed to fix the issue. The issue never affected the Pratt & Whitney engines. | ||
|
ilmeeni
Afghanistan72 Posts
I'm thankful I don't have to fly Asian airlines, the cockpit culture/CRM still is to this date horrible. They will literally (and have) rather die in a crash than challenge their captain's authority because of the fucked up hierarchy culture present in some of the countries. It boggles the mind. | ||
|
scott31337
United States2979 Posts
http://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8123 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:51 scott31337 wrote: Video on CNN of the crash, although far away. http://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes "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? | ||
|
scott31337
United States2979 Posts
| ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.livemint.com/rf/Image-621x414/LiveMint/Period1/2013/07/08/Photos/Asiana_crash--621x414.JPG) ![[image loading]](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130706201355-32-san-francisco-plane-crash-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg) Looking at that CNN video of the actual crash and how violent the spin was, the engine that came to rest at the fuselage and likely caused the fire, might as well be the left-hand side engine. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 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. 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. | ||
|
ilikeredheads
Canada1995 Posts
RIP | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
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
| ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
He mentions that met pilots who knew the manuals of the specific aircrafts word-for-word but can not use their theoretical knowledge in the cockpit. He says SKorean pilots also suffer from the lack off private aviation (they can not train on smaller aircrafts, since there is just military and commercial). He thinks Koreans pilots are very, very smart and hard working, but they only repeat everything over and over again theoretically, not thinking about it (wich kind of reminds me of every korean starcraft player and their hammered in mechanics ). Also he speaks of a ban of SK-Aircrafts on US and EU airports because of the bad pilot-training in the 80´s and 90´s. SK-Airlines had to hire foreign trainers to improve their pilot skills. He claims that if korean pilots fail at mandatory simulator tests, they are not fired, they are send to different Trainers/instructors instead until sombody lets them pass. source: http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article117942424/Warum-Suedkoreaner-so-schlechte-Piloten-sind.html source´s source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3041469/posts | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
On Jul 9th 2013 the NTSB reported in their third press conference based on pilot interviews, that they were requested to maintain 180 KIAS until 5nm out, then extended the flaps to landing configuration of 30 degrees (160 KIAS max speed), they were high descending through 4000 feet, set vertical speed mode at -1500fpm, at 500 feet AGL the PAPIs were showing three red one white and the pilot began to pull back on the yoke to reduce rate of descent assuming the autothrottles would maintain the speed set to 137 knots. A lateral deviation developed taking the attention of the crew. Descending through 200 feet all PAPIs were red and the speed had decayed into the red/black marked range, the training captain realised the autothrottles were not maintaining the target speed, at that point the pilot flying had already started to move the levers forward. There were three pilots in the cockpit, the captain under supervision was pilot flying occupying the left hand seat, the training captain was pilot monitoring occupying the right hand seat, the relief first officer was occupying the observer seat, the relief captain was in the cabin at the time of the landing. The captain under supervision, 9700 hours total flying experience with 5000 hours in command, type ratings for B737, B747 and A320 having been ground instructor and sim instructor as well captain on A320s from 2005 to 2013, had flown 10 legs for a total of 35 hours on the Boeing 777-200 so far and was about half way through his supervision. The training captain, about 3000 hours on B777 and about 10k hours in command, was on his first flight as training captain, he was pilot in command, the two pilots had never flown together before. The relief first officer had 4600 hours of total experience, about 900 hours on B772 and about 5-6 landings into SFO as pilot monitoring on B772. The autothrottle switches were found in the armed position post accident, it is not yet clear in what mode the autothrottles were and whether autothrottles were engaged or not. Two flight attendants in the aft cabin were ejected from the aircraft during the accident sequence and were later found up and aside of the runway with injuries. At least one of the escape slides inflated inside the cabin. There was a post accident fire at the inboard section of the #2 engine, a fuel tank had ruptured leaking fuel onto the hot engine. The thrust reversers were found stowed, the speedbrakes were retracted. Both engine fire handles were pulled and agents discharged, the APU fire handle was pulled and agent discharged as well. Traces at the sea wall reveal that the main landing gear struck the sea wall first, then the tail of the aircraft. On Jul 10th 2013 the NTSB reported in their fourth press conference, that the captain under supervision and training captain had flown the takeoff from Seoul, had taken about 5 hours of rest enroute and took their seats again about 90 minutes prior to landing. During the last 2.5 minutes of flight there were multiple autopilot and multiple autothrust modes. The various modes needs to be assessed to see whether they were result of single pilot actions or result of interconnected system responses. The aircraft received landing clearance about 1.5nm before touchdown. Six of twelve flight attendants are still in hospital care and were not interviewed so far. The flight attendants at doors 1R and 2R were pinned by evacuation slides deploying into the cabin. 3 of four flight attendants at the rear doors were ejected from the aircraft together with their seats. None of the passenger seats were ejected from the aircraft. The six uninjured flight attendants were interviewed and reported that after the aircraft came to a stop, one of the flight attendants at 1L went to the cockpit and checked with flight crew whether an evacuation should be initiated, the flight crew instructed to not initiate the evacuation. The flight attendants at 2L saw fire outside the aircraft near seat row 10, consistent with the position of the right hand engine's position adjacent to the fuselage, and initiated the evacuation. 90 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop door 2L closely followed by 1L opened and the evacuation began. 120 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop the first emergency responders arrived on scene, about 150 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop the first fire agent was applied to the right hand side by emergency services. Emergency services entered the aircraft with a hose and attempted to fight the fire from the inside of the aircraft as well as assisted in the passenger evacuation. While trying to liberate the pinned flight attendants emergency services observed fire coming in from the window/fuselage. The NTSB is probably going to release runway 28L to the airport within the next 24 hours. In an interview with Korean Authorities the pilot flying reported that a flash of light occurred at 500 feet which temporarily blinded him, the NTSB confirmed that this was mentioned in their interview as a temporary event, too. So it was indeed the right-hand side engine (#2) that triggered the fire in the cabin as it had liberated and rolled up to the fuselage near 2R and row 10 and oil was leaking onto its hot surface from a ruptured tank. + Show Spoiler [from NTSB Flickr] + + Show Spoiler [NTSB fourth media briefing video July 10] + + Show Spoiler [NTSB final media briefing video July 11] + + Show Spoiler [pic showing initial fire] + ![[image loading]](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo13/03a_zps7f023227.jpg) | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
The first officer of said United Boeing 747 (flight UA885) now gave a witness account in an e-mail as follows: On July 6, 2013 at approximately 1827Z I was the 747-400 relief F/O on flt 885, ID326/06 SFO-KIX. I was a witness to the Asiana Flt 214 accident. We had taxied to hold short of runway 28L at SFO on taxiway F, and were waiting to rectify a HAZMAT cargo issue as well as our final weights before we could run our before takeoff checklist and depart. As we waited on taxiway F heading East, just prior to the perpendicular holding area, all three pilots took notice of the Asiana 777 on short final. I noticed the aircraft looked low on glidepath and had a very high deck angle compared to what seemed “normal”. I then noticed at the apparent descent rate and closure to the runway environment the aircraft looked as though it was going to impact the approach lights mounted on piers in the SF Bay. The aircraft made a fairly drastic looking pull up in the last few feet and it appeared and sounded as if they had applied maximum thrust. However the descent path they were on continued and the thrust applied didn't appear to come soon enough to prevent impact. The tail cone and empennage of the 777 impacted the bulkhead seawall and departed the airplane and the main landing gear sheared off instantly. This created a long debris field along the arrival end of 28L, mostly along the right side of 28L. We saw the fuselage, largely intact, slide down the runway and out of view of our cockpit. We heard much confusion and quick instructions from SFO Tower and a few moments later heard an aircraft go around over the runway 28 complex. We realized within a few moments that we were apparently unharmed so I got on the PA and instructed everyone to remain seated and that we were safe. We all acknowledged if we had been located between Runways 28R and 28L on taxiway F we would have likely suffered damage to the right side aft section of our aircraft from the 777. Approximately two minutes later I was looking out the left side cockpit windows and noticed movement on the right side of Runway 28L. Two survivors were stumbling but moving abeam the Runway “28L” marking on the North side of the runway. I saw one survivor stand up, walk a few feet, then appear to squat down. The other appeared to be a woman and was walking, then fell off to her side and remained on the ground until rescue personnel arrived. The Captain was on the radio and I told him to tell tower what I had seen, but I ended up taking the microphone instead of relaying through him. I told SFO tower that there appeared to be survivors on the right side of the runway and they needed to send assistance immediately. It seemed to take a very long time for vehicles and assistance to arrive for these victims. The survivors I saw were approximately 1000-1500' away from the fuselage and had apparently been ejected from the fuselage. We made numerous PAs to the passengers telling them any information we had, which we acknowledged was going to change rapidly, and I left the cockpit to check on the flight attendants and the overall mood of the passengers, as I was the third pilot and not in a control seat. A couple of our flight attendants were shaken up but ALL were doing an outstanding and extremely professional job of handling the passenger's needs and providing calm comfort to them. One of the flight attendants contacted unaccompanied minors' parents to ensure them their children were safe and would be taken care of by our crew. Their demeanor and professionalism during this horrific event was noteworthy. I went to each cabin and spoke to the passengers asking if everyone was OK and if they needed any assistance, and gave them information personally, to include telling them what I saw from the cockpit. I also provided encouragement that we would be OK, we'd tell them everything we learn and to please relax and be patient and expect this is going to be a long wait. The passenger mood was concerned but generally calm. A few individuals were emotional as nearly every passenger on the left side of the aircraft saw the fuselage and debris field going over 100 knots past our aircraft only 300' away. By this point everyone had looked out the windows and could see the smoke plume from the 777. A number of passengers also noticed what I had seen with the survivors out near the end of 28L expressing concern that the rescue effort appeared slow for those individuals that had been separated from the airplane wreckage. We ultimately had a tug come out and tow us back to the gate, doing a 3 point turn in the hold short area of 28L. We were towed to gate 101 where the passengers deplaned. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco-51.html#post7930211 http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2013/07/09/inside-united-flight-885-a-pilots.html | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
KTVU btw is the fox affiliate for the bay area based in SF http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/ktvu-apology-friday-noon-report/nYpSg/ | ||
|
comfortingmedicine
2 Posts
| ||
|
Ubiquitousdichotomy
247 Posts
| ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On July 13 2013 08:48 comfortingmedicine wrote: Oh god.... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WrWkMxU.jpg) I'm guessing the 'F' character must have been the 'P' one (ㅍ), but that's :O. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On July 13 2013 08:56 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: Dats So Wong...Is this news anchor channeling Ron Burgangy? What intelligent person would think their is 4 pilots for 1 plane? Not sure if you're joking, but the aircraft had a relief crew due to the length of the flight. There were four pilots in the cockpit at landing. | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
Anyways, a former pilot created these insightful simulated videos depicting what the final approach of Asiana 214 looked like and what it should have been without crashing (mind the Youtube comments of the author re:speed and re:engine #1): Source: http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/07/11/animation-re-creates-saturdays-sfo-crash/ | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
A third child has died from the Asiana Airlines crash at San Francisco International Airport, hospital officials announced Friday afternoon. San Francisco General Hospital officials said that the victim, a girl, died of her injuries Friday morning. Her parents asked that the hospital not reveal her identity or the nature of her injuries, said hospital spokeswoman Rachel Kagen. She had been one of three patients in critical condition at the hospital. They suffered spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, abdominal injuries and internal bleeding. Two adults remain in critical condition. The conditions of four others, including a girl, range from serious to fair to good. Earlier Friday, police confirmed that one of two Chinese teens killed was run over by a firetruck that responded to the emergency. It's not yet clear whether the victim, 16-year-old Ye Meng Yuan, was already dead from injuries in the crash when she was struck by the truck, police said. "We are confirming that at least one time, a firetruck went over a victim," said San Francisco Police Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman. Esparza said two large airport firetrucks initially responded to the crash and began spraying the fuselage with flame-retardant foam. The area around the plane became covered in foam, and when firetrucks moved to continue fighting the fire, the victim, covered in foam, was run over, Esparza said. "When at least one firetruck repositioned itself, to continue fighting the fire, at that time the victim was discovered in the tire track." RIP | ||
|
Ubiquitousdichotomy
247 Posts
| ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On July 13 2013 09:02 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: I'm guessing the 'F' character must have been the 'P' one (ㅍ), but that's :O. It's less about the spelling. Should read it again. =P | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
| ||
|
trainRiderJ
United States615 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7350/9258508892_33071c1ced_z.jpg)
