Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

OMG this is horrible! Reminds me of the movie "Flight".

Darryl Forests
@least the plane didn't land on the Bath Houses

reply to post by SaneThinking


It's possible, but the odds are against it. With the sheer number of aircraft in the air at any given time I would expect to see more than just two incidents. Even if it was 777 specific, the number of Triples in the air at any given time should see more than just two as well. I've seen a lot of fire warnings without a fire over the years. One time we had a C-135 come back with a fire warning light on #3 engine, and an actual fire.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


At the time they were built, they weren't. As we built up around them they became accident possible airports.

To be honest, even San Diego doesn't have anything on Kai Tak before they closed it down. That was one of the worst approaches in the world for a long time.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yeah but they should buy up the building and demolish it. I can see airports that have natural obstructions to them being impossible to correct, but in the case of san diego its just one building that is causing all the problems.

I think its irresponsible to allow that garage, or whatever it is, to continue to be there.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


They should, but I'm willing to bet that people would scream if they tried since it's a parking structure. They'll say that there isn't enough parking already and taking this away would make it worse. When it comes to airports people want as little disruption in their lives as possible, and the airport to be as far away from them as it can be.

You might have to use the link because the image is not working (cropped) - Plane off to right

0:12 Tower, United 85?.
0:15 United 85 go ahead.
0:17 United 85 at the end (of the taxiway) we might need a few more minutes, just a heads up.
0:22 United 85, Rodger, hold short of runway 28 left let me know when you're ready.
0:26 Hold short of 28 left united 85.
Link

18:27:02: Another plane calls ATC, “We see people (at our vicinity) that need immediate attention. They are alive and they are walking around.”
Link

Airport diagram

Would be a frightening view from that plane's position.

Does anyone know if that United plane is in the normal hold spot for awaiting takeoff in this picture. Seems doubtful it would have moved at that point.

Since they are facing down runway, does that indicate the plane would have entered the runway possibly at taxiway P to takeoff, not using the whole runway length, or turn back and start at the end?

reply to post by Zaphod58


interesting
i sort of knew i was going to see this story
when 1st logging on today
11 pages huh
perhaps it's already been posted
but the OP 1st post only tells half the story

5MIN News July 7, 2013: Spaceweather Affects Airlines???
Uploaded by Suspicious0bservers
[NOTE transcript error corrections are bolded

0:01
good morning folks it's likely safe to say that you are aware of an Asiana on
0:05
airlines flight to crash landed at the san francisco airport the boeing seven
0:09
seventy seven twenty engine p_r_ two hundred went down it nineteen fifty
0:13
three u t_c_
0:15
but i bet you didn't know that just five minutes earlier
0:18
at nineteen forty eight u t_c_
0:20
at the athens international airport across the planet
0:23
an Asiana airlines boeing seven seventy seven twenty engine d_r_ two
0:27
hundred had a fire breakout and barely got down in time to avoid major problems
0:33
same airline has to identify models taken out in the span of five minutes on
0:39
opposite sides of the planet
0:41
you better believe i'm coming back to this

3:02
okay folks yesterday i described how south pointing magnetism in the solar
3:06
wind is rare but can be worse than CME's because they are directly opposed
3:11
to our field and penetrated
3:13
we saw the red bc coming back up most of the day yesterday after the impact
3:18
earth's continually fading magnetic shield managed to deal with the
3:21
disturbance
3:22
defected particle flux as well
3:25
as the day when on the disturbance left are electrically recent began entering
3:28
the atmosphere for its journey to the core
3:31
we can track this energy to a certain degree is it moved throughout our system
3:35
this is normal but when you get magnetic instability it's very obvious specially
3:40
with likely high penetration levels sexually [?]actually?] peaks after the magnetic
3:44
disturbance peaks right, when two identical planes on opposite sides of
3:49
the planet had problems
3:50
i've discussed our continually fading shield for two years
3:54
things like this have been long expected it's still one hundred percent
3:57
speculation
3:58
causation on my part
4:00
but [for?] the fact that the fully operational fact checker that might allow me to
4:04
confirm or deny my claim:
4:06
[it] was turned off mid day yesterday

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

They should, but I'm willing to bet that people would scream if they tried since it's a parking structure. They'll say that there isn't enough parking already and taking this away would make it worse. When it comes to airports people want as little disruption in their lives as possible, and the airport to be as far away from them as it can be.

Comfort should come second after efficiency and safety. They could build an underground garage facility if they had to. I bet whomever owns that parking building has an awful lot of say within san diego and perhaps within california.

I am pretty sure the passengers are not the problem as they could live with a more feasible solution.

Originally posted by SaneThinking
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I think what he is implying is that we were taking the electric particle stream from a space based weather event. An event that just happened to effect the earth almost the exact same time that we had two of the same planes although not from the same carrier experience, technical difficulties, causing one to crash land and another to land with incident.

I'm pretty sure what the implication is and since you happen from what I have read of you posts a technical guru on aircraft military civilian alike.

Is it possible for say a magnetic energy, or high energy flux to create a fire or short out equipment and cause something like this (Fire, Crash, etc.)

The coincidence to some I speak with they find very uncanny....
SaneThinking

No because if that were the case it would have affected hundreds of airplanes in the sky, not just two.

At any given point there are hundreds if not thousands of airplanes taking off, enroute, or landing.

And the athens emergency landing was not even in the same proximity with the san francisco event.

In other words this theory fails the logic test!

i dreamt of this happening two days prior. weird

Why was ILS down? I remember from Diehard 2 when the bad guy reset the ILS -200 feet the plane flew into the ground. So in this case they have no ILS data at all? Landing a plane with 300+ people on it by sight alone? Something is NOT right here! I want to hear from the pilot!

Originally posted by TheMagus

but i bet you didn't know that just five minutes earlier
0:18
at nineteen forty eight u t_c_
0:20
at the athens international airport across the planet
0:23
an Asiana airlines boeing seven seventy seven twenty engine d_r_ two
0:27
hundred had a fire breakout and barely got down in time to avoid major problems
0:33
same airline has to identify models taken out in the span of five minutes on
0:39
opposite sides of the planet

Wrong (the third time posted now). The Athens emergency WAS a Boeing 777-200ER, the same model as the Asiana flight, but it was Kenya Airways flight 117 from Amsterdam to Nairobi. There was no fire in the hold, just an alert that there was. The crew discharged the fire bottle and made a precautionary landing. The aircraft was returned to service today, and the flight continued on to Nairobi.

Originally posted by MaKaElectric
Why was ILS down? I remember from Diehard 2 when the bad guy reset the ILS -200 feet the plane flew into the ground. So in this case they have no ILS data at all? Landing a plane with 300+ people on it by sight alone? Something is NOT right here! I want to hear from the pilot!

You don't need ILS to land an airplane. Its existance is primarily to assist pilots in case of bad weather and for night landings. Any pilot with reasonable training can land his plane on any airport just by following FAA instructional maps, listening to ground control and by visual landmarks.

ILS is a luxury for the most part which assists efficiency some times. Nothing more!

The Aviationist (a blog I follow has a pretty good analysis up based on what we know and jives with what we have already discussed

theaviationist.com...

reply to post by MaKaElectric


Pilots landed without ILS for decades, and they continue to do it to this day. Please don't go by Diehard 2, as it's not the most realistic movie.

The ILS was down because of construction going on around it. It can be affected by vehicles around it, as well as the construction activity around it. It's normally not a problem, unless the crew is too busy doing other things, or are distracted by something else.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by MaKaElectric
Why was ILS down? I remember from Diehard 2 when the bad guy reset the ILS -200 feet the plane flew into the ground.

You don't need ILS to land an airplane.

Right, but they did in the Diehard 2 movie because they couldn't see the runway. In this accident at SFO apparently visibility was not an issue so ILS should not have been needed, though as someone said earlier, the pilots can get a little dependent on the technology, since it does make things easier.

reply to post by FredT


This part is the scary part:

2) the flying pilot flew the final approach higher and faster than expected: you can compare the approach of the AAR214 with the one of the All Nippon B777 that preceeded it. Abeam Coyote point, the ANA8 (NH7) is at 1,500 ft, -896fpm of vertical speed and 167 kts of horizontal speed whereas the doomed AAR214 is at 2,175 ft, -1,152 fpm and 186 kts. In other words, the Asiana was higher, faster and descending steeper (spoilers, full flaps etc) to intercept the proper glide path.

Normally the ILS is intercepted from below so that they don't have to make a steep decent like this. But apparently without the ILS the crew misjudged things terribly and had to make a steeper decent than normal. They should have caught it and gone around when they passed through 1,000 feet with a vertical speed of -1500+ fpm.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by MaKaElectric
Why was ILS down? I remember from Diehard 2 when the bad guy reset the ILS -200 feet the plane flew into the ground.

You don't need ILS to land an airplane.

Right, but they did in the Diehard 2 movie because they couldn't see the runway. In this accident at SFO apparently visibility was not an issue so ILS should not have been needed, though as someone said earlier, the pilots can get a little dependent on the technology, since it does make things easier.

Private pilots throughout the world and especially in america take off and land every day without even basic VOR data. They land on small airstrips in the middle of no where. Many airstrips that are dirt road, gravel, ice beds, cement, etc.

The airports that don't have ILS are about 100 times more than those that do.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Several times in the past Spaceweather (geomagnetic storms, flux) in the electromagnetic shield have caused flight diversions as well as flight issues. You logic fail comment should come after you further educate yourself. But you seem to be all knowing so I don't need to tell you this.

So you can hold your snark next time Zap answered the question and I hold salt to his opinion where from reading your comments you seem more like a wanna be mod in training trying to detract from having further conversation on a topic that has been widely covered.

So you can say logic fail all you like. I can counter with as the the systems that keep us normal change, unknown effects will also take place.

I furthered the comment because it is getting alot of traction other places not just here, so as an open minded person on ATS who denys ignorance I pose the question and got an answer yours though a repeat and easily not needed

Whens the next MOD vote?!?!

SaneThinking

reply to post by SaneThinking


The biggest problems I have with the reports of the Athens landing (and they're big ones) is that it's partially a complete lie. It wasn't an Asiana (they don't fly anywhere that would have them landing in Athens it looks like), they didn't "barely make it to the ground", they had a fire indication and a small amount of smoke in the cabin. There was no indication that there was a fire (if there had been, I doubt they would have continued on today with the same plane), and the fire suppression system worked as advertised so even if there had been a small fire, the odds are good that it would have been extinguished before they ever landed.