Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

page: 14
48
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by _Del_
 


They actually came in steep and fast. It appears they came in high and tried to dive it onto the glideslope, and got low without realizing where exactly they were.


I don't have any data, but just watching the video, I'd be surprised if the speed was very much higher than normal given the angle of attack.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


They passed through 1000 feet with a sink rate over 1500 fpm. Actually the speed was low, but the sink rate was way too high for the altitude. At 75 feet they were at 86 knots.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Well, at 86 knots, you're bound to have a pretty good sink rate...



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Yes, but they were at normal speeds for the approach prior to that, with a very high sink rate.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They were at 141 knots, 600 feet, with a 1320 fpm sink rate. At 100 feet, they were at 109 knots with a 120 fpm sink rate.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Two of the injured are paralyzed according to a hospital spokesman. Two others suffered road rash type injuries suggesting being dragged. Injuries ranged from abdominal injuries, to spinal fractures, to head injuries. According to the hospital the abdominal and spinal injuries are consistent with seat belt injuries from being whipped forward and backward.

The pilots at the time of the crash were Lee Jeoing-min, and Lee Gang-guk. The two fatalities were found on either side of the plane near the front mid section. It's not clear whether they survived the impact and died after, or if they were killed on impact.


I can see those spinal injuries coming from the pancake as well.
Apart from that the landing pattern was way off. Given that the Heathrow incident was in fact much more complicated than given here, and caused the pilot at one stage to resign, (and later rejoined) There is a need for caution.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


It was off, but according to the NTSB both engines responded to the throttles, the pilots just waited too long to apply power. That rules out an engine issue.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy
 


It was off, but according to the NTSB both engines responded to the throttles, the pilots just waited too long to apply power. That rules out an engine issue.

I don't want to make the engines an issue here, just applying the rule of caution. One of the pilots at least had 10,000 hrs flying time, and they should have at least have had a map related to the visuals on the ground. I looked at that map, and there was no need to be skimming the water. And the nose-up atitude across the water so low looks so wrong.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Three of them had over 10,000 hours of time in. But that doesn't mean that they can't still make mistakes.

Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten was the most senior captain for KLM, with over 11000 hours (1545 in the 747, which was new at the time), and he still took off into a fog, without waiting to make sure they were cleared for take off, and that the Pan Am back taxiing on the runway was clear. He wound up killing all 248 people on his plane, and an additional 335 on the Pan Am 747 that was on the runway in his way.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by _Del_
 


Yes, but they were at normal speeds for the approach prior to that, with a very high sink rate.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They were at 141 knots, 600 feet, with a 1320 fpm sink rate. At 100 feet, they were at 109 knots with a 120 fpm sink rate.


Ok, assuming that data is reasonably accurate (not a given), this is what I see: Come in high on transoceanic flight (not uncommon), ILS is down, so it's visual approach, come in a little steeper than ideal (but manageable) with the engines at idle, dirty it up with gear and flaps, airspeed slowly diminishing toward threshold speed, notice a few seconds late you've passed threshold speed and getting low and slow, throttle up, but it takes the big turbofans some time spool up, make contact with water short of the field and slide your way in.

So fatigued, distracted, both... notice the airspeed just a little too late.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


That's what I'm thinking too. Too much going on at the end of the flight with no glideslope indicator, and just paid attention a little too late.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by _Del_
 


Yes, but they were at normal speeds for the approach prior to that, with a very high sink rate.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They were at 141 knots, 600 feet, with a 1320 fpm sink rate. At 100 feet, they were at 109 knots with a 120 fpm sink rate.


Ok, assuming that data is reasonably accurate (not a given), this is what I see: Come in high on transoceanic flight (not uncommon), ILS is down, so it's visual approach, come in a little steeper than ideal (but manageable) with the engines at idle, dirty it up with gear and flaps, airspeed slowly diminishing toward threshold speed, notice a few seconds late you've passed threshold speed and getting low and slow, throttle up, but it takes the big turbofans some time spool up, make contact with water short of the field and slide your way in.

So fatigued, distracted, both... notice the airspeed just a little too late.


I agree. One thing that is sort of bothersome is WHERE is the other engine? Did it strike the rock wall at the end of the runway and it is in the bay perhaps?
edit on 7-7-2013 by wevebeenassimilated because: added sentence



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by _Del_
 


They actually came in steep and fast. It appears they came in high and tried to dive it onto the glideslope, and got low without realizing where exactly they were.


What glideslope? I thought it was off.

I haven't done so, but has anyone bothered to get an electronic map and a spreadsheet, and computer the slope of the plane. The Aviationist is a competent blogger, but this is the kind of thing where I would like to see the math. Plus the flightware data is derived from radar, but not exact radar readings. They are generally correct, but the FAA doesn't sell the data as accurate.

Also note the track I uploaded from my SBS-1, which is from ADS-B, looks a bit different from flight aware or even fr24 for that matter. Unfortunately, I don't run my SBS-1 with the track logging turned on, plus I can't receive mode-s right to the runway. My SBS-1 cut out around 4kft.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


The ILS glideslope was off, but there's still the lights on either side of the runway that show if you're high or low. Those were still on, and still usable if the pilots were watching them.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


Both engines were there.


What appears to be the Boeing 777's right engine is detached from the wing and wedged against the right side of the fuselage. Another engine is a considerable distance from the fuselage in a grassy area to the right of runway 28L. This appears to be the left engine.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


Both engines were there.


What appears to be the Boeing 777's right engine is detached from the wing and wedged against the right side of the fuselage. Another engine is a considerable distance from the fuselage in a grassy area to the right of runway 28L. This appears to be the left engine.

www.cnn.com...


CNN just showed a graphic that shows the right engine being knocked off and lands just to the right of the runway. Perhaps the right engine, the right landing gear and the tail section all impacted the sea wall initially.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
If the pilot could have just pushed the nose down just before the boulders it would have brought the tail up and he could have landed ok!



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


From the looks of the video the tail was in the water before the jetty. If he pushed the nose forward, the landing gear still would have impacted the jetty, and been ripped off.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
seems they are investigating that one of the 2 killed may have been run
over by a fire truck,. oopps



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


From the looks of the video the tail was in the water before the jetty. If he pushed the nose forward, the landing gear still would have impacted the jetty, and been ripped off.


Could be right. I'll have another look at the video.. It is kind of hard to tell so far from the landing.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


The VASI glide slope would have been on all the time . There was a problem like wind shear . The wind can die or even reverse directions or their could be a down draft or descending air that would cause problems especially when landing on what seems to be a short runway . The fully loaded 777 could easily use up 7500 feet of a 8600 foot runway , so setting down on the start of the runway is essential especially during hot days with little or no head wind . Bleeding off as much excess airspeed is also important thus setting up a condition for a wind shear accident . And as soon as the accident happens the wind can return to it's normal velocity and direction leaving no evidence of what really happened .





new topics
top topics
 
48
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join