It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

page: 15
48
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
seems they are investigating that one of the 2 killed may have been run
over by a fire truck,. oopps


Oh no! Where did you hear that report?




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


It's hard to tell, but there's what looks like a white rooster tail coming up before the brown dust cloud that pops up after they hit the ground past the jetty.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


It's hard to tell, but there's what looks like a white rooster tail coming up before the brown dust cloud that pops up after they hit the ground past the jetty.


sorry double post
edit on 7-7-2013 by wevebeenassimilated because: double post



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wevebeenassimilated

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


It's hard to tell, but there's what looks like a white rooster tail coming up before the brown dust cloud that pops up after they hit the ground past the jetty.


I lived in Redwood City just across the road from Menlo Park for about 11 years and flew into SFO many times. I gotta tell you that these jumbo jets land all the time side by side with one trailing the other for approach to runway 28L and 28R just barely off the water. From a distance they look surreal because the perspective makes it look like they are barely moving. Every time I landed there it was not good for me. Just looking out and seeing the water just a few feet below the plane sent me into an anxiety attack once.

Note: before I retired I flew somewhere weekly for my job and flying did not usually bother me at all.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


It's hard to tell, but there's what looks like a white rooster tail coming up before the brown dust cloud that pops up after they hit the ground past the jetty.



Looks like the rooster tail ends and the dust begins right about the same time the 777 disappears behind the plane on the taxiway. The dust hangs in the air longer and kicks up higher than the water. Just a guess based on the fuzzy video.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wevebeenassimilated
 


It's hard to tell, but there's what looks like a white rooster tail coming up before the brown dust cloud that pops up after they hit the ground past the jetty.



Looks like the rooster tail ends and the dust begins right about the same time the 777 disappears behind the plane on the taxiway. The dust hangs in the air longer and kicks up higher than the water. Just a guess based on the fuzzy video.


I saw that. And the other thing is the engine is hanging very low off the wing. The nose is up in attitude so can't tell if it would have hit first or not.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Just saw the approach video . The guy just got too slow and the right wing dropped just at contact with the water . They were very lucky it was high tide and the jetty was not higher .



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Just saw the approach video . The guy just got too slow and the right wing dropped just at contact with the water . They were very lucky it was high tide and the jetty was not higher .


At 04 seconds the left wing comes up. Maybe an engine strike?


edit on 7-7-2013 by wevebeenassimilated because: typo

edit on 7-7-2013 by wevebeenassimilated because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Per the NTSB, the stall warning activated aurally and physically as they passed below 137 knots. A flight crew member called for power 7 seconds before impact, and there was no indication of any problem from either the crew conversation, or the engines when power was applied.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Do not planes have a ground proximity warning, and a "pull up" warning? Would they not have alerted the crew to the danger?

Saw a still of the plane low over the water, looked like the Russian ectraplane (Probably spelt wrongly, but those that know will correct me). Would not ground effect come into play with a plane that low?

Go back to the good old days, with minimum of 4 crew, Engineer and radio officer plus pilots!

Re language, most Far Eastern Asians speak English better than the English, or at least that is what I found when out there, certainly better than on the Ferry from France recently. No idea what was said.

Always sad when a plane goes down, especially with casualties and deaths. A tragic loss to the parents of the two dead students.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dowot
 


There were warnings going off in the cockpit, and they would have hit ground effect, but with the sink rate that they had at the time of the accident, they would have blown right through the ground effect and barely slowed down. With a sink rate like they had, due to their airspeed being so low, any ground proximity warning would have come too late to do anything.

The Russian WiG was the Ekranoplan.
edit on 7/7/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dowot
Do not planes have a ground proximity warning, and a "pull up" warning? Would they not have alerted the crew to the danger?


AFAIK ground prox warnings are usually disabled when they are in landing mode - gear and flaps out - they'd just be distracting.

The received a "stick shaker" stall warning:


At about four seconds before the plane crash landed, the pilots received an "oral and physical" warning inside the cockpit that the plane was on the verge of an aerodynamic, meaning it was about to lose its ability to stay in the air. The warning -- known as a "stick shaker" -- included a verbal warning the plane that was flying too low, and a physical warning when the throttle shook. The NTSB has ruled out weather as a problem and said that conditions were right for a "visual landing."
- source


edit on 7-7-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Thanks both.

It's late/early here, brain is only half awake..

Suppose the NTSB would say it was OK...but then that is the conspiracy in me taking over.

When you see that video of the plane, it is a wonder they got it to the land at all. Looked some way out and the landing gear would have been a huge drag through the water.

Whatever was wrong, the pilot did a good job to save as much as he did. Probably self preservation kicked in.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...

I've never seen them shy away from mechanical this early in an investigation. They're basically saying it was pilot error in just about every statement.

It would be interesting to compare the approaches between a 777 and a 747 on a flight simulation.

Anyone have one?
edit on 7-7-2013 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dowot
Whatever was wrong, the pilot did a good job to save as much as he did. Probably self preservation kicked in.


the pilot did not do a "good job" in any respect from the initial evidence!



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
It looked so wrong to be on the approach to land with the nose up how it was.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Well he could have ploughed into the water and maybe many more could have died or been injured or drowned?

At this moment we do not know exactly what happened or why. Some may make experienced guesses, but that is only a guess.

Whatever happened, the pilot(s) got the plane to the land and allowed a lot of people to walk away, some carrying their belongings!

Things could have been worse.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dowot
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Well he could have ploughed into the water and maybe many more could have died or been injured or drowned?


And so somehow hitting the seawall is "good piloting"?

no - it isn't.

Perhaps he could have done worse - but that doesn't make doing really really badly into "good"!



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Per the NTSB, the stall warning activated aurally and physically as they passed below 137 knots. A flight crew member called for power 7 seconds before impact, and there was no indication of any problem from either the crew conversation, or the engines when power was applied.


So you get the stall warning, stick shaking or bitching betty or whatever is in the 777, apply power, how long does it take those big turbofans to spool up? You slam the throttles forward and pull the nose up, the plane struggles to accelerate because it's dirty and the engines are still spooling up to power, but at that altitude, you don't have time.



Originally posted by violet
It looked so wrong to be on the approach to land with the nose up how it was.


Nose probably didn't come up until after the warnings started going off.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And so somehow hitting the seawall is "good piloting"?


Who suggested that Aloysius?


no - it isn't.


Nope, it's not. Nobody said that it did, so don't make reckless assumptions.


Perhaps he could have done worse - but that doesn't make doing really really badly into "good"!


This pilot was still in his early flight training, I believe I heard from yahoo that he only had around 45 hours in a 777 Boeing, yet he and others were quoted by Yahoo to have 5,000 and 10,000 ect? Maybe just in the 777?

Not sure yet what to believe, that's just what we are hearing from numerous talking heads in empty suits on cable TV, and even some online. Maybe they meant that the pilot only had 45 hours training on just the 777, but had thousands more on others? We have to wait in order to learn the facts, cause that is how these things work themselves out, based on the FACTS my friend. Remember, isn't that what you once said to me? So practice what you preach is all that I am saying.

Anyway, If he was truly still in training, the blame should be considered for whoever allowed him to fly across the Pacific Ocean and land at SFO which is known to have very difficult approaches that fly low right over the bay. Not a lot of room for error out here, I have lived it myself, and I lived it yesterday in a similar approach just across the bay in Oakland returning from Oahu, Hawaii with my family. That is why I have not been around much for 10 days.

However, another factor is SFO shut down in early June the glide scope, which is a key navigational aid that helps pilots, without a doubt a rookie pilot such as our subject here, stay course and land safely. Apparently it was a maintenance issue. I hear that all the time about SFO.

When I can, I fly into or out of Oakland or San Jose. I never thought I would say that, but it's just my experience growing up out here. Nothing against SFO, just my personal choices. SFO is still a great International Airport where I have never had any issue whatsoever. In fact, I have had a few in San Jose. Oakland and San Jose are just closer to my home and more convenient.

Aloysius, You're speculating just as everyone else is, so how about we all use some logic instead of fabricating arguments that nobody here even made?
~$heopleNation

Source: news.yahoo.com...
edit on 7-7-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join