Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

Originally posted by SheopleNation

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.

Go back and read the quote I originally replied to, and then please apologise

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?

He was in training on the 777 after converting from other types.

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

how about reading what I was replying too before making yourself look like a moron?

reply to post by Zaphod58


I assume the localizer was still on. They are paired frequencies, but independent hardware (to the best of my knowledge).

thats tragic, and its odd looking that its only the top and the tail of the plane that got damaged

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

news.msn.com

A Boeing 777 airliner has crashed while landing at the San Francisco International Airport. The FAA says the plane is operated by Asiana Airlines.

SAN FRANCISCO — Authorities report a Boeing 777 has crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport.

The FAA says the plane is operated by Asiana Airlines. The extent of injuries are unknown.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
rt.com
www.thenews.com.pk

i know your 'views' on chemtrailing, and i do right to be suspicious here.
www.cluesforum.info...

you have been punked people. this latest episode in our education stresses the no. 7 and
is another (obvious) fake story.
someone is trying to get us to connect the no. 7 with fakery. someone is trying to
get us to connect planes with fakery.
i wonder are there any explicit 9/11 references/connections within the story?

wasn't yesterday 7/7? was it 7/7 in london also?

hmmm.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Go back and read the quote I originally replied to, and then please apologise

Nah, don't need to read what I have already read again. The folks out there can decide for themselves, but it's clear what you meant.

He was in training on the 777 after converting from other types.

Yep, pretty much what I just said that was reported by yahoo, but who knows when it comes to the MSM and the puppets that work for them.

how about reading what I was replying too before making yourself look like a moron?

That drivel sounds good, but how about not coming unhinged when your poor judgment and reckless assumptions are exposed instead of resorting to personal attacks? You're better than that my friend, just be you next time.

Listen again, Let's just stick to the subject instead of making it about everyone and anyone else who challenges or disagrees with your opinions ok? I like to hear your opinions Aloysius. ~$heopleNation

Hmmm... Nobody knows what caused it yet?

Obviously not much in the way of weather. Clear, fair, and a rather nice day out.

Could be bird strike (like an entire flock getting sucked in) on one or both engines, given the low approach over water. Lose your engines in the last few minutes and you'd definitely have a problem.

Also from what I understand (no expert but played with flight sims), most big jets are slowed down using flaps, slats, and airbrakes so you don't have the problem of engine spool time if you need to do a go around. (Throttle is already up, so releasing the airbrakes gets airspeed up fairly quick.) With that type of approach, engines don't get throttled down much until touchdown. I wonder if they didn't do that, in which case it could be pilot error. (Like somebody transitioning from flying a turboprop aircraft or much smaller jet, and flying the way they're used to instead of what's correct for the aircraft type.)

Other than that, there's various component failure. Which will take some digging to figure out what caused it.

I guess we can be glad that for as bad as it looked, the majority of passengers survived it. If it came in any shorter of that jetty or seawall, things could have been a lot worse.

From watching the video, I am very surprised that the aircraft held up as well as it did.

Also a couple of comments from the thread:

1. The 777 is a FBW aircraft.
2. Typically the autothrottles will bring the engines to idle ~30 feet above the runway.

Originally posted by gariac

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.

The clip of the approach very much looks like an RNAV approach going wrong. Perhaps they had wrong waypoints, wrong DA or wrong GPS signals. SFO offers WAAS and in heavy traffic many pilots are using RNAV approaches. RNAV requires a lot of attention from the pilot. They might have been tired or not enough trained for RNAV on a 777.

Getting wrong GPS data would explain that kind of approach, their height and low speed. To me it looks as GPS was telling their system that the runway would be 200 ft furtherout in the sea. It looks as if RNAV began to autoland that plane right into the sea. No pilot would deliberately do that while flying a manual approach.

reply to post by pinkbirdatabase


The RNAV approach into SFO is fairly new and for 28R/L, was developed to accommodate the ILS outage. From the info I have seen, it doesn't look like a botched RNAV approach (though they could have been on it; depending on what configuration the tower was on) as missed approach on an RNAV looks like it is at the 2 mile final.

This plane was well passed DARNE (missed approach point) and is shaping up to have discovered they needed to perform a go-around. Sadly, they were too low and too slow.

As a radar technician with buddies in the navigation field, I am a little peeved that the media is jumping the gun with spewing out "the glide slope was out during the accident" and causing a wide range of speculation. While the NTSB will surely analyze any data, that piece of equipment has been out for quite some time. It is also expressed in a NOTAM and broadcast over ATIS.

For even the hollowed Capt. "Sully" to make this a point makes me believe that the news really cares only about creating drama to draw people in rather than reporting relevant facts.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase

 

The RNAV approach into SFO is fairly new and for 28R/L, was developed to accommodate the ILS outage. From the info I have seen, it doesn't look like a botched RNAV approach (though they could have been on it; depending on what configuration the tower was on) as missed approach on an RNAV looks like it is at the 2 mile final.

This plane was well passed DARNE (missed approach point) and is shaping up to have discovered they needed to perform a go-around. Sadly, they were too low and too slow.

SFO uses WAAS since 2005 as a RNAV approach system. IlSFO was one of the first airports enabling that system. In 2008 they had already more RNAV approaches than ILS approaches in SFO.

BREAKING

News are reporting that at least one of the two girls apparently died because she was run over by a fire car while she was running away from the burning plane. What a tragic event!

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by SheopleNation


Except that someone DID suggest the pilot did a good job. User dowot said it a couple posts above the reply that you quoted.

The pilot was attempting his first landing at SFO. He was also new to flying the 777.
www.foxnews.mobi...

(From cell)

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
It was likely pilot error.

They approached at 98 knots. You think it might have been pilot error? Approach speed is something like 130.

Actually, I ran it using our aircraft manual, calculating for assumed weight and the temperature, and the target reference speed would have been 137 knots(157 mph). A couple of other items to note are that the Captain had less than 45 hours experience in the 777 and it was a training flight for him, and both the ILS (instrument landing system) and the Precision Approach Path Indicator for runway 28 were out of service. That means you had a very inexperienced, at least in type, pilot hand-flying an uncoupled approach with no external glide path information. He initiated a go around at 1.5 seconds before impact. Even ignoring the fact that 77,000 lbf turbofans can't instantly spool up to full power, you have a 150,000 kg aircraft with a downward vector of about 4 meters per second. That gives you a vertical (down) kinetic energy of 120,000 m kg/s^2 to reverse in 1.5 seconds. No speculative opinion here. Just sayin'.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Zaph - you have to have immense patience with these "whuffos," as in "whuffo" this airchine crash? They will compensate for their ignorance by just making stuff (yeah, I really did say "stuff") up. They don't understand, or are too lazy to learn, about pitot-sttatic systems, the spool-up time if centrigugal or axial flow turcbofans. They lack the resources, or the incentive to get the resources, to learn that, for example, at this very instant there are 22 Boeing 777s over just the Atlantic Ocean. And that's just the -200s. That ignores the -300s, the ERs and the freighters. I have been an aircraft crash investigator for over 30 years, and have been frustrated for those same 30 years, by people's propensity to do their own home-made "investigations". without looking at every factor like: human factors; meteorology; maintenance, training and experience, medical and physiology, ATC, airport topology/location/geography, etc. That's too much work, so they just pull something out of thin air like, "Oh, it was a space storm", and then, being invested in their own ignorance, they have to make stuff up to support their "theory, like "It was the same model aircraft and the same airline.", like a photon spewed from the sun is going to taget just one air carrier. "OK, boys, were on our way now. Remember, Asiana, and only Asiana.. And only their 777-200ERs. Ignore their 24 A321s, and their 15 747s. Remember, boys, only 11 of Asiana's 81 aircraft are 777-200s so be sure and find those using you OAG Guide for electromagnetic photons."

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SheopleNation

 

Except that someone DID suggest the pilot did a good job. User dowot said it a couple posts above the reply that you quoted.

Morning all.

Sorry my "Did a good job" has raised a couple of hackles.

I am not a pilot, or even a regular flyer, few long hauls to the far east and some inter european flights is all, so I bow to superiors knowledge.

All I can see, is that things went terribly wrong at some point, maybe the approach was too step( Trying for a "high energy approach"?), one of the pilots was being given guidance of landing at where-ever by a more experienced pilot, the FBW (Fly by Wire) system failed to respond as it was an unusual situation, (Normally 30ft above ground would be over the landing threshold preparatory to landing and not over water/land needing a different response.), etc etc. and out of this bad situation the pilot(s) at least remained calm (I assume with brown trousers!) and got the plane onto the runway and almost in one piece. Note the landing gear was after the threshold, near the 28L marker and the tailplane just before. Note also that the runway markings have been altered for a later landing point, to give a shorter landing length and a greater height over the berm at the edge of the water. An accident waiting to happen? See thumbsnap.com... which has been taken from another site, www.pistonheads.com which also has a discussion on this accident.

It is also testament to the quality of build for the 777 aircraft, and no wonder many are still flying and more are requested by airlines.

Very true that, under proper circumstances, a normal approach, 3 point landing and arrival at the loading stairway would have been better.

Found a consideration, by a professional, of what may/might have occurred. flyingprofessors.net... Some of the after comments make interesting reading.

I now retire, with tail between legs, from this discussion.

reply to post by anniquity


It was his first in a Triple Seven. He had made the landing 29 times in other aircraft at SFO.

reply to post by dowot


No need to retire from the discussion. It was bad flying to get into the situation, but at least they managed to get to land and most of the passengers survived. I doubt we'll agree on good piloting, but no need for a tactical retreat.

reply to post by dowot


It's a good thing you're gone from this thread. First, you readily acknowledge ignorance of the subject matter. Then you go on to indict the fly-by-wire system on the 777. A Boeing 777 has NO fly-by-wire sytem. Then you conflate the threshold and displaced threshhold markings with the "touchdown zone" which is usually another 1000 feet or so down the runway. Then you recommend a 3 point landing attitude for a tricycle geared widebody airliner. A three point landing was not even recommended for the tailwheel equipped DC-3, since a "wheel landing" gives much more lateral control. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, why talk? There is absolutely no value added to the conversation.