Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

page: 2
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Got to tie a little string around my finger. One to remind me not to fly on any big commercial airliners anymore. Seems that they are not as reliable as they used to be. The ones that are reliable tend to get hijacked




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hithe Merinos
This is good news.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Just caught this on the news. A few of the slides are deployed, so that implies people were able to get out. Fingers crossed.
There's a fair amount of stress involved to shed a tail at landing. It will make for an interesting investigation.

Edit: Just saw a shot on the news. Looks like (to me) it set down well before the runway (including the over-run). Put the gear into the water short of the runway and hit the jetty. That would do it.
edit on 6-7-2013 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by opethPA
 



The only thing known for sure right now is it was a 777. Their are multiple reasons why that type of plane has crashed over history.

We shall see.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Commercial Aviation has a pretty decent safety record when you think how many flights there are every day, I also think the 777 has had a saferecord until now,although Zap would Know better.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
And this is already on Wikipedia?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
You can see where the gear hit the rocks. He put it down early and when he hit the rocks, it broke up. Can almost guarantee it.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I've heard on tv that there was a fire on board before it crashed



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Sure looks like it was short of the runway based on debris.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


nearly as fast as ATS these days lol



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Must not be too bad of an airframe since everyone got out despite a crash.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
asiana airline got a five star rating for maintenance and service just last year....we need to wait to find out what happened.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I am not an accident investigator...

But I think you are right...He came up short.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by opethPA

Originally posted by piequal3because14
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco,
This is not good by the number of events starting to unfold.



Because planes have not crashed since they were first engineered?


I think he means with 777's

OK disregard.
I was thinking of another plane and talking out of my back pocket.
edit on 6-7-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
The 777 has the safest record of any aircraft in service longer than a decade. The Triple Seven as it's called, was introduced in July of 1995, and currently has over 1100 aircraft in service, across all variants (there are currently four, with a fifth to be introduced by the end of the decade.

This marks the second hull loss accident for the type, with no fatalities in either. The first was in 2008, when a British Airlines flight lost power on landing at Heathrow, due to ice buildup in the fuel system. The aircraft lost power and crashed short of the runway.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


It's been one of the most successful types since the 747 for Boeing. Everyone that operates them love them, and they've been pushing Boeing hard to release a new version in the 777X.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
The 777's have been a nightmare.
They have had all kinds of problems and failures.



As of August 2012, the 777 has been in eight aviation occurrences, including two hull-loss accidents, and two hijackings, with no fatalities among the passengers or crew. The only fatality involving the twinjet occurred in a refueling fire at Denver International Airport on September 5, 2001, during which a ground worker sustained fatal burns.


First hull loss occurred 13 years after entering service.
1 death associated with it in nearly 20 years of service.

Yeah, sounds like a nightmare.

To be more frank, and honest, you're more likely to be injured slipping while stepping out of the shower than you are to be injured on a 777.


edit on 7/6/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Brief mention of a possible body recovered by Coast Guard. Did they actually account for all souls.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


The media is reporting everyone accounted for. I don't know for certain, or if that's what they were told. We'll have to wait and see.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
777 crash

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by badgerprints
The 777's have been a nightmare.
They have had all kinds of problems and failures.



As of August 2012, the 777 has been in eight aviation occurrences, including two hull-loss accidents, and two hijackings, with no fatalities among the passengers or crew. The only fatality involving the twinjet occurred in a refueling fire at Denver International Airport on September 5, 2001, during which a ground worker sustained fatal burns.


Yeah, sounds like a nightmare. No fatalities between 1995 and 2013, except for a person burned as a result of a fueling accident.

edit on 7/6/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)


Well, heck.
Maybe It was another model.
Guess I should have done some looking.

OK,
I'm full of it.
Experts say it's one of the safest planes in the world.
Even the ones that have crashed.

Don't mind me.
I've learned my lesson.


edit on 6-7-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join