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: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
That same witness I mentioned said as touched down a large fire ball erupted under the plane near the tail.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
They are saying there are 2 dead and 48 injured.

My prayers go out to all involved.
edit on 6-7-2013 by Darkblade71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by abecedarian
Big plane, descending for approach, moving a bit too slow so throttles and noses up just a little bit late.
... or ...
Big plane, descending for approach, gets sudden wind shear so noses and throttles up, but not in time.

There is a point of no return where the pilot must commit to one action or another, and sometimes the better option is a crash.


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


So basically its vertical speed was too high and it bounced off the runway?

I realise its still early and most of it is speculation at best.
I don't know.
Only I can think that would cause it to lose the tail section though is the tail hit the ground first.
So, what situations would cause that?


Exactly what I mentioned. Drop too fast means near stall speed, tail end of airplane touches down first while nose is still way up. In flight simulator usually plane goes up 100 feet off the runway then comes back down and slams into the ground. In real life the airplane would probably just break up in pieces like shattered glass.

But why the 360 turnaround? That suggests crosswind and incompetance.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
KTVU is reporting 2 dead, 12 injured

Might as well start with the numbers
Flight 214- 2+1+4=7
It was a 777 plane
its 7/7 in Korea



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   


But why the 360 turnaround? That suggests crosswind and incompetance.


No tail and rudder.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Most likely they came in too low and one set of wheels clipped the jetty and caused them to spin. This wouldn't be the first accident on this runway involving the bay.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Once you're on the ground irrelevant. Even if they were on the air when it happened, close to the runway they could have set down without spinning.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
News stating that Coast Guard transported one person to hospital.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
But why the 360 turnaround? That suggests crosswind and incompetance.


Pure SWAG (Scientific Wild *** Guess)? Most ground loops are caused when one wing tip scrapes enough to cause sudden yaw but doesn't dig in deep enough to actually cartwheel the plane. Or occasionally you have excessive yaw at touchdown. Or if one main gear hit the jetty before or more heavily than the other, similar situation. Any of these might have happened here.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
A tragic accident.

Prayers go out to all.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

"It didn't manage to straighten out before hitting the runway," she said. "So the tail of the plane hit the runway, and it cartwheeled and spun and the tail broke off ... I mean we were sure that we had just seen a lot of people die. It was awful.

Source



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Most likely they came in too low and one set of wheels clipped the jetty and caused them to spin. This wouldn't be the first accident on this runway involving the bay.


Yes that is plausible. But what about strong crosswinds in that area?

Normally landings close to the sea, runways between mountains, etc are prone to swirling winds and sudden gusts.
edit on 6/7/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I think they said the wind was 8 mph at that time.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I think they said the wind was 8 mph at that time.


I guess my theory is out the window then. 8 mph is nothing at all for a 777. Even cesnas can handle up to 20 mph easy.


It seems zaphod58 is correct or at least the most plausible.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Most likely they came in too low and one set of wheels clipped the jetty and caused them to spin. This wouldn't be the first accident on this runway involving the bay.


Yes that is plausible. But what about strong crosswinds in that area?

Normally landings close to the sea, runways between mountains, etc are prone to swirling winds and sudden gusts.
edit on 6/7/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

SFO has two runways, one oriented predominately north / south and the other east / west.

SFO itself, is in a valley, if you will, surrounded by hills / mountains from any direction. It's not as bad as San Diego / Lindberg field though.


From what I understand, most approaches to SFO are done south to north, meaning arriving flights approach from near San Jose. Approaches done east to west results in planes flying near Oakland. Strictly speaking, SFO doesn't have a real reason to exist since there are other, better, airports within 40 miles

Approaching from the east is difficult since a plane would have to drop down over the mountains / hills above Oakland, Heyward and Fremont. Approach from the south is much easier. Grab a map and take a look.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Here's a picture from twitter.



Now what kind of damage caused it?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


It looks like an accidental fire that happened inside? I just found out about this terrible news. What's the informaition on this topic?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


They spun on the runway after the tail hit and broke off. There are two reported dead, something like 48 injured out of 291 passengers.
edit on 7/6/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
still 2 dead, injured increased to 61... pilot radioed that something was wrong...



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Fire, probably started when the hydraulic lines in the tail were severed. Hydraulic fluid is nasty stuff and it catches fire fairly easily.




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join