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: 5
48
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by research100
 


Thanks. I'm not able to keep up with this the way I normally would right now.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
The aircraft was acquired by Asiana in 2006. At least one passenger said they came in too low, and tried to climb at the last minute.

The COO of Facebook was supposed to be on the flight, but switched to a United flight that arrived just before flight 214.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
From the footage it looks like a tail slap.

He was either way off glide path, or there was some serious wind shear.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Cartwheel... is there a difference in the terminology where planes are involved? Because to me, a cartwheel means that the plane rotated on the vertical axis before hitting the ground, at least, thats the way I read the article, and the available information on this incident.

Terrible thing, but if the plane did do a full vertical three sixty, then its a bloody miracle that the entire passenger manifest wasnt totally wiped out. The risk of spinal injuries from such a thing is massive, I can only imagine the force with which the nose must have slammed down.

Me and mine are offering our prayers for the injured, and for the fallen, and for the families of both.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


This was a ground loop, not a cartwheel. It would have looked like United 232, if it had been a cartwheel. A ground loop is when you spin around horizontally, staying fairly wings level. A cartwheel is nose over tail. Watch the video of UAL 232 Arty Sioux City to see a cartwheel.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Pilot definitely came up a couple hundred yards short of the runway. You can see where the tail hit the jetty - the tail is laying on pre-runway or whatever they call it.








posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
i live just north of san francisco. it is on all the local channels. so far, 2 people are confirmed dead with many injuries of varying seriousness. let us pray that will be all. plane did not flip over. it is on it's stomach but has been burned pretty thoroughly.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


They call it the hammerhead.

That was an impressive impact. It snapped the elevators off fairly cleanly. The question more is, why were they so low.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Ah, I see. I suppose I ought to know better than to trust the eyewitness report which mentioned a cartwheel. After all, eyewitnesses are often unreliable. This all makes much more sense to me now. Cheers Zaphod!



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


How long is that flight? Could the pilot have been sleep deprived?

I thought maybe you might know how long that flight would have taken.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


How long is that flight? Could the pilot have been sleep deprived?

I thought maybe you might know how long that flight would have taken.


I heard it's just over a 10 hour flight?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


How long is that flight? Could the pilot have been sleep deprived?

I thought maybe you might know how long that flight would have taken.


I've taken that flight a few times. If it was direct from Seoul, it's about 10-11 hours.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Thanks guys and Gals......


Yeah, ten hour flight has to be grueling, especially for a Pilot.

Thanks for the info.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Fire spokesman states passengers unaccounted for. A passenger stated flight attendants were lost out of the rear of the plane when the tail broke apart.

Edit:

Approx 60 passengers unaccounted



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Wow......

That is awful.

Prayers for the victims...



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
www.flightradar24.com...:24/12x/AAR214/173a97f

The approach track.

Yes they were low and the seawall/berm you see in the pictures is about 6-8 feet and judging by the debits in the water and the scaping it was really low.

The other factor I havent seen mentioned I had heard there was a NOTAM that the ILS aprroach was out for 28L due to construction. Weather was good so Im not sure if that should or could have come into play as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by graceunderpressure
 


Apparently it was not a direct flight!!! It started it's journey from China via Seoul then on to SFO! Not that makes any difference! Like said a few posts back, it seems to mirror the London Heathrow crash with another 777 on it's way back from China a while ago!

Only after the NTSB do their investigation will we find out what happened. IMO it would be strange if it suffered the same probs as the LHR crash experienced in such similar circumstances!

I just hope as many people as possible survive.

Albert.

Also, one flight crew wouldn't fly for 10 or 11 hours non stop I dont think? I could be wrong, maybe when they are on auto pilot they can have some rest!
edit on 6/7/13 by albertfothergill because: No reason



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


Isn't it Ironic that the whole flight had gone well, just until this.

I wonder whats the percentage of takeoff and landing disasters, compared to those already in the air?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


About 95-98%. Probably not that high, but takeoff and landing accidents by far outnumber in flight accidents.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
trail from sbs-1

I had checked the winds at the time of the crash and can confirmed they were 8mph. I've landed at SFO in crosswinds and have had some hard landings, but I doubt crosswinds were the problem here.

If you look at AAR214 on flightaware, the speed on approach seems kind of slow to me. I suspect the tail being low was a last ditch effort to get some lift, but that is just a guess.

Incidentally, I don't think they call that "preapproach" area a hammerhead. Hammerheads are the extension that lets the plane do a 180, not unlike a hammerhead in road design. It is the pavement adjacent to the runway, not an extension of the runway. However, I can't seem to find hammerhead defined on the internet.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join