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: 6
48
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by albertfothergill
 


There are usually two crews onboard. They trade off during the flight.

The problem that caused the BA accident was solved fairly easily once they figured out why it happened.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I thought as much.

Thanks Zaph...



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


I've heard both just the end of the runway, and that area referred to as the hammerhead.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
One BBC report say pilots reported 'unusual circumstances' however, BBC is also now reporting that the Heathrow incident need not be related, and also a tail down hit from an attempted go-around as a possibilty. So just don't speculate



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Unfortunately initial reports of no fatalities may have been wrong:

millbrae.patch.com...

Two people were killed and 61 injured in the crash of an Asiana Boeing 777 airline at San Francisco International Airport Saturday morning, according to a dispatcher for the San Francisco Fire Department.
At least 10 people are in critical condition.

I thought those planes could practically land themselves? Or is that plane too old for that technology? But if the airport was under construction, if there wasn't ILS for that the landing would have to be manual?


Pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger said that the construction on the SFO runway could have been a factor in the crash.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
What ever the facts are concerning the crash of this flight, the crash itself
has obviously resulted in a devestating loss of life. Devastating to the people
who loved the victims. I am truly so sorry for them. Death and tragedy is an
unrelenting curse to us all.

Someday, maybe someday.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 

The tail broke off when it hit the ground (poor angle of attack) then it slide onto the airport and caught fire. Apparently no one was killed. Very lucky for sue (I'm flying on one of those 777's next week).
THere has been reported issues with this airlines flight crews. It's a LONG flight from South Korea. This pilot probably only had about three hours in the seat prior to landing. It was a poor attempt to lamd.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Dont know if this has been asked before

Where is the left side engine? I can only see the right side engine in the photos.

also why are some people carrying bags in one of the photos posted?

Vader



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   


another low landing here. in fact it doesn't get more extreme than 747s landing in st maartens.

edit on 6/7/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Unfortunately initial reports of no fatalities may have been wrong:

millbrae.patch.com...

Two people were killed and 61 injured in the crash of an Asiana Boeing 777 airline at San Francisco International Airport Saturday morning, according to a dispatcher for the San Francisco Fire Department.
At least 10 people are in critical condition.

I thought those planes could practically land themselves? Or is that plane too old for that technology? But if the airport was under construction, if there wasn't ILS for that the landing would have to be manual?


Pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger said that the construction on the SFO runway could have been a factor in the crash.



Yah..it doesn't look good for those initial reports of no loss of life.. =(
60 people unaccounted for.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wrkn4livn
 



Apparently no one was killed.


2 confirmed fatalities, around 60 passengers unaccounted for. Not going to turn out very well..



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by piequal3because14
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 



Apparently the tail dropped off and the plane flipped over, from eye witness reports
Unfortunately these type of accidents has a big number of victims,which is not good

Just as I thought which is regrettable and very very sad.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wrkn4livn
 




they keep saying from early on ,that 2 people were killed, just said sucked out the back then the tail came off...they just ruled out terrorism.

the one reporter says that 50 some people unaccounted for

on the screen now, 60 unaccounted for

edit on 6-7-2013 by research100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by piequal3because14

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?
Because the maintenance begins to be.... in whole context.
This also will be confirmed in weeks maybe months.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by opethPA
 


There are reports of a NOTAR about the ILS system on 28L being out. But given the weather conditions and time of day, there is no reason that a VLR landing would not be possible

Spoke to a friend who responded to the crash (I live in the SF Bay Area) and the scene is still pretty chaotic so the 60 missing (I hope) may be just part of that confusion.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Fos news had a live link above the crash site, unfortunately it is no longer available, but I did see it when live.

live.foxnews.com... it is clear that the aircraft came to rest not much further than the start of the runway, and off the runway to the right. All the tail sections are removed before the runway start, with some part/s in the waterway.
That link only shows Fox radio now.
edit on 6-7-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Fos news had a live link above the crash site, unfortunately it is no longer available, but I did see it when live.

live.foxnews.com... it is clear that the aircraft came to rest not much further than the start of the runway, and off the runway to the right. All the tail sections are removed before the runway start, with some part/s in the waterway.


That jives with what I posted earlier, there is some part in the water. the berm at the start of the runway is 6-8 feet and judging by the impact marks the tail hit the berm and sheared

I regards to reports the two fatalities were sucked out, Im not so sure. The aft pressure seal while burst was still attached and that low the airframe would been at sea level pressure so not as likely to exposlosivly decompress.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by piequal3because14
Because planes have not crashed since they were first engineered?
Because the maintenance begins to be.... in whole context. This also will be confirmed in weeks maybe months.

This clip is from a first hand witness..pretty interesting to watch

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
maybe I used the wrong word, 2 confirmed dead were in the back of the plane when the tail came off .
edit on 6-7-2013 by research100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
News Conference

Almost all accounted for at this time. perhaps 4 not accounted for per SF officials

Edit (update)
181 to local hospitals
123 in terminal
2 fatal


With 1-4 unaccounted for depending on who you ask
edit on 7/6/13 by FredT because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
48
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join