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: 8
48
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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?


They can get themselves down close to the runway, but they have to have working instruments to give them the proper readings. Without an ILS the plane doesn't know where exactly it is in relation to the runway, so the pilots have to fly the approach. Unfortunately, with all the automation, the pilots tend to rely on the technology a lot more than they should.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Where's the hero pilot? What's he saying about this crash. There were hundreds of survivors, what are they saying about the crash? That's what I'm not hearing much of.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by aLLeKs
 


She transferred to a United flight that landed about 20 minutes before this flight.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mrnotobc
 


Because in this case the pilot may have been the cause of it, so they aren't letting him speak until he talks to the NTSB.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mrnotobc
 


Hero??? Where? It was a VFR approach ... It was likely pilot error. Or trusting instruments that were not calibrated correctly for SFO. It looks to me that the pilot was too low and tried to pull up and smacked the tail on the rocks. Having flown in to and out of SFO in the last few months I can tell you its a weird approach and the water is very close to the touchdown part of the runway. I thought we were a little low when we touched down.

Thank God only 2 maybe 3 dead thus far out of 307 people.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by HundredthMonkey
Also strange only two died with more than half of the top of the fuselage melted away.


Not really the fire occured after the crash and there seemed to be enough time to get most out. My son and I were lucky to witness a egress test of an airliner. They load a mix of people male/female old/young and see how many can evacuate a plane in 90 seconds (thats how they certify the capacity of airframes BTW) and its amazing how fast people can evac



Right - this picture shows the fuselage was pretty much intact for awhile before the fire broke out. The right engine was pinned up close to fuselage (not shown on the other side of the aircraft) - so people had time to get out if they could.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


Whats interesting about the picture is the discoloration on the top of the fueselage like it was already heating up and color changing



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


Whats interesting about the picture is the discoloration on the top of the fueselage like it was already heating up and color changing


Check out the dude in the foreground taking pictures and the women carrying their bags. If i am in a plane crash - i'm deplanning & sprinting the heck out of there - screw the bags or pictures.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by aLLeKs
 



so apparently the COO of facebook sheryl sandberg cancelled the flight... I feel conspiracy theories incoming
Hmm only this time,

because I don't like Facebook!



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


I'm sorry, but that picture pisses me off. Look at the size of the bags those people are carrying. If that fuselage had already been on fire, which part of it may have been and they didn't know it, they could have killed people behind them getting their bags, and getting them out the doors.

IT'S NOT WORTH A LIFE to save you're freaking computer. Leave the damn thing behind.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Check out the dude in the foreground taking pictures and the women carrying their bags. If i am in a plane crash - i'm deplanning & sprinting the heck out of there - screw the bags or pictures.


Yeah I dont get that at all. I do medical transport for a living and the first thing we learn if we have a "hard landing" is to get out (once the rotors have stopped) and meet at a safe distance from the craft (the nose is the point of reference) then go back and get the patient, or gear etc. If I was lined up to get out of a crashed airliner and you are busy getting your carry out out of the overhead, Im not going to be nice



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
they said on the radio that first responders were cutting the seat belts off of passengers during the time before the fire got too bad.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HundredthMonkey
Also strange only two died with more than half of the top of the fuselage melted away.
edit on 6-7-2013 by HundredthMonkey because: (no reason given)


Why is it strange only two people died if the fire didn't take over until they were already on the ground and getting out?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
It does remind me of the crash of flight TK 1951 just before the runway in Amsterdam Shipol:
www.youtube.com...

The conclusion of the investigations was, that a faulty radio altimeter did cause the auto throttle to go in to retard flare mode, while the pilots didn't interpret the warnings correctly because they were overworked with their checklist for a diffucult landing maneuver. While Boeing was aware and to some degree negligent of the issue with RAs, the pilots should have been able to deactivate the AT and fly manually.

I wonder if there were similar circumstances in this case, e.g. technical failure combined with pilot overload.
edit on 6-7-2013 by Deepone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Deepone
 


I'm thinking that they were used to the aircraft flying the approach for them, but in this case it couldn't (no ILS on that runway). They failed to pay close enough attention, expecting the aircraft to get them to a certain point, and they take over and land. They got low and very slow (almost 40 knots slow), before they noticed, and by the time they did, it was way too late.

That particular crash seems to be a lot more than just a radio altimeter. The lack of fire is interesting.
edit on 7/6/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/6/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by opethPA

Originally posted by HundredthMonkey
Also strange only two died with more than half of the top of the fuselage melted away.
edit on 6-7-2013 by HundredthMonkey because: (no reason given)


Why is it strange only two people died if the fire didn't take over until they were already on the ground and getting out?


Unfortunately I assumed the fire would have broken out shortly after or at impact and not after the entire airplane had been evacuated and had time to be doused in fire retardant.
edit on 6-7-2013 by HundredthMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by HundredthMonkey
 


Usually they do. They were lucky on this one that it didn't.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
From Drudge:




One last thing and will shut-up cause know nothing about flying but they not only came in low they where way off center of the runway - I mean that pilot was going to have problems even if the tail didn't hit first per the debris trail & grooved in rubber on the runway. I don't see any skid marks where he was going.
edit on 6-7-2013 by BABYBULL24 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join