Asiana crash photo anomaly

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sylent6
 


The NTSB has found nothing wrong, there were no reports of problems from the crew, there were no reports of problems from the passengers. The only thing said by them that seemed odd, was that they appeared to be low at the end of the approach before they hit the sea wall.

Believe it or not, pilots make mistakes. There was no glideslope from the ILS, there was a new pilot to the aircraft, and a new instructor with him. Guess what? They screwed up.

The 777 has by far the best safety record of any aircraft built. The two people killed were the first two ever killed on it (and one may have been killed by first responders on accident), and this is only the third hull loss accident ever, since 1995.
edit on 7/8/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The data is showing that the approach was off and the plane speed was to low. When they decided to abort the landing it was too late.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well there you have it pilot's error. I guess somebody is going to be responsible.

This is why I have a fear of flying. There's always that 1%.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Signals
 


They're anything but. Aviation aluminum has a stronger tensile strength than a lot of steels used in building. It has to be thin enough to be light, but strong enough to be able to flex, both from pressurization, and from flying through storms and turbulence.


I'm not sure that the tensile strength is a go by in a crash. Aircraft are relatively flimsy, so are even the safest of cars. It's not even an argument really.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sylent6
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well there you have it pilot's error. I guess somebody is going to be responsible.

This is why I have a fear of flying. There's always that 1%.

Do you have a fear of walking? the tendency to walk into something is great.
or maybe a fear of riding a bike,. a potential to hit some gravel and wipe out is high..
More people die in car accidents,. motorcycles, individually.
maybe its best not to even leave the house,.
jus sayin,. flyin is not big deal,.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Of course they are, but under normal conditions, and even in some crashes they're stronger than people think.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sylent6
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well there you have it pilot's error. I guess somebody is going to be responsible.

This is why I have a fear of flying. There's always that 1%.


I'm scared of flying too, but it's way less than 1%, and it's a lot safer than the drive to the airport. These incidents are very rare, and still nearly all survived.

Being in a plane crash is just about as horrific a thing as I can imagine though, that's why I'd rather take my chances in a car, even if the odds of survival are worse.
edit on 9-7-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Can anyone see where the port-side (left) engine is? Is it still attached to the port wing? The starboard engine is plainly visible in front of the starboard wing which probably broke free from the wing due to high revs and the plane grinding to a rapid halt. Looking carefully at the stills and video of the crash site there seems to be no signs of the port engine.

Does anyone have any ideas where the port engine came to rest?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


You obviously haven't seen the video of the crash?



edit on 9-7-2013 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Both engines are there. The left engine separated and is in the debris field. Both eye working properly at the time of the crash.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
lol, this post made my day


Thanks OP!



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by cleverhans

Originally posted by samuel1990
I think what has happened is that the craft landed, people were evacuated safely and then the plane caught alight.

That pretty much aligns with the story given ton us.


This has been my thinking as well, that everyone got out before the fire spread to the fuselage.


I can live with that.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
no anomaly. first few minutes - no major fire. (minor fire was extinguished

by 1st responders)

fire started later. all in the timing. case closed.

thought this was a true anomaly (nearby ufo, missile, something)

and not a teaser.
edit on 7/9/2013 by drphilxr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sylent6
I'm not buying that. Even if he was inexperience, he manage and somehow to land the aircraft with minimum casualties.

Something happen to that plane right before it landed and maybe the plane is faulty. Is there any prior mechanical problems or some recalls with that particular model plane?

Anyone knows of any passengers making any statements on what they seaward?
edit on 8-7-2013 by sylent6 because: (no reason given)


It came in 35 miles per hour too SLOW, began a stall, pilots tried to do a go around, not enough speed and it fell short of the runway. That's pretty much the story of every stall landing, except most people walked away from this one.

Dorian Soran






top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join