San Francisco Crash Pilot 'Blinded By Light'

reply to post by ItsEvolutionBaby


I listened to this dude in the video for like a minute. Straight up nut job. Everything is a hoax now? WTF?

People are starting to lose it.

reply to post by raifordko


He also had almost 10k hours in 737s, 747s, and A320s.

Originally posted by 11andrew34
FAA: Pilot was "wrapped up like a deuce, another runner in the night."

Originally posted by Briles1207
I am pretty sure pilots are trained to "fly blind" anyway. If you can't land a plane because something flashed in your face you shouldnt be getting 100k a year

Not sure if serious...

Flying blind does not mean a blind pilot. It means flying with an obscured view outside the plane, i.e. in fog, in the dark etc. It's flying a plane based on instrument readings.

I'm sure plenty of pilots are familiar enough to find their controls even when they themselves can't see at all, but in that case they still couldn't see their instrument readings, and you need to do that to 'fly blind' especially for landing.

They're pilots, not Luke Skywalker.

edit on 11-7-2013 by 11andrew34 because: typo

Of course I wasn't suggesting they could fly if they were actually blind but they are trained to land a plane manually ( without instrumental aid, and also they are trained to land with obscured vision as you say. It's just concerning that someone with so many lives on board is unable to deal with a flash of light

reply to post by Briles1207


It depends on what it is. Just because they're pilots doesn't mean their eyes so working like everyone else. A laser or bright light source still blinds them. The key is that there is more than one person I'm the cockpit, so if one is blinded there's someone else that may still be able to see.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yep, I saw that. But his pay is still listed at 9,000.00 USD (Dollar) or 10,122,570.00 SKW (Won)

By Seoul Standards, he was well below average. In Seol the recommended monthly income is 1,000,000 Won a month, which he wasn't even making that. My point stands that pilots are generally paid very poorly.

reply to post by raifordko


Oh I'm not disputing that, just the reports that make it sound like he is a brand new pilot, not just new to the Triple.

Originally posted by UNIT76
..it looks like we've reached a critical point in the whole "conspiracy" scene,
nobody believes anything anymore..

(..something to be said here of building upon a strong foundation)

sounds like he's trying to pass the buck to me

...dancing in the cockpit of the concordia?

edit on 11-7-2013 by UNIT76 because: wordplay

A while back, the FAA did say it was going to looking that "Harlem Shake" video that appeared to have been shot on an actual flight.

Simply a poor excuse to cover for his mistake. The pilot if I recall, didn't have many flight hours of experience. It could have easily been lack of experience.

reply to post by WeRpeons


He had plenty of experience, just not in the Triple Seven.

i watched the video..

(pretty careful and selected with what i type here..) "nobody believes anything anymore"

someone has quipped "people are starting to lose it" ..and i agree.. what we have lost, is faith in our rulers and political systems..

it is no wonder to me why people don't believe anything anymore..

uhh, i'm one of them

the fact that we have these "crisis actors" and scenarios only proves there is room for speculation here..
the fact that we continually see "drills" running in conjunction with real-world events is also peculiar..

they ought to retrofit the windows to reflect laser-pointers and such (if possible?)

it'll be interesting to get to the bottom of this.. (eventually..)

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They were already in trouble prior to him being blinded, and there were two other pilots in the cockpit. Ultimately I don't think this will play a role in the crash.

People have been shining lasers into cockpits for years, because they can. To immediately say terrorists may do this is unnecessary, and unlikely.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

There were two other pilots in the cockpit.

The aircraft was too slow, the corrections attempted by the pilot caused the plane to nose up too much and the tail hit the deck.

Pilot error.

There was also one point where they pulled up, and the aircraft went off centerline, so they were having to correct vertically and laterally. That adds more complication to an already complicated approach.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yeah, it would have added to the difficulty greatly...add that he was an inexperienced pilot and while very sad for the dead and injured, it's not surprising the plane crashed.

I wonder what the other two pilots were doing though, they knew the pilot had little experience...i would have thought they would have been looking at what was going on like a cat watching a mouse.

can someone address the grass / dirt discrepancy?

and the three plumes of smoke (supposedly) seen on impact?

"i want to believe" - fox mulder

reply to post by UNIT76


It's all grass. Every picture of every piece of debris shows brown grass. And guess what? Trucks leave tracks on grass too.

As for the smoke, the fire started with a ruptured oil tank. There were multiple plumes when it started, and after it grew, they combined into one plume.

reply to post by Zaphod58


...these 'seem' like 'reasonable' explanations to me

although i am still wondering how 3 plumes from 1 engine merge into one single plume (the video shows three plumes that seem to come from 3 separate origins, in the video these plumes do seem to be quite a distance from one-another?) ..just saying..

sometimes the eyes do deceive.. in the case of the grass / dirt ...uhh, all i can say is one "looks like" dirt and the other "looks like" grass..

more info is starting to come out, 911 calls and such.. we'll see how this all plays out. thanks for your level-headed responses and don't stay cranky for too long seeya in chat one day again.

reply to post by UNIT76


It all depends on the angle you're looking at it. From one angle they appear far apart, from another they're right there together near each other. Perspective plays nasty tricks on your eyes.

reply to post by MysterX


He wasnt an "inexperienced" pilot. They wouldnt allow an inexperienced pilot to fly the 777. He had MANY hours on similar aircraft, but the news seems to ignore that.

reply to post by jssaylor2007


He WAS inexperienced in the 777. He was halfway through Asiana's training program to convert to the 777. He had 10,000 hours total, but only 43 in the Triple.

reply to post by Zaphod58


so far i've only seen the one video of the plane approach and crash (the one cited in the 'rant/debunk' video)
..are more angles available? (i'll look for them eventually)

..appreciate your input here