Don't they have a second flight crew on a long haul flight such as this?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
777 Crash and Fire at SFO
Collapse
X
-
If you guys havent seen, there is an actual video of the crash taken by a spotter by the Bayfront Park. Just a warning, this is pretty graphic !!
Investigators gathered critical clues in San Francisco on Sunday in hopes of solving the mystery of the deadly crash landing of Asiana Airlines Flight 214.
After seeing that footage, I am absolutely amazed that so many people survived. Kudos to the design of this airframe!!!Last edited by saupatel; 2013-07-07, 20:47.
Comment
-
Speeds definitely look not just abnormal, but very low, at least on the edge of stall. The graphs for their approach seem to show an unstabilized approach - they start too high and seem to be making sharp descent, probably with engines at idle. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply failed to monitor the approach and instruments, or if they mismanaged the automation and throttle control, which put them in a dangerous situation of very low airspeed, idle engines, excessive sink rate, and higher than optimal AoA, realizing that too late, similar to the TK 737. Those human factors again.
Of course, this is just speculation, and nothing can be yet ruled out. But there is preliminary data form flightaware.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AVION1 View PostThe two deceased girls were found in the runway....
I guess not only pieces of aircraft and luggage are in the runway, but people too.
AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008
Originally posted by orangehuggythe most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet
Comment
-
Ok, here is a video of the actual accident, when it happens...you can see the airplane crashing and burning !
Fred Hayes was watching planes land at San Francisco airport and filmed the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash landing.
wow!...you can see the airplane tumbling around, the nose and wing at 45 or 50 degrees and crashing again to the ground.
A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....
Comment
-
Originally posted by phoneman View PostDon't they have a second flight crew on a long haul flight such as this?
And it doesn't neccesarily gaurantee you will get quality sleep, or be on your right circadian rythim nor not land at the end of 6 hours (you chose the number) of boredom in a cockpit staring into the sun and mentally fried.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
3WE, agree on all points, but if someone was looking out the window ... whatever happened to the primary rule that the landing spot should stay in one place in the windshield?
They were most certainly ..
Regarding the video, it will be interesting because it looked like they were dragging water (perhaps) before it strikes the seawall.Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheKiecker View PostAfter watching that video i can see why people thought it cartwheeled.
It was way up on edge and it is a miracle that it didnt flip over.
A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI very much doubt that the main landing gear hitting fin has the ability (read power) to rip all the tailcone behind the pressure bulkhead. This zone is stronger than one might think, since it must bear the loads of the control surfaces in extreme conditions.
I would also expect that the empenage (tali cone + horizontal and vertical surfaces) would be mainly intact.
What we have instead is:
- Everything behind the rear bulkhead gone.
- The fin still firmly attached to the upper zone of the tail cone.
- Each horizontal stabilizer mainly intact on the runway, but separated from the tailcone.
- No news about the bottom of the tailcone.
It looks more plausible to me that the bottom of the tailcone struck the seawall and got ripped. The structure holding the horizontal stabilizer falied and the upper part of the tailcone was pulled back (with the fin and all).
Interesting is that the nose gear once it hit ground appeared to maintain contact with the ground throughout leaving that black mark. Not a lstraight line as the aircraft reared up on the left side but don't think it did a complete 360.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostGonna pile on with an earlier Deadstick post.
You are a top of the line pilot...you fly long haul routes, that means 2 landings/month (and highly automated ones at that!).
You fly all-night red eyes which means royaly screwed up sleep rythims.
You are cruising into SFO after being locked in a god-forsaken cockpit for 13 hours sitting up monitoring mundane crap and checking in with operations.
The weather is severe VMC and you are on a visual approach, and have the auto throttles off.
You and your PNF are a bit zoned out with fatigue and you focus on the end of the runway- which (by the way you ARE aiming at pretty good)....
But your speed decays a little and you pull up a little and your speed decays a little more and you sink a little low- but you are still looking at that landing spot....suddenly you find yourself low and slow in a giant-ass airplane with giant ass engines that spool up oh so painfully slow...
There does seem to be some information suggesting nose-high-dragging-it-in as though he was trying to squeeze every last pit of energy out of the plane to make the threshold.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostAt this point the best we can do is guesspeculate.
I choose "stall" (with a confidence of 4%)
- Improper briefing on the non-precision approach
- Continuation of an unstabilized approach (high and fast on glidepath)
and possibly:
- failure to monitor flight parameters (notably V/S) due to poor CRM
My guess (with a confidence of 4.5%) is they were high on the glidepath, failed to give up the unstabilized approach, got the A/T into a descent profile (flight idle) for an extended period causing that fatal combination of high sink rate and unavailable thrust, called for go-around and TOGA late but got delayed thrust response, fell through the glidepath, brought on the excessive pitch as a last ditch effort to clear the seawall, possibly exceeded stall AoA but at that point it hardly mattered. So whether a stall was involved or not, I'm guessing it was not the primary factor here.
Perhaps if they had 10-15 ft more height this would have been merely a hard landing / gear collapse incident.
Comment
Comment