Page 3 of 46 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 911

Thread: 777 Crash and Fire at SFO

  1. #41
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiecker View Post
    Ok so I guess we wait for Gabriel...
    At this point the best we can do is guesspeculate.

    It seem to be crashed with a pitch attitude that was nose-high enough to impact tail first.

    The overall damage (landing gear, engines) also suggest a very high sink rate.

    Nose quite high + high sink rate = high AoA.

    I choose "stall" (with a confidence of 4%)

    It also contacted the ground well short of the threshold.

    In principle, it looks to me more similar to Turkish 737 out of Amsterdam than to BA 777 out of Heathrow: A stall short of the runway with a high sink-rate crash. I am talking of the mechanics of the crash (the BA plane didn't stall, which kept the nose lower and the sink rate more moderate). In both cases the lack of power was a crucial link in the chain of events (TK because a malfunctioning RadAlt prevented the AT from keeping the pilots didn't notice the speed decay and in the BA case because of fuel starvation due to ice build-up in the fuel lines).

    So my next guess is that they had some thrust problem (be it technical or human) and either they noted it and fought desperately to get to the runway with the last bit of lift (like BA) OR they didn't notice it and the stall took them by surprise (like TK)

  2. #42
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default First fatalities for 777

    CNN just reported at least 2 fatalities. First fatalities in 777 history, as I understand it.

    Very sad.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    KPIT
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Gabriel - it was BA at LHR, not LH.
    Yet another AD.com convert!

  4. #44
    Member James Bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    4329'04.4"S 17231'30.7"E
    Posts
    408

    Default

    CNN BREAKING NEWS: Sixty people are unaccounted for following the plane crash at San Francisco International Airport, fire chief says.
    WHAT?!

    I hope this is wrong
    AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

  5. #45
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,333

    Default

    Funny how the media won't mention the airline on it's banners. It's always a "Boeing 777" with no comment of which airline it is. CNN and Fox are the worst.

  6. #46
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fmedina View Post
    CNN just reported at least 2 fatalities. First fatalities in 777 history, as I understand it.

    Very sad.
    Pilots kill airplanes...!, airplanes never kill pilots...!
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Out of fuel? Fatigue + AP/AT failure?

  8. #48
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by georgel View Post
    Out of fuel? Fatigue + AP/AT failure?
    Seems like this like very well might be simply pilot error. Fuel starvation would have likely eliminated a large fire.

    ***************

    In some pictures it seems that the flaps are not deployed, but I suspect that is because they were ripped off.

  9. #49
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B757300 View Post
    Seems like this like very well might be simply pilot error. Fuel starvation would have likely eliminated a large fire.

    ***************

    In some pictures it seems that the flaps are not deployed, but I suspect that is because they were ripped off.
    Could this have been a manual landing for pilot certification, and thus pilot error? We know they came in above the glideslope and thus may have had a high sink rate - perhaps they didnt power up quickly enough when they realized they were short? AP shouldnt have let this happen hence my suggestion maybe it was a manual landing.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mawheatley View Post
    Gabriel - it was BA at LHR, not LH.
    Right. Thanks & fixed.

  11. #51
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by obmot View Post
    Could this have been a manual landing for pilot certification, and thus pilot error? We know they came in above the glideslope and thus may have had a high sink rate - perhaps they didnt power up quickly enough when they realized they were short? AP shouldnt have let this happen hence my suggestion maybe it was a manual landing.
    Earlier the media was interviewing a 777 pilot and he said that you very nearly have to deliberately crash the 777 since it has so many safety features to prevent just such an event. Not saying this was intentional, just that it is very hard to fly the plane into the ground like this.

    But I tend to agree that a fully manual landing that went wrong sounds plausible.

  12. #52
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B757300 View Post
    Seems like this like very well might be simply pilot error. Fuel starvation would have likely eliminated a large fire.
    Fuel exhaustion would have. Fuel starvation not necessarily.[/QUOTE]

  13. #53
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B757300 View Post
    Earlier the media was interviewing a 777 pilot and he said that you very nearly have to deliberately crash the 777 since it has so many safety features to prevent just such an event. Not saying this was intentional, just that it is very hard to fly the plane into the ground like this.

    But I tend to agree that a fully manual landing that went wrong sounds plausible.
    I agree.

    But both BA and TK were on AP.

    The AP can't keep the plane flying if there is not enough thrust to sustain flight.

  14. #54
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Fuel exhaustion would have. Fuel starvation not necessarily.
    True, and I interchanged starvation for exhaustion. I would expect that exhaustion would be more likely, since if they were that low on fuel, there would been something said to ATC.

  15. #55
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B757300 View Post
    I would expect that exhaustion would be more likely, since if they were that low on fuel, there would been something said to ATC.
    ????

    Fuel starvation is the engine(s) not receiving (enough) fuel.
    It could be due to different things like a blockage somewhere along the fuel lines (like the fuel filter), the engine being fed from a wrong (empty) tank, a rupture in the fuel line, or.... fuel exhaustion.

  16. #56
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B757300 View Post
    Earlier the media was interviewing a 777 pilot and he said that you very nearly have to deliberately crash the 777 since it has so many safety features to prevent just such an event. Not saying this was intentional, just that it is very hard to fly the plane into the ground like this.

    But I tend to agree that a fully manual landing that went wrong sounds plausible.
    Thanks B757300, I forgot to add my usual disclaimer...I am an enthusiast only not a pilot of any sort (other than handling the controls of my dads Cess150 a few times) and as such I have no authority/basis whatsoever for my theories lol.

    I'm glad almost everyone made it out ok - I wonder if some flight attends were seated near that rear bulkhead - not a good place to be in this particular event.

  17. #57
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,333

    Default

    Update the just concluded press conference

    181 transported to the hospital with 49 serious, 132 were taken to the hospital after being checked onsite. There rest are uninjured and at the terminal.

    2 dead and 1 person still unaccounted for.

  18. #58
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Let me just translate, what until now has been present at austrianwings dot info, an Austrian aviation information service, based at LOWW.

    An Asiana B772ER crashed during arrival at KSFO, a/c reg HL7742, flight number OZ214 Inch'eon - SF Bay Intl, with 291 pax aboard + 12 crew members.

    KSFO 28R was their scheduled arrival... For all jp members who are able to translate, this is the link:
    http://www.austrianwings.info/2013/0...-verunglueckt/
    One evening, not long ago, I watched TV and I wondered what you will possibly do after you've lost one parent. Strange question, why did I wonder. You will possibly be annoyed because he will miss so many happenings which you liked to show him. But after you somehow have regained your countenance, you will also join again people who you don't know. Stay strong, Jimmy.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  19. #59
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,333

    Default

    CNN has "Scary" Mary on.

    And I thought Wolf was as low as they could go.

  20. #60
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B757300 View Post
    CNN has "Scary" Mary on.

    And I thought Wolf was as low as they could go.
    Too low at KSFO? Well, until now I've only been getting to know the KSFO approaches with pmdg B744 fsx. But my last fsx arrival at KSFO is one or two weeks ago. I don't remember huge mountains in the gs if you perform the West approach, quite the contrary. We come in very smooth above water, isnt't it like that?

    I'm curious about the circumstances. Is there anybody who is able to report the live SF bay weather? The last report that I've found is from July 6th, 1756 KSFO time local: VFR conditions, [email protected], clouds not below 1100, vis 10, 66F/19C, alt 2975.
    Precipitation is missing at flightaware, but SFO 28R is 11,877 ft long, this is long enough also in rainy conditions, not only imho.

    We don't think that a B772ER needs more space than a pmdg B744X...

    I'd say, not perfect conditions for autoland, but always manageable. What would you say?

    PS: My Avatar was indeed filmed at KSFO!
    Last edited by LH-B744; 07-07-2013 at 01:58 AM. Reason: KSFO weather
    One evening, not long ago, I watched TV and I wondered what you will possibly do after you've lost one parent. Strange question, why did I wonder. You will possibly be annoyed because he will miss so many happenings which you liked to show him. But after you somehow have regained your countenance, you will also join again people who you don't know. Stay strong, Jimmy.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •