Page 5 of 46 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 911

Thread: 777 Crash and Fire at SFO

  1. #81
    Member saupatel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    547

    Default

    Just looking at the flight info on flightaware, the airspeed around 300ft seems too low. I am wondering if it was in a stall around that height.

    11:2637.5900-122.3070297West1691941,400-1,380 FlightAware
    11:2737.5988-122.3270299West145167800-1,380 FlightAware
    11:2737.6016-122.3340297West141162600-1,320 FlightAware
    11:2737.6045-122.3410298West134154400-900 FlightAware
    11:2737.6073-122.3480297West123142300-840 FlightAware
    11:2737.6103-122.3550298West109125100-120 FlightAware
    11:2837.6170-122.3740294West8598200120 FlightAware

  2. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Interesting CNN article on the survivability aspects of this one.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/tr...ash/index.html

    I still find that image of passengers seemingly calmly walking away from the crash towing luggage surreal and disturbing.

  3. #83
    Junior Member Alpha Sierra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Abu Dhabi, UAE
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Link below to an interesting animation of the crash on CNN:

    http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2....ation.cnn.html

  4. #84
    Member Arrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Old Credit Pilsner; not just for breakfast anymore
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    Class action lawsuit in the making...!
    The chasers rolled at the same time as the ambulances. You can make book that there will be competing suits filed (if they haven't been already)

    Arrow

  5. #85
    Member Arrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Old Credit Pilsner; not just for breakfast anymore
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
    I still find that image of passengers seemingly calmly walking away from the crash towing luggage surreal and disturbing.
    I'd be surprised if shock wasn't in play (at least in part)

    Arrow

  6. #86
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Position of engine #2 would suggest it was operating with significant thrust - no fuel problems (at least with this engine)?

    Right hand wing tip collapsed - ground strike maybe?

    K.

  7. #87
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ipswich UK
    Posts
    225

    Default I'm Disturbed Too

    Quote Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
    Interesting CNN article on the survivability aspects of this one.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/tr...ash/index.html

    I still find that image of passengers seemingly calmly walking away from the crash towing luggage surreal and disturbing.
    Yes, very disturbing Mr Graham2001, thank you for pointing this luggage thing out. My understanding, psychologically speaking, is that after a big fright, a big shock, some of us will seek or indeed, crave, a return to normality, a reassurance that everything is all right. For example, a woman surviving a car crash might start fiddling with her hair or even her makeup immediately afterwards. Similarly, you might instinctively and compulsively grab a suitcase after surviving an air crash even though all airlines warn passengers to leave immediately when instructed by cabin staff, to not stop to pick up a bag. Nevertheless, in a state of shock and terror, I might (erroneously) decide not to leave a symbol of comfort and normality behind in the wreckage.

  8. #88
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ipswich UK
    Posts
    225

    Default Stall?

    Quote Originally Posted by saupatel View Post
    Just looking at the flight info on flightaware, the airspeed around 300ft seems too low. I am wondering if it was in a stall around that height.


    11:2637.5900-122.3070297West1691941,400-1,380 FlightAware
    11:2737.5988-122.3270299West145167800-1,380 FlightAware
    11:2737.6016-122.3340297West141162600-1,320 FlightAware
    11:2737.6045-122.3410298West134154400-900 FlightAware
    11:2737.6073-122.3480297West123142300-840 FlightAware
    11:2737.6103-122.3550298West109125100-120 FlightAware
    11:2837.6170-122.3740294West8598200120 FlightAware
    Hello Mr Patel,

    I'm no pilot but the technicalities of flight seem very interesting. Unfortunately I am uncertain as to what all the numbers in the table refer to. Can you explain for the layman, please? Also, what speed would one reasonably expect on a full passenger/part fuel load 200ER at 300 feet approaching runway, please?

  9. #89
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kris View Post
    Position of engine #2 would suggest it was operating with significant thrust - no fuel problems (at least with this engine)?
    Can you expand? Position of #2 is very close to where it would be if there had been no detachment. It could have been dragged by the wing and fuselage to that position.
    Right hand wing tip collapsed - ground strike maybe?
    That's what I thought too. That the main scar marks and debris trail is on the left of the runway centerline could mean that the airplane was not aligned with the centerline or that the scar marks and main debris are from the right side of the plane.

    And the right side of the plane exhibits more damage.

    So it very well could be that it hit with a right bank.

    This would be consistent (not a proof of) a stall, since the lateral stability and contollability are seriously compromised in a stall.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jingogunner View Post
    Hello Mr Patel,

    I'm no pilot but the technicalities of flight seem very interesting. Unfortunately I am uncertain as to what all the numbers in the table refer to. Can you explain for the layman, please? Also, what speed would one reasonably expect on a full passenger/part fuel load 200ER at 300 feet approaching runway, please?
    I am guessing that it's:
    Geographic crooordinates - - ground track (direction) - grounspeed - airspeed - altitude - vertical speed.

    Typical approach speed can be in the order of 150kts. Typical stall speed would be in the order of 110kts.

  11. #91
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Last ATC exchange was final clearance to land 28L 40 seconds before impact. No indication of problem in pilot's voice or message.

    BA38 (777 at LHR) also had similar ATC clearance exchange 32 seconds before impact with no indication of problem. The BA 777 managed to get a mayday out 10 seconds before impact and retract some flap to extend the glide.

    Witnesses report plane wobbled on approach. Could be interpreted either as aerodynamic stall, control problems or controlled change of direction (cleared for 28L but might have been lined up for 28R?)
    Other witness said that the plane flipped over on its back, so goes to show how unreliable witnesses are.

    Passenger said that the plane 'flipped up and down' before impact. Passengers on BA38 didn't feel anything out of the ordinary before impact.

    Looking at new photos, could be the right main gear that struck sea wall first explaining the debris field right of centre line. Also, the ground marks only start 80-120 feet from the aircraft suggesting that the aircraft was somehow airborne as it left the runway. A twitter pic shows one wing high and the fuselage at a high angle. This may have looked something like a cartwheel but it certainly wasn't sliding on the ground all the way from original gear or tail impact.

    There is also interesting damage to the leading edge of the vertical stab. Could it be possible that the gear sheared off and struck the vertical stab leading to the disintegration of the rear empennage? Not sure. But looking at the fuselage section still attached to the vertical stab, the front edge looks like a failure under tensile load supporting the theory that the vertical stab was pulled back. With a tail strike, that section of fuselage would show compressive failure, i.e. buckling. Similarly, the end of the main fuselage just above the pressure bulkhead does not show compression or buckled edges at the top.
    Nor do the ground marks show the classic signs of a tailstrike.

    One might also expect to see buckling of the top fuselage just aft of the main wings in a tailstrike severe enough to rip the tail off.

    Either way, he was way low on the GS. But I may have to retract the low airspeed theory.

    Best guess is:
    - Low on GS with right wing low
    - Right main gear strikes sea wall
    - Gear flips up and hits vertical stab
    - Rear empennage breaks off/apart
    - Aircraft starts to yaw right raising left wing
    - Rapid deceleration
    - Aircraft pancakes down and slides short distance to final position

    Superb aircraft design holds together saving a lot of lives!

    Main question is why he was low on GS.

  12. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Passenger witness says he heard the engines rev up, so puts doubt on the fuel starvation theory.

  13. #93
    Member Rick G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akerosid View Post
    Only the second 777 ever to be written off; hopefully still non-fatal, though reported that many taken to hospital.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7130150

    LN 553, first flight Feb 2006.
    Well I wonder what rock did I just crawl out from under? What, where, and when was there another 777 loss / crash? I cannot remember any other 777 crashes. Was there heavy loss of life?

    Thanks for any help on this.

    Rick.

  14. #94
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Just read this article: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/airport-lan...053403798.html. In this case, what type of visual approach light system does SFO have, and would this have been the main guide for a pilot landing at SFO yesterday?

  15. #95
    Junior Member nssd70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Des Moines,Iowa
    Posts
    46

    Default

    BA 38 at Heathrow. Yesterday's crash was the first 777 crash that ended with loss of life.

    Doug

  16. #96
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    172

    Default

    The type's second hull-loss occurred on July 29, 2011, when an EgyptAir 777-200ER registered as SU-GBP suffered a cockpit fire while parked at the gate at Cairo International Airport.[201] The plane was successfully evacuated with no injuries,[201] and airport fire teams extinguished the fire.[202] The aircraft sustained structural, heat, and smoke damage, and was written off.[201][202] Investigators focused on a possible electrical fault with a supply hose in the cockpit crew oxygen system.[201]

    Also a ground worker killed during a re-fuelling fire in denver in 2011. Not really attributed to the 777 type though.

  17. #97
    Member saupatel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I am guessing that it's:
    Geographic crooordinates - - ground track (direction) - grounspeed - airspeed - altitude - vertical speed.

    Typical approach speed can be in the order of 150kts. Typical stall speed would be in the order of 110kts.
    Its actually this.

    MST Latitude Longitude Course Direction KTS MPH feet Rate Location/Type


    The airspeed at 300ft was 123Knots and at 100ft it was 109knots. Just for comparison, I looked at the past 20 flights of Asiana214 and the lowest airspeed at touchdown was around 125 knots.
    Last edited by saupatel; 07-07-2013 at 03:29 PM.

  18. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Nice work, Saupatel !!!

  19. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Looking at the pics on AV Herald.... Why or what is the extra dark area of pavement that has been added between the Google Earth pic and the start of the runway as it exists now ? Could that have fooled the pilot into thinking the runway started there ?

  20. #100
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiecker View Post
    Looking at the pics on AV Herald.... Why or what is the extra dark area of pavement that has been added between the Google Earth pic and the start of the runway as it exists now ? Could that have fooled the pilot into thinking the runway started there ?
    It looks like the runway threshold has been displaced.

    You can see the white arrow where the centerline would be.
    This is the displaced threshold zone. You can start the take-off from that zone, you can also use to complete the stop on a landing or rejected take-off from the opposite runway.
    But you are not allowed to land in that zone. When landing, the runway officially starts after the last arrow (in this case there is only one) and after white line that crosses the runway.

Posting Permissions

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