Page 6 of 46 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 911

Thread: 777 Crash and Fire at SFO

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
    .............
    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.
    ...............
    There is fuselage buckling both aft and fwd of the wings. Fortunate that the fuselage held together at these high load points.

  2. #102
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
    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.
    I 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).

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highkeas View Post
    There is fuselage buckling both aft and fwd of the wings. Fortunate that the fuselage held together at these high load points.
    Kris Sanchez ‏@KrisNBC 28m
    #SFOCrash SF General chief of surgery says some patients have paralyzing spine fractures, severe road rash as if dragged .

  4. #104
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,097

    Default

    Gonna 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.....
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #105
    Member Jorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    117

    Default

    The local media here is unbelievable. KCBS radio just reported. "More drama at SFO, a 747 just landed with three engines working instead of 4".

  6. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Don't they have a second flight crew on a long haul flight such as this?

  7. #107
    Member saupatel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    547

    Default

    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 !!

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/pla...html?hpt=hp_t1

    After seeing that footage, I am absolutely amazed that so many people survived. Kudos to the design of this airframe!!!
    Last edited by saupatel; 07-07-2013 at 08:47 PM.

  8. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    289

    Default

    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.

  9. #109
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    The two deceased girls were found in the runway....
    I guess not only pieces of aircraft and luggage are in the runway, but people too.
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  10. #110
    Member James Bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    43°29'04.4"S 172°31'30.7"E
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    The two deceased girls were found in the runway....
    I guess not only pieces of aircraft and luggage are in the runway, but people too.
    Passengers or people on the ground?
    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

  11. #111
    Member James Bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    43°29'04.4"S 172°31'30.7"E
    Posts
    408
    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

  12. #112
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Ok, here is a video of the actual accident, when it happens...you can see the airplane crashing and burning !
    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...red-hayes.html

    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)....

  13. #113
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoneman View Post
    Don't they have a second flight crew on a long haul flight such as this?
    Depends...

    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.

  14. #114
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    769

    Default

    Failure to engage auto throttles even though the bug was set, and too slow to realize the problem to get the engines spooled up.

  15. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    After 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.

  16. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    a grassy knoll
    Posts
    1,606

    Default

    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.

  17. #117
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiecker View Post
    After 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.
    I agree, and it was a miracle it didn't hit the other aircraft, waiting at the taxiway
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  18. #118
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I 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).
    Yes, I think you are right. The detachment of the vertical and horizontal stabs and assembly are probably from ground impact. Later hi-res photos clearly show ground marks where the engines and rear fuselage make contact. Gear looks sheared off rather than pushed up through the wing as in BA38.

    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.

  19. #119
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Gonna 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.....
    You called it in more detail than I did, but we're both right. I'd hate to get caught in that situation. The one mistake that caused this was not engaging the auto throttles. The rest of the junk about ILS/VASI being down is irrelevant.

  20. #120
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    At this point the best we can do is guesspeculate.
    I choose "stall" (with a confidence of 4%)
    I choose the ever-popular:

    - 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.

Posting Permissions

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