Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Looks like a wind shear effect, accident, just like Delta 191 in Dallas.
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
      Looks like a wind shear effect, accident, just like Delta 191 in Dallas.
      Weather was clear, wind was 5-10 mph. This looks more like someone got caught way behind the airplane while not using auto throttles.

      Comment


      • #33



        AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

        Originally posted by orangehuggy
        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

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
          Twitter is incredible !!!

          Check this out !!

          RT @Eunner: I just crash landed at SFO. Tail ripped off. Most everyone seems fine. I'm ok. Surreal...[pic] — https://path.com/p/1lwrZb
          It looks like at least one passenger is carrying a bag.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Petertenthije View Post
            There is a wall at the beginning of the runway, I would presume for flood control. ...........
            There is no wall higher than the threshold - what you see is the sea wall to prevent erosion. See lower picture in post #33

            Comment


            • #36
              Deja Vu?

              Doesn't this look similar to BA038 at LHR?
              Yet another AD.com convert!

              Comment


              • #37
                Anyone else curious on the way the fire pattern is ?

                Seems odd to burn the top of the fuselage .

                Comment


                • #38
                  Anyone heard whereabouts of # 1 eng ?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                    Apparently it was a tail strike, during landing.
                    Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                    Weather was clear, wind was 5-10 mph. This looks more like someone got caught way behind the airplane while not using auto throttles.
                    In fair weather, how on Earth does a professional flight deck crew explain this away? Any mentions about a last-moment bird ingestions a la US 1549?

                    Arrow

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                      Weather was clear, wind was 5-10 mph. This looks more like someone got caught way behind the airplane while not using auto throttles.
                      Wind shear could happen in clear weather too. I have seen weird weather in clear skies: water spout, dust devils, etc. with clear skies.
                      A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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)

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          First fatalities for 777

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

                          Very sad.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Gabriel - it was BA at LHR, not LH.
                            Yet another AD.com convert!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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

                              Originally posted by orangehuggy
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X