777 crash at san Francisco airport

[The Boston Dangler]

I have flown into SFO a bunch of times.

I am sure most pilots dislike flying in. The runway starts in the water. If you're in the plan and you look out the window, it will appear during landing that you are crashing into the bay because only at the last second when the wheels make contact do you see solid ground out of the window - before that it's all water.

any city on the ocean will be no different. apart from weather conditions, having water or pavement underneath you is irrelevant, since you're not supposed to be there and if you are there it's a disaster either way.

 

[Michael]

Is the margin for error to small on this runway? I mean, if you aim for a certain spot and those rocks drop into the bay not too far off from your mark...

I imagine anytime you come up short you'll be hitting those rocks.

I am not sure what you mean. It is a long runway and to land you get to make a long, straight approach with no obstacles. Hundreds of flights land on it daily. If you land short in just about any runway, you are in big trouble.

Michael (was flying from Shanghai to SFO today but now arriving tomorrow due to the crash)

 

[KeithP]

http://soberbuildengineer-com.s3.amazonaws.com/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3

Hard to make out, but clearly there was some emergency prior to landing as the tower repeatedly told the Asiana flight that emergency vehicles were on the way while the flight was still in the air.

Well maybe we heard different recordings but that wan't my take. The emergency vehicles comment happened after the crash, the pilots were still communicating with the tower.

-KeithP

 

[chubbyfatazn]

I have flown into SFO a bunch of times.

I am sure most pilots dislike flying in. The runway starts in the water. If you're in the plan and you look out the window, it will appear during landing that you are crashing into the bay because only at the last second when the wheels make contact do you see solid ground out of the window - before that it's all water.

That's irrelevant. It only appears like you're landing on the water because you as a passenger don't have a frontal view of the airport. It messes with your senses.

If you're below the glideslope and don't realize it, you're screwed, even if you had a 20 mile strip of land leading up to the runway.

There are plenty of other airports in the world that have water right around the runways - the old Kai Tak, HKG, JFK, YVR, and SYD immediately come to mind. All major airports.

 

[mizzou]

Is the margin for error to small on this runway? I mean, if you aim for a certain spot and those rocks drop into the bay not too far off from your mark...

I imagine anytime you come up short you'll be hitting those rocks.

Ive been at runways in the dominican, hawaii, and new york that all have similar attributes

For a trained pilot, it should be simple to do.

My question is, how could a pilot or pilots make such seemingly obvious mistakes that even a noob Flight Sim player wouldn't dare make?

A'la leave the flight stick jacked back on France #447 (if you have a fear of flying, DO NOT listen to the cabin audio) Yeah the instruments were frozen, but why I'm sure they felt the plane falling and yet the motherfucker still was trying to nose the plane up. IMO He recklessly murdered everyone on that plane.

 

[BUTCH1]

Three years ago I swore to never fly again. I trust the aircraft completely. I don't trust human error.

At least my car is designed to crash and protect the occupants. Plus, I still have some amount of control of the situation. In a plane you're just f*cked.

This is the first airplane accident with fatalities in the US since 11/2001. Think about how many THOUSANDS of flights depart/arrive DAILY since that date without incident and do the math, your in much more danger driving to the airport than flying. You can be the best defensive driver there is but that's not gonna help you if an 18 wheeler comes cartwheeling across your lane because the truck blew a front tire or the driver fell asleep.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

This is the first airplane accident with fatalities in the US since 11/2001.

Nope, there was the crash in Alaska that killed Senator Ted Stevens in 2010 and Colgan Air 3407 in 2009 that killed 50 people.

Being pedantic, but your point still remains and is still 100% valid.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

Here's something you probably won't hear on the news:

My girlfriend is a cashier at a store here in Eugene. A man in her line yesterday around 12:30-1:00ish took a phone call that resulted in him turning beet red and yelling at whoever called him. Turns out, he was the regular pilot for the plane that crashed and he was on vacation this week. I'm guessing his vacation ended really quickly.

 

[BUTCH1]

Nope, there was the crash in Alaska that killed Senator Ted Stevens in 2010 and Colgan Air 3407 in 2009 that killed 50 people.

Being pedantic, but your point still remains and is still 100% valid.

I was referring to airliner's not the type of plane Steven's died in, one of these..

Single engine small planes crash on a much more regular basis, one pilot, little or no redundant systems, limited pilot experience. These types of crashes should in NO way affect someone's decision to fly in an AIRLINER...

 

[twinrider1]

And what about the Q400? (Piling on pedantically)

 

[iamwiz82]

Is the margin for error to small on this runway? I mean, if you aim for a certain spot and those rocks drop into the bay not too far off from your mark...

I imagine anytime you come up short you'll be hitting those rocks.

The required runway length for landing requires a whole host of information- weight, speed, wind, temperature, etc. That being said for the normal landing weight of a 777 the runway had thousands of feet of leeway.

 

[Craig234]

Here's something you probably won't hear on the news:

My girlfriend is a cashier at a store here in Eugene. A man in her line yesterday around 12:30-1:00ish took a phone call that resulted in him turning beet red and yelling at whoever called him. Turns out, he was the regular pilot for the plane that crashed and he was on vacation this week. I'm guessing his vacation ended really quickly.

Hm, that is interesting. There was a news report that the last time a Korean airliner crashed, a pilot was fatigued and flew it into the side of a mountain, and cultural issues made the co-pilot not say anything, and then authorities found that, they took strong measures to change that training for pilots so that the co-pilots would point out errors to their superiors.

 

[Wreckem]

Nope, there was the crash in Alaska that killed Senator Ted Stevens in 2010 and Colgan Air 3407 in 2009 that killed 50 people.

Being pedantic, but your point still remains and is still 100% valid.

There was also a Comair crash that killed 49(or 50) in 2006. Pilots took the wrong runway and crashed on takeoff/failed to take off and crashed. But yeah there have been two fatal crashes of commercial airliners in the US since 9/11. Both of them were smaller regional jets and both were pilot error. There have been a lot of near misses though. Most of those involved mechanical/aircraft failure and a great crew avoided disaster.

 

[Nintendesert]

Hopefully the Internet Sleuths can solve this for the NTSB just like they did for the Boston bombings.

 

[BUTCH1]

Hopefully the Internet Sleuths can solve this for the NTSB just like they did for the Boston bombings.

They won't have to, black box's will have on record all pilot inputs, systems operations, ect. this will be solved in days since both pilots survived and the black box's are intact.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am not sure what you mean. It is a long runway and...

It being long sort of makes my point. Their target should be a little further from the water. Currently if / when they come in low, they hit the rocks as opposed to a more flat surface.

I'm just thinking that if you move the "goal posts" a bit, then coming in low by this amount would avoid the rocks and not result in such a crash landing.

I appreciate that hundreds of flights per day, for years, have not experienced such difficulties. Just seems like they have room to spare and it doesn't have to be that close to the water.

 

[BUTCH1]

And what about the Q400? (Piling on pedantically)

And? any fatalities sine 11/2011 in the US?

 

[Fritzo]

Video footage of the crash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9Orw3rbj5MI

 

[BUTCH1]

There was also a Comair crash that killed 49(or 50) in 2006. Pilots took the wrong runway. But yeah there have been two fatal crashes of commercial airliners in the US since 9/11. Both of them were smaller regional jets and both were pilot error. There have been a lot of near misses though, involving mechanical/aircraft failure.

True, I missed that one, pilots used wrong runway, oops. Point is though overall flying is still a very safe means of transportation..

 

[BUTCH1]

Video footage of the crash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9Orw3rbj5MI

Too bad he was so far away, probably lacked zoom capability..

 

[EagleKeeper]

Couple of diagrams shown on the news w/ respect to flight path approach implies that the aircraft was initially was higher than the approach path and then started becoming steeper than normal to get to the proper altitude.

My suspicion from those diagrams is that they dove so steeply that they were unable to pull out and get back on the proper approach path.

Cockpit recordings and which pilot was on control will also have impact.

Come Wed, we will have the answers needed.

 

[Craig234]

There was also a Comair crash that killed 49(or 50) in 2006. Pilots took the wrong runway and crashed on takeoff/failed to take off and crashed. But yeah there have been two fatal crashes of commercial airliners in the US since 9/11. Both of them were smaller regional jets and both were pilot error. There have been a lot of near misses though. Most of those involved mechanical/aircraft failure and a great crew avoided disaster.

As extremely safe as the major planes are, there is a scandal in the regional travel where major carriers have increased profits by contracting with regional carriers that protects them from liability while slashing the safety, training, pilot salaries and other things greatly increasingthe risk to passengers. Frontline did a show about it:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/

 

[chubbyfatazn]

And? any fatalities sine 11/2011 in the US?

Assuming you meant 11/2001, then yeah, the Colgan Air crash in 2009 that I mentioned.

My suspicion from those diagrams is that they dove so steeply that they were unable to pull out and get back on the proper approach path.

If by 'dove' you meant increased the vertical descent rate too sharply, then yeah, that's what the charts seem to indicate. There are witnesses who are saying they heard the engines roaring right before impact, which matches your observation, but I'm also highly skeptical that the pilots forgot that it takes some time for the engines to spool up.

The charts don't seem to indicate any attempt at increasing airspeed.

 

[Hugo Drax]

So where is the ILS disabled due to Sequester cuts reporting?

 

[davmat787]

It being long sort of makes my point. Their target should be a little further from the water. Currently if / when they come in low, they hit the rocks as opposed to a more flat surface.

I'm just thinking that if you move the "goal posts" a bit, then coming in low by this amount would avoid the rocks and not result in such a crash landing.

I appreciate that hundreds of flights per day, for years, have not experienced such difficulties. Just seems like they have room to spare and it doesn't have to be that close to the water.

It is a lot farther from the water. The runway officially begins 300 ft from the rocks, note the large orange chevrons that point to the beginning of the runway. Most aircraft will then land 300-1000 feet beyond the beginning of the official runway, so anywhere from 600-1300 feet from the rocks.

If anyone listened to the most recent NTSB press conference, they now know HOW it crashed (too low and slow), but now WHY the aircraft was in this position.