• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

777 crash at san Francisco airport

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PAPI was fully operational at the time of the accident. Any article saying otherwise is incorrect.

PAPI was NOTAMED out of service right after the accident, because it was damaged by the accident.

The ILS localizer and PAPI were working at the time of the accident.

Only the ILS glide slope was inop, and it had been inop for a month. It went off-line on June 1st.

No one else hit the seawall in all the thousands of day and night and bad weather landings in all that time up to the crash.
 
Just think for a second if that 777 had careened into that 747...

Would have been like Tenerife again...

Or even if one of the 777's engines had barreled into that 747...

Would have been very bad...

So close to hundreds of deaths.
 
phucheneh said:
1) You misquoted

2) How many jumbo jets have you landed, now? Zero for me.

3) Someone already replied much more constructively with why the 777 was indeed on a 'visual' approach because of the circumstances.

To that poster: I was under the impression that even without the guidance systems, they would still be trying to hit the same marks? That's not the case? They know their distance to the runway, right? That would be the critical thing to reference with their speed and altitude, no?

The thought of pilots landing 747's or larger by the seat of their pants is a little unsettling. I had...hoped, I guess...that it was a little more idiot-proof. I.e. you check the numbers...if you're coming in too high or fast, simple SOP, circle around, try again...
Click to expand...


Here's a quote from an MSNBC article about pilots in general being too dependent on electronic systems in place that primarily were meant to be used when visibility was somehow compromised, if anything maybe airline's might learn a lesson from this tragedy and force pilot's to spend time in simulators landing a plane visually, "heavy" class planes are even more prone to problems as the large mass is going to be slow to respond to pilot control input's..

"Schiff said he thinks many commercial pilots rely far too heavily on technologies like Glide Path and not enough on human intuition and skills -- a sentiment that has been voiced by Mary Schiavo, the former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, according to Reuters.

"Pilots are becoming more and more dependent on atomization and computerization," Schiff said. "And when they're called upon to revert to old-fashioned abilities," they can make mistakes.

The Federal Aviation Administration has advocated for flight training that includes instruction in "manual" forms of flying and traditional practices, Schiff said."
 
LTC8K6 said:
Just think for a second if that 777 had careened into that 747...

Would have been like Tenerife again...

Or even if one of the 777's engines had barreled into that 747...

Would have been very bad...

So close to hundreds of deaths.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine what was going on in the heads of the people on the 747 as they had a ringside seat watching an airplane tragedy unfold 200 feet from them, probably a lot of soiled underpants on that plane LOL..
 
BUTCH1 said:
Here's a quote from an MSNBC article about pilots in general being too dependent on electronic systems in place that primarily were meant to be used when visibility was somehow compromised, if anything maybe airline's might learn a lesson from this tragedy and force pilot's to spend time in simulators landing a plane visually, "heavy" class planes are even more prone to problems as the large mass is going to be slow to respond to pilot control input's..

"Schiff said he thinks many commercial pilots rely far too heavily on technologies like Glide Path and not enough on human intuition and skills -- a sentiment that has been voiced by Mary Schiavo, the former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, according to Reuters.

"Pilots are becoming more and more dependent on atomization and computerization," Schiff said. "And when they're called upon to revert to old-fashioned abilities," they can make mistakes.

The Federal Aviation Administration has advocated for flight training that includes instruction in "manual" forms of flying and traditional practices, Schiff said."
Click to expand...

So why are crashes so rare? This is only the second crash of a 777 and the first with fatalities. A plane in service for 18 years.

I believe this is also the first major airline plane crash at SFO with fatalities in a very long time.
 
phucheneh said:
To that poster: I was under the impression that even without the guidance systems, they would still be trying to hit the same marks? That's not the case? They know their distance to the runway, right? That would be the critical thing to reference with their speed and altitude, no?

The thought of pilots landing 747's or larger by the seat of their pants is a little unsettling. I had...hoped, I guess...that it was a little more idiot-proof. I.e. you check the numbers...if you're coming in too high or fast, simple SOP, circle around, try again...
Click to expand...

There are markings on the runway for which a pilot should be aiming for.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Fig-2-3-1.JPG

Runway 28L is over 11,000 feet long and 200 feet wide. Thats over 2 MILES long. If they were doing the charted Quiet Bridge visual then they were on a straight in approach for 18 miles. They could have been on another approach or dumped in high. There was also mention in the article that "Adding to these stressors, the pilots must also land in quick succession." I hardly think that this is the case here because you need between 4-6 miles between a 777. ATC could have issued the pilots to maintain visual seperation which means they could get closer than that distance but my guess is that at the minimum they weren't any closer than 3.

SFO has a similar setup to LGA. On a perfectly clear day with no wind and using visual approaches our arrivals get about 2 miles apart (sometimes closer). In between those arrivals we usually get a departure out as well. It was documented that it takes roughly 45 seconds for a plane to land and exit the runway. So if they are 2 miles apart and the next arrival is doing 120 kts then it should be on the ground in a minute giving 15 seconds of leeway. That second plane cannot land (legally) on the runway until the first has cleared the active. Most towers have a ground avoidance detection device (ASDE/AMASS) that will alert controllers of an action to be taken. Again, this was not the case here since I did not hear it on the audio.

So as someone else posted the localizer (how far right, left or center you are) and PAPIs were working correctly. I'm not 100% sure but the pilots could have dialed up a RNAV (GPS) approach and used it for guidance then switched it off once they were established.

Almost all signs are pointing at the pilots not being able to handle landing the aircraft.
 
LTC8K6 said:
So why are crashes so rare? This is only the second crash of a 777 and the first with fatalities. A plane in service for 18 years.

I believe this is also the first major airline plane crash at SFO with fatalities in a very long time.
Click to expand...

This is evidently why, automation has evolved to the point where an armature, given instructions could land a plane, I was under the belief that any airline pilot has a skill set that they possibly rarely use anymore, those people were lucky Capt. Sully was in charge that frigid January morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7WMQUDGDD4
 
The thing that's blowing my mind more than this crash is how so many passengers got off the plane with luggage. Officers should have confiscated their luggage and thrown it back onto the burning plane hulk.
 
LTC8K6 said:
So why are crashes so rare? This is only the second crash of a 777 and the first with fatalities. A plane in service for 18 years.

I believe this is also the first major airline plane crash at SFO with fatalities in a very long time.
Click to expand...

Its not so much the plane but rather the pilots and their experience (or lack thereof).

Look back to the last couple accidents in the US

AAL587 - pilot error (over-reacted to wake turb)
CJC3407 - pilot error (icing issue)
COM5191 - pilot error (took off wrong runway)
 
Last edited:
TangoJuliet said:
Its not so much the plane but rather the pilots and their experience (or lack thereof).

Look back to the last couple accidents in the US

AAL587 - pilot error (over-reacted to wake turb)
CJC3407 - pilot error (icing issue)
COM5191 - pilot error (took off wrong runway)
Click to expand...

The description of AAL587,... "The plane's vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and fell into Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The plane's engines subsequently separated in flight and fell several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site. The airplane spiraled out of control and landed on top of a house, exploding on impact. All 260 people aboard the plane and 5 people on the ground died, and the impact forces and a post-crash fire destroyed the plane"

Ouch, when you lose the tail AND both engines it's gonna be a shitty deal for everyone involved...
 
Nintendesert said:
The thing that's blowing my mind more than this crash is how so many passengers got off the plane with luggage. Officers should have confiscated their luggage and thrown it back onto the burning plane hulk.
Click to expand...
On some of our longer vacations, the wife can be traveling with around $5000
in jewelry. What are the odds of some government yahoo returning it to her if she were to leave it on the plane. :whiste:
 
runzwithsizorz said:
On some of our longer vacations, the wife can be traveling with around $5000
in jewelry. What are the odds of some government yahoo returning it to her if she were to leave it on the plane. :whiste:
Click to expand...



Insurance?



Unless you feel your wife is only worth $5000... all that shit is replaceable.
 
runzwithsizorz said:
On some of our longer vacations, the wife can be traveling with around $5000
in jewelry. What are the odds of some government yahoo returning it to her if she were to leave it on the plane. :whiste:
Click to expand...

LOL, why the hell does your wife bring 5 grand worth of jewelry in her suitcase? On her person I could see maybe.

My wife leaves all her valuable stuff at home in the safe when we travel. Even her diamond rings.

Even still, 5 thousand dollars worth of luggage isn't worth risking the lives of everyone else on the plane. If your wife wants to die in a fireball while she gets her luggage, then she can wait until everyone else disembarks before she grabs her bag.
 
BUTCH1 said:
"Schiff said he thinks many commercial pilots rely far too heavily on technologies like Glide Path and not enough on human intuition and skills -- a sentiment that has been voiced by Mary Schiavo, the former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, according to Reuters.

"Pilots are becoming more and more dependent on atomization and computerization," Schiff said. "And when they're called upon to revert to old-fashioned abilities," they can make mistakes.

The Federal Aviation Administration has advocated for flight training that includes instruction in "manual" forms of flying and traditional practices, Schiff said."
Click to expand...

This "atomization and computerization" is depended on because it can reliably put an aircraft on the ground in a very safe manner. Its all good keeping pilots at a good standard but the real emphasis should be on providing a robust technological backup for the systems that fail so that the pilot should not have to "revert to old-fashioned abilities"

Its for this reason in the future planes will only have a single pilot and a dog on the flight deck
 
Nintendesert said:
Insurance?



Unless you feel your wife is only worth $5000... all that shit is replaceable.
Click to expand...

Hmm, at first I thought: wtf, why you fly around with all this jewelry? nuts!

But then I realized, it's not all that bad of an idea. Shit happens on your trip, wallet gets stolen, luggage lost, you find yourself stuck in Burma without a passport and a hit out on your head, you can use that jewelry to get yourself back home. :hmm:
 
zinfamous said:
Hmm, at first I thought: wtf, why you fly around with all this jewelry? nuts!

But then I realized, it's not all that bad of an idea. Shit happens on your trip, wallet gets stolen, luggage lost, you find yourself stuck in Burma without a passport and a hit out on your head, you can use that jewelry to get yourself back home. :hmm:
Click to expand...



Haha, I'm sensing some sarcasm there since if those things were stolen or lost the jewelry would probably be gone too. 😛
 
BUTCH1 said:
The description of AAL587,... "The plane's vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and fell into Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The plane's engines subsequently separated in flight and fell several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site. The airplane spiraled out of control and landed on top of a house, exploding on impact. All 260 people aboard the plane and 5 people on the ground died, and the impact forces and a post-crash fire destroyed the plane"

Ouch, when you lose the tail AND both engines it's gonna be a shitty deal for everyone involved...
Click to expand...

Do you know why the vertical stabilizer ripped off?
 
Since the plane is unsalvageable. Can the front cockpit section be purchased for X Plane flight sim use?

Would make for a nice setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top