Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
    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 ..
    I hate what I'm about to say...

    I HAVE DONE EXACTLY THIS MANY TIMES on Microsoft Flight Simulator...

    VMC, no ILS.

    My landing spot is "good".

    Oh, I'm getting a little low, let me hit the nose up trim...

    Lookin good...oh a little low....gentle tug on the yoke.

    Crossing the fence, still a little low (emphasis on a little low...just a little)...then a 10 kt speed loss wind shear, whoops, full throttle but wham, there goes the virtual approach lights.

    Now for some critical compare and contrast:

    I was PLAYING on MSFS and my butt and 300 passengers were not flying through the air at 150 MPH in a thin aluminum tube...and my flight model is not 100% accurate, especially the seat of the pants sensations.

    I was sloppy, I did not have a copilot, it's just a game, I had a slight lapse in judgement.

    The question is if two humans, mentally fried, doing it for real, might also have made a slight, simultaneous lapse in judgement.

    The film shows them dragging in and the latest report has someone calling for a go around on the CVR (Edit- 1.5 sec per Kracker below) before impact...not a lot of time to get the engines powered up.

    (By the way- I have also done this in a 172...except the 0-320 reciprocating engine and 2000 lb airplane respond much quicker than a 777.)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • CNN (grain of salt) says that the pilots, " called" for go-around 1.5 seconds before impact.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
        CNN (grain of salt) says that the pilots, " called" for go-around 1.5 seconds before impact.
        That was actually reported by the chairman of the NTSB based on the CVR.

        On a side note, how and where did the United 747 waiting for 28L departure get turned around and go back down the taxi way?

        Comment


        • Thanks and I didn't mean literally asleep .. .. just in that netherworld of being "off the game" just enough. Patel made some excellent observations on the anticipated short in approach speeds for that ac.
          Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

          Comment


          • Again, way too early for anything but speculation, BUT...

            ..suppose in the end this turns out to be a pilot error induced incident (botched approach without autothrust properly engaged or something similar) and -not- a mechanically induced incident (e.g., BA 777 incident(...what might be an expected or typical 'future' for the pilots of this aircraft? Im sure airlines differ, union rules differ etc., but what do the (commercial) pilots here on this forum think would be the outcome? (Again, this is a hypo based on assumption that the incident turns out to be pilot error/botched approach, and not a mechanical or ground error).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              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.
              It's close, but it's also a bit ahead of it. At idle, I'd expect the engine to be left far behind, separating due to the ground drag. However, having seen the video, I'm no longer sure which direction is the "behind".

              K.

              Comment


              • ...and now, to be politically incorrect...

                Any chance of this including Oriental CRM with the captain at the controls?

                There have been a few crashes where the PNF knew things were bad, but was not culturally wired to say "YOU ARE ROYALLY SCREWING UP MISTER SENIOR SUPERIOR OFFICER, GO AROUND NOW!"

                ...and to be politically correct, it's happened in more than one culture!
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  11:2637.5900-122.3070297°West1691941,400-1,380 FlightAware
                  11:2737.5988-122.3270299°West145167800-1,380 FlightAware
                  11:2737.6016-122.3340297°West141162600-1,320 FlightAware
                  11:2737.6045-122.3410298°West134154400-900 FlightAware
                  11:2737.6073-122.3480297°West123142300-840 FlightAware
                  11:2737.6103-122.3550298°West109125100-120 FlightAware
                  11:2837.6170-122.3740294°West8598200120 FlightAware
                  Ok, so the nerd has been playing with the data.

                  What I've done:
                  - I've tried to reproduce a timeline for altitude, verical speed and airspeed (or ground speed, whatever is the speed in the above table).
                  - I've plotted the results in a chart (see attachment).
                  - The chart looks quite simple, however it was complicated to make because I lacked time information. And before anyone says that the first column of the table is time, that time is simply useless because it lacks any meaningful precision (5 of the 7 data points happen "at the same time"). The data points are clearly not even equally spaced in time.
                  - I also discarded the last data point for obvious reasons.
                  - With the rest, I've reverse-engineered the data to get time and acceleration (variation of speed and vertical speed with time).
                  - To do that, I had to assume some model, and I used constant acceleration between data points.
                  - Finally, I've integrated those accelerations every 1 second to obtain vertical speed, altitude and speed, which at least at the data points closely match the values of the table (with, since those values were the starting point to begin with, means nothing other than I applied the formulas correctly).
                  - You can also see that the whole event to the next-to-the-last data point took 78 seconds, which is consistent with the first data point being in one minute and the next-to-the-last one being in the next minute, with the last data point in the following minute. Again, this doesn't mean a lot, since I could have said the same with anything between 61 seconds and 179 seconds. But since I didn't use the time info of the table, this is at least reassuring that the model, right or wrong, is consistent.
                  - Finally a disclaimer. The input data was of very poor quality. Very few data points, no time info, not equal spacing, and altitude and vertical speed with a precision of 100ft (which is more or less the same order of magnitude than the variation between datapoints). So a lot of error can be expected.

                  However, the general picture is clear:

                  THERE WAS AN AIRSPEED AND THRUST MANAGEMENT PROBLEM (be it human or technical), and not just during the last seconds of the flare.

                  AND THAT THE APPROACH WAS NEVER EVER STABILIZED

                  --- 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


                  • 911 Operator ‏@911BUFF 33m
                    BREAKING NEWS: SFFD; 2 VICTIMS FROM THE PLANE CRASH THAT WERE FOUND ON RUNWAY MAY HAVE BEEN RUN OVER BY FIRST RESPONDERS. #911BUFF

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      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.


                      Evan, weclome back!!

                      Where on Earth have you been????

                      --- 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


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        Ok, so the nerd has been playing with the data.
                        My biggest concern is that flightaware data often has anomolies, especially on short final.

                        Better wait for the final report.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
                          911 Operator ‏@911BUFF 33m
                          BREAKING NEWS: SFFD; 2 VICTIMS FROM THE PLANE CRASH THAT WERE FOUND ON RUNWAY MAY HAVE BEEN RUN OVER BY FIRST RESPONDERS. #911BUFF
                          That would make matters more tragic, than they are now..
                          A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Deadstick View Post

                            On a side note, how and where did the United 747 waiting for 28L departure get turned around and go back down the taxi way?

                            One of the local stations actually showed it live yesterday. They sent out a tug and it essentially preformed a what the California DMV calls a"3 point turn" and took it back to the gate so the passengers could deplane.

                            I would presume that is was then inspected to make sure the engines didn't ingest any debris.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
                              911 Operator ‏@911BUFF 33m
                              BREAKING NEWS: SFFD; 2 VICTIMS FROM THE PLANE CRASH THAT WERE FOUND ON RUNWAY MAY HAVE BEEN RUN OVER BY FIRST RESPONDERS. #911BUFF

                              Wait. what?!

                              That makes no sense.
                              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


                              • Official NTSB Photographs















                                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

                                Working...
                                X