Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    I tried the nice approach.

    Repeating, you really do make overly bold posts and assertions.

    And Boeing Bobby was actually pretty correct in his assesment of you (he just happend to use hard honesty, and the truth does sometimes hurt).

    The main thing I will bring up is that when you did reply to my "nice post", you did not touch on any of the the actual suggestions or criticisms of your posts. That would be a flaming example of a totally closed mind, ignorance, and inability to listen.

    Yeah, Boeing Bobby can be a grumpy old man and I even made the nasty jab about ED which he denies and I genuinely belive him (just like I belive his statements about his credientials)

    He's awfully darn factual, accurate, correct and a decent judge of folks posts...and the sucker listened and turned the grumpiness down 1.5 notches and suddenly we all love him. (Not only that, he's on record supporting ITS).

    ...you are the one who is a troll who is coming on here spewing over the top bullcrap.

    But sadly, you will again deny it.


    Awwww, I'm blushing!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
      No room for error? Nerve-racking? What?!?! hahah christ. If a commercial airline pilot finds SFO runways 28 L/R nerve-racking to land on, I do not ever want that person flying me anywhere. Those are 11,000ft+ long 200ft wide runways with ample room for error, absolutely no obstructions or terrain whatsoever on the final. The winds were light, the conditions were CAVOK. You really can't ask for an easier situation to land an airplane in.

      Landing that far short is NEVER an option, at almost all airports. Had these pilots done this at LAX on runway 24R, where visual approaches on sunny days are common, the outcome would likely have been far worse, there is a major highway that curves around the end of the runway approximately the same place as the sea wall they hit, along with a limousine parking lot, not to mention the runway is 150ft wide and just shy of 9,000ft long, and sits right next to a busy active departure parallel.
      As a passenger, it is a bit weird landing at SFO b/c you're over water until pretty much the very end. But you get used to it.

      Odd (US) landings? San Diego, Dulles (going down the Potomac River)

      When Southwest used to fly into Detroit City Airport (DET, not DTW) that was a pretty interesting ride in and out. Cemeteries on both ends of the 5000 foot runway.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
        With such a high AoA and rapidly decaying airspeed, even full thrust would have struggled to regain control even if he was 500ft higher.
        Looking at it as an energy rather than positional situation, the amount of drag in that specific configuration, I think he would have needed more than 1000 to recover into controlled flight.
        I don't have the data to make calculations that prove you wrong, but I strongly disagree.

        Ok, the boundary of stall is a very high drag situation. But with 500ft, you could easily lower the nose a good bunch, thus both reducing the AoA greatly to reduce there drag, and also assisting the thrust by trading altitude for speed. Combine with say 5 more seconds of time for spool up (also thanks to the altitude), and you would have had a great acceleration.

        Looking at it as an energy rather than positional situation...
        Altitude is energy. And a lot of it. Just to visualize it, figure how much thrust and for how long is necessary to bring the plane from rotation to 500ft during the take-off. It's TOGA for like 15 seconds. So, at those speeds and altitudes, 500ft is equivalent to 15 seconds of TOGA (sort of).

        --- 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
          I don't have the data to make calculations that prove you wrong, but I strongly disagree.
          ...I once traded my last 50 ft of altitude for 5 or 10 kts in a 172

          (Did I say that airpseed decay on short final happens a lot).

          The dang thing dropped like a rock, the ground was rushing up, I hauled back- gingerly, the stall horn honked and I slammed into the ground in a perfect landing, as the plane was not damaged...but I felt I was really close to a good landing where repairs are needed.

          Throw a HUGE ASS 777 in that has mega ridiculous mass and momentum (and which is not nearly as nimble in pitch responses)...

          ...and consider that Tony was probably looking at the youtube simulation from snyder where the plane went crazy nose high...

          I guess I'm saying that I don't want to hear the debate as to exactly what was doable after they went crazy nose up....

          I guess; however, I would agree that 500 feet would probably allow enough time for engine spool up and recovery from a modest amount of low speed....but from a good sink rate and near-stall conditions....that's a scary thought!

          Nose lowering includes a pause, a drop and time for the plane to restablilize it's self.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            Awwww, I'm blushing!
            I'm sure you are...or I hope not ummm errrr........
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • One thing strikes me after all this arguing.

              I have 18 hrs stick and rudder time from flight training back in the 1970's on a Cherokee 140. That means that I could easily have more "stick and rudder" time than some of today's new commercial pilots. !!

              Kinda' scary really ?
              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                If you take a look at my avatar you can probably guess who I work for.

                BB
                Is that an -800?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Is that an -800?
                  A -8 yes. Absolute dream and a pleasure to fly.

                  Comment


                  • ATC a contributing factor?

                    1) The pilots should have been watching airspeed and glide path and power settings and following stabilized-approach-ago-around-criteria.

                    I concur many hundred percent.

                    2) The autothrottles may have tricked them / acted up / been mis-used.

                    I definately find this part interesting, the multiple cause aspect and mis cues, etc are what makes these discussions interesting.

                    3) But the main point of this post is that I have seen minimal data / comments on if ATC set them up a little high, or very high.

                    This should qualify as a contributing factor, if they vector them gently to the right altitude and speed for a "nice long, ILS-like" descent, this crash probably does not occur.

                    But, slam dunks and steep approaches happen pretty often, and to date there has been little to no discussion if these guys were given a reasonable descent or challenging descent.

                    Reasonable = Boeing Bobby/Snyder/Vnav power back a bit, maybe use some spoilers, some supergenious airmanship and arrive ~1000 ft AGL in good shape.

                    Challenging = those same guys say to their co-pilot, "I'm not sure about this, be ready to go around if we aren't "stable" at 1000 feet"....or maybe they even say "Plan on it" or tell ATC to go ahead and send them around.

                    Anyone have any idea if these guys were set up bad by ATC?
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      [I]1)

                      Anyone have any idea if these guys were set up bad by ATC?
                      Isn't the idea that pilots respond to the situation they find themselves in and respond accordingly? How badly could ATC set them up that they couldn't handle the circumstances? I don't see any way ATC could have any culpability in this. The pilots simply failed to fly the airplane.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        ...I once traded my last 50 ft of altitude for 5 or 10 kts in a 172

                        (Did I say that airpseed decay on short final happens a lot).

                        The dang thing dropped like a rock, the ground was rushing up, I hauled back- gingerly, the stall horn honked and I slammed into the ground in a perfect landing, as the plane was not damaged...but I felt I was really close to a good landing where repairs are needed.

                        Throw a HUGE ASS 777 in that has mega ridiculous mass and momentum (and which is not nearly as nimble in pitch responses)...

                        ...and consider that Tony was probably looking at the youtube simulation from snyder where the plane went crazy nose high...

                        I guess I'm saying that I don't want to hear the debate as to exactly what was doable after they went crazy nose up....

                        I guess; however, I would agree that 500 feet would probably allow enough time for engine spool up and recovery from a modest amount of low speed....but from a good sink rate and near-stall conditions....that's a scary thought!

                        Nose lowering includes a pause, a drop and time for the plane to restablilize it's self.
                        I agree, but here, apparently, they were not in high sink rate.
                        Rather, they were skimming the water with about zero sink rate (some even say that they even soaked their tail). The problem was that the runway was a tad higher than the runway.

                        AND, the speed was already starting to increase despite the engines had spooled up only to 50%, and the very high nose, and all the yada-yada. Add 500ft of altitude (and of energy after multiplying by m and g) to that situation, and I have no doubt in my mind that it was recoverable (as long as they didn't use the Colgan technique)

                        --- 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 3WE View Post
                          3) But the main point of this post is that I have seen minimal data / comments on if ATC set them up a little high, or very high.
                          I managed to learn two magic words:
                          "Unable" and "Emergency". I used the first one once, and the second one I was ready to use once it if ATC woulnd't clear me as requested.

                          The first one would have been a perfect fit here if the pilots were, well, UNABLE, to handle the situation in a safe fashion.

                          --- 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 Deadstick View Post
                            Isn't the idea that pilots respond to the situation they find themselves in and respond accordingly? How badly could ATC set them up that they couldn't handle the circumstances? I don't see any way ATC could have any culpability in this. The pilots simply failed to fly the airplane.
                            @#$%@!!!!!

                            Read the post!!!!!

                            And what's written....NOT what you want to hear!!!!!!!!

                            I did not use the word culpability!!!!!!!!

                            I stated extremely clearly that the PILOT ERROR was the biggie.

                            But...

                            and it's a

                            big but,

                            You cannot dismiss it as a contributing factor!!!!!!!

                            If they got good vectors, the crash probably would not have occurred.

                            THAT IS A FACT!!!!!!!!!!

                            So, to restate (read slowly) has anyone heard if they were set up high or fast on the approach and what would our professionals consider exceptionally high?

                            (By the way, you are not allowed to discuss how to handle short final mister long narrow wing crazy shallow glide ratio pop the speed brakes dude!!!!!!!)

                            You too Gabriel-cheap-composite-QC-ISO-9001-black-and-white thinker...

                            It's valid and an interesting contributing factor to discuss how high they were vectored.

                            Yes, Vnav, Snyder, Boing Bobby, ITS, Jet Captain, Flyboy, Screamo Emo would go around if they weren't cool at 500 to 1000 feet...but that isn't my question!!!!!!!!!
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              @#$%@!!!!!

                              Read the post!!!!!

                              And what's written....NOT what you want to hear!!!!!!!!

                              I did not use the word culpability!!!!!!!!

                              I stated extremely clearly that the PILOT ERROR was the biggie.

                              But...

                              and it's a

                              big but,

                              You cannot dismiss it as a contributing factor!!!!!!!

                              If they got good vectors, the crash probably would not have occurred.

                              THAT IS A FACT!!!!!!!!!!

                              So, to restate (read slowly) has anyone heard if they were set up high or fast on the approach and what would our professionals consider exceptionally high?

                              (By the way, you are not allowed to discuss how to handle short final mister long narrow wing crazy shallow glide ratio pop the speed brakes dude!!!!!!!)

                              You too Gabriel-cheap-composite-QC-ISO-9001-black-and-white thinker...

                              It's valid and an interesting contributing factor to discuss how high they were vectored.

                              Yes, Vnav, Snyder, Boing Bobby, ITS, Jet Captain, Flyboy, Screamo Emo would go around if they weren't cool at 500 to 1000 feet...but that isn't my question!!!!!!!!!
                              So who said they got bad vectors? From what I understand they were on something like a straight in 20 mile approach in CAVU. How do you get a bad vector out of that? And thank you for the shouting. It adds so much cred to your comment.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                @#$%@!!!!! Gabriel-cheap-composite-QC-ISO-9001-black-and-white thinker...

                                Read the post!!!!!
                                You cannot dismiss it as a contributing factor!!!!!!!
                                You are right. Sorry.

                                Whatever the ATC did wrong (if anything), that doesn't exonerate the pilots their mistakes (including following inappropriate ATC instructions).

                                But on the same token, whatever the pilots did wrong ("if anything" doesn't apply here), that doesn't exonerate theATC from their mistakes, if any.

                                It's just that I always tend to think as a pilot, and what the pilot could have done to save the day (or not to spoil it to begin with). I always feel that pilots (including myself) have the duty to deal not only with our own mistakes, but also with the mistakes of others.

                                Beyond a sense of duty, this is also basic Darwin common sense.
                                If a plane crashes due to mistake of the pilot, ATC, maintenance, dispatcher or manufacturer, the dead one will be the pilot, pilot, pilot, pilot or pilot, respectively.

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X