Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • I'll rephrase that ..... the link I had was pulled for copyright contravention.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • Originally posted by elaw View Post
      Actually not to nitpick too much, but several articles I found online indicate the aircraft was an A310 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAROM_Flight_371). And at 12:55 in (at least the Youtube version of) the video he says "As you may remember, an A310 aircraft..."
      Then I am wrong.

      See ATLcrew's comment above. I didn't know it.

      --- 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


      • This is pretty bad. The crash happened in broad daylight on a beautiful day.

        Comment


        • Seems to me that the firefighters job and duty at the time was to prevent the additional and gross loss of life of those trapped in a relatively intact fuselage.

          My initial question is what it the prime job of the firefighter, it's too easy to toss out the catch all of "first responder" and though I was a responder, I am was not an EMT. Later, in during Naval air service I was trained as a firefighter and though it was secondary, it was clear my job was fire and saving the aircraft and ship.

          This just gives me more disdain for the media arm chair quarterbacks and ambulance chasing lawyers.

          Let's look at the obverse side of this coin. What if the fire truck delayed foaming the area while the crew responded to one individual and an additional 100 souls perished. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. Should full attention with the available resources been on containing the inferno so the responders could enter safely, not to mention the explosion that could wipe out the responders, watch the video of the USS Forrestal flight deck fire (bomb or fuel tank, and explosion is devastating).

          Three pilots on the flight deck not to mention the "instructor" and not one of them saw the threshold getting low through the window? Place the blame where it really belongs.
          Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
            Seems to me that the firefighters job and duty at the time was to prevent the additional and gross loss of life of those trapped in a relatively intact fuselage.

            My initial question is what it the prime job of the firefighter, it's too easy to toss out the catch all of "first responder" and though I was a responder, I am was not an EMT. Later, in during Naval air service I was trained as a firefighter and though it was secondary, it was clear my job was fire and saving the aircraft and ship.

            This just gives me more disdain for the media arm chair quarterbacks and ambulance chasing lawyers.

            Let's look at the obverse side of this coin. What if the fire truck delayed foaming the area while the crew responded to one individual and an additional 100 souls perished. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. Should full attention with the available resources been on containing the inferno so the responders could enter safely, not to mention the explosion that could wipe out the responders, watch the video of the USS Forrestal flight deck fire (bomb or fuel tank, and explosion is devastating).

            Three pilots on the flight deck not to mention the "instructor" and not one of them saw the threshold getting low through the window? Place the blame where it really belongs.
            i am not and never was a firefighter. i was, however, a paramedic in nyc for 15 years. in responding to any major incident, we were trained, FIRST AND FOREMOST, to survey and observe the scene as we approached, primarily so we didn't get ourselves into trouble, but a side effect is, we could spot things like a teenager on the ground in front of our vehicle.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
              Seems to me that the firefighters job and duty at the time was to prevent the additional and gross loss of life of those trapped in a relatively intact fuselage.

              My initial question is what it the prime job of the firefighter, it's too easy to toss out the catch all of "first responder" and though I was a responder, I am was not an EMT. Later, in during Naval air service I was trained as a firefighter and though it was secondary, it was clear my job was fire and saving the aircraft and ship.

              This just gives me more disdain for the media arm chair quarterbacks and ambulance chasing lawyers.

              Let's look at the obverse side of this coin. What if the fire truck delayed foaming the area while the crew responded to one individual and an additional 100 souls perished. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. Should full attention with the available resources been on containing the inferno so the responders could enter safely, not to mention the explosion that could wipe out the responders, watch the video of the USS Forrestal flight deck fire (bomb or fuel tank, and explosion is devastating).

              Three pilots on the flight deck not to mention the "instructor" and not one of them saw the threshold getting low through the window? Place the blame where it really belongs.
              As far as I know first responders, at least in the civilian world, do not practice the kind of approach you suggest in which any single life can be deemed "less important" or ignored.

              The blame in the death of this girl rests solely on the mistake of the firefighters who allowed her to be run over. I would imagine that their training makes it very clear that in a crash rescue situation they need to be careful not to injure survivors around a wreckage with vehicles or in the course of their firefighting and rescue operations. Running over a survivor in broad daylight with a relatively tame accident in which, as you say, the fuselage is intact, is really inexcusable. I'm sure they did not intend to do so and are devastated by this huge mistake, but nonetheless it is inexcusable.

              Comment


              • Sadly it isn't the first time it has happened. It is a chaotic scene, and mistakes do get made. "Killed by kindness" is not new.

                It can't be surprising that sometimes a little too much vigour is used. These crews train hard, and sit, waiting, doing nothing for years at a time. So when it actually happens, they are trained, but not practiced, and they sometimes go a little too hard.

                I'm sure lessons will be learned and other airports will modify their training. But, unfortunately, sometimes these things happen.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MCM View Post
                  Sadly it isn't the first time it has happened. It is a chaotic scene, and mistakes do get made. "Killed by kindness" is not new.

                  It can't be surprising that sometimes a little too much vigour is used. These crews train hard, and sit, waiting, doing nothing for years at a time. So when it actually happens, they are trained, but not practiced, and they sometimes go a little too hard.

                  I'm sure lessons will be learned and other airports will modify their training. But, unfortunately, sometimes these things happen.
                  Indeed, a sad accident, I'm just a bit surprised since this happened in broad daylight on a nice day. It's also a bit unsettling that some of the firefighters appear to have noticed the girl and warned some trucks but she got run over anyway.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                    Indeed, a sad accident, I'm just a bit surprised since this happened in broad daylight on a nice day. It's also a bit unsettling that some of the firefighters appear to have noticed the girl and warned some trucks but she got run over anyway.
                    Even more unsettling that according to the reports, she lay there for 15 minutes or so from the first warning to the fire crews to being run over. If this was the case, something seems odd - would somebody not have helped her up and away from the scene to a safe place?

                    Something does not seem quite right...

                    Comment


                    • What I would like to think happened. The video of the trucks and the later movements are clipped. But to give the fire fighters the benefit of the changing scene of events assuming she was not moving and thought to be dead:

                      - did the truck move around her in preparation to have an assigned position for fighting the fire if one broke out.

                      - after the fire started (question is how long and how intense), did they then start blowing foam and need to position the truck and in do so cover her as not to be seen? Was there a need to position the truck in order for the advance fighters to be able to enter.

                      I just have a feeling that there was no fire and immediate (visible) threat, but once it hit the fan and the burn started, the "fog of war" took over.

                      In second guessing, should the fire fighter who found her remained by her (how many bodies littered the field .. I don't know, it's a question)

                      I just don't like casting stones on a few second of video clip.
                      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                        Indeed, a sad accident, I'm just a bit surprised since this happened in broad daylight on a nice day. It's also a bit unsettling that some of the firefighters appear to have noticed the girl and warned some trucks but she got run over anyway.
                        Did the girl have an adult relative nearby?

                        Comment


                        • As expected, Asiana trying to pass the buck and put the blame on Boeing.

                          *******************

                          SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Asiana Airlines acknowledged in documents released Monday that its pilots failed to correct their fatally slow approach to a landing at San Francisco International Airport but also blamed the maker of the jet, saying it did not automatically maintain a safe speed.

                          U.S. accident investigators made public a filing in which the South Korea-based airline asserted that the Boeing 777 had major design flaws that led the pilots to believe it would keep flying at the proper speed and that failed to warn the cockpit crew in time when it did not.

                          Boeing Co. countered in its own filing with the National Transportation Safety Board that the airplane performed as expected, and the pilots were to blame for the July 6 crash because they stuck with a troubled landing.

                          The plane slammed into a seawall at the beginning of a runway during its final approach. The impact ripped off its back and scattered pieces of the jet as it spun and skidded to a stop.

                          In all, 304 of the 307 people aboard survived. Coroner's officials concluded that one of three teens who died, Ye Meng Yuan, was run over and killed by a rescue vehicle as she lay on the tarmac.

                          Asiana acknowledged in its NTSB filing that the crew failed to monitor air speed in the moments before the crash and should have aborted the landing for another go around.

                          "The probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's failure to monitor and maintain a minimum safe airspeed during a final approach," Asiana conceded.

                          However, Asiana argued that the pilots and co-pilot reasonably believed the automatic throttle would keep the plane going fast enough to reach the runway — when in fact the auto throttle was effectively shut off after the pilot idled it to correct an unexplained climb earlier in the landing.

                          The airline said the plane should have been designed so the auto throttle would maintain the proper speed after the pilot put it in "hold mode."

                          Instead, the auto throttle did not indicate that the plane had stopped maintaining the set air speed, and an alert sounded too late for the pilots to avoid the crash, Asiana said. The airline added that U.S. and European aviation officials have warned Boeing about the issue, but it has not been changed.

                          In most other planes, idling the auto throttle would not disengage it for the rest of a flight, aviation safety consultant John Cox said.

                          SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Asiana Airlines acknowledged in documents released Monday that its pilots failed to correct their fatally slow approach to a landing at San Francisco International Airport but also blamed the maker of the jet, saying it did not automatically maintain a safe speed.

                          Comment


                          • Nice work Asiana.

                            Your crew don't understand even the very basics of flying a non-ILS approach, fail to monitor their approach, don't use the tools available on board to assist them in doing the approach in an automated way, don't follow the Asiana stipulated stable approach rules, conduct an approach in a flight mode not recommended by Boeing (and not used by ANYONE in the world), and its Boeing's fault that their aircraft performs exactly as they say it will?

                            So if the same thing happens in a 767 you'll blame Boeing because they don't have the automated features fitted in that too?

                            However, Asiana argued that the pilots and co-pilot reasonably believed the automatic throttle would keep the plane going fast enough to reach the runway
                            Reasonably?!?! You have a reasonable expectation that the aircraft will do something that it is not designed to do, and, more critically, that they reasonably relied on a BACKUP SAFETY FEATURE to activate and fly the plane rather than taking positive control?

                            In most other planes, idling the auto throttle would not disengage it for the rest of a flight, aviation safety consultant John Cox said.
                            Really? In Boeing aircraft (which we must admit is a reasonable percentage of the global aviation market) an approach in FLCH will never end well.

                            Sadly, you can see all the way along the approach that the Trainee Captain really had very little confidence or ability in the aircraft. Early in the approach he selects a v/s that is inadequate, selects FLCH, an inappropriate mode for that phase of flight, and calls for the flap extension above the limit speed, showing he is not 'ahead of the aircraft'. He was clearly overwhelmed by the scenario, and the training captain didn't see it and get the show on the rails, possibly due to his inexperience in training (it was his first trip as a trainer).

                            None of this, of course, detracts that the three pilots sat there and watched the aircraft get low and slow, and waited until too late to react.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by B757300 View Post
                              SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Asiana Airlines [...] blamed the maker of the jet, saying it did not automatically maintain a safe speed.
                              Maybe setting the autothrottles in a mode that automatically maintains a sefe speed would have helped!

                              ... and that failed to warn the cockpit crew in time when it did not.
                              The three airspeed indicators, all showing a low speed, two of them showing that the airspeed was below the Vref bug, and two of them displayed in PFD (primary flight display, that has the words PRIMARY and FLIGHT in its name for a reason) directly in front of each pilot (the FLYING pilot and the MONITORING pilot, which have the words FLYING and MONITORING in their names for a reason too) could have been a cue? (oh, and there was a third pilot just in case).

                              "The probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's failure to monitor and maintain a minimum safe airspeed during a final approach," Asiana conceded.
                              And don't forget:
                              - Failing to arm the automation in a mode that was compatible with the maneuver they were performing.
                              - Failing to abort when the approach did not meet the stabilized approach criteria when and after crossing the stabilized approach gate.

                              --- 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 MCM View Post
                                Really? In Boeing aircraft (which we must admit is a reasonable percentage of the global aviation market) an approach in FLCH will never end well.
                                Oh, I think it can work fairly well... Of course you'll need to manually use the throttles to adjust the glide path and let the A/P take care of the speed (what it will do by managing the pitch).

                                --- 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