Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • The Dutch NOS is reporting the pilot only had 43 hours on the B777, and that this was his first landing at SFO with the 777. The pilot had 9793 hours in total, but the article does not say on which plane type(s).

    According to the article the pilots only found out seconds before the crash the plane was in trouble. Just four seconds prior to impact the stick-shaker starter shaking. The pilot decided almost immediately to abort the landing, but at that time it was already too late. The tail hid the levy and broke off, after which the plane hit the runway out of control.


    Please visit my website! http://www.schipholspotter.com/

    Don't make me use uppercase...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
      Perhaps that is when the two children were ejected from the aircraft. I wonder if they were in their seats during ejection.
      Where else should they have been during this phase of the approach?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Thank's Gabriel. I was down at the local puppymill getting my CPL so I could post here with authority. I am now a Captain flying for Colgan with 12hrs on the Q400. ; )



        Curious, You just got your commercial and you are a Captain on a Dash 8?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
          Curious, You just got your commercial and you are a Captain on a Dash 8?
          No, a bit of sarcasm. I'm not pilot material. Sorry BB, I couldn't find the 'sarcasm' sign so I went with the old wink wink. Back to topic...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            Even more brilliant than your previous statement citing w/s as the cause. You should stick to your flight sim flying.
            Got my private pilot license in 1979, I guess you were not born yet...
            A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

            Comment


            • Not sure if this was posted already, but some video has surfaced. Pretty crazy, and so far I'm at a loss as to how this could occur on a beautiful sunny day with no apparent mechanical issues...

              Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mfeldt View Post
                Where else should they have been during this phase of the approach?
                I'm wondering whether the seats broke away from the floor or whether the occupants did not have their seat belts on. I'm interested in the survival aspects of crashes since much of my career involved safety.
                [Not applicable here but I've worked on aircraft airbag seat belts]

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                  Got my private pilot license in 1979, I guess you were not born yet...
                  Actually born in 1952. Soloed in a sailplane on my 14th birthday in 66 and did the same on my 16th in power in 68. Got my first job in 70 flying night freight in a D-18 twin beach, and have been a Captain on the 747 200/300/400 & -8 for the last 9 years.

                  Comment


                  • I wonder if the training captain was watching the pilot instead of his instruments.

                    To an earlier question Aviation Herald shows that a landing gear is in the water at the sea wall (see post #154).

                    Comment


                    • Hmmmmm - after reading the thread and watching the posted video links and thinking about how the aircraft got too slow and too low and how the captain was not very experienced and the weather was good here is a question that came to my mind:

                      Both 28 runways at KSFO are equipped with PAPI. What were the guys in the cockpit looking at while the 777 wrangled itself from their hands? Normally, the PAPI should have quickly alerted them that their sink rate was getting too high and that they were descending below the (visual) glide slope.

                      Comment


                      • Just a comment. Apparently the runway they were using had a working PAPI but the GS was out of service, and the parallel runway had a working GS but the PAPI was out of service. Not that it changes anything what you've said.

                        They were enough behind the plane to take a fully unstabilized approach to a smoking hole in the ground: Roughly, the airspeed was continuously decaying along at least the last 80 seconds, from way above Vref (137kts) to way below Vref. The vertical speed was continuously decaying in the last 50 seconds from way above the typical 700fpm to almost parallel to the ground. The descent gradient also was continuously decaying in the last 50 seconds from way steeper that 3° to, again, almost parallel to the ground. The engines were at idle until 1.5 seconds before the impact. Other than the heading and the config, I don't know what other stabilized approach criteria they could have violated. I guess that things like airspeed are more important than the PAPI, so if they ignored the former why not the later?

                        Other than that, MAYBE they were looking at the PAPI. It was 4 white for most of the approach. As one light turned red they started to pull up, but they were descending very fast and the lights quickly changed to 2, 3 and 4 red. So they kept pulling up but by then they had run out of airspeed, and with the biggest (and slowest to spool-up) engines in the industry at idle, they also run out of thrust, and being so low, also out of altitude. By then, they had nothing to trade for speed (neither altitude nor fuel).

                        --- 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


                        • Hmmmmm - makes sense, Gabriel. What is the spool-up time for the PW4090 from idle to 100%?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            Actually born in 1952. Soloed in a sailplane on my 14th birthday in 66 and did the same on my 16th in power in 68. Got my first job in 70 flying night freight in a D-18 twin beach, and have been a Captain on the 747 200/300/400 & -8 for the last 9 years.
                            Congratulations Captain!
                            A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                              Hmmmmm - makes sense, Gabriel. What is the spool-up time for the PW4090 from idle to 100%?
                              I was curious of the spool time myself no one a swerved my earlier post with the same question. My guess is 10-12 seconds or so.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                                Hmmmmm - makes sense, Gabriel. What is the spool-up time for the PW4090 from idle to 100%?
                                I don't know. Reoprtedly (from someone that I don't know), 7 or 8 seconds.

                                It takes an eternity for those big PW 4090’s to spool up and produce thrust required to initiate a go around.
                                (Eternity)= 7 or 8 seconds.


                                And it's from some indefinite point (possibly idle due to the context in the rest of that post) to a "thrust required to go around". Not necessarily idle to go-around.

                                --- 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