just now ~ 777 crash @ SFO

[lawrocket 3]

Question:

With what we know now, would this qualify as "controlled flight into terrain?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rwieder 0]

Quote

With what we know now, would this qualify as "controlled flight into terrain?"

Answer:
Pretty much so. I hate it, but the most that's going to happen to the inept dummios, is they'll be suspended and relegated to flying Puddle jumpers.
Best-
Richard

[AggieDave 6]

quade

***Absent some mechanical failure, it appears the pilot simply made some mistakes that resulted in hull loss.

Ahem. Loss of life.

Looks like part of that was an amped up first responder running a victim smooth over!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Let's see, a "Stall" is nose high, tail low" right?

No, that is not a stall. There is more to a stall than that.

Quote

If they would have not gassed it up and got the nose up, more than likely not have been such a violent crash.

No, I think they would either have hit the wall much more directly, or perhaps put it into the water. A water landing may have been better, if it had been early enough to stop before the wall. They likely would have stopped very quickly.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,396]

>Let's see, a "Stall" is nose high, tail low" right?

Sort of. It's caused by separation of the boundary layer leading to a sharp increase in drag. It most often happens during slow flight when the angle of the wing to the air increases past about 15 degrees.

However, as anyone who has seen jetliners take off (or military aircraft accelerating vertically) it's not just nose high, tail low. In normal flight it generally occurs at low speeds, such that you have to pitch up to maintain enough lift for stable flight.

>If they would have not gassed it up and got the nose up, more than likely not have
>been such a violent crash.

If they HAD gassed it up earlier the crash could likely have been avoided. Approach stalls are not caused by "gassing it up" - they are caused by failure to maintain sufficient speed on final, which in this case was likely caused by insufficient power during the approach.

Under no circumstances during an approach that is 1) near or at stall and 2) short of the runway on unlandable terrain is the correct solution to "leave the engines at idle and just land."

[Phil1111 910]

ChrisD

*********

Quote

For all of you really stupid people out there, you can not "hand fly" a large jet!

Oh really?

My wife, who has 33,000 hours in large jets 'hand flys' them all the time...

Yes...she flys the controls manually for all takeoffs and landings that are VFR.

She must be stupid I guess...

That's not what I meant and you know it...
C

Sorry...thought you meant what you said~

In my world, the stupid comes from the number of passengers that have been reported to block the isles of this aircraft whilst they retrieved their overhead luggage! With smoke rapidly filling the cabin????

If that wasn't enough the poor kid gets run over by a fire truck while running from the plane????

That is stupid!

I get really pissed when so many think this thing is a piper cub, it is not.

Would somebody please post their copy of the Boeing 777 FM?

So you can see just how much work is involved in flying on of these things?

Saying that the aircraft stalled is to me, like holding up a sign,...yes I apologize that everyone wants to take short cuts and I did use the word stupid but I am at war with the NTSB, I understand that is not your war, and I am sorry to get all caught up in this , you are ceertianly not stupid!....and again I apologize for the use of the word.

There is so much that has not been talked about and just as much stuff coming out of the NTSB that is so far to the west of reality, that it takes someone who has been thru this in the past to see much of what I'm speaking about.

Airline crashes can be very complex issues, with a multitude of issues, some of which we may never fully understand. I have written at length about the relationship between safety and the ability to handle a certain amount of traffic in a certain time...this means cash for the airports. Nothing more nothing less.

There is a complex relationship between the FAA and a number of airports, where the Authority has the final word on safety, not the FAA. In our governments wisdom they have exacerbated this issue by introducing money and authourity to a realativly new NTSB, they have increased and redefined areas of operation and responsibility, and this has not been for the better.

In the NY area many controllers, pilots, and concerned individuals that work in the aviation field are and have been for many years about the workload of aircraft into certain airspace. The justification the authourities use is that: " We haven't had any accidents, because of this issue, so we are going to continue to do business this way..."

This is not the FAA viewpoint on this subject.

In other words the agency you have trusted to ensure your flying safety, can not do it's job!

The FAA has long said that certain airspace is needlessly and to the detriment of safety being overworked.

But they don't have any power to change this current system.

The approaches have long been a source of controversy in the SAn fran area, for years.

But all you guys see is that one plane has crashed, I see a system wide problem, that is very difficult to fully explain.

Again sorry if anyone took offense to the word stupid...


C

And I can't believe that these idots took the time to get stuff from the overhead bins and blocked the isles of the aircraft...

The passengers are more properly refereed to as "guests". The safety of which rests in whole or in part to the crew and the aircraft. The only person in charge of "safety" of the AC is the PIC.

Any PIC that defers the safety and operation of the AC to a airport authority, or ATC, or anyone else is not a pilot.

The paying passengers were just slammed onto the runway sufficiently hard to break the 150 tonne AC completely up. They just survived a groundloop hard enough to tear off a wing. They likely ranged in age from 1 to 80 years and made the best of a situation most likely caused by the PIC .

Preliminary NTSB data analysis shows the 777 at 118 kn 16 seconds before impact and that a go-around was only initiated 1.5 seconds before impact @ 103-106 knots. At least 31 kn below what it should have been.

The NTSB and/or the FAA wasn't operating Flight 214, the PIC was.

[skycatcher68 7]

rwieder

A remark someone made not agreeing with my comments on the condition of a "Stall" contributing to the crash of this aircraft.
Let's see, a "Stall" is nose high, tail low" right? The clowns overrode their autopilot and took manuel control of the aircraft. I've seen the landing, and have landed there a million times myself. Not enough experience in the cock pit, end of deal. If they would have not gassed it up and got the nose up, more than likely not have been such a violent crash. With 7 seconds left to landing, they ask for a "Go Around" before the rest of the bad stuff happened. These 777's aren't even supposed to contact the runway for the first 1,000; They ran out of altitude and speed at the same time and crashed the big old jet.
Not trying to be argumentative, but they stalled the stinking plane.
Best-
Richard

If you'd like to see what the exact same crash in an Airbus looks like then check out the Air France Flight 296 crash.

AF296

Exact same crash. Too low, too slow, too late to power up, neither aircraft stalled, one aircraft flew into a forest, the other flew into a seawall.

What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King?

[3mpire 0]

Re: cultural deference - I've read this before too, but in this case the pilot landing the aircraft had not only less hours than the copilot in the 777, but less flight hours overall as well:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/08/asiana_crash_landing_attention_shifts_to_pilot_error_in_wake_of_san_fran.html

Quote

An Asiana spokeswoman, Lee Hyomin, told the Associated Press that Lee Gang-guk had nearly 10,000 hours flying other planes but only 43 hours in the 777.

[ ... ]

While Lee Gang-guk appears to have been the one in control of the plane when it crash-landed, the AP reports that there were three other pilots on board. One of those pilots, Lee Jeong-min, had nearly 13,000 hours of flying experience, including more than 3,200 on the 777, according to South Korea's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Asiana says that Lee Jeong-min was acting as the deputy pilot, and was tasked with helping Lee Gang-guk grow comfortable flying the twin-engine passenger plane. According to Reuters, however, Saturday's flight was Lee Jeong-min's first as trainer.

So even if there is a cultural issue with deference to the person in "command", in this case by total flight hours and the "role" Lee Jeon-min was filling as trainger, he was senior.

I don't know that a cultural deference to authority would apply in this case, as the one who should have spoken up, the copilot, had all the authority he needed to assert himself.

I could be wrong. I have all of about five minutes behind the stick of a bonanza that was already at altitude (maintained heading and alt like a champ, tho ) so I'm totally unqualified in this arena

[ryoder 1,381]

Video of the moment the ramps inflate and the passengers begin exiting: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/52423611/

If you let it continue after the initial video, there are other videos including an accurate video of the animation *with* groundloop.

BTW Anyone else thing the NTSB's Deborah Hersman is kind of hawt?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,381]

Holy crap! *TWO* of the inflatable slides malfunctioned, inflating *inward*, pinning the stewardesses who activated them!

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-asiana-flight-attendant-20130708,0,3708058.story

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[3mpire 0]

Total FILF (fed I'd like to...)

[normiss 622]

I'd have to see her somewhere besides a podium.
I have yet to see her in any images other than a bust shot only.

[sky12345 0]

> BTW Anyone else thing the NTSB's Deborah Hersman is kind of hawt?

i thing shes 3/10

[lawrocket 3]

She's hot in a Hokey kinda way...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnMitchell 14]

If the stick shaker was going, they were at least approaching critical angle of attack, in other words, a stall.

It can be the hardest thing in the world for a pilot to put the nose down when he doesn't want to, as in a situation like this. But when you're literally behind the curve, in the zone of reverse command, you have to fight the urge to pull back. Many, many pilots have made that fatal mistake. I argue that if they had kept the plane more level and continued to add power, they would have avoided the tail strike and had fewer injuries.

[rwieder 0]

Quote

If the stick shaker was going, they were at least approaching critical angle of attack, in other words, a stall.

Oh heck no! This wasn't no stall! When I mentioned "Stall" I was lambasted.

Quote

I argue that if they had kept the plane more level and continued to add power, they would have avoided the tail strike and had fewer injuries.

At least I'm not the only one with this theory.

Best-
Richard

[airdvr 197]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/08/us/asiana-airlines-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

Vid of the crash. Pretty far away and low res but am I seeing the plane skip across water before impact?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rwieder 0]

See This

This news story pretty much sets the record straight thus far.

Best-
Richard

[lawrocket 3]

The video looked to me like it showed a rooster tail in the water prior to impact with the land.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnMitchell 14]

rwieder

Oh heck no! This wasn't no stall! When I mentioned "Stall" I was lambasted.

Not by anyone with their brain engaged.

[normiss 622]

but but but.....

what about lightning????
what about the flux capacitor???
what about the government???

Man you guys are just guessing before the facts are out.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Like watching a hook turn go bad and then wondering "Did his lines steering line suddenly shrink, did the gravity vector displace, was there a light aircraft on the runway at the time?"

[diablopilot 2]

ChrisD

You make a good point, one that will eventually hang this crew.

On the other hand we are taught to trust our instruments again and again and again....
C

When were you taught that?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

For all of you really stupid people out there, you can not "hand fly" a large jet!

Captain Chesley Sullenberger probably disagrees with you. And the only stupid person is see in this thread is you every time you type something that you know nothing about.....

There is a problem in commercial aviation these days of pilots who do NOT pay attention to the basic physical sensations the univers provides.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,396]

>If the stick shaker was going, they were at least approaching critical angle of attack,
>in other words, a stall.

Agreed. In this case they probably _would_ have been stalled had they not been in ground effect.

>I argue that if they had kept the plane more level and continued to add power, they
>would have avoided the tail strike and had fewer injuries.

Perhaps, although if they had decided to go around (which was heard on the CVR 1.6 seconds before impact) they likely added all the power they could. Making that decision even a second earlier may have avoided the tail vs seawall incident at least.