Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

Lite Beer · July 7, 2013

Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

A Boeing 777 aircraft has crash-landed at San Francisco international airport, killing at least two people and injuring dozens more, officials say.

Pictures posted on Twitter showed passengers jumping down the inflatable emergency slides and leaving the area, as plumes of smoke rise from the plane.

Firefighters and rescue teams are at the scene of the downed Asiana Airlines Flight 214, which had taken off from South Korea's capital, Seoul.

Some 60 people remain unaccounted for.

The cause of the crash is unclear.

Early indications suggest the plane came in too short and hit the seawall at the airport.

Eight adults and two children who suffered critical injuries are being treated at San Francisco General Hospital, hospital spokesperson Rachael Kagan said.

The plane reportedly landed and then crashed on San Francisco International Airport's Runway 28L
Continue reading the main story

There were 291 passengers and 16 crew on board, Asiana said.

Nationalities on board included 141 Chinese, 77 South Koreans and 61 US citizens, the airline said.

San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-Whites said 48 people were initially taken to nearby hospitals.

She said 190 people walked to safety from the plane, some with minor injuries - 82 of whom were later transferred for medical treatment.

Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23214513

-- BBC 2013-07-07

Lite Beer · July 7, 2013

Two dead, 60 missing in San Francisco plane crash

San Francisco - Two people were confirmed dead and at least 60 were unaccounted for after a Boeing 777 on a flight from Seoul, South Korea, crash landed at San Francisco International Airport Saturday, officials said.

San Francisco fire chief Joanna Hayes-White said there were 291 passengers on board in addition to 16 crew. She told a press conference that 48 people were transported to hospital and a further 190 people self-evacuated to safety. More than three hours after the crash, "upwards of probably 60 people remain unaccounted for at this time," the fire chief said.

Authorities did not initially release any information about casualties or the causes of the accident, but ruled out terrorism.

Television pictures showed a trail of debris, including the plane’s severed tail fin, from the start of the runway at the edge of San Francisco Bay, prompting aviation experts to speculate that the plane’s tail section struck the runway first.

"This is very obvious what happened," aviation industry consultant Robert Herbst told Bay Area News Group. "They landed short of the runway. They were too low for the flight path and the tail of the aircraft hit the sea wall."

"They did land substantially short of the runway," Todd Curtis, a former aviation safety expert with Boeing, told CNN.

The crash sparked a rush of interest on social media, especially after a passenger on the flight posted a photograph of the plane seconds after the accident. It showed the emergency chutes deployed and passengers running away

-- The Nation 2013-07-07

Mosha · July 7, 2013

Latest BBC report now only 1 person unaccounted for.

Lite Beer · July 7, 2013

Number of unaccounted for in crash lowered to one

San Francisco - A San Francisco airport official has lowered from 60 to one the number of people unnaccounted for in the crash landing of an Asiana Airlines plane.

Of the 307 people on board, two are confirmed dead, five are in critical condition and only one is missing, the official said at a news conference, clarifying earlier information released the by the San Francisco fire chief.

The number of people who evacuated and got to the terminal was 123, while the number transported to the hospital was 181. The two death and one missing person made up the remaining passengers

-- The Nation 2013-07-07

Loptr · July 7, 2013

The 777 is a Cat 3 aircraft that is capable of landing itself is necessary, although SOP is for the pilots to land the aircraft manually.

One possible cause for the short landing would be a micro-burst, a sudden downdraft during the approach for which the only solution is to power up and go around. This is not so easy on a big jet as it takes time for the turbines to spool up and being making power. Below a certain altitude and airspeed, it is not possible. The weather conditions were not conducive to the micro-burst theory as by all accounts, the weather was crystal clear, no precipitation and low surface winds. All of this points to pilot error, but of course the NTSB will not jump to conclusions and will perform their due diligence before blaming the pilot.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Loptr

khwaibah · July 7, 2013

Sponsored Links

Diamond Certified: Companies Rated Highest in Quality

KTVU and Wires

SAN FRANCISCO —

Two people were killed, dozens injured and one person was missing Saturday after an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 crashed and burst into flames while landing at San Francisco International Airport, authorities said.

San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White confirmed the fatalities, injuries and missing at an afternoon press conference. Initially, the chief said as many as 60 passengers were unaccounted for but at a later news conference officials said just one remained missing.

According to officials, 49 passengers were seriously injured, 132 received moderate to minor injuries, 123 were not injured, two were killed and one was missing.

Asiana Arlines said there was a total of 291 passengers and 16 cabin crew aboard. The majority of the passengers were comprised of 77 Korean citizens, 141 Chinese citizens,61 US citizens, 1 Japanese citizen.

Meanwhile, the FBI said there was no evidence that an act of terrorism was involved in the crash.

According to dispatcher for the San Francisco Fire Department at least 61 people were injured. The San Francisco Fire Department transported 13 of the injured to hospitals while the San Mateo County Fire Department carried away 48 people for treatment, the dispatcher said.

San Francisco General Hospital had received 34 patients from the crash as of 5 p.m., including 11 children and 23 adults, according to hospital spokeswoman Rachael Kagan.

A group of 10 patients arrived first, all of them in critical condition, but Kagan said that five of those patients have now been upgraded to serious condition. Two of those critical patients were children.

Later groups of patients were in a range of conditions, from serious to good. Some will be treated and released without being hospitalized, Kagan said.

The injuries include burns, fractures and internal injuries, she said.

Firefighters and emergency crews from San Francisco, Redwood City, San Mateo responded to the airport and dosed the burning plane with foam to extinguished the fully engulfed aircraft.

Meanwhile, officials closed all access to the airport for several and arriving flights were being diverted to nearby Oakland International and airports throughout the West including Salt Lake City. Two of the four runways at the busy airport were re-opened by 3:30 p.m.

Flight 214 from Seoul, South Korea was on a direct flight and was landing onto runway 28 at around 11:30 a.m. According to a witness, the plane was just about to land -- its landing gear had come down -- when the tail of the plane came off.

After wobbling for a minute, it appeared that the aircraft flipped upside down, coming to a stop on runway on it's back, according to witness Kathy Muhler.

Chopper footage from over the crash showed that the wings were still attached, contradicting the possibility that it rolled over on its back.

When it came to a halt, smoke was pouring from the aircraft. Fire crews responded minutes later, Muhler said.

Burlingame resident Kate Belding was out for a jog when she saw Asianflight No. 214 crash low on its approach to the airport.

She was running along a Bay trail near the Crowne Plaza hotel in Burlingame, south of the airport, when something about the plane caught her eye as it was approaching the runway, which juts out into the water.

"It was too low or it was too slow, or something about it just looked different than it should have looked," Belding said.

She said that when it touched down, she saw what looked like a small cloud of smoke.

"I thought that was a little bit weird, different from what you would usually see," she said.

Then it became clear something was very wrong when she heard a loud bang and saw the Boeing 777 skidding on the ground with its wings angled up in the air rather than parallel to the ground, Belding said.

She heard a second bang and saw a dark gray plume of smoke, she said.

A couple of minutes later, emergency vehicles began to arrive on the runway, she said.

She thought, "I can't believe I'm witnessing this," and ran over to talk with some people walking their dogs who were in similar disbelief.

"I run over there a lot, so you see planes coming in and out all

According to his Twitter feed, David Eun, the executive vice president of Samsung, was on the flight when it crashed.

"I just crash landed at SFO. Tail ripped off. Most everyone seems fine. I'm ok. Surreal..." tweeted Eun minutes after noon Saturday.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced it was sending a team of investigators to San Francisco to determine the cause of crash. The team will be lead NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman.

The 777-200 is a long-range plane from Boeing. The twin-engine aircraft is one of the world's most popular long-distance planes, often used for flights of 12 hours or more, from one continent to another. The airline's website says its 777s can carry between 246 to 300 passengers.

The last time a large U.S. airline lost a plane in a fatal crash was an American Airlines Airbus A300 taking off from JFK in 2001.

Smaller airlines have had crashes since then. The last fatal U.S. crash was a Continental Express flight operated by Colgan Air, which crashed into a house near Buffalo, N.Y. on Feb. 12, 2009. The crash killed all 49 people on board and one man in a house.

Credo · July 7, 2013

*Snipped*

. All of this points to pilot error, but of course the NTSB will not jump to conclusions and will perform their due diligence before blaming the pilot.

Unlike so many posters on Thaivisa.

lomatopo · July 7, 2013

There was a Samsung exec. who tweeted and posted some pics.

A number of Facebook execs. including COO Sheryl Sandberg were supposed to take this flight but changed to an earlier UA flight at the last minute in ICN.

Hopefully all those who were injured have full and speedy recoveries, condolences to family/friends of the persons who perished.

Given the state of the aircraft it is miraculous that more people did not die.

*link to another forum deleted*

Edited July 7, 2013 by Scott

BKS22 · July 7, 2013

This is actually a flight I've considered in the past as part of my return route home. Can't describe how goddamn scary that is!

Definitely pilot error.

R.I.P. to the flight crew that was lost out the rear. A terrifying day in aviation.

GentlemanJim · July 7, 2013

This is actually a flight I've considered in the past as part of my return route home. Can't describe how goddamn scary that is!

Definitely pilot error.

R.I.P. to the flight crew that was lost out the rear. A terrifying day in aviation.

A pox on you! Wait for the results of the investigation before you start apportioning blame!

F430murci · July 7, 2013

*Snipped*

. All of this points to pilot error, but of course the NTSB will not jump to conclusions and will perform their due diligence before blaming the pilot.

Unlike so many posters on Thaivisa.

Pilot error too early. Didn't triple 7 come up short in London due to a fuel issue on final approach. Could have been a fuel issue causing slow throttle response.

Micro burst??? Was there any weather in the area? They would already know if a microburst and would have had a LLWAS. They have pretty decent low level wind shear warning systems since the 1985ish Delta L1011 incident in Dallas.

Mosha · July 7, 2013

*Snipped*

. All of this points to pilot error, but of course the NTSB will not jump to conclusions and will perform their due diligence before blaming the pilot.

Unlike so many posters on Thaivisa.

Pilot error too early. Didn't triple 7 come up short in London due to a fuel issue on final approach. Could have been a fuel issue causing slow throttle response.

Micro burst??? Was there any weather in the area? They would already know if a microburst and would have had a LLWAS. They have pretty decent low level wind shear warning systems since the 1985ish Delta L1011 incident in Dallas.

Different engines BAW and ASEANA

Loptr · July 7, 2013

*Snipped*

. All of this points to pilot error, but of course the NTSB will not jump to conclusions and will perform their due diligence before blaming the pilot.

Unlike so many posters on Thaivisa.

Pilot error too early. Didn't triple 7 come up short in London due to a fuel issue on final approach. Could have been a fuel issue causing slow throttle response.

Micro burst??? Was there any weather in the area? They would already know if a microburst and would have had a LLWAS. They have pretty decent low level wind shear warning systems since the 1985ish Delta L1011 incident in Dallas.

The 777 that lost power short of the runway in Heathrow was determined to be icing in the fuel system when the tanks were low. As per reports this morning this issue was corrected shortly after that incident and implemented across the fleet of 777's with an airworthiness directive.

The only reason I mentioned wind shear / micro-burst is because that is the only thing that would cause an aircraft to rapidly lose altitude on final. Having had to fly through them before, it is not something I want to repeat. There are some airports where the approach is conducive to downdrafts regardless of weather. San Fran is not one of them.

Mrjlh · July 7, 2013

News flash just announced.. "ALL" passengers and crew accounted for. So far only 2 have have died no other details. 5 still in critical condition. Whole afternoon has been nothing but this news story here in San Francisco.

CTO · July 7, 2013

While 2 losses is tragic, not many years ago the number would have been far higher, there have been some very tangible advances in passenger safety.

Mrjlh · July 7, 2013

Also this had nothing to do with weather or a terrorist attack. Actual details and final report will not be for several months so anything else is pure speculation. What we know is the "ILS" system has been down for months due to upgrade to FAA new requirements. ILS is important in that it tells the pilot if he is either high or low on final approach. Without it he has to visually do it himself without any positive reference. At that speed and altitude you only have seconds to make the final adjustments on landing. at fatigue from a 12-18 flight it is very difficult. This is the current educated guess by the several professionals that have been interviewed. In the the next few days we will get more information. The pilot has final responsibility in the end but this may also be a case of the airport not having the ILS system up and running. We shall see. It is a miracle out of 307 people on the plane only two have died so far. This could have been a lot worse than it was.

Carl64 · July 7, 2013

+1. Now this is the most accurate post I have ever read on Thai visa.

F430murci · July 7, 2013

*Snipped*

. All of this points to pilot error, but of course the NTSB will not jump to conclusions and will perform their due diligence before blaming the pilot.

Unlike so many posters on Thaivisa.

Pilot error too early. Didn't triple 7 come up short in London due to a fuel issue on final approach. Could have been a fuel issue causing slow throttle response.

Micro burst??? Was there any weather in the area? They would already know if a microburst and would have had a LLWAS. They have pretty decent low level wind shear warning systems since the 1985ish Delta L1011 incident in Dallas.

The 777 that lost power short of the runway in Heathrow was determined to be icing in the fuel system when the tanks were low. As per reports this morning this issue was corrected shortly after that incident and implemented across the fleet of 777's with an airworthiness directive.

The only reason I mentioned wind shear / micro-burst is because that is the only thing that would cause an aircraft to rapidly lose altitude on final. Having had to fly through them before, it is not something I want to repeat. There are some airports where the approach is conducive to downdrafts regardless of weather. San Fran is not one of them.

I would go with pilot error over micro any day. I still would not rule out a slow throttle response of either mechanical, fuel level or pilot error nature.

As part of the landing procedure, the pilot always obtains the latest weather for the airport which includes the current atmospheric pressure (or altimeter setting) which is entered into the altimeter. Aircraft also have whats called radar altimeters which bounce a signal directly downwards to determine elevation above ground level (AGL). Looking at the pictures, it looks like the plane came in ‘low and slow’ which is a very bad situation. When landing an airplane, you are trading airspeed with decent trajectory. If you are coming in a bit low, you need to have the airspeed to correct it. Especially on jet aircraft, you cannot add power very quickly as the jet engines take a few seconds to ‘spool’ up to speed. You always want to maintain enough speed when landing so as not to get yourself in the ‘low and slow’ situation.

The question thus becomes why the slow throttle response. Passengers said they hear engines spool up right at the end. It was either mechanical or pilot error that allowed plane to drop below glide path at very end.

The 777 has numerous systems that advise the pilot of height above the ground and provide warnings of excessive descent rate or ground closure. This why I wonder about fuel or mechanical issue. The pilot would have had to be damn near comatose to miss the warnings.

Edited July 7, 2013 by F430murci

F430murci · July 7, 2013

Another crazy speculation. Could he have ingested a bird and not known it since engines are basically at idle on final, but when he applied power there was poor response.

technologybytes · July 7, 2013

I cannot believe how many amazing air crash investigators we have on Thai-Visa and they don't even need to do any investigation... they can read a news article and already determine the cause... just amazing.

How about leaving it to the professionals??

I'm 100% certain that the crew would have been fully professional and deserve NOT to be judged at this stage.

negreanu · July 7, 2013

The only reason I mentioned wind shear / micro-burst is because that is the only thing that would cause an aircraft to rapidly lose altitude on final.

Plus hundreds of other possibilities. From mechanical failure of numerous systems, Pilot error, Weather, contamination, Ingestion....

The Thaivisa armchair aviation experts come out in floods with their speculation as to what happened.

I work in the industry and have done for 20 years. I am pretty familiar with the aircraft type involved, systems, weather and general SOP of airline operations (I am not familiar with specific Asiana SOP's as i think most are not unless you are currently employed by them).

Considering the above, with the information known I could not even attempt to piece together the scenario here at this stage. But our TV boys can - excellent work!

Lets just wait for the preliminary eh? ......

On the plus side boeing built a damn strong airplane with B777. As per this incident and BA. Now how would the composite B787 hold up in a similar event....

meanwhile here is the ATC, probably a little hard to follow unless your one our TV Experts:

http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3

Edited July 7, 2013 by negreanu

NeverSure · July 7, 2013

I'm sure many have landed at SFO. The first time I did I was sure we were landing in the water. The runway is built on fill out into the bay and all you see is water getting closer and closer until the last few seconds before touchdown, and suddenly there is runway beneath you. It isn't built up high.

For whatever reason, I figured that eventually a plane would come up short and crash on the front edge of that runway or even land in the bay. There are much harder runways to land on such as those surrounded by mountains, but this one still leaves no room for error with the bay.

I'm not speculating on the cause, just describing the approach and landing.

Edited July 7, 2013 by NeverSure

F430murci · July 7, 2013

I cannot believe how many amazing air crash investigators we have on Thai-Visa and they don't even need to do any investigation... they can read a news article and already determine the cause... just amazing.

How about leaving it to the professionals??

I'm 100% certain that the crew would have been fully professional and deserve NOT to be judged at this stage.

Just internet forum entertainment that hurts no body. So what does it matter that we discuss possible causes. It is interesting and much more than your useless input.

Edited July 7, 2013 by sbk
flame removed- mind your manners

Espen · July 7, 2013

I think I`ll stay on the ground for a while.

BKS22 · July 7, 2013

This is actually a flight I've considered in the past as part of my return route home. Can't describe how goddamn scary that is!

Definitely pilot error.

R.I.P. to the flight crew that was lost out the rear. A terrifying day in aviation.

A pox on you! Wait for the results of the investigation before you start apportioning blame!

Don't need to wait for anything. It's very clear & obvious already. Thanks for your input though.

Tywais · July 7, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AFmoMoUiRU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAle9lU0lWQ

BKS22 · July 7, 2013

Sitting here watching the minute by minute live updates and first hand accounts...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the error was made in the approach.Only F 340 could be correct in that a bird might have been inhaled just before landing, but even then difficult to swallow that much power being lost

Not to mention this forum started hours after the crash already happened.

Edited July 7, 2013 by BKS22

skippybangkok · July 7, 2013

We engineers has a bad joke.

747-400 had only 2 pilots, no flight engineer.

The next model will only on pilot and one dog. If the pilot tries to touch anything, the dogs job is to bite him.

No ILS should not be an issue - bet its pilot error, especially long haul with time difference and fatigue

( I am due in SFO on a 777 in 3 weeks, guess the 777 pilots will be alert for the next few months )

jamhar · July 7, 2013

Looks can be deceiving.

Believe what you want,

But let the investigation play out.

Still one of the safest form of travel.

I would much rather get on a plane, rather than a minibus ride

Espen · July 7, 2013

Sitting here watching the minute by minute live updates and first hand accounts...it doesn't take a rocket science to see where the error was made in the approach.

Not to mention this forum started hours after the crash already happened.

1. Do they say anything about possible technical error?

2. It would be weird if this forum started before the crash happened.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Espen

Sign In

Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US