Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

UPDATE 1-Plane, engines not at fault in Asiana crash - CEO

Sun Jul 7, 2013 3:43am EDT

(Reuters) - Asiana Airlines does not believe that the fatal crash of one of its Boeing 777 planes in San Francisco on Saturday was caused by mechanical failure, although it refused to be drawn on whether the fault lay with pilot error.

"For now, we acknowledge that there were no problems caused by the 777-200 plane or (its) engines," Yoon Young-doo, the president and CEO of the airline, told a media conference on Sunday at the company headquarters.

Asiana said the two people who died in the crash were female Chinese teenagers who had been seated at the back of the aircraft.

Yoon declined to comment directly on whether the crash was due to pilot error but said the three captains on the aircraft had been fully trained in compliance with Korean regulations and had more than 10,000 flying hours of experience between them.

Yoon also declined to say whether he believed the crash could have been caused by an error by air traffic controllers at San Francisco.

Initial reports said two people were killed and more than 70 injured when the Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 crashed on landing at San Francisco International Airport.

If confirmed, it would be the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 777, a family of twin-engined long-haul aircraft which has been in service for the past 18 years.

With more than five million flights, according to Boeing, it remains one of the industry's solid workhorses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/usa-crash-asiana-idUSL4N0FD05220130707

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

How strange re the deaths of the teenagers and their seat locations.

I'm no flying expert... But I've always heard that supposedly sitting the rear of an aircraft is supposed to be one of the safer or safest locations.

I guess it's not so safe if the plane crash lands tail first and the tail of the plane breaks off...

[Suradit69]

Early news reporting in such instances can be very unreliable...

But FWIW, Fox News U.S. was reporting this morning that the ILS (Instrument Landing System) system at SFO was down at the time of the crash, and had been scheduled to be down for a two-month period, and that some other kind of colored lighting system on the runway designed to assist pilots when the ILS was out had only been working intermittently.

They also had a former U.S. Navy carrier jet pilot talking about how pilots can have a difficult time judging depth perception for landings when flying over bodies of water. SFO Airport is right on the edge of the bay, and the planes coming in for landing travel over water until hitting reaching the runway right at the edge of the water.

"Early news reporting in such instances can be very unreliable... But FWIW, Fox News U.S. was reporting this morning ..."

Fox News is pretty unreliable regardless of whether it's early reporting, late reporting or, more often than not, something Roger Ailes manufactured to suit his fantasies/agenda.

[skippybangkok]

First, you are wrong that on final all you do is fix the throttle and adjust speed with altitude. No, you don't adjust speed with altitude. You adjust it with attitude - nose up or down. No you don't "fix" the throttle. You use it to stretch or shorten your glide distance. If on final you hit a sudden head wind you add some power and if a sudden tail wind you reduce power.

And you haven't answered the questions as to why the plane hit off the center line of the runway, or if as reported, the pilot radioed several times for emergency equipment prior to landing.

Why don't we all just sit back and wait for an investigation?

.

It's counter intuitive, but at a fixed cg/weight , stabilizer and elevator setting - more power will temporary change speed, which will oscillate back to the speed u started out with. The steady state will be a change will be in vertical speed with more or less power.

Power = vertical speed

Elevator / Stabilizer = AC speed

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

This is supposedly the Air traffic control radio traffic at the time of the Asiana crash, including the controller's reference that emergency vehicles are responding. But AFAIK, there's no indication of whether that comment came before or after the crash had occurred.

https://soundcloud.com/martyn-williams-6/asiana-214-traffic-with-sfo

That's apparently what's led to some speculation that the pilots had declared some kind of emergency before the crash. But that seems to be speculation, and I can't find anything verifiable about that.

But by way of example on the subject, USA Today had this reference in their report:

The crash occurred on a day with clear skies, but the crew apparently knew they had a problem as the plane approached the airport. A recording of the airport's air-traffic controllers provided by FlightAware.com, a website that tracks flights, had the controllers assuring the crew that "emergency vehicles are responding. We have everyone on their way."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2013/07/06/ntsb-airline-crash/2495621/

[Suradit69]

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 )

"We engineers has a bad joke."

But you delivered it with such flair!

[EyesWideOpen]

I have heard the same thing, that the ILS ( Instrument landing system) was out for that runway. And that basically the Korean pilot was so unskilled he was not able to make a manual landing on his own without the automated system.

This will be 100 % pilot error. Easily seen by the debris starting at the very edge of the breakwater, where he clearly hit first after screwing up the approach.

I had a friend who did pilot training for KAL. He said basically if the automated systems worked, things were fine . If the pilots had to actually fly the plane, things did not go so well. He told me to never fly on KAL..... :-)

[khunken]

Not being a plot or any sort of aviation expert, I'd love to know why there is a 'sea wall' however low at the start/end of a runway?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

And from the AP:

Vedpal Singh, who was sitting in the middle of the aircraft and survived the crash with his family, said there was no forewarning from the pilot or any crew members before the plane touched down hard and he heard a loud sound.

"We knew something was horrible wrong," said Singh, who suffered a fractured collarbone and had his arm was in a sling.

"It's miraculous we survived," he said.

......

Another passenger, Benjamin Levy, 39, said it looked to him that the plane was flying too low and too close to the bay as it approached the runway. Levy, who was sitting in an emergency exit row, said he felt the pilot try to lift the jet up before it crashed, and thinks the maneuver might have saved some lives.

"Everybody was screaming. I was trying to usher them out," he recalled of the first seconds after the landing. "I said, 'Stay calm, stop screaming, help each other out, don't push.'"

.......

Based on witness accounts in the news and video of the wreckage, Mike Barr, a former military pilot and accident investigator who teaches aviation safety at the University of Southern California, said it appeared the plane approached the runway too low and something may have caught the runway lip — the seawall at the end of the runway.

San Francisco is one of several airports around the country that border bodies of water that have walls at the end of their runways to prevent planes that overrun a runway from ending up in the water.

Since the plane was about to land, its landing gear would have already been down, Barr said. It's possible the landing gear or the tail of the plane hit the seawall, he said. If that happened, it would effectively slam the plane into the runway, he said.

Noting that some witnesses reported hearing the plane's engines rev up just before the crash, Barr said that would be consistent with a pilot who realized at the last minute that the plane was too low and was increasing power to the engines to try to increase altitude. Barr said he could think of no reason why a plane would come in to land that low.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/faa-airliner-crashes-landing-san-francisco

[manarak]

Not being a plot or any sort of aviation expert, I'd love to know why there is a 'sea wall' however low at the start/end of a runway?

for preventing planes that overshoot from falling into the sea

[manarak]

This is supposedly the Air traffic control radio traffic at the time of the Asiana crash, including the controller's reference that emergency vehicles are responding. But AFAIK, there's no indication of whether that comment came before or after the crash had occurred.

https://soundcloud.com/martyn-williams-6/asiana-214-traffic-with-sfo

That's apparently what's led to some speculation that the pilots had declared some kind of emergency before the crash. But that seems to be speculation, and I can't find anything verifiable about that.

But by way of example on the subject, USA Today had this reference in their report:

The crash occurred on a day with clear skies, but the crew apparently knew they had a problem as the plane approached the airport. A recording of the airport's air-traffic controllers provided by FlightAware.com, a website that tracks flights, had the controllers assuring the crew that "emergency vehicles are responding. We have everyone on their way."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2013/07/06/ntsb-airline-crash/2495621/

hmmm....

the recording seems to have been cut and shortened, because at 00:07 we hear 214 being 7 miles out and a minute later already notice of heavy landing... It's unclear at what point exactly the emergency was declared.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's the emerging Wiki page on the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214

And it includes a reference to the ILS system at SFO as follows:

The Instrument Landing System (ILS) and consequently the navigational glidepath on Runway 28L were inoperative at the time of the crash.^[12]

12. ^ "06/005 SFO NAVIGATION INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM RUNWAY 28L GLIDE PATH OUT OF SERVICE WITH EFFECT FROM OR EFFECTIVE FROM 1306011400-1308222359". FAA.GOV. Retrieved July 7, 2013.

But neither the FAA or other links I try direct to that notice seem to be working.

[gregk0543]

Here is a picture of the plane just after crashing and before it was engulfed in flames.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/6/4499044/samsung-executive-david-eun-in-boeing-777-crash-most-everyone-seems-fine

Notice the people getting off carry hand luggage and how the front slide is not being used and the person possible in cockpit.

If you look at all pictures on CNN website you will not see any landing gear.

So my guess is as a humorous aside is that the pilot did not put down the landing gear.

Witnesses say it bounced and cart wheeled. Lets see what the investigators have to say.

I think though that the photo I have linked above is the best.

[jamhar]

The aircraft hit the low seawall which separates the airport from the waters of San Francisco Bay. Images of the debris field indicate the 777 made an initial impact to the right of the centerline, losing its tail section and parts of the landing gear before sliding down the runway and slewing off into the grass to the south of the normal touchdown area. Eyewitnesses report the 777 struck the wall ahead of the displaced threshold area in a nose high attitude, causing the entire empennage to detach aft of the pressure bulkhead. The vertical and horizontal tail were scattered in the displaced threshold area, just ahead of major sections of the landing gear.

That's far from saying what caused it. Coming up short can be caused by a lot of things, and then toss in the curve ball that they were apparently to the right of the center line. I have no idea what caused it.

Agreed NS,

But thats why i like it. What happened we can recreate. The "whys" will take much longer.

Speculation is inevitable but premature conclusions can destroy lives and companies with no cause.

Sympathies to the families of the ones lost, and to those injured.

[manarak]

from the audio:

Flight 214 cleared into land 28L at 18:21:12 Zulu 18:22:27: Flight 214 calls ATC 18:22:30: Tower says, “214 Heavy, Emergency Vehicles are responding” 18:22:37: Flight 214 calls again. Can’t make out what is said. 18:23:10: Flight 214 calls again. Can’t make out what is said. 18:23:25: ATC says, “Emergency vehicles are responding. We have everyone on their way.” 18:27:02: Another plane calls ATC, “We see people (at our vicinity) that need immediate attention. They are alive and they are walking around.” 18:27:18: ATC replies, “So people are just walking outside the airplane right now?” 18:27:20: Plane replies, “Yes. Some people. It looks like it’s settling. ” 18:27:27: “It’s right up near the 28 Left number on the right side of the runway…Between the runways there are people adjacent to the numbers. We can see about 2-3 people who are moving, who survived.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/06/boeing-777-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-international-airport/#ixzz2YLfgaVt9

[manarak]

landing trajectories of a safe landing and flight 214 compared:

https://twitter.com/sbaker/status/353611787750494208/photo/1

[manarak]

seems pretty clear:

2 or 3 meters higher and it wouldn't have crashed

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

landing trajectories of a safe landing and flight 214 compared:

https://twitter.com/sbaker/status/353611787750494208/photo/1

Wow... pretty interesting technology that allows the tracking and recording of such things... seems to be comparing the descent of the same flight the day before with the descent on the day of the crash. Drastically different.

July 5

July 6

[manarak]

landing trajectories of a safe landing and flight 214 compared:

https://twitter.com/sbaker/status/353611787750494208/photo/1

Wow... pretty interesting technology that allows the tracking and recording of such things... seems to be comparing the descent of the same flight the day before with the descent on the day of the crash. Drastically different.

July 5

PS0232.jpg

July 6

PS0233.jpg

airplane transponder data is public and can be read by anybody.

but given he position of the plane just before the crash (2 segments before), I wonder what caused the steep descent?

[skippybangkok]

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 )

"We engineers has a bad joke."

But you delivered it with such flair!

you noticed

[khunken]

Not being a plot or any sort of aviation expert, I'd love to know why there is a 'sea wall' however low at the start/end of a runway?

for preventing planes that overshoot from falling into the sea

Well excuse my ignorance, but how would it be 'better' for a plane to hit a wall compared to skidding on into the sea?

[manarak]

Not being a plot or any sort of aviation expert, I'd love to know why there is a 'sea wall' however low at the start/end of a runway?

for preventing planes that overshoot from falling into the sea

Well excuse my ignorance, but how would it be 'better' for a plane to hit a wall compared to skidding on into the sea?

probably depends on the plane's speed

[Credo]

It probably also prevents the sea water and waves from getting on the runway and from eroding the area around the end of the runway.

[khunken]

Not being a plot or any sort of aviation expert, I'd love to know why there is a 'sea wall' however low at the start/end of a runway?

for preventing planes that overshoot from falling into the sea

Well excuse my ignorance, but how would it be 'better' for a plane to hit a wall compared to skidding on into the sea?

probably depends on the plane's speed

Yes as far as hitting a wall is concerned at low speed (but not at near take-off speed) but even modern jets can float on water - at least for a while. Didn't a pilot land his 737 on the Hudson river a while back?

[Tywais]

"This is very obvious what happened," said Herbst, who flew commercial airliners for 41 years before retiring three years ago. "They landed short of the runway. They were too low for the flight path and the tail of the aircraft hit the sea wall."

When approaching SFO, Herbst said, "the nose is pretty high up in the air just before touch down. They weren't high enough and the tail hit the sea wall. This is a no-brainer."

Read more: Aircraft model from San Francisco plane crash has sterling safety reputation - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/digitalfirstmedia/ci_23612160/aircraft-model-from-san-francisco-plane-crash-has#ixzz2YLtLBeJM

[Tywais]

Debris field. All the way from the sea wall to the threshold. NYTimes

This shows he was pretty much on the center line of the runway but way short.

[manarak]

in USA Today's report:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2013/07/06/ntsb-airline-crash/2495621/

Officials are overly cautious saying it could take years to determine the cause, while since the pilots are alive and the blackboxes are probably in good condition, a high-level analysis should be relatively easy and quick to do...

[EyesWideOpen]

Bet Boeing is pissed off at Asiana airlines for ruining the perfect safety record of the 777 airplane......

[manarak]

Witnesses on the ground and pilots in other airborne flights say the nose of the plane was highly elevated. It appears the plane was going to land short of the runway and raised the attitude of the nose to attempt to gain some altitude and distance.

[lomatopo]

This eyewitness report mentions the main gear hitting the breakwater.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/07/06/sot-witness-from-hotel-emotional.ktvu.html