Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

[Publicus]

The experts can check out the following website to see all of the variables involved in plane crashes since - way back when. I think scariest is "pilot incapacitation."

Source: Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, 1959 - 2008, Boeing

http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

It's much more fascinating than it sounds.

And yes, landing at SFO international airport convinces you you're going into the drink the lower you get to the earth's surface.

[F430murci]

Video of crash looks low and slow . . .

ILS being down does suck, but that really should not even remotely matter . . . I am just curious why pilot waited to long to apply power. Looks like he simply tried to get plane back up in the air at critical moment, but clipping landing gear and tail doomed him. Approach seemed shallow enough at the end. Not real steep.

[hawker9000]

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.

Gee, why do we spend all that tax money on a fully tricked out REAL investigating NTSB when one man can do the job in one day without even visiting the accident scene, with nothing but a keyboard? "Definitely pilot error"? That's certainly a possibility, but how in the world would you know that?!

Edited July 7, 2013 by hawker9000

[hawker9000]

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.

You're wrong. ILS if available does enable the pilot to make a glideslope determination via his instruments, and the ILS for 28L at SFO was NOTAM'd to be out-of-service (probably announced via ATIS as well; pilot would've known prior to arrival). But the airport was operating VFR and this was a visual approach; the pilot would have at least been able to reference the VASI which is a row of lights at the approach end of the runway providing glideslope reference (well, actually, I'm reading that SFO 28L has a PAPI - same idea though). The 777 may have a HUD with velocity vector as well - not sure but think so. No reason to misjudge glideslope really. There's really no point in trying to armchair this, and it's just silly to do so. Pilot error is a possibility; there are others. We don't know and can't make an informed guess. Serves no purpose whatsoever to just "guess" like this.

Edited July 7, 2013 by hawker9000

[hawker9000]

the pilot is alive....so he can tell the truth on what is going on....+ the plane looks like not totaly destroyed... this going to be a fast conclusion Rip and those are injured may get well as soonest..

'News is saying that while the airlines operating the 777 may get a "snapshot" of the investigation results, the actual report might not be officially released for anywhere from 6 months to a year... It sure would be interesting to hear the pilot's account of what happened.

[Maestro]

...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

Do I understand correctly that there was talk of an emergency already when the plane was at a height of 3,500 to 3,000 metres? "Emergency vehicles are responding". "Emergency vehicles are on their way"

[F430murci]

...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

Do I understand correctly that there was talk of an emergency already when the plane was at a height of 3,500 to 3,000 metres? "Emergency vehicles are responding". "Emergency vehicles are on their way"

Huh. What are you reading. 7 second prior to impact, they mentioned need more speed. 4 second prior to impact stick shaker. 1.5 seconds prior to impact, said going around.

As indicated, there was some delay in power. Should have been at full throttle at 7 seconds since I believe the recorded said something like 123 knots. Stick shaker would definitely be full power. I don't think spool up would have been 3 seconds before gaining some speed if all went accordingly, but I am not sure and he pulled nose up which would further bleed speed probably trying to stretch the distance anyway he could at very last moments before impact.

[F430murci]

the pilot is alive....so he can tell the truth on what is going on....+ the plane looks like not totaly destroyed... this going to be a fast conclusion Rip and those are injured may get well as soonest..

'News is saying that while the airlines operating the 777 may get a "snapshot" of the investigation results, the actual report might not be officially released for anywhere from 6 months to a year... It sure would be interesting to hear the pilot's account of what happened.

Well, pilots will likely say applied power, but nothing happened. Black box, however, will show throttle positions at 7 seconds (call for more speed) and at stick shaker 4.5 seconds. If they were not on full power at 6 or 7 seconds, they f'ed up. No doubt about that.

[Mosha]

BBC > One of the victims has injuries consistent with being run over by a vehicle.

[Cuban]

There have been crashes with very similar situations to this before, long haul originating in Asia with loss/lack of power just on the final few hundred yards before crossing the threshold, so while focusing on the glide-path to touch down the loss of speed is not noticed until the stick shaker kicks in.

In those cases it was water-ice that lined the fuel lines that came away from the sides of the pipes as the plane descended on final approach causing blockage and fuel starvation of the engines. IIRC they redesigned the pre-engine filters to cope with such a situation and retrofitted affected planes.

The eyewitness video (below) of the crash itself shows a lot more than the stills photographs that are floating around elsewhere.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/

I've also seen data graphed from planes on this flight code over the previous four days, approach looks normal.

Note: The crashed flight chart line is in red. <----------<<<

[Mrjlh]

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.

You're wrong. ILS if available does enable the pilot to make a glideslope determination via his instruments, and the ILS for 28L at SFO was NOTAM'd to be out-of-service (probably announced via ATIS as well; pilot would've known prior to arrival). But the airport was operating VFR and this was a visual approach; the pilot would have at least been able to reference the VASI which is a row of lights at the approach end of the runway providing glideslope reference (well, actually, I'm reading that SFO 28L has a PAPI - same idea though). The 777 may have a HUD with velocity vector as well - not sure but think so. No reason to misjudge glideslope really. There's really no point in trying to armchair this, and it's just silly to do so. Pilot error is a possibility; there are others. We don't know and can't make an informed guess. Serves no purpose whatsoever to just "guess" like this.

What part of my post did you not read? Telling me I'm wrong then assuming I'm guessing when you make silly ass'd statements like "not sure but think so". Look who guessing now. And Mr. Expert, flying over water, the visual affect is there is little depth perception to determine altitude correctly even on a clear day. So all three systems (ILS, VASI, OR PAPI as you indicated) would have been helpful "IF" they were working which they were "NOT" according to to airport officials. (Fox News doesn't always report everything.) Today's "preliminary" reported finding, the pilots made a mistake! But they tried to correct it at the last minute which proved to be too LATE. No one is "arm chairing" any thing here. Get your facts straight before you type, typical TV'er. Next time some one see's an over head shot t=of the runways, take a hard look at the end runway "28R". You'll see a couple of tire skid marks near the breakwater. Sign of a previous near miss on the adjacent runway.

[F430murci]

Ehh, sounds like engines responded to throttle inputs so not looking good for pilots. Speed significantly below the137 knots approach speed. NTSB just used word significant and that confirming speed based on other sources and measurements.

This is even worse for pilots unless instruments were giving faulty information. Even if ILS and landing lights out and the ceiling is 100 feet with fog and thunderstorms, there is still no excuse for basically stalling the plane on final approach. This has nothing to do with points of reference, flying over water or whatever. Maybe they got confused and thought they still had auto throttles at the level . . .

Candidly, I was thinking, or hoping, mechanical or bird ingestion, because I cannot even comprehend how they would get that slow and never do anything about it. I think preliminary box data was like 123 at 7 second mark, but shaker went off later. Anyone know or care to research shaker thresh hold on 777. I would think that would be 125, but maybe it was120.

Edited July 8, 2013 by F430murci

[EyesWideOpen]

As I said before, pilot error.... As has been shown countless times,

the Asian culture system of high and low ranking does not do well in the cockpit of a jet. The co-pilot may have been thinking" Damn we are really low"

but would not have said a word to the higher ranked captain.

The truly scary part about this story has not really been picked up on

by the media. The fact that this guy was supposed to be one of the better

captains in Asiana airline. If their one of their top pilots can make such

a rudimentary mistake, hard to even imagine flying with a low time pilot....

[MaxYakov]

Ehh, sounds like engines responded to throttle inputs so not looking good for pilots. Speed significantly below the137 knots approach speed. NTSB just used word significant and that confirming speed based on other sources and measurements.

This is even worse for pilots unless instruments were giving faulty information. Even if ILS and landing lights out and the ceiling is 100 feet with fog and thunderstorms, there is still no excuse for basically stalling the plane on final approach. This has nothing to do with points of reference, flying over water or whatever. Maybe they got confused and thought they still had auto throttles at the level . . .

Candidly, I was thinking, or hoping, mechanical or bird ingestion, because I cannot even comprehend how they would get that slow and never do anything about it. I think preliminary box data was like 123 at 7 second mark, but shaker went off later. Anyone know or care to research shaker thresh hold on 777. I would think that would be 125, but maybe it was120.

There isn't a specific stall/stick-shaker speed, but a range, depending on several parameters:

"The air flowing over the wing will separate from the upper surface, resulting in a loss of lift, or a stall. It should be noted that this stall condition could occur at a wide range of speeds (depending on the airplane weight or load factor, or g loading) and at any attitude (depending on the flight path angle). What is important is the AOA. Therefore, it is imperative to know when the wing is approaching the stall AOA and to take steps to avoid it."

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_12/attack_story.html

Without evidence of a malfunction with the aircraft or a very exceptional atmospheric condition, it looks like CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) to me. Or, maybe better, NFIT (Not-properly-controlled Flight into Terrain.

Whatever they did in the last seconds in an attempt to recover the situation might have prevented a nose-in collision with the seawall, which would have no doubt been much more disastrous. Maybe the flight deck crew will get credit for that?

Edited July 8, 2013 by MaxYakov

[GentlemanJim]

and the fact that pilots requested emergency vehicles before the crash

Is there a source for this detail? I haven't read/heard a mention of this request. Did the flight deck made this request well out from the airport?

yes, please check my earlier post:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-3#entry6586519

The pilots are calling for emergency services after they have hit the tail.

[Mrjlh]

Reported today. this was the "first " landing at SFO by the pilot. He was an experienced pilot with just under 10,000 hours on 747's and other planes but he was "in training" for the 777 with only 45 hours on it. Even experienced pilots need to be trained on new aircraft. He was under the supervision of a "rated" pilot. They tried to abort the landing but ran out of time. Once they realized they had a problem everything happened in less than 10 seconds. Clearly becoming pilot error.

[skippybangkok]

As I said before, pilot error.... As has been shown countless times,

the Asian culture system of high and low ranking does not do well in the cockpit of a jet. The co-pilot may have been thinking" dam_n we are really low"

but would not have said a word to the higher ranked captain.

The truly scary part about this story has not really been picked up on

by the media. The fact that this guy was supposed to be one of the better

captains in Asiana airline. If their one of their top pilots can make such

a rudimentary mistake, hard to even imagine flying with a low time pilot....

Agreed but

1) Capt. Van Zantum, KLM's top pilot, holds the record for number of deaths which was mainly Ego related. So in no way a pure Asian issue

2) Also reason why many Airlines dont hire ex airforce fighter pilots - typically one man shows

A study pinned down why QANTAS has no such accidents, conclusion was that the co-pilots were far less likely to keep quiet

[jamhar]

Pilot of plane that crashed was in training, Asiana says

The pilot flying Asiana Flight 214, which crashed in San Francisco, killing two and injuring scores more, had only 43 hours of experience flying Boeing 777 aircraft, a spokeswoman for Asiana Airlines said Sunday.

He was in training to fly the 777 when the crash occurred, she added.

Kang Kook Lee, born in 1967, was identified as the pilot of the plane that crashed.

Asiana spokeswoman Hyo Min Lee told The Times the pilot had been flying since 1994 and was a “very experienced pilot” flying other types of planes, including Boeing 747s, 737s and Airbus 320s. But “he was in training for B777,” she said.

pilot-of-crashed-plane-had-43-hours-experience-flying-boeing-777-asiana-says Link

But then Hersman said that during the approach, “the data indicate that the throttles were at idle and airspeed was slowed below the target airspeed.”

“The speed was significantly below 137 knots,” she said. When questioned further, Hersman said, "we’re not talking about a few knots,” but she declined to give exact speeds.

latimes article Link

Edited July 8, 2013 by jamhar

[skippybangkok]

?.... "in training" for the 777 with only 45 hours on it./

Making sense now

[MaxYakov]

and the fact that pilots requested emergency vehicles before the crash

Is there a source for this detail? I haven't read/heard a mention of this request. Did the flight deck made this request well out from the airport?

yes, please check my earlier post:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-3#entry6586519

The pilots are calling for emergency services after they have hit the tail.

Incredibly, that seems to be the case based on a survey of media reports. If true, I'm wondering how radio power was maintained. Any Boeing 777 systems experts to explain radio power sourcing? Perhaps the APU was running or there is a battery/inverter source, since they apparently lost both engines (one literally) shortly after belly-down?

[MaxYakov]

?.... "in training" for the 777 with only 45 hours on it./

Making sense now

Not to me. When it is ever a good idea to train a pilot, even when supervised, with over 300 passengers and crew on board? Whatever the state of the pilot's skills on type or CRM (Cockpit Resource Management), the end result is telling.

Edited July 8, 2013 by MaxYakov

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Pilot of plane that crashed was in training, Asiana says

The pilot flying Asiana Flight 214, which crashed in San Francisco, killing two and injuring scores more, had only 43 hours of experience flying Boeing 777 aircraft, a spokeswoman for Asiana Airlines said Sunday.

He was in training to fly the 777 when the crash occurred, she added.

Kang Kook Lee, born in 1967, was identified as the pilot of the plane that crashed.

Asiana spokeswoman Hyo Min Lee told The Times the pilot had been flying since 1994 and was a “very experienced pilot” flying other types of planes, including Boeing 747s, 737s and Airbus 320s. But “he was in training for B777,” she said.

pilot-of-crashed-plane-had-43-hours-experience-flying-boeing-777-asiana-says Link

This report above from the L.A. Times, quoting Asiana, seems to be a reversal of pilot roles, compared to the original reports from Asiana yesterday that had the more veteran pilot portrayed in the principal role....

Jamhar also might have included the next pgh of The Times story in the part he excerpted, given it's pretty telling:

The spokeswoman said Lee had traveled to SFO previously, but “not much” with the Boeing 777. She would not specify if Saturday’s flight was the pilot’s first to SFO in a Boeing 777.

Asiana seemed to be telling the opposite roles for the two pilots in the reports yesterday:

(Reuters) - Asiana Airlines, the South Korean carrier whose Boeing 777 crashed while landing at San Francisco airport on Saturday, had been trying to clean up a tarnished safety record that included two other fatal crashes in its 25-year history.

One of the pilots of flight 214, Lee Jeong-min, is a veteran who has spent his career at Asiana. He was among four pilots on the plane who rotated in two-person shifts during the 10 hour-plus flight, a senior Asiana official told Reuters.

"The pilot's name is Lee Jeong-min, and (he is) a veteran pilot with long experience," said the official, who requested anonymity. "Our investigation committee is looking into the accident in San Francisco," he said.

Lee, in his late 40s, had 12,387 hours of flying experience, including 3,220 hours on the Boeing 777, according to the Transport Ministry in Seoul.

A second pilot on board the aircraft, Lee Kang-kook, had 9,793 hours flying experience and 43 hours on the 777.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/us-usa-crash-asiana-history-idUSBRE96601X20130707

So who had the stick at landing, the guy with 43 hours of 777 experience or the one with 3,220 hours?

Edited July 8, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[jamhar]

From LA Times Again

The logs show that the speed kept declining all the way to 109 knots at 100 feet, far slower than normal for a landing. The pilot appeared to try to pull up to 200 feet of altitude, but that brought the airspeed all the way down to 85 knots, around stall speed.

Even at the lightest possible weight and maximum amount of flaps, both of which would allow lower speed, the Asiana flight was going too slowly. The stall speed at minimum weight and maximum flaps was about 87 knots, according to available data. It is not known whether the aircraft actually stalled.

[Asiantravel]

I find it quite extraordinary that the airline company has been quoted in several media resources as having repeatedly said that both pilots were “ veterans “ whereas today one British newspaper claims one pilot was on his maiden training flight and had only 43 hours experience at the controls of a Boeing 777.

Pilot was attempting his first Boeing 777 landing at San Francisco airport, airline says

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/07/boeing-777-crashes-at-san-francisco-international-airport/

Edited July 8, 2013 by Asiantravel

[skippybangkok]

I find it quite extraordinary that the airline company has been quoted in several media resources as having repeatedly said that both pilots were “ veterans “ whereas today one British newspaper claims one pilot was on his maiden training flight and had only 43 hours experience at the controls of a Boeing 777.

I helped many years back for conversion training ( to DC -10 )

Process was

1. 6 weeks theory with test

2. Simulator - testing scenario ie engine fire on take off

3. A few hours making circuits on a real plane

With 40+ hours, you can safely say its his 4th long haul flight

Even so, a visual landing on a perfect day should not have been an issue

Nuf said

[cloudhopper]

Might be of interest - http://flyingprofessors.net/what-happened-to-asiana-airlines-flight-214-2/

[cdnvic]

Live updates as the NTSB investigates:

https://twitter.com/NTSB

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Thanks Vic... The Twitter feed you linked above includes YouTube video for yesterday's NTSB briefing on the crash:

[negreanu]

Not to me. When it is ever a good idea to train a pilot, even when supervised, with over 300 passengers and crew on board? Whatever the state of the pilot's skills on type or CRM (Cockpit Resource Management), the end result is telling.

What? You have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Airline Training procedures or how the training course for conversion/upgrade/recurrent training is constructed and implemented.

Line training with passengers happens everyday in airline operations....Its nothing new and will always be that way.

You will have been on flights with pilots under training as a passenger more times than you imagine. Its a normal approved part of a pilots training... probably 25% or more of all airline flights per day are training / checking.

The media picking up that he had never flown into SF on that particular aircraft is quite frankly irrelevant.

CRM (Cockpit Resource Management)

It's actually Crew Resource Management.... CRM is not confined to the flightdeck.

Edited July 8, 2013 by negreanu

[EyesWideOpen]

If Asiana was using this flight as a training flight, the least the company should have done was inform the passengers before the flight that it was going to be a training flight, and that a discount would be offered due to the higher risk of the flight......