Korean 777 Down in SFO

The right engine coming to rest just ahead of the right wing root and aligned normally is interesting.
 
NoHeat said:
The passenger in blue is carrying a black suitcase.

Crazy that somebody would take the time to get their suitcase when they can get out before the plane burns.
Click to expand...

I guess there wasn't a huge panic to get out, I'm surprised they let het off with it.:dunno:
 
TexasPilot71 said:
The right engine coming to rest just ahead of the right wing root and aligned normally is interesting.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it is likely that it is the LEFT engine. I think the airplane ended up spinning about 180 degrees from the direction it was landing.
 
A mostly intact landing gear is still sitting by the L of the numbers 28L. The plane came to rest well beyond that point.

I can imagine that directional control would be lost after touching down if gear is down and it shears off at different times, right vs. left side of plane.
 
If the plane "landed" short of the runway why does the top of the fuselage appear to have been on fire?
 

Attachments

  • a-PLANE-CRASH-404x304.jpg
    a-PLANE-CRASH-404x304.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 102
"This is an on going investigation" ....get ready to hear that forever
 
Re: 777 down SFO

Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
It looks like the plane hit the begining of the runway, shearing the gear off.

This is likely a case of pilot error.

I guess we'll know for sure pretty soon.
Click to expand...

It could be a double engine failure like the British Airways plane a few years ago??
 
Re: 777 down SFO

One of the pictures CNN was showing, showed debris at the displaced threshold marking.

TCH would have been 50+ feet what are the possibilities for coming in too low?

-Downdraft / wind shear over the water?
-GS error brought em in too low?
-Failed to adjust altimeter coming out of FL180?
-Other instrumentation failure?
 
S Joslin said:
For those of us that have served aboard aircraft carriers, we call that a "RAMP STRIKE"
Click to expand...

I think that's a very apt analogy.

This is what the approach end of 28L looks like normally:

6a00d834515c6d69e2016768c812e6970b-pi


The debris at the seawall today:

130706170752-san-francisco-plane-crash-13-horizontal-gallery.png
 
Last edited:
This overhead video shows the final position of the jet but also includes a pan to the seawall. Jet ended up left of runway 28 L. Shows where portions of the empennage ended up.

 
TexasPilot71 said:
Because flames rise. It simply burned through the ceiling.
Click to expand...
But the bottom, wings, and sides nor tail section do not look burned, nor anyplace else for that matter. It just seems to me that if the plane landed short and caught on fire after it landed there would be damage elsewhere than the top of the fuselage, but then again from the replies to my post maybe I am just plain stupid. Oh well.
 
Did everyone get out ok? I am seeing a bunch of conflicting reports.
 
douglas393 said:
But the bottom, wings, and sides nor tail section do not look burned, nor anyplace else for that matter. It just seems to me that if the plane landed short and caught on fire after it landed there would be damage elsewhere than the top of the fuselage, but then again from the replies to my post maybe I am just plain stupid. Oh well.
Click to expand...

If you look at other pictures of airplane fires, you will see that it is almost universal that it burns out the top like that, which makes sense, because heat and flames rise.

If you ever get a chance to see the FAA produced (I think) video of a cabin fire, you can really see how the fire propagates.
 
Jim Logajan said:
This overhead video shows the final position of the jet but also includes a pan to the seawall. Jet ended up left of runway 28 L. Shows where portions of the empennage ended up.
Click to expand...

Well, that pretty much disproves my post that the plane ended up 180 degrees opposite the landing direction. I wonder where the other engine is.
 
Seems pretty obvious - too low, clipped seawall with landing gear - accident, as a result of a pilot error. No brainier here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
N521MA said:
Seems pretty obvious - too low, clipped seawall with landing gear - accident, as a result of a pilot error. No brainier here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Unless some failure of the plane cause the low approach, as has happened before.
 
NOTAM
!SFO 06/005 SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359

What does "GP" mean?
 
NoHeat said:
I think that's a very apt analogy.

This is what the approach end of 28L looks like normally:

6a00d834515c6d69e2016768c812e6970b-pi


The debris at the seawall today:

130706170752-san-francisco-plane-crash-13-horizontal-gallery.png
Click to expand...


Looking at the top pic.. it is AMAZING how many tire marks are right at the hashmarks /numbers.... And none appear to be apparent before that area... There are ALOT of professional pilots landing there....:yes::yes::)..

Except this one...:sad:
 
I bet OAK and SJC are zoos right now!
 
N801BH said:
Looking at the top pic.. it is AMAZING how many tire marks are right at the hashmarks /numbers.... And none appear to be apparent before that area... There are ALOT of professional pilots landing there....:yes::yes::)..

Except this one...:sad:
Click to expand...

What would draw you to the conclusion that this pilot was unprofessional:confused:
 
douglas393 said:
But the bottom, wings, and sides nor tail section do not look burned, nor anyplace else for that matter. It just seems to me that if the plane landed short and caught on fire after it landed there would be damage elsewhere than the top of the fuselage, but then again from the replies to my post maybe I am just plain stupid. Oh well.
Click to expand...

If the eyewitness reports are correct and the airplane skidded sideways there was in all probability a white hot jet engine rolled under and into the plane. Not much mystery as to how the fire was concentrated in the lower hull. You can clearly see one engine tight against the fuselage on the starboard side and significant charring at that location. As to damage elsewhere...look at the after portion of the fuselage from the trailing edge of the wings aft...it has been totally shredded. The tail is gone from the aft pressure bulkhead back. IMHO that is significant damage. I wouldn't say you are stupid, but you might need to work on your visual analytical skills. :D
 
Airline pilots - don't you normally have the ILS dialed in on approaches, even in severe clear?

Should have definitely been within the pilots skill set but this approach would have been a purely pilot's eyeball out the windshield approach with no ground based back-up guidance.

All the painted out and new markings indicate that the threshold and touch down zone had been/were being moved - probably why glide path guidance was not available.
 
I'm not an NTSB investigator but this is my unofficial report, based on everything I've seen so far:

The plane landed short, impacting the sea wall. The landing gear departed and the empennage broke off. The plane pancaked onto the ground. The left engine departed somewhere, the right engine stayed with the airplane. The engines are mounted some 10-12 feet outboard on the wing. Notice in the photos the right engine is detached from the wing, but sitting right next to the fuselage, which happened as the aircraft was spinning around, pushing the engine with it. The engine caught fire, which subsequently burned through the right side of the fuselage and into the cabin. The interior of the cabin caught fire and burned through the roof. This fire progression took some unknown period of time, giving the passengers and crew enough time to evacuate through the left side exits.

Again, this is just opinion. Your mileage may vary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top