Korean 777 Down in SFO

Re: 777 down SFO

Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
This is likely a case of pilot error.
Click to expand...

Somebody please inform the FAA and NTSB that a POA keyboard captain has negated the need for their presence. BTW, what is your experience flying 777's, and your knowledge of this accident?
 
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:
Click to expand...

Interesting to note that the helicopter videos of the scene show the threshold has been displaced a few hundred feet since this picture. From the brand new paint, it seems a very recent change.

Maybe that notam of the glide path out of service has something to do with it being updated for the new threshold?
 
Graueradler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes..but most airliners including 777 can "ghost" a VNAV glidepath and GPS driven lateral....regardless of loc or GS availibility
 
Last edited:
Re: 777 down SFO

RoscoeT said:
Somebody please inform the FAA and NTSB that a POA keyboard captain has negated the need for their presence. BTW, what is your experience flying 777's, and your knowledge of this accident?
Click to expand...

What else would you call slamming into a seawall on a cat 3 approach?
 
Re: 777 down SFO

Good thing it wasn't an airbus or the computer would have taken over and killed everyone.
 
Re: 777 down SFO

Rather than excoriating people for sharing their opinion that it was pilot error, we should EDUCATE members on the other plausible causes for this kind of accident on a visual approach.

Pilot error is the aviation equivalent of death from natural causes, it encompasses a lot of things and conveys very little knowledge. Its also a very easy thing to cling to when you don't have the necessary knowledge to express what actually happened.
 
taters said:
"This is an on going investigation" ....get ready to hear that forever
Click to expand...

Yep. I just saw video of the NTSB news briefing. Basically useless. 30 second summary: "We're going out there to investigate. We'll be working with all the people you'd assume we'd be working with. We haven't left yet so we're not there and don't know anything. But once we get there, we'll find some stuff out." Then a couple people asked for some details and what may have caused the accident, and had the same statement repeated to them with slightly different wording.

I don't expect immediate answers and the NTSB shouldn't be publicly speculating, so why bother holding a news conference just to tell us that you're going to do your job the way you normally do it? Seems like a waste of everyone's time.
 
\__[Ô]__/;1201857 said:
I don't expect immediate answers and the NTSB shouldn't be publicly speculating, so why bother holding a news conference just to tell us that you're going to do your job the way you normally do it? Seems like a waste of everyone's time.
Click to expand...

Just part of the ritual to fill air time for CNN, etc. :rolleyes:

Cheers
 
That's an interesting approach into SFO as I recall with offset parallel ILS appraoches.

It will be interesting what the findings state for the reason the aircraft was below the TCH (Threshold Crossing Height).

Whether there was a power loss, or if there was a failure for power to respond when called for. Bird strike, a coupled approach with a rad-alt failure like the Turkish Airlines 737. So many variables that the NTSB have to eliminate. For me it's too early to even guess.

Regardless of the cause, it will undoubtedly be a report worth reading.

Cheers
 
Greg,
Would it be typical on a visual in a 777 to be aiming for the numbers or the 1k foot marker? I just assumed the ILS was always dialed in and referenced.
 
Congressman Swalwell who represents that area and flys into SFO frequently is being interviewed. He just stated that they regularly land "2,000' down that runway which is over 3,000' long." Huh? Try 11,381', congressman!

Amazing the "experts" that make it onto TV during these events.
 
Re: 777 down SFO

ja_user said:
Greg,
Would it be typical on a visual in a 777 to be aiming for the numbers or the 1k foot marker? I just assumed the ILS was always dialed in and referenced.
Click to expand...

NEVER aim for the numbers. ALWAY aim for the Fixed Distance Marker.
 
Re: 777 down SFO

Threefingeredjack said:
...And why in heck would you call it a Cat3 with CAVU and 7kts of wind right down the runway???? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Don't know anything about this accident but I think CAT3 is done periodically for certification purposes regardless of the weather so it's not out of the question.
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
How often have these happened?

Has there ever been an stc mod to fix it??
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
If you are talking about the fuel freeze thing, that crew ignored a pretty significant warning, IIRC.

At any rate, the issue supposedly was addressed.
Click to expand...

The ice crystal issue happened on the Rolls engines and was apparently limited only to them. This plane had Pratts
 
LDJones said:
Congressman Swalwell who represents that area and flys into SFO frequently is being interviewed. He just stated that they regularly land "2,000' down that runway which is over 3,000' long." Huh? Try 11,381', congressman!

Amazing the "experts" that make it onto TV during these events.
Click to expand...

Mary and I watched that, laughed, and turned off the TV. When they start interviewing idiot politicians, they've truly run out of things to say.
 
I absolutely hate wolf blitzer.

ok, sorry for the side rant.
 
Re: 777 down SFO

Condolences to the families of those who passed (2) and those injured. I just got back from Livermore for lunch with a friend, When we were climbing out from PAO on the way to LVK, I looked out to the left and pointed out a smoke plume to the northwest to my passenger. Found out what it was when we got to the restaurant. Very sad.:sad:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
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
Click to expand...
I see all that but if you look at the picture I posted there are two distinct areas of what to me looks as burnt fuselage on the top of the plane and the wings, and bottom of the fuselage you can see appear to be "okay" in terms of fire damage. I would think that the plane has something to prevent a fire from underneath the plane to spread into the passenger area of the plane. I see all the debris and everything that everyone else is seeing, it is just the severe charring of the top of the fuselage with significantly less apparent charring anyplace else seemed unusual. I would also think if there was such a significant fire in the fuselage we would be hearing more about deaths and burn injuries.

EDIT:
Only saw the picture from the top at the time Did not see the picture from the other side now it makes sense to me.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...cisco-international-airport-injuries-unknown/
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
Fastest NTSB report I've ever seen:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

No argument, it is too early to judge. However, based on all info available seems like a very probable cause, unless there were technical issues with the 777. Considering there was no distress call, seems like a tired pilot, long way from South Korea, misjudged his glide path onto the runway or version 2. a bit more twisted where his airspeed got away from him and he stalled the plane causing him to sink and smash main gear against the sea wall.

Just glad most are alive, including the captain, which will tell us all about ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
For those not familiar with the earlier 777 crash due to ice crystals in the engines, I found this on Pulse:

"The most notable accident involving a 777 occurred on Jan. 17, 2008 at Heathrow Airport in London. British Airways Flight 28 landed hard about 1,000 feet short of the runway and slid onto the start of the runway. The impact broke the 777-200's landing gear. There were 47 injuries, but no fatalities.

An investigation revealed ice pellets that had formed in the fuel were clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger, blocking fuel from reaching the plane's engines. The Rolls-Royce Trent 800 series engines that were used on the plane were then redesigned."

Boy, this sure sounds similar.
 
The engines on this bird are Pratts, not Rolls FWIW.
 
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...
You think the FO said "I bet you can't get this stopped in 1500 feet ..."? :wink2:
 
nddons said:
You think the FO said "I bet you can't get this stopped in 1500 feet ..."? :wink2:
Click to expand...

That would be something!!! LMFAO
Or ... "Hey rookie, watch this..."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Has the FAA confirmed that they had filed a flight plan?
 
douglas393 said:
I see all that but if you look at the picture I posted there are two distinct areas of what to me looks as burnt fuselage on the top of the plane and the wings, and bottom of the fuselage you can see appear to be "okay" in terms of fire damage. I would think that the plane has something to prevent a fire from underneath the plane to spread into the passenger area of the plane. I see all the debris and everything that everyone else is seeing, it is just the severe charring of the top of the fuselage with significantly less apparent charring anyplace else seemed unusual. I would also think if there was such a significant fire in the fuselage we would be hearing more about deaths and burn injuries.
Click to expand...

Plane stopped. Passengers exited via slides. Fire started. Fuselage burned.

proxy.jpg


asiana_b772_hl7742_san_francisco_130706_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
Where is the other engine?
Click to expand...

Since it looks like the debris begins on the right side of the chevrons, wouldn't you think the right engine is in the drink, and the left one is the one that came to rest next to the right side of the fuselage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top