Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MarineUS on July 06, 2013, 02:14:25 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dFtmSybpuw&feature=youtu.be
Just the first little piece of footage I'm sure we'll see.
(Apparently the tail of the plane touched the runway? Something they were saying in the video).
----
This was on a news page (where I found it) I am unsure as to why the PA isn't in English.
--------
EDIT: Here is the EMS/Firefighter live feed.
http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/6336/web
They just said something about 290 passengers, 12 crew members and something else.
-
A Boeing 777 operated by Asiana Airlines crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
The airplane was coming in from Seoul, South Korea and apparently crashed sometime after touching down on Runway 28. The tail of the plane came off and after wobbling for a minute, the aircraft flipped upside down, coming to a stop on runway on it's back, according to a witness.
http://www.allproudamericans.com/Boeing-777-Crashes-at-San-Francisco-Airport.html
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/q77/1002130_10152053763989676_1670215334_n.jpg)
Doesn't look flipped over to me.
-
Looks like he came up short on landing and knocked the tail off on the rocks bordering some water at the end of the runway much like we've seen it happen on CV landings.
I wonder if they lost power and he barely made the runway?
-
I know they are doing a search and rescue in the water right now. They don't know if people are in the water.
-
Doesn't look flipped over to me.
I wonder if they ment it did a 180 degree turn. The captions today are becoming less correct.
-
I know they are doing a search and rescue in the water right now. They don't know if people are in the water.
Coast Guard found a body. This is pilot error 99% sure.
-
This is pilot error 99% sure.
.....and you know this how? Did you see this happen real time? Where you in the cockpit of the incident aircraft?
-
This is pilot error 99% sure.
I would not believe this for a second. Just guessing here, but speaking to my buddy who is an aerospace engineer he thinks this is a recurrence of the electrical issue from 2009 BAW crash. Remember their is ALWAYS a chain of events for aviation crashes. Lets just see what they are here.
-
It wasn't an electrical issue that caused the BA crash. It was ice in the fuel lines causing a clog. The problem is supposed to be fixed.
That said, a loss of power shortly before landing could be the cause of this accident as well, we'll need to wait to find out.
-
Live feed.
http://live.foxnews.com/#/1155606219001
-
It wasn't an electrical issue that caused the BA crash. It was ice in the fuel lines causing a clog. The problem is supposed to be fixed.
That said, a loss of power shortly before landing could be the cause of this accident as well, we'll need to wait to find out.
British Airways uses Rolls Royce Engines, Asiana Uses GE. Only RR engines were affect by that oil intercooler design fault.
It may have been pilot error or it could have been mechanical failure. One thing for sure, is that it hit short of the rocky shore, well short of the runway.
-
Remember their is ALWAYS a chain of events for aviation crashes. Lets just see what they are here.
Exactly right! Making judgements about it when it was not witnessed as part of the flight crew is simply irresponsible.
-
ATC audio:
http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3 (http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2d5mPUy.jpg)
-
ATC audio:
http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3 (http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3)
Sounds like the a/c was in trouble as the crash/emergency crews dispatched.
-
A few snippets from the AP story with eyewitness account:
It wasn't immediately clear what happened to the plane as it was landing, but some eyewitnesses said the aircraft seemed to lose control and that the tail may have hit the ground.
Kate Belding was out jogging just before 11:30 a.m. on a path across the water from the airport when she noticed the plane approaching the runway in a way that "just didn't look like it was coming in quite right."
"Then all of a sudden I saw what looked like a cloud of dirt puffing up and then there was a big bang and it kind of looked like the plane maybe bounced (as it neared the ground)," she said. "I couldn't really tell what happened, but you saw the wings going up and (in) a weird angle."
"Not like it was cartwheeling," she said, but rather as though the wings were almost swaying from side to side.
Boeing said it was preparing to provide technical assistance to the NTSB. The maker of the plane's engines, Pratt & Whitney, said it was cooperating with authorities investigating the crash.
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.
-
(http://www.allproudamericans.com/People-Escaping-From-the-Boeing-777-Crash.jpg)
-
Coast Guard found a body. This is pilot error 99% sure.
Really? Weren't there 2 or 3 unexplained 777 engine failures during final approach just a couple of years ago? Engine failure on short final would do this.
Don't jump to conclusions without more information. I haven't seen any video of the crash, for example. I do know the ATC audio tape is out there somewhere, but it didn't seem to have anything abnormal on it.
edit - yea now I see someone else posted something about ice in the fuel being the culprit on earlier mishaps. So there are lots of possible causes and event chains. It's right on the water, so it could even be something as common as a large bird strike event.
-
Interesting:
http://www.ferndaleenterprise.com/category/blog/ (http://www.ferndaleenterprise.com/category/blog/)
Just witnessed the MOST unbelievable thing I’ve ever seen in my life. As my plane landed in SF we hit some turbulence & our plane jolted to the left, turning about 30 degrees before we quickly straightened out-barely making our landing, taking a sharp left & skidding to a stop on the strip between 2 runways. Just as we pulled perpendicular to the incoming runway, we looked up to the left & saw a huge plane (an off duty pilot riding as a passenger on my flight said it was a 777) literally drop from the sky & slam into the ground, almost bouncing it hit so hard. It threw an engine into the center divider that bursted into flames, before the plane turned sideways off the runway & slid until it came to a stop in the dirt. It quickly went up in flames towards the center of the plane & then a few minutes later we saw the emergency slide deploy from the front. No news on passengers. Anyways, long story short Kimberly, they shutdown the airport & nothing is currently coming/going (I’ll keep you posted). Absolutely terrified to board another flight. Pray that everyone gets off that plane!!! — at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
-
A passenger account of the crash:
Moments before the crash, passenger Benjamin Levy said he looked out the window and saw the piers in San Francisco Bay just off the airport runway--and they were way too close to the plane. "We were too low, too soon," he said.
"He was going down pretty fast, and I think he just realized he was down too fast," Levy said.
The pilot then pushed on the engines "just as we were about to hit the water."
"I think the pilot must have realized because the pilot tried to pull the plane back up," Levy told The Times in a phone interview. "We hit pretty hard. And I thought the wheels were gone for sure."
He felt the plane crash -- and heard the screams of passengers -- but the aircraft stayed on its belly as it landed hard on a grassy area next to the runway.
Federal investigators were trying to determine what went wrong. But a source involved in the investigation said the plane appeared to clip a sea wall while landing.
Witnesses described the plane coming in very low, and pictures and video from the accident appear to show that the debris field began at the sea wall and stretched for hundreds of feet.
Still way too early but it's sounding more and more like pilot error. Nobody is saying anything about weather except the post Karnak found.
-
Crash video emerges: High nose up attitude on impact?
Regards,
Sun
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
-
Holy cow...I can see why people thought it flipped. :O
-
Holy cow...I can see why people thought it flipped. :O
Yeah. I am glad it didn't.
-
in about a year we will hear what actually happened, the black boxes will tell us if the engines were developing power or as was it just a simple, 10 and half hour flight with 10 hours of fuel. We don't know, the FAA will figure it out. From the video I've seen. It actually looks like it did a tail slide, when the tail hit the nose rotated down hard, the wing may have started to rotate in an uncontrolled roll that was stopped by the contact with the ground. Stall spin at 150 feet, That deck angle looked to be above 30 degrees.
-
The spokeswoman of the investigation team said that there was no discussion between the pilots about any anomalies/problems with engines or any other systems of the aircraft. She also said that the speed was below the normal approach speed and that the throttles were at idle until they were advanced few seconds before the impact and that the engines responded normally. The stick shaker is heard four seconds before the impact on the CVR-tape. Crew called go-around 1.5 seconds before the impact.
-
Just saw a report that one of the teenagers that died may have been run over by one of the rescue vehicles. I hope that's not true.
-
Exactly right! Making judgements about it when it was not witnessed as part of the flight crew is simply irresponsible.
looks like it's gonna be a pilot error after all.
semp
-
This is gonna be a good one to learn from. Culture, training, experience, proficiency and fatigue are all going to be players. Will it "fix" the cultural deficiencies Eastern airlines have regarding to Crew Resource Management? I doubt it. Not enough people died and probably not enough will die in the next accident either.
I want there to be something mechanical that caused this. Deep down I really do.
Where's my $1? It ain't on a broken Boeing.
-
It's possible the pilot unlinked from autoland at exactly the wrong moment.
Autoland will advance and retard throttles on it's own and he may have unlinked from it to fly hands on like most do and happened to do it just after autoland had pulled a bit of power.
My dad says he always has hands on the throttle when he goes hands on and is ready to add throttle in case it happens to him.
It could also be that he flew through a shear on short final that sapped his airspeed if that report from a passenger from another plane is valid.
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6f8pnFXq91rwb52ho1_500.jpg)
-
(http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_AndrewD/pdj_asiana214_benwang.jpg)
Just ask the passengers to no look out the port side of the airplane.
-
Mic Dundee from pprune wrote:
Low-down on Korean pilots, (From a friend).
After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the -400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it is a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.
One of the first things I learned was that the pilots kept a web-site and reported on every training session. I dont think this was officially sanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a database was building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran the sessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for. For example; I used to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO and I would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG and many of the captains were coming off the 777 or B744 and they were used to the Master Caution System being inhibited at 80 kts. Well, for the first few days after I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden they all got it; and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). The word had gotten out. I figured it was an overall PLUS for the training program.
We expat instructors were forced upon them after the amount of fatal accidents (most of the them totally avoidable) over a decade began to be noticed by the outside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, Transport Canada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program or face being banned from the skies all over the world. They hired Boeing and Airbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana has another. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conducting training KAL and about 40 at Asiana. Most instructors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with a few stuffed in from Europe and Asia. Boeing also operated training centers in Singapore and China so they did hire some instructors from there.
This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce normal standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able to master basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 kt crosswind and the weather CAVOK. I am not kidding when I tell you that requiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... with good reason. Like this Asiana crew, it didnt compute that you needed to be a 1000 AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min. But, after 5 years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their training and sometimes if I just couldnt pass someone on a check, I had no choice but to fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistance against me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turned out he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on the fleet I was teaching on. I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL was not going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check and continued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain so-and-so was.
Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describe these events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. By the way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administered them. He requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for the approach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested Radar Vectors to final. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would have cleared him to the IAF and then Cleared for the approach and he could have selected Exit Hold and been on his way. He was already in LNAV/VNAV PATH. So, I gave him vectors to final with a 30 degree intercept. Of course, he failed to Extend the FAF and he couldnt understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and missed approaches before he figured out that his active waypoint was Hold at XYZ. Every time he punched LNAV, it would try to go back to the IAF ... just like it was supposed to do. Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their own rules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen major errors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork. He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL).
This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are not more, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in the future unless some drastic steps are taken. They are already required to hire a certain percentage of expats to try to ingrain more flying expertise in them, but more likely, they will eventually be fired too. One of the best trainees I ever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) who flew C-141s in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hired by KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and of course, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few years and he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start a pilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs on international flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED!
The Koreans are very very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an airplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hour before the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) with the entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But, putting that information to actual use was many times impossible. Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure it out completely, but I think I did uncover a few clues. Here is my best guess. First off, their educational system emphasizes ROTE memorization from the first day of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learning and they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM/CLR, it still exists either on the surface or very subtly. You just cant change 3000 years of culture.
The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. Its actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are Ok. I guess they dont trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea. But, they dont get the kids who grew up flying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They do recruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and get them their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with the ex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a Naval Aviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I would get experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terrible pilots if they had to hand fly the airplane. What a shock!
Finally, I'll get off my box and talk about the total flight hours they claim. I do accept that there are a few talented and free-thinking pilots that I met and trained in Korea. Some are still in contact and I consider them friends. They were a joy! But, they were few and far between and certainly not the norm.
Actually, this is a worldwide problem involving automation and the auto-flight concept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US or Australia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. After takeoff, in accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Hardly one minute. Then he might fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below 800 ft after the gear was down, flaps extended and on airspeed (autothrottle). Then he might bring it in to land. Again, how much real flight time or real experience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, its the same only they get more inflated logbooks.
So, when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVOK weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.
-
I assume both guys in the cockpit were Korean, as the airline hasn't started playing "blame the foreigner" yet, the way they did with the Cheju crash.
American aircraft on American soil, Asiana ain't a-gonna like the nature of the investigation.
Edit - Apparently a Korean TV guy has managed to endear himself to all concerned by remarking that it was fortunate the only passengers killed were Chinese:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3041014/posts
-
More info coming out about the aircrew. The pilot had even less time than originally thought in a 777. It was also the instructor's first flight as an instructor. Also no pee test for the flight crew. :headscratch:
-
Trust me, they'll do everything they can to point the finger at anything/anyone but the pilots. I read today that S. Korea had all similar 777s in their fleet "inspected". What for, who knows.
After the fatal S. Korean F-15E crash during night over-water training (probable spatial disorientation), S. Korea temporarily suspended their fleet purchase of the aircraft due to suspected defects or deficiencies in the aircraft. That's how they roll, so we shouldn't be surprised when that happens this time.
-
They are trying to blame the autothrottle for not responding. Won't know anything until they release the Data Recorder tapes.
-
Thought a pee test after a crash was mandatory?
-
Thought a pee test after a crash was mandatory?
It is for U.S. pilots.
-
A rumor has it that the pilot is blaming a blinding bright light, at about 1.5 mile final and 500' AGL. That didn't take long, and I suppose its good that he settled on that instead of blaming aliens or the NSA for haxxoring his throttles.
-
It was most likely a reflection off the ISS.......that happens frequently on approach to SFO on the 28s. :rofl
-
:rofl :rofl Someone was messing with SF news station. This was apparently live and the reporter said it with a straight face.
(http://i.imgur.com/bfJ574E.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=VqjlhtKIToo
-
:rofl :rofl Someone was messing with SF news station. This was apparently live and the reporter said it with a straight face.
(http://i.imgur.com/bfJ574E.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=VqjlhtKIToo
:eek: