Jump to content
icudan

Crash at San Francisco

Recommended Posts

There was a post-crash fire, but so far no report of casulties. Aircraft was about 7 and a half years old.

 

Interesting to note that there is no tail. Wonder what happened to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tail hit the sea wall at the end of the runway and was ripped off. For whatever reason they were short of the runway and must have been at a really high angle of attack to hit tail first. It does look like everyone survived, though some suffered burns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the aircraft suffered the same fate that befell the BA aircraft some years ago and was not retrofitted with the new fuel filters. The BA aircraft suffered a double engine failure bought about by ice in the fuel lines blocking the filters as their heating elements were too short. By rights all the existing 777 fleet were supposed to have been fitted with redesigned filters, but if this one slipped through the net, who knows? ............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should not have been a polar route from Seoul to SF.  The BA event had the AC travelling through some unusually cold air enroute.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some discussion that one of the engines is missing. From what I can see on the video, unless it's under one of the wings or out of shot, it certainly does seem to be deficient one engine. It wouldn't be the first time an engine has fallen off an airliner.

 

Just as an aside, am I the only one who gets annoyed at reporters trying to get technical about aircraft and procedures when they obviously have no idea what they're talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard an interview of a witness, a pax in another aircraft that had just landed on the parallel runway, 28R.  She says she saw an engine come off almost immediately after impact and slew into the "infield", probably meaning the area between the two parallel runways.

 

Interesting in the helicopter shots, there's a "trail" or skid mark, beginning right from the edge of the water.  Three control surfaces, apparently the two elevators and the rudder (the former white, the latter brightly painted), are lying in the overrun area just short of the threshold.  The two pieces I take to be the elevators (minus the horizontal stabilizer portions, I think) are within an elevator span of one another.  Those pieces never even made it to the threshold, which is not far from the water.  It's pure speculation on my part but it appears to me quite possible that the tail cone struck the water first, before it hit the seawall. 

 

The skid mark on the overrun/runway is offset to the right of the centerline just about far enough to have been made by an engine nacelle on the right side.    He may have peeled the right main gear off on the seawall, which does not appear to be very high above the water and does not seem to be appreciably higher than the overrun/runway surface either.  It's the left engine that's missing.  Not sure if it was gone by then or not, but probably not.  It probably made contact later and came off further down the runway.  I'm surmising that he struck tail and right wing low.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the ILS on RWY 28L was inoperative at the time of the crash.....hmmm, sounds like pilot error on a visual approach.

 

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys. So I have been lurking quite a bit lately and figured this would be a good time to come back to active status. SFO is my local international airport. Pretty much all I've thought of has already been said, so I decided to just post a couple of more pictures (not taken by me). Also, obviously not as important as compared to the loss of life and the causes, but it looks like the B777's perfect safety record in terms of fatalities is gone...

 

3013916-poster-sanfrancisco-asiana-plane

 

 

65ac1464969dd416360f6a706700641e.jpg.

 

 

c9df1949970bd616360f6a706700172c.jpg

 

 

 

20130706_065401_ssjm0707crashmain90_400.

The above image is NOT a final report/conclusion and should not be taken as such.

 

51d8926c8608c.image.jpg

 

asiana-airlines-airplane-crash_original.

 

I note that the "seawall" depicted in the pictures is barely high at all. The aircraft must have been extremely low. I wonder what could have driven the plane that low? Asiana operates with Pratt and Whitney engines... don't know if they were inspected along with the Trent 800s after BA38.

 

ATC recording

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBLM-6dUGs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Andrew  Wang - welcome back - good to see you here again.

 

@ Andrew Godden -

 

Apparently, the ILS on RWY 28L was inoperative at the time of the crash.....hmmm, sounds like pilot error on a visual approach.

 

 

Agree, Andrew.  WX at the time was wind about 8 knots, more or less down the runway; visibility ~ 10 miles.  Hadn't heard about the ILS being out but it shouldn't have been much of an impediment in that kind of WX.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeballing the airport diagram against the final resting place, he came to a stop in about 2,000 feet, give or take.  Hell of a deceleration for those aboard - ~ 200 fps to 0 in 2,000 feet.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from the below thread:

 

 

I went into SFO R28L last week, no glide slope, and no PAPI - visual approach only and the DME doesn't read 0NM DME at the thresholds!

 

This is due to new equipment being installed

 

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html

 

PAPI working as at 5/7/13 though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great wealth of information on the thread Chuck linked above - along with some self-righteous BS sprinkled in.  Worth a read, but it's long and growing.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two fatalities are female Chinese students, 16 years old, apparently seated in the rear.  They were ejected at impact and were found in or near the debris field near the threshold.  The rear galley flight attendants were not ejected, probably because their seats have multi-point harnesses.  The ones I've seen are just little fold-down mini-seats but have the straps connected to the aircraft structure.  Not sure if that's typical in the triple-seven.  In pax seats the belt is attached to the seat and the seat to the floor.  If the seat comes off the floor, all the belt does is keep the seat attached to you as you go where the laws of physics send you.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, NTSB have now made an initial review of CVR data.

 

Preliminary results revealed: 2 hours recording, Good quality. No anomalies or concerns discussed by the crew during approach. The flight was cleared for the visual approach to Runway 28L, Which is confirmed by the crew. Target speed for approach was 137 knots.

 

7 seconds prior to impact, a call to increase speed was made on the CVR.

 

4 seconds before impact, the stick shaker went live.

 

Approx. 1.5-sec prior to impact, call to go around was made

 

CNN has released a video showing the moment of the impact http://t.co/1YRlClcCdF

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it dragged the water for a bit more than I originally thought. It also did pop up in the air and slammed back down halfway down the runway. How more folks did not die is a testament to the aircraft and fate. Unbelievable. Pilot error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly looks at the moment like they ballsed up the approach but it still early days yet and the crew are almost always blamed first to cover corporate asses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 seconds prior to impact, a call to increase speed was made on the CVR.

 

4 seconds before impact, the stick shaker went live.

 

Approx. 1.5-sec prior to impact, call to go around was made

 

I'm no pilot or expect, but the calls for a speed increase at 7 seconds and the go around at 1.5 seconds prior to impact all seem too late in the approach.

 

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...