# Asiana Boeing 777 crashes in San Francisco



## simpsontruckdriver (Jul 6, 2013)

Plane crashes at San Francisco airport. How long has it been since a jet crashed?

TS


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 6, 2013)

I am assuming that you did not mean to post a smiley face, and I have deleted it from your post.


----------



## simpsontruckdriver (Jul 6, 2013)

Thanks... I hit the wrong "smiley". I did not intend to put a smile on it.

TS


----------



## gnorth16 (Jul 6, 2013)

*List of crashes*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft


More than I though!!!


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 6, 2013)

All flights in and out of SFO have been cancelled - some being diverted to LAX.  I am guessing that they may also divert flights to Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 6, 2013)

Looks like multiple areas caught fire on landing.  People were seen exiting the plane.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 6, 2013)

The fire was secondary.  The airplane touched down, tail first, at the edge of the San Francisco Bay - reports are saying it was 1,000 ft. short of the runway.  

Some experts are speculating that the pilot thought the water was the tarmac, then recognized his error, tried to lift up, and couldn't get the tail up in time.  

After it hit the ground, the tail broke off, an engine broke off, it spun around 360 degrees, and eventually it broke into flames.

There was no report of trouble from the plane, before landing.


----------



## Elan (Jul 6, 2013)

Twitter says at least 2 killed, 61 injured.


----------



## Patri (Jul 6, 2013)

Elan said:


> Twitter says at least 2 killed, 61 injured.



Let's hope it gets no worse than that.


----------



## Fern Modena (Jul 6, 2013)

KPIX, San Francisco's CBS affiliate is broadcasting a live "raw feed" on the web now. They say that of those injured, ten in critical condition are at San Francisco General Hospital,two of those children.  Six more in critical condition are at St. Francis Hospital in San Francisco, which is a regional burn center.

NTSB's California detail, three investigators based in LA, are already on the way. The larger NTSB team is leaving Washington now.  They are working with their Korean counterparts, the FAA, Boeing, and more.

Fern


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 6, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> The fire was secondary.  The airplane touched down, tail first, at the edge of the San Francisco Bay - reports are saying it was 1,000 ft. short of the runway.
> 
> Some experts are speculating that the pilot thought the water was the tarmac, then recognized his error, tried to lift up, and couldn't get the tail up in time.
> 
> ...



The fire confuses me.  It appears to have originated a bit aft of the cockpit, on the upper right side of the plane.  Which strikes me as a very unusual place to have a fire commence as a consequence of an impact on landing.  The common fire event in such crashes is leaking jet fuel ignited by sparks, But that doesn't seem to have been the case here.  If there had been a significant fuel leak that ignited there would have been flames on the ground as the oil spilled, and there should have been a raging fire somewhere near the wings, where the fuel is stored and from which it would be leaking.  

I wonder if there wasn't a hidden fire somewhere near the front galley which disrupted the controls between the cockpit and the tail, causing a loss of control just as the plane was approaching the runway.  After the landing the damage adds oxygen to the fire enabling to to erupt. 

The fire was also incredibly once it really got going, presumably after everyone was out of the plane, because it appears to have been hot enough to melt the aluminum skin.  Of course, there's enough combustible material inside an airplane to fuel a pretty intense fire.


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 6, 2013)

My .02

The fire started underneath from friction and sparks when it spun and the engine broke off, one shot I see is the engine right up against the fuselage and a large burn spot.  The evac was from the opposite side.

He was 1000 feet short of touchdown.

My feeling is he lost power in final descent and did a helluva job to not ditch it in the bay.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 6, 2013)

It is incredible that (so far) only 2 people have lost their lives. I'm sure there will be more, but still, that is a very low casualty count for a jumbo hitting the runway (or short of it) at nearly 200 mph, spinning and burning. Kudos to the crew for getting the passengers off as quickly as they did.

There is much speculation going on as to the cause of the accident. This is not the time for that. The NTSB, airline, Boeing will take this apart with tweezers and if there is a mechanical- or human- cause it will be revealed. This is the time for healing the injured and assuring the traveling public that all-in-all, flying is the safest way to cover large distances.

Jim


----------



## LisaH (Jul 6, 2013)

DS#1 was scheduled to fly out of SFO back to Chicago tomorrow morning. After hearing about the crash at 1:30 pm, I called the airline right way. By then, all flights to ORD from SJC, OAK and even LAX were fully booked for tomorrow already. Finally, he was lucky to get a seat on a flight to Denver then ORD out of Sacramento. Fortunately, his best friend at UC Davis drove all the way to visit him today and planned to drive back tomorrow morning. He is able to give DS a ride to SMF. All have worked out at the end (so far). BTW, we just received the airline notification that his original flight had been officially canceled.


----------



## myip (Jul 6, 2013)

*stuck in Denver*

On route to SFO, our flight landed at Denver.  No clue when to fly back to SFO.   Long lines to UA counter... Also on the phone for over 2 hours still on hold.  It maybe Tuesday before we can go back to SF.  Just booked a hotel at Aloft for tonight.


----------



## IngridN (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm listening to the news while on the computer and if I heard correctly, there are some flights landing at SFO now. I think they are int'l flights. Again, not sure that's what I heard.

Ingrid


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 6, 2013)

Obviously landed short for some reason. When that happens in today's aircraft, it is usually pilot error.

The airport ILS (instument landing system) was out of service so the pilot was probably either using a GPS approach or hand flying the aircraft. 

Amazing there were not more casualties.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 6, 2013)

myip said:


> On route to SFO, our flight landed at Denver.  No clue when to fly back to SFO.   Long lines to UA counter... Also on the phone for over 2 hours still on hold.  It maybe Tuesday before we can go back to SF.  Just booked a hotel at Aloft for tonight.



Amtrak from Denver to Oakland is a great ride...


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 6, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Obviously landed short for some reason. When that happens in today's aircraft, it is usually pilot error.
> 
> The airport ILS (instument landing system) was out of service so the pilot was probably either using a GPS approach or hand flying the aircraft.
> 
> Amazing there were not more casualties.



from USAToday:



> The crash occurred on a day with clear skies, but the crew apparently knew they had a problem as the plane approached the airport. A recording of the airport's air-traffic controllers provided by FlightAware.com, a website that tracks flights, had the controllers assuring the crew that "emergency vehicles are responding. We have everyone on their way."


----------



## myip (Jul 6, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Amtrak from Denver to Oakland is a great ride...


- just checked, it takes 33 hours -- no bed available.
- I just tried picking up the luggage.  It is already send to SFO... Take UA to do this.  I don't want to lineup at the counter again.  I wonder if UA will reimburse any of the expense.   We may rent a car and go sightseeing in Denver since our new reservation is on Tuesday.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 6, 2013)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> from USAToday:



The call was after the crash and ATC was responding emergency vehicles were on the way. 

Cheers


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 6, 2013)

Per CNN, there was no notice from the plane that there was a problem, until after it crash landed, and that recording came after.


----------



## LisaH (Jul 6, 2013)

myip said:


> - just checked, it takes 33 hours -- no bed available.
> - I just tried picking up the luggage.  It is already send to SFO... Take UA to do this.  I don't want to lineup at the counter again.  I wonder if UA will reimburse any of the expense.   We may rent a car and go sightseeing in Denver since our new reservation is on Tuesday.




Sorry that you are stuck...What about flying to LA/John Wayne/SMF then rent a car?
If not possible, might as well go to Rocky Mountain National Park. We used to this as day trip when we lived in Denver. It's beautiful...


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 6, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Obviously landed short for some reason. When that happens in today's aircraft, it is usually pilot error.
> 
> The airport ILS (instument landing system) was out of service so the pilot was probably either using a GPS approach or hand flying the aircraft.
> 
> Amazing there were not more casualties.



I was an ILS tech in USAF, I keep hearing it was out due to construction.  I don't understand that, the antenna and equipment is located right next to the runway at the touchdown point.  The runway should be closed if work is that close to an active runway.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 7, 2013)

Foreign airlines use a lot of low time under qualified First Officers.  Most airlines overseas like China Airlines, Korean Airlines, Skymark in Japan, Vietnam, India, etc...will hire an Expat from Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA or any other country where they can find a qualified Captain that has a lot of flight time in the type aircraft they are using.  Some of the Captains are not quick to respond to situations that might happen if the First Officer gets behind the aircraft, like being slow, or low on glide path.  The same can be said that the First Officer is not always trained, or quick to challenge a Captain that might be low or slow on final.  A contributing factor is that sometimes things can get more complicated when you have two pilot speaking English to each other and neither one of them use English as their primary language, like a French Captain and a Korean First Officer.  

When an aircraft has a power loss with one engine, the wing will usually dip down.  Of the reports that I have seen, nobody reported that.  This mishap appears to be a result of a severe tail strike that will occur when the flare is too high.  Also, the aircraft hit short of the runway so the aircraft was low on glide slope.  Tail strikes happen often, but usually there in minor damage and the media never finds out about it.  If the aircraft was slow, the tail would have hit hard.  

Everything is speculation until the mishap investigation report is out.  There could have been a mechanical on short final, but that would be very unusual.  Mechanical malfunctions usually occur during takeoff or on climb out when high power is being used.  

It is unfortunate, but pilot error is probably to blame.  Even if there was a mechanical, pilots are trained to handle them and the end result will be blamed on the pilots.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 7, 2013)

SmithOp said:


> I was an ILS tech in USAF, I keep hearing it was out due to construction.  I don't understand that, the antenna and equipment is located right next to the runway at the touchdown point.  The runway should be closed if work is that close to an active runway.



The runway threshold had been relocated so the glide slope was not correct for the new touchdown spot. They were in the process of realigning it so it was NOTAM'd out of service as was the PAPI. 

Cheers


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 7, 2013)

myip said:


> - ..  I wonder if UA will reimburse any of the expense.   ...



Really?  Why would you wonder that, is it somehow UA's fault you were delayed??


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 7, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> The runway threshold had been relocated so the glide slope was not correct for the new touchdown spot. They were in the process of realigning it so it was NOTAM'd out of service as was the PAPI.
> 
> Cheers



Ah, gotcha.  How long is the relocation downtime, I'd think they would install a new one and switchover seamlessly like IT systems.  Surely they aren't moving existing equipment.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 7, 2013)

A friend of mine also highlighted that the 777 PW FADEC has been caused some issues in the past. Including the BA accident. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 7, 2013)

Asian airline pilots are noted in the airline world for poor ability to hand fly to a landing and too reliant on automatic systems. Large airplanes like the 777 are very tricky to hand fly and require a good deal of skill.

Off center-line, unstable approach, steeper than usual glide slope plus other factors are not indicative of a mechanical or avionics problem, especially since there was no notification of a problem prior to the crash.

Cheers


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 7, 2013)

Whole lotta speculating goin on here.  Just curious - how many of you posters here are pilots? And, what type of aircraft do you fly?


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jul 7, 2013)

csxjohn said:


> Really?  Why would you wonder that, is it somehow UA's fault you were delayed??



Exactly.  This is the type of freak incident that you need travel insurance for.  You may not be on the plane that had the issue, but the financial fallout and inconvenience can be costly.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jul 7, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> Whole lotta speculating goin on here.  Just curious - how many of you posters here are pilots? And, what type of aircraft do you fly?



+1

I feel like we're in that hotel commercial . . .  "I'm not a pilot but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night."

That said and all kidding aside, because the situation is very tragic, for most casual observers and frequent fliers, it doesn't seem to require a PhD in aviation or 25,000 flight hours to make some pretty basis assumptions on what reports have been in the media to include photos and eye witness accounts.

I pray for all of the passengers and crew, and their families.  I hope the loss of life does not go up and that those who have been affected will somehow be able to survive to live a normal life again.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 7, 2013)

Actually I am a pilot- of small aircraft with one little ol' fan on the nose. And as I said back in #13, any speculation as to the cause of this crash is just that. Speculation. The NTSB, Boeing, Asiana, Pratt & Whitney, and SFO officials will all be involved in ascertaining the cause. Not us. 

Be thankful there was as little loss of life and injury as there was. I'd put that fact in the 'near miracle' side of the ledger.


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 7, 2013)

I'm not a pilot.  I worked at an airport for four years maintaining the instrument landing systems.  I'm more interested to know why it was off.

If it helps, think of the glide slope as a tractor beam that the plane can lock on and land itself.  Even if its not locked on the pilot can rely on it to make his own adjustments.

I had a 30 min response time when it went down, it's a critical safety system.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 7, 2013)

As my Avatar may indicate, I am a pilot. Almost all of my flying is in small single engine prop planes but with some stick time in military jets from the T-39 to the F-14 as a Chief Engineer in the USAF for various airplane and engine  programs. 

Speculation abounds about the cause but based on my thinking, the most likely is pilot error. But just about anything can and does happen in airplanes, except some of the screwy 911 ideas. 

Cheers


----------



## VacationForever (Jul 7, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Asian airline pilots are noted in the airline world for poor ability to hand fly to a landing and too reliant on automatic systems. Large airplanes like the 777 are very tricky to hand fly and require a good deal of skill.
> 
> Cheers



That is a pretty large brush you are using.   This article does not get into whether pilots are reliant on automatic systems but a number of Asian airlines are listed as amongst the safest in the world.  http://www.ausbt.com.au/new-website-rates-world-s-safest-and-most-dangerous-airlines


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 7, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> Whole lotta speculating goin on here.  Just curious - how many of you posters here are pilots? And, what type of aircraft do you fly?



Tom Palm is an airline pilot.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 7, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Tom Palm is an airline pilot.




And not surprising, his is the best post on this thread.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 7, 2013)

CNN just showing a video from a man who was taping planes taking off and landing. Shows the actual crash from across the water. Looks like the tail hit the seawall.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 7, 2013)

Pat H said:


> CNN just showing a video from a man who was taping planes taking off and landing. Shows the actual crash from across the water. Looks like the tail hit the seawall.



Yes - that was established immediately.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 7, 2013)

From the NTSB press conference, it sounds like it was pilot error since the speed of the aircraft was significantly lower than what it should have been. One of the crew members called for a go-around and also to increase speed. Since I know NOTHING about flying, is my interpretation correct? The person who took the video said that he heard the engines rev trying to increase speed and thought the pilot was trying to abort the landing.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 7, 2013)

Pat H said:


> From the NTSB press conference, it sounds like it was pilot error since the speed of the aircraft was significantly lower than what it should have been. Since I know NOTHING about flying, is my interpretation correct?



Low speed could have also been caused by a mechanical problem, so I don't think we will know for sure until the investigation is complete.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 7, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Low speed could have also been caused by a mechanical problem, so I don't think we will know for sure until the investigation is complete.



Haven't heard that from any of the experts. Are you a pilot?


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 7, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> Be thankful there was as little loss of life and injury as there was. I'd put that fact in the 'near miracle' side of the ledger.



Both 777 frames that have been written off were on final and had minimal loss of life. BA we now know was due to condensation in the fuel and long distance high altitude flying. Asia to UK. Again this is a 777 with the same engines that had just spent many hours at high altitude.   Management and dispatch want to keep high to reduce fuel burn flying in the thinner air. 

Wonder if this was pilot error, remember the BA pilots were initially blamed, or similar circumstance?

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 7, 2013)

Pat H said:


> Haven't heard that from any of the experts. Are you a pilot?



No I'm not, but that's exactly what the experts on CNN have been saying - That it's too early to know what the cause is - it could be pilot error, or it could be a mechanical problem.  They won't say until they finish their investigation.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 7, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> Whole lotta speculating goin on here.  Just curious - how many of you posters here are pilots? And, what type of aircraft do you fly?



I spent 17 years as a Navy Pilot flying the P-3 and three years flight instructing in Pensacola in the T-34c.  My ground job for 12 years included being the Naval Aviation Safety Officer at different squadron and also was in charge of ground safety for maintenance.  Training included all the Navy safety schools including the five week school at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterrey, CA.  After the Navy, I flew for Hawaii Air Ambulance in the C-414 for one year and Aloha Airlines for eight years in the 737-700,800 NG ETOPS operations to the west coast.  While at Aloha, I was Chairman of ALPA's Central Air Safety and Training Committee council 80 at Aloha Airlines.  I attended all the ALPA safety schools including the five day basic accident investigation school.  After Aloha Airlines shut down, I spent about one year flying the 737-800 in Japan for Skymark Airlines.  A lot of my Aloha Airline friends took jobs in China, Korea, India, Africa and South America.  When I worked in Japan, the Captains I flew with were Expats from all over the world.  The First Officers were all from Japan. 

I concur that we need to respect what happened here.  The pilots flying this aircraft are human too and will have difficulty moving forward with the rest of their life.  In one case I know about, the captain committed suicide after he ran a DC-10 off the end of the runway in a heavy rain storm in the south pacific.  In this accident there were two deaths and a lot of injured that will suffer as well as the families of the injured and the families of the pilots.  

A lot of the things mentioned in this post are contributing factors that the NTSB will state in their report.  The ILS glide slope is used as a back up and not needed for a visual approach.  Maybe they will recommend things like that get repaired faster.  Maybe they will say heavy aircraft are not authorized to shoot an approach without it unless there is no other available runway.  The runway has markings for the touchdown zone that the pilots could easily see and the ILS or PAPI was not needed.  But, if it had been available and the pilots used it, the aircraft would not have been low on final.  A video on TV that I just saw about 6 p.m. EST showed that the plane was low on final for the last segment of the approach.  Possibly they were shooting a non precision approach where the aircraft descends to minimum descent altitude like 500 feet after passing the final approach fix (about six miles from touchdown).  I am not familiar with approaches to this runway, but if there is a non precision that allows this, being at low altitude for the last few miles is authorized.  The pilot is supposed to hold that altitude until he gets close to the runway.  However, the news also reported that the aircraft was slow and that engines were at idle.  However, just prior to touch down, the pilots were adding power prior to impact, but it happened too late.  

There were four pilots on-board, so they should have been rested, but possibly lack of sleep and other human factors might be contributing factors to this mishap.  The Navy and the FAA have a program to identify safety concerns.  Pilots are supposed to make a report anytime they have an incident that could have caused a mishap or report any hazard they see during the operation of their aircraft.  If the pilot makes a mistake and reports it to the FAA through his company, the FAA will not prosecute that pilot for making a mistake.  The written reports go to the chief pilot and then the FAA. The purpose of the report is to learn from them and establish new procedures so that the bad situation doesn't happen again.   As a part of the safety team, I read all the reports that were submitted in the Navy and at Aloha Airlines.  Unsafe things happen way more often than most people realize.  Things like near mid air collisions, ground collisions, almost landing at the wrong airport, falling asleep in the cockpit, tail strikes, hard landings, forgetting checklist, etc.... 

Because of the FAA and FARs, the major carriers in the United States are the safest airlines in the world.  Additionally, pilots have to work their way up to get hired at a major.  Only the best pilots with the best training work for Delta, United, American, or any of the other big airlines in the USA.   I only state this so that the next time someone is thinking about saving $100 on a foreign carrier instead of flying a major carrier, they should know what they are buying.  

This mishap was close to being a safety report.  It is unfortunate for the pilots, crew, passengers, families and all involved.  We can only hope that things change so it doesn't happen again.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 7, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> Wonder if this was pilot error, remember the BA pilots were initially blamed, or similar circumstance?



One thing that has always bothered me is that pilot error is used as a cause way too often.  One of the first accident reports I read was a P-3 crash in the Philippines in 1980. The aircraft had a catastrophic engine failure climbing through 20,000.  The explosion of the #3 engine knocked out the #4 engine. It also caused a chips light on the #2 engine.  The plane was heavy dumping fuel all the way back to the airport and trying to land in Cubi Point.  The approach was around midnight in a heavy thunderstorm.  When the pilots lower the gear about five miles from touchdown, the aircraft did not have enough power to stay on glideslope and ended up crashing into the bay about a mile short of the runway.  

The investigation report stated the cause was pilot error.  Most of the pilots in the Navy would not have been able to save that one.  Pilots always get the blame.  It goes with the job.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 7, 2013)

Microburst? Windshear?

Let's wait a bit. We _will_ learn what happened here. And, it will be accurate.... unlike Flight 800.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 7, 2013)

tompalm said:


> One thing that has always bothered me is that *pilot error is used as a cause way too often*.  One of the first accident reports I read was a P-3 crash in the Philippines in 1980. The aircraft had a catastrophic engine failure climbing through 20,000.  The explosion of the #3 engine knocked out the #4 engine. It also caused a chips light on the #2 engine.  The plane was heavy dumping fuel all the way back to the airport and trying to land in Cubi Point.  The approach was around midnight in a heavy thunderstorm.  When the pilots lower the gear about five miles from touchdown, the aircraft did not have enough power to stay on glideslope and ended up crashing into the bay about a mile short of the runway.
> 
> The investigation report stated the cause was pilot error.  Most of the pilots in the Navy would not have been able to save that one.  *Pilots always get the blame.  It goes with the job*.


==================================================
What you may be trying to communicate is that media, and JQ Public are too quick to state "pilot error" in these incidents, until all the facts are determined. I can appreciate your feelings.

With all due respect to your example above however, a data point of 1, the largest percentage of aircraft incidents are attributable to pilot error. If you have data that proves otherwise, please, do share. 

I will be attending the annual EAA Airventure Fly In in several weeks. If one were to poll the thousands of pilots in attendance, I'd be willing to bet they would accept that cockpit error is the source of the majority of incidents.

In the case of this flight in San Fran, we'll just have to wait. 

Wind shear perhaps? Pilot error? A combination of the two? Neither? We'll soon learn..


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jul 7, 2013)

*Asiana Airlines Says Pilot of Crashed Plane was on First Training Flight*

Asiana Airlines Says Pilot of Crashed Plane was on First Training Flight with Boeing 777 - from Reuters/ BusinessInsider.com


Richard


----------



## pjrose (Jul 7, 2013)

tompalm said:


> I spent 17 years as a Navy Pilot flying the P-3 and three years flight instructing in Pensacola in the T-34c.  . . .
> 
> This mishap was close to being a safety report.  It is unfortunate for the pilots, crew, passengers, families and all involved.  We can only hope that things change so it doesn't happen again.



Thank you for your long detailed post.  I don't understand all the terms, but I still learned a lot. 
PJ


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 7, 2013)

NYT has been pretty quiet on the cause up until now, just posting the facts.  

This is still facts but those facts certainly lead the reader to pilot error as the conclusion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/san-francisco-plane-crash.html?hp&_r=0



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Sunday that the pilots came in too slowly, took too long to realize it and tried to abort the landing seconds before the crash. The South Korean Transport Ministry said the co-pilot, Lee Kang-guk, who had only 43 hours of experience flying a 777, was at the controls at the time of the accident. It was Mr. Lee’s first time piloting a 777 into the San Francisco airport, an Asiana spokeswoman said.
> 
> “For now, this itself should not be cited as if it were the cause of the accident,” said Chang Man-hee, a senior aviation policy official at the transport ministry. “Mr. Lee himself was a veteran pilot going through what every pilot has to when switching to a new type of plane.”
> 
> In a dramatic moment-by-moment account, the N.T.S.B.’s chairwoman, Deborah A. P. Hersman, suggested that crew members had little inkling of the impending crash until about seven seconds before impact, when one is heard on a cockpit recorder calling for an increase in speed. The call came too late. Three seconds later, an alarm sounded a warning that the plane was about to stall, Ms. Hersman said. One-and-a-half seconds before impact, the pilots advanced the throttles to get more power in an attempt to avert a crash. But before the plane could gain altitude, it hit the sea wall, snapping off its tail section before skidding to a stop and catching fire.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 7, 2013)

tompalm said:


> One thing that has always bothered me is that pilot error is used as a cause way too often.  One of the first accident reports I read was a P-3 crash in the Philippines in 1980. The aircraft had a catastrophic engine failure climbing through 20,000.  The explosion of the #3 engine knocked out the #4 engine. It also caused a chips light on the #2 engine.  The plane was heavy dumping fuel all the way back to the airport and trying to land in Cubi Point.  The approach was around midnight in a heavy thunderstorm.  When the pilots lower the gear about five miles from touchdown, the aircraft did not have enough power to stay on glideslope and ended up crashing into the bay about a mile short of the runway.
> 
> The investigation report stated the cause was pilot error.  Most of the pilots in the Navy would not have been able to save that one.  Pilots always get the blame.  It goes with the job.


tompalm, if you take that quote in context with the paragraph above I was clearly inferring that pilot error is not the only leading cause of 777 problems on final.  Though the NYT article i posted above seems to lead back to pilot error.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 8, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> Microburst? Windshear?



Not likely.  There was none reported in the area prior to or after the crash. Also, the weather was good.

The NTSB has already started releasing information and stated tonight that seven seconds prior to the crash one of the pilots called airspeed slow and the pilots added more power.  At 1.5 seconds prior to crash, there was a call for a go around.  The aircraft speed was well below target speed at 137 knots and the engines were at idle.  They also heard rudder shakers, or stall warning going off during the last seconds of the flight.  When the engines are at idle, it takes a couple seconds to get thrust after power is added. So, 1.5 seconds was not enough time to stop the descent and recover from the situation.  

At this point, there is no question the accident was caused by pilot error.  The information released by the NYT article stating that the pilot was new to the aircraft and in-training provides more evidence that the pilot flying did not have very much experience in the 777 aircraft.  The First Officer might have been insecure about telling the Captain that his speed was slow or to go around and only made one call out. He should have made continuous calls outs as the situation got worse.

If I wanted to speculate on this, I would say that the Captain thought he would be ok being slow and dragging it in.  When he got the rudder shakers, he added power, but it was too late.  

Being low and dragging it in is often a term used in non precision approaches were the aircraft make a rapid descent to minimum descent altitude after final approach fix.  This worked well when the ceiling, or cloud layer was at 1000 feet and the aircraft could find clear weather at MDA of 500 feet.  The problem is that it takes a lot of power to hold level fight when the gear and flaps are down and the tendency is to get slow.  

Most carriers in the US have stopped doing that type of approach.  If a non precision approach was the only approach available at Aloha, we were required to fly a constant rate of descent to MDA that would continue until the aircraft touched down.  This can easily be set up in the flight computer and is available on the 777.   

The training and flight standards at foreign airlines are not even close to what the pilots and crews learn in the US.  The Air France crash that happened a couple years ago was a result of two First Officers flying together in the cockpit that didn't make the correct recovery to stall warning. The result of that was that all Air France pilots received additional training for stall recovery, or what to do when stall warning comes on.  

Training and procedures will improve after this accident.  It is unfortunate that it takes an accident before changes are made.


----------



## Phill12 (Jul 8, 2013)

For all of you giving every excuse possible the report today in San Francisco and Morning Joe reports this morning are that it was pilots error all the way!
 Plane at five miles out was to high and fast and the pilot had to drop and slow speed fast. He was landing to low and stall speed and plane just dropped. Reports state this pilot was training on this plane and had about 43 hours of training and that was it.
 Recorder showed co-pilot telling pilot to speed up and then go around for another try.
This country was band a few years ago in the major US airports because of pilots lack of training. One of the problems is reported in cockpit that pilots don't listen to their co-pilots [deleted]
 Clear weather viewing for 10 miles and San Francisco has one of the best safety records of all airports so no point on trying to pass the buck.
 PILOT ERROR!

 PHILL12


----------



## vacationdoc (Jul 8, 2013)

*Landing video*

Here is a video of the landing.  It looks like Mr. Hayes may have been at the public park at Coyote Point, very near SFO and a favorite place of mine.  DH took the early flight from SFO to Houston that morning.  Hats off to all who helped so many survivors.  

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...ane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes


----------



## puppymommo (Jul 8, 2013)

When you see the video it is a wonder that only 2 people were killed.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 8, 2013)

Phill12 said:


> For all of you giving every excuse possible the report today in San Francisco and Morning Joe reports this morning are that it was pilots error all the way!
> Plane at five miles out was to high and fast and the pilot had to drop and slow speed fast. He was landing to low and stall speed and plane just dropped. Reports state this pilot was training on this plane and had about 43 hours of training and that was it.
> Recorder showed co-pilot telling pilot to speed up and then go around for another try.
> This country was band a few years ago in the major US airports because of pilots lack of training. One of the problems is reported in cockpit that pilots don't listen to their co-pilots [deleted]
> ...



Not had our morning coffee yet?

Cheers


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 8, 2013)

Folks - Please stick to the topic, and refrain from making derogatory comments about the [*country of origin.]

*Clarification:  I am referring to derogatory comments about Koreans - not discussions about pilot training.


----------



## kwindham (Jul 8, 2013)

So sad for all involved


----------



## rleigh (Jul 8, 2013)

I think some of us here are getting a little too touchy about the speculating.

Speculating is normal in this situation, and we all speculate based on our own knowledge and experience; there is nothing wrong with that. We can learn a lot when we speculate---keeping in mind it's someone saying something on a discussion board; take it for what it's worth.

(Denise wasn't even speculating. Low speed _can_ be caused by a mechanical problem.)

And as for x3 skier's comments about certain groups of pilots: if it's true that some pilots in some parts of the world are not trained well for some types of planes, then that is reality, PC or not.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 8, 2013)

tompalm said:


> The training and flight standards at foreign airlines are not even close to what the pilots and crews learn in the US.  The Air France crash that happened a couple years ago was a result of two First Officers flying together in the cockpit that didn't make the correct recovery to stall warning. The result of that was that all Air France pilots received additional training for stall recovery, or what to do when stall warning comes on.
> 
> Training and procedures will improve after this accident.  It is unfortunate that it takes an accident before changes are made.



That's a pretty sweeping allegation. 

The faulty, but AF deferred replacement pitot tubes and the inconsistent pull up push down stall guidance between airframe manufacturers also were major contributors. 

A big change from that was push down to get airspeed and thicker air where the flight envelope is broader. 

The CRJ FL400 club boys (who were trained to US standards) also learned the hard way that high altitude flying leaves less margin for error.  AF pilot training was not the primary cause. Steps could have been taken before that Plane even got airborne. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 8, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> The faulty, but AF deferred replacement pitot tubes and the inconsistent pull up push down stall guidance between airframe manufacturers also were major contributors.



I know of no aircraft where you pull up to recover from a stall unless you are inverted. I do not know all airplanes but I would be interested in which manufacturer(s) have issued guidance to pull up to recover from a stall. 

The Air France disaster was basically poor flying skills at its heart with many other factors contributing.

Cheers


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 8, 2013)

*From a UA 747 Pilot*

For those interested in an eyewitness report. 

"On July 6, 2013 at approximately 1827Z I was the 747-400 relief F/O on flt 885, ID326/06 SFO-KIX. I was a witness to the Asiana Flt 214 accident. We had taxied to hold short of runway 28L at SFO on taxiway F, and were waiting to rectify a HAZMAT cargo issue as well as our final weights before we could run our before takeoff checklist and depart. As we waited on taxiway F heading East, just prior to the perpendicular holding area, all three pilots took notice of the Asiana 777 on short final. I noticed the aircraft looked low on glidepath and had a very high deck angle compared to what seemed “normal”. I then noticed at the apparent descent rate and closure to the runway environment the aircraft looked as though it was going to impact the approach lights mounted on piers in the SF Bay. The aircraft made a fairly drastic looking pull up in the last few feet and it appeared and sounded as if they had applied maximum thrust. However the descent path they were on continued and the thrust applied didn't appear to come soon enough to prevent impact. The tail cone and empennage of the 777 impacted the bulkhead seawall and departed the airplane and the main landing gear sheared off instantly. This created a long debris field along the arrival end of 28L, mostly along the right side of 28L. We saw the fuselage, largely intact, slide down the runway and out of view of our cockpit. We heard much confusion and quick instructions from SFO Tower and a few moments later heard an aircraft go around over the runway 28 complex. We realized within a few moments that we were apparently unharmed so I got on the PA and instructed everyone to remain seated and that we were safe.

We all acknowledged if we had been located between Runways 28R and 28L on taxiway F we would have likely suffered damage to the right side aft section of our aircraft from the 777.

Approximately two minutes later I was looking out the left side cockpit windows and noticed movement on the right side of Runway 28L. Two survivors were stumbling but moving abeam the Runway “28L” marking on the North side of the runway. I saw one survivor stand up, walk a few feet, then appear to squat down. The other appeared to be a woman and was walking, then fell off to her side and remained on the ground until rescue personnel arrived. The Captain was on the radio and I told him to tell tower what I had seen, but I ended up taking the microphone instead of relaying through him. I told SFO tower that there appeared to be survivors on the right side of the runway and they needed to send assistance immediately. It seemed to take a very long time for vehicles and assistance to arrive for these victims. The survivors I saw were approximately 1000-1500' away from the fuselage and had apparently been ejected from the fuselage.

We made numerous PAs to the passengers telling them any information we had, which we acknowledged was going to change rapidly, and I left the cockpit to check on the flight attendants and the overall mood of the passengers, as I was the third pilot and not in a control seat. A couple of our flight attendants were shaken up but ALL were doing an outstanding and extremely professional job of handling the passenger's needs and providing calm comfort to them. One of the flight attendants contacted unaccompanied minors' parents to ensure them their children were safe and would be taken care of by our crew. Their demeanor and professionalism during this horrific event was noteworthy. I went to each cabin and spoke to the passengers asking if everyone was OK and if they needed any assistance, and gave them information personally, to include telling them what I saw from the cockpit. I also provided encouragement that we would be OK, we'd tell them everything we learn and to please relax and be patient and expect this is going to be a long wait. The passenger mood was concerned but generally calm. A few individuals were emotional as nearly every passenger on the left side of the aircraft saw the fuselage and debris field going over 100 knots past our aircraft only 300' away. By this point everyone had looked out the windows and could see the smoke plume from the 777. A number of passengers also noticed what I had seen with the survivors out near the end of 28L expressing concern that the rescue effort appeared slow for those individuals that had been separated from the airplane wreckage.

We ultimately had a tug come out and tow us back to the gate, doing a 3 point turn in the hold short area of 28L. We were towed to gate 101 where the passengers deplaned. Captain Jim Abel met us at the aircraft and gave us information he had and asked if we needed any assistance or hotel rooms for the evening. Captain Herlihy and F/O Ishikawa went to hotels and I went to my home an hour away in the East Bay. "


Cheers


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 8, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> For those interested in an eyewitness report.



Thanks for posting this.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 8, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> I know of no aircraft where you pull up to recover from a stall unless you are inverted. I do not know all airplanes but I would be interested in which manufacturer(s) have issued guidance to pull up to recover from a stall. Cheers



Concur.  The stall recovery for the Boeing 737-800 was to immediately add max thrust and hold the nose pitch attitude between 0 - 3 degrees of pitch up, or level flight until the stall warning stopped and vertical speed was leveled off.  After that, increase speed to target speed and start a climb.  If the pilot raised the nose, it would cause the aircraft stall to get worse.  I am pretty sure that the 777 would have a similar recovery procedure.  

If I was speculating what happened on this SFO flight, the pilot flying got stall warning and called for go around by adding max power and raising the nose to climb out.  However, the power was not available yet and the aircraft stall got worse.  The NTSB is reporting that stall warning came on four seconds prior to impact.  If the pilot flying had added power as soon as he got that, they might have had a chance.

Regarding the Air France flight - The pilots got dealt a bad hand.  They were in level flight with power on and got stall warning.  Totally confused during the process, they tried everything including raising the nose and moving power to flight idle.  Nighttime and bad weather is a pilot's worst nightmare to get something like that.  Even if they had done everything right, it would have been difficult to safely fly that aircraft.    Two low time First Officers in the cockpit without a Captain is something only foreign airlines would do.

I could write more about the stories I heard about pilot training in China, Korea or India.  To make it short, my friends that were Captains at Aloha called the Chief Pilot for one of the airlines in India and they got hired over the phone.  When they arrived in India, someone looked in their logbook, they had one flight and after that were on their own with a low time First Officer from India.  There is no training at some airlines, or they call it OTJ, on the job training.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jul 9, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> For those interested in an eyewitness report.
> 
> "On July 6, 2013 at approximately 1827Z I was the 747-400 relief F/O on flt 885, ID326/06 SFO-KIX. I was a witness to the Asiana Flt 214 accident. We had taxied to hold short of runway 28L at SFO on taxiway F, and were waiting to rectify a HAZMAT cargo issue as well as our final weights before we could run our before takeoff checklist and depart. As we waited on taxiway F heading East, just prior to the perpendicular holding area, all three pilots took notice of the Asiana 777 on short final. I noticed the aircraft looked low on glidepath and had a very high deck angle compared to what seemed “normal”. I then noticed at the apparent descent rate and closure to the runway environment the aircraft looked as though it was going to impact the approach lights mounted on piers in the SF Bay. The aircraft made a fairly drastic looking pull up in the last few feet and it appeared and sounded as if they had applied maximum thrust. However the descent path they were on continued and the thrust applied didn't appear to come soon enough to prevent impact. The tail cone and empennage of the 777 impacted the bulkhead seawall and departed the airplane and the main landing gear sheared off instantly. This created a long debris field along the arrival end of 28L, mostly along the right side of 28L. We saw the fuselage, largely intact, slide down the runway and out of view of our cockpit. We heard much confusion and quick instructions from SFO Tower and a few moments later heard an aircraft go around over the runway 28 complex. We realized within a few moments that we were apparently unharmed so I got on the PA and instructed everyone to remain seated and that we were safe.
> 
> ...



I find it shocking that nobody was clamoring to get off that plane to provide immediate first aid assistance!  You have clear survivors on the ground and a mass casualty situation right in front of you!  Geez, if I were a passenger I'd be yelling at the captain and crew to gather up all the first aid equipment on that plane and to exit ASAP to try and provide some aid!  I sure as hell wouldn't be asking for another coffee or soda!


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 9, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> I find it shocking that nobody was clamoring to get off that plane to provide immediate first aid assistance!  You have clear survivors on the ground and a mass casualty situation right in front of you!  Geez, if I were a passenger I'd be yelling at the captain and crew to gather up all the first aid equipment on that plane and to exit ASAP to try and provide some aid!  I sure as hell wouldn't be asking for another coffee or soda!



Are you suggesting it would be a good idea the 747 crew abandon a 750000 pound Aircaft loaded with fuel and passengers via emergency exits and armed with band aids, provide first aid or attempt a rescue from an aircraft that may be about to explode very nearby? The airport fire and rescue people who are infinitely more well trained and equipped were already on the way. 

Cheers


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jul 9, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Are you suggesting it would be a good idea the 747 crew abandon a 750000 pound Aircaft loaded with fuel and passengers via emergency exits and armed with band aids, provide first aid or attempt a rescue from an aircraft that may be about to explode very nearby? The airport fire and rescue people who are infinitely more well trained and equipped were already on the way.
> 
> Cheers



Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting!  Is somebody going to hotwire the plane and steal it?  By their own admission they were stuck where they were and needed to be towed back.

If you think the plane is going to catch fire then if anything you should be out there trying to help the disoriented and hurt people get away from it.  I'm a physician and I would've been busting that door open and deploying the chute if I needed to if I saw these living casualties scattered about the runway and trying to get off a plane that's potentially about to burn.  There's no way in hell I would've just sat in my seat.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 9, 2013)

Good for you. Next time you are in a position to unilaterally decide to activate an emergency exit on an airliner for whatever reason, do as you see fit. 

Cheers


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 9, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> I find it shocking that nobody was clamoring to get off that plane to provide immediate first aid assistance!  You have clear survivors on the ground and a mass casualty situation right in front of you!  Geez, if I were a passenger I'd be yelling at the captain and crew to gather up all the first aid equipment on that plane and to exit ASAP to try and provide some aid!  I sure as hell wouldn't be asking for another coffee or soda!



I laud your feelings of wanting to be of assistance, but under the circumstances the last thing the responders needed would be a few hundred other people wandering about and confusing them with who's who. A 747 sits 2 stories above the tarmac and has no self-contained means to deplane. The cost to deploy emergency chutes is considerable, and use of same would no doubt have caused additional injury. The crew (of the 747) was told to hold position awaiting instructions. Had a call gone out for medically trained personnel, and it could be done safely, I'm sure they would have been paged.

Glad you wouldn't have had to waste a perfectly good coffee or soda should that have happened.

Your feelings are understandable, but not well thought through.

Jim


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 9, 2013)

Reports are many pasengers stopped and retrieved their baggage from the overheads, and were found wandering around the debris field with their luggage.


Further, from a cultural standpoint, it is customary to _not_ question the PIC. Let's see, if you were sitting in the seat next to the PIC and knew he was going to crash the aircraft, do you think it would be offensive to speak up and SCREAM a command??

These are some mighty strange folk, by my standards.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 9, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting!  Is somebody going to hotwire the plane and steal it?  By their own admission they were stuck where they were and needed to be towed back.
> 
> If you think the plane is going to catch fire then if anything you should be out there trying to help the disoriented and hurt people get away from it.  I'm a physician and I would've been busting that door open and deploying the chute if I needed to if I saw these living casualties scattered about the runway and trying to get off a plane that's potentially about to burn.  There's no way in hell I would've just sat in my seat.



Like the person who sees a collapsed co-worker lying next to a hose and rushes in to help.  So now you have two people on the ground 

I previously had responsibilities in planning for and directing emergency response to disasters and accidents.  One of the cardinal principles is to resist the urge to rush in and help unless you know what you are doing and can assure your own personal safety.  

If, as you assert, the plane was about to catch fire, the last thing anyone should be doing is adding to the casualty toll.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 9, 2013)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Like the person who sees a collapsed co-worker lying next to a hose and rushes in to help.  So now you have two people on the ground
> 
> I previously had responsibilities in planning for and directing emergency response to disasters and accidents.  One of the cardinal principles is to resist the urge to rush in and help unless you know what you are doing and can assure your own personal safety.
> 
> If, as you assert, the plane was about to catch fire, the last thing anyone should be doing is adding to the casualty toll.



As you and I were taught and taught others, you don't bring another victim to the scene. 

If someone has skills they believe would be helpful, ask for the incident commander and offer assistance. In this case, if there was a Physician aboard the 747, the best approach would be to contact one of the crew and ask them to notify the system of your skills and willingness to assist rather than actuating an emergency slide and adding to the already existing problems. 

Cheers


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 9, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> Reports are many pasengers stopped and retrieved their baggage from the overheads, and were found wandering around the debris field with their luggage.
> 
> 
> Further, from a cultural standpoint, it is customary to _not_ question the PIC. Let's see, if you were sitting in the seat next to the PIC and knew he was going to crash the aircraft, do you think it would be offensive to speak up and SCREAM a command??
> ...



People in shock may act irrational. I think you are strange by my standards, you decry the speculation and question the experience of other posters, yet you continue to post random questions inviting more speculation.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 9, 2013)

tompalm said:


> Concur.  The stall recovery for the Boeing 737-800 was to immediately add max thrust and hold the nose pitch attitude between 0 - 3 degrees of pitch up, or level flight until the stall warning stopped and vertical speed was leveled off.  After that, increase speed to target speed and start a climb.  If the pilot raised the nose, it would cause the aircraft stall to get worse.  I am pretty sure that the 777 would have a similar recovery procedure.



You concur then say Boeing stall recovery is up to 3 degrees of UP!
I know that is basically level flight but still you are pulling the yolk back, not pushing. 
I believe Boeing has revised this in light of AF.


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 9, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> I find it shocking that nobody was clamoring to get off that plane to provide immediate first aid assistance!  You have clear survivors on the ground and a mass casualty situation right in front of you!  Geez, if I were a passenger I'd be yelling at the captain and crew to gather up all the first aid equipment on that plane and to exit ASAP to try and provide some aid!  I sure as hell wouldn't be asking for another coffee or soda!


 I saw an interview of a policeman who did this.  He went in the plane and used a knife to cut the safety belts and other officers handed knifes to the airline crew to help other passengers that were stuck.  This officer also told a medical van, that had delivered a passenger to a plane, to go to the crash area immediately with his van.

I hope that we stop inexperienced flight crew from landing planes in the USA.  They have done it before so could do it again.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 9, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> You concur then say Boeing *stall recovery* is up to 3 degrees of UP!
> I know that is basically level flight but still you are pulling the yolk back, not pushing.
> I believe Boeing has revised this in light of AF.



No he didn't and neither do I.

It's yoke, not yolk (as in eggs and probably a result or auto correct ) and that pitch attitude is to *maintain* level flight and *maintain* yoke or stick position when you get a stall warning and not actually *in* a stalled condition. If you get a stall warning, you are in level flight at a high angle of attack. When the stall warning sounds, you either lower the nose, add power or both. If you "pulled the yoke back" when actually *in* a stall, which is not level flight, it would deepen the stall, not recover. If you raised the nose by pulling back when you get a stall warning, you would likely stall the wing in short order and depart from level flight. 

Cheers


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 9, 2013)

iconnections said:


> I saw an interview of a policeman who did this.  He went in the plane and used a knife to cut the safety belts and other officers handed knifes to the airline crew to help other passengers that were stuck.  This officer also told a medical van, that had delivered a passenger to a plane, to go to the crash area immediately with his van.



It is quite different for a person from the Fire and Rescue organization to do what he did than for a person not from that organization to just rush into the scene and potentially becoming another victim. Likewise it is quite different for a member of Fire and Rescue to direct other pepole and their equipment not from the organization to assist than for someone to just drive a rescue vehicle into the scene without coordination. 

When the incident commander is directing Fire, Police and equipment use, the last thing he or she needs is for well intentioned people trying to help without coordination and possibly wind up dealing with another victim.

The SFO Fire and Rescue organization performed exemplary. 

Cheers


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jul 9, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Good for you. Next time you are in a position to unilaterally decide to activate an emergency exit on an airliner for whatever reason, do as you see fit.
> 
> Cheers



I don't think it would be looked at like the disgruntled flight attendant who grabbed a couple of beers and got off the plane that way.

I also was not advocating letting all the passengers out of the plane.  

Having a mass casualty situation basically right in front of you with disoriented and hurt survivors scattered about is a pretty unique situation.  At the very least, I would've been trying to form up a team to go out there and assist.  I would need to see emergency personnel on their way or there before I would back off.  Once I saw them there and was told to back down I would comply.

I once had a car accident happen right in front of me for which I did get out and assist before the EMT's got there.  Once they got there, I gave them my statement of what happened and what was going on and then I let them take over.  Fortunately there were no serious injuries, but what if somebody was dazed and confused and the car was starting to burn.  Would the advice still be to sit in my car and wait for the EMT's to arrive?

I was an Army Physician for 8 years and have been to many exercises and courses dealing with mass casualties.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 9, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> Having a mass casualty situation basically right in front of you with disoriented and hurt survivors scattered about is a pretty unique situation.  At the very least, I would've been trying to form up a team to go out there and assist.  I would need to see emergency personnel on their way or there before I would back off.  Once I saw them there and was told to back down I would comply.
> 
> I was an Army Physician for 8 years and have been to many exercises and courses dealing with mass casualties.






Clemson Fan said:


> I'm a physician and I would've been busting that door open and deploying the chute if I needed to if I saw these living casualties scattered about the runway and trying to get off a plane that's potentially about to burn.  There's no way in hell I would've just sat in my seat.



Those seem to be two quite different approaches. 

I suggested earlier that informing the crew of your capabilities and offering assistance is a very appropriate thing to do. Your experience in mass casualties may have been helpful but "busting that door open and deploying the chute" and running across the airport to insert yourself into a incident would not be appropriate in my opinion. It might at a minimum disable the aircraft and possibly cause anxiety in the remaining passengers and most likely distract those already on the scene from addressing the needs of the victims to deal with someone who deployed an emergency chute from an aircraft near the scene, especially since they have no idea who you are and what caused the crash and why someone decided to escape from a parked aircraft near the scene. 

I appreciate your desire to help and your service. I also might suggest attending to victims of a car crash in slightly different that an airliner crash involving over 300 passengers and crew and the potential for an explosion of aviation fuel. I have done the former a number of times and would volunteer my assistance at the latter rather than deploying an emergency chute and rushing into a well managed aircraft disaster rescue operation. 

Cheers


----------



## tompalm (Jul 9, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> If you get a stall warning, you are in level flight at a high angle of attack. When the stall warning sounds, you either lower the nose, add power or both. If you "pulled the yoke back" when actually *in* a stall, which is not level flight, it would deepen the stall, not recover. If you raised the nose by pulling back when you get a stall warning, you would likely stall the wing in short order and depart from level flight.
> 
> Cheers



Concur.  When I stated level flight, I meant pitch 0-3 degrees nose up.  Usually cruise attitude in the 737, or most commercial airliners is 3 degrees nose up. 

It would be difficult to enter the stall at 0-3 degrees pitch angle.  In the simulator, or check ride that occurs each year, pilots have to make the aircraft stall by holding nose up about 15 degrees and holding a 30 degree bank angle.  When the aircraft gets stall warning, the correct response is max power, level the wings and lower the nose to 0-3 degrees nose up until the stall warning stops, increase speed and start a slow climb.  If everything is done right, altitude loss should only be 300 feet or less from the time the stall warning started.   

I have read a lot of safety reports and have never heard of a commercial airliner entering stall.  This 777 was more than 30 knots below target.  By most airline standards, that would be gross negligence.  If someone did that in a simulator, they would fail.  10 knots off target in smooth air is about as bad as it gets and I have not ever seen that.  

Now we learn the First Officer was actually an instructor pilot.  The mishap investigation report will be interesting.  There must be human factors involved here, like alcohol, medication, or something else that caused this to happen.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 9, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> It is quite different for a person from the Fire and Rescue organization to do what he did than for a person not from that organization to just rush into the scene and potentially becoming another victim. Likewise it is quite different for a member of Fire and Rescue to direct other pepole and their equipment not from the organization to assist than for someone to just drive a rescue vehicle into the scene without coordination.
> 
> When the incident commander is directing Fire, Police and equipment use, the last thing he or she needs is for well intentioned people trying to help without coordination and possibly wind up dealing with another victim.
> 
> ...


Correct.  

And if you have OSC responsibilities with resources at your disposal and you see a need, it is critical that you hold those resources until you can assess.  For example, in the situation of the plane crash, you don't make major commitments of resources to where people are streaming out of the plane, stumbling, collapsing to the ground, and in obvious need of help.  Not until you check out the areas where people are *NOT* streaming from the plane.  Because those locations would be where the need for help is greatest.


----------



## HatTrick (Jul 13, 2013)

*Crash Animations*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Lj-Etq3H4Eo

Created by Eyewitness Animations in Pompano Beach, FL.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 13, 2013)

HatTrick said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0&feature=player_embedded
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Lj-Etq3H4Eo
> 
> Created by Eyewitness Animations in Pompano Beach, FL.



Thanks for the links.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 14, 2013)

Nice video, thanks for posting.  One news report stated that the aircraft was at 100 feet four seconds prior to impact.  The news also reported that foreign pilots are not required to take drug or alcohol test after a crash like American pilots do.  Guess we will never know if it was really bad flying skills, or if there was more to it like pilots taking medication that caused impairment.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 14, 2013)

tompalm said:


> Nice video, thanks for posting.  One news report stated that the aircraft was at 100 feet four seconds prior to impact.  The news also reported that foreign pilots are not required to take drug or alcohol test after a crash like American pilots do.  Guess we will never know if it was really bad flying skills, or if there was more to it like pilots taking medication that caused impairment.



If it isn't just "plane" pilot error, I will be very very suprised. 

Cheers


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 19, 2013)

*Passenger killed by fire truck after surviving the plane crash!*

Boy, This http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...tim-killed-by-fire-truck-not-plane-crash?lite is a bummer. Imagine looking up after surviving a plane crash and seeing the front of a fire truck bearing down on you!

Still, it is a miracle that there was no more loss of life than did occurr. Many people will have to deal with lifelong pain and disability. It remains to be seen how their medical needs and ongoing care will be seen to.

Jim


----------



## Patri (Jul 19, 2013)

Yes, awful. I thought I read elsewhere that she was not visible through foam.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 19, 2013)

...still trying to process the fact that survivors were going to the overhead bins for their luggage.............


----------



## HatTrick (Aug 3, 2013)

*SFO worries over Asiana’s landing record*

Asiana Airlines has an unusually high rate of aborted landings at San Francisco International Airport.

_One such aborted landing happened July 19, just days after SFO reopened the runway where Flight 214 crashed. The Asiana jet pulled out of its early-afternoon landing just 14 seconds from touchdown.

Sources tell us the plane appeared to be coming in too low and too fast. The plane landed without incident 18 minutes later._


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 4, 2013)

As tragically proven. Not all International carriers' training is up to U.S. standards. Think about that when you can save a few bucks on a foreign carrier you've never heard of.

Incidentally, during my own flight training, I took several 'pull up, go around and re-try the landing'. No shame in it. Far better than trying to 'save' a bad approach.

Note also that Asiana dropped their lawsuit against the TV station that used the fictitious names of the crew, as well as their suit against Boeing. Hardly the maker's fault that their pilot flew the plane too low and slow.

Jim


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 4, 2013)

Apparently the FAA does not think foreign pilots are as skilled as US pilots. 

They are prohibiting them from making visual approaches to SFO. 

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsula&id=9188350

You might consider that when deciding your choice of airline. 

Cheers


----------



## Patri (Aug 6, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> Note also that Asiana dropped their lawsuit against the TV station that used the fictitious names of the crew, as well as their suit against Boeing.



Glad to hear. The TV error is the least of their worries.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Aug 6, 2013)

*Today -*

Another Korean Airlines problem - over shooting the runway in Japan - on landing it ran off the runway.


----------

