777 crash at SFO

Flying out of SFO at 10 am tomorrow. Hope we're able to get out. I really need to be at work Monday. United is flooded with calls.

 

You'll probably catch the flight, but I wouldn't count on flying out of there 100% so better have a backup plan. I make regular flights from Orlando to San Diego (non-stop) on Alaska Airlines. Yeah, a hassle to get down to San Diego on such short notice, but they red eye back to Orlando at 10:30PM departure and arrive before 6AM. My brother makes those trips to get to work Monday morning in Melbourne.

Just an idea...

 

Current reporting is that they will reopen two runways shortly - safe to assume it won't be 28L or 28R.

Earlier news conference at SFO said they would be back at 3:00pm local for updates - so about 10 mins.

>8^)
ER

 

Why people shouldn't fly with airlines who train their pilots ab initio. The US pilots have thousands of hours before they get to the majors. If he was short, absolutely incompetent. No excuse.

Art

 

I still remember the JAL pilot that did a perfect short landing at SFO...in the ocean..short of the runway...so its not the first time its happend!

 

Sadly, those are my initial thoughts. Maybe both engines failed, although unlikely.

 

Thanks. I tried to get United to reroute us through SJC or OAK but our flight has not been cancelled yet so no dice. I just know the reroutes are probably filling up fast.

 

No way, that was sorted after the incident.

 

news video shows burned out cabin area in mid section / wing area...current count is 61 injured with 2 dead... from TV news report...

landing short... it's all on who was doing the driving... seems like a lack of cooridination of power with sink rate... weather report essentailly clear... it takes time for any plane to respond to any increase in power ... basically too low too slow

two runways are reopening, plane settled clear of runways, emergency crews have passengers and situation under control... operations will not interfere with investigation

 

Ice in the fuel line?

Smoking upon departure ??? And crossing an ocean !!!!


Listening to the audio from the tower is amazing. I noticed the go arounds werent necessarily confirmed. Communications skills are very good.

I hope all are OK.

 

Someone shared this in the Flyertalk discussion:

I am not familiar with how to read NOTAMs, but you can view them here:

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/notamRetrievalByICAOAction.do?method=displayByICAOs&reportType=RAW&formatType=DOMESTIC&retrieveLocId=SFO&actionType=notamRetrievalByICAOs

>8^)
ER

 

That was my first thought too Jim. Although the BA flight was operating in the winter and had flown through some of the coldest OAT ever recorded hat had several other flights descending for warmer air. Also the BA flight flew a continuous descent approach with engines at flight idle from cruise altitude so there was no heat in the oil to melt the ice/wax building up on the fuel/oil heat exchanger which IIRC was what choked off the fuel flow. He BA aircraft had RR Trent engines and the issue was a Trent issue I believe and not found on the P&W or GE engines. Any one know what was on this aircraft?

 

I haven't seen any footage yet, so can't make any judgements. But based on experience, here are some thoughts.

1: Coming from Asia, approach probably started with a high downwind (around 11000 just north of the airport)

2: Nice weather, visual approaches in use (again, this is just an assumption). Probably cleared for "Quiet Bridge 28R"

3: That approach starts "off centerline", coming in from the right side of the runway.

4: Its easy to get stuck high, and its up to the pilot to configure (flaps and gear) as required to get down and slow down.

5: In many countries, visual approaches aren't flown. Pilots from these countries would much rather shoot an ILS approach to minimums than a charted visual approach.

I could tell some stories........

 

Good points! I forgot, the G/S has been out on both runways for awhile. The PAPI may have been out too. Based on that, I'm almost 100% positive it was pilot error. Really sad. From the audio clip, there was a UAL holding short of 28L. I'm sure they saw the whole thing unfold.

Hopefully some lessons will be learned from this, and the "art" of shooting a visual approach in an airliner will be looked at.......

 

Why would glide slope out explain it? Commercial should be ils only and if no gs, seeing nothing, no red or white, if he was doing a visual approach should have been immediately obvious.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

 

Preparing your class action lawsuit already?

 

Art and I disagree on many things, but on this one he is absolutely right-- assuming no mechanical problem, which more and more looks to be the case.

The Asian carriers not only train ab initio, but they also have serious cultural issues which inhibit sound cockpit resource management. Put the two together with a long haul flight (crash was at 5am Seoul time, I believe) and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

Asiana just took delivery of 3 of the 777 examples in the last 12 months or so. All with P&W engines.

 

A little early to be making this claim, don't you think?

 

I know it sounds crazy.....But I'm guessing he was cleared for a Quiet Bridge Visual approach. Started high. Had a high rate of descent. While the runway would have been in sight the whole time, as he approached the normal glide path, with no guidance, he flew right through it. Sounds impossible, I know.

The 777 does have a way of showing the glide path, but I'm guessing they never looked at it.

Again, these are all just my thoughts, with no data to back them up.

I hope I'm wrong.....

 

He's not making a claim... just a couple of suppositions.

...as are many of us.

Chill.

Please.

 

Really?

"absolutely irresponsible. No excuse."

Yah... just a coupe of suppositions. No conclusion at all.....

Chill indeed.

 

No, I don't, and I back it up with my 30 years of flying experience, including many years as an instructor and check airman in jet aircraft.

Let me repeat myself, just to be clear: IF THERE WAS NO MECHANICAL FAILURE, then it was absolutely inexcusable and pilot error.

It looks more and more like there was no mechanical failure, although it certainly can't be ruled out at this point.

 

That's not what Art said.

"Why people shouldn't fly with airlines who train their pilots ab initio. The US pilots have thousands of hours before they get to the majors. If he was short, absolutely incompetent. No excuse.'

Art


Sounds pretty much like a conclusion way before any facts are known.

 

60 people "missing"???

Local news...

Kai