777 crash at SFO

I have seen that many times too... I'd fire up my cell phone once we touched
down and get SCOLDED for it, yet 30 people or more are unbuckled and
grabbing their stuff long before we hit the gate and THAT'S considered OK!!

Pretty weird. Give what happened in SFO I'd consider that LUDICROUS to do.

Jedi

 

I just saw that the PAPI was out also. So these guys were really on a true visual.
.
Update. maybe they were out due to the crash

 

i'm guessing, but it must be something to do with grabbing their passports ... easier to take the bag than fumble around and dig out the one thing needed ...

either that or have additional headache later ...

 

That was the Rolls engines I think these were different, maybe P&W.

 

High res pic of the debris

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-07-07T003835Z_1147506799_GM1E9770NWQ01_RTRMADP_3_USA-CRASH-ASIANA.JPG

Vertical track comparison of the appr

altitude.jpg Photo by oly720man | Photobucket

NOTAM
!SFO 06/005 SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359

No glide path info, not that it was needed on a CAVU visual.


Reports that the PAPI for 28L or R was OOS as well. Not sure on that.

 

Few thoughts:
1. The BA engine incident was indeed icing in the fuel filter on RR Trent engines. Once identified, it was immediately corrected by RR on all the trent engines of same model. May be they had another issue but I doubt it is the same, especially if flying GE90 or P&W engines.

2. Cockpit communication issues of Korean airlines are well documented. I would recommend the book 'Outliers' which has a whole section on that. Apparently, KAL had far above average accident rate and hired consultants to work out the problems and suggest a new way to structure 'social' interactions in the cockpit. Hiring ex-militry apparently makes things worse as obedience to superior officers is drilled into junior officers.

3. In the book referred to above, there was an incident involving a KAL flying into Guam at night. Guam airport had taken off-line part of its approach systems for maintenance. They ended up in a mountain. It described a tired staff, dealing with less than familiar airports and facing unexpected requirements.

Asiana has a pretty good reputation, their planes are mostly very recent. Flew with them once while touring Asia.
This is very sad

 

A slighty different take. I think the Boeing Engineers/Structural Engineers are had a glass of wine last night. They should be congratulated.

Look at how the fuselage essentially stayed together. The tail, engines, landing gear all came off....and took some energy with them. The fuselage stayed structurally sound enough for the doors to open, which is a big, big deal.

Bob, your thoughts?

Bill

 

Info and good diagrams here...

Supposedly from FAA.

Two dead, 181 hurt in San Francisco air crash

 

CEO of airline just admitted no problem with the plane. From looking at the data, plane was slow on approach (109 knots v. 150 knots) and 300 feet too low. Gross incompetence.

Art

 

And a sigh of relief is heard from the state of Washington....

 

You bet Russ.

Art

 

My buddy is a structural engineer on the 777 for ba. Gonna have to hear his thoughts.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

Of course, in the same interview he assured everyone that the plane was operated by a veteran, highly experienced flight crew......

So, it must be the airports fault......

 

No problem with the airplane, airport ILS system was inoperative, undershoot caused by nut on the wheel. Low airspeed and altitude should have been called out (maybe screamed) by 1st officer. Pilot should have noticed it also.
I go back to the early 60's when two incidents of this order where executed by Air France and South African Airlines. Both were 707-320's that undershot the runways and took out the MLG and lower aft fuselage on both airplanes. Thanks to Boeing AOG both airplanes were flying 30 days later. I don't think you can "buff that out in the morning" with this 777.

 

I thought Boeing moved to Chicago?

 

I agree! 777 is a fine airplane.

 

Sadly, like I thought. Started high, then went below the glide path. Not sure how you fly a 777 at 109 kts. What I mean, is how you allow that to happen. I believe the 777 is like the 747, and even with the autothrottles off, they're still active to protect low speed.

I have a lot of thoughts, and need a computer, not a phone, to type them.

 

The corporate offices moved to Chicago but the brains , heart, and muscle are in the Puget Sound area---Everett is where the 777 is built next to Paine Field, Flight center is at Boeing Field Seattle, Sales and Marketing in Renton along with the 737 production adjoining Renton Airport, south of there in Fredrickson they fabricate things like stringers and spars and a lot of machine work. As far as I'm concerned, Boeing is in Seattle, the Bean Counters and Hand Wavers are in Chicago.

 

Could this be another case of a flight crew so used to automated landings that, faced with the need to land manually, they were a bit "rusty"? I presume that with the runway approach aids being inoperative, autoland would not have been an option here?

 

I can only refer to having worked on the airplane from the beginning and I worked with the best bunch of people and the best team oriented organization that I worked with in the 48 years that I was there at Boeing. I have always been proud of the 777 because of the extreme care taken to produce the very best airplane possible. In the past, crucial decisions were usually made by a few high octane types and the lowlings had to follow. The777 was fraught with lengthy meetings with EVERYBODY attending and making inputs. Mulally has to be given credit for the atmosphere and rhythm in which we worked.
The 777 is a strong, reliable, and well done airplane, but then I'm biased.

 

The KAL 801 (B743 CFIT on approach in Guam with inoperative glideslope) and Delta 554 (MD-88 sheared off both main gear trucks at the end of the deck at LaGuardia) accidents both come to mind. The KAL accident was at night with poor visibility, but the crew had all the information they needed to avoid a crash. The Delta incident was a close call, and had an even luckier outcome than this one.

 

I agree with your thoughts, Jim. The visual approach reared its ugly head after the automation failed...along with the pilot, I think.

 

I think that Lou 747 is the guy to listen to here. I think that the 777 is the best thing that Boeing has done in the jet liner era and it is a tough airplane and subsequent hull checks have shown that as well as its reliabilty record..

 

Well said.

 

Just got a great view of the wreckage as we took off from SFO. Two things surprised me:
1) How small the remaining amount of fuselage appeared and
2) How short the distance was between the edge of the runway to the wreckage.

The plane must have skimmed the water before it hit the seawall.