777 crash at SFO

Just judging the end results of both the SFO crash and BA 777 landing short at LHR how well the airframe stayed intact both times allowing the passengers to escape screams well built and solid design of an aircraft.

Kudos to Bob and the rest of the design team on the triple seven

 

Structural integrity is good, but so is controlled, predictable deformation to absorb impact forces. The insides of airplanes are not soft, cushioning, easily deforming surfaces relative to the humans that are accelerated into them.

Plane was able to slide, and the approach to the point of impact was from a relatively shallow angle. The impact itself was to the rear empannage, lots of energy was absorbed in the shearing off of the rear section, and the plane was able to continue on its path of travel, dissipating a lot more energy during its uninterrupted slide.

Had there been an impact with an immovable object, bringing the plane to a stop in a smaller distance, the contents inside (ie. the humans) would have suffered much greater forces and the body count would have much higher.

It's a solidly built plane, but the laws of physics were aligned with the crash dynamics as well, and that probably had more to do with the low loss of life. Collisions at 100+ knots will kill you otherwise, carbon fibre enclosure or not.

 

They were lucky that only the tail hit the seawall. If the nose had hit it head-on, there would have been a lot more dead people. This happened to a Delta DC-9 years ago in Boston that tried to land in the fog; I remember a photo with dead passengers, still strapped in their seats, scattered all over the runway.....

 

Against -- Boeing. Gulp

Law firms says it's suing Boeing over Asiana crash

 

That's typical. This gets the lawfirm into the paper trail.

The NTSB will determine whether the auto throttle malfunctioned, and that will determine the fate of this one legal push. They're also going after Asiana, rightly so.

My money is still on Capt. Sum Ting Wong and his cohorts.

 

Asianan decided not to sue Channel 2. Wonder why? LOL

Art

 

LOL...

Because

Som ting was Wong
They were tu Lo and slo
Ho Lee Fuk they did go bam ding ow

 

Rest of the crew's names have been released.

Pi Lut Suk
Fie Lynn Sor
Wha Daffa
Lu Kow
Deep Loy Lyf-Raf
Tae Gawn
Whee Gawn
Wynn Gawn
Eun Jun Gawn Tu
Nomo Drinx <-- Possibly a stowaway

 

I have detailed informative pics available for download from www.findmap.com.au/download/client/Asiana214.pdf

 

Wow, incredible shots.

Kai

 

Didn't realize that the fan blades were hollow... makes sense, though...

Great pix.

 

I might have missed this info but what do those with expertise in this area think about fuel being involved in the fire after the crash? If not, is it likely it was started by an electrical malfunction and involved flammable items in the cabin? Something else?

 

I believe the #2 engine broke off and was jammed up against the right side of the fuselage and had an oil fire which spread to the fuselage.

 

Those PDF pics are just amazing. I would like to see more pics of the area where the empannage broke off--how many seats were there, how many snapped off with the tail cone? I am guessing just one or two...?

If anyone is in the bay area, and wants to take pics, the plane has been moved to the north side and is right beside the access road. They have put up a green cloth on the inside of the fence to prevent gawkers, but you can see it quite well through cracks, etc. There is a police firing range right across the street, and if you can get in there, there is a mound of dirt that will get you above the fence. Good zoom lens is all you need after that. I stitched together a panorama...it's huge (you can see smear marks on the windows) but I think fchat resizes them.

The plane was cut to make it easier to move...I don't know where the rest of the fuselage is. I am guessing that it, along with the elevators and fin, has been removed for further analysis.

Also have pics of the landing gear and engines, lying nearby, but it's all in a heap and you don't get much of a sense of what happened. You do see the destructive forces at play...let me know if you want to see them.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

If you look at the original pictures, it looks like it broke off right behind the rear pressure bulb head. No seats back there

 

I believe some of the flight attendants, and possibly one or two passengers, were ejected onto the runway, so it broke ahead of the aft pressure bulkhead. I think the flight attendant jump seats are back there-- does it have an aft galley?

It is rumored that the passengers who were killed were not wearing seatbelts, incidentally. I'm sure the flight attendants were strapped in.

 

Zero seats in the tailcone....

The pressure bulkhead ruptured on impact and a couple people were ejected THROUGH the gaps in the bulkhead, on impact and during the cartwheel.

Possibly the first 2 that died, it sounds like.

One of the pics shows the (chartruese) pressure bulkhead.


The tail did NOT break ahead of the rear bulkhead (as a post #491 above said)... it broke BEHIND the rear bulkhead.

 

Possible that some passengers didn't have seat belts on or had them on loosely and the force of rotation after impact tossed them out the back. Not sure where the jump seats are for the flight attendants at the rear, but if mounted to the rear bulkhead that could explain their predicament.

>8^)
ER

 

Amazing! The amount of damage to the wings, landing gear, and engines shown there makes the integrity of the fuselage increasingly impressive.

As more of the evidence comes to light here, I am increasingly amazed at how many survived!

 

On Monday the 15th it was my leg from MSP to SFO. I landed on 28L. The glide slope was out of service but the PAPI was working. We were vectored from PYE to SFO and then to the west for a down wind and left base to the runway. I selected the 28L ILS which gives us a vertical flight path deviation display, we call it the football. The football has a range of + or - 400' from the desired verticals flight path. Also the "progress page 2" gives a + or - number that is not limited to the + or - 400' window. As expected, we were kept high and the football was maxed out. Progress page 2 showed +625 so I flew a VVI of 1200 to get back down to the path, I also called for the gear early to help control the airspeed. I flew this autopilot and auto throttles off (I'm of the opinion that when things are nonstandard it's just better to fly the airplane instead of pushing buttons and twisting knobs) and just really involved basic airmanship.

The next day we departed from 28L (day instead of night) and the interesting thing is there were no visible signs that we could see the indicated there had been a crash.

 

It's amazing your still alive! How were you able to fly the approach without the ILS and Autothrottle???

Capt. Sum Ting Wong NEEDS to know.



PS - I'll bet you kept an eye on your airspeed. You probably glanced at it every 3 seconds or so.

 

On 7-23-13 an EVA 777-300 went below safe height 1.5nm out of 28L at SFO but the tower and crew caught it in time and went around.

Incident: EVA B773 at San Francisco on Jul 23rd 2013, descended below safe height

 

As I mentioned before, it's looking more likely that the pilots set FLCH mode, and set ALT select to 0. Normally, my amateur understanding of the mode is that the A/P and A/T will manage the descent and the altitude profile once the specific alt is reached. However, when the alt of 0 is selected, as the altitude goes below a preset, which I think it 100', the A/T goes into a disable mode because the system presumes that if you are 100' above the ground, you are planning to land, and advancing the throttles would be counterproductive.

Were Asiana Pilots Caught In The FLCH ?Trap??

I may have the systematic details a bit sketchy, but this is what I thought we were seeing given the flight staff lack of basic pilotage skill presented. I know there were several changes to the mode on the appr, and it may be as simple as the pilot switching off the A/P to hand fly, but thinking he had A/T security to set his target speed.

 

I doubt the 'Flight Level Change' trap. I am rated in the 777 (and almost every other Boeing) and have flown it for thousands of hours. FLC, whether in a 737, 747, 757, 767 or 777 works the same way: whether you are descending or climbing it will attempt, through throttle position, to maintain the selected airspeed. If you are going down, it will reduce power...to idle usually. If you are climbing it will go to full climb power, again to maintain the speed selected by the pilot. Here's what doesn't add up: once the crew started to shallow the descent the throttles should have responded by increasing to hold the 137 knot speed....or whatever was in the speed window. The 777 throttles can be slow. I am convinced there is a designed in bias to delay throttle movement to reduce fuel usage. 757 throttles are much more aggressive than 777 in an attempt to maintain speed. This does not excuse the crew. This is clearly pilot error. Speed is life.

 

That's incorrect. In the 747-400, FLevel CHange works like this on descent....

With autopilot and autothrottle in use, pushing FLCH, thrust goes to idle (or close to it) then to HOLD. The autopilot (AFDS) uses the elevator to fly the desired speed. (not the throttles)

IF you were to disconnect the autopilot, and pitch the nose up, the power would remain at idle and the speed would decay.

IF the crew was using FLCH, disconnected the AP, turned off the FDs, and flew whatever pitch they deemed appropriate, the airspeed would be decay as they pulled the nose up, to the point of stall speed +5 kts, where the low speed protection would activate.


It's interesting to note that 2 seasoned pilots (my Boeing time is limited to the 747) see the system in 2 completely different ways.

Either way, there's no excuse for such a loss of airspeed.
Image Unavailable, Please Login