login info join!
Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Plane Crash In San Francisco Search   Reply
12345last
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 6,247
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m … 1484.story

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/07/07/4551098/ds_plane7_20130707065658292845-620x349.jpg

Looks like the tail caught the embankment and was ripped off the fuselage.

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2034429.ece/ALTERNATES/s1023/Asiana-Airlines-Boeing-777-2034429.jpg

Debris scattered along the retaining wall at the waters edge.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130706170752-san-francisco-plane-crash-13-horizontal-gallery.png

.
Jul 06 13 07:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Fine Wine
Posts: 226
Orange, California, US


It's amazing that only two people were killed.  The news said that 95.7% of people survive plane crashes.

Bless everyone impacted by this.
Jul 06 13 09:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Photography
Posts: 12,850
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


How did it lose so much of the cabin top? Did it go under a bridge and shear off?
Jul 06 13 09:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JM Dean
Posts: 8,930
Cary, North Carolina, US


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
How did it lose so much of the cabin top?

I think fire

Jul 06 13 09:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 4,841
Antioch, California, US


AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
How did it lose so much of the cabin top? Did it go under a bridge and shear off?

The fire in the cabin burned thru the top of the fuselage ... must have been pretty intense.

Jul 06 13 09:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Photography
Posts: 12,850
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia


rfordphotos wrote:

The fire in the cabin burned thru the top of the fuselage ... must have been pretty intense.

Fucking hell........ Lucky people, all of them that lived. Should buy lottery tickets

Jul 06 13 09:27 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 36,036
San Francisco, California, US


It is amazing that so many survived.
Jul 06 13 09:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,617
San Diego, California, US


A woman happened to capture the crash on her cell phone:

https://twitter.com/stefanielaine/statu … 96/photo/1

Most of the passengers are extremely fortunate. This could have been MUCH worse.
Jul 06 13 11:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Jay Dezelic
Posts: 4,827
Seattle, Washington, US


Seems like an altimeter issue. Maybe windshear, but it doesn't look like much wind activity on the water.
Jul 06 13 11:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Snyder Studios
Posts: 198
Los Angeles, California, US


Jay Dezelic wrote:
Seems like an altimeter issue. Maybe windshear, but it doesn't look like much wind activity on the water.

Definitely a little low and short.  Drag marks and debris say the tail was dragging.  Maybe pilot realized he was short and raised the nose to compensate.  Not known area for wind shear and normal winds come up gradually throughout the day.  Scary.

Jul 06 13 11:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art Silva
Posts: 9,422
Santa Barbara, California, US


News reports are saying that the "automated" approach was maybe down and Pilots were informed to land by sight which was no problem as it's what they do anyways AND it was a gorgeous and crystal clear day in the bay area, and at that time of the day conditions are calm and temps were cool (better lift in cooler temps).
Looks like pilot error by landing short or on board mechanics may be to blame... won't know for sure untill the investigation is done but by the looks of it, it seems the pilot tried to climb at the last seconds which would dip the tail, the tail hit the toe of the runway, made the plane slam and bounce and broke off the tail end... ugh Just Tragic hmm

Prayers out to the passengers and their families!
Jul 06 13 11:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,617
San Diego, California, US


Art Silva Photography wrote:
News reports are saying that the "automated" approach was maybe down and Pilots were informed to land by sight which was no problem as it's what they do anyways AND it was a gorgeous and crystal clear day in the bay area, and at that time of the day conditions are calm and temps were cool (better lift in cooler temps).
Looks like pilot error by landing short or on board mechanics may be to blame... won't know for sure untill the investigation is done but by the looks of it, it seems the pilot tried to climb at the last seconds which would dip the tail, the tail hit the toe of the runway, made the plane slam and bounce and broke off the tail end... ugh Just Tragic hmm

Prayers out to the passengers and their families!

Obviously we can't know for sure what happened but I think what you said is the most plausible explanation at this point and it's consistent with eyewitness accounts.

It easily could have been MUCH worse.

Jul 07 13 12:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 8,423
Los Angeles, California, US


Snyder Studios wrote:
Definitely a little low and short.  Drag marks and debris say the tail was dragging.  Maybe pilot realized he was short and raised the nose to compensate.  Not known area for wind shear and normal winds come up gradually throughout the day.  Scary.

It has already been reported..wind speed 8mph...that is nothing.

But..I am confused..if automated...the warning bells and even the recorded mans voice would be blaring for this pilot to correct. The pilot was beyond the "Minimums"


The GPWS ( ground proximity warning system ) usually calls ' minimums ', and it basically means the aeroplane is very close to the ground. You would hear ' minimums ' 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, retard, retard..the ground proximity warning systems usually says it all, but in some cases, the co-pilot does, but every plane must have GPWS.

And round the 7 minute mark you hear minimums..this is a 777 landing at SFO...
http://youtu.be/KPhv1vm3HKc

Jul 07 13 12:49 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 16,198
New York, New York, US


Damn!
Jul 07 13 02:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Select Models
Posts: 36,046
Upland, California, US


GPS Studio Services wrote:
It is amazing that so many survived.

That's what I'm thinkin... over 300 made it out safely... definitely amazing considering the reckage I saw... yikes

Jul 07 13 02:30 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 10,536
Baltimore, Maryland, US


It's easy to say pilot error at this point, except for a similar 777 crash at Heathrow in 2008 - where the plane also came in short of the runway. I wonder if something in the cockpit design allows pilots to misguide the landing?
Jul 07 13 05:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
You Can Call Me Pierre
Posts: 757
Montreal, Quebec, Canada


What is the height of the sea wall?
Jul 07 13 05:43 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 27,367
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


News reported last night that a piece of automated landing equipment at sfo (something about glide slopes) has been out and will continue to be out for a few months. There's another piece of landing-helping equipment at sfo that may or may not be malfunctioning.

They had a 10 hour flight, were landing over a big body of water that can screw with your depth perception, and at least one if not two pieces of equipment they normally rely on were busted. It's certainly operator error but not really surprising.


News airline specialist guy predicted they won't release a full report for another 6-12 months, so we'll all have made up our minds about what happened whether it's true or not and forgotten about it before they say something official.
Jul 07 13 06:28 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 27,367
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Robb Mann wrote:
It's easy to say pilot error at this point, except for a similar 777 crash at Heathrow in 2008 - where the plane also came in short of the runway. I wonder if something in the cockpit design allows pilots to misguide the landing?

Wiki says that crash was caused by ice blocking the fuel lines, not an issue with landing/pilot. Only similarity is they came short on the runway, the London plane was lucky they had a runway to crash on.

Jul 07 13 06:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,579
San Diego, California, US


Who was flying the plane?

I will wager now that the PAPI finger pointing is more of a fluffed up obfuscation by PR teams, lawyers and media hype-mongers than it is a significant factor in the accident.

It's impossible for me to imagine that the pilots did not fully understand that these visual aids were not available far in advance of their preparation for landing at SFO. NOTAM's, conversations with ATC and the airport control tower, and by simply looking out the window or at the instruments on an otherwise perfect summer day all initially come to mind as reasons the Glide Slope news is not logical.
Jul 07 13 08:33 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 27,367
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Click Hamilton wrote:
Who was flying the plane?

I'll take "pilots" for 500, bob.

Jul 07 13 08:58 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Skydancer Photos
Posts: 21,926
Santa Cruz, California, US


Already stories of bravery and heroism! Crew members cutting passengers' seat belts to help free them as the plane was burning.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?gui … 00de3e09c7
Jul 07 13 09:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,579
San Diego, California, US


Click Hamilton wrote:
Who was flying the plane?

Laura UnBound wrote:
I'll take "pilots" for 500, bob.

Cute, but ...

Names? Ages? Experience? Was the PIC at the controls or a subordinate practicing landings for his log book?

Have the pilots been identified in the news reports yet? I have not seen it so far.

This dearth of information is why I asked.

Jul 07 13 09:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andialu
Posts: 14,029
San Pedro, California, US


Click Hamilton wrote:
Cute, but ...

Names? Ages? Experience? Was the PIC at the controls or a subordinate practicing landings for his log book?

Have the pilots been identified in the news reports yet? I have not seen it so far.

This dearth of information is why I asked.

What is, "Information that you can get by using the very same internet you are on to see this post with?"

I'll take Therapist for $500 Alex.

Jul 07 13 09:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Skydancer Photos
Posts: 21,926
Santa Cruz, California, US


Four pilots were aboard the plane and they rotated on a two-person shift during the flight, according to The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in South Korea. The two who piloted the plane at the time of crash were Lee Jeong-min and Lee Gang-guk.

Yoon, the Asiana president, described the pilots as "skilled," saying three had logged more than 10,000 hours each of flight time. He said the fourth had put in almost that much time, but officials later corrected that to say the fourth had logged nearly 5,000 hours. All four are South Koreans.

Jul 07 13 09:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,579
San Diego, California, US


^^ thank you
Jul 07 13 09:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,579
San Diego, California, US


Andialu wrote:
What is, "Information that you can get by using the very same internet you are on to see this post with?"

I'll take Therapist for $500 Alex.

Cute, butt ...

Soapbox is dead, Andialu.

Jul 07 13 09:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andialu
Posts: 14,029
San Pedro, California, US


Click Hamilton wrote:

Cute, butt ...

Soapbox is dead, Andialu.

Thanks, I've been doing squats. smile

Jul 07 13 09:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Skydancer Photos
Posts: 21,926
Santa Cruz, California, US


My understanding is that 777 pilots are pretty close to the cream of the crop. Not any pilot can fly those jumbo jets. Seniority and skill are a determining factor in being assigned to the flight crew.
Jul 07 13 09:43 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andialu
Posts: 14,029
San Pedro, California, US


Skydancer Photos wrote:
My understanding is that 777 pilots are pretty close to the cream of the crop. Not any pilot can fly those jumbo jets. Seniority and skill are a determining factor in being assigned to the flight crew.

You would think they would make sure that the technology that assists them with proper altitude would be up and running regardless of the construction going on.

Jul 07 13 09:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Skydancer Photos
Posts: 21,926
Santa Cruz, California, US


Andialu wrote:
You would think they would make sure that the technology that assists them with proper altitude would be up and running regardless of the construction going on.

I think I will wait till the facts are more complete and obvious.

Jul 07 13 09:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andialu
Posts: 14,029
San Pedro, California, US


Skydancer Photos wrote:

I think I will wait till the facts are more complete and obvious.

Of course. I'm just going based on Chesley Sullenberger's hypothesis.

Jul 07 13 09:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,579
San Diego, California, US


Skydancer Photos wrote:
My understanding is that 777 pilots are pretty close to the cream of the crop. Not any pilot can fly those jumbo jets. Seniority and skill are a determining factor in being assigned to the flight crew.

Skydancer Photos wrote:
I think I will wait till the facts are more complete and obvious.

This one is interesting. Particularly the part about 16G seats, post 2009, and the limits of human endurance.
http://www.airlineratings.com/news.php?id=53

Jul 07 13 09:55 am  Link  Quote 
Clothing Designer
GRMACK
Posts: 2,044
Bakersfield, California, US


I'm curious as to how the cabin caught fire?  Front appears to be the origin of the fire as it appears to have burned the worse.

Seems way ahead of the fuel in the wings which appear unburnt, and so do the areas where the engines would be.

Very odd.

Even though the ILS was down at SFO, the pilots should have been able to see the multiple red "too low" landing lights alongside the runway even if the plane's on-board electronics failed.

Korean pilot began flying in 1996 too.  No doubt he'll have some explaining to do if he was trying to do a "greased landing" (i.e. too low to make it smooth).  Some going into LAX are awfully low at times too if one visits Centinela Hospital upper levels on their approach to runways 24L or 25R and I've wondered if they were buzzing the hospital at times intentionally.
Jul 07 13 10:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,579
San Diego, California, US


GRMACK wrote:
I'm curious as to how the cabin caught fire?  Front appears to be the origin of the fire as it appears to have burned the worse.

Seems way ahead of the fuel in the wings which appear unburnt, and so do the areas where the engines would be.

Very odd.

Even though the ILS was down at SFO, the pilots should have been able to see the multiple red "too low" landing lights alongside the runway even if the plane's on-board electronics failed.

Korean pilot began flying in 1996 too.  No doubt he'll have some explaining to do if he was trying to do a "greased landing" (i.e. too low to make it smooth).  Some going into LAX are awfully low at times too if one visits Centinela Hospital upper levels on their approach to runways 24L or 25R and I've wondered if they were buzzing the hospital at times intentionally.

I like the way you think

Jul 07 13 10:11 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 27,367
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


GRMACK wrote:
I'm curious as to how the cabin caught fire?  Front appears to be the origin of the fire as it appears to have burned the worse.

Seems way ahead of the fuel in the wings which appear unburnt, and so do the areas where the engines would be.

Very odd.

Even though the ILS was down at SFO, the pilots should have been able to see the multiple red "too low" landing lights alongside the runway even if the plane's on-board electronics failed.

Korean pilot began flying in 1996 too.  No doubt he'll have some explaining to do if he was trying to do a "greased landing" (i.e. too low to make it smooth).  Some going into LAX are awfully low at times too if one visits Centinela Hospital upper levels on their approach to runways 24L or 25R and I've wondered if they were buzzing the hospital at times intentionally.

The news report I watched last night said that the lighting system to indicate your altitude may or may not have been working at the time, alongside the ils. They described its working to be "intermittent". Something they need to look into, along with all the black box info.

Jul 07 13 10:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 36,647
Columbus, Ohio, US


Waited until this afternoon to look at a huge pile of photos.

What most others have said, only two deaths are amazing....but on the other hand it's always sad when anyone dies like this.
Jul 07 13 11:11 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 27,367
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Cherrystone wrote:
Waited until this afternoon to look at a huge pile of photos.

What most others have said, only two deaths are amazing....but on the other hand it's always sad when anyone dies like this.

Two teenagers sad

Jul 07 13 11:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 8,423
Los Angeles, California, US


gl-amour wrote:
What is the height of the sea wall?

Freaking LOW!

Jul 07 13 12:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andialu
Posts: 14,029
San Pedro, California, US


DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

Freaking LOW!

I remember being a little nervous on approach when I saw the runway.

Jul 07 13 12:31 pm  Link  Quote 
12345last   Search   Reply