# Plane Crash (777) at SFO (7/6/13)



## AmtrakBlue

Asiana Airlines. Sorry, no link. Watching it on TV after I saw something about it on another forum.


----------



## Trainmans daughter

Speculation only at this point, of course; but it is being reported that the pilot brought the plane in too low. Tail and possibly landing gear hit the jetty at the end of the runway and got ripped off the plane. Prayers for all the passengers.


----------



## PRR 60

Asiana Flight 214, B777-200, Seoul to San Francisco, crashed on landing Runway 28R. Tail #HL7742.

FlightAware

Some reports say most or all passengers escaped. Lets hope those reports are correct.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Flights being diverted to LAX.


----------



## PRR 60

AmtrakBlue said:


> Flights being diverted to LAX.


And San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, Seattle, etc. The international arrivals will overwhelm customs and immigration at some of the smaller stations. Two A380's landed at OAK.


----------



## saxman

I've seen MSP, PHX, or some just turned around. I'm sure SFO will be closed for the remainder of the day unless they open a short runway. Sounds like most survived though, if not all!


----------



## the_traveler

I'm surprised OAK could handle 380's! At least Amtrak never comes in too low! I hope for the best for all involved.


----------



## George Harris

From seen on TV: Yes, came in low and about 50 feet right of centerline. There is a trail of debris beginning at the edge of the water which suggests that the plane was oriented nose high and the tail hit at or before the edge of the land. A set of broken off landing gear can be seen in the runway. The plane appears to have slid on its belly, ending up off the left side of the runway only a few hundred feet in from the beginning of the runway. Latest reports are 2 dead, 61 injured. The fire appears to have not done much if anything before the plane came to a stop. In the picture of people evacuating, the body appears whole with smoke rising from the far side. Picture is of people evacuating from the left side of the plane. Whether all from that side or not was not said.

The runway was 28L, which means landing in a direction of 280 degrees, in other words, 10 degrees north of due west. Given that the airport is on the west side of San Francisco Bay, that is an approach over the bay aimed toward the peninsula.


----------



## George Harris

PRR 60 said:


> Asiana Flight 214, B777-200, Seoul to San Francisco, crashed on landing Runway 28R. Tail #HL7742.
> FlightAware
> 
> Some reports say most or all passengers escaped. Lets hope those reports are correct.


From aerial views, that was Runway 28L. Probably a mis report. One of the people initially interviewed described the plane as rolling over or flipping over, which obviously did not happen. Typically initial news reports are loaded with errors.

News of this seems to have driven out reportage of a train derailment in Canada with multiple tank car fires. (Where has the news got on this "tanker" car kick?)


----------



## PRR 60

George Harris said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asiana Flight 214, B777-200, Seoul to San Francisco, crashed on landing Runway 28R. Tail #HL7742.
> FlightAware
> 
> Some reports say most or all passengers escaped. Lets hope those reports are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> From aerial views, that was Runway 28L. Probably a mis report. One of the people initially interviewed described the plane as rolling over or flipping over, which obviously did not happen. Typically initial news reports are loaded with errors.
> 
> News of this seems to have driven out reportage of a train derailment in Canada with multiple tank car fires. (Where has the news got on this "tanker" car kick?)
Click to expand...

You're correct. It was 28L.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Latest reports state 2 dead, at least 73 injured. CBS News reports: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57592529/plane-crash-at-san-francisco-airport/.

Aircraft is a Boeing 777-28E/ER, registration HL7742.


----------



## saxman

It was definitely 28L. SFO uses the 28's for landing almost all the time and uses the 1's for takeoff. It's a weird day when the others are used. Not trying to speculate here, but SFO had been working on the 28's and both electronic glideslope are out of service. This sends radio signals to the cockpit and tells the crew if they are too high or low. There are also visual lighting glidepath indicators and from when I landed at SFO on 28L just last Monday, that one was not operational either. I know for sure that the glide slope was still not on today, and probably the visual indicators were off as well. However, I do remember the visuals for 28R were on, on Monday.


----------



## jis

Per news briefing at 8pm EDT.... 2 confirmed fatalities. Only one person unaccounted for. The rest are all accounted for and alive. 123 uninjured.

SFO has opened the 1/19-L/R runways for restoration of limited service. United hopes to get at least 3/4th of its red eye bank out.

Yes indeed ILS and glide slope was out of service on the 28s.

This is the aircraft involved:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Asiana-Airlines/Boeing-777-28E-ER/2258365/&sid=d244b4192e215fd75c08ebc4f0ced044

There are reports now that there was an United 747 (UA 885 to KIX) waiting for clearance to take position on Runway 28R for takeoff, after a Skywest plane landed on 28R, who saw the entire saga unfold right in front of them. They were held in the plane for 3 hours before a safe way was found to get the plane back to the terminal. The Skywest plane saw the crash, declared a go around and went to 3000' per Tower instructions, and was presumably diverted somewhere else. So there should be a considerable amount of expert eyewitness information about what transpired.

According to 10:45pm EDT news conference all aboard have been accounted for. Fatalities stand at 2. Many still critical.


----------



## railiner

Terrible news. Until this accident, the B777 had a stellar safety record. See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57592543/boeing-777-has-strong-safety-record-experts-say/

My thoughts go to the victims, but I hope the aircraft is exonerated for this accident as well....


----------



## amtrakwolverine

This is similar to the British airways flight that crashed short do to ice blocking fuel to the engines on landing. That issue was supposedly fixed in 2009. It only affected 777_200s with rolls Royce engines though.


----------



## PRR 60

The ATC recording indicates calm, professional handling by both the controllers and the aircraft crews, including OZ214. Impressive.


----------



## jis

First, we will of course not know what really happened until NTSB figures it out. So caution.... speculation alert on the stuff below....

Having said that.... AFAICT the similarities between the BA LHR short landing and this one is that both were short landings. Apparently the similarities end there.

This one was a Pratt and Whitney powered aircraft, the BA one was Rolls-Royce powered. All eyewitness reports so far say that the engines were spooled up to near full power near the end.

On airliners.net someone plotted the altitude/speed and altitude/distance from threshold diagrams for this and the two previous 777 landings on the same runway that day using data recovered from Flightaware. The data at these altitudes is less than fully reliable. But the interesting thing to observe in that data is that the profile flown by this aircraft was distinctly different from the two normal 777 landings that preceded it. This one came in very high until very late in the approach, and then rapidly lost altitude never to recover from the quick altitude loss. Speculation is that an attempt was made to return to normal glide path or even start a go around too late in the game. In the process a very low altitude stall ensued and there was not enough room to recover from that. Apparently it was down to 109 Kt, and in general a 777 will not continue to be airborne at that speed, and much less so with a nose up attitude. Normal landing speed is 120kt and above.

It appears that more than one passenger were aware that they were coming in too low and too slow, since they commented on that.

But as I said, we will have to wait and see what comes out of the FDR, which has been recovered by the NTSB.

What amazes me is how intact the plane was after the tremendous force of the tail and body strike on the sea wall. The other thing that amazes me is the number of people who survived in spite of apparently falling out the rear end through the breached pressure bulkhead. UA 885 reported seeng several people lying on the runway moving, that need help.The only two fatalities are among those apparently.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

the_traveler said:


> I'm surprised OAK could handle 380's!


As I understand it most of the problems with handling a scheduled A380 have to do with things like taxiway spacing, jetway arrangement, and bridge loading considerations. Simply clearing the area and landing an A380 as part of an irregular operations diversion is should not be much of an issue.



railiner said:


> Terrible news. Until this accident, the B777 had a stellar safety record. See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57592543/boeing-777-has-strong-safety-record-experts-say/ My thoughts go to the victims, but I hope the aircraft is exonerated for this accident as well....


The B777 still has a stellar safety record despite this event. Considering how many millions of people have flown on a B777 safely and without incident it would take multiple major disasters to catch up to the safety records of many other large passenger aircraft. Not to mention we don't yet know if the aircraft itself played any role in this disaster. It's true that the Concorde safety record went from great to terrible in a single crash, but that was because there were relatively few passengers who had flown on a tiny number of specialized aircraft before a single tragic event that resulted in the loss of everyone on board.


----------



## PRR 60

When I fly out to SFO I always marvel at the approach to the 28's with water, water, water, and then at the last moment, land and runway. The next time, I'll have a little different thought about that.


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> When I fly out to SFO I always marvel at the approach to the 28's with water, water, water, and then at the last moment, land and runway. The next time, I'll have a little different thought about that.


Indeed! Though Logan has a bit of that too.

In some sense the conditions obtained on this day are unusual.

In order to reduce the chances of this sort of a disaster SFO is in the process of moving the landing point further in from the runway threshold. In order to achieve that both ILS and PAPI have to be moved to the new landing point. Apparently both were not in operation on the 28s on this day as they are moved. Apparently the reason for this day was good weather, low winds and excellent VFR conditions. So the landings on the 28s were pure visual with no glide slope aid of any kind. This is quite unusual, but also this is not something that should cause a trained pilot to undershoot.

OTOH, notwithstanding all that, when on Channel 9 I hear no ILS glide slope and no PAPI I do take note. Normally such things happen more often in places like India. but still it is not unheard of even at large airports in the US from time to time. Of course at small airports well.... I am sure saxman can give a much more informed view of what is or is not available in the way of landing aids.

BTW, kudos to how well the Tower and the other aircraft in the area handled the emergency by keeping the channel clear and using it to communicate only the absolute essential. I guess the go arounds already knew the other frequency to go to, since they were never heard from again.

A few things that I always do when flying are:

(a) Keep my shoes on through takeoffs and landings, just as a matter of habit. Bascially whenever all electronic equipment is switched off, my shoes are on.

(b) Keep at least one form of identity document on my body (i.e. in a pocket in my clothing)

© On international trips, keep my Passport on my body, in a document bag or in a pocket.

I know I 'll probably never need them. but if I do they will come in handy.

Speaking of landing approaches, then again there always was Kai Tak Checkerboard Approach!


----------



## Bob Dylan

:hi: Excellent post as always jis and of course saxman is an airline pilot so great point about his expertise! Any Airport, anywhere in the World,(I always worried about San Francisco, Logan and JFK !) that has Over Water Approaches and Takeoffs has always made me apprehensive! (I am a Million Mile Flyer and a Private Pilot) As the Flight Crews announce, your seat Cushion can be your Flotation Device! Glad I never had to use it! :excl: :excl: :excl:

Maybe today's Airline Pilots rely too much on Technology instead of just Flying the Plane! The old Pilot in Command Rule about Ultimate Responsibility for the Safe Operation of the Plane is still in force as far as i know!


----------



## railiner

I would actually feel much safer coming in over water while landing then over land with a myriad source of obstacles, especially in a "zero-zero" approach.....


----------



## DET63

San Francisco Plane Crash: 2 Killed in Asiana Crash Were Teenage Girls on School Trip from China



> By CHRISTINA NG (@ChristinaNg27) , MATT HOSFORD (@ABCaviation) , ALEXIS SHAW(@ashaw109) and LEEZEL TANGLAO (@leezeltanglao)
> July 7, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> The two Asiana Airlines passengers who died in this weekend's fiery crash landing were identified as 16-year-old female students from China, according to officials and Chinese media reports.
> 
> Wang Linjia and Ye Mengyuan were part of a student group from Jiangshan Middle School in China's eastern Zhejiang province, according to Chinese media reports.
> 
> In a statement, China's Ministry of Education said at least 70 teachers and students from China were traveling to the U.S. to take part in a summer program.
> 
> Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was carrying more than 300 people when it crashed Saturday at San Francisco International Airport, had its tail torn off, and burst into flames.
> 
> The crash of the Boeing 777 injured 181 people. The injured were being cared for at several hospitals and at least 22 were in critical condition.


----------



## Ryan

Great tips, Jishnu.

I noticed the painted over and moved runway parkings on the news coverage last night - that explains why!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Just turned on CNN and they NTSB just gave a report. Unfortunately CC is not working on CNN (it is on the other channels).

They said the pilots tried to go around 1.5 seconds before impact.

There's a video from across the bay showing the plane coming in.


----------



## jis

From the NTSB report so far, my speculation appears to be on the mark so far.

Target speed was 137kt, stck shaker 4 sec before impact at below 120kt.

Sounds suspiciously like LOSA (loss of situational awareness), since one should never be so so far off target speed below 500'!

PIC was the senior captain. Advise to increase speed came from the junior guy, 7 secs before impact according to the CVR, but clearly way too late. Attempt to go around was started 1.5 sec before impact.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Any word of perhaps the captain had a medical issue as they were coming in? Though the co-pilot should not have waited till it was too late to try to abort.


----------



## GG-1

jimhudson said:


> Maybe today's Airline Pilots rely too much on Technology instead of just Flying the Plane! The old Pilot in Command Rule about Ultimate Responsibility for the Safe Operation of the Plane is still in force as far as i know!


Aloha

When I worked on the TV Movie "Miracle Landing", about the Aloha Airline plane that lost 20 feet of its roof. I remember something that both the pilot and co-pilot said. That what save them and the plane was the frequency of take off and landings they do in the same plane made possible to feel the plane performance. Helping them to bring the damaged plane down safely.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AmtrakBlue said:


> Any word of perhaps the captain had a medical issue as they were coming in? Though the co-pilot should not have waited till it was too late to try to abort.


The probability of a sudden and serious medical complication occurring right at this specific moment of the flight is extremely small. Pilots as a group are generally healthy and young (below the age of 65) as a requirement for continued employment, so sudden loss of cognition or coordination during the most critical moments of the flight would be rather rare indeed. However, your second comment brings up an interesting (but still premature) point. It is understood that some cultures place an extreme amount of trust in senior positions such that even fear of imminent harm or death may not be enough of a motivation to openly criticize or otherwise contradict the decision (or lack of decision) of those above your pay grade. We're still far too early in the investigation to include or exclude much of anything, but it's something to look for in future reports.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

I agree that it's highly unlikely there was a medical emergency, but it shouldn't be discounted (not saying you, DA, are discounting it). I think we would have heard something by now if it had been the case.

Your analysis of why the co-pilot may have been slow to react is certainly a possibility. Too bad that is the way it is in some cultures.


----------



## leemell

AmtrakBlue said:


> Any word of perhaps the captain had a medical issue as they were coming in? Though the co-pilot should not have waited till it was too late to try to abort.


The failure intervene by a flight deck officer of lesser rank is a very familiar problem in the airline world. It has been addressed by ASRS among others. It is speculated to be worse in Asian operations due to cultural differences. The stall and crash on take off in Alaska by a freighter is one example sited. Crew Resource Management is a tool to manage this.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

According to a update from CNN this was the pilots first time landing a 777 at sfo and only had 43 hours in the 777. He has landed at sfo before but never before with this aircraft.


----------



## jis

amtrakwolverine said:


> According to a update from CNN this was the pilots first time landing a 777 at sfo and only had 43 hours in the 777. He has landed at sfo before but never before with this aircraft.


Yep. He had over 1000 hours on 747s, but only 43 on 777.
What puzzles me is why no one else in the cockpit intervened. Basically the entire approach looked pretty unstable, and the sink rate should have been addressed way above 1000'. Oh well, got to wait for the NTSB report.


----------



## JayPea

It appears, at least according to some reports, that one of the young girls who was killed died not as a result of the crash but as a result of being run over by an emergency vehicle.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AmtrakBlue said:


> Your analysis of why the co-pilot may have been slow to react is certainly a possibility. Too bad that is the way it is in some cultures.


It's a knife that cuts both ways and is by no means limited to airline captains and first officers. In some Asian cultures teachers are so revered by parents that they are able to act abusive toward their students. Meanwhile, in some parts of the the US the students are so revered by their parents that they are able to act abusive toward their teachers. Even though these may be polar opposite situations they would both benefit from a more moderate approach.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Devil's Advocate said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analysis of why the co-pilot may have been slow to react is certainly a possibility. Too bad that is the way it is in some cultures.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a knife that cuts both ways and is by no means limited to airline captains and first officers. In some Asian cultures teachers are so revered by parents that they are able to act abusive toward their students. Meanwhile, in some parts of the the US the students are so revered by their parents that they are able to act abusive toward their teachers. Even though these may be polar opposite situations they would both benefit from a more moderate approach.
Click to expand...

I agree.


----------



## stntylr

I once flew on an Asiana Air flight from Seoul to Teagu, South Korea.

The scariest landing I've ever done was in a C-130 in Iraq. Those combat landings seem to defy the laws of nature.


----------



## SarahZ

PRR 60 said:


> When I fly out to SFO I always marvel at the approach to the 28's with water, water, water, and then at the last moment, land and runway. The next time, I'll have a little different thought about that.


I filmed our landing during our trip a few weeks ago because I marveled at how close we were to the water on the approach and landing. Like railiner said, though, I still feel safer coming in over water as opposed to land.

My boyfriend had JUST started to get sort of okay with the idea of flying more (he has a phobia) since the flights to/from SFO were so smooth with good landings, but this news has sent him full-on backwards. He's never going to be okay with landing at SFO again.

I feel horrible for the crew, passengers, and everyone else involved. Scary stuff. What really got me were the images of people coming off the plane with bags. If there's smoke, I'm hauling booty off that plane. I can replace my clothes and toiletries. Part of me wonders if more people would have been okay if people hadn't been digging bags out of the overheads instead of evacuating, causing exit delays. :angry:


----------



## AmtrakBlue

I agree, Sorcha, about the luggage. I wondered too how much delay was caused by those getting their luggage.

I know it will be very hard to convince your bf that it's still safe to fly, even into SFO, but maybe you can compile data about how many planes fly into SFO every hour, day, week, month, year. And then point out, 1 commercial plane crashed and it was due to pilot error. To compensate for "pilot error", tell him how many planes land all over the country, heck, world, every day w/o incident.


----------



## jis

Sorcha said:


> I feel horrible for the crew, passengers, and everyone else involved. Scary stuff. What really got me were the images of people coming off the plane with bags. If there's smoke, I'm hauling booty off that plane. I can replace my clothes and toiletries. Part of me wonders if more people would have been okay if people hadn't been digging bags out of the overheads instead of evacuating, causing exit delays. :angry:


You're absolutely right. The people dragging their hand baggage out is quite inexcusable behavior.
Fortunately, thanks to the survivable cabins initiative a lot of fire retardant material is used in the cabin and it is required to be able to clear the cabin with half the exits available in 90 secs. So in spite of this transgression there was plenty of time to get everyone out including those that were non-ambulatory, i.e. had to physically carried out.

I find it absolutely astounding that the fuselage survived mostly in one piece in spite of being whacked first in the tail at around 100mph, and then going for a partial toss as the plane cartwheeled on its right wing. Also astounding is the fact that the main body of the wind did not lose integrity through these tremendous forces that got applied to it. It is really quite amazing what they do in engineering such marvels, while staying within strict weight limits.


----------



## SarahZ

AmtrakBlue said:


> I agree, Sorcha, about the luggage. I wondered too how much delay was caused by those getting their luggage.
> I know it will be very hard to convince your bf that it's still safe to fly, even into SFO, but maybe you can compile data about how many planes fly into SFO every hour, day, week, month, year. And then point out, 1 commercial plane crashed and it was due to pilot error. To compensate for "pilot error", tell him how many planes land all over the country, heck, world, every day w/o incident.


He knows all of that. He's quite logical and understands the statistics.  It's a true phobia, though, so the phobia takes over and tells him that there's still a _chance_ something will happen and he'll be part of that fraction of a percent. For him, it's mostly a control issue. He actually wanted to be a pilot when he was young and would prefer to be the one flying, but even then, he said that if something goes wrong, it's not like you can pull over or stop like you can with a car or train. We've been over the rigorous safety checks and so on, but again, it's a phobia, which isn't based in rational thought.

He is trying to do better. The fact he got on a plane at all speaks volumes. I was so concerned for him during each landing, though, that I don't know that I'll ask him to do that again. Even with medication and alcohol, he was so nervous he snapped at me for 24 hours before each flight, and he was so shaky and breathing so raggedly during our landing at ORD that the passenger on the other side of him looked concerned (I had to gesture that he was ok and it was just nerves, not a seizure).

On the other hand, he was fine once we were in the air, so I'd had hopes that he might be willing to fly again in another year. With this recent accident, though, I think we're back at square one. You should have seen his face when he saw the pictures. He completely shut down and went blank.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Sorcha: How about Hypnosis or some Baileys in his Coffee?? As a Million Mile Flyer and Private Pilot, I've been on many a trip with First Timers and White Knuckle Flyers and do understand that it is a Serious Phobia not to be made light of, but if hes OK once on the Plane, sounds like you have a Winner that Despite his Phobia wants to Travel with You which is Cool! 

He probably knows this but does he have the same Phobia about Ground Transportation where we Kill 50,000 a year in Vehicle Accidents and Maim Many, Many More???


----------



## jis

Now here are a few heart warming articles about the evacuation and the heroism of the cabin crew.....

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130708_ap_ab83a497d06c40ecb14a38fd348cdcc6.html?c=r

http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2013/07/07/the-story-behind-a-san-francisco-crash-survivors-photo/?mod=e2fb


----------



## SarahZ

jimhudson said:


> Sorcha: How about Hypnosis or some Baileys in his Coffee?? As a Million Mile Flyer and Private Pilot, I've been on many a trip with First Timers and White Knuckle Flyers and do understand that it is a Serious Phobia not to be made light of, but if hes OK once on the Plane, sounds like you have a Winner that Despite his Phobia wants to Travel with You which is Cool!
> He probably knows this but does he have the same Phobia about Ground Transportation where we Kill 50,000 a year in Vehicle Accidents and Maim Many, Many More???


He took Xanax before the first flight and barely felt the effects, even though he took the maximum dosage. A couple hours into the flight, he had a shot of Jack Daniels and felt much better. He actually opened my window to look out at the salt flats in Utah while I was using the restroom. I was shocked; he hates heights.  Then he fell asleep on my shoulder until we started descending, at which point he got shaky again, but it wasn't bad. I just whispered to him that we'd landed, now we're taxiing, now we're coming up to the jetway, etc while rubbing his back (he had his head in his hands).

Since the Xanax didn't work, he skipped it for the return flight and had four shots of Jager at the airport, about 30 minutes before boarding. He was in a much better mood (not buzzed or drunk, just relaxed) and even joked with me a bit on the way to our seats. Takeoff was iffy, but he let me hold his hand that time, and he was fine up in the air once we cleared the fog bank (it was a tiiiiiny bit turbulent). I talked him through that too. We forgot to order him more alcohol while in-flight, though, which I think accounts for his (silent) panic attack during the landing at O'Hare. That really scared me; I've never seen him that panicked and shaky. I felt awful for him. He said it felt like the plane was shaking and then sliding all over on the ground, but it was one of the smoothest landings I've ever experienced. I told him that since he'd closed his eyes, he was feeling everything instead of seeing it. We came in perfectly level, and I barely felt the wheels touch the ground.

I think he might fly again, now that we know how to handle it (and how much to drink  ) He won't be _happy_ about it, but he realizes it's a necessary evil if we want to see my family for Christmas or visit his family in Florida once we move to CA. He refuses to see a doctor and doesn't believe in hypnosis. I don't really mind that he'd rather use Dr. Jack Daniels and Professor Jager to help him through, as long as he isn't too drunk to get on the plane. Whatever keeps him breathing normally is fine by me.

I LOVE flying, so it was really sad to see him so freaked out about it. I'm one of those people who's super calm about it. They could be duct-taping the wing on the plane, and I'd just be like, "Meh, whatever. Hope we aren't delayed."


----------



## AmtrakBlue

My favorite parts of flying are the take off and landing. I get bored once up in the air, especially if there's nothing to really see down below. I do take reading material with me, but generally have my nose glued to the glass.


----------



## MrFSS

AmtrakBlue said:


> My favorite parts of flying are the take off and landing. I get bored once up in the air, especially if there's nothing to really see down below. I do take reading material with me, but generally have my nose glued to the glass.


I love flying, take off, landing and when it is clear outside.

Flight from SAN to DTW.


----------



## George Harris

amtrakwolverine said:


> According to a update from CNN this was the pilots first time landing a 777 at sfo and only had 43 hours in the 777. He has landed at sfo before but never before with this aircraft.


I think way way too much is being made of this both the small number of hours in the 777 and the first landing at SFO in one. Aside from the fact that he had landed at SFO several (many? ) times before in a 747, I would suspect that he had done this several times in a simulator set up as a 777 before doing it this time in reality.

At this point why they waited so late to try to recover air speed is inexplicible to me. It is not like they were just 1 or 2 knots slow, they were way off. Also, if you are in a stall, nose high is the thing you absolutely don't want to do.

Could well be that the NTSB will find that it was a convegence of several issues, any of which would have been bad news, but it took the combination to cause a true disaster. The ICE disaster at Eschede, Germany is an outstanding example of this. While removal of one condition (the root cause) would have prevented the crash entirely, it took all of them in combination to turn a serious mechanical failure into at minor derailment and that into a major derailment and that into a major loss of life disaster.

As others have noted, the major portion of the aircraft body maintaining its integrity prevented a crash resulting primarily in infuries ranging from minor to serious into one with major loss of life.

Between the NTSB and the legal vultures we will learn much about what went wrong over the next year or so. As a regular reader of their railroad accident reports, I have great faith in the NTSB's ability to do an exhaustive analysis of all factors involved.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Sorcha said:


> I'm one of those people who's super calm about it. They could be duct-taping the wing on the plane, and I'd just be like, "Meh, whatever. Hope we aren't delayed."


At this point I'm generally the same way. I've been through multiple flights where the folks around me were suffering panic attacks and/or praying but I almost never feel unsafe in the air. Mainly because I know that statistics are on my side. I've flown across huge oceans and through storms and fog and snow. I've landed at airports like LGA, JFK, BOS, and SFO without issue. I never really thought about whether those flights were more or less safe than any other. That's not to say I've never had an anxiety attack in my life, but it's rare and doesn't last long before the logical side of my brain resumes control.



Sorcha said:


> He refuses to see a doctor...


^ I'm sympathetic to everything you wrote except this.


----------



## SarahZ

DA - I know. It's one of the biggest battles in our relationship. I've pretty much given up at this point since he's an adult and can make his own stupid decisions.


----------



## jis

George Harris said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a update from CNN this was the pilots first time landing a 777 at sfo and only had 43 hours in the 777. He has landed at sfo before but never before with this aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> I think way way too much is being made of this both the small number of hours in the 777 and the first landing at SFO in one. Aside from the fact that he had landed at SFO several (many? ) times before in a 747, I would suspect that he had done this several times in a simulator set up as a 777 before doing it this time in reality.
Click to expand...

I agree. "Sully" Sullenberger was on a show earlier today, and his advice was exactly that. He does not consider this a big issue. He pointed out that his FO on the day he ditched in the Hudson had rather small amount of experience on that aircraft class. But he had vast experience in general and was not a problem at all.


----------



## SarahZ

AmtrakBlue said:


> My favorite parts of flying are the take off and landing. I get bored once up in the air, especially if there's nothing to really see down below. I do take reading material with me, but generally have my nose glued to the glass.


Same here. I LOVE takeoff and landing. I think I like takeoff more since you can feel the plane picking up speed, and then everything zooms by your window, and then there's that slight feeling of weightlessness as you take off. 

Landing is fun, though, since the flaps open and the plane starts shaking a little bit as it tries to slow down and stop, and you're sort of planted against your seat belt, like the end of a roller coaster.  These last two flights weren't like that, though, maybe because SFO and ORD have long runways? Anyway, I was sort of bummed but secretly glad since a landing like that would have made him stop breathing.


----------



## jis

There is nothing like a good solid takeoff in a 757 from an airport like San Diego or Santa Ana.  Likewise, nothing like a quick takeoff and climb straight to 40,000' on a 787 out of any airport. But it is more fun at places like Houston with its long curving takeoff vector.

One of the most incredible landing that I have experienced in a while was on my recent return from Tel Aviv to Newark. Aircraft was 777-200ER, every seat filled to the gills. The landing was so smooth that some didn't realize we had landed and started getting worried that we were slowing down so much! Made sure to mention it to the Captain on my way out. Had experienced something similar last December in Delhi, same type of aircraft, same airline.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Last year I flew from DEN to PVU (Provo, UT), when Frontier was still flying into PVU (didn't last long). We were in a "small" plane (99 passengers) and flew "low", then when we came over the mountain just east of Provo, I could see Provo and the airport. We flew past the airport to the south, over the lake (not Salt Lake), around a "small" mountain, back over the lake to approach from the north. It was so cool to be able to see the airport as we approached.

Frontier currently has flights out of our small airport, but I don't have any excuse to fly it out. And my financial situation is one where I need an excuse to spend the money. 

My flight home was from SLC and that was a neat flight too. After take off to the south, we circled the airport and as we turned back east, I saw a plane (pretty sure a commercial jet) going in for a landing below us. Then during the flight, for the first time, I saw another commerical jet in the air ahead of us (starboard side). Then I saw a private plane either flying or going in for a landing at a small airport. Then as we were landing at BWI, I saw the BWI Amtrak station, where I would be catching a train home.

Dummy me didn't have my camera out on the trip from SLC to BWI. I was thinking I had put it in the bag in the overhead and it was in my knapsack at my feet. Grrr.


----------



## SarahZ

I loved flying out of LAX in 2006. The plane took off over the water and then did a slow turn. We flew parallel to the shore for a few minutes before turning east and heading back over the city. The sun had just set, so everything was sparkling/twilight.


----------



## leemell

Worse landing I was ever on was back in the 60's in a PSA Electra landing at San Diego. The usual approach is bad enough there (100' AGL down a hill) but this was the cowboy days with all kinds of "events". In this particular case the pilot (former military as were most PSA pilots) was attempting to turn off at the first taxiway, hence we slammed on the runway and then made a hard turn off. The slam was so hard most of the overhead bins opened. I had a USAF bird Colonel pilot for a seatmate and even he was aghast at that one. BTW, we did make the taxiway and were the "winners".


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> There is nothing like a good solid takeoff in a 757 from an airport like San Diego or Santa Ana. Likewise, nothing like a quick takeoff and climb straight to 40,000' on a 787 out of any airport. But it is more fun at places like Houston with its long curving takeoff vector.


The only takeoff that ever struck me as truly unusual was an early morning flight on a very lightly loaded NW DC-9 ex-SAT that felt like it was being piloted by a former Air Force hotshot. Much more interesting than any 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, or 777 takeoff I've experienced.


----------



## JayPea

Now that we're all coming out of the closet and admitting we enjoy flying here on an Amtrak forum  I'll chime in too. I love taking off, especially when the plane is speeding along the runway just prior to taking off. Sorcha, I too have taken off from LAX and enjoyed flying over the water and circling to the north enroute to Spokane. I began flying at the age of seven and have never had any problems with anxiety. I've never been to San Francisco but did land at Oakland one time. The Oakland airport is located right on the bay and the approach to the airport is right over the water. Very interesting! I also remember circling over Lake Michigan one winter prior to landing at O'Hare. I still can see the big chunks of ice floating on the lake. And it was neat, at least for me, flying from Denver to Ft. Lauderdale last year when we flew over the Gulf of Mexico. When I saw the shoreline from the plane's window, it looked so much like a topographic map, I wondered where the boundary lines between the states were. :lol:


----------



## The Davy Crockett

From Politico:



> The Asiana Airlines jet was traveling 39 miles per hour below the target speed of 158 mph just a few seconds before it crashed at San Francisco International Airport, NTSB Chairwoman Debbie Hersman told reporters Monday.
> 
> Hersman said the plane was traveling at 103 knots - or 118 mph - just three seconds before impact. It had sped up slightly to 106 knots at the time of impact, based on an initial review of flight data.


----------



## chakk

For those who might fear landing at San Francisco airport, this accident was the first in more than 50 years at SFO in which someone died. Even the JAL 747 that landed short of the runway into San Francisco Bay in 1968 was able to evacuate 300-plus passengers with no fatalities. I don't have the exact probabilities, but I bet the odds are greater of you being killed driving to your office than landing on an airplane at SFO during the past 50 years.

Local TV news reports today are crediting many first responders for helping to remove disabled passengers from the plane in the minutes immediately after it came to rest and started to burn. At least two members of the SFPD ran up one of the deployed emergency chutes into the plane with no "safety breathing apparatus" to free passengers trapped in their seats inside the plane, and they threw their utility knives to crew members to use to cut some other trapped passengers out of their seat belts.


----------



## DET63

I believe that, on a per-mile basis, one of the most dangerous means of travel is ... walking.

On a per-trip basis, by far the most dangerous means of travel is by motorcycle "(536.6 per 100 million person-trips), followed by other vehicle occupants (28.4 per 100 million person-trips)."


----------



## saxman

Geeze I leave for a day and this thread is already 3 pages!

Lets see going back a few pages: Many of the small airports even have ILS approaches to at least one runway. I'm talking places like Bemidji, International Falls. San Diego does not have an ILS, but thats because a big parking garage is in the way of the normal glideslope. Note that just because an airport doesn't have an ILS doesn't mean it doesn't have other types of instrument approaches. An ILS is just one type that provides both lateral AND vertical guidance to a runway and typically and aircraft can get to 200 feet above the runway before they must go missed or have the runway in sight to land. Just about every runway, large and small, has at least a GPS type approach, but many of those only provide lateral guidance to the runway. Those minimums are much higher than 200 feet, obviously because you don't have the vertical guidance.

All that said, both GS of the ILS to 28 were out. The reason, they've been moving it up the runway by about 300 feet. I heard its so they don't have to have as much maintenance work of the approach lighting system, which are all out on peirs in the bay. Seeing how the GS's were out, almost all aircraft has the capability of setting up a GPS glideslope to guide a pilot to the runway. Whether the Asiana pilots had set this up, who knows?

Nose high attitude. That's not nessicarily a pilot input, but a natural tendancy of the aircraft to pitch up as it slows. It wants to maintain the same amount of lift, and angle of attack, lift, and airspeed, all have a direct relationship.

Landing? It's actually way easier to land a heavy aircraft. A heavy aircraft is more stable and I guess the pilot is more use to a full plane rather than an empty one, so the power out and flare is done at slightly different times. I always tell folks that landing is really more an art than science. Every condition is different. Long runway, light winds; sure we'll try and make the landing "pretty." Strong crosswind, snowy or short runway? You better believe I'm going to pound that thing on the ground as soon as possible. I'm sorry if it bounces you around a little, but I want as much weight on the wheels as I can, to get the aircraft stopped. The sooner the touchdown, the sooner you stop. Then there's those times, that we just pound it on hard, no matter what  . Like I said...it's a art.


----------



## railiner

George Harris said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a update from CNN this was the pilots first time landing a 777 at sfo and only had 43 hours in the 777. He has landed at sfo before but never before with this aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> I think way way too much is being made of this both the small number of hours in the 777 and the first landing at SFO in one. Aside from the fact that he had landed at SFO several (many? ) times before in a 747, I would suspect that he had done this several times in a simulator set up as a 777 before doing it this time in reality.
> 
> At this point why they waited so late to try to recover air speed is inexplicible to me. It is not like they were just 1 or 2 knots slow, they were way off. Also, if you are in a stall, nose high is the thing you absolutely don't want to do.
> 
> Could well be that the NTSB will find that it was a convegence of several issues, any of which would have been bad news, but it took the combination to cause a true disaster. The ICE disaster at Eschede, Germany is an outstanding example of this. While removal of one condition (the root cause) would have prevented the crash entirely, it took all of them in combination to turn a serious mechanical failure into at minor derailment and that into a major derailment and that into a major loss of life disaster.
> 
> As others have noted, the major portion of the aircraft body maintaining its integrity prevented a crash resulting primarily in infuries ranging from minor to serious into one with major loss of life.
> 
> Between the NTSB and the legal vultures we will learn much about what went wrong over the next year or so. As a regular reader of their railroad accident reports, I have great faith in the NTSB's ability to do an exhaustive analysis of all factors involved.
Click to expand...

A wonderful novel and subsequent movie about the workings of the early NTSB was Ernie Gann's "Fate Is The Hunter" in the early 1960.s. It illustrates very well the points made above....


----------



## railiner

JayPea said:


> Now that we're all coming out of the closet and admitting we enjoy flying here on an Amtrak forum  I'll chime in too. :lol:


Okay. I have always enjoyed flying. Some of my favorite aircraft included the Douglas Super DC-8-61, the longest airliner made until the 'Jumbo' came out. It reminded me of a train inside, and outside watching it cross over a highway on a taxiway, it really looked long with its relatively small tail. Loved those early 'Jumbo's', with their 'pubs'. Also like the DC-3. My only flight was on Provincetown & Boston's N136PB, at the time the highest-time aircraft flying in the world, on a flight from Hyannis to Logan, after riding Amtrak's "Cape Codder" from NYP. I was surprised to see a lot of oil seeping along the engine cover. When I questioned one of the pilots about it, he smiled and said that it was normal for that bird, and should only worry if the oil stopped.  When the B767 came out, I agreed with the ad promos's UAL ran that said "If you had a favorite aircraft before, this will be your new favorite". Loved the roomy 2-3-2 twin aisle configuration, with only one 'middle seat' row. But my favorite aircraft and flight of all time was in 1998, aboard British Airways G-BOAD, Concorde from LHR to JFK....what a thrill that was, flying MACH II at 60.000 feet. And all of us were offered an in-flight tour of the cockpit. That 'Speedbird' happens to be the one on display at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space museum on the Hudson.

Some other memorable flights....Landing at the old MKC 'downtown' airport at Kansas City.....coming in to LGA runway 4 with the morning sun shining on the New York skyline out the portside windows.....takeoff and landing at Jackson, Wy. in a 757 which has to 'spiral' in and out of the valley to clear the surrounding mountains....one particular 'redeye' from SFO to JFK on UAL, where the Captain left the Air Traffic Control channel on for the entire flight....listening to us being 'handed-off' from one center to another as we crossed the continent....and on the clear night being able to recognize the cities below by the light patterns, and knowing our route and approximate position based on flight time.....the red eye I boarded with a friend at Dulles...it was going from DAL to JFK, and we were the only two boarding in the wee hours. The charming Braniff stewardess did not wake up the other thru passengers with a safety briefing, but simply leaned over and whispered to us: "Are y'all familiar with the safety instructions'?.....the flight in a Rocky Mountain Airways STOL DHC-7. It took off almost like a helicopter, with an incredibly short roll.

One of my best all time experiences was my two day marathon using Mohawk Airlines "Weekend Unlimited" two day pass for $35. !

I got very familiar with the fleet of FH-227's and BAC 111's......

I could go on and on, but enough for now.......


----------



## chakk

Whether or not the ILS at SFO was working on the day that the 777 crash-landed is meaningless, in this instance. The weather was clear and nearly calm, with unlimited visibility. Any pilot worth his/her salt should have been able to make a completely safe visual approach with no runway aids at all -- just as they had been doing since flying Cessna 172s in flight school.

The plane crossed the approach lights at the end of the runway traveling at least 40 knots slower than the reference airspeed for a 777 approach. NTSB press conference spokesperson earlier in the day said that the plane dropped below the recommended glide path 85 seconds before the crash (when the pilots disabled the automatic landing assist system in their 777 and decided to manually fly the plane in), and stayed below the glidepath with engines at idle until 4 seconds before touchdown, when the stick shaker indicated a stall was imminent. By then, it was too late for the engines to spool up in time -- even if the crew had firewalled the throttles -- to save the flight.


----------



## George Harris

DET63 said:


> On a per-trip basis, by far the most dangerous means of travel is by motorcycle "(536.6 per 100 million person-trips), followed by other vehicle occupants (28.4 per 100 million person-trips)."


Exactly! Some of it is simply craziness on the part of the motorcycle rider, but plenty of these are through no fault of the motorcycle at all. I rode a motorscooter and later motorcycle all over Taiwan, but I will not ride one in the US. Difference in speed, difference in the nature of the traffic. When a high percentage of the traffic on the road is on two wheels everybody drives accordingly. There is the thought that if you drive a motorcycle you will hit the pavement at some time. The question is where, when, and how hard. There is a big difference between hitting the street at 15 to 20 mph and hitting it at 40 to 50 mph. With the first you will usually end up with some shredded clothes and an industrial strength rug burn. With the second you will be donating far more than just skin to the street.

Jis: My exciting take off and landings were into / out of the old Hong Kong airport. You could all but see what people were having for supper you went by their apartments so close.

My worst were into and out of Nam on these military charters. These were never heard of before and hope to never see them again airlines flying 707's that you suspected had been rejected from freight service flown by pilots of similar qualifications. One of those things loaded with fuel felt like it had the acceleration of a freight train and felt like it was never getting off the ground.


----------



## Anderson

Well, one could argue that taking a motorcycle in the US would constitute contributory negligence (after all, you're taking a motorcycle in the US!)...but I jest.

Mostly. In all seriousness, I've seen a good deal of antics on the part of motorcyclists (zipping through traffic when it _wasn't_ stopped, for example). I know that plenty of accidents aren't due to negligence on their part, but I've seen plenty of behavior on their part that ought to void any personal injury claims on their part.


----------



## SarahZ

Ask me how nervous I was every time they split lanes while we were in CA. I know it's legal under 35 mph (I think that's the limit), but it still scared me. I was so nervous I was going to check my blind spot and then merge just as one of them zipped through. I would have felt incredibly guilty if I'd hit someone.

The ones who ignored the law and did it at 40-65 mph _really_ freaked me out. I was so scared they were going to get hit, whether by me or someone else.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Hmmm... Moderators:

Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to:

"Zen and The Art of Landing While Wearing a Marushin 777 NX Tiger Motorcycle Helmet?"


----------



## MrFSS

The Davy Crockett said:


> Hmmm... Moderators:
> Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to:
> 
> "Zen and The Art of Landing While Wearing a Marushin 777 NX Tiger Motorcycle Helmet?"


They wander where they wander, I'm enjoying the repartee!


----------



## The Davy Crockett

MrFSS said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... Moderators:
> Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to:
> 
> "Zen and The Art of Landing While Wearing a Marushin 777 NX Tiger Motorcycle Helmet?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wander where they wander, I'm enjoying the repartee!
Click to expand...


I agree. The wandering can be interesting and enjoyable. Just in case it wasn't clear, I'm joking.  I just somtimes am amazed when a thread has more twists and turns in it than the tracks at Cass Scenic Railroad.


----------



## jis

My most memorable takeoff was in a China Southern 757 from Lhasa Gongar Airport en route to Kathmandu, Nepal, flying right over Mt. Everest. First of all this is one of very few airports where the plane is pressurized immediately after the doors close, since the interior of the plane is supposed to be maintained at something like 7,000' to 8,000'. The altitude of the airport is some 11,000' or so. And then there is the takoff. You have to climb another almost 10,000' or so (i.e. to an altitude where normally you'd be able to turn on your electronic stuff, but not on this flight, before you are above the peaks of the parallel mountain range, specially to the south.

My most memorable landing(s) unquestionably were at Hong Kong Kai Tak along the famous Checkerboard Approach.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

< Jealous of missing out on Kai Tak.

Anybody else feel the same way?

As for Kathmandu, not so much.


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> Well, one could argue that taking a motorcycle in the US would constitute contributory negligence (after all, you're taking a motorcycle in the US!)...but I jest.
> Mostly. In all seriousness, I've seen a good deal of antics on the part of motorcyclists (zipping through traffic when it _wasn't_ stopped, for example). I know that plenty of accidents aren't due to negligence on their part, but I've seen plenty of behavior on their part that ought to void any personal injury claims on their part.


That is legal in California and is called lane splitting. The Hurt Report showed that is safer for motorcyclists than staying in the center of the lane. That same report by the USC Institute Report and commissioned by the USDOT also showed that 50% of all motorcycle accidents were caused by motorists turning left in front of them.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> < Jealous of missing out on Kai Tak.
> Anybody else feel the same way?


I know one person who has experienced that one way more than I, and that is Shnghai (Dick).


> As for Kathmandu, not so much.


Kathmandu is pretty boring. It is Lhasa that is interesting. Similarly Leh in Ladakh is also interesting, and more so because of its relatively short runway.


----------



## Aaron

leemell said:


> That is legal in California and is called lane splitting. The Hurt Report showed that is safer for motorcyclists than staying in the center of the lane.


Source? (specifically, where in the Hurt report?)

It's been a while since I read through the whole thing, but I don't remember that conclusion about lane splitting in the Hurt report. Furthermore, if you google "Hurt report lane splitting", you find many people confidently stating that the Hurt report concludes that, but without being able to quote anything specific. You also find many bewildered people like myself trying to figure out where the Hurt report actually says that.

A few points:


The Hurt report only collected data in California (where lane splitting is legal), so would have a hard time contrasting that data to other locations where lane splitting is not legal.
The Hurt report seems only to suggest that lane splitting is not a significant factor in accidents in their data. I have no idea if the practice was more or less widespread at the time of the study (>30 years ago), but I'd be curious if the study were repeated today (when bikes are different, drivers are different, and the other vehicles on the road are different) if they'd find any more or less data on this.
Most jurisdictions in the world that allow lane sharing don't record any information on whether it was a factor in an accident. Of those that do, it seems like accidents relating to lane sharing are a really small percentage of total motorcycle accidents.
There are a couple of analyses of data in the US contrasting California with other states and finding fewer rear end collisions in California, implying that lane sharing must be preventing some. I don't know if the analysis is sound overall, but it appears that even if true, there's no way to really see if there's an equivalent number of lane splitting accidents to offset to reduced rear end collisions.
I think whether it's safer or not is not definitively answered. As a car driver, it freaks me out to see. As a motorcyclist, I don't do it, mainly because if I were at speed it would freak me out, and if in a traffic jam it would **** people off. I represent other motorcyclists, and I want people to be happy to see motorcyclists on the road, not be angry at them.


----------



## Aaron

Sorcha said:


> Ask me how nervous I was every time they split lanes while we were in CA. I know it's legal under 35 mph (I think that's the limit), but it still scared me.


There's no specific speed where it's legal or illegal in CA. The specific statute just says "with reasonable safety", and safety has a lot to do with difference in speed. If there's a column of traffic moving at 5 mph, and a bike going between lanes at 35, I'd personally argue that that's an unsafe maneuver. In actual practice, the judgment of whether or not the move was safe would be up to the cop writing the ticket.


----------



## SarahZ

Aaron said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask me how nervous I was every time they split lanes while we were in CA. I know it's legal under 35 mph (I think that's the limit), but it still scared me.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no specific speed where it's legal or illegal in CA. The specific statute just says "with reasonable safety", and safety has a lot to do with difference in speed. If there's a column of traffic moving at 5 mph, and a bike going between lanes at 35, I'd personally argue that that's an unsafe maneuver. In actual practice, the judgment of whether or not the move was safe would be up to the cop writing the ticket.
Click to expand...

When we were there, our friend said that if traffic on the highway is moving slower than 35 mph, the motorcycles can split lanes at a safe speed (such as 10 mph in stop-and-go traffic). That's what I meant.  Sorry I didn't make that more clear.


----------



## leemell

The CHP guidelines (and should be heeded) are not to split lanes if traffic is moving more that 30 mph and the motorcyclist should not travel more that 10 mph faster than the traffic. As far as the Hurt report, I read it completely right from Hurt's site (to show you haw long ago, I WAISed it, then FTPed it to download) before the DOT edited it just after it was available and I believe my understanding of it is correct. When I was riding then, lane splitting was very prevalent, maybe even more so than now.

That is all I'll have to say on this subject as it is not trains or Amtrak.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good to see saxman's post as he is an airline pilot! When I was a Student Pilot (back in Bi-Wing Days, I'm Old! :giggle: )my Instructor stressed that you didn't want to be "Low and Slow" on Approach to Landing, which is the obvious case here! The Airplane Companies (Cessna, Piper etc.) were actually running ads that said such untrue things as "Drive 'em up and Drive 'em down!" and "If you can Drive a Car you can Fly a Plane!"  Ny old instructor (ex- USAF) also liked to say that "there's Old Pilots, and there's Bold Pilots but there's No Old Bold Pilots!"

Anderson Cooper had an interesting piece on the crash last night where they showed actual footage of the crash and a reporter rode in a 777 Simulator with an Airline Pilot while they simulated the Approach to SFO, first the way it was supposed to be done and the Landing was a Greaser! ( the desired result on every Landing!  ) The second was flown like the crashed 777 and of course they hit the Sea Wall and Crashed! All things considered, the crew and passengers on this ill fated flight were lucky that lots more serious injuries didnt occur and that more lives weren't lost! (RIP to the deceased!) Of course the NTSB Report will be the Bible on this, but it's obvious that Pilot Error, Failure to Maintain Safe Control of the Airplane, is the Cause of this Crash!

The Airline Pilot "Flying": the Simulator also pointed out most Airline Pilots like to Hand Fly the Approach to Landing in VFR (Clear Skies)Conditions to maintain Proficiency , but that the Auto Pilot can actually Land the Plane as Good as or Better than an actual Pilot!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Most Memorable Landing (ie White Knuckle Landing) Add me to the Old Hong Kong Approach List!

Takeoff: Mexico City (Benito Juarez Intl.) to Guadalajara in August with a Full Load in an Old Mexicana DC-8 on a 100 Degree Day! We Used the Whole Runway and just sort of Slowly Floated into the Air towards the Mountains that surround the Valley of Mexico! Mexicana used to pass out Free Booze to all Passengers and lots of Tequila and Cerveza was consumed during that Flight!(The landing in Guadalajara wasn't any easier, it too is surrounded by Mountains and it was still a Hot Day with a Very High Density Altitude!!)


----------



## MrFSS

You haven't experienced a landing unless you have landed at Charleston, WV. They chopped off the top of a mountain and put the airport on it. Exciting!


----------



## jis

If you have the time, I'd recommend that you listen in on the NTSB briefings. The Chair of NTSB is amazingly good at explaining things.

See http://www.c-span.org/Events/NTSB-Briefing-on-Asiana-Airline-Plane-Crash/10737440372/


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> If you have the time, I'd recommend that you listen in on the NTSB briefings. The Chair of NTSB is amazingly good at explaining things.
> See http://www.c-span.org/Events/NTSB-Briefing-on-Asiana-Airline-Plane-Crash/10737440372/


A professional with the rare gift of making the complicated understandable.


----------

