Asiana Airlines. Sorry, no link. Watching it on TV after I saw something about it on another forum.
Plane Crash (777) at SFO (7/6/13)
- Thread starter AmtrakBlue
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Trainmans daughter
OBS Chief
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.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,528
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.
FlightAware
Some reports say most or all passengers escaped. Lets hope those reports are correct.
Last edited by a moderator:
Flights being diverted to LAX.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,528
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.
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
Engineer
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
Engineer
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.
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
Engineer
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?)
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,528
You're correct. It was 28L.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
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.
Aircraft is a Boeing 777-28E/ER, registration HL7742.
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
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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....
My thoughts go to the victims, but I hope the aircraft is exonerated for this accident as well....
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
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.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,528
The ATC recording indicates calm, professional handling by both the controllers and the aircraft crews, including OZ214. Impressive.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
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.
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.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,528
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
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
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!
: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!
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!
Ryan
Court Jester
Great tips, Jishnu.
I noticed the painted over and moved runway parkings on the news coverage last night - that explains why!
I noticed the painted over and moved runway parkings on the news coverage last night - that explains why!
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.
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.
