PDA

View Full Version : Asiana Airlines Plane Crashes At San Francisco International Airport



Rogue
07-06-2013, 07:10 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/asiana-airlines-plane-cra_n_3555309.html



SAN FRANCISCO — An Asiana Airlines flight from Seoul, South Korea, crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, killing at least two people, injuring dozens of others and forcing passengers to jump down the emergency inflatable slides to safety as flames tore through the plane.More than 60 passengers were also unaccounted for, said San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White. It wasn't immediately clear where they were, but she said they weren't all presumed dead at this time.
"This is a work in progress," she said, adding the investigation has been turned over to the FBI and that terrorism has been ruled out. She said at least 48 people were initially transported from the scene to area hospitals.
The Federal Aviation Administration said Flight 214 crashed while landing before noon PDT. A video clip posted to YouTube showed smoke coming from a jet on the tarmac. Passengers could be seen jumping down the emergency slides.
Television footage showed the top of the fuselage was burned away and the entire tail was gone. One engine appeared to have broken away. Pieces of the tail were strewn about the runway. Emergency responders could be seen walking inside the burned-out wreckage.
It wasn't immediately clear what happened to the plane as it was landing, but some eyewitnesses said the aircraft seemed to lose control and that the tail may have hit the ground.
Stephanie Turner saw the plane going down and the rescue slides deploy, but returned to her hotel room before seeing any passengers get off the jet, she told ABC News. Turner said when she first saw the flight she noticed right away that the angle of its approach seemed strange.
"I mean we were sure that we had just seen a lot of people die. It was awful," she said. "And it looked like the plane had completely broken apart. There were flames and smoke just billowing."
Kate Belding was out jogging just before 11:30 a.m. on a path across the water from the airport when she noticed the plane approaching the runway in a way that "just didn't look like it was coming in quite right."
"Then all of a sudden I saw what looked like a cloud of dirt puffing up and then there was a big bang and it kind of looked like the plane maybe bounced (as it neared the ground)," she said. "I couldn't really tell what happened, but you saw the wings going up and (in) a weird angle."
"Not like it was cartwheeling," she said, but rather as though the wings were almost swaying from side to side.
Doug Yakel, a spokesman for the airport, said he did not yet know how many passengers were aboard the flight. "We also don't have any information at this time to the status of those passengers," he said at a brief news conference.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it was sending a team of investigators to San Francisco to probe the crash. NTSB spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said Saturday that NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman would head the team.
Boeing said it was preparing to provide technical assistance to the NTSB. The maker of the plane's engines, Pratt & Whitney, said it was cooperating with authorities investigating the crash.
Numerous flights headed to San Francisco were diverted to other airports. A United Airlines flight bound for San Francisco was sent to Los Angeles airport, and passengers were told the San Francisco airport would be closed for at least three hours Saturday afternoon.
Asiana is a South Korean airline, second in size to national carrier Korean Air. It has recently tried to expand its presence in the United States, and joined the Star Alliance, which is anchored in the U.S. by United Airlines.
The 777-200 is a long-range plane from Boeing. The twin-engine aircraft is one of the world's most popular long-distance planes, often used for flights of 12 hours or more, from one continent to another. The airline's website says its 777s can carry between 246 to 300 passengers.
The flight was 10 hours and 23 minutes, according to FlightAware, a flight tracking service. The aircraft is configured to seat 295 passengers, it said. The 777 is a smaller, wide-body jet that can travel long distances without refueling and is typically used for long flights over water.
The most notable accident involving a 777 occurred on Jan. 17, 2008 at Heathrow Airport in London. British Airways Flight 28 landed hard about 1,000 feet short of the runway and slid onto the start of the runway. The impact broke the 777-200's landing gear. There were 47 injuries, but no fatalities.
An investigation revealed ice pellets that had formed in the fuel were clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger, blocking fuel from reaching the plane's engines. The Rolls-Royce Trent 800 series engines that were used on the plane were then redesigned.
Bill Waldock, an expert on aviation accident investigation, said he was reminded of the Heathrow accident as he watched video of Saturday's crash. "Of course, there is no indication directly that's what happened here," he said. "That's what the investigation is going to have to find out."
The Asiana 777 "was right at the landing phase and for whatever reason the landing went wrong," said Waldock, director of the Embry-Riddle University accident investigation laboratory in Prescott, Ariz. "For whatever reason, they appeared to go low on approach and then the airplane pitched up suddenly to an extreme attitude, which could have been the pilots trying to keep it out of the ground."
The last time a large U.S. airline lost a plane in a fatal crash was an American Airlines Airbus A300 taking off from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York in 2001.
Smaller airlines have had crashes since then. The last fatal U.S. crash was a Continental Express flight operated by Colgan Air, which crashed into a house near Buffalo, N.Y. on Feb. 12, 2009. The crash killed all 49 people on board and one man in a house.
Flying remains one of the safest forms of transportation: There are about two deaths worldwide for every 100 million passengers on commercial flights, according to an Associated Press analysis of government accident data.
Just a decade ago, passengers were 10 times as likely to die when flying on an American plane. The risk of death was even greater during the start of the jet age, with 1,696 people dying – 133 out of every 100 million passengers – from 1962 to 1971. The figures exclude acts of terrorism.
Asia remains one of the fastest-growing regions for aviation in the world. Even with slowing economies in Japan and China, airlines there saw 3.7 percent more passengers than a year ago, according to the International Air Transport Association.
Finding enough experienced pilots to meet a growing number of flights is becoming a problem. A 2012 report by aircraft manufacturer Boeing said the industry would need 460,000 new commercial airline pilots in the next two decades – with 185,000 of them needed in Asia alone.
"The Asia-Pacific region continues to present the largest projected growth in pilot demand," the report said.

Lincoln
07-06-2013, 07:11 PM
Time to ban planes

Wild Cobra
07-07-2013, 02:28 AM
There were better stories than that early on.

http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2013/07/06/sfo/large.jpg (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/07/boeing-777-crash-landed-san-francisco/66891/)


Well before the OP post:


Update, 4:12 p.m.: According to two LA Times reporters and one Fox reporter, there were no fatalities among the 291 passengers and 12 crew. (That's an updated number, for the record.) One person was critically injured and airlifted to a local hospital but, for the most part, everyone seems OK. We'll have updated injury reports when the numbers are confirmed.



Update, 9:13 p.m.: Police officials gave a short briefing to reporters about an hour ago wherein they ruled out terrorism and said they were still investigating what caused the crash. The latest numbers have two people dead, 181 people taken to the hospital, and one still unaccounted for.

CubanSucks
07-07-2013, 04:05 AM
Helluva thread

ErnestLynch
07-08-2013, 01:25 AM
The ILS system was out that day. And though it was a clear day, 99% of the time they use the ILS even on clear days because it flies a perfect approach and is less fatiquing on pilots. You kick out the auto-pilot on the final 1/2 mile and take it in. The speed is set for you, power, the rate of descent, everything. It is flying the perfect approach for you. You just have to kick off the autopilot, cut the throttles and rotate it about 10 foot off the ground and it even kicks in automatically on touchdown with braking and speed brakes/spoilers for you automatically, preset to your desired power depending on runway length or conditions. Easy peasy. And they use the ILS all the time particularly in SFO, because there are two runways that run parallel to one another often with simultaneous landings. But since it was out, this guy was flying what they call a 'contact approach'. Controllers line you up with the runway and tell you to report runway in site. When you do, they clear you and then you can make your approach. In this case, flying it manually.

If you watch the video he comes in very flat. The cockpit audio suggests they were getting air speed/stall warning indicators with a voice calling, 7 seconds before the crash, for 'more speed' which...means you lower the nose or add power. The old rule of thumb I was taught when learning to fly, 38 years ago I got my ticket, was 'attitude ( of the aircraft ) controls air speed, power controls altitude'. In the video you can hear the guy say 'his nose is pointed up' which means the pilot, instinctually, but wrongly, in a sort of 'death panic' pulled back on the stick, stalling it. What he needed was power. He did exactly the opposite of what he needed to do. He needed nose down, more power. But he couldn't put the nose down because his approach was too flat so power was his only option and power responds more slowly than attitude when it comes to increasing airspeed particularly with jet engines. The throttle to response time isn't the same as a piston aircraft. There's a delay of a second or two. Seconds he did not have. You've all experienced that on takeoff. The engines throttle up and there is a delay to the time they start producing power and it sets you back in your seat and you get that experience of power. He pulled the nose up. Airspeed went to hell, the airplane fell out of what little sky it had. Witnesses said the tail struck the ground, tearing off from the aircraft and it was over after that.

This and the flat approach points to the fact that this was just a shitty fucking pilot that made a crap approach and didn't compensate correctly for his shitty approach because one terrible mistake often begets another in the flying game and a final approach in a 777 is not the best scenario to start fucking up. If you're going to make mistakes flying, the more sky under you, the better chance you have to compensate for your mistake. The ground is what kills you my friends. 100% of air crashes involve the ground. One way or the other that's where you're going to end up. That's why they say any landing you walk away from, is a good landing. 90% of flying fatalities occur during approaches, not takeoffs. In the video, the guy taking it can be heard early on in the video going...'huh'. Like...something is odd here. Well before he saw that something was indeed, wrong. He knew something was up before it went up in flames. He knew it didn't look like the other approaches and clearly if he was out there to take video, and he surely had seen other planes landing the same approach minutes before. It's San Francisco International. He said 'huh'.

When you fly a visual approach, as these guys were, as opposed to an instrument approach, there is a window that you get used to seeing by looking at the runway. You can see the end of the runway and the threshold of the runway. This is flying 101. Take a pencil and lay it straight out from your eyes. Imagine that is the runway. You can't see the end of it. That would be like you're looking at the runway at ground level. You're too low, unless you are....on the ground. But tilt the back of it up a few degrees and you see all of it. The 'glideslope'. Raise the end of it even more, that's what being too high on an approach looks like. Lower it again and you begin to see what an approach that is too low looks like. Most airports have what are called VASI lights. Two sets of lights of three on top of one another. If both sets are red, you're too low. If both are white, you're too high. You want the top red, the lower white. Pulsating VASI, a newer style, you want solid white. That is 'the glide slope'. And it is the same glide slope an ILS approach will give you and after a few hours of flying, you should be able to fly visually with no aids AT ALL. All airplanes fly the same glideslope. A cessna 150 to a Gulfsteam 550 to a 737 to an Airbus 380. Some just do it at faster airspeeds than others. This guy was waaaay outside of that showing all red is my guess.

Unheard of in an aircraft of that type with the experience required to get there, flying an approach on a clear day. But, they fly those ILS approaches so much, that I suspect you can get 'rusty'. Also, your flying over water on that approach, so altitiude is hard to judge but, you judge altitude by ...an altitude indicator and looking at the runway. This just appears to be an example of horrible flying. You should be flying an approach, ideally, that if you completely lost power on final, that you've got a shot. We've all experienced that pilot that on his approach never had to increase power and seemed to glide down to the runway perfectly. That was probably, even on a clear day, an ILS approach. That dude here, was probably taking out sailboat masts on that approach. There was zero, none, no room for error. Seconds mattered. No margin of error. The envelope shrank and then closed on him.

What he should have done is gone missed, went around, and tried 'er again. He'd of looked like a goof but his plane would probably still be intact, some of his passengers wouldn't be dead, and he'd still have a job but he wasn't making the most sound decisions that day. His career is over. This was no Sullenberger at the stick by any stretch.

We'll find out what happened. The pilots are alive. Maybe the first officer was flying the approach and the Captain didn't step in when he should have. Even the first officer on a triple 7 should be able to land the damn thing. We'll see. But their career is ovah. Done. Stick a fork in it. There are rules, operating standards that you just don't break. I think his ego got the best of him, and that happens. Ozark, DC-9 into Memphis... (correction: This was an American dc-9 into Littlerock that I'm thinking of. Thunderstorm, crosswinds exceeded aircraft limits, captain ignored it, didn't deploy spoilers, failed to deploy the automatic braking system and came in too hot, ran off the end of the runway, killing 10 injuring...everyone else many of them seriously. ) MIT did a study after this crash and found that there were more pilot errors at night, when they were behind schedule, and landing behind a plane in bad weather that had successfully completed their approach. Which makes this accident in SFO all the worse. Daytime, clear skies. Should have been a piece of cake. Anyway,that's not the only example of ego getting in the way of 'best practice'. Everyones seen it at their jobs. An ego in a cockpit with a few hundred lives at stake just has more disastrous consequences than the sales manager at the car lot letting his ego get the best of him. Mans gotta know his limitations.

The video of the approach and crash is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Orw3rbj5MI

I'll say this as well that may have something to do with this but mostly I like to encourage young people, who don't think they can have a career in aviation without going through the military that they can and that pilots are in great demand and the demand is projected to increase, with not enough pilots to fill the seats in the coming years. There are flying schools out there that will take you there, as an alternative to a traditional education at a university. I hate to see young people think this is out of reach for them. It's not. Regardless of their race or gender. It can be done.

Wild Cobra
07-08-2013, 10:53 AM
Caught on camera:

CR67XIUBvMg

tlongII
07-08-2013, 11:21 AM
Looks like pilot error to me. It was the first time this guy ever landed a 777.

scampers
07-08-2013, 05:27 PM
The pilot was something like a 15 year veteran of the company but this was his first time piloting a 777, apparently. That knowledge, combined with the fact that ILS was not functioning, points pretty clearly to pilot fuck up. There are many other possibilities, of course, but it's not looking good for the cockpit crew right now.

Jacob1983
07-09-2013, 12:42 AM
Well, there has been some positive news out of this. One of the female flight attendants helped a lot of the survivors get off the plane. I read some story of her carrying a little boy on her back and sliding down the inflatable slide. Very brave beautiful woman.