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

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
I agree.
 
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.
 
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:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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. :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
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. :eek: 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." ;)
 
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.
 
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.

0021.jpg

0039.jpg

0047.jpg

0048.jpg

0080.jpg

0090.jpg

0135.jpg

0175.jpg
 
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.
 
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.

He refuses to see a doctor...
^ I'm sympathetic to everything you wrote except this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. :p
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top