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

[SarahZ]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

< 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]

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.