Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They did not run out of fuel because this passenger reports hearing the engine thrust increase just before they hit.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like how people start becoming armchair experts, especially people questioning the response by 'emergency workers' sicken me.
Lets just wait till the report comes out. You will find that first responding emergency workers did their best until sufficient help was called.
Lets just wait till the report comes out. You will find that first responding emergency workers did their best until sufficient help was called.
For a change 24 hour news stations are worth watching, of course it is their aviation assets that are providing the most useful information.
Bear this in mind if you have a choice of allowing a live news chopper into a major incident.
Bear this in mind if you have a choice of allowing a live news chopper into a major incident.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you listen to the passenger account in post 245, he describes a very late attempt by the flight crew to get additional thrust- it doesnt sound like an engine problem- more a high rate of descent or undershoot/ non stabilised visual approach. I'd also be very interested in hearing crew experienced in this San Francisco approach - posts above are commenting on illusions etc. This ATSB finding will be multifactorial for sure and will likely include a mix of preparation, training, possible recency issues with hand flown approaches, lack of usual vertical navigation cues, fatigue, and possible post crash issues relating timeliness and coordination are already emerging. I suspect the aircraft itself will not have been a substantial contributing factor. The relief is the number of survivors but this figure is yet to emerge.
Last edited by Mimpe; 7th Jul 2013 at 03:02.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if they did not run out of fuel, how come it was not the wings (where the fuel is) that got burned, but the top of the fuselage? What is so flammable up there that could melt the aluminum skin? I am not a pilot, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
Paxing All Over The World
sgs233a
(others posted similar about pax)
Of COURSE the Pax are carrying hand luggage! They are Pax! My guess is that, when the CC see them holding bags - it's easier and faster to get them out of the a/c than to start piling the bags up inside by the door.
Off main topic: The UA885 that was waiting departure on 28L:
After they've finished thinking 'Ouch' and 'lucky they were to the right of the centreline and not the left ...'
Do they have to shut down?
Did they take busses and steps to them, or just tug them back?
How long did they have to wait for a tug to get them back to to a stand?
Umm, is it just me, or do the passengers seem to be strolling out of the burning airplane with their carry on luggage?
Of COURSE the Pax are carrying hand luggage! They are Pax! My guess is that, when the CC see them holding bags - it's easier and faster to get them out of the a/c than to start piling the bags up inside by the door.
Off main topic: The UA885 that was waiting departure on 28L:
After they've finished thinking 'Ouch' and 'lucky they were to the right of the centreline and not the left ...'
Do they have to shut down?
Did they take busses and steps to them, or just tug them back?
How long did they have to wait for a tug to get them back to to a stand?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 64
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rad Alt
Unlikely- triple Rad alts cross check each other ( different than the Turkish 737 ) if one fails Auto-switches to next available - it would require a triple simultaneous failure - unannouced - to roll back the thrust - very low probability
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching video taken by a passenger of the plane and other passengers standing around, I noticed what appears to be a heavy stream of water from the far side of the plane. At this point the fuselage is still intact (meaning no visible fire damage seen from the LH side). Yet the plane ends up like so many with the top of the fuselage burned. Is this likely from fire going through the air ducting from the engines going through the wing into the fuselage top where the ducting for cabin pressurization is located? Is there a fire stop in the pressurization system to prevent a fire from entering through the ducting? Trying to understand how the fuselage burned when several minutes after the crash there is smoke on the RH side but the fuselage is not yet involved.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off main topic: The UA885 that was waiting departure on 28L:
After they've finished thinking 'Ouch' and 'lucky they were to the right of the centreline and not the left ...'
Do they have to shut down?
Did they take busses and steps to them, or just tug them back?
How long did they have to wait for a tug to get them back to to a stand?
After they've finished thinking 'Ouch' and 'lucky they were to the right of the centreline and not the left ...'
Do they have to shut down?
Did they take busses and steps to them, or just tug them back?
How long did they have to wait for a tug to get them back to to a stand?
Word I had from someone on-scene (at the terminal) was that they were deplaned via portable stairs driven to the taxiway, and bused back to the terminal. They also said the aircraft (now empty) was pushed (backwards) to clear the taxiway, and then back on a gate to unload the baggage/freight. I don't have any info on how long any of all that took, but given the much higher priority tasks being undertaken, I don't think it happened very fast.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
I would be very cautious about anything Flightaware and AVHerald have to offer at this point.
Those two sources seem to be doing a better job than many of the "official" sites and ALL of the media.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I`m wondering , what part of an EGPWS Warning WHOOP WHOOP PULL UP ! wouldn`t they have heard or understood with such reported sink rates below 1000`? Must have been lots of bells and whistles going off for the CVR Analysts to sink their teeth into. SOP`s ? This one is going to cost a Billion before it`s all over. Never lose the skill of hand flying your aircraft.
A few unrelated points:
Pax evacuating with bags:
In this type of incident, are there arrangements for re-uniting surviving pax with their surviving hand baggage and checked baggage? Understand it will be low priority, and after forensic NTSB investigation.
The overall robustness of the airframe is impressive. Would a composite airframe perform as well?
A bit of confusion in the posts about VFR, CAVOK and VMC.
Pax evacuating with bags:
In this type of incident, are there arrangements for re-uniting surviving pax with their surviving hand baggage and checked baggage? Understand it will be low priority, and after forensic NTSB investigation.
The overall robustness of the airframe is impressive. Would a composite airframe perform as well?
A bit of confusion in the posts about VFR, CAVOK and VMC.
skol, I hope you're not the one Oz that's about to fly me to HNL in a few hours time... if you can't land your airplane with eyeballs, one hand on the stick (or wheel) and the other on the throttles, you should not be flying anything. I was always able to land what I flew by manual method, and I'm flying (or have flown in some instances) the whole gamut: from gliders via turboprops to the ol' 744 freighter. Many thousands of hours.
Now whether your outfits SOPs allow you to do so is an entirely different story and knowing that neither ILS nor any visual guidance was available at SFO for your ETA means your airmanship is stuffed at the preflight level (check a NOTAM recently?), not just the airmanship level!
If any of this played any factor we're all in trouble!
Now whether your outfits SOPs allow you to do so is an entirely different story and knowing that neither ILS nor any visual guidance was available at SFO for your ETA means your airmanship is stuffed at the preflight level (check a NOTAM recently?), not just the airmanship level!
If any of this played any factor we're all in trouble!
Skol's right tho
What nut-jobs thought it was a good idea to remove all visual and electronic runway guidance from an international airport
C'mon fellas, that's just annoyingly dumb-ass
What nut-jobs thought it was a good idea to remove all visual and electronic runway guidance from an international airport
C'mon fellas, that's just annoyingly dumb-ass
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Removing electronic guidance would increase these types of incidents..for whatever reason, unstable approach appears to have occurred...
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Word I had from someone on-scene (at the terminal) was that they were deplaned via portable stairs driven to the taxiway, and bused back to the terminal. They also said the aircraft (now empty) was pushed (backwards) to clear the taxiway, and then back on a gate to unload the baggage/freight. I don't have any info on how long any of all that took, but given the much higher priority tasks being undertaken, I don't think it happened very fast."
It took the passengers 3 1/2 hours to get back to the terminal.
It took the passengers 3 1/2 hours to get back to the terminal.
Last edited by PlatinumFlyer; 7th Jul 2013 at 03:17.
What a strange idea, pilots being required to fly their airplane to a visual landing on a clear blue day....who'd expect that?
CISTRS
Well, the pax on US 1549 got thei bags back after a thorough soaking in the freezing Hudson, so, yes, they'lll get 'em back, whether they want them is another question.
CISTRS
Well, the pax on US 1549 got thei bags back after a thorough soaking in the freezing Hudson, so, yes, they'lll get 'em back, whether they want them is another question.
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 7th Jul 2013 at 03:20.
Press conference
Press conference with fire airport and local government reps;
Praising 1st responders who went into the plane.
130 specialist medical staff at local hospital within 30 minutes.
9 hospitals accepting passengers
Many interpreters came forward to help.
All 307 passengers and crew accounted for
123 not injured
2 fatalities.
49 judged serious/critical at time of accident, 10 still critical.
2 Fatalities were found "outside the plane" ...."on the runway".
Two runways closed two have been reopened.
NTSB Washington team arriving at midnight.
Some runway construction but not at time of incident.
Runway or perhaps threshold had been extended, but runway had not been "reconfigured".
Fire Crews arrived in 3 minutes and applied water and foam, chutes already had been deployed.
Rescue team searched aircraft once passengers had ceased coming down shoots.
In response to questions, airport rep says weather clear of they were operating VFR rules so ILS was "not turned on"
Next briefing tomorrow morning.
KCBS local radio report;
Mills hospital took 12 all are ok.
Stanford Hospital took 45, report 10 serious, 3 critical, doctor says they will all probably survive.
They activated seven trauma teams, some victims were transported by helicopter.
Internal bleeding fractures and spinal injuries.
Burn unit director at Saint Francis Hospital, says they took 6 patients, 5 were released.
Saint Francis only takes burns not trauma, so we assume these patients did not have trauma. 1 day in hospital for each % of body burned..
Praising 1st responders who went into the plane.
130 specialist medical staff at local hospital within 30 minutes.
9 hospitals accepting passengers
Many interpreters came forward to help.
All 307 passengers and crew accounted for
123 not injured
2 fatalities.
49 judged serious/critical at time of accident, 10 still critical.
2 Fatalities were found "outside the plane" ...."on the runway".
Two runways closed two have been reopened.
NTSB Washington team arriving at midnight.
Some runway construction but not at time of incident.
Runway or perhaps threshold had been extended, but runway had not been "reconfigured".
Fire Crews arrived in 3 minutes and applied water and foam, chutes already had been deployed.
Rescue team searched aircraft once passengers had ceased coming down shoots.
In response to questions, airport rep says weather clear of they were operating VFR rules so ILS was "not turned on"
Next briefing tomorrow morning.
KCBS local radio report;
Mills hospital took 12 all are ok.
Stanford Hospital took 45, report 10 serious, 3 critical, doctor says they will all probably survive.
They activated seven trauma teams, some victims were transported by helicopter.
Internal bleeding fractures and spinal injuries.
Burn unit director at Saint Francis Hospital, says they took 6 patients, 5 were released.
Saint Francis only takes burns not trauma, so we assume these patients did not have trauma. 1 day in hospital for each % of body burned..
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just on CNN with John King interview of crash survivor.
Says the aircraft seemed very high on approach from his view in the window then a sharp downwards correction was made then he heard the engines rapidly spool up as it impacted.
Lots of witnesses are saying the aircraft had high pitch attitude at impact. So sounds like they tried to go around but very very late.
Of course their stable approach criteria must have been out the window way before that.
So that probably eliminates a fuel problem ie. like the BA 777 in London.
Anyway I shouldn't have added to this. I just said don't speculate in my previous post.
The NTSB report will give us better story.
Says the aircraft seemed very high on approach from his view in the window then a sharp downwards correction was made then he heard the engines rapidly spool up as it impacted.
Lots of witnesses are saying the aircraft had high pitch attitude at impact. So sounds like they tried to go around but very very late.
Of course their stable approach criteria must have been out the window way before that.
So that probably eliminates a fuel problem ie. like the BA 777 in London.
Anyway I shouldn't have added to this. I just said don't speculate in my previous post.
The NTSB report will give us better story.