Boeing Boeing 777 Crash Lands in San Francisco

  • Thread starter lisab
  • Start date

Evo

Mentor
22,863
2,340
One picture that says "the beginning of the debris" shows debris on the rocks at the water's edge, did the plane first hit the rocks? It looks that way. (picture #11 in lisab's link)
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
616
One picture that says "the beginning of the debris" shows debris on the rocks at the water's edge, did the plane first hit the rocks? It looks that way. (picture #11 in lisab's link)
It's possible. One eyewitness's observation:

Stefanie Turner was walking to her hotel on the waterfront across from the runway at San Francisco International Airport when she saw a landing plane coming in at a bad angle, its tail very low.

"As we were watching, we saw the Asiana flight approaching, and we saw that the angle was wrong," she said. "The tail was too low as it was approaching.”

"The tail kind of clipped the runway. I think that’s when the tail broke off,” Turner said.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/06/19324552-pillars-of-smoke-several-flips-witnesses-recount-scene-at-san-francisco-plane-crash?lite [Broken]

The San Francisco airport is right on the water - I mean, the distance between the bay and the end of the runway is just feet! I once landed there and was sure we were going into the water, but the runway appeared seconds before "impact" :eek:.

In a plane having trouble, it's very lucky the pilot made it to dry land!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,456
365

morrobay

Gold Member
679
92
Yes, the plane first hit the breakwater which tore off an engine and tail ( as reported on TV news/Fox)
A few years ago I decided to never fly a Korean airline again. This was Korean Air landing in Seoul and the plane was landing so steep and fast that its axis was skidding +200 -200.on the runway.
And eye witness reports of the Asiana plane crash in S.F. have said the plane was coming
in extremely fast and steep.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Science Advisor
894
1,109
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_06_2013_p0-594353.xml

Weather at the time of the accident was good with light winds of 6 to 7 knots from the southwest and visibility of 10 nautical miles or more. Investigators will focus on several areas including the performance of the aircraft’s equipment, engines, systems and flight crew, as well as other factors concerning the dynamics of the approach. One item of particular focus for investigators is expected to be the status of runway approach guidance facilities. An FAA Notam (notice to airmen) for San Francisco indicates that, at the time of the accident, the instrument landing system glideslope for runway 28L was declared out of service from June 1 to Aug 22.
 

AlephZero

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,953
291
An FAA Notam (notice to airmen) for San Francisco indicates that, at the time of the accident, the instrument landing system glideslope for runway 28L was declared out of service from June 1 to Aug 22.
And the reason for that, ironically, is because the ILS beacons are being relocated, to move the touchdown point further inland along the runway and reduce the risk of this sort of accident happening.
 

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,054
2,403
A video of the crash has surfaced. It was shot from about a mile away. You can see the plane doing a cartwheel-like reversal towards the end of its trip down the runway.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes.html
That would explain the spinal injuries. Whiplash at 160+ mph. :cry:

I used to fly all the time back when I was young, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I'm not sure when I stopped enjoying it.
It may have been that time I flew to Reno, about 15 years ago, and halfway there, I saw myself in another airplane, passing at a 1000 mph relative speed, with a separation of about 100 yards, with eyes as big as saucer plates.

Note to pilots: As fun as that may be, don't do that. You will lose customers.
 
Last edited:

jim hardy

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
Dearly Missed
9,813
4,869
Last edited:

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,054
2,403
Anyone know how to interpret this site ?


http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog

Looks like a quick descent with last minute attempt to pull up at only 85 knots, consistent with tail down attitude stall,
but i'm no expert.


thanks spook that's a link from your AW link....
I did a google of landing speeds for 777's and it was 260 kph. (~140 knots)

So obviously, I can't interpret the data from that web site, as for the last minute, the plane appeared to be flying too slowly.

109 knots, just before touchdown? Perhaps there was a 30 knot headwind?

Did another web search and came up with the following:

Nwafflyer

I've been reading all these threads on short flights, and it makes me curious - what is the slowest possible flight speed (without stalling) for a dc-9, a 737, and airbus 319/320 and a 757 ?
Those people do not know how to run a forum. Good god they went off topic.

The closest I could come to an answer was:

RoseFlyer said:
The landing speed is about 140 knots. [for a 777]
 

Borg

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
2,097
On the national news tonight, there was an official who wouldn't say exactly what the speed was but she stated that it was well below the required speed. The 85 knots at the bottom of Jim Hardy's link looks to match that pretty well. It's really beginning to look like a loss of situational awareness for the flight crew (yes, I know it's waaay too early to know).
 

Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,734
98
The landing speed was supposed to be 137 knots, and the crew can be heard acknowledging that speed so if they were going significantly slower and their instrumentation indicated that before the landing they must have been really blowing it

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/

Did they just not look at their airspeed meter or whatever it's called when stating they were going 137 knots? Because I feel like that goes beyond situational awareness to full blown incompetence
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,711
4,938
Did they just not look at their airspeed meter or whatever it's called when stating they were going 137 knots? Because I feel like that goes beyond situational awareness to full blown incompetence
Too early to know for sure of course, but using a sort of antropic principle, logic tells us that in order for there to be an accident these days without bad weather or a major mechanical failure, it requires a spectacular level of incompetence. Remember Air France a couple of years ago? Bad weather and a minor mechanical failure, but still the primary cause of the accident was a spectacular level of incompetence. Very sad.
 

morrobay

Gold Member
679
92
So if the plane was approaching at 140 knots at a 350 angle then the vertical velocity is Vy = V sine 350
80 knots = 140knots (.57)
 
Last edited:

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,054
2,403
...a spectacular level of incompetence. Very sad.
Happened to me at work one day. (Hospital, 25 years ago)

I worked in an office just 100 feet from the "Life Flight" landing pad on the top of the building.
Life Flight was coming in, so I peeked my head out the door, and watched the two ER guys waiting for the copter to land.
At one point, they both stopped looking out the tiny 10"x10" windows, and [STRIKE]ran[/STRIKE] bolted in my direction.

I slammed the doors shut, and heard a crash.

The copter pilot had come in too fast, and his tail rotor shredded on the edge of the rooftop.

The patient, and everyone else survived, thank god.

They brought in a crane the next day, and carried the copter away.
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
616
Happened to me at work one day. (Hospital, 25 years ago)

I worked in an office just 100 feet from the "Life Flight" landing pad on the top of the building.
Life Flight was coming in, so I peeked my head out the door, and watched the two ER guys waiting for the copter to land.
At one point, they both stopped looking out the tiny 10"x10" windows, and [STRIKE]ran[/STRIKE] bolted in my direction.

I slammed the doors shut, and heard a crash.

The copter pilot had come in too fast, and his tail rotor shredded on the edge of the rooftop.

The patient, and everyone else survived, thank god.

They brought in a crane the next day, and carried the copter away.
Seems like medical helicopters crash quite a lot! Or, maybe they just make the news more...?
 

Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,734
98
The crash of flight 214 looks like an honest human error

I'm no expert, but it seems that the pilot misjudged both the speed and the height and tried to pull up. He tried to pull up because he thought he was not gonna land the aircraft properly so he was trying to go around and take another shot.

-OR-

His entry speed is too high and he had no choice but to come in at that speed, so he tried to flare as much as possible at the end of the approach but clearly overdone it.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf8_1373231556
 

nsaspook

Science Advisor
894
1,109

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,553
1,677
The South Korean jetliner ... was flying far too slowly to reach the runway and began to stall just before the pilot gunned his engines in a futile effort to abort the landing, the National Transportation Safety Board said. ... [NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P.] Hersman said the cockpit recorder revealed that seven seconds before impact there was a call to increase the plane’s speed. Three seconds later a “stick shaker” — a violent vibration of the control yoke intended to be a warning to the pilot — indicated the plane was about to stall. Just 1 1/2 seconds before impact, a crew member called out to abort the landing?

Hersman said her agency was a long way — perhaps months — from reaching a conclusion on what caused the crash. But with Asiana insisting there was no mechanical failure, the data from the flight recorders showing the plane far below appropriate speed and the fact that the pilots were controlling the plane in what is called a “visual approach,” the available evidence Sunday suggested the crew was at fault.
Where was the supervision? How is it that an inexperience pilot is given the responsibility of landing such an aircraft. He apparently had never landed a 777 at SFO.

Perhaps adding to the pilot's difficulties was the fact that he had little experience landing at the San Fran airport. Hyo Min Lee told the Times that Lee Gang-guk had previously landed there but "not much" with the Boeing 777. She wouldn't specify exactly what that meant. Lee Hyomin, meanwhile, told the AP that Lee Gang-guk had never landed a 777 at SFO before.
:surprised
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/08/asiana_crash_landing_attention_shifts_to_pilot_error_in_wake_of_san_fran.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content

“We’re not talking about a few knots here or there. It was significantly below the 137 knots” required for the approach, NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said in describing data taken from the cockpit and flight data recorders. “We do hope to interview the crew members within the next few days.”

. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/2-killed-182-hospitalized-as-s-korean-jet-crash-lands-in-san-francisco/2013/07/07/4d8c5e9c-e705-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html?hpid=z1
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,711
4,938
I'm having Air France flashbacks.
 

Related Threads for: Boeing 777 Crash Lands in San Francisco

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
14K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top