In the most serious of tones...
"Oh, the Humanity..."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/06/boeing-777-crashes-at-san-francisco-international-airport/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/06/boeing-777-crashes-at-san-francisco-international-airport/)
Amazing that only... I hesitate so say "only"... but in context of how bad it could have been... only 2 lives lost.
Quote from: ungeheuer on July 06, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Amazing that only... I hesitate so say "only"... but in context of how bad it could have been... only 2 lives lost.
I think there are over 80 folks unaccounted for. (?)
Quote from: kopfjäger on July 06, 2013, 07:18:11 PM
I think there are over 80 folks unaccounted for. (?)
I was wrong.
If that plane indeed hit tail first like they are saying its a testament to how well built that 777 is. Sad event, my thoughts to everyone.
Sounds like there is only 1 unaccounted for now.
Thoughts and prayers to the families of the 2.
But 123 out of 307 uninjured. Amazing!
Quote from: muskrat on July 06, 2013, 08:09:08 PM
If that plane indeed hit tail first like they are saying its a testament to how well built that 777 is. Sad event, my thoughts to everyone.
From the debris field it had to have hit tail first. Bad ass airplane. I can't wait to here the 'crews' stories.
Pretty amazing, thoughts and prayers for those who were lost. I hope for speedy recovery for the injured.
feckin adverts
the software sees the word lost on the page.
So the adverts are for satnavs awesome
It was hard for me to look at the pictures. That so many people survived that hit is simply astounding and a testament to the quality of the airframe. Sadly lives were lost in a most horrific manner :-[
Hopefully the investigation will lead to a smoke, fire or equipment malfunction. The pilots will be crucified otherwise......
Quote from: Skybarney on July 07, 2013, 12:44:13 PM
It was hard for me to look at the pictures. That so many people survived that hit is simply astounding and a testament to the quality of the airframe. Sadly lives were lost in a most horrific manner :-[
Hopefully the investigation will lead to a smoke, fire or equipment malfunction. The pilots will be crucified otherwise......
Hopefully the investigation will reveal the cause of the crash.
With no prior notification to the tower or passengers, it's likely not an equipment failure.
Two dead and now they have updated to say that at least two survivors are paralyzed. But hey, at least that stupid chick from Facebook is OK.
so far it seems the plane was just about to stall and traveling below the 137 knots of "target" speed for the landing. :-[
Quote from: muskrat on July 07, 2013, 07:19:14 PM
so far it seems the plane was just about to stall and traveling below the 137 knots of "target" speed for the landing. :-[
Me thinks the pilot make the beast with two backsed up big time.
Quote from: kopfjäger on July 07, 2013, 07:23:25 PM
Me thinks the pilot make the beast with two backsed up big time.
+1
Sounds like they all screwed up. There were four on board.
Correction: Now they are reporting the pilot was training on the 777 and that was his first (and likely last) landing at SFO in a 777.
I know the airline already had the checkbook out but sounds like they better start adding zeros to everyone's checks.
Quote from: hbliam on July 07, 2013, 08:21:44 PM
Correction: Now they are reporting the pilot was training on the 777 and that was his first (and likely last) landing at SFO in a 777.
I know the airline already had the checkbook out but sounds like they better start adding zeros to everyone's checks.
He wasn't alone on the flight deck. The Captain is at fault as well.
Quote from: kopfjäger on July 07, 2013, 08:28:28 PM
He wasn't alone on the flight deck. The Captain is at fault as well.
Of course. But it just makes everything worse that the guy that crashed the plane wasn't the most experienced guy on the flight deck.
Quote from: hbliam on July 07, 2013, 09:31:52 PM
Of course. But it just make everything worse that the guy that crashed the plane wasn't the most experienced guy on the flight deck.
True, but.....
Hmmm... so if it's beginning to sound like pilot error.....
Monty Python - Crucifixion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9knToyK-wUs#)
Sorry if it's still too soon.
40 hours on the 777 but according to Asiana he had more than 10,000 hours which included the 747. This has all the writings of pilot(s) error, there were 4 on hand.
Quote from: muskrat on July 07, 2013, 11:14:58 PM
40 hours on the 777 but according to Asiana he had more than 10,000 hours which included the 747. This has all the writings of pilot(s) error, there were 4 on hand.
My point as why the Captain is responsible.
Reporting now that the plane was only going about 103 knots, instead of the required 137.
Seems odd. New to the 777 or not, the pilot had a lot of time on other passenger jets where this should have been an obvious problem. I'm wondering if there was a faulty airspeed indicator, and they didn't realize it until it was too late and the plane started giving the stall warnings. ???
Pilot in the seat had minimal hours in 777.
Instructor had lots of hours in 777, but this was first time as 777 instructor.
I suspect it'll come out that they were both due for rest, or overdue.
Usually it's a long string of errors necessary to deck a plane.
Something said it was SOP to fly the 777 approach on auto-throttle down to 500 ft, and then the pilot takes over manual throttle.
103 knots?
A little googling found that published stall speed is 106.
The reality is that until the NTSB finished it's investigation anything and everything is nothing but guesses. My guess is pilot error. That being said there are IMO four pilots out there that are done with commercial aviation.
Quote from: kopfjäger on July 06, 2013, 08:16:30 PM
From the debris field it had to have hit tail first. Bad ass airplane. I can't wait to here the 'crews' stories.
Boeing has always built badass, tough aircraft. This seems like pilot error.
Quote from: Triple J on July 08, 2013, 01:17:43 PM
Reporting now that the plane was only going about 103 knots, instead of the required 137.
Seems odd. New to the 777 or not, the pilot had a lot of time on other passenger jets where this should have been an obvious problem. I'm wondering if there was a faulty airspeed indicator, and they didn't realize it until it was too late and the plane started giving the stall warnings. ???
Altimeter would have told them their approach was too low so I'd think that airspeed indicator or not it was a host of errors not the least of which seems to be pointing to human error.
Look, it may or may not have any bearing.... but....
"None of the four pilots on Asiana Flight 214 was tested for drugs or alcohol after the jet crashed in San Francisco..."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/drug_tests_skipped_jLrnogUD4D9k8zL7BvsJfL (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/drug_tests_skipped_jLrnogUD4D9k8zL7BvsJfL)
Really??? That's absomake the beast with two backsinglutely unmake the beast with two backsingbelievable!!!!!
I wouldn't get to walk away from a road traffic collision without such tests....
Really?? WTF?? [bang]
Quote from: muskrat on July 10, 2013, 12:19:53 PM
Altimeter would have told them their approach was too low so I'd think that airspeed indicator or not it was a host of errors not the least of which seems to be pointing to human error.
Agreed
Obviously speculation on my part. Just seems like an awful basic error.
Quote from: ungeheuer on July 10, 2013, 06:18:28 PM
I wouldn't get to walk away from a road traffic collision without such tests....
I understand. A driver of a stopped school bus (lights and all) got rear-ended) in my county and that was the first thing the investigating officer asked for. A drug/alcohol test on the driver... Makes no sense, Same thing here.
I do however thing fatigue and inexperience may be the largest contributing factors here unless there were some gross instrument readings that made everything look ok on approach.
JM
Might be smoking crack here, but pretty sure I heard an NTSB snippet stating both the left and right seat pilots had noticed the aircraft was under required speed; right seat (instructor) pilot commented as such and went to make required throttle adjustments only to see that left seat pilot had already done so, and that the aircraft was not responding.
They were claiming they had it on auto-throttle, then looked down when it was too late to realise it wasn't auto-throttling.
Claiming it wasn't responding when they were that close to the ground is bullsh!t. Turbine engines don't respond immediately. You MUST have your brain miles ahead of the airplane. You CANNOT fly a large jet "reactively". Airmanship 101.
My money is on pilot error, plain and simple. They weren't paying attention to the critical indicators as they approached, "auto-throttle" or not. Airspeed, altitude, glideslope, traffic... you miss ANY of these and you are bound to have problems. Just because it's on auto-throttle doesn't free you from monitoring BOTH airspeed and altitude to ensure a safe approach.
Sorry for the rant... I am in flight school myself, and I've been living the aerospace world since 2001. These principles have been and continue to be drilled into me. Incompetence is frustrating, especially when it kills people.
Plus isn't it usually customary for the First Officer to be calling out airspeed and altitude every so often?
Apparently the 3rd flight officer in the cockpit called out "Sink Rate!" several times to alert the flight crew they were sinking too fast, but was apparently ignored.
Oh dear. Some one pulled a fast one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo&feature=player_embedded#at=26 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo&feature=player_embedded#at=26)
[laugh]
Ba-Ba-Booey!
Too funny [laugh]
BAD INTERN!!! LOL!!! ;D
http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-apologizes-gaffe-over-derogatory-asiana-pilot-names-041704046.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-apologizes-gaffe-over-derogatory-asiana-pilot-names-041704046.html)
He didn't like that gig anyway...
Quote from: Adamm0621 on July 13, 2013, 03:41:42 AM
BAD INTERN!!! LOL!!! ;D
http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-apologizes-gaffe-over-derogatory-asiana-pilot-names-041704046.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-apologizes-gaffe-over-derogatory-asiana-pilot-names-041704046.html)
You get what you pay for! *
not sure if that internship was paid or not, but many seem to be unpaid.
I looked at that and initially thought it was a spoof.
How in the world did that get on the air?
"Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft," the NTSB said.
WaitaMINIT.
How did that media outlet get those names?
Was everyone at that media outlet unconscious?
First thought Ba-ba-booey
Seriously, shouldn't all newscasters be required to watch and learn from this?
http://youtu.be/_HNJ93HCxUA (http://youtu.be/_HNJ93HCxUA)
Quote from: IZ on July 13, 2013, 10:52:37 AM
First thought Ba-ba-booey
Seriously, shouldn't all newscasters be required to watch and learn from this?
Yu Wud Tink
According to the airline's lawyer, Mr. Wi Su, Asiana will be sueing the TV station for tarnishing its reputation.
Bart Simpson could not have done it better!
btw: If it were up to me the recordsed voice calling numbers at DMV would say "Now serving, someone else" once every 45 minutes or so. Someone would likely get mad but at least it would break up the monotony.
Quote from: IZ on July 14, 2013, 09:23:32 PM
According to the airline's lawyer, Mr. Wi Su, Asiana will be sueing the TV station for tarnishing its reputation.
[laugh] [clap]
Quote from: IZ on July 14, 2013, 09:23:32 PM
According to the airline's lawyer, Mr. Wi Su Soon, Asiana will be sueing the TV station for tarnishing its reputation.
Fixed.
[popcorn]
one of the guys I fence with is a commercial pilot, A320's.
His response was "4 people sat there and watched the computer fly that plane into the ground."
Quote from: Privateer on July 17, 2013, 06:32:51 AM
one of the guys I fence with is a commercial pilot, A320's.
His response was "4 people sat there and watched the computer fly that plane into the ground."
3 actually, and I don't think they were watching the computer, seems like they were all looking out the window (VFR) because they sure as hell were not watching the airspeed.
Quote from: Greg on July 17, 2013, 12:22:56 PM
3 actually, and I don't think they were watching the computer, seems like they were all looking out the window (VFR) because they sure as hell were not watching the airspeed.
just reporting what he said, maybe I'm misremembering, but thanks for the correction.
Quote from: Privateer on July 17, 2013, 02:25:09 PM
just reporting what he said, maybe I'm misremembering, but thanks for the correction.
Your buddy's point is valid...current indications are that 3 (or 4) pilots flew a perfectly good plane into the ground. Unacceptable.
And frustratingly... a law firm in Chicago is suing Boeing. [bang]
1. Wait 'til the facts are in.
2. You can't idiot-proof everything.
I have little doubt that airplane was in perfect functioning order up 'til the moment the airframe hit the ground.
Quote from: duc_fan on July 17, 2013, 03:11:56 PMI have little doubt that airplane was in perfect functioning order up 'til the moment the airframe hit the ground.
Maybe...
But I recommend your own advice..... ;)
Quote from: duc_fan on July 17, 2013, 03:11:56 PM1. Wait 'til the facts are in.
Hence my admission that there is "little doubt". I do still have a little doubt. Waiting 'til the facts are in before I really unload with both barrels on the guilty party... ;)