이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 136

Asiana 777 (AAR214) Crashes at SFO - Two Fatalities, Dozens Injured

제출됨
 
Asiana Flight 214, a Boeing 777-200ER, from Seoul to San Francisco crashed during landing at San Francisco International Airport (KSFO). The flight from Seoul was 10 hours and 23 minutes and seats 295 passengers. (flightaware.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Doobs
With the advanced technology in today's Aircraft, is "Automation Addiction" becoming a detriment to commercial airline pilots? Are pilots forgetting how to fly? How to recover in a serious situation using the "Hands on" method of flying? Crew Resource Management should be a mandatory requirement for all flight crews, foriegn and domestic, cockpit and cabin crews. Keep "Culture" etiquette out of the cockpit and cabin. And give Flight Attendants the authority to initiate an evacuation. UAL implemented that authority to us years ago. 90 seconds to wait for a cockpit command to evac is beyond my comprehension. If the Flight Attendants initiated the evac immediately, there might have been a different ending to this unfortuane accident. These Flight Attendants did an outstanding job!
Pilotblueca
Rob Beck 1
big boo boo
gearup328
Here's the computer generated video of the final approach with a comparison of what the final should have been. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1396882603859485
209flyboy
Unfortunately a third has died, a child.
keithsroberts
Pilot interviews indicated they thought the AutoThrottle was engaged...and it was not. Airspeed was not in the pilot's scan which accounts for the wild elevation changes. Final telemetry release and NTSB findings will be interesting; but clearly CRM and oversight of a short-time 777 driver are evident. Thank God only 3 souls were lost.

This is a safe ship IMHO. First casualties on US soil EVER...and it looks like pilot error.
I would fly one tomorrow, but not a 787.
FrenchDriver
3rd fatality today. A Chinese teenager died at San Francisco general hospital.
W3DRM
I'm not a pilot but have noticed that the day prior (7/5/13) to this incident the same flight (AAR214) appears to have made an aborted landing. The FlightAware history logs shows the initial approach and then at around 1900 feet, they started pulling up for a go around. Thirteen minutes later they landed.

You can find that landing at the following link:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130705/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog

Just wondering if anyone else had noticed this?

Don
jhwenger
jhwenger 1
Third victim succumbed to injuries this morning at SF General.
intdln
Sorry I still think the cultural aspect must be considered. Why did the cockpit not permit the cabin crew to open emergency exits for 90 seconds? And why did the cabin crew wait? They had to know that they had a seriously broken aircraft? Cannot see that happeing with a western or European crew. Culture has to be considered. Also looking at the speed variances I find it hard to believe the entire cockpit was in la la land and failed to note speed. In 1971 I bounced a Piper Cherokee down the runway on my first solo. My IP grabbed me by my shirt and said: speed, altitude, and runway line up. I screwed up all three on my solo by coming in too high and fast and too long. I dumped it heavy and the plane had to undergo inspection as I hit so hard. Never forgot that. So why did the Asiana crew land heavy? And no one said a word until too late.? Its a FNG mistake not a 10k pilot regardless of equipment. Makes no sense.
gearup328
I only have one comment. FLY THE AIRPLANE!!! There has to be one of the pilots actually flying the airplane either completely manually or monitoring the automation. Who was watching the airspeed do it's steady decrease? Who was noting that the 2.85 (3) degree glide path that they should have been monitoring wasn't being flown----300 feet per NM. 6 NM from the runway = 1800 feet and so on to touchdown. An aircraft that size shouldn't be flown like you maybe would an RJ. It has to be more precise. There was no one flying the plane that day or no one would speak up due to the Asian culture barrier---no CRM. Can't disregard rank. Don't tell the pilot flying because that is inappropriate. Terrible.
smoki
smoki 1
It is my understanding there were two Captains up front, an IP/PIC in the right seat, who had never landed at SFO, and the flying pilot, Captain, in the left seat. The Asian culture barrier and lack of CRM because of it is a red herring in my view. Could be something as basic as a failure to acknowledge transfer of control from one side to the other when commencing the final approach at the FAF. The AP was presumably coupled to the Localizer with the throttles left at idle (auto-throttles failed to engage, disengaged or was never engaged?) resulting in the airspeed slowly bleeding off well below the target approach bug speed and the airplane settling well below GS (Red over Red on the PAPI) resulting in the stick shaker being actuated as the nose was rotated in a desperate attempt to initiate a go around 1.5 seconds prior to impact. It would appear that they both had their heads up and locked where the sun never shines throughout the approach until it was obvious they were going to land short. Then it was too little too late. The GS could easily have been approximated mentally using the ratio of 300ft per mile for the visual approach.

All of that was bad enough but then it was followed by an inexplicable 90 second delay in initiating the evacuation a time delay that exactly matches the minimum standard set for evacuation by the FAA for certification. Post crash fire is always the concern in evacuating surviving pax as quickly as possible. Reportedly these two pilots were talking on the radio to the tower using battery electrical power, a potential source of ignition of jet fuel spilling out of ruptured fuel tanks. Fire was in progress already according to the senior FA/Purser. All power should have been shutdown immediately and evacuation initiated.
TXCAVU
Sad commentary but so very accurate. So focussed on lining up on the centerline... There is an insightful "squawk" on FlightAware from a former Asiana/KAL sim instructor.
AABABY
AABABY 1
Ms. Robillard- please be so kind as to supply the 'Squawk' you are referring to. I would like to read it. Thanks.
joelwiley
Frank, Preacher1 pasted the text in related squawk
http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/direct/linked/35466/
TXCAVU
Interesting. Because I could not locate that squawk...went back to Airliners.net:
This Op-Ed expresses the personal viewpoint of the writer who is unaffiliated with the Airliners.net editorial board in any shape or form. The work is presented here in its unedited form. Opposing and/or contrasting viewpoints are welcome and will be presented on this site with the same prominence.


In deference of the author's request to remove this material, we are doing so. We also received a supporting request for removal from Boeing Communications.

"The subject matter is sensitive in light of the ongoing investigation and we would respectfully ask that this be removed at this time. "

Written by
Suresh Atapattu/Article Editor
AABABY
AABABY 1
I saw it.
gearup328
Yes, Elizabeth, I've read that. I teach primary and instrument for a university program and give the test question----if you're confused, over taxed, have a real emergency, what is the most important thing you still MUST do? I give extra credit for a correct answer----FLY THE AIRPLANE!!!
upperclassdude5
the info on the aircraft is in accurate.. it was a Boeing 777-300
TXCAVU
Third person dies from injuries: A child who was critically injured in Saturday's crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 died Friday morning from her injuries, San Francisco General Hospital.
onceastudentpilot
smh....really sorry about that
ogivati
Aviation industry should build another layer of flight competence, where all flight information are continuously uploaded (via SATCOM) onto autopilot removed from the aircraft, having an overriding capability. Pilots should not attempt taking off and landing manually when there are passengers onboard. The notion that human judgment is safer must be outdated.
mpradel
Let's not forget this 'performance' from almost a year ago..

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/458014-koreanair-a380-tail-strike-nrt.html
sporty222
Hey, can you post a plotted graph where x = time in seconds?
joelwiley
try posting to discussion board
EVM
I'm sorry...
tommyleeyyz
T K 1
Read this good op-ed by an airline pilot, who comments on the "culture" issue.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/10/patrick-smith-during-a-plane-emergency-keep-your-wits-leave-the-carry-on/
intdln
I have spent a great deal of time in Asia and cannot help speculating that their culture not to question superiors or elders was a factor. It may have been in the KAL cargo that crashed outside STN in 1997.
carregosa
Concordo perfeitamente. Todas as normas de treinamento desse pessoal (principalmente dos oriundos do Airbus - que é automatizado demais levando ao piloto tornar-se preguiçoso em relação aos fundamentos basicos de pilotagem - ) tem que ser revisto. Por outro lado os instrutores e supervisores - Master de voos - também tem que ter em sua formação a atitude mais defensiva em relação a possiveis erros como o do piloto inexperiente deste voo. Aliás esse tipo de treinamento tem que ser dado apenas para as tripulações e não em aeronaves lotadas de passageiros entregues a toda sorte de desatinos por parte de pilotos inexperientes.
PhotoFinish
I can understand the attitude many US aviators have toward automation, and the potential detrimental effect automation may have on aviator skills. How can you have a country with the majority of commercial airline pilots are afraid of performing a manual landing? There must be a review of the training and on-going maintenance of basic skills of all commercial airline pilots, particularly in Korea, but elsewhere as well. Anywhere, where pilots do most of their flying with automation and allow themselves and their skills to get lazy.

Overreliance on automation can and does lead to deterioration of skills and situation awareness. A concerted effort needs to be in place to counter that naturally occurring phenomenon. These kinds of accidents should not be happening in this day and age, on beautiful days with clear weather. It is bad enough that there is the occasional irrecoverable incident, that no matter what the pilots do, they will not prevent a crash (either because a load shift, or last-minute wind shear, etc.) Sometimes, you just run out of sky.

But incidents such as Asiana 214 and Air France 447 should just not be happening. Two perfectly good airplanes filled with passengers were crashed to the ground because of insufficient sutuatikzl awareness and insufficient action by the pilots to prevent preventable accidents.

The only commonality is that the pilots were Airbus pilots. All the Air Frsnce pilots were flying A330 type. Even the pilot flying on the Asiana 777 had spent the last few years on the A320, and only recently switched back to Boeing, and was iniating his flying of 777 type. The instructor pilot spent the kast several years on the type and should be intimately familiar with all 777 controls and approaches. There is no excuse for him not to intervene sooner, or at least to monitor the basics (altitude, airspeed) and advise the flying pilot to take appropriate action. There should have been more urgency to rectify the situation sooner, especially given that the pattern was that they were falling through the glide path, getting increasing closer to the ground and away from a landing at the prescribed location on the intended runway.

The approach should gave been aborted, and a second attempt made at landing with a controlled approach. This unstable approach meant that the monitoring and last minute corrective actions of these pilots needed to be perfect to avoid disaster. We now know thar their performance was anything but perfect.
PhotoFinish
No need for concern. It is one of the safest aircraft types in use today, and in the history of aviation. If you listen to the NTSB briefings, you will hear that that all the avionics and aircraft systems are operating as expected and without deviation from the norm.

I wish the same could be said for the pilots charged with keeping the aircraft flying. I had been hoping for an external explanation such as a wind shear microburst, to help explain the difficulty of the pilots to maintain the proper approach altitude and sufficient aircraft speed to maintain flight.

But if any large aircraft is falling for many minutes (intentionally as in this case) or inadvertently, with the engines in idle, and the pilots only apply thrust below 100 ft, it is unlikely for the engines to be able to supply enough power to be able to lift the aircraft BEFORE the aircraft strikes the ground. 

If the aircraft is over a runway or other flat ground with sufficient distance to bring the aircraft to a stop, no problem. In this case, the aircraft was over a body of water with a seawall between tbeir position and the runway that would allow to return to the ground without an extraordinary incident.

1. The pilots primarily failed to monitor airspeed (and altitude).
2. They also failed to discontinue approach and perform a go-around in sufficient time to Allie the aircraft to avoid crashing.
3. Before that, they failed to put the aircraft in a stabilized approach, well in advance of touching down. Ideally, the rate of descent and the amount of thrust should reach an equilibrium in advance and not need last minute corrective action.

Not only did this approach require last minute intervention to bring the aircraft to the runway, but monitoring of the basics of flight (altitude, airspeed) were insufficient for even a novice pilot, and the actions taken were too few and too late.
DavidHowells
Obviously we haven't heard from the flight deck crew yet but aren't there enough similarities between this incident and the same aircraft type of BA at LHR 5 years ago to get authorities concerned about the aircraft type? In the BA crash an experienced crew couldn't get additional power when under-shooting at the last minute and landed short.
Zekamaboy
To David Howells: Two fatalities in 3 hull loss incidents in 18 years, with over 1,100 777's flying? The aircraft has a superb safety record! The BA crash was sheeted home to a defect in the Rolls Royce Trent 895 engines, a problem not shared by the other two engine manufacturers for that model, GE and Pratt & Whitney.
dazsworld
Daz Weir -1
The bottom line is: non-aviators...shut the hell up.
joelwiley
Are you saying that an FAA license is required to express an opinion? Or are you just venting your frustration with talking heads with teleprompters (news anchors in your last post)?
dazsworld
Daz Weir 2
Someone please tell the non-aviator news anchors to shut the hell up. They have no idea what they are talking about in regards to their speculation into the cause of the accident. Obviously airspeed is the issue, however, the BS is getting old.
ahbeja
Although early on in the investigation the cause is most likely due to pilot error rather than an aircraft malfunction we must also look at the South Korean culture and how individuals interact with each other. If you recall a little more than a decade ago South Korean airlines suffered many crashes as the result of pilot error and the lack of communication between the captain, first officer, and other crew members. In addition, in reference to Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" chapter 7 he discusses how Korean culture affected how cockpit emergencies were handled. Furthermore, if you examine Trompenaars cultural dimension measurement of "power distance" South Korea ranks in the highest category. Due to their culture, it is common for persons of lower authority not to question a higher authority or higher ranking persons because of disrespect. As a result of the crashes Korean airlines had to completely redesign their pilot training programs and further educate them on Crew Resource Management and to speak up to the pilot flying the aircraft if a situation is deteriorating despite the pilots higher experience or ranking. This should definitely be investigated as a contributing factor to the cause of the recent accident of Asiana flight 214.
JimSpensley
The question that needs to be asked is "Was the originally steep descent and the low speed at the end directed or assumed by the ATCT?" Two reasons that this is pertinent: 1] It is wrong to assume the pilot was altogether free to do the approach by the charts without the glide-slope indicator; 2] it has not been reported what operations had been just beforehand on R28L -- perhaps intervals were too short or slow to clear the runway or in the way of a go-around or the possibility of wake turbulence, or a delayed communication.

The NTSB on July 1 wrote the FAA that it is unsafe to operate arrivals at minimum separations without allowing for a go-around into clear airspace (intersecting runways or runway headings or the possibility of a go-around overtaking a same-runway departure all are risky. High peak rates and congestion are not "efficient," but actually require more resources for less safety margin.
isardriver
mr. gradzki/mr. lundgren, thank you and some of the others for the analysis. while i am not a pilot, but an aviation enthusiast, i appreciate these technical insights. as i try to learn as much as i can about flying, having only completed ground school and a few flying hours back in the late 70's/early 80's as my "grass cutting money could no longer cover the expenses of a pilots license (16 yrs old), i am beginning to learn more and more every day (not just because of this incident, but just in general). your posts, as well as a few others have shed plausible light onto why certain things happen and what actions may be taken to rectify an issue/event. i appreciate your diligent research as well as some of the other "posters". thank you
SEnVel
SEn Vel 1
Is it possible that instead of pulling the stick, if they just continue to land, the aircraft will be intact and it is a simple hard landing ?
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
This is exactly what I'd picture happening. I'm not an expert, though.
LewisSckolnick
Through the windscreen the pilots could see SFO, they could see that their air speed and altitude were way off and that their landing gear was not deployed yet they did nothing until the last 1.5 seconds.
onceastudentpilot
Everything I've seen indicates that the gear was down and that is evident by them laying on the runway and in the grass....However; if the gear were lowered late after the auto-throttle was disengaged at 1600 ft AGL that would probably account for the loss of the 40kts they suffered due to the added drag and the pilot never inputting the appropriate power to make a save landing because he was behind the plane.
cwfmd
cwfmd 3
Question for CNN and other media:

How do you get experience landing a jet at SFO, without ever doing your first approach and landing?

(I can't get anything but CNN, overseas)
How do you get to be an anchor and authority on Airliner mishaps, on CNN?
joelwiley
Re your second question is a 2 part answer:
1) Get hired as a CNN anchor
2) Say "I am an authority on Airliner mishaps"

CNN reporting is contraindicated for a low sodium diet due to all the needed grains of salt.
AABABY
AABABY 2
cwfmd-- I agree with your idea regarding experiencing a landing at SFO. However, maybe a few dozen landings where the conditions are better and navaids, etc are all working would be better choice.
As for CNN, a large grain of salt with everything they say would be good.
cwfmd
cwfmd 1
There are good questions, and some good answers, here on FA. It's much better than CNN.
Tom Wolfe described a syndrome called the 'right stuff'(RS). Young pilots, usually, with around a few hundred hours, develop lots of excessive confidence and bravado. RS is a defense mechanism, saying..., 'that could only happen to him, or her, not me'. With more experience they realize certain illusions, visual and vestibular, can completely disorient
the best pilot.
I suggest, given the current NTSB releases, this was a visual over-water illusion, of height and vertical speed disorientation, caused by "lack of ground rush cues" which disoriented all four pilots. I would have loaded the GPS 28L(IF IT EXISTS?) procedure into the GPS or FMS for GLIDE SLOPE cues. NTSB chair's press conf (Monday afternoon) seems to indicate all sink rate/terrain warnings were off, because of landing config? This could be an excellent learning point, to add a "minute to live cue". In USN we trained never to let the vertical speed exceed the AGL altitude- here MSL works just as well...
mjl1966
Are/were the PAPI lights broken? Everybody keeps talking about the ILS, which was out of service and various workarounds with the FMC. Visual approach using the PAPI seems the most sensible thing to me. Simple, works fine, lasts long time. Any thoughts?
TXCAVU
Slide deployment, evacuation and arrival of first responders:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/52423611/#52423611
aircmdr
Everyone is a Monday morning quarterback. The Captain was behind the power curve. And one of the worse problems with this type of crash is the media and their ignorance in their reporting.
LewisSckolnick
Too low and too slow with portions of the underside of the tail section found embedded in the stones of the seawall and in the water.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Is there another source for up-to-date information that DOESN'T include calls for non-pilots to be excluded from the board and suggestions that questions are unwelcome?

(This is not sarcasm. I really am seeking out add'l sources.)
LewisSckolnick
I wonder when the pilot was planning on putting the landing gear down.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
It was down. How else do you think it could have snapped off?
onceastudentpilot
the gear was down
sheka
it is surprising that alot survived this crash kudos to the pilots who did a great job
Steve1822
Mark, have you read the lastest facts and data? Great job???

[This poster has been suspended.]

lbbramel
Stall crashing on a visual approach is a lack of basic skills. Airspeed and altitude and a spot on runway. This can not be replaced.....
cwfmd
cwfmd 1
That was "over relatively smooth watr" (sorry iPad )
cwfmd
cwfmd 1
No mention of sink rate warning by NTSC
Anybody know when this goes off or other gpss?
If so is it triggered from radar altitude, gps, fms?
Over relatively water is a setup for disorienting illusion similar to "black hole illusion" at night
LewisSckolnick
No mention of flight simulators.
genethemarine
Unconfirmed reports :
1. The Pilot was in training ?
2. The Landing system was in the OFF position ?
Prayers to those who lost their lives here.
Moviela
Only 634 comments? You people can do better! Lots of opinions, some informed, lots of data, charts, facts, and figures all important to determine how to avoid accidents in the future. The NTSB will piece it all together.

One comment Sparkie made about using English in the cockpit and the hanger needs to be explored more. Everyone involved in aviation should use a common language. English is the best choice because of its ability to render rich descriptions and create words as necessary, and abbreviations that are easily remembered. English for all its faults is the most descriptive and communicative language in wide use.

Many cultures borrow words from English because it is more easily understood than constructs in their own language. Translation from English to other languages is very difficult because often there is no expression in the foreign language that represents directly the English meaning.

Language and culture can create problems where respect of elders, and the inability to say NO directly can contribute to chaos in the cockpit and cab (where air traffic controllers work.) Confucian societies find it difficult culturally to tell a person that they are doing something wrong. They hold their tongue if the person has higher status or is older.

I am most concerned that foreign pilots are speaking English to ATC, but speak to each other in their native language. This is where miscommunication can occur because the same word in a foreign language can mean several things in English.

I think it is wonderful people can speak more than one language, it makes for greater understanding of culture and art, but I do think all communication between crew members on both sides of the cockpit door should be conducted in English

It looks more and more that this accident turns on 15 feet of altitude, and the inability of the FO to instruct the senior PC on correct operation of the aircraft systems.



miket3
Not dissimilar to the BA 777 incident at Heathrow a little while ago when they applied the throttles on the final approach there was nil response I believe was caused by ice within the engines is this still happening??
onceastudentpilot
Focusing on the human aspect of the accident; this was a terrible and sad event that really shouldn't have happened....thoughts and prayers for everyone involved.
robheesters
Maybe an engine spooldown as happened on British Airways B777
benjammin
It's rather surprising to me how much information Asiana Airlines is publicly releasing. Kinda seems to me like they are throwing the pilot in command under the bus. Not sure if it is the media, or the airline that is really highlighting his 43 hours in a 777 and that this was his first landing at KSFO in a 777. Seems like his 9K hours in other aircraft is really being downplayed...
Pilot error may very well be the cause of the accident (I personally believe it is highly likely), but it kinda makes me sad to see this pilot being thrown under the bus so bad publicly.
akayemm
Friends , kindly do not over react to the guarded statements of Asiana . Even NTSB are careful while making statements ! And rightly so. Any misstatement or over statement may have unfavorable media reaction and hence the public opinion at large. And this can be detrimental to the detailed inquiry that has to follow.
So let us all make comments without faulting any one, be those Ariana , NTSB or even any of our peers , the blogging readers !
benjammin
Particularly only a day after the accident. I'd like to see an official cause released by the NTSB before the pilot gets publicly destroyed.
Zany4God
Zany4God 0
Autopilot off: My 2 cent's worth: OK, well maybe 1.5 cent's worth: If the auto pilot was disengaged, when the pilots believed it was engaged, the aircraft would slow down, and lose altitude and the pilots might not have noticed the danger pressing in upon them until too late to recover. Also with the glide slope out of service, the pilots would have lost another cue that they were dangerously descending below glide slope. It was the pilot's first time at SFO in the 777.
AABABY
AABABY 0
First time landing 777 and using Autopilot? Is that a good practice?
Zany4God
Zany4God 0
I used to know an Emergency Dept physician who was married to the radiologist, and the radiologist loved the TV series, House. He loved it because it challenged his guesswork trying to figure out the problem before House did. I was making a guess as to why the 777 was flying way too slow and way too low, and then someone had said the 777 will fly you to the deck with auto pilot engaged. Modern GPS avionics. If the pilots inadvertently switched off the autopilot at a point where the engines were idling, you might set up a situation where they stay powered off and you seriously start losing altitude.
teutz
The pilot was at his first landing with a B777:
http://www.planecrashes.org/pilot-of-the-asiana-b777-aa214-was-at-his-first-landing-of-a-b777.html
JetMech24
He had a couple 777 landings already, this was his first 777 landing at SFO
KW10001
KW10001 1
Unbelievable
AABABY
AABABY 1
Daniel-- Looks like total SNAFU. I guess it will also be his last if all the facts bear out.
What a waste of people and equipment.
News this evening implied that one of the fatalities MAY have been run over by rescue vehicle. Not good.
joholawale
what causes the crash
rfsahae
rfsahae 2
ILS glideslope was out, by NOTAM. They were too low and too slow. Did they have recent training landing under visual conditions with PAPI or just by eyeballing it? Any pilot must be able to land by visual reference!

NTSB will be looking into training, and how rested they were. NTSB says crew member called for power 7 seconds before crash, did they get power or was there an engine problem? One passenger said plane was so low that engines were kicking up water, which would have been invisible to crew.... did that affect power developed? Most accidents have more than one cause. Remains to be seen.
distar97
If the airplane had no faults then it comes down to one of the first rules I learned in flight school and it applies to everything from hot air balloons to 777's.
Bad Approach = Bad Landing.
AJACOBS2
Wow what a thread, so many possibilities and the data is changing rapidly... I'm as guilty a anyone of forming opinions, let the FAA sort it out. One puzzles me, the BBC reported this was the first landing at SFO for the Pilot. So was it a trainee riding with the 8000-10,000 hour veteran... Who was flying the plane? Has the other engine found buried under the fuselage or is it still missing?
TXCAVU
Pilot at controls had 47 hours on the B777. Maiden flight. Asiana Airlines said the pilot in charge of landing the Boeing 777, Lee Kang-kook, was training for the long-range plane and it was his first flight to that airport with the jet. Asiana Airlines said he had previously flown to San Francisco on different planes and was being assisted by another pilot more experienced with the Boeing 777.
TXCAVU
If this PIC had flown to SFO in "other aircraft", surely they were also heavies and landed on the same runway, which suggests he was familiar with the major factors affecting this flight.
TXCAVU
The pilot "has a lot of experience" and previously flown a Boeing 747 to San Francisco's airport.

The airline says Lee, who started his career at Asiana as an intern in 1994, has 9,793 hours of flying experience, but only 43 hours with the Boeing 777 jet.
mariescreations
I think that the number of hours in pilots log book does not indicate his proficiency in the case of these heavies where the flight typically takes 10 to 12 hours to complete. It would not take many flights to accumulate 43 hours. The more important statistic may be his number of approaches and landings in type. The second pilot in the cockpit is equally at fault. As a team, they should work together and if the airplane gets ahead of one member, the other one should not just "let him learn by experience" so he doesn't make the same mistake again. A pilot carrying passengers must be responsible and take his responsibility seriously.
pmg111
pmg111 2
Looking at Incheon International Airport Departures it appears that all Asiana 747 are 747-400s. Their recommended approach speed is 157 knots vs. 137 knots for 777-200ER that crashed. It should be even more alarming to the pilot that he has lost the airspeed.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Overcompensation?
TXCAVU
Or had he spent the first 5 hrs doing "training", then flew while being "instructed". Lot of stress there.

And why didn't the more experienced pilot take the plane back. Instead he is heard on the recorder saying "There is trouble".
AONeal79
AONeal79 2
This just keeps getting sadder to me, now that things are pointing towards human factors and psychology, partially because at least mechanical failures seem so much more cut and dry. I hope the pilots are disclosing everything so we can learn as much as possible, thereby preventing a similar accident.
TXCAVU
Bet they are. Within hours of the accident, the President of Asiana made a statement saying the problem was not mechanical. He then apologized to the families.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Agreed - that statement (and the short timeframe it took to make it) IS pretty telling.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Should have added - the non-mechanical bit, to me, is telling. The apology I would have expected (with variations on wording) no matter the cause.
pmg111
pmg111 1
I do not think so. Their speed was ok until ~56 seconds before impact when the pilot started correcting the sink rate by pulling up the nose. He should have added power at the same time to avoid dropping speed, but he waited over 40 seconds until the stall warning kicked in. Times are approximate based on the FA log.
AJACOBS2
Thank you....
LewisSckolnick
The pilot of AAR214 was in training---see the New York Times
LewisSckolnick
The San Mateo coroner Robert Foucrault hopes to have a report on the possible run over of one of the Chinese girls tomorrow.

[This poster has been suspended.]

pmg111
pmg111 0
4x sink rate? Where is this data coming from? The FA log shows 2x sink rate.
LewisSckolnick
The police are investigating the possible run over.
LewisSckolnick
Elizabeth Robillard-amazing!
TXCAVU
San Mateo County Coroner Robert Foucrault said senior San Francisco Fire Department officials notified him and his staff at the crash site on Saturday that one of the 16-year-olds may have been struck on the runaway. The other (body) was found on the left side of the plane about 30 feet away from where the jetliner came to rest.
vanstaalduinenj
Is there any fact/truth at all to support that one of the victims was run over by rescue? That is a bold rumor to float out there
TXCAVU
The 16-year-old girl was found near the evacuation slide near the left wing of Asiana Flight 214 which crashed Saturday during a landing at San Francisco International Airport. The girl was not identified.

San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White said Sunday her injuries are consistent with her having been run over.

"As it possibly could have happened, based on the injuries sustained, it could have been one of our vehicles that added to the injuries, or another vehicle," Hayes-White said. "That could have been something that happened in the chaos. It will be part of our investigation."
TXCAVU
National Transportation Safety Board chief Deborah Hersman said the Pratt & Whitney engines were on idle.

...this gets more depressing as information comes to light.
LewisSckolnick
One of the girls from China may have been run over by rescue.
LewisSckolnick
Elizabeth Robillard-Maybe they were also watching something else.
LewisSckolnick
They did not know that they had to correct until it was too late which still makes me believe they were not paying attention to their job. This is not the type of accident that we should be having in 2013.
JD345
JD345 1
Complacency kills.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
You're posting a lot, are you even a pilot???
TXCAVU
Lewis, have you ever had something go wrong while flying an airplane?
JD345
JD345 2
We're all humans, and we all make mistakes regardless of our best efforts. I'm not a pilot but I do have a safety-intense job where a moment's lapse of attention can kill people. You can never become complacent even when you've done something a million times.

We'll see what the cause is when the investigation is complete, but if it does come back to pilot error it will not be the first and will not be the last.
LewisSckolnick
If they had been watching their flight data and their altitude we would all be doing something else.
TXCAVU
What pilots do is to watch BOTH their internal instruments and their external environment. And there were 4 sets of eyes and thousands of hours of experience in that AC and probably at SFO.
JD345
JD345 2
There were 3 ATPs with thousands and thousands of hours of experience trying to climb out of a stall on AF447 -- Again I don't want to jump to conclusions and say that I'm positive this was all pilot error, but this idea that pilots are incapable of making mistakes is a little silly.
JetMech24
Correction: 2 ATPs, the Capt realized what was happening within seconds of getting back to the cockpit, it was just too late to fix.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Do we know exactly when the captain returned to the cockpit?
JD345
JD345 1
Captain was present for the final two minutes and it took him almost half of that to figure it out.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
This seems totally irresponsible for the instructor to come in so soon to landing, given the pilot flying was doing his first 777 approach into SFO, no?

[This poster has been suspended.]

AONeal79
AONeal79 1
My mistake.
JetMech24
Lets see, 2 minutes, half of that, 1 minute = 60 seconds, like I said, seconds, rather than minutes.
TXCAVU
Asiana Flight 214 KSFO Final Approach was just posted as a new squawk with an overlay map/photo. Good visual. Check it out.
KevinBrown
SHOCKER: One of the deceased may have been run over by a Fire rig http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Official-Crash-victim-may-have-been-run-over-4651323.php?cmpid=twitter
sparkie624
There is on variable that is missing here and that is the EGPWS... What happened to the messages "Too Low Terrain" and "Sink Rate, Sink Rate". that should have been too good clues for the crew.
20U60N4
isn't it called a co-pilot??? all the tech in the world can't fix stupid
auok
a u 1
The video looks like they were coming in at just the right altitude if the runway was at the same altitude as the water. Does the "Too Low Terrain" warning work over water? Maybe their brains got fooled with the visual clues?
sparkie624
Yes it will. The RA may show a little erratic, but still should have worked.
pmg111
pmg111 1
Does anyone know the EGPWS threshold for SINK RATE, PULL UP warning?
sparkie624
It may not always be the same. With EGPWS it will use the GPS for location so the sink rate may be different at different altitudes and different locations around the country and again for different a/c types.
TXCAVU
NTSB photo interior aft AC Asiana 214:
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGNb1qBEM/2013/07/07/photo-inside-of-asiana-airlines-flight-ntsb
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Blows my mind that this isn't charred, based on other photos....
auok
a u 1
CNN just showed some amateur video of plane as it crashed.
Steve1822
Steve1822 14
A couple of posters are posting inaccurate info on altitudes.
We know Asiana 214 was on a visual to RWY 28L. This approach has a GP of 2.85 degrees
Standard procedure would have been backing up the visual by tuning in the RWY 28L ILS or.....have it programmed into the FMS so the PNF can monitor the approach. The crossing altitude at the FAF (there is no LOM/outer marker on this aprch)is 1,800 MSL. Since only the localizer was available and GP and DME notamed out of service, I assume they had it programmed into the box (FMS). If in fact they were at 2200 MSL at DUYET intersection vs. 1800 MSL it's not the end of the world and correctable with 7.4 miles to go.........if they corrected in time. Obviously waiting longer means greater corrective action getting down to the glide path. Calling for a go around 1.5 seconds before impact and out of energy at that low of an altitude would be a challenge for the best pilot. This is all preliminary of course, and (all) the facts and data are still forthcoming.
smoki
smoki 2
The PAPI was illuminated and functioning normal as a visual glideslope reference given the Notamed out GS on 28L. There had to be nothing but all red lights showing for a long time during that approach. Red over Red, your dead! 300 feet per mile represents essentially a 3 degree GS. It ain't that hard to keep that in your head during a visual approach. This Asian culture barrier excuse and lack of CRM is a red herring. My guess is the IP/PIC in the right seat and presumably the flying pilot, Captain, in the left seat had their heads up their backsides apparently enjoying the view. The preliminary report that the FDR showed the throttles at idle during the approach with the airspeed slowly bleeding off well below the target bug speed is itself a clear indication of a serious breakdown in scan and situational awareness. Little wonder that the stick shaker sounded just prior to impact as the nose was rotated in a desperate attempt to initiate a go around. If the pax can sense in the seat of their pants that the airplane is low and slow as some did according to post crash interviews then that begs the obvious question: Why didn't the pilots have that same sense in the seat of their pants? Maybe their heads were in the way!
PhotoFinish
"300 ft per nm = 3 degree GS"

But at DUYET they were at 2200 instead of 1800, do they had an extra 400 ft to get through.

So they probably descended at 400 ft for the first 4 miles. If I remember correctly they adjusted their attitude at 600 ft to stay on the glidepath at the prescribed 300 ft per nm descent.

It was at this new setting that the airspeed began to decay. The reduced rate of descent was insufficient to keep the aircraft at speed, and the plane progressively slowed down. Every incremental adjustment to pitch to try toaintaim the prescribed glidepath, only further decayed their speed.

Those last 600 ft happened in the literal last minute of a 10 hour flight. Maybe they should've called a go around like the flight the day before instead of counting on perfection in adjusting their glidepath in the last minute of flight.

I hope pilots are hitting the sims all over the world on the off chance they'll be called to fly into SFO on a sunny day, and may be expected to fly in manually onto s runway NOTAMed ILS.

Or at the very least ALL pilots should be discussed the importance of scanning altitude and airspeed in all modes of flight (manual or automatic). No one wants to be the next pilot to bring down a perfectly functionin plane full of people and live through it.
pmg111
pmg111 8
Processed FA log with comments. I had to use dots to make it more readable:

Dist.Sink....Glide..Altitude.Alt...Rel..Speed..Time.Marker.Comment
.....Rate....slope...........Error.Alt..Error..To.
nm...ft/min..Altitude.feet....ft...Err..vs.137.Impact........
.............@2.85deg
15.717..-1200...4754...4800....46....1%..77%...308........
15.500...-780...4688...4800...112....2%..78%...304..WETOR.......
15.248..-1740...4612...4700....88....2%..77%...301........
15.004...-900...4539...4600....61....1%..77%...297........
14.718...-540...4452...4600...148....3%..75%...293........
14.222...-840...4302...4500...198....5%..73%...285.........LOC.fix
13.241...-540...4005...4300...295....7%..66%...270........
12.650...-240...3826...4300...474...12%..61%...261..ROKME.Coming.in
11.677...-720...3532...4200...668...19%..55%...245........light
10.643...-960...3219...3900...681...21%..52%...228.........and
9.835...-1080...2975...3700...725...24%..49%...214..HEMAN.fast
8.966...-1200...2712...3400...688...25%..48%...198........
8.108...-1140...2452...3100...648...26%..42%...183........
7.248...-1500...2192...2800...608...28%..39%...167........
6.546...-1320...1980...2400...420...21%..36%...154........
5.785...-1080...1750...2200...450...26%..36%...139..DUYET.......
5.083...-1020...1537...1900...363...24%..36%...126........White.PAPI
4.277...-1020...1294...1700...406...31%..30%...110........Too.high..
3.580...-1380...1083...1400...317...29%..23%....96..NEPIC.Max.Flaps?
2.492...-1380....754....800....46....6%...6%....73.......On.Glideslope
2.118...-1320....641....600...-41...-6%...3%....64........Red.PAPI
1.742....-900....527....400..-127..-24%..-2%....54........PULL.UP!!
1.369....-840....414....300..-114..-28%..-10%...44........Loses.speed
0.990....-120....300....100..-200..-67%..-20%...33........Nose.up....
0.000.....120......0....200.....0....0%..-38%....0........Impact....
sporty222
Hey, canyou plot that on a graph, x = time in minutes/ seconds?
sporty222
Thank you.
pmg111
pmg111 1
It's posted in aircraft picture gallery 100 seconds:http://e0.photos.flightcdn.com/photos/retriever/3bafb73b2b5595c6648c6aad346f80bdab5f5aca
and 5 minutes: http://flightaware.com/photos/view/786230-082f175ed06f2de3b60cd1683b43fc15aa10fef5/all/sort/date/page/1
Glideslope is not exactly aligned with radar data, but you can see how the aircraft was behaving.
pmg111
pmg111 8
The columns are:
1. Distance to threshold [nm]
2. Sink rate [feet per min]
3. Glideslope altitude @ 2.85 degrees
4. Altitude error [feet]
5. Relative altitude error [%}
6. Speed Error vs. 137 knots [%]
7. Time to impact [s]
8. Marker from charts
8. Comment
pmg111
pmg111 5
There are roughly FOUR phases in this unstabilized approach:

1. Fast and Light. From fixing LOC beacon at ~285 seconds to ~100 seconds before impact. Glideslope altitude exceeded 20-30%, speed exceeded 30-60%. At 100 seconds pilot sees white PAPI lights and max flaps are extended to correct.

2. Rapid Sink. From ~ 100 seconds to ~54 seconds before impact. Altitude error drops from +29% to -24%. Speed becomes target. Sink rate is so great that aircraft goes under proper glideslope. Pilot sees red PAPI lights and realizes the aircraft is undershooting the runway.

3. Pull Up. From ~54 seconds to ~7 seconds, aircraft nose goes up, sink rate drops, but no power is added, airspeed drops over 20%, altitude error -67%, stall warning kicks in.

4. Climb. From ~7 seconds to impact, power is applied too late to avoid impact.

Timing is extracted from airspeed, so is approximate, except for 7 seconds from NTSB statement. You can copy the table to a text editor or word processor with a Courier font to see the columns better.
AABABY
AABABY 1
Pawel--Even though I am not a pilot, I have A high interest in aviation. Your posts re: FA log are very helpful and the commentary is right on the mark.
I wonder why pilot did not make an earlier effort to correct the obvious speed/alt error? Would it be his inexperience with A/C type, or general conditions on flight deck? Crew culture? "I can do this, leave me alone." or-- "You have it, fly it."?
Was there teamwork or not?
pmg111
pmg111 2
Frank, I can not comment on the crew culture. My background in engineering. Perhaps a pilot with a wide-body experience could comment.
PhotoFinish
Reports of potentially CRM-deficient culture in the front, which may have contributed to the crash; contrast with a more dynamic culture in the back of the plane.

There have been repeated reports of bravery of the crew in evacuating all passengers from the plane as quickly as possible, as aircraft crews are trained to do.

Stories of bravery emerge from Asiana crash:
http://www.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jul/09/stories-bravery-asiana-airlines-crash

- "The crew's bravery may help ease the sting if pilot error is deemed the cause of the crash."
- "automation dependency – in which over-reliance on computerisation can diminish flight skills – may have contributed."
AABABY
AABABY 2
I think that's where the NTSB panel is heading. Human factors and A/C factors.
I think only a pilot from the specific airline could shed light on culture.
Excerpt from news article-- Following the first full day of the investigation into the crash of Asiana Flight 214, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Deborah Hersman, cautioned against making rash conclusions from preliminary information. “We’re looking at some issues with respect to the crew,” she said. “We want to understand the humans, we want to understand the aircraft.”
pmg111
pmg111 1
Processed FA log with my comments:

Dist Sink Glide Altitude Alt. Rel. Speed Time Marker Comment
Rate slope Error Alt. Error To
nm ft/min Altitude feet ft Err. vs.137 Impact
@2.85deg
15.717 -1200 4754 4800 46 1% 77% 308
15.500 -780 4688 4800 112 2% 78% 304 WETOR
15.248 -1740 4612 4700 88 2% 77% 301
15.004 -900 4539 4600 61 1% 77% 297
14.718 -540 4452 4600 148 3% 75% 293
14.222 -840 4302 4500 198 5% 73% 285 LOC fix
13.241 -540 4005 4300 295 7% 66% 270
12.650 -240 3826 4300 474 12% 61% 261 ROKME Coming in
11.677 -720 3532 4200 668 19% 55% 245 light
10.643 -960 3219 3900 681 21% 52% 228 and
9.835 -1080 2975 3700 725 24% 49% 214 HEMAN fast
8.966 -1200 2712 3400 688 25% 48% 198
8.108 -1140 2452 3100 648 26% 42% 183
7.248 -1500 2192 2800 608 28% 39% 167
6.546 -1320 1980 2400 420 21% 36% 154
5.785 -1080 1750 2200 450 26% 36% 139 DUYET
5.083 -1020 1537 1900 363 24% 36% 126 White PAPI
4.277 -1020 1294 1700 406 31% 30% 110 Too high
3.580 -1380 1083 1400 317 29% 23% 96 NEPIC Max Flaps?
2.492 -1380 754 800 46 6% 6% 73 On Glideslope
2.118 -1320 641 600 -41 -6% 3% 64 Red PAPI
1.742 -900 527 400 -127 -24% -2% 54 PULL UP!!
1.369 -840 414 300 -114 -28% -10% 44 Loses speed
0.990 -120 300 100 -200 -67% -20% 33 Nose up
0.000 120 0 200 0 0% -38% 0 Impact
pmg111
pmg111 1
Spaces got stripped. Is there a way to post a table?
pmg111
pmg111 2
FMS boxes on 777 and 747-400 are similar:http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/Flight_Management_Systems3_C1997B88E-FCF9-72B5-3A26-801F48F156BD_H612B9195-0973-ECE2-7C67-9C33A65238EA.htm
and
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/Flight_Management_Systems3_C1997B88E-FCF9-72B5-3A26-801F48F156BD_HF40E9B89-C118-9BA7-9D76-B5DD36E2C872.htm
so the lack of pilot's 777 experience does not fully explain what happened.
bravowren
Good points. Just one clarification - LOC Z approach plate for 28L shows 5.5 nm from DUYET to touchdown.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
At the risk of being eviscerated for not being a pilot, can someone explain what DUYET stands for? Google isn't helping.
keithsroberts
DUYET is a three-dimensional waypoint fix used for instrument navigation on the 28L approach at SFO. These 5-letter GPS fixes are common on instrument approaches and enroute charts used by pilots and ATC for navigation. If you know any pilots they will be happy to show you these charts and how they are used. No evisceration here, just glad you are interested.
AONeal79
AONeal79 2
At the risk of being eviscerated for not being a pilot, can someone explain what DUYET stands for? Google isn't helping.
joelwiley
I'm not a pilot, but that is an intersection on the approach to SFO 28 L.
On the left panel put in KSFO in the Airport tracker and find the tab IFR Plates
The one RNAV GPS... 28L is shown below.

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/RNAV+%28GPS%29+PRM+RWY+28L

Your question is one of the learning curve. Most of the squawkers do this for a living and it is probably second nature to them.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Thank you.
aircmdr
another clarification .. they are "approach CHARTS, not plates".
Sanderjay
Quite right Captain! Another example of the non-standard aviation terminology used in the USA as compared to the standard used by the rest of the world.
Steve1822
I was referencing the ILS to 28L. You mention LOC-Z. Both reflect 7.4 DME I-SFO (OTS at the time). You are correct at 5.5 miles NM along the earth and crossing at 1800 MSL. Whether DME or actual distance, the target altitude is 1800 MSL at the FAF. The larger issue is were they fully configured, on speed, on a stabilized GP at that point along the approach.
pmg111
pmg111 3
Their glidepath was much too steep until they reached 600 feet altitude, where they wend under 2.85 degree prescribed in KSFO approach. At that point ~ 56 seconds before impact they had plenty of time to correct it and it appears that they did some correction because the sink rate at 400 feet altitude is closer to normal. However pulling up to reduce the sink rate without adding power caused loss of speed: It was only 123 knots at 300 feet and 109 knots at 100 feet altitude, much before 137 knots prescribed.
TXCAVU
123 knots at 300 feet and 109 knots at 100 feet altitude...no wonder they dropped 200' in 1.5 seconds.

[This poster has been suspended.]

onceastudentpilot
James....when does it just stop giving ground proximity and start barking out pull up....or is that feature disabled whenever the aircraft is in landing configuration?
bentwing60
When you select flaps inhibit on older stuff. Can't say for 777.
chiphermes
Thank you for this analysis.
TXCAVU
Thank you. Right on.
pmg111
pmg111 2
Agree Steve. Failing to do any of the above, student pilots in initial training may use the PAPI lights mnemonic, "WHITE you're light, RED you're dead" until they are used to the lights meaning. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Approach_Path_Indicator
Steve1822
Pawel, in this case the PAPI was NOTAM'd out of service. So the old fashion way, hand flying. Still, if they had it in the box (FMS) at least the command bars would be giving them back up cue's for the approach. Complicant matters by coming in over a flat smooth water surface and normal visual cues get messed up. The old 3 to 1 altitude/distance rule never fails. All about situational awareness.
chalet
chalet 1
According to the lady head of the NTSB the PAPI and ILS for that runway were NOT operating on that day. A friend of mine who is a /// captain for a Middle East airline told me that his company´s rules are very strict: any and all approaches into a U.S. airport shall be conducted only when full ILS (runway locator and glide slope) and the PAPI are fully operational, having said this he added that he and other full captains for his and other airlines strongly believe that weather permitting making visual/manual approaches at least once a week should me mandatory in order to maintain a high degree of airmanship and pilotage proficiency, being too instruments/technology dependant leads to absurd accidents like this, or AF 214 AB 330 flying from Rio to Paris.
jrbeejay
Sorry, but the PAPI was serviceable until it was wiped out by the crash.
pmg111
pmg111 3
Steve, I thought I have heard Debbie Hersman say today that PAPI was NOTAM'd as a result of this crash and that it was operational before the crash. Is this correct?
Steve1822
Good catch Pawel. The PAPI NOTAM was posted/effective at 1519 local. The accident occurred aproximately 1128 local time. I pulled up the KSFO weather at 1330 local and thought I saw a PAPI notam or read about that. I'll go with what you heard from Chairman Hersman. However, if the pilots had either the RWY 28L ILS programmed or even the Quiet Bridge Visual programmed into the FMS,they would still be getting back up cues on their respective ADI's and/or HSI's to monitor. At any rate if was a bad day for this crew and the airline industry. I'm still holding out the CVR and FDR will indicate some anomaly that the crew was facing.
pmg111
pmg111 4
Thanks, Steve. As bad as it was, it amazing how 777 hull held up. Solid construction saves lives.
LewisSckolnick
Kolin Henderson-They got too smart too late-but I still think it was a one man show who just might have been doing or thinking about other things aside from flying an airplane.
Kolinh
Arrogance? Thought they could make it? Didn't want someone to " find out" they were too high at the outer marker and figured they'd try it?
sparkie624
Or they did not want to waste the time for Go Around or saving fuel
LewisSckolnick
Was the pilot doing or thinking about something else and by the way where was the co-pilot.
LewisSckolnick
There is a downward progression here and something had to have started it and why did the pilot only attempt to correct when he was at the seawall.
LewisSckolnick
I wonder what in that flight started to throw that experienced pilot off.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 5
He was probably distracted by your constant inaccurate, irrelevant posts!!!
JetMech24
Maybe he thinks this is twitter?
LewisSckolnick
They needed more time and more altitude and they had neither.
LewisSckolnick
They should have landed and taken the bounce because they were out of time and just maybe the prestige of the aircraft made them think that it could do magical things.
LewisSckolnick
This could have been a whole lot worse and for that we should be grateful.
LewisSckolnick
An airplane coming in for a landing has a lot to do with speed loss even if you have a whole 1.5 seconds to play with.
LewisSckolnick
There was 1.5 seconds between the time the turn around was started and the crash.
TXCAVU
Best impact video yet:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
chiphermes
http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/24_hours/popular/35374/New_video_shows_Asiana_Flt_214_Crash
AONeal79
AONeal79 2
Patrick Smith's take (author of Cockpit Confidential)
http://www.askthepilot.com/sfo-asiana-crash/
LewisSckolnick
If KSFO does not have runway cameras it is going to get some and if it does have them it is going to get better ones.
sparkie624
NTSB States: Normal Visual approach acepted. Target speed 137 kts. 7seconds call for more power, engines responded, stick shacker started at 4 sec, 1.5 sec remaining called for go around.. NTSB further stated that they were a significant below the Target Speed.

Bottom line. They stalled the plane below a recoverable altitude.
JD345
JD345 1
Yikes.
chiphermes
Do you have a link to the NTSB findings thus far?
pmg111
pmg111 1
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/asiana214/asiana214.html
pmg111
pmg111 4
The FA log shows that they came in high at outer marker at twice the altitude (2200) they should have (1180 feet) and then they increased the sink rate to 1380 feet per second - twice the normal rate, killing the air speed in the process, so instead of overshooting the runway they had trouble making to the threshold.
FrankHarvey
Ie did they try to slip it in and misjudged the roll out of the sideslip ?
pmg111
pmg111 4
I do not think the slip was intentional. The sideslip could have been the result of the stall condition on one of the wings. Their course was stable, but they came in too high at the outer marker (4.5 miles from runway thershold). When you fly too high so close to the runway, you are in danger of landing too far from threshold and overshooting the runway - either crashing at the end of the runway or having to pull the plan back up. So it appears that they used max flats and low speed to get their altitude down ASAP and overdid it, resulting in not enough speed to retain control.
LewisSckolnick
I do not see this as having a negative impact on the reputation of Boeing 777-200ER.
Av8nut
I hope not. Although, you'd be surprised what the Airburst advocates would do.
preacher1
No, but the million$ question is what caused the speed loss and moreso, why didn't they catch it, or maybe they did and just too late?
Av8nut
Perhaps - They saw themselves too high on approach and thought they could get down to proper glide path altitude if they controlled their speed at minimums. Misjudged it, and came in too high at 28L, tried to over-compensate with accelerated sink rate and minimum speed, realized they couldn't do it, then decided to go around, but...........too late.
pmg111
pmg111 1
The slowdown looks intentional. The FA log shows that they came in high at outer marker at twice the altitude (2200) they should have (1180 feet), so being afraid of overshooting the runway the slowed the plane down to max the sink rate.
TXCAVU
Getting behind the plane is my fear. The call to go around wasn't made by (pilot) until after the stall warning blared out. I think about Air France 447 where they stopped flying the plane. We will see.
bdarnell
bdarnell 1
Sounds like the PIC got task-saturated and got behind the airplane.
20U60N4
spot on Elizabeth!
20U60N4
um, flying too slow?
whip5209
cnn.com homepage has two actual videos of the accident by spotters.
onceastudentpilot
distant shot of aircraft on final
onceastudentpilot
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html
LewisSckolnick
Well at least Karl Schneider is awake-Thank You.

[This poster has been suspended.]

TXCAVU
That's what it looks like on the video as well. I fear they throttled up and pulled back on the yoke thus exacerbating the stall. Too low/slow. Remember Air Florida?
LewisSckolnick
It is all in the timing.
LewisSckolnick
Turbulence does not last forever-it is often a few seconds.
LewisSckolnick
What turbulence was SFO reporting. The earlier turbulence that might have affected another plane that had just landed might have already been over.
germanji
NTSB briefing just now summarized CVR and FDR data. Sounds like pilots allowed the aircraft to slow below target speed for approach, stick shaker activated and go around called for seconds prior to impact with the sea wall.
preacher1
That's what it sounds like to me. Everything happened in less than 5 seconds. Even calling the go round and shoving power, that ain't enough time for spool up and full power
germanji
"significantly less than 137kts target speed...not talking about a few knots" strong words from the NTSB
sparkie624
She was allergic to the word STALLED the A/C
preacher1
Big question still is though, what happened to let them get that slow in the first place? Wind, head up the hiney, or what
whip5209
I couldn't agree more. Fatigue? Distraction? I was thinking possibly a bird strike, but the NTSB kind of put the kyboshes on that.
onceastudentpilot
they may have just been suffering from fatigue...disengaged the auto-throttle and just forgot about the speed aspect until it was clear that they weren't going to make the runway....the stall was a result of them trying to clear the seawall.
sparkie624
They were on a visual approach... The Auto Throttles would not have been engaged in that mode of flight
preacher1
Bentwing60, you're out of luck bud. As you, I was hopin' it wasn't so but this appears to be right in the crew's lap.
bentwing60
Beer's on me and I ate the crow yesterday , with salt & pepper & plenty of catsup. Still can't quite wrap my noggin around how a qualified crew, in ideal VMC, can get that far behind the power curve and not see any of it till that late. Guess it's better than having 1100 some odd 777's in question, but, as they say, you just can't make this stuff up. I'll get under the bus now. See Ya.
LewisSckolnick
If the seawall was hit by the landing gear then the seawall acted like a wrestler and slammed the plane to the ground.
preacher1
CNN just released a spotter video and interview; it shows nose high, and an end up flip that resembled a cartwheel.
Musketeer1
Why do you keep saying you wish it was a fault with the machine itself? Are you saying you'd rather have hundreds of potentially at-risk 777's cruising around? These pilots deserve to be jailed alongside that cruise ship captain.
Musketeer1
Sorry preacher, I meant for this to be in reply to your comment to bentwing.
dm831
My first reaction was how much worse this accident could have been, also given that the 747 was so close.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Yes - I wonder if part of the spinning (if the pilot had much control, that is) could have been an attempt to avoid the 747?
TXCAVU
Angie...the tail and gear ripped off on first impact. The AC struck some debris which sent it up and turning on its wingtip for a 90 degree turn in the air after which it slammed down onto the dirt and quickly stopped. There are 3 areas of "clouds" 1. Initial impact 2. Tail crashes on runway 3. AC sliding in the dirt. The pilot had no control the moment that tail severed off. And about that United 747...it returned to the gate, changed crew and got back into the air.
whip5209
Yeah, how would you like to be the pilots sitting there? Preacher, I'll bet that flip was from the port engine being sheared off.
LewisSckolnick
With more news out it is looking like the landing gear caught the seawall and that may have given the impression on the ground by those who saw it hit that the plane had hit turbulence.
jfertic
Could be an issue with wake turbulence? I read another 777 approached and landed about one minute before Fight 214. It could explain why 214 was short and to the right of the center line. I understand the winds were light during the 214 decent, approach, and landing. Maybe the wind only moved the wake turbulence down the runway towards the seawall and not off the runway left or right.
FrankHarvey
I am unfamiliar with current acceptable commercial procedures with 300,000 lbs. If, as some claimed, he was high, is it possible he was trying to slip it in and misjudged the roll out ? - Power back, left boot, right stick with slight back pressure, (when she shudders slightly relax the back pressure), watch the asi, sink rate and threshold in the left window and be heart thumpingly ready for plenty of forward stick and right boot when you're back in the envelope ? Anyone got some free 777 simulator time ? I once managed to get a Westwind simulator going backwards just before she hit at KILG by reversing thrust at 100 feet agl
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
I don't know if slipping a jet, especially a big one, will end up okay. I'm thinking about airflow to the engines...
sjwecks
I'm betting on this explanation.
jfertic
I have just read the information from the press conference with the NSTB. It appears the pilot called for a go around about 1.5 seconds before impact. Even considering the glide slope is not operational at SFO and the pilot was attempting a slip, using the VASI, the pilot would have know he was too low and in trouble a lot sooner than 1.5 seconds.I would have guess that the event(s) that cause the plane to impact the sea wall and crash was immediate and unexpected. I am still leaning towards wake turbulence.
elroy85750
Any discussion about a possible bird strike?
russellletcher
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Deadly crash at SFO

Two runways have reopened. Many flights have been diverted to other airports. Please check with airlines for updated arrival and departure information.

http://www.flysfo.com/
Pileits
Pileits 1
Mr Jacobs, like it or not that headline is accurate. The NTSB NEVER rushes to judgement like you seemed to have done.
wsudu
Calm down, it was sarcasm. I know they don't and that wasn't what I was implying. I'm saying that we all have rushed to judgement and if you read some of these comments, they are quite ridiculous.
wsudu
This headline is not true at all! I found the cause in only five minutes. All those investigators need to do is go over to the comments section and the answers are right there.
gkkevorkian
Almost all passengers got saved. Great news.
Could it be that the PF was following a false, wrongly set, FPA ???
gkkevorkian
Could it be the PF was following a false FPA entered by PNF?

[This poster has been suspended.]

dbaker
Based on what?
Steve1822
Rick Hunt ends his post with ATP & 35 years as a CFI. Most pro pilots I know would never post such predictions. At the most they would post known facts and let the informed reader make conclusions. I no real facts, no predications or accusations and waiting for a preliminary statement of findings from the NTSB. This is what (real) professional would do.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
Also there's no such thing as a Certified Flight Instructor, it's Certificated...
chiphermes
CNN's Richard Quest declared it pilot error around 2p PT yesterday, while the plane was still burning, so he had everyone beat.
sparkie624
I have been saying that since yesterday.... LOL, could not be more obvious. I hope the NTSB puts together a good animation like they did for Colgan Q400 over Buffalo.
onceastudentpilot
I just saw one on the news but I couldn't find it to post.....Preacher said they are supposed to a preliminary report around 3....The video does depict the plane striking the sea wall nose high.
rgeisel
rgeisel 3
Another testimony not to watch CNN....totally irresponsible.
rgeisel
rgeisel 1
Do some research on Mr. Quest before you quote him as a reliable resource: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/richard-quest-cnn-reporte_n_97466.html
A tad kinky to say the least.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Since when does kink = unreliable?
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Kink will only occur if the person is "reliABLE..."
danishnelson
I think what matters the most out of all this dilemma, is the fact the 300 lives where saved & nobody got hurt so badly in the sense that once the injured recover, they can walk away.
dbaker
In general, it is good that so many people survived or weren't hurt. However, please keep in mind that two passengers were found dead and that dozens more have very serious injuries that may last a lifetime.
danishnelson
Daniel Baker - I do understand that yes. Though that is why I chose not to mention it, to keep our minds & thoughts towards the good.
jperrin
jperrin 0
Seems fairly clear to me what happened, just not why. One interesting question is why was the plane was so far off the centerline when it struck the breakwater and threshold?
kalirick
Predictions: Since the ILS and VASI were OTS (out of service) the flying pilot (Captain or First Officer) was flying a visual approach totally "seat of the pants". Flight Data Recorder will indicate an unstabilized approach that began too high at the Final Approach Fix. A higher than rapid descent rate was commanded at an angle higher than the normal 3 degree glide path. In the final 30 seconds Cockpit Voice Recorder will show the Captain and First arguing about the situation until aircraft ended up low and slow with power applied too late to fully recover. In an effort not to land short the flying pilot commanded a nose high attitude and the aircraft struck the breakwater wall short of the runway in a very nose high attitude in a partially stalled (aerodynamically, that is) condition with engines commanded at full power but most likely not yet developing full power due to spool up delay. End of story....

ATP & +35 years as Certified (now Authorized) Flight Instructor
kalirick
Looks like the NTSB version just backed me up!
AJACOBS2
Agree, other factors, interesting the PC had estimated 8000 plus hours probably most of his landings were on the gauges and other aids. Now we add a few other factors, both the VASI and ILS were kaput, maybe the PC was out of touch with a non precision approach, what was the radar altimeter, DME, GPS and an approach plate doing at the time. Possibly the overconfident Pride, "the I can make it, got it attempt", one of the two had to have a clue as to what was going on... too late and too slow on the spool up power, lots of ignored signs.....
Did they share the Notams before and during crew seat swapping during the flight.

Possible...GA pilots VFR it, occasionally needing (if trained and qualified) an IFR approach. ATP fly IFR occasionally getting an VFR landing in. During the gas shortage I jump seated on a Delta into Tampa and it was a slow beautiful day and the Pilot cancelled IFR and grease balled that aircraft in five minutes early and a lot of gas saved. It was a 180 work of art right on the hash marks. His hair was grayer than mine, and it was a pleasure watching a pro work that plane. I told him so, he replied, never get lazy, you sometimes have to do it all. I though it quite appropriate. This accident brought it back to me....
AJACOBS2
Just goes to show you, how wrong initial info is and i apologize, the actual time in the triple seven according to a BBC report was 47 hours for the new pilot in type, and the maiden landing for this Pilot in KSFO. I imagine the 8000-or 10,000 veteran was instructing, But the point I was trying to make is all the backups and secondary equipment didn't get utilized, and like we say in restaurant fire investigations, we look at the cook or the griller first....
gkkevorkian
Agree. I wonder if in non precision approach like this one, without glideslope, the PF was following a correct Flight Path Angle set by Pilots, prior to the final approach , at the correct time / intersection, to establish a simulated Glide slope. If the simulated glide path is set prior to the right location, a false glideslope signal would be shown on primary flight display of LOC and G/S. But since the rate of descent was high 1450ft per min and varying quite a bit, most probably an unstabilized approach would be a major factor.
chiphermes
Agree 100% although you missed one point -- the crew will invariably blame mechanical failure of the engines to respond in time. I don't doubt it felt like an eternity.
AJACOBS2
Undoubtably the blame game will kick in, and ONE other point, where did the left engine go, it's missing... have they found it yet?
pmg111
pmg111 1
Rick, what flap setting would you need to descend so fast on 777?
AJACOBS2
Max I believe was 35 degrees but mention has been made his airspeed was high..... the boxes will tell....
LewisSckolnick
Eyewitnesses need to give much more detailed accountings.
chiphermes
The eyewitness reports are perhaps the most inaccurate pieces of information circulating.
JD345
JD345 1
No kidding ... all of these pax knew it was too low. I'm sure something about the plane smashing into the ground short of the runway, skidding out of control, and exploding into flames may have slightly affected their recollection of the approach.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
I think the more informed eyewitness accounts (nearby flight crews, etc) will actually be extremely helpful.
jhwenger
jhwenger 1
Looking forward to reading the interview with the United 85 crew that was parked right at the 28L hold line.
wfung99
I think it was UAL885 to Kansai.
LewisSckolnick
Being low on fuel probably saved many lives.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Not sure why you were downvoted. Your statement is true.
frankysoh
I just read a Korean newspaper 7:24 am July 8th 2013 Sun. One of the passenger witnessed the sudden nose up and engine noise was just like the airplane ready to take off. The AAR214 was not able to fly back to Seoul due to engine problem about a month ago in SFO. The Capt. Lee's 12,387 flight hours and the first officer Lee's 17 years experience make very convincing for safety operations;however; human errors and equipment failures are always happening without warning
.
rebomar
rebomar 0
Look at the radar track log for the end of the flight. Compare to previous flights for this airplane coming into KSFO on June 28 and July 1. Speed and rate of descent. KSFO notams indicate that the glideslope was out of service for both 28L and 28R from June 1 to August 22.
andromeda07
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Pilots report view of Asiana crash to control tower

This link should work this time, sorry about the last post.
Should be the audio with the control tower.

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2013/07/06/2495857/
ualiah
Isnt the media great,,,already speculating on causes....
randomguy
Whereas many of the people here...
LewisSckolnick
It still sounds a lot like turbulence esp. the hard hit onto the runway.
sparkie624
It sounds like he was on a visual approach and mis judged his glide path and cut things just alittle short.... The fact that he waited so long to figure out his glide path was incorrect was the reason he hit the runway so hard... Turbulence most likely had nothing to do with it.
chiphermes
I am hopeful that some high resolution photography or videos surface that shows the accident unfold. Considering the number of spotters out there and the number of people uploading photos of seemingly every flight to FlightAware and elsewhere, it seems inevitable. If anyone comes across this, please post a reply with the link.
calcajun
Was the ILS working? The plane lands itself with the ILS.
sparkie624
Question of the ILS Working is in question, however the plane has many systems that work to accomplish the AutoLand,and any one of those can deny an autoland on this a/c. Just to name a few: Radio Altimeter, Air Data Computer, Nav Receiver's, Auto Pilot, Auto Throttle, Yaw Damper and I know there are alot of items that I left out...

Regardless of if the ILS is working is a total BS Item. He was on a VISUAL APPROACH and that means he was using his eyes to look out and judge where the runway is and how fast to decend. It would appear from the evidence that he made a simple mistake... The ground was closer than he thought and did not realize it until too late. Where the outcome is major, the mistake is simple... It is amazing how a simple mistake can be magnified so badly.
chiphermes
Your first question is valid, the second statement is not.
sparkie624
Rumors say it was not, but every pilot is trained for a Visual Approach, and it was clear VFR... No excuse for the Pilot... Looks like pilot error.
chiphermes
What did ATIS say at the time of the accident?
sparkie624
Have not heard the ATIS, that is why I say RUMOR... :)
isardriver
i wonder if there is an airport security camera or tower cam that would show how drastically the aircraft pitched up or was made to pitch up, presumably to avoid the breaker barrier.
teutz
NTSB released 2 photos from the scene :
http://www.planecrashes.org/asiana-airlines-boeing-777-crash-landing-san-francisco.html
You can view a little from the inside of the plane.
AABABY
AABABY -1
Nothing to add. I just want updates sent.
teutz
http://www.planecrashes.org/asiana-airlines-boeing-777-crash-landing-san-francisco.html -updated with Sullenberger interview, passenger interview 8 minutes long and much more.
vanstaalduinenj
The B.A defect was recognized and repaired, not to mention the b.a plane had different engine manufacturer regardless
cli123
The first Boeing 777 that crashed, British Airways BA38 in 2008 was also a 777-200ER and crashed just short of the runway. The cause was ruled as ice water in the fuel lines in the Rolls Royce engines. Different airline, but too similar of situations - both crashed just short of the runway and both Boeing 777-200ER. Did this one also have Rolls Royce engines?
AONeal79
AONeal79 4
No. Pratt & Whitney.
Flyingmartian1
The FAA's Citation "N3" just landed at SFO. I presume this is the NTSB's Go Team.
texasfence
I have to wonder if the 2 deceased were flight attendants sitting in the rear of the aircraft. How could anyone else be ejected?
wfung99
Chinese foreign ministry confirmed the two killed were Chinese women.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-07/07/c_132519131.htm
texasfence
Thanks for he link.
TXCAVU
Shame. This whole things could have been much worse.
paulbell
Paul Bell -2
There was no fuel fire after this accident....the aircraft was lacking in speed and altitude....has it occurred to anyone that they were maybe out of fuel?
lvdudeman
If you were out of fuel wouldn't you declare an emergency?
AONeal79
AONeal79 -1
It's happened before - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52
No emergency declared.
pmg111
pmg111 0
From the flight plan:Distance Direct: 5,651 sm Planned: 5,669 sm Flown: 7,257 sm
It looks like they covered an extra 1,588 sm going over Japan instead of a normal route.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
That extra mileage is a FA anomaly, probably vectoring or re-routing. Not an extra 1600 miles...
pmg111
pmg111 0
Lokking back that seems to be the norm for AAR214 flights. They avoid Sakhalin and burn more fuel on a longer route.
paulbell
Paul Bell -2
There was no fuel fire after this accident....the aircraft was lacking in speed and altitude....has it occurred to anyone that they were out of fuel?
pmg111
pmg111 -1
777 manual says:
Slow the aircraft on the glide slope to 160 KIAS and flaps 20°.
However AAR214 was below that speed for about 70 seconds before crash according to the flight log.
pmg111
pmg111 -2
His descent rate was over 1300 so the flaps might have been set to 30 and left there too long resulting in stall before for landing.
marksmccaffrey
Malcolm Gladwel in his book Outliers wrote about the bad track record of Korean airlines, suggesting that deeply rooted hierarchy and poor English could contribute to the problems they've had historically: http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/12/04/malcolm-gladwell-on-culture-cockpit-communication-and-plane-crashes/

I was hiking today west of Palo Alto and saw the plane turning toward the airport to the north of me. It was low and slow, lumbering along, but it was close enough that I could see the tail insignia and I thought: that's odd-- why is it turning there to the north of me?

The flight path in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/07/07/us/plane-map-2.html suggests it did the normal loop clear down at the south end of the SF Bay, but it appeared to me to have turned to the airport approach a bit further north, lumbering along.

Then I heard on the radio what had happened shortly after and checked Flight Aware to get a better idea of what happened. KGO radio interviewed a commercial pilot who was saying "off the record" (as if there is such a thing to a reporter) that the airport's normal system for providing signals to incoming aircraft wasn't working because of construction, and they'd been moving transceivers around, implying that could have also contributed to the problem.
TXCAVU
Baloney. Plane came in high, got over corrected in abn effort to get it down and last second power up wasn't enough to clear. I listened to the ATC and the pilot was calm and cleared to land.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
No, he does have a point. It's been noted that there is a problem with the Korean crews hierarchy.
AONeal79
AONeal79 -1
Agreed.
dm831
It will be interesting to see if there are any similarities with the BA flight that landed short at Heathrow. I'm not a pilot but if the plane was gliding in and just needed some power at the end of the glide slope the engines may have been slow to respond. The BA flight had ice in the fuel lines, did this flight descend quickly and have the same issue?
The news said the bodies of the two deceased persons were found outside the plane. It looked like the rear bulkhead has a hole in it. It may mean that the flight attendants at the back of the plane were ejected:(
gmacg
Different engines - RR on Speedbird, PW on Asiana.
mdlacey
But the aircraft system supplying the engines is the same.
JetMech24
The fuel/oil heat exchangers are an engine component. The fuel gets heated, the oil gets cooled.
TXCAVU
Different situation entirely.BAW was fuel starved.
mpradel
That's the politicaly correct version.

Water in the Fuel, was more like it.
kapocius
Rumors spreading out that neither ILS, nor PAPI lights were working at KSFO's 28L.
aselder
ILS and VASI were out of service and NOTAM'd. Weather was beautiful, visual approaches were in use.
aselder
!SFO 07/046 SFO RWY 28L PAPI OTS WEF 1307062219
!SFO 07/051 SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L LLZ/DME OTS WEF 1307071700
mpradel
The WEF notes indicate these resources came offline after the crash..
kiwipop
Anyone find the very bottom line of this interesting.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog
When a plane is descending on final shouldn't the little orange arrows continue showing descent rather than ascent? Or, does this log tell us that he was trying to regain altitude? Just wondering!
pdixonj
pdixonj 0
It's possible that they realized they were too low as they approached the runway end and tried to stop the descent, but we don't know if it was a glidepath error or if some mechanical problem occurred that caused them to come in so low.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -4
I'll tell you one thing, that pilot came in Gangnam style!!!
texasfence
I have to wonder if the two deceased found outside the aircraft were flight attendants seated in the rear. The reports have stated that the flight crew were accounted for, but they have not identified the deceased.
KevinBrown
What I find mind boggling about this accident are the pictures of passengers evacuating the burning aircraft carrying luggage. It appears that almost half the passengers took time to grab their carry-on! How stupid can people be? Look at this picture in addition to luggage some idiot lugged two large shopping bags off the aircraft. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=393431874111860&set=pb.226324334155949.-2207520000.1373168145.&type=3&theater
TXCAVU
Maybe but here is a second passenger who got his luggage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357502/BREAKING-NEWS-Passenger-jet-crashes-San-Francisco-airport.html
Moviela
Wait a second, I would guess that a landing hard enough to snap off the tail would also cause the overhead bins to fall or open. The passengers might have grabbed their bags to clear the way.

There was also a sizable number of students on board travelling together. It is probably the first time they have flown or been near an airport. Their tender age and inexperience as well as a language barrier wants to make me look the other way on this one.
kiwipop
"Some Idiot" might be an understatement Kevin. A friend of mine tells the story of being a flight attendant who was involved in a "Get Everyone Out" in 90 seconds on a 747. The first woman down the chute failed to remove high heels and punctured the chute. Five or six subsequent passengers broke their ankles as a result of this one total moron. The fun part of the story is that the buzzing suitcase that caused it was an electric razor.
mdlacey
I believe it to be a reasonable question to ask whether the "total moron" was the FA or the high heel wearer? We've absolved individuals of responsibility in this society. If the FA did not instruct the wearer to remove the heels, who was the root cause? Some of us foresee the consequences of our actions; most do not....
stjohnsguy
You can't tell a lot from that kind of data because you don't have sub-second time-stamps. We can't tell for certain what order the reports came in and how they relate to the ground impact. I looked at a couple of earlier tracks for the same flight and it appears that this descent was steep. The ground speeds look a bit lower than they might be but wind speed is not included in the data so you can't tell a lot.
TXCAVU
Moments after Asiana Airlines flight 214 stopped its violent crash landing, a voice came over the plane's intercom to say it had landed safely and everyone should stay in their seats, a passenger told ABC News.

"They put us on some sort of cargo elevator and we are somewhere at a dirty smelly place. I had to wait five hours with no diapers and no food."

http://news.yahoo.com/crash-survivor-says-announcement-claimed-plane-had-landed-020116713--abc-news-topstories.html
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
It would be nice if they were thankful to be alive, huh?
LewisSckolnick
Robert Bierman wants us to partially believe that the pilot made it that far then loses it.
Pilot009
SORRY FOR THE SMALL TEXT, BUT AFTER LOOKING AT THE FLIGHT AWARE DATA TRACK YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHY
HIS DECENT RATE WHEN 8 MILES OUT ON A STRAIGHTIN APPROACH WAS SO HIGH.ALSO IT SHOWS HE WAS LOW AND SLOW IN THE FINAL MINUTE OF FLIGHT, NOT A GOOD COMBINATION. I CAN'T SEE ANY WAY THAT THERE CANNOT BE AT LEAST PARTIAL BLAME ATTRIBUTED TO PILOT ERROR. THERE HAD TO BE ALL KINDS OF WARNING NOISE GOING OFF IN THE COCKPIT THAT LAST 30 SECONDS; RADAR ALTIMETERS, SPEED WARNINGS, GROUND PROXIMITY WARNINGS, ETC. BOEING BUILDS GREAT PLANES! BUT YOU HAVE TO FLY THEM CORRECTLY.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
Did you mean large text?
pthomas745
Love how many people in this thread are "members from just a few minutes ago".
HerrThor
HerrThor 1
Only three years for me, but I look very much the posts by Thrustt and Preacher1.
joelwiley
Think of it as "FA discovered", lots of free advertizing.
Of course there is also, "there goes the neigborhood".
2 years, just a newbie
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Six years for me, but hey, we all have to start somewhere, right?
preacher1
About 7 for me. Yeah Angie, we all gotta start but there are a whole lot that have joined and jumped in here as a result of the crash and are all of a sudden EXPERTS.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
They actually may be experts, just new to FlightAware...
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
Preach on Preacherman, I'll put you back in the positive...
onceastudentpilot
there's you thumbs up too...lol
eater1952
A whole lot of nonsense, because of the fact that 7-9 people doesn't constitute a "whole lot that have joined and jumped in here as a result of the crash."
LewisSckolnick
If AAR214 hit the breakwater area then it had to have been very low and that might point to turbulence or some other outside force.
mikeap
mikeap -1
Flightglobal has an article saying a navigation system at SFO had been disabled for weeks. I'm not a member of the site but did anyone read the article and know what it said specifically?
jaschmerold
Sounds like to me, the crash was due to a Microburst, I think that the pilot tried to correct the situation, but the nose was too high and the Plane too low, and the tail got smacked by the ground, causing the Tail to collapse, Sounds like another Airliner had a similar issue at the SF Airport, at the same time, but the pilot was able to correct the situation.
benjammin
Microbursts are pretty much exclusively associated with convective activity. But the turbulence the previous aircraft encountered will probably be something they look into.
jaschmerold
Turbulence as mentioned by Robert Rauchfleisch, is a strong possibility, thanks
SilentH
It's amazing how anyone/everyone including the novices, are ready to jump to a conclusion of "pilot error" when they have no idea what they are talking about!! The 777/200, 777ER, 777/300 is a highly sophisticated aircraft with a stellar performance history that is typically flown by the autopilot/autoland function(s)and largely a glass cockpit where the pilot is managing systems instead of "flying" the plane. I would'nt be surprised to hear that these are the same people asking what's a "Heavy"? Read, educate, experience and learn first, comment only when you are absolutely certain you know what you're talking about, and only then, still just ask questions! Then go sit on a plane, any plane, with the rest of the clowns who worry about being "terrified" to board another as they're driving. Let's talk about safety percentages for both those forms of transportation and then ask ourselves how they might cross an ocean without a plane, let alone travel in our great country..
JD345
JD345 2
Aviation is incredibly safe. Airplanes are very reliable and flight crews are extremely good at their jobs. But perfectly good airplanes can break and perfectly competent pilots make mistakes.

I understand your point, but this is an odd place for you to be if you don't like reading what other people have to say.
andriy17
Well said! Too many inexperienced folks making ridiculous conclusions without knowing much. Hopefully we will know soon what caused this unfortunate event.
richcraft
We're all just guessing, based on what we're seeing and hearing, but some of us are trying to make educated guesses based on our experience as pilots and our knowledge of past crashes. Some of us are all too aware that many fatal accidents are the result of pilots "managing systems instead of 'flying the plane.'" My favorite is Eastern Air 401, which crashed because the entire crew was focused on the landing gear light instead of flying the airplane, they inadvertently turned off their autopilot and lost situational awareness, and descended into terrain, killing 101 people.

Don't get me wrong, commercial flying is safer than it has ever been, the risk of flying is statistically insignificant! But pilots still make errors, some of those errors have to do with the sophistication of the aircraft they are flying. Just look at all the crashes in the last 20 years that were caused by pilots relying on technology they didn't understand.

Korean Air 801 is just one of many examples. The pilot flew into the DME antennae because he thought that the DME was at the runway threshold, instead of three kilometers in front of the threshold. 228 killed.

I think that right now pilot error is a pretty good guess, but I am holding that opinion lightly until the NTSB releases their report.
LewisSckolnick
The air temperature at the time of the crash would be a nice piece of information to know.
benjammin
18 degrees communist, or about 64-65ish
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20130706-0
LewisSckolnick
Turbulence mentioned by Robert Rauchfleisch could be the cause.
SFO has four runways jutting out into the Bay and I will assume that the approach of AAR214 was toward one of the two longer southerly ones.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
There are 8 runways...
sddaledawson
yes almost they are not south as you wold think. 28 L refers to the compass heading of the runway 28 or 280 degrees on the compass almost due west which are the "long" runways at SFO
randomguy
Though, if one looks at the (parallel) highway designated 101N/101S, you'd never know it!
LewisSckolnick
The attitude of AAR214 on the ground may be accounted for due to its lost engine.
SilentH
Has anybody thought about the possibility of a bird ingested in the right engine on short final ILS R28L, full power on the working engine causing the plane to yaw right, nose up, hit the seawall, rip off the right engine, slamming the tail on the runway threshold. Duh??
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -2
Somehow I'm getting flashbacks of Joe Patroni now!!!
sddaledawson
FOD damage is always possible meaning bird or as we call it B1RD damage or maybe GU11 both are in the area on the water as well as the ground
sparkie624
I doubt that happened... I know it happened in NY, but that was much different. He was pulling takeoff power and went thru a flock they could see. If they were in a flock of that size we would have known about it and on approach, the bird would have been digested and disposed off probably before an ITT spike.
mynewego
mynewego 0
I'm thinking missed approach gone bad. Minus the flips and cartwheels and other ridiculous notions.
I would be surprised if it was not pilot error. Of course, there is always Speedbird.
tbpera
Tom Pera 0
ILS inop due to construction.... wonder how many manual landings pilot has made in last 2-3 years? seems like most landings in modern aircraft are "auto-land"... maybe he just blew it?
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
The avionics in modern aircraft wouldn't need the physical ILS to be working, they could just fly it off of the FMS.
MultiComm
The ILS INOP should not be a factor. 3 takeoff and landing in 90 days, while it may be a stretch, are not to be completed with a coupled autopilot and they are to be in the type aircraft in which they are certified.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
"seems like most landings in modern aircraft are "auto-land"

Would like some other opinions on whether this is true....
sparkie624
I strongly disagree... Cat II is for approach to landing only and is NOT auto-land captible.

Cat II is Verticle Height of 100', RVR is 1000'

Many airlines will have different limitations, but CAT II IS NOT AUTOLAND, CAT III is.
tduggan2010
Thank you! "sparkie624" is 100% correct. CAT II is not an AutoLand procedure. Yes, it is usually flown with the Autopilot, but once landing is assured (at or before reaching DH -- "Decision Height" -- the A/P is disconnected not later than 50 feet BELOW DH. Landing then accomplished manually. IF, at any time, sufficient visual cues are lost, then a Go-Around is mandated ('Missed Approach'). The G/A can be accomplished using the A/P, or manually if the insufficient visual cues occur after A/P disconnect.

For Asiana 214 @KSFO yesterday, this is all moot. It was 'severe clear', and I understand the electronic G/S was NOTAMed OTS. Based on reports trickling in, seems most probable that this was a very un-stabilized approach scenario, due to crew mis-handling. As always, the CVR and DFDR will provide the ultimate info during the investigation.
benjammin
For me, any Category II or III approach will be auto-land. The FAA also requires that for a plane to maintain its CAT III certification, it needs to perform an autoland every 28 days. So if it has under 10 days until it loses its certification, I'll do an autoland. Other than that, I don't use the autoland. I have no idea how prevalent its use is with airlines that fly jumbos for many hours over the ocean.
MultiComm
Large transport category aircraft have autopilots that can land the aircraft with zero visibility to include auto throttles and auto brakes. However in visual conditions, it is unlikely this was the case.

The only exception is the requirement for crews to have a minimum number of "auto" landings to remain properly currency but they would not have been doing this if the ILS/Glideslope was INOP (inoperative).
klimchuk
klimchuk 2
Not true
ArthurWohlers
Watched an early live shot from news helicopter that showed clear impact with breakwater and junk on rocks and in the water. Tail pieces are 500' after impact ( but before displaced threshold - came in way too low!). Suspect right landing gear at breakwater. Left mains (?) look to be on runway ~800' after impact. Suspect one set of swerving tracks are nose gear?
mdlacey
Best forensics I've read on this thread yet. Cheers.
onceastudentpilot
Tail first.....I am thinking pilot error maybe even a pilot that was new to the type of aircraft....Airplane probably stalled.
kb3qfd
Are these long-haul flights ever really operated by newbies?

Only a passenger, and very curious. IAD-NRT and reverse regular on ANA, with no other flight experience to speak of am and interested in your opinion.
onceastudentpilot
not really but everyone has to start someplace....no matter how much time you have doing anything....if you ever get moved into new equipment you are essentially *new* to it.....I just like everyone else is just speculating and wasnt there.
kb3qfd
Sorry, stupid question. Everyone is "new" at some point, so of course there's a training flight or fifteen. I should have asked if they're really operated SOLO by newbies.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -2
Oh, all the time...
klausfein
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

US Customs denies entry

Report, US Customs keeps crash victims from leaving the airport with without proper identification. People are exhausted and just want to go home. live from KSFO will follow up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/san-francisco-plane-crash_n_3555575.html
ImA1032
http://www.ferndaleenterprise.com/category/blog/

Just witnessed the MOST unbelievable thing I’ve ever seen in my life. As my plane landed in SF we hit some turbulence & our plane jolted to the left, turning about 30 degrees before we quickly straightened out-barely making our landing, taking a sharp left & skidding to a stop on the strip between 2 runways. Just as we pulled perpendicular to the incoming runway, we looked up to the left & saw a huge plane (an off duty pilot riding as a passenger on my flight said it was a 777) literally drop from the sky & slam into the ground, almost bouncing it hit so hard. It threw an engine into the center divider that bursted into flames, before the plane turned sideways off the runway & slid until it came to a stop in the dirt. It quickly went up in flames towards the center of the plane & then a few minutes later we saw the emergency slide deploy from the front. No news on passengers. Anyways, long story short Kimberly, they shutdown the airport & nothing is currently coming/going (I’ll keep you posted). Absolutely terrified to board another flight. Pray that everyone gets off that plane!!! — at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
auok
a u 1
You say your plane experienced turbulence just before landing. Could that be significant? Maybe the crashed plane also experienced some turbulence, and that contributed to the accident?
TXCAVU
Ah hah! Thank you. Great report.
sddaledawson
this explains the missing left hand engine from the crash site
wow thanks for this post hope it helps the investigation
kangforpres
Black boxes are in the tail which was demolished at impact but I'm sure they withstood the blow and can be recovered. I believe 28L and 28R are having enhancements done on them and ILS may have not been available but it was VFR conditions and a visual approach came up tragically short and could not adjust.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
I'd like to know more about how reliance is placed on ILS during typical commercial landings.
benjammin
Under a visual approach you have visual contact with the runway, and don't need to look at the ILS at all. RWY 28L has a PAPI light system that shines white/red lights corresponding to where you are on the glide path. There is no requirement to have the ILS dialed in for a visual approach, though individual airlines might have their own requirements. For me personally, I like to have the ILS (or any instrument approach) dialed in on my HSI all the time (habit), but typically never look at it for a visual approach.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Thank you. This fits with my (admittedly lacking) understanding.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
correction - that should read "I'd like to know more about how MUCH reliance is placed on ILS during typical commercial landings."
joelwiley
joel wiley -1
60 unaccounted for? Not still on the A/C? Maybe wandered in the confusion? SF residents that after the landing, just wanted to get home?
DeltaAirlinesTristar
I feel like this was either a pilot error or it definielty was the same kind of problem found on the british airways 777 where the fuel lines froze and the engine failed at the last second because of ice in the lines. The plane landed before the touch down point, so did it possibly glide because of an engine failure or were the pilots just to low and not monitoring their instruments
benjammin
I'm going to lean towards pilot error. Temps were in the high 60's (high teens in communist) as opposed to conditions back in Jan of 2008. I might be wrong but in all the pictures I've seen of the HL7742 seems to look like PW engines and not RR (like the 777 that got the ice crystals in 2008).
pdixonj
pdixonj 3
Once the CVR and Blackboxes are found and analyzed, then everyone will know more about what happened.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Man, I hope the pilots are talking....
ace005
ace005 -1
Did anyone else notice in one of the pictures if the evacuation that alot, actually a scary many, passengers were carrying their luggage off with them? I suspect people grabbing luggage may be link able to the two deaths. Also, thoughts go out to everyone onboard.
jdaustin294
Has anyone found any video of crash at all? Security cameras or anything yet?
LewisSckolnick
A news story said that the left engine was seen burning near the shore.
mdlacey
DO you have a citation for that?
LewisSckolnick
A woman who saw that the plane was in trouble decided to go back into her hotel room than witness.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Well, that's helpful.
levineeh
Of course they were on a visual approach...I didn't suggest anything different in my post...everything I stated is a fact
28L and R had undergone and are undergoing recent construction
There is a new displaced fhreshold
Glide paths are out of service, even as a reference point...
benjammin
The latest FAA publication (From June 27) shows RWY 28L having a functioning PAPI. I couldn't find any NOTAMS saying the PAPI was out of service. Though, never having flown a jumbo jet, not sure how much they rely on them for visual approaches.
LewisSckolnick
Is this similar to the London crash upon landing of a Boeing 777 that also lost an engine?
KevinBrown
SF Director of emergency management - Francis Zamora - now saying 2 confirmed fatalities and 4 unaccounted for. Hopefully he is correct andt the SF Fire Chief is wrong when she indicates 60 missing. Next presser scheduled for 8:30 EST so we should know more.
pdixonj
pdixonj 0
Latest press confer says that only one person is unaccounted for...aside from the two fatalities, the rest of the pax are either at hospitals or still at the airport terminal.
Ninaboens
Lucas Jr 2
I think the engine we are seeing to the right side is actually the left engine. Look at the angle of the nose of the plane is pointing to. If it slid on the ground at this angle, then the right engine should have been thorn behind the right wing. Also, look at the mount on the engine - it is oriented away from the fuselage. If this was the right engine, the mount should be oriented toward the fuselage. It appears that the right engine is the one missing (maybe it broke off at water's edge), and that the plane slid on the ground and rolled over the left engine which came to rest on the right site of the fuselage.
Moviela
I invite your attention to the Reuters pictures here:

http://preview.reuters.com/2013/7/6/gallery-san-francisco-plane-crash?topic=united-states

You can see the #1 engine under the wing.

Horrifying I read in Singapore Strait Times that when striking the breakwater flight attendants were thrown through the rear pressure bulkhead. May God have mercy.
Ninaboens
Lucas Jr 1
Missing engine found! See photo on CNN gallery showing this engine on the right side of the runway. There is actually a large patch of burnt grass where this engine is. This photograph is consistent with the interpretation that the engine resting next to the fuselage is actually the left side engine (engine 1):

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us/gallery/san-fransisco-plane-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
LewisSckolnick
Do we know that the pilots were Korean
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
No, they were Asian...
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
*facepalm*
Moviela
The voice on the tower recording alerting 214 has a "problem" sounds like a male Korean. I don't think his nationality has any bearing on his ability as a pilot.
LewisSckolnick
Is AAR214 a repeat of the engine related problem that we saw at London?
AONeal79
AONeal79 -1
In 2008? Perhaps, though I don't know if the ice would be as much of an issue since 214 didn't seem to fly so close to the pole...
richcraft
richcraft -1
I note that the right wing tip is fractured and it appears that the pilot applied full left aileron at the last minute(at least that's the position of ailerons on the crash). It sure looks like he came in low and slow, stalled the right wing when he pulled the nose up, and would have been on the backside of the power curve if he tried to apply power (which would have just slammed the plane onto the runway with more force).

We'll just have to wait for FDR and CVR to be sure, but hard to believe this could be anything but pilot error.
KevinBrown
I don't think so. It appears pilot initiated a go-around too late and the tail struck the sea-wall and separated from the a/c. The resulting damages are what you would expect from the tail separating from the aircraft.
richcraft
I don't think he was trying to do a go around. If he had enough situational awareness to realize that he was too low and too slow, he would have *lowered* the nose and throttled up a lot earlier. Most reports I have seen say he was in a very nose high attitude coming in, and raised the nose at the last minute. Like I said before, I think that may have caused the right wing to stall, and he was too close to the ground to correct (though the flight controls show he clearly tried). We're all guessing, but that's mine.
sddaledawson
he could have had a FOD failure at the last moment just saying
LewisSckolnick
Too steep became too low

[This poster has been suspended.]

richcraft
richcraft -1
Tails have fallen off passenger jets before, mostly due to rudder problems (UA 585, a Boeing 737-200 on 3/3/91; USAir 427 a Boeing 737-300 on 9/8/1994). China Air 611 (Boeing 747-209B) lost its entire tail section on 5/25/2002 due to metal fatigue due to a faulty repair after a tail strike 22 years earlier. At least they saved money on that repairs for 22 years. . .

[This poster has been suspended.]

THRUSTT
THRUSTT -2
Phil, you know management's drinking and sleeping well tonight...
richcraft
@phil: I was just trying to add more info about "tail" failure, and my first two examples had nothing to do with maintenance. There are lots more examples, such as Partnair 394 (9/8/1989), where the vertical stabilizer separated due to counterfeit bolts (which were properly installed).

I am doing more than skimming, I'm trying to participate in a discussion about this crash. As a pilot, I study crashes to learn from the mistakes of others. I came here because I thought I might find pilots with useful insight, but maybe I came to the wrong place.
levineeh
Not sure why no one is talking about the recent construction to 28L and 28R that closed each runway for a few days the last few weeks, and that when they reopened they had been repositioned with a new displaced threshold...check out old vs new pics and you will see what I mean. Now this should have made short landings less likely, but still it is a relevant fact since it just happened. Also note all the ILS equipment OTS per NOTAMS including the 28L and 28R glide paths
bentwing60
bentwing60 -2
Not much of a pilot are you Edward. Ever heard of a visual approach? That would be where you can actually see the runway. Just sayin!
teutz
FIY this is the second Boeing 777 incident with fatalities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_777
kiwipop
Assuming the engine we are viewing beside the fuselage and forward of the wing on the starboard side is actually the starboard engine, where the hell is the port engine?
whip5209
I'm guessing it's in the bay. It sure doesn't seem to be anywhere on land. Doesn't look there's enough room under either wing to hide it.
sddaledawson
i concur
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
That's one of the big questions right now. I wonder if it's in pieces small or indiscernable enough to not be recognized from the aerial footage....
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
BTW, Ric downthread says it's in sight under the wing, but I haven't spotted it yet.
sddaledawson
big chunk of wing missing on the leading edge of left wing in and around where the engine mounts, best guess its gone as of now, my question is where is it, in the water???
phumflyer
Curious...About 4 hours after the crash, Lufthansa Flight 454, an A388, departed OAK and landed at SFO.
Anyone have any ideas as to why this would be?
TXCAVU
Watched it (Flt 454)fly to SFO. Check the track and see how that short flight didn't turn out so good either.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
I watched it, what wasn't good about it???
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Yeesh! http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DLH454/history/20130706/2243Z/KOAK/KSFO
jaypek
Looks like they were orig. given vectors for RWY 28R (as 28L was still closed) and then due to other traffic taking off or possibly a wind change their approach was changed to RWY 19!
AONeal79
AONeal79 3
My guess is that they were diverted to OAK but now that SFO is open, they're going there since it's their scheduled destination.
phumflyer
That would certainly make sense...I wasn't aware that it had reopened.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Yes, not long ago.
KevinBrown
Doing the math CNN estimates ~60 passengers unaccounted for :(
KevinBrown
Two fatalities have been officially confirmed at the conclusion of the press conference held by the city. A reporter shouted out "any fatalities" the SFFD Chief said "yes 2 fatalities..I neglected to mention this". I find it very strange that she would not have mentioned that information off the top. Strange way to conduct a press conference.
sddaledawson
Looks like the two rear flight attendents, PAX reported on CNN phone interview
AONeal79
AONeal79 -2
I imagine their brains are a bit fried right now, no?
teutz
Probably they don't know the exact number of fatalities YET... We'll see what follows
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Agreed. They may be waiting for the plane to cool enough to be searched in detail.
preacher1
Shades of the TWA mishap 17 years ago. The FBI has taken charge. Don't that make you feel warm & fuzzy?
sddaledawson
it is a crime scene until NTSB gets there they should be there soon, as being LA Team should be there any moment then lets see what happens
when the Go Teams get there we should and i said should see a shift in the scene
teutz
http://www.planecrashes.org/asiana-airlines-boeing-777-crash-landing-san-francisco.html#updates
Live updates & live streaming of NTSB preliminary conclusions
teutz
No such thing in the ATC:
http://www.planecrashes.org/asiana-777-flight-214-cockpit-voice-recorder.html
michaeld747
Sorry looks like the Cathay 747 has not yet departed. Would the Lufhtansa flight from Oakland to San Francisco be the shortest A380 flight ever?
michaeld747
On FlightRadar24 LH A380 and CX 744 have now departed Oakland.
kapocius
Lost it before impact???
Iewiew
Where is the left engine??
sddaledawson
looks like its missing the right engine is laying just forward of the right wing, and right hand side of the the cabin facing the nose of the aircraft
mpradel
Rolled up next to the fuselage, almost under the wing.
bentwing60
This thread may be a record topper for posts. So may we separate the wheat from the chafe by saying that Airline Transport Pilots are not in the habit of deep stalling transport category aircraft with pax. on board on short final. Loss of power is the only plausible, though speculative answer. Shades of Speedbird 38 at Heathrow. Been mentioned twice. My point is, I'll go out on a limb here and say yes the airplane was stalled at impact. At least he made the airport with minimal loss of life and the crew probably made that happen. Let the NTSB decide.
JD345
JD345 2
It took three ATPs with how many tens of thousands of hours between them to bellyflop an A330 from FL380 into the Atlantic. ATPs aren't in the habit of that, either.

We'll learn the cause in due time. Loss of power is certainly a plausible answer, but by no means is it the ONLY plausible answer. So long as humans are involved, operator error is ALWAYS plausible.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -4
Yeah, I hate to say it, but membership should be restricted to Pilots and MX only!!!
MultiComm
With such a steep descent angle and low airspeed, once would assume stall but it is very plausible that the tail struck the sea wall (outside of a stalled condition) as a result of trying to either go around however once this happened there was no recovery...
preacher1
I hope for the crew's sake that it is mechanical, but let's not rule out the possibility of a massive brain fart
michaeld747
KLM 747-400, Cathay Pacific 747-400 and Lufthansa A380 have diverted to Oakland.
kapocius
Did someone have noticed that engine No1 is nowhere in site?
Moviela
The left engine is in sight. It is located under the wing. The airplane was too low and without enough power at the boundary between the sea and the runway. It hit the sea wall nose high and struck near the joint between the fuselage and the empennage. The empennage separated and some parts went in the bay, and some had enough momentum to land on the ground. The fuselage left a trail of debris for a few yards and the rear tried to pass the front. As the craft was spinning on the ground the front gear was detached. The spin on the ground continued as the plane went off the pavement on a dirt area between runways which slowed the plane quickly detaching the #2 engine which wound up in front of the wing against the fuselage.

Prayers to the passengers and families.
Steve1822
Dudeman you have a good point, but keep in mind KSFO has ASDE-X surface movement radar and can reach out and supplement primary up to 5nm with data block info. While not perfect, the flightaware trend is what attracted my attention. Look at the data on the same Asiana flight number the previous 3 days. The speed profiles are more consistent with what we normally would expect to see(taking into account winds). Like someone said previously, the FDR and CVR will give us the info that really counts. Clearly, flight crew experienced some sort of deviation, for whatever reason
preacher1
Fox just reported that the Airport had tweeted and was getting ready to open 2 runways. Didn't say which ones.
HBFlyer
HBFlyer -1
I know it is early speculation, but this looks very similar to British Airways flight 38. 777 that crash just short of the runway due to frozen fuel flow after long cold international flight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
AONeal79
AONeal79 -1
Would this flight have encountered such cold air, though? 214 didn't seem to go as close to the pole.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
It could be cold at altitude anywhere, doesn't have to be in the polar region.
metsgiantsfan234
Emergency services reported all occupants have been accounted for and are alive. Emergency services repeated ALL occupants have been accounted for in response to media reports that two people have been killed and said, these reports are untrue. A number of people were taken to hospitals with injuries of varying degrees.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
All occupants have not been accounted for, according to SF FD press conference just now.
Pablolemar
Pablolemar -2
I would look into the oil-fuel heat exchangers....this would not be the first time 777 had issues with these heat exchangers. I find it hard to belive that a professional crew would land short by over 1000' without any mechanical failure....
stvotw
Believe they were redesigned after the Heathrow incident. If I remember correctly cause was attributed to momentary fuel freezing.
skedar
Does anyone know where the plane is resting relative to the runway?
preacher1
preacher1 -1
About 180 around, about 1000' feet into it and off to the left side
mhagerty21
Just an amateur but a 777 heavy landed 1 minute before. If it was on same approach ( guess it was with this large a plane), could vortex turbulance play a role? Is it even remotely possible weather related clear air turbulance from weather alone could play a role at such a low altitude? If not, guess the guy just stalled. Amazing..
bishops90
This possibility has been mentioned already. Look about 2/3 of the way down the thread.

[This poster has been suspended.]

jeffprui
Great find! Thanks..
lvdudeman
Where in the world is the left engine? Has anyone seen it in any of the video's that has been shown?
preacher1
Fox just had an eyewitness from another plane that said that engine tore off and burned. I haven't seen it either but I am sure it's remains are out there somewhere.
Steve1822
Hopefully no more fatalities. Gotta love the media. They try to come across as so knowledgeable, even when ignorant of the facts, which unfortunately to the lay person take as the facts and truth. Based on one witness saying the tail hit first, debris and strike marks beginning at or before the rocks at waters edge and beginning of displaced threshold and looking at rapid change in ground speed on flighaware at 300 feet and below? Thoughts go out to the family of the two passengers that didn't make it.

[This poster has been suspended.]

silaxo1
I think the speeds will be real close with radar antenna on the SFO field.
AnkieConsen
Hoping for the best for the passengers !!
727clamshell
Terrible. I hope the fatalities are low as currently being reported.
Bad as it is, it appears here initially that it could have been a lot worse
with much sadder outcome.

I see that the LH A380 FRA>SFO diverted to OAK. That would be cool to watch
that (assumed) ferry flight from OAK across the bay to SFO, which I assume they'll get to once the immediate crisis is dealt with.