View Full Version : Plane Crash in San Francisco
http://news.yahoo.com/faa-airliner-crashes-landing-san-francisco-191557356.html
Red Flag 1
07-06-2013, 14:25
Landed too short. Pilot may have been pulling the nose up for a go around, and drove the tail into the runway. My $.02.
RF 1
Ambush Master
07-06-2013, 14:37
It's difficult to believe that someone Driving a Tripple would Screw the Pooch this bad!!! I'll await the NTSB Report, and the "insider reports" that I'll be hearing!!
The_Mentalist
07-06-2013, 18:42
Showing on the news now. Short landing, tail hit the sea wall and broke off, skipped down the runway. They are saying 2 dead and multiple injuries. Sounds almost like that 130 crash on Holland DZ during a failed LAPE that I got to watch. Wasn't pretty. BN had me out there for Q&A BS with some of the locals. Never got around to it because of the crash.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4L50eMI8gY&feature=related
It's difficult to believe that someone Driving a Tripple would Screw the Pooch this bad!!! I'll await the NTSB Report, and the "insider reports" that I'll be hearing!!
There was a B747 holding short (United I think from the pix [CO tail art]) that had a perfect view of it.
From what I can see, the #1 engine is missing as are the trailing edge control surfaces...ailerons and flaps. I also don't see the APU although there is a dark "mass" near the right horizontal stabilizer that may be the APU. But, my guess is that the engine and APU are in the bay.
The fire looks to have been caused by the #2 engine coming to rest against the right-side fuselage under the galley door which looks to have been partially opened.
Part of the #2 engine nacelle seems to be missing OR the engine was in reverse. I believe the nacelle was missing, though. Flight test videos I've seen show the reversers slightly aft of the gap I see. (Total, improbable, speculation here: It's not impossible that a pilot in "landing mode think", when applying full power to gain altitude on approach, might disengage the reverse gates.)
We shall see.
Pat
ETA: #1 engine was between the runways and seems to have started a fire there:
Wonder why the training captain on the right seat was not watching the speed gauge and didn't alert or make the neccessary adjustments to the approach speed on final....
Wonder if this/was an issue of cultures within the airline...
A "10,000 hour 747" Captain doesn't mean shit. That means he had 9800 hrs of sitting looking a porn, newspapers, eating catering.
The LCA (Line Check Airman) was new on the job as well -first trip as an LCA. He was the co-pilot in this case but he's the one who signs for the jet since the new Captain wasn't finished with IOE/OE.
My guess - on IOE trainees are required to make at least 1-2 landings with the AutoThrottle system off. Clear day, good rest, 8th landing for the trainee and long runway - why not do the required A/Th off approach? The reason I say he had good rest, the flight had two RFO (Relief flight officers) so the captain spent time in first class getting sleep. Pretty much every trans-oceanic flight has RFO's and if the flight is over 8 hrs it's required. (You can go Trans-atlantic in less).
The CA is now claiming a bright light blinded him but I call B/S on that. He was unstable (outside landing parameters before landing). He just f@#$ed up. The LCA F@#$ed up. He's the one who should have initiated the go-around (which would also bring the A/th system back on and let the flight director system pitch for climb). The G/A allows the plane to sink an additional 50' on normal G/A's but because they were so far behind the powercurve initiating the G/A @120' (where the LCA tried) it was too late.
I was at the crash site helping searching for human remains. We got sent there about 30 minutes after the crash and it took us about 15 minutes since traffic was gridlocked. Good thing that A/C was a newer model with more safety features otherwise, I'm sure there would have been more fatalities.