50 posts in this topic

They were talking about the tail section of the plane, the part that was missing from the picture of the rest of the plane.

173084421-ezra-shaw.jpg?w=620

That's the thing...when reports first started coming in they were talking about the wings.

Everytime an incident happens the American media proves just how ######ing incompetant they really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weird how this gets so much attention while the train crash that probably killed more than the total passenger count on the plane is generally getting ignored. 

 

Chances are the plane was hit with one of those special wind conditions that cause a dramatic loss of lift on landing even though modern airport radars are supposed to reduce the chance of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weird how this gets so much attention while the train crash that probably killed more than the total passenger count on the plane is generally getting ignored.

Chances are the plane was hit with one of those special wind conditions that cause a dramatic loss of lift on landing even though modern airport radars are supposed to reduce the chance of them.

Wind Shear? Not likely, you would have heard an alarm go off at ATC if wind shear is detected.

No alarm means no wind shear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the airport/airplane had a radar for detecting wind shear, and if it detected it or detected it in time. yes 

 

The "short landing" could very well indicate a wind shear fall during landing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First video of the actual crash has been released;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqnFagGslJE

 

Incredible that the airplane fuselage managed to stay so well together after such a cart wheel in the air, and no further casualties...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the airport/airplane had a radar for detecting wind shear, and if it detected it or detected it in time. yes

The "short landing" could very well indicate a wind shear fall during landing.

The airport has a detector, they all do. And if it was working it would have detected it. if there was windshear you would have heard it in the background on the ATC concerversation. Its a very loud alarm. I've been in windshear causing a 15knot drop in speed when I was like 100-200 feet off the ground.

A bunch of people using aggregated data have shown that the planes approach was unstable and he was too low and too slow well before the accident. The planes approach speed should have been like 145 but he was at 120 well before the crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weird how this gets so much attention while the train crash that probably killed more than the total passenger count on the plane is generally getting ignored. 

 

Chances are the plane was hit with one of those special wind conditions that cause a dramatic loss of lift on landing even though modern airport radars are supposed to reduce the chance of them. 

 

Sorry but you wrong, that train crash is everywhere on news sites too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_08_2013_p0-594557.xml

Asiana 777 Significantly Below Target Speed On Landing -UPDATED

Preliminary analysis of the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder from Asiana Flight 214 reveals that pilots had issues with speed control shortly before the 777-200ER hit a sea wall at the approach end of Runway 28L at San Francisco International Airport on the morning of July 6.

NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, during the NTSB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE: The pilot at the controls of Asiana Flight 214 when it crashed had not landed a 777 at San Francisco before, according to news reports citing the airline. He had, however, landed at the airport in other aircraft types. While he was a veteran Asiana pilot with nearly 10,000 hr. flying experience, he reportedly only had 43 hr. experience on 777-200s. The airline says the co-pilot at the time was very experienced on 777s.

The news reports being CNNs ###### exclusive fear mongering?

1. It doesn't matter if the pilot has never flown to SFO before. Its a pretty standard airport afaik. There are a couple of airports that pilots need specific training for (Nepal, the old HK one) but SFO isn't one of them.

2. Who cares if he only had 43 hours in the 777? That's the way pilot training has been done for ages. The pilot had 10k hours in other planes and was being trained in the 777 with other crewmembers who were proficient and checked out in it. Saying the pilot only had 43 hours is just pathetic fearmongering.

3. The real fault lies with the other pilots for not keeping a very close eye on what was going on. His approach was unstable, he was beliw the glideslope and below Vref well before the landing and nobody said anything until 7 seconds before? Really?

Part of the problem could also be Korean Culture where its considered rude to tell someone who is senior to you what to do. There have been a number of extremely cringeworthy crashes involving Korean pilots (especially Korean Air) that could have been avoided if the co-pilot had said anything sooner / if at all. Some would have been avoided if the captain actually listened to the co-pilot instead of telling him to shut up. Look up Korean airs safety record on Wikipedia if you want more information (on my phone so I dont remember the exact flight numbers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ this on the Korean (and other Asian) culture & correcting senior staff. It also happens in medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news reports being CNNs bull**** exclusive fear mongering?

1. It doesn't matter if the pilot has never flown to SFO before. Its a pretty standard airport afaik. There are a couple of airports that pilots need specific training for (Nepal, the old HK one) but SFO isn't one of them.

2. Who cares if he only had 43 hours in the 777? That's the way pilot training has been done for ages. The pilot had 10k hours in other planes and was being trained in the 777 with other crewmembers who were proficient and checked out in it. Saying the pilot only had 43 hours is just pathetic fearmongering.

3. The real fault lies with the other pilots for not keeping a very close eye on what was going on. His approach was unstable, he was beliw the glideslope and below Vref well before the landing and nobody said anything until 7 seconds before? Really?

Part of the problem could also be Korean Culture where its considered rude to tell someone who is senior to you what to do. There have been a number of extremely cringeworthy crashes involving Korean pilots (especially Korean Air) that could have been avoided if the co-pilot had said anything sooner / if at all. Some would have been avoided if the captain actually listened to the co-pilot instead of telling him to shut up. Look up Korean airs safety record on Wikipedia if you want more information (on my phone so I dont remember the exact flight numbers).

 

1.   I agree

2.  Double agree.  Everyone had to had a first time in landing at each airport. 

3.  While I have not read everything on this story what happened to the co-pilots? 

 

Not sure why he was flying so slow and low here but it is possible that his training and skill did prevent deaths of many more people.  Only one killed in a crash like this is mind boggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On some newer Boeing planes there are odd occasions on which the radio altimeter could malfunction which could be a particular problem when making a non precision landing (without a glide slope). The 777 is an incredibly safe plane, the laws of statistics state that if you log enough hours eventually you'll get the odd human error, but the fact that such a hard landing only killed 2 people is actually a great testament to how well modern aircraft are designed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news reports being CNNs bull**** exclusive fear mongering?

1. It doesn't matter if the pilot has never flown to SFO before. Its a pretty standard airport afaik. There are a couple of airports that pilots need specific training for (Nepal, the old HK one) but SFO isn't one of them.

2. Who cares if he only had 43 hours in the 777? That's the way pilot training has been done for ages. The pilot had 10k hours in other planes and was being trained in the 777 with other crewmembers who were proficient and checked out in it. Saying the pilot only had 43 hours is just pathetic fearmongering.

3. The real fault lies with the other pilots for not keeping a very close eye on what was going on. His approach was unstable, he was beliw the glideslope and below Vref well before the landing and nobody said anything until 7 seconds before? Really?

Part of the problem could also be Korean Culture where its considered rude to tell someone who is senior to you what to do. There have been a number of extremely cringeworthy crashes involving Korean pilots (especially Korean Air) that could have been avoided if the co-pilot had said anything sooner / if at all. Some would have been avoided if the captain actually listened to the co-pilot instead of telling him to shut up. Look up Korean airs safety record on Wikipedia if you want more information (on my phone so I dont remember the exact flight numbers).

 

Just to clear, pilot DID flown into SF hundreds of times on 747-400 but this was hist first time on 777. Of course ****ty media will leave this part out..

 

and here is statement made by United 747 pilot that was holding short:

 

Apologies if this has been posted. I receieved this from a friend of mine who got it as part of a distribution from one of the cockpit crew of the UA 747. I don't personally know tha UA relief FO but apparently permission had been granted to distribute this email freely.

 

Here is an email from a United crew holding short of the runway as the Asiana B-777 approached:

On July 6, 2013 at approximately 1827Z I was the 747-400 relief F/O on flt 885, ID326/06 SFO-KIX. I was a witness to the Asiana Flt 214 accident. We had taxied to hold short of runway 28L at SFO on taxiway F, and were waiting to rectify a HAZMAT cargo issue as well as our final weights before we could run our before takeoff checklist and depart. As we waited on taxiway F heading East, just prior to the perpendicular holding area, all three pilots took notice of the Asiana 777 on short final. I noticed the aircraft looked low on glidepath and had a very high deck angle compared to what seemed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Welcome to a media...

 

#1 WTF is this has to do with this accident is beyond my understanding. So freaking what, he had technical issue and he returned to airport. / faceplam

 

#2  This was a technical issue, not an accident. Title "as always" making sound like collision or something catastrophic happen.

 

#3 Not sure why this would get posted here at first place, in this thread..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Webeagle you a pilot too?? I saw the same post on reddit haha since I subscribe to the aviation and flying subreddits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the problems with the DC-10 back in the 70s and 80s manufacturers have designed their hydraulics systems to contain leaks, a hydraulic leak whilst serious is not a life threatening event, and probably more likely to have been caused by a maintenance error or part failure than a design flaw. People tend to over sensationalise aircraft problems these days, Aviation is incredibly safe, and I'd say the safety record of the 777 speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking news: 777 made a loud fart somewhere over Pacific ocean. News at 6  :pinch:

 

Somebody will break a nail on 777, that probably will make a news too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the problems with the DC-10 back in the 70s and 80s manufacturers have designed their hydraulics systems to contain leaks, a hydraulic leak whilst serious is not a life threatening event, and probably more likely to have been caused by a maintenance error or part failure than a design flaw. People tend to over sensationalise aircraft problems these days, Aviation is incredibly safe, and I'd say the safety record of the 777 speaks for itself.

People don't over-sensationalize accidents.

The American media does because they all live for only one thing, money. If CNN/MSNBC just reported the facts, people would read it once and then move on / change channel. But if you use fear mongering and sensationalism it keeps people interested.

I mean compare these:

1. Plane crashes at SFO, mostly intact, tail missing from impact. But only two people died.

2. Plane crashes at SFO. Reports of it cartwheeling, flipping over, wings being torn off, unknown amount of survivors. PILOT ONLY HAD 43 HOURS EXPERIENCE (this was a real CNN "exclusive" headline, I wish I was kidding) STAY TUNED (same bull**** repeated every 5 mins for the next 8 hours).

Which do you think will gain more hits? Number 1 was BBC (or well close enough to BBC, they didn't report the causalities until it was confirmed). Number 2 was CNN/MSNBC.

Most people in America watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN and end up lapping up all this crap. They also don't understand aviation things. I mean most people don't know what a ground loop is. Don't know what/how type ratings and pilot training works. So if you make a giant heading saying "PILOT ONLY HAD 43 HOURS EXPERIENCE" most people would think that the pilot had only flown a plane for a total of 43 hours in his life instead of 43 hours in type with 10,000 hours+ total time in other wide-body planes.

That leads to them over sensationalizing things because well that's what they heard on the news so it's got to be true.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point, can't argue with anything you said there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One pilot says he saw a bright flash of light -- maybe he had a laser flashed at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems someone had some fun with the pilots names on a news station prank

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo

 

 

 

 

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2513971

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ from link

The NTSB also issued its apology late Friday afternoon for "inaccurate and offensive names that were mistakenly confirmed as those of the pilots."

"A summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft," its statement said. "The NTSB does not release or confirm the names of crewmembers or people involved in transportation accidents to the media. We work hard to ensure that only appropriate factual information regarding an investigation is released and deeply regret today's incident. Appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that such a serious error is not repeated."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems someone had some fun with the pilots names on a news station prank

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo

 

 

 

 

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2513971

Lol :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol :p

 

Asiana airlines threaten to sue the TV station for "damage to reputation"

 

They should be more worried about the damage to their reputation from the crash!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.