Plane crash at SFO

[freeride53]

Very sad in regards to the two fatalities. I did find it funny though when they diverted a bunch of European jumbo jets to Oakland. Loud as fark. Also must have been weird when all of those Europeans stepped off the jet and found themselves in Oakland, Ca.

Also sad to hear about a critically injured child on the news.

[Fusion]

I lol'd at the video guy saying "OMG it's an accident" and some woman (wife?) yelling "Wow, and you're filming it!!"

Horrible to watch though. Surprised that "only" two lives were lost.

[mrsleeve]

Very sad in regards to the two fatalities. I did find it funny though when they diverted a bunch of European jumbo jets to Oakland. Loud as fark. Also must have been weird when all of those Europeans stepped off the jet and found themselves in Oakland, Ca.

Also sad to hear about a critically injured child on the news.

Now that would have been funny to witness when some of them found out they were landing in Oakland. Prolly the same reaction I would have, and I have been to, and lived near detroit

[M-technik-3]

Funny they made a PA annoucement after making a safe landing to remain in their seats until they pulled in to the gate area. It was most certainly pilot error here is the black box details from yahoo.

Here are the most relevant details as presented and described by Ms. Hersman:

Flight 214 was approaching Runway 28 Left with its landing gear down and wing flaps set at 30 degrees. The approach speed – the “target speed” or speed to which the aircraft was to slow – was 137 knots. There was no cockpit discussion of any concerns or anomalies.

At 7 seconds before impact, someone in the cockpit called for an increase in speed.

At 4 seconds before impact, the sound of the “stick shaker” can be heard. This is a device which gives both an aural and physical alert to the pilot that the aircraft is approaching stall speed – too slow to maintain lift and keep flying normally. In commercial aircraft, the “stick” is actually a yoke used by the pilot to adjust wing roll and nose pitch.

“The speed was significantly below 137 knots, and I’m not talking about a few knots,” Hersman said at a briefing Sunday afternoon, noting also that the throttles had been pulled back to idle as the aircraft slowed below the target speed.

At 1.5 seconds before impact, someone in the cockpit called for a “go around” – which means adding power, waving off the approach to landing, and climbing back up to an altitude necessary to fly around for another attempt to land.

The throttles were advanced and the engines responded as they should. But by then it was too late. The Boeing 777’s low altitude and sink rate were such that its tail clipped the seawall off the end of the runway, and the aircraft skidded several hundred yards to a stop as one engine and parts of the wings came off.

Asked if all of this indicated pilot error – particularly since the weather was good and there had been no reported mechanical problems – Hersman declined to answer directly, citing the need to validate the information on the recorders.

“Everything is on the table right now,” she said. “We won’t speculate; we’re just telling you what we know to be true.”

Reason why not to fly newer foreign flagged carriers. Scary.

[mulletman]

The NTSB press conference was informative.

I actually operated a flight into SFO a couple says ago. Glideslope was out of service then too, but the PAPI was working fine. I'd bet my next paycheck that they didn't suffer from the same problem that British Airways did.

Incidentally, when I was there a JAL 777 was cleared for a visual to 28L, and we were assigned 28R. We lost sight of him momentarily as he blew through his final approach course and ended up lined up on our runway directly under us. We stopped descending and a few seconds later saw him wing-up back toward his own runway...

This is the quality of airmanship the public can expect if airlines refuse to attract quality applicants through quality compensation.


Last thought.... At no point EVER should a swept-wing heavy jet be low, slow, and dirty with the throttles at flight idle. That's a massive error. From the people I've talked to, the clutch disengagement on the 777 auto-throttles is pretty light. Resting your hand on it too heavily could accidentally result in an manual throttle situation when you didn't want one.

[M-technik-3]

The NTSB press conference was informative.

I actually operated a flight into SFO a couple says ago. Glideslope was out of service then too, but the PAPI was working fine. I'd bet my next paycheck that they didn't suffer from the same problem that British Airways did.

Incidentally, when I was there a JAL 777 was cleared for a visual to 28L, and we were assigned 28R. We lost sight of him momentarily as he blew through his final approach course and ended up lined up on our runway directly under us. We stopped descending and a few seconds later saw him wing-up back toward his own runway...

This is the quality of airmanship the public can expect if airlines refuse to attract quality applicants through quality compensation.


Last thought.... At no point EVER should a swept-wing heavy jet be low, slow, and dirty with the throttles at flight idle. That's a massive error. From the people I've talked to, the clutch disengagement on the 777 auto-throttles is pretty light. Resting your hand on it too heavily could accidentally result in an manual throttle situation when you didn't want one.

Hope you guys filed a HATR.

[SGT4677]

The NTSB press conference was informative.

I actually operated a flight into SFO a couple says ago. Glideslope was out of service then too, but the PAPI was working fine. I'd bet my next paycheck that they didn't suffer from the same problem that British Airways did.

Incidentally, when I was there a JAL 777 was cleared for a visual to 28L, and we were assigned 28R. We lost sight of him momentarily as he blew through his final approach course and ended up lined up on our runway directly under us. We stopped descending and a few seconds later saw him wing-up back toward his own runway...

This is the quality of airmanship the public can expect if airlines refuse to attract quality applicants through quality compensation.


Last thought.... At no point EVER should a swept-wing heavy jet be low, slow, and dirty with the throttles at flight idle. That's a massive error. From the people I've talked to, the clutch disengagement on the 777 auto-throttles is pretty light. Resting your hand on it too heavily could accidentally result in an manual throttle situation when you didn't want one.

I just watched the video and I agree with your last paragraph, these guys somehow got way behind and let the aircraft get away from them.
I didn't hear anyone say anything about any visual or aural indications except for the stick shaker, and by then it was too late.
This aircraft should have all the bells and whistles,3 interconnected flight control and flight management systems, enhanced ground proximity warning system, heads up guidance system, etc. and it seems to me that there should have been several warnings to the crew before they got too low and slow.

[Herr Faust Schinken]

i forget that some of the guys on this forum are pilots

[mulletman]

I just watched the video and I agree with your last paragraph, these guys somehow got way behind and let the aircraft get away from them.
I didn't hear anyone say anything about any visual or aural indications except for the stick shaker, and by then it was too late.
This aircraft should have all the bells and whistles,3 interconnected flight control and flight management systems, enhanced ground proximity warning system, heads up guidance system, etc. and it seems to me that there should have been several warnings to the crew before they got too low and slow.

They were cleared for a visual approach... So it's tough to figure out what protections would be available. We'd have to know what they were using as a backup for their visual. The glide slope was out of service, so you'll get no 'glideslope' call from the EGPWS since the ILS wouldn't be tuned in... If the airplane is configured right and you done have some insane closure speed, you'll get no 'too low-flaps/gear' or 'terrain' or 'obstacle' calls. With a visual, it's tough to know if the HUD was being used extensively. Many captains at my company prefer to not use it. If your only deviations are airspeed and glide path on a visual approach, it's entirely possible that the shaker would be the first warning you'd get.

The pilot flying at the time apparently had 43 hours in type, if CNN is to be believed.

[Herr Faust Schinken]

43 hours dosen't sound like a whole lot, I've driven my car more than 43 hours

[tjts1]

[george graves]

I'm surprised the NTSB is sharing the data so quickly. Usually that stuff doesn't come out for months or years later. What's up with that?!?!?

I'm always amazed at how quick on their feet the ATC guys are. Seems then had several planes they had to give new vectors to. I have a lot of respect for those guys. (I thought about going to school for it - until I found out what they got paid)

[flyboyx]

The NTSB press conference was informative.

I actually operated a flight into SFO a couple says ago. Glideslope was out of service then too, but the PAPI was working fine. I'd bet my next paycheck that they didn't suffer from the same problem that British Airways did.

Incidentally, when I was there a JAL 777 was cleared for a visual to 28L, and we were assigned 28R. We lost sight of him momentarily as he blew through his final approach course and ended up lined up on our runway directly under us. We stopped descending and a few seconds later saw him wing-up back toward his own runway...

This is the quality of airmanship the public can expect if airlines refuse to attract quality applicants through quality compensation.


Last thought.... At no point EVER should a swept-wing heavy jet be low, slow, and dirty with the throttles at flight idle. That's a massive error. From the people I've talked to, the clutch disengagement on the 777 auto-throttles is pretty light. Resting your hand on it too heavily could accidentally result in an manual throttle situation when you didn't want one.

well written and well said. there is perhaps a lot of jargon here that most non aviation people won't understand.

as far as the autothrottle issue is concerned. i can't speak directly to your theory because i have never flown a tripple 7. however, i doubt highly that is the problem. it is true that a 777 is a capable autoland airplane, but there are two issues here that make this theory very unlikely. first, pilots generally don't like to autoland airplanes and will only use it in good weather conditions when either the airplane or one/both pilots needs to renew currency. the second factor is that since the glide slope was inoperative, there is probably no way that the auto throttles were engaged at that point in the approach/landing. generally in this situation, the auto pilot needs to be disconnected by the time ILS minimums are reached and then the aircraft is flown visually/manually from that point. and a third point: when the auto throttle/autopilot is disconnected, there is really loud attention getting aural warning that lets the pilots know that it has been disengaged.

i didn't pull out my san francisco plates to look, but i am pretty sure the ils minimum for that runway is 200 feet. most likely the auto pilot/auto throttles were disconnected at this point or sooner in the approach and it was manually flown into the sea wall by the pilot flying the airplane.


there was something mentioned above about engine problems. the 777 has a ridiculous excess of power. each engine produces about 100,000 lbs of thrust. perhaps even up to 120,000 lbs under emergency power situations. what i am saying is that airplane is capable of flying from new york to london on one engine, executing a missed approach at say hethrow airport and flying all the way back to new york for a landing. all on one engine except for the initial take off. what i am saying is that as long as at least one engine is producing full power, an engine issue isn't likely the cause of the accident. i guess this was dispelled anyway by the initial ntsb report.


the training in foreign countries is far and away different from the training we as airline pilots receive here in the usa. lots of foreign countries have the culture where the captain is "god" of the ship. often they never let the first officer fly the airplane and first officers often are apprehensive to speak up when something goes wrong because of a respect issue and also because the captain if often an asshole that will rip the poor guys head off if he says anything that can be interpreted as undermining the captain's autocratic authority. this is why korean air had so many crashed in the 80's and 90's

assuming pilot error, what really needs to be looked at is how well the pilots were getting along in the cockpit. this can be found out by listing to the cvr of the entire flight. it is possible(actually likely) that the pilot not flying saw the impending issue and didn't speak up in a timely manner.

[M-technik-3]

The pilot flying had 10,000 hours in other type rated aircraft and was getting up to speed in the 777. The co-pilot was reported to have over 2400 hours in the 777. Plus since it was an international flight there was an additional capt and co-pilot on board as crew.

[hoveringuy]

I think there are multiple factors at play here. GS out of service alone shouldn't be a factor on a CAVU day, but combine the fact that you have an inexperienced PAC and the Asian "don't question authority" mentality and it starts getting ugly. I know if I ever got 1 knot below bug speed I heard about it instantly... never mind over 20kts slow!

Korean Air 801 had the GPWS screaming at them and they still drove into the mountain..