Accident: Asiana B772 at San Francisco on Jul 6th 2013

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Cabin shot of the aftermath: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/08/photo-inside-the-san-francisco-plane-crash/

 

p/s it appears the a/c was still in older config by the look of the PTV.

[GeO 0]

Im my opinion, the crews(pilots) were going low and probably only realised it at the last minute. Match with passengers account of the accident, the engines was at full power like on take off but they're still descending. Meaning the pilots try to iniatiate a go-around but too late. And the aircraft hit the embankment and when the tailplane broke from the fuselage. The two dead victims were probably sitting last row, so they were thrown on the runway when the tailplane seperated from the fuselage. In the chaos, they were runover by emergency vehicle rushing to the accident site.

[Lock SH 0]

............ perhaps an 'Unstabilised Approach' .............

 

 

[Radzi 2]

............ perhaps an 'Unstabilised Approach' .............

 

 

Looks like it, sounds like it.

[Michael Chai 0]

Maybe it's another similar scenario of Lion Air incident at Bali, but this time is a powerless descent for landing. However, a flapped approach should have a power of 40-50% N1 when approach for landing.

[S V Choong 4]

Quite surprising that the more senior crew (captain) did not notice the low speed and took control of it.

 

Surely that four white and red panels on the left hand side of the runway would give away the clue to whether the plane was too low or too high...

 

Meanwhile:

 

South Korean TV presenters says its lucky only two Chinese died in Asiana crash

 

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1277932/tv-presenter-says-its-lucky-only-two-chinese-died-asiana-crash

Edited July 8, 2013 by S V Choong

[Cire 0]

Like mentioned in the news, the pilots are pretty new to this type of airplane. Bad judgement by the pilots is the no.1 probable cause of the incident.

In addition, how did the girls died in the crash? Were they in the tail section area and got thrown out and died from impact? Or is it really a freak accident where they were run-over by their rescuers?

Sad.

[Alif A. F. 0]

United Flight 885: Too close for comfort?

 

by Lewis Lazare - Reporter for Chicago Business Journal

 

"The crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 consumed much of the media's attention over the July 4th weekend. Mostly lost in the coverage, however, was the major role Chicago-based United Airlines (NYSE: UAL) and some of its passengers may wind up playing in the investigation into what caused the crash as the Asiana Boeing 777-ER aircraft was trying to land on Runway 28L at San Francisco International Airport."

 

More at http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2013/07/08/united-flight-885-too-close-for.html

 

Image source: http://news.yahoo.com/slow-landing-speed-san-francisco-jet-probed-131507498.html

 

[BC Tam 2]

Wow, has that United 744 been stranded there all this while ?

[Sandeep G 1]

Possibly, an RNAV28L approach was given, or the visual 28L. Because no GP, the RNAV28L would most likely have been keyed into the FMC for vertical profile reference, even for the Visual approach. SFO ops often see a slam dunk approach on 28L, where aircraft are brought in tight at 6000, and on receipt of intercept heading ~310, descended to 3,000 and cleared for the Instrument or visual Approach. for the visual approach, cross the San Mateo bridge at 1,500'. Perhaps in this case, it would be interesting to see if they had maintained 3,000 ft before realizing and therefore losing the profile becoming high, or alternatively, being high all the way. Must configure very quickly and use full speed rake after descent clearance from 6000'. I feel, they were high, and in an effort to dive low, the PIC, whom may have been on conversion from the 744 disconnected the auto throttle. A/T is used for ALL approaches in the 777 as reccomended by Boeing. Aftersinking below the profile, the subsequent pitch-up without the A/T would have washed off the speed - the attempt to regain the profile explains the high nose up pitch and speed decay. With A/T, the speed should have been set at Vref+5, and the thrust would have adjusted to maintain this.. Stick shaker triggered the flight envelope protection feature for adding thrust, and the A/T would have kicked back in albeit too late.. The rest is now history.

 

The A/T state and PIC inputs are key to determining the final cause of the accident. Basic stabilized approach windows were thwarted, and S.A.seems to have been tunnel focused on achieving a landing. I believe from numerous NTSB/FAAsources the PAPI was switched on. Interestingly, some colleagues have mentioned that last week, ops intoSFO were without PAPI orGP on 28L. For anideaofhow the 28Lapproach looks Ike,search it onYouTube.for28R, the best is the PilotEYE LH A380..

 

SFO is a challenging and hair-raising approach -done right, the sense of accomplishment is remarkable.

[Alif A. F. 0]

Wow, has that United 744 been stranded there all this while ?

 

I found out the pic is inaccurate. The UA885 flight that eventful day was operated by the aircraft with new Continental livery.

[Newitt 0]

I found out the pic is inaccurate. The UA885 flight that eventful day was operated by the aircraft with new Continental livery.

Really?

[BC Tam 2]

I found out the pic is inaccurate. The UA885 flight that eventful day was operated by the aircraft with new Continental livery.

True, you can see from pic posted in reply #3 by JuliusWong

[Alif A. F. 0]

Really?

Yes, as answered in post #63.

[alberttky 0]

Taken from today's Straits Times (Singapore)

 

137 knots per hour????

[Isaac 0]

There are more Chinese in this flight than Korean, OZ marketing in China must be aggressive.

KBS interviewed a few Chinese passengers that just came off a flight from China at Incheon which aired on Sunday night and apparently it's quite the norm that both Korean Air and Asiana Airlines' USA bound flights to carry so many connecting passengers from Mainland China. One of the Chinese passengers told the reporter that Chinese carriers do not offer as many choices of flight to the US. So other than their state own carriers, the next choice is either to transit at Incheon or Narita. However, Korean Air and Asiana Airlines air fare to the US ex-China is consistently much cheaper than what ANA and JAL ask for. So most Chinese passengers tend to choose to fly with Korean Air or Asiana Airlines if they want to go the the States.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Isaac

[S V Choong 4]

KBS interviewed a few Chinese passengers that just came off a flight from China at Incheon which aired on Sunday night and apparently it's quite the norm that both Korean Air and Asiana Airlines' USA bound flights to carry so many connecting passengers from Mainland China. One of the Chinese passengers told the reporter that Chinese carriers do not offer as many choices of flight to the US. So other than their state own carriers, the next choice is either to transit at Incheon or Narita. However, Korean Air and Asiana Airlines air fare to the US ex-China is consistently much cheaper than what ANA and JAL ask for. So most Chinese passengers tend to choose to fly with Korean Air or Asiana Airlines if they want to go the the States.

 

Sorry but KE, CI and now OZ is off my list...

 

Eventhough the fares of JL and NH might be more expensive, but it is worth every penny when it comes to safety.

[Isaac 0]

Sorry but KE, CI and now OZ is off my list...

 

Eventhough the fares of JL and NH might be more expensive, but it is worth every penny when it comes to safety.

One recent accident won't deter me from flying OZ again. Just like SQ6, i hopped onto two SQ flights just a few months after the freak accident at TPE. In fact, i also flew TG twice just a few months prior to the Surat Thani crash in 1998. And many Malaysians and foreigners continue to fly MAS after that F50 accident in TWU in 1995

 

OZ has always had a better safety record than many other airlines, especially if you were to compare it to KE and even TG. So naturally many would have thought that just as long as you fly OZ not KE, then you'll definitely be fine. But the accident at SFO has proved otherwise. Besides, it's not like JL or NH have flawless safety record either The safest airline that we have in Malaysia is probably Air Asia now. Yes. They have had a few incidents but nothing major really.

[S V Choong 4]

One recent accident won't deter me from flying OZ again. Just like SQ6, i hopped onto two SQ flights just a few months after the freak accident at TPE. In fact, i also flew TG twice just a few months prior to the Surat Thani crash in 1998. And many Malaysians and foreigners continue to fly MAS after that F50 accident in TWU in 1995

 

OZ has always had a better safety record than many other airlines, especially if you were to compare it to KE and even TG. So naturally many would have thought that just as long as you fly OZ not KE, then you'll definitely be fine. But the accident at SFO has proved otherwise. Besides, it's not like JL or NH have flawless safety record either The safest airline that we have in Malaysia is probably Air Asia now. Yes. They have had a few incidents but nothing major really.

 

It is said that the cockpit crews of the fateful flight were new to the type (B777), which were transferred from B744.

 

Is that normal though? It is the practice which I am worried about.

Edited July 9, 2013 by S V Choong

[Isaac 0]

It is said that the cockpit crews of the fateful flight were new to the type (B777), which were transferred from B744.

 

Is that normal though? It is the practice which I am worried about.

Earlier reports all said that the captain had only accumulated 43 hours of flying hours on the 777. While it was his first time flying into SFO on a 777, he had flown into SFO on other aircraft type 29 times before that. Anyway, you can find all the answers in A.net.

[Naim 6]

Normal lah. My neighbour is now an MH A380 captain, several months ago he was B777 captain.

[Mushrif A 3]

One recent accident won't deter me from flying OZ again. Just like SQ6, i hopped onto two SQ flights just a few months after the freak accident at TPE. In fact, i also flew TG twice just a few months prior to the Surat Thani crash in 1998. And many Malaysians and foreigners continue to fly MAS after that F50 accident in TWU in 1995

 

OZ has always had a better safety record than many other airlines, especially if you were to compare it to KE and even TG. So naturally many would have thought that just as long as you fly OZ not KE, then you'll definitely be fine. But the accident at SFO has proved otherwise. Besides, it's not like JL or NH have flawless safety record either The safest airline that we have in Malaysia is probably Air Asia now. Yes. They have had a few incidents but nothing major really.

 

Btw, since you brought it up...is it true that the Captain of the crashed SQ6 is now a pilot at AK?

 

[JingKai Seah 0]

Its more like.. when it's your time to "go".. then that's it.. its fate.. so.. if you gotta fly.. you gotta fly irregardless of the airline/aircraft..

Edited July 9, 2013 by JingKai Seah

[Mushrif A 3]

It is said that the cockpit crews of the fateful flight were new to the type (B777), which were transferred from B744.

 

Is that normal though? It is the practice which I am worried about.

Extremely normal all over the world.

[leon t 0]

actually cant really say that OZ is really such a "safe" airline as in the past it had crashed a 737 and a 747F and all crew and pax were killed - and this would make it its 3rd aircraft crash. And yes the CPT of SQ 006 which crashed as a result of taking off from a closed runway - is flying AK now.