ALANRIDER7
MeowMeowMeow
35mph too slow on speed is huge for a plane that weighs 500,000+ pounds.
-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
SFO plane crash (7/6/13)
- Thread starter carries an axe
- Start date
joespeedfast
WTF LOL
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Location
- All whacked on the Scooby snacks!
- Moto(s)
- wHookers and Blow!
- Name
- Juliojuanv
Look like they mighta put the tail in water before tearing off on seawall. Definately missed it by a country-mile. Huge pilot/crew error it would appear. Looks like a wild 360 ride. Lucky it didn't flip. Gotta feel bad about the passenger run over by rescue... 
No, you're just seeing jet blast hit the water.
If they were in the water at that point, they'd have taken a lot of damage from (and caused a lot of damage to) the lighting gantrys.
If they'd hit the lighting, this could have been a lot worse (possibly slowing them down enough to hit the wall harder, or wind up in the water.)
Ducky_Fresh
Treasure Hunter
Is that plane made out of carbon fiber?
Nahh, that's plain old corrosion treated beer can.
NorCalAthlete
O_o
One article stated the lighting gantries were removed in preparation for new ones going in. So no gantries to hit at the moment. Not sure on veracity of that info and can't seem to find the article I read it in at the moment.
I doubt they magically disappeared the gantries, the piers, the pilings, and the catwalks. If you look closely there's a ton of shit out there.
Given the way the starboard gear separated, they would have looped in the water if they'd struck it sooner. Between that and all the debris right at the seawall, I'm pretty damn sure that's where they hit first.
silverbelt
New member
There was another one that also was a result of this kind of hierarchy. Granted this was back in 1977, but still, its like the same kind of attitude, that the captain is always right and is never to be questioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
Airline policies and crew training were updated to change this sort of disciples blind spot behavior.
Wow just read that one of the girls killed might of actually been run over by a responding fire truck.
That shit is freaking depressing if true.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-plane-crash-Victim-may-have-been-run-over-4651323.php
That shit is freaking depressing if true.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-plane-crash-Victim-may-have-been-run-over-4651323.php
For sure.
I don't think there's going to be a lot of mystery about this one.
My 2 pilot buddies added this..I dunno if this has been mentioned.
Same pilots from certain countries are overtrained or accustomed in shooting ILS approaches and under-trained in visual approaches. Ironic because the visual is the first way you learn and the most basic.
Even through the glide slope wasn't operational at SFO, it doesn't matter. It was a clear day. The lights (VASI) on the runway were working and the 777 has plenty of instrumentation to do the job. Every other pilot was dealing with the same.
The final approach wasn't stable. There were overcorrections the entire way in. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that this pilot was too accustomed to lining up the reticle on his attitude indicator and not accustomed to looking out the god damn window.
I'd be really surprised if this was anything more than a simple blunder
msethhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2011
- Location
- SoCal
- Moto(s)
- '98 VTR1000F, she's a fatty! '89 YSR 50 with a 150, she said "it's so cute!"
- Name
- Mikey
Jet blast from what? They were at idle. If anything, it was either the tail hitting the water and it staying in ground effect, or the airplanes wake spraying.g.the water.
Idle turbines still turn.
Protip: There is a ton of shit on approach to SFO, if they were in the water, they'd have hit it first.
They're wider than they look like in these shots -- probably at least 40' wide in spots, and on the centerline:
There's the lighting gantries themselves, as well as maintenance catwalks out there.
n10sive
Well-known member
I've lost track of the argument, but Maj...the above pic seems to indicate pretty clearly that they hit the sea wall. Are you saying the could not have?
wazzuFreddo
WuTang is 4 the children
I've lost track of the argument, but Maj...the above pic seems to indicate pretty clearly that they hit the sea wall. Are you saying the could not have?
looks like they crashed into ur anus
I've lost track of the argument, but Maj...the above pic seems to indicate pretty clearly that they hit the sea wall. Are you saying the could not have?
No, I'm arguing they hit the sea wall, and not the water first.
Some BARFers seem to think that water spray visible in a couple of videos that have been released means they hit the water. I don't think they did, because they'd have hit a lot of shit before reaching the sea wall, would probably have 'ground' looped out there, and possibly sank in the 8-15' of water, which would have been a lot worse for the passengers.
But they definitely hit the sea wall based on the location of the debris, starboard gear, and #1 engine. And they visibly ground loop in the same videos, which is how they make it from right of centerline at the seawall to as far left of centerline as the aircraft settled.
Make sense now?
n10sive
Well-known member
now you're just baiting. Yeah...u mad
n10sive
Well-known member
Yep
Maybe we should all just use sponge bob pics in the sink from now on. Some people find that effective
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Location
- Charming
- Moto(s)
- bitchin trike with oxygen
- Name
- Piney
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 2815981
Yep
Maybe we should all just use sponge bob pics in the sink from now on. Some people find that effective
ohhhh I LIKE sponge bob
now could you get one that shows Marlow that they didn't hit the lights or the lighting structures, because they weren't centered on the runway !!! It's almost like they KNEW that they were hella low and were taking evasive action to miss the lights
(or maybe the voice yelling "PULL UP ! , PULL UP ! mighta clued them in )(
Marlowe )ohhhh I LIKE sponge bob
now could you get one that shows Marlow that they didn't hit the lights or the lighting structures, because they weren't centered on the runway !!! It's almost like they KNEW that they were hella low and were taking evasive action to miss the lights
(
Based on the ADS-B derived graphs of their approach, I find "SINK RATE!" more likely.
They did strike right of center, but I'd still expect wing or gear to be entangled in some of the lighting. And at one point, at least, based on the FA/etc. ADS data, they were on centerline. That lighting extends quite a ways.
But you knew that.
msethhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2011
- Location
- SoCal
- Moto(s)
- '98 VTR1000F, she's a fatty! '89 YSR 50 with a 150, she said "it's so cute!"
- Name
- Mikey
Idle turbines still turn.
Protip: There is a ton of shit on approach to SFO, if they were in the water, they'd have hit it first.
They're wider than they look like in these shots -- probably at least 40' wide in spots, and on the centerline:
There's the lighting gantries themselves, as well as maintenance catwalks out there.
No shit there is. How many times have you landed there? I've done it more than a few. Want to compare log books(and I do mean plural)? I've landed everything from a PA-31 to a Lear 55 there, on that runway. And being off from the centerline just a little, with how high the tail is on a 77, it's a total possibility. And the amount of thrust it makes at idle isn't enough to make that much spray. Like I said, your half knowledge is muddying the waters here.
What level of certificate do you hold? How many type ratings do you have? Because it'd real easy to see. The FAA doesn't hide that kind of info. I make my money flying people around. If my memory serves me correct, you make your money by following people around.