• 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)

Marlowe said:
:wow

I am in AWE of your e-pen0r!
Click to expand...

You know, I had a nice reply worked up for you. But after considering the source, you're not even worth the effort it takes to hit "submit reply". Keep spouting your BS and mis-information in this thread. It makes you look like you almost know what your talking about. And if that makes you feel better being you, then by all means.
 
planegray said:
do you have a sponge bob picture for that ?
Click to expand...

Stop!

105090.gif
 
:facepalm

again, only on teh barf can the topic about a plane crash end up talking sponge bob pen0r....
 
Var said:
The engines were at full power (or commanded full power) right before impact. The pilot announced a go-around 1.5 seconds before impact.

I haven't seen the video. How long before the impact was there spray from the water?

Also, the pilot saying he's going around 1.5 second before means the tail probably wasn't dragging in the water until after that, if at all. I think dragging is the wrong term to use here anyways(correcting myself). Dragging implies something different than impact.


edit: just watched the video..certainly did look like dragging. But supposedly the engines were at full power too. The truth is, I don't know. :D
I would think the physics of dragging the tail in water would have brought the nose of the airplane down, and maybe that's actually why it wouldn't climb. ?? :dunno


edit:edit: After turning the volume down of the guy yelling OH MY GOD, and watching it a few more times, it's very plausible that the tail was in the water. Pretty perfect seaplane landing, minus the seaplane. The nose of the airplane immediately drops just after the spray appears which can mean it was being dragged. Also, the reported 90 knot speed..does anyone know if that was at impact or if that was the approach speed?
Click to expand...


No, they weren't, the FDR doesn't reflect that. The call for a go around was at 1.5 seconds to impact(as per the NTSB breifing). And from idle power to full power in a turbine airframe takes quite a while.

Here, these charts should shed some light on how long it takes to spool up a turbine engine.

TypicalEngineResponseChart.jpg


As for the blast created by the engines at an idle power, here is a chart that references the 777 specifically. Left is idle thrust, right is T/O thrust. They weren't at T/O thrust, they never had time to get there.

Untitled.jpg


So, judging from the chart, reaction time, and full power application, they were still at idle power, or just barely above it because of human response time and turbine engine lag time. And, looking at the debris path, and the chart that references the jet blast, and the damage to the airplane, I think it's safe to say they were likely draging the tail in the water, if you also take into account that the video shows a SIGNIFIGANT spray coming off the water. They barely made it over the wall. IMO, had it been an Airbus, that wouldn't let them pull into a stick shaker, the outcome would have been drastically different. Them pulling into the shaker is probably what saved everyones lives in my opnion. But, what do I know. Marlowe seems to have it all figured out.
 
Something i just came across:

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 “normal”. I then noticed at the apparent descent rate and closure to the runway environment the aircraft looked as though it was going to impact the approach lights mounted on piers in the SF Bay. The aircraft made a fairly drastic looking pull up in the last few feet and it appeared and sounded as if they had applied maximum thrust. However the descent path they were on continued and the thrust applied didn't appear to come soon enough to prevent impact. The tail cone and empennage of the 777 impacted the bulkhead seawall and departed the airplane and the main landing gear sheared off instantly. This created a long debris field along the arrival end of 28L, mostly along the right side of 28L. We saw the fuselage, largely intact, slide down the runway and out of view of our cockpit. We heard much confusion and quick instructions from SFO Tower and a few moments later heard an aircraft go around over the runway 28 complex. We realized within a few moments that we were apparently unharmed so I got on the PA and instructed everyone to remain seated and that we were safe.

We all acknowledged if we had been located between Runways 28R and 28L on taxiway F we would have likely suffered damage to the right side aft section of our aircraft from the 777.

Approximately two minutes later I was looking out the left side cockpit windows and noticed movement on the right side of Runway 28L. Two survivors were stumbling but moving abeam the Runway “28L” marking on the North side of the runway. I saw one survivor stand up, walk a few feet, then appear to squat down. The other appeared to be a woman and was walking, then fell off to her side and remained on the ground until rescue personnel arrived. The Captain was on the radio and I told him to tell tower what I had seen, but I ended up taking the microphone instead of relaying through him. I told SFO tower that there appeared to be survivors on the right side of the runway and they needed to send assistance immediately. It seemed to take a very long time for vehicles and assistance to arrive for these victims. The survivors I saw were approximately 1000-1500' away from the fuselage and had apparently been ejected from the fuselage.

We made numerous PAs to the passengers telling them any information we had, which we acknowledged was going to change rapidly, and I left the cockpit to check on the flight attendants and the overall mood of the passengers, as I was the third pilot and not in a control seat. A couple of our flight attendants were shaken up but ALL were doing an outstanding and extremely professional job of handling the passenger's needs and providing calm comfort to them. One of the flight attendants contacted unaccompanied minors' parents to ensure them their children were safe and would be taken care of by our crew. Their demeanor and professionalism during this horrific event was noteworthy. I went to each cabin and spoke to the passengers asking if everyone was OK and if they needed any assistance, and gave them information personally, to include telling them what I saw from the cockpit. I also provided encouragement that we would be OK, we'd tell them everything we learn and to please relax and be patient and expect this is going to be a long wait. The passenger mood was concerned but generally calm. A few individuals were emotional as nearly every passenger on the left side of the aircraft saw the fuselage and debris field going over 100 knots past our aircraft only 300' away. By this point everyone had looked out the windows and could see the smoke plume from the 777. A number of passengers also noticed what I had seen with the survivors out near the end of 28L expressing concern that the rescue effort appeared slow for those individuals that had been separated from the airplane wreckage.

We ultimately had a tug come out and tow us back to the gate, doing a 3 point turn in the hold short area of 28L. We were towed to gate 101 where the passengers deplaned.
Click to expand...
 
BrunoMDeus said:
Approximately two minutes later I was looking out the left side cockpit windows and noticed movement on the right side of Runway 28L. Two survivors were stumbling but moving abeam the Runway “28L” marking on the North side of the runway. I saw one survivor stand up, walk a few feet, then appear to squat down. The other appeared to be a woman and was walking, then fell off to her side and remained on the ground until rescue personnel arrived.
Click to expand...

Airplane crash into an immoveable object at over 100mph, get flung out onto the runway and come to a stop in 100-150 ft., and then be able to stand up... :wow:wow Buy a freaking lottery ticket!
 
RichC10 said:
Airplane crash into an immoveable object at over 100mph, get flung out onto the runway and come to a stop in 100-150 ft., and then be able to stand up...get hit by firetruck :wow:wow Buy a freaking lottery ticket!
Click to expand...

FFT :(
 
msethhunter said:
And from idle power to full power in a turbine airframe takes quite a while.
Click to expand...

Ya I knew that..just didn't know when they applied power. That's why I said 'commanded full power'.


So, judging from the chart, reaction time, and full power application, they were still at idle power, or just barely above it because of human response time and turbine engine lag time. And, looking at the debris path, and the chart that references the jet blast, and the damage to the airplane, I think it's safe to say they were likely draging the tail in the water, if you also take into account that the video shows a SIGNIFIGANT spray coming off the water. They barely made it over the wall. IMO, had it been an Airbus, that wouldn't let them pull into a stick shaker, the outcome would have been drastically different. Them pulling into the shaker is probably what saved everyones lives in my opnion. But, what do I know. Marlowe seems to have it all figured out.
Click to expand...


Ya it seems to be the case. Do they have a chart of airspeed leading up to impact? I'm still curious if that 90 knots reported was at impact or during approach.

Also, watching the video, was his approach too shallow or is that normal? (obviously before the shit hit the fan)
 
You know what's funny? I don't fly Airbus because of that exact reason -- the computers ability to override the pilot, even in a time of emergency. I have a friend who flies Continental, and flies an Airbus. You know when I stopped flying on Airbus's? When he, the guy who flies them, said don't fly them.

In general, sure, automation = safety, but at some point in time there may be a case of shit is gonna get loose no matter what, and at that point the pilot needs to be able to limit damage / casualties, even if he cannot save the entire plane.

The way my friend described it, and apparently this other pilot in the quote, an Airbus can sometimes prevent you from doing that as it reads your input as one that will likely crash the plane. I have no idea if he's exaggerating or if it's 100% correct or only partially correct, but it stuck with me and I've heard more than one pilot (here's another) repeat it. For me, that makes it true enough. :)

No joke, I only fly Boeing. I won't book the ticket if it's not on a Boeing. In Europe sometimes you have no choice, but here in the U.S. -- fly Boeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top