Dick Dasterdly

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us...rash.html?_r=0

I reckon they're the luckiest ppl alive today.

Had it dropped only 20 or 30 meters earlier more than likely it would have smashed head on into the seawall and killed most if not all of them.

Looks like the crew stuck the nose up at the very last minute so only the tail section smashed into the top of the shoreline.

Is that the same type that lost power and flopped short of the Heathrow runway a year or two back due to losing all power with ice build up in the filters ?

Domino

appears to be the same/similar type
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...the_Boeing_777
is a 777-200ER

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London..._and_incidents
was a 777-236ER

but is that relevent in this incident ??

Dick Dasterdly

Maybe not relevant.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2....red-hayes.html

Interesting clip of the mishap as it happened and the aftermath followed by a survivors account of the approach and landing.

Also this inside info.from another forum ?

"Pilot called for more speed 7 seconds before impact. He called a go around 1.5 secs before impact. According to the NTSB. They've also said the speed was too low, and not just a few knots, significantly. It is sounding more and more like pilot error.

Edit: unless there was a mechanical issue forcing them to be so low and slow"


According to another report, one of the two killed, a teenage girl, was run over by a Fire Truck.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...er-4651323.php

Fredbargate

Sounds ominously like the fuel icing problem suffered at Heathrow by BA in Jan 2008

Dick Dasterdly

According to reports the engines were running normally, different engines anyway to the Heathrow plane.
The Pilot only had 43 hours experience on 777s and was still undergoing training for that particular aircraft type.
Possibly being overcautious slowing down too much with regard to the tricky landing point which doesn't meet international standards ?
Fatigue another possibility if it was the same crew all the way from China via Korea.
No doubt it will all come out in the wash.
Most enquiries tend to come to the conclusion that there is rarely one single contributory factor to such accidents.
Looks like the US Authorities are keen to exonerate the aircraft as soon as possible with their surprisingly early release of various statements.

Domino

yes, seems one of the fatalities may have been run over by emergency vehicle(s)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ts-plane-crash

it appears the pilot tried to abort the landing and go round again, but that was at the last second. maybe he didnt realise he didnt have the airspeed to drag her up again, especially as there was a stall warning. even if the engines have afterburn there isn't much chance of recovery after that point..

as HL7742 was flying with P&W engines and the BA G-YMMM with RR engines there is no reason to assume the fuel problem would be the same.
and there already seems to be a move away from the aircraft and its engines to pilot error.

`

Dick Dasterdly

Rarely are these mishaps down to one single factor.

It's just been reported that the land based guidance system which could have automatically helped bring the aircraft in at the correct speed and angle down the glide slope was switched off.

It also mentioned that any pilots intending to land at San Francisco should have received special training to do so.
The guy at the controls although well experienced elsewhere was simply an interim pilot on this type of aircraft with only 9 previous occasions at the controls.

As you say Dom by the time he realized his mistake and the stall warning sounded it was probably all to late.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the normal procedure when a stall warning sounds is to put the nose down to gain speed.

Zero opportunity of doing that in this case.

Domino

not a pilot but think that is fairly normal as many instances of stall are due to flying upwards - the only time you hit stall going down is when you hit.

however, do remember a pilot who saw Royal Navy on the arse end of his plane and decided to give it a float test. Well, actually he missed the arrestor wires (all 5) and when he pushed the throttles forward for afterburn to go round again the candles went out - on both engines IIRC.
we spent over a week trying to lift the damned thing out of the water so the teckies could get their hands on the engines.

pilot got out as he obeyed all the rules, cracked the canopy to allow water in and stayed on oxygen. when she was a few feet under the surface he fully opened canopy and came out.
the float time for a 25 ton aircraft is counted in seconds, but if they land straight they don't normally go straight down, they swim like a pendulum - as you may remember from a bar of soap in the bath, as the wings still have an effect under water.

however, this is a lose-lose situation, being a couple of feet above the runway you have no options other than to hit the deck. or be forced down if you get hit by a microburst downdraft - which is what they think did for the Delta Airlines Flight 191 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_191
and there have been a number of other incidents where pilots have almost lost control.
but although they are saying SFO is a "difficult" airport the pilot wasn't a novice and had some experience of this aircraft, just not at this airport.
lucky for him he wasn't landing at Kai Tak.

Domino

British invention, first tested on the Trident (remember them ??) and given to the world - as are all things we invent.

`

Dick Dasterdly

Your first sentence is a bit confusing Dom, but aircraft can stall in most attitudes apart from fairly steep dives and in this instance you have to allow for all the extra drag from slats, flaps and landing gear, just one of the reasons why you often hear the power increased shortly prior to landing to maintain the glide slope.

Just reported on BBC that it was the pilots first ever spell in actual full control of a triple 7.
What a time to begin !

Domino

you probably know better than I,
I see it as driving a car into a parking space, careful balance of throttle, brakes steering adjustment.
surely it is quite common to ease off the engines and drop a bit too low so have to give a burst to maintain the landing altitude/angle. wind sheer is something you don't have to make allowance for with a car.

have you seen the training supertanker captains have to undergo in little models in the water ??

you get many old pilots but not many old and bold pilots
IIRC

DIL's father used to pilot for BEA

`

Dick Dasterdly

Quite a bit different to parking a car I would have thought with so many other variable factors to take into account.
The extended wing surfaces obviously provide extra lift at low speed, but don't do a lot for stability especially in less than perfect conditions, so apart from maintaining glide slope, a little extra power should help maintain stability by keeping it well above stalling point and being tossed around like a paper glider,....... just my own theory from what very little I ever learnt during my very brief experiences at the joystick, so maybe I'm talking a load of tosh.

Domino

dick, how can you be talking a load of old tosh - you are live on BE Spain

that aside, yes it is all different, in the same way as most SP's have problems negotiating a little water on the roads whilst we have decades of experience.

but surely it matters not with a conventional aircraft like the 777, the wings are of a given size for the normal job, not pulling a pilot out of the shit, when the leading edge is pointing downwards it is cutting deeper and at a given point i.e. stall - no matter how much you pull up on the stick and ram the throttle through the gate you will at best only get a tail lead belly flop with engines pulling to nowhere.
Which is what happened.
you can't beat gravity nor forward motion.

Domino

and is 7 seconds really enough to expect the brakes and flaps to re-configure to a new configuration and fly off for another pass ??

Dick Dasterdly

17 seconds even just to get full power back on according to one pilot who thought they might have been distracted looking for the non existent glide slope signal showing up on their instruments.