Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

reply to post by TopsyTurvyOne

the quality of that video is typical of bad quality

Well that would be why I said it isn't the best quality...

with all these type media fakery events, and this is another example of such an event.

Let me get this straight...your saying this is a media fakery type of event?

so far the evidence for fakery here is pretty damning.

Any chance you can point that evidence out to me as all I see are people posting about the number 7 and what it means.

you must all like being punked.

Who is doing the punking because they are not very good at it?

NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said information collected from the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder indicated there were no signs of problems until seven seconds before impact, when the crew tried to accelerate.

It isn't any wonder as to why they didn't show signs until 7 sec, it was because he wasn't in trouble ( at least in his mind) until the 7 sec mark.

I would go as far to say that if your that close to the ground and try to pull up I don't think that would happen.

Originally posted by TopsyTurvyOne

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
Okay I haven't seen this posted yet , but I didn't go all the way thru 17 pages so if it has sorry...

Here is a link to the video of the crash, it isn't the best quality but it does the trick I guess...

statter911.com...

nice choice of words with 'done the trick'.

the quality of that video is typical of bad quality CGI video produced
with all these type media fakery events, and this is another example of such an event.
contrast the quality of image for the witness interview with that capturing the 'accident'.
who has any recording devise in 2013 that has such dreadful clarity and quality?

the preponderence of the number seven alone within this narrative should tell you
that all is not right here!

once we can conclude for definite that we are not being punked with another
completely faked story, then we can get into the nitty-gritty of the all contradictory
(as always) morsels that are always thrown our way.

so far the evidence for fakery here is pretty damning.
www.cluesforum.info...

you must all like being punked.

as a treat, here's another seven for ya!

NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said information collected from the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder indicated there were no signs of problems until seven seconds before impact, when the crew tried to accelerate.
news.yahoo.com...

Oh my, if it turns out the pilot had a 7 inch penis your head might explode.

There is now a separate investigation into the deaths of the two girls--it seems possible that one was killed by being run over by a firetruck or other emergency vehicle responding to the crash.

reply to post by F4guy


The 777 uses electrical links to control the flight surfaces. In normal operation, the FBW system provides functions such as envelope protection, pitch thrust compensation, gust suppression (yaw), thrust asymmetry compensation, trim augmentation with configuration change, and stability augmentation. In the later variants (300ER, 200LR, 200F) it also provides load alleviation, where under the outer spoiler panels are automatically deployed to reduce wing structural loads under high-g.

If the flight computers fail the aircraft can be flown in direct law. There is also partial mechanical backup.

Also note that the autopilot is backdriven, and operates on top of the FBW systems.

Trim is partially manual, changing it changes the reference speed to which the aircraft is trimmed to. The FBW keeps the aircraft trimmed regardless of configuration change.

This is FBW in every sense of the word, the only big differences of note to Airbus, the control laws are different, mechanical loads are simulated to the pilot, and if you pull hard enough you can override it.

To be honest, the system is good enough that I essentially regard the system as being invincible to failure.

Also the engines on the aircraft put out 90,000 lbf, not 77,000 lbf. PW4090, not PW4077.

Only the-ER has the 90Kengines the straight 200s have the 77K, whether Pratt, Trent or GE.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
There is now a separate investigation into the deaths of the two girls--it seems possible that one was killed by being run over by a firetruck or other emergency vehicle responding to the crash.

Yeah I heard that as well. If it turns out that an emergency vehicle struck and killed one of the victims I could easily envision a wrongful death lawsuit filed against SFO. What I don't understand, that is if the investigation does find that one of these girls were in fact run over and killed by SFO first responders, is why would they bring a speeding vehicle right up to the crashed plane when smoke was present? Fire engines even keep their distance from possible explosions or fires.

I was listening to one of the rescuers speak with the press this morning, and she mentioned how she told the male in the emergency vehicle seat next to her "hurry up, or we are not going to be able to help anyone". Then she followed that comment up with "oh, well I hope that doesn't make him upset that I said that".

So, something to consider. Maybe she rushed him, and she feels partly to blame even though she was not driving? Maybe she already knows that they had run the victim over? She may have influenced his speed. I can't imagine the stress they must have been dealing with. All speculation in the name of discussion at this point though.

I guess we have to wait and see what comes of this. In no way would I demonize the first responders if it turns out to be the case. I am sure it was a hectic situation and if true, they were endangering their own lives in order to attempt to save others. Let's wait and see what the investigation reveals. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation


Because the new fire trucks have a metal hose that can punch through the side of the plane and spray water directly into the cabin to fight an onboard fire.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I didn't know that. It sounds like that could kill somebody when it punches through if they aren't careful.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


They don't use the velocity of the vehicle to penetrate the fuselage tho - see wiki article on fire tenders

More likely, if it did happen, was that the tender was transiting to get somewhere - eg moving along the length of the a/c to get to the rear or similar - it wouldn't have to be moving very fast to kill someone.

Unless I missed someone else posting it, here is the ADS-B data:
fr24 ads-b

I'm impressed it caught the plane up in the air during the bounce.

You can use the flyquietsfo tracker to see how other aircraft approach the airport.
SFO tracker
AAR214 was a bit higher than most aircraft over the San Mateo bridge, but I spotted an A320 doing a similarly high approach. Over the San Mateo bridge, most aircraft are at 1800ft +/-100ft. AAR214 was at 2200ft. The altitude at Coyote Point was on the high side of normal.

But checking the ads-b data, you can see where the stick shaker will start. The plane was too slow.

The NTSB has said that they can't officially confirm which pilots were in command at the time of the crash, but should be able to shortly. They have confirmed that the accident was not related to the problem that BA 38 had when it crashed, and there appears to have been nothing mechanically wrong with the engines.

reply to post by Zaphod58


So when it comes down to it, it will most likely be pilot error.

reply to post by Stealthbomber


It sure looks that way, unless something unexpected comes up in the FDR.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I haven't really had time to read through the whole thread, been working flat out lately but wasn't the pilot in training? Only had about 40
Hours in the triple 7?

reply to post by Stealthbomber


They haven't confirmed he was flying at the time of the accident, but there was a new instructor, and a pilot in training on board, yes. He had 43 hours in the 777, almost 11,000 total. This was his 30th landing in SFO, but the first on the Triple.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ah ok, I wonder how many of those were instrument landings and how many were visual. Judging by the tracking he was coming in way to slow, but I guess we'll have to wait for the FDR to know what really happend.

You'll know this I'd assume, I was wondering what kind of charges would the pilot face if it does say pilot error?

Cheers.

Originally posted by TopsyTurvyOne
as a treat, here's another seven for ya!

NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said information collected from the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder indicated there were no signs of problems until seven seconds before impact, when the crew tried to accelerate.
news.yahoo.com...

They must be on to you guys saying it's faked. Now they're saying at 8 seconds prior to impact they tried to abort.

reply to post by Stealthbomber


Usually none, unless it's a blatant error, or almost deliberate negligence on his part. He may not fly much again, but unless he did something blatantly wrong, and deliberately failed to correct his error, he probably won't face charges.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Okay, thanks

It's a tragedy that 2 people have lost their lives due to this, but pilots are also human not robots and are prone to making mistakes. In my line of work if I make a mistake it can put a lot of people's lives at risk and it's always something that plays on your mind.

Here are more details she discussed Monday:

The crew had flown in on a 17-mile straight approach, heading to San Francisco from the air over Sacramento.
Radar data shows "no abnormally steep descent curve" in what has been reviewed.
Evaluations show "that both of the engines were producing power" when the craft hit the ground.
The No. 2 engine showed "evidence of high rotation" at the point of impact.
Lower portion of the tail cone is in the rocks at the sea wall before the runway.
Debris from the sea wall was found "several hundred feet" up the runway.
The impact occurred about 82 seconds after autopilot was disabled.
At 200 feet, the plane's airspeed was approximately 118 knots.
Three seconds before impact, the craft's speed was 103 knots — the lowest measured, and far below the target speed of 137 knots.
When it struck, it had accelerated to 106 knots.
The call to abort the landing and go around again, made seconds before the crash, is heard in the cockpit, but it wasn't made to the control tower.
Investigators are looking into reports that at least one emergency ramp may have deployed inside the aircraft.
Fuel samples have been taken for testing.
Flight and data recorders will be transcribed and reviewed for both verbal statements, as well as sounds made by the aircraft.
There is a mix of English and Korean spoken on the voice recorders.
"There are 1,400 different parameters that are measured" by the flight data recorder.
The plane involved had not been involved in previous problems or incidents.

www.npr.org...