Reports: 777 crash lands at San Francisco

Zaphod58
reply to post by gariac

 

It is new. This was caught by airport cameras and is much closer than the video that was released at the time of the accident.

Do you think it reveals anything new? The old videos pretty much disproved the plane flipped, as stated by some eye witnesses. (Always trust sensors, never trust a witness.)

This video makes it looks like a pivot of sorts was done on the nose. Overall, it shows the cabin is very tough. If I were Boeing, I'd be high fiving more than fretting over the accident. The basic airframe looks solid. There will always be pilot error.

SFO is such a money sink of federal bucks, but I will filter my rants. All I can say is you better be good at instrument landings there. Often it is nice and clear at OAK, but socked in at SFO.

reply to post by gariac


No, it shows the same as the other video, but it gives a clearer view of the accident.

You're right, if I were Boeing, I'd be damn proud of this aircraft. This is two bad hull loss accidents, and only two fatalities related to the crash itself. That's a hell of a record for any aircraft.

It's got no tail by the looks of it, apparently someone tweeted saying everyone is safe which is good news.














________________________

Asiana is saying that the pilots were "blindsided" by the autothrottle, and the late warning given in the FLCH mode. Boeing says that the pilots passed up several chances to abort the unstable approach, and the aircraft had nothing to do with it.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board might be six months from declaring the probable cause and contributing factors in the Asiana Airlines 777-200ER crash in San Francisco last July, but two main participants in the investigation, Asiana and Boeing, have already formed their own conclusions.

In documents submitted to the NTSB and published on March 31, both the airline and the manufacturer contend that a basic lack of monitoring and failure to follow airline and industry standards for abandoning an approach led the pilots into a situation where airspeed and altitude were too low to avoid crashing into the sea wall in front of Runway 28L, but the agreement stops there.

Asiana says its pilots were blindsided by lack of a timely low-speed aural alert and an autopilot flight-director system mode—flight-level change (FLCH)—that is inconsistent with practically all other modes in that it allows the autothrottle to go into a “hold” mode with engines at idle and no low-speed “wake-up” to prevent the aircraft from flying too slowly. Boeing, however, says the 777 and its automation systems and training materials were not at fault in the crash, but rather the pilots were not adept at visual approaches and did not take advantage of several opportunities to abandon the unstable arrival before it was too late. Asiana provides 11 recommendations in its submittal; Boeing offers none.

AvWeek

holy crap, I thought this happened like just recently but realized this was from 2013..
but I guess i'm caught up now - was wondering where I heard people talk about that "a poor girl got ran over by rescuers, but was already dead prior" etc.

reply to post by chinabean


It usually takes a year or two before reports come out, so older accidents pop up on you like that as reports near.

In another twist to this saga, the firefighter that was accused of running over Ye Ming Yuan, has filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Fire Department claiming that another vehicle ran over the girl first, but she is being made a scapegoat for the failures of the day. She's a 24 year veteran of the Fire Department, and is the only one named as being involved in the incident.