Asiana crash at SFO.
 

hopefully no fatalities...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...cisco/2495099/

https://path.com/p/1lwrZb

News still filtering through. I have read reports that the tail may have come off!

Reports of people with burns but please let there be no fatalities.

Aircraft was a Boeing 777 Asiana 214 from Seoul.

Jim

Reports now saying that all 303 onboard are accounted for. Thank God.

Jim

Wow, just wow. Looks like everyone survived. The pictures are surreal

From the pictures on channel 9 it looks like its come in to low cause theres a debris field from the sea wall onwards.

Live video

Now updated to 2 dead and about 60 injured

The pictures at the end if the runway seem to suggest they came in too low. Weather certainly not an issue - a nice clear day at SFO

HL7742 by the looks of it

Attachment 1895

Wow. It's amazing so many survived.

Just throwing this out there, but has there been any reports on whether the aircraft lost power prior to landing? (thinking British Airways 777 crash a few years ago).

Mick

This aircraft was a regular visitor to Sydney up until 10/06/2011.

Looks like it landed very short, clipping the rock wall, although some eye witnesses said the approcah looked abnormal also.

just heard a clip on Live ATC from the approach and you can clearly hear the captain call the tower telling them they have a problem, actually, he just calls out "we have a problem".

Cheers Monty.

Interesting. I'm not one for speculation normally, but this just smells of another 777 power loss after a long flight in cold temps.

Mick

Fair few eyewitness accounts floating around but many seem seriously questionable. There's one from someone who says he was seated in the middle of the plane, not at the back, but then he's giving a detailed account of what he "saw" happening at the back. You know, through all the toilets and galleys and while strapped to his forward-facing seat.

It does seem like the landing gear clipped the seawall and collapsed.

The photo of people walking away toting large carry-on luggage is bizarre but not exactly surprising.

Every evacuation seems to have people with bags and now people taking photos on their phones

Thomas, both GP & PAPI was NOTAM'd out I thought? Sadly looks like he landed short. Pilot error or technical problem - time will tell. The weather was perfect, clear skies and calm winds.

The UA B747 holding short would have ***** themselves I'd say.

Interesting graphic from the approach the day before and the day of the accident.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOhIDCWCUAApHFV.jpg:large

I can only imagine what the crew of that UA 747 were thinking.

SFO is one of the most popular spotting airports in the US. Given how nice the day was and being a weekend, it would have been interesting to see how many were out there and witnessed it. Any photos taken will be crucial in the investigation - this is another reason why spotters are actually good for airports, not a danger.

To be fair, the person who tweeted that was a fair distance from the aircraft and also notably refused media requests, later saying he only sent that out to let people know that he was OK (and to a lesser extent, that a large number of people seemed to be largely OK).

On the face of it, compared to the average person, I think he acted relatively thoughtfully and not unreasonably.

It is not a criticism of them taking photos - it is just interesting that people think that as soon as they get out, that the danger is over.

I heard the ATC recording and they reported "two or three people that are moving and apparently survived" on the ground near the threshold and they needed attention. That must have been quite a sight for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBLM-6dUGs

here is the recording..

The ILS may have something to do with it???

Wasn't Asiana rated up there with one of the safest airlines in the world.

My condolences to the families who lost loved ones.

Jacob

Do you think the people they saw were thrown from the aircraft during the "skid" or was this post evacuation?

As you can see the aicraft was quite a distance from the "numbers"

http://avherald.com/img/asiana_b772_...o_130706_6.jpg

This pic also shows the damage to the sea wall. Very obvious early touchdown! - don't send these guys to Saint Marteen! :eek:

http://avherald.com/img/asiana_b772_...o_130706_7.jpg

In the current live NTSB news conference they have advised the aircraft stalled on approach. No mechanical problems.

VREF was 137kts in Flap 30. Was cleared for visual approach RWY 28L.

7 seconds before touchdown a pilot called low speed and stick shaker activated, thrust was idle during late stages of descent. About 1.5 seconds before impact they called go-around and thrust increased but it was too late.

Sadly looks like pilot error.

All based on CVR and FDR. Basically it sounds like THY 737 in Amsterdam.

Thanks for that update Radi. Puts to bed my thoughts then.

Mick

Glideslope not available
 

Apparently some NAV aids at SFO were inoperative, including glideslope. Sounds like that could be a key factor.

I heard that the ILS was not operating on Runway 28L, however the PAPI was.

New video of the actual impact has emerged and can be seen on news.com.au (the end of the skid on the dirt is dramatic).

Reports that it's a possibility that one of the victims of this may have actually been killed by a rescue vehicle.

Phil,
Having an ILS out should not be a factor at all. If a pilot can't make a visual approach, then they've got some serious lack of flying ability issues.

Mick

What Happened to Asiana Airlines Flight 214?

Only conjecture based upon fairly limited data available, but still an interesting analysis nonetheless

Asiana Airlines revealed the pilot in charge of landing the Boeing 777 that crash-landed at San Francisco's airport was training for the long-range plane and that it was his first flight to the airport with the jet
The pilot had 43 hours of experience of flying the 777, a spokesperson for the airline revealed. His co-pilot, Lee Jeong-Min had 3,200 hours of flying experience aboard a 777 and was in the cockpit with Kang-Kook when disaster struck.


The crew tried to increase its speed and abort its landing just seconds before it hit the seawall in front of the airport runway
Recordings show crew had no concerns before landing then tried to 'go around' 1.5 seconds before impact

The airport's Glide Path system, which is designed to avoid runway misses in a variety of weather, was switched off

The give a little balance to the "43 hours at the controls of a B777" story.

From Air Transport World ...

Here's another interesting read from a First Officer' view: http://www.curacaochronicle.com/avia...77-approached/

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2...asiana214.html

all the updated info from probably the most reliable source.

Business as usual
 

Good evening,

Sorry to send my message very late, so look at a picture of stricken Asiana Ailines with other Asiana Airlines B777 landing behind it on page 13 in today's SMH newspaper.

Regards,

Cliff Cook.

Speculation
 

With all of the caveats that have to go with sparse information, this extract from the commentary cited by Mike at http://www.yssyforum.net/board/showp...9&postcount=32 seems to me the most plausible primary cause of the crash:

I understand that FLCH (level change) mode is the only one in which auto throttle doesn't 'wake up' to provide emergency thrust when the glideslope is off. That so-called 'FLCH trap' seems to have caught out an inexperienced 777 pilot and his instructor.

Phil,

You're close regarding FLCH but more information is needed. Flight Level Change is a function of speed (really has nothing to do with the fact that the glideslope was inoperative). Which means that the pitch of the aircraft is changed to reach that targeted speed. Using FLCH on descent the autothrottle operates in THR (Thrust) to maintain the descent rate required by the pitch mode. Once the thrust setting is achieved the mode changes to HOLD (thrust lever autothrottle servos are inhibited and the pilot can set thrust levers manually) this is why in FLCH or TOGA (which I wont go into now) the autothrottles don't 'wake up' as you put it.

Now to use FLCH for a descent a lower altitude must be set. I'm not sure what the crew set as an altitude but once the selected altitude is reached the autothrottle mode will change from HOLD to SPD (Speed - the autothrottle system is now commanding thrust to achieve the required speed) and normal system protection is restored. If they set an altitude of 0' then HOLD would still have been the current mode as they hadn't reached the selected altitude yet. Unfortunately FLCH and TOGA below 100' RA (Radio Altitude) on approach the autothrottle will not automatically activate the stall protection. For this reason Boeing do not recommend the use of FLCH for approaches past the final approach fix.

Even if the glideslope is inoperative the aircraft is still capable of many of the other non precision approaches available at SFO, and with the appropriate pitch mode (V/S - vertical speed, FPA - Flight Path Angle, or VNAV - Vertical Navigation) the stall protection would have been activated.

So yes the 'FLCH trap' did catch them out but I believe it was more a case of misunderstanding the use of certain autopilot system controls as the aircraft performed exactly as it was meant to.

Of course we will wait for the official report on the accident on what modes the crew were operating in, but I hope I provided a more educated post on the use of FLCH rather than a simplified 'easy way to recover is to set a lower altitude, use speedbrake etc' answer as what was quoted in your post.

On the money
 

The NTSB will give us all the gory detail probably in about a year but I reckon with the talent on this board we have nailed it 99% well enough to be confident in expressing a view about WHAT most likely happened as distinct from WHY that happened or was allowed to happen.