Plane's tail falls off (?) while landing at SFO - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dkveuro · #76 07-08-2013, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

As I said to Spud............"it could be anything".

But, since we are armchair quarterbacks, we get to make an educated guess prior to the NTSB report.

Since we are making educated guesses, my humble opinion says PE..........especially when considering he was very new to the aircraft and never landed at SFO before.

Very true.

Now they report one survivor, thrown clear, was run over by an emergency vehicle.!
How unfortunate can you get?

I remember the Sioux City crash when emergency crews thought 'what are all these people doing out here.' not realizing they where passengers thrown clear or had got out.

.

davidmash · #77 07-09-2013, 12:06 AM

The part I do not understand is what was the co-pilot doing and what were the other two pilots doing assuming they were in the cockpit as well.

Brian Carlton · #78 07-09-2013, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

The part I do not understand is what was the co-pilot doing and what were the other two pilots doing assuming they were in the cockpit as well.

The co-pilot was flying the aircraft.

Your real question is what was the Captain doing? Why didn't he take the aircraft and do a go-around. That is the question.................

dkveuro · #79 07-09-2013, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

The part I do not understand is what was the co-pilot doing and what were the other two pilots doing assuming they were in the cockpit as well.

Where? On the Frisco crash or Sioux City ? Sioux City had PiC and CP and a pilot riding jump seat who came forward to operate the throttles being as they had no hydraulic pressure to control level flight.

..

Can't Know · #80 07-09-2013, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engatwork

Being a private pilot with many hours I will say that your depth perception is skewed coming in over water.

I'm puzzled. What bearing does this have on the issues?

Even assuming your depth perception is skewed, does that mean you can't read instruments...particularly airspeed and altitude?

And even if you think you are farther from the water than you actually are, wouldn't you still know that it's water under you, and not a runway?

davidmash · #81 07-09-2013, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

Where? On the Frisco crash or Sioux City ? Sioux City had PiC and CP and a pilot riding jump seat who came forward to operate the throttles being as they had no hydraulic pressure to control level flight.

..

SFO. Theoretically there were 4 pilots in the cockpit. WTF? Even if the two reliefs were in the crew rest seats, what was the Cpt doing if the FO was flying? Reports indicate that passengers were looking out the window and knew something was not right. Were the pilots just flying by instrument and not using any visual cues?

davidmash · #82 07-09-2013, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

I'm puzzled. What bearing does this have on the issues?

Even assuming your depth perception is skewed, does that mean you can't read instruments...particularly airspeed?

And even if you think you are farther from the water than you actually are, wouldn't you still know that it's water under you, and not a runway?

I was listening to some folks talk about the effect water. Since it is flat and featureless (for the most part) it can affect your sense of speed and height if you are flying visually.

Can't Know · #83 07-09-2013, 02:10 AM

^^^ If one is on final in a commercial jet that one is not used to flying and is ignoring the instruments, that is incompetence.

That the #2 chair was apparently unaware of what was happening (or unwilling to open his mouth) speaks volumes.

Best quote I've thus far heard: .

"He was simply too low," said J.F. Joseph, a retired Marine colonel who has been involved in hundreds of aircraft accident and incident investigations. "He ran out of airspeed, altitude and ideas at the same time. You're simply out of options."

PE is the saddest reason such things happen. Read Gladwell's book that discusses (in one chapter) the causes of airline crashes. He also discusses cultural influences (you mentioned those previously) and notes that Korean Air had a horrible record until that was addressed.

Air&Road · #84 07-09-2013, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

Similar 'landing' short of the threshold at LHR was ice pellets in the RR engine fuel supply.

Not always PE.

.

Yeah, that's it! Ice pellets over San Francisco Bay in July!

Look folks. The NTSB has already released the most important information in the info from the flight recorders. It tells the story that allows for a conclusion that is probably 99% accurate. They allowed it to get low and slow. That's it. The rest of the investigation is formality.

The only thing left to determine is the exact procedural issue that led to it.

Skippy · #85 07-09-2013, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

Very true.

Now they report one survivor, thrown clear, was run over by an emergency vehicle.!
How unfortunate can you get?

I remember the Sioux City crash when emergency crews thought 'what are all these people doing out here.' not realizing they where passengers thrown clear or had got out.

.

"Thrown clear" is a phrase you don't see much anymore. "Ejected from the vehicle" is more common, with the (generally correct) connotation of hitting the ground hard enough to cause problems ranging from sore knees (BTDT-low speed motorcycle crash) or road rash (also BTDT-fairly high speed bicycle crash) up to and including death.

Looks like pilot error to me. It usually is in a commercial aviation mishap.

BobK · #86 07-09-2013, 07:07 AM

Didn't somebody say this aircraft had P&W engines, not RR? Is that correct?

TwitchKitty · #87 07-09-2013, 07:34 AM

Man catches plane crash on camera - YouTube

Amateur video of crash. It is from a distance but you can see the plane cartwheel. I am amazed that it didn't kill everyone on board.

Sorry if this is a repost.

P.C. · #88 07-09-2013, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobK

Didn't somebody say this aircraft had P&W engines, not RR? Is that correct?

On Sunday, the NTSB spokesperson said Pratt and Whitney.

Air&Road · #89 07-09-2013, 08:15 AM

Maybe it depends on what you are calling a cartwheel. It looks to me like one wing went into the ground causing the other wing to come up high as it spun around relatively flat.

Also in that video and the other one I saw(that might be the same one) you can clearly see the point at which the aircraft stalled(watch for the point where the tail went low.) It appears that he was on proper glidepath to make the runway threshold, but then went down abruptly. Even if he had made the illegal DISPLACED threshold, it would have been a bad landing, but one that everyone would have walked away from.

The tiniest bit more speed would have made all the difference. In learning to land an airplane, probably the most common phrase heard over and over from instructors is "watch your airspeed." Once you have enough landings under your belt, you can land without watching the airspeed, by watching your pitch attitude instead. At one point, my instructor got in the plane with a towel and covered the panel with it and made me shoot a few landings. If I were to get into a different type, I would have to get some practice landings before I would have the proper pitch attitude etched in my brain well enough to land without an ASI.

Skid Row Joe · #90 07-09-2013, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

I'm puzzled. What bearing does this have on the issues?

Even assuming your depth perception is skewed, does that mean you can't read instruments...particularly airspeed and altitude?

And even if you think you are farther from the water than you actually are, wouldn't you still know that it's water under you, and not a runway?

Stark water would be a difference or distraction, similar to blacked out visuals in the night. They both can work against your sense of spatial orientation. I would think it difficult to overcome RE: the Kennedy boy got totally disoriented losing his perfectly functioning aircraft. Water, darkness, and no land-based lights for orientation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

The co-pilot was flying the aircraft.

Your real question is what was the Captain doing? Why didn't he take the aircraft and do a go-around. That is the question.................

One report stated the co-pilot with more hours in the 777, was training the less experienced Captain. I do know this - one guy is to be fixed on the instruments, calling out what he hears and sees, and the guy flying has the throttles and yoke - looking out the windshield. The report stated the co-pilot (more experienced with the model aircraft) didn't notice that the Captain was not advancing the throttles.

One must also be aware of the misjudgement and fear factor by co-pilots, that statistically 25% of the time, will let a Captain crash the airplane, rather than correct him.

Lots of factors to consider when unpacking the why of what factually happened, RE: human misjudgements

Me? I'd of let the aircraft take me to 50 feet +/- above the runway before clicking off the autopilot, and letting it drift to the ground quickly. Leave the training involving landing manually missions to doing it without passengers on board. Coming in low and slow, not good.