Plane's tail falls off (?) while landing at SFO - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Air&Road · #61 07-08-2013, 07:41 PM

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.

Now you've done it Jim! I go to an airport (KSLR) quite regularly where the threshold for runway 16 is right at the waters edge and it has never given me any trouble. I guess I was just dumb and happy to deal with it. Now that I know it's supposed to be a problem I will probably go splat the next time I fly in there.

Air&Road · #62 07-08-2013, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Lets review shall we.

You said that we should reserve judgement until more facts are presented. Then in the next sentence you went on to state two things that you knew did not happen. You said the tail did not fall off and that it was not the fault of maintenance.

Are either of these to conclusions supported by any NTSB finding and if so can you please link them here.

You made two statements of fact without any supporting facts while telling other to wait for the facts before drawing any conclusions. This equals IRONY.

Your conclusions seem quite reasonable (as do other theories presented) but they are still theories that are unsupported by any facts on your part.

You cannot cry about being a victim (and get any sympathy) when you constantly shoot your self in the foot.

The facts I stated are very obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit about flying and has seen the video and the debris field. The NTSB knows it, but they can not say it until their process is complete. The data recorders backed this up. The OP obviously had no idea what he was talking about.

All you have to do is wait and the report will bear me out. Sorry to disappoint you, not being able to nail my ass like you want so badly to do.

engatwork · #63 07-08-2013, 08:05 PM

I would not say it is a problem as much as a situation to be aware of.

davidmash · #64 07-08-2013, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

The facts I stated are very obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit about flying and has seen the video and the debris field. The NTSB knows it, but they can not say it until their process is complete. The data recorders backed this up. The OP obviously had no idea what he was talking about.

All you have to do is wait and the report will bear me out. Sorry to disappoint you, not being able to nail my ass like you want so badly to do.

OH good grief. Give it up already.

dkveuro · #65 07-08-2013, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Anything is a possibility.

Bet you lunch that it's pilot error..................

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

Not always PE.

.

cmac2012 · #66 07-08-2013, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

OH good grief. Give it up already.

David, how did it, like get this way, man?

davidmash · #67 07-08-2013, 10:21 PM

You wold have to visit Larry world to find out. I don't have the stomach to go there. I just look from the outside and shake my head in resignation.

spdrun · #68 07-08-2013, 10:25 PM

Get a room already!

Brian Carlton · #69 07-08-2013, 10:36 PM

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.

.

Bet you lunch that it's PE.

You in?

My friend Spud ran away like a scared chicken.............all hat...........no cattle.

dkveuro · #70 07-08-2013, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Bet you lunch that it's PE.

You in?

My friend Spud ran away like a scared chicken.............all hat...........no cattle.

NO !

.

Skid Row Joe · #71 07-08-2013, 10:58 PM

I'm in for PE too. I stayed @ a Holiday Inn last month, so I feel comfortable with the guess.

Brian Carlton · #72 07-08-2013, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

NO !

.

No surprise.

The situation with BA and the RR engines bears no resemblance to this accident, and you know it.

dkveuro · #73 07-08-2013, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

No surprise.

The situation with BA and the RR engines bears no resemblance to this accident, and you know it.

Well, the RR engine fuel system has been redesigned and I doubt other engine builders..ie" GE, didn't get to check theirs too.

Now lookee here...I said it is not always PE, not, it couldn't be. The jet had just descended from 350 so it was in -55f air temperatures just like the BA flight.
Just tryin' to give the poor PiC a break.

Seems now he was a NooB on the 777.

.

.

Can't Know · #74 07-08-2013, 11:19 PM

Just landed at SFO next to the debris field.

Very surreal.

Latest news reports are indicating that one of the fatalities was alive until she was run over by an emergency vehicle.

Horrible all the way around.

Brian Carlton · #75 07-08-2013, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

Well, the RR engine fuel system has been redesigned and I doubt other engine builders..ie" GE, didn't get to check theirs too.

Now lookee here...I said it is not always PE, not, it couldn't be. The jet had just descended from 350 so it was in -55f air temperatures just like the BA flight.
Just tryin' to give the poor PiC a break.

Seems now he was a NooB on the 777.

.

.

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.