FOX News Reporting Boeing 777 Crashes In San Francisco (1 Viewer)

[Deuce]

I've been involved with three "unscheduled landings" on military aircraft. No one was hurt bad in any of them though. The worst one I was in was a UH-60 in Mogadishu when we added some unexpected lead to the engine and had to auto-rotate down in the city. Not fun. You may have read about it or saw a movie that talked about it. My avatar picture was taken in the same UH-60 a couple days earlier.

I was also on a Delta L1011 flying from ATL to HNL when we lost cabin pressure over the Pacific. The masks deployed and a per-recorded message started YELLING at us to put the masks on and breath normally. Yeah, right.

It is tough to breathe normally under those circumstances. Don't worry about getting high from the oxygen, though. Fight Club was full of ****!

 

[PerfectStorm]

I'm thinking the pilot was just short of the runway and the tail was clipped off by the rock wall.

 

[Deuce]

I'm thinking the pilot was just short of the runway and the tail was clipped off by the rock wall.

The runway 28 approach is over freaking water.

edit: oh, that little thing at the edge of the water? It's not very tall...

 

[Fisher]

I'm thinking the pilot was just short of the runway and the tail was clipped off by the rock wall.

Probably more likely the landing gear is what got tangled up in the rocks since at least one of them is ripped completely off and laying on the around the runway numbers. They would have to have that nose up pretty high to drag the tail me would think.

 

[shrubnose]

man Boeing has been having some rotten luck with their new planes lately.

We make own luck.

 

[PerfectStorm]

Probably more likely the landing gear is what got tangled up in the rocks since at least one of them is ripped completely off and laying on the around the runway numbers. They would have to have that nose up pretty high to drag the tail me would think.

But on landing isn't the tail lower than the landing gear?

 

[trfjr]

It's not a cargo plane.

A crash that occurs after touchdown typically isn't a total loss. Fewer troubles with Newton. The fueselage appears to be mostly intact, so that's a good sign.

As for a tail falling off, a bad impact could snap the tail loose. I'm guessing the tail came off during impact, not during flight. If the tail comes off in flight, things don't go this well. The 777 tail is mostly composites. They're tough and light, but as I understand it when they do fail, they tend to fail rather spectacularly.

if the tail came off in flight there is no possible way it would be able to land unless it was on the glide path seconds before landing

 

[Fisher]

But on landing isn't the tail lower than the landing gear?

Not when you are touching down. Sounds like the 777 crash at Heathrow except it was caused by ice crystals.

Based on the tower tape it sounds like a routine landing until the crash since they had a plane coming in on its rear so this will be pilot error either way.

http://soberbuildengineer-com.s3.amazonaws.com/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3

 

[Lord of Planar]

Everyone survived, walked off. Apparently it skidded out of control landing.

Update, 4:12 p.m.: According to two LA Times reporters and one Fox reporter, there were no fatalities among the 291 passengers and 12 crew. (That's an updated number, for the record.) One person was critically injured and airlifted to a local hospital but, for the most part, everyone seems OK. We'll have updated injury reports when the numbers are confirmed.

 

[WhyteRash]

I hate flying!

for me its not the flying, its getting through the airport and dealing with that many self serving people..

 

[PerfectStorm]

Last entry here shows he was too low.....

Flight Track Log

 

[Lord of Planar]

The runway 28 approach is over freaking water.

edit: oh, that little thing at the edge of the water? It's not very tall...

It doesn't have to be very tall. The angles rear bottom of a 7X7 series plane is because that part comes very close to the ground.

It wouldn't be the first 777 to hit it's tail on landing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Last entry here shows he was too low.....

Flight Track Log

Could the altimeter have been messed up, I wonder?

 

[PerfectStorm]

Fox says 2 fatalities...48 injured.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Right you are. It clearly didn't flip. It better be a cargo plane, though, because the passenger compartment looks like it's toast.

How the HELL does a plane's TAIL fall off? WTF?

a bad approach can cause a tail strike and if the impact is strong enough it can break the tail off, as exemplified in this case.

but a regular tail strike that is not repaired properly can cause disaster at some point in the future, like when china airlines flight 611 broke apart midflight because of a fatigue crack in the tail section.

China Airlines Flight 611 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lutherf]

Fox says 2 fatalities...48 injured.

That's what I heard. Amazing that it's only two.

 

[Fisher]

Could the altimeter have been messed up, I wonder?

I doubt that was the issue. They were probably trying to come in just over the threshold and misguaged it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fox says 2 fatalities...48 injured.

The later the report, the more accurate it likely is. Give it a day for the truth.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I doubt that was the issue. They were probably trying to come in just over the threshold and misguaged it.

Well, I find it unlikely is was anything but pilot error, but it could have been something else.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's what I heard. Amazing that it's only two.

Not really. From one photo I saw, it appears the tail broke behind the rear cabin area.

 

[apdst]

for me its not the flying, its getting through the airport and dealing with that many self serving people..

That's another reason I hate flying.

 

[PerfectStorm]

Was it true that this flight was initially supposed to land on a different runway? Could the height of runway A be lower than the height of runway B and some pilot adjustment need to be made?

 

[Fisher]

Well, I find it unlikely is was anything but pilot error, but it could have been something else.

Sure they could have run out of gas a mile and a minute too soon, had their engines rollback, and couldn't get power to bring it up. I am skeptical that was the case, but big planes have been known to run out of fuel because they took off with not enough on board due to poor planning; extended waits in line; and I am thinking it may have happened once to a USAir flight that didn't emphasis to the tower until it was too late that they were running dry during a weather delay that kept getting them pushed off of their landing.

 

[solletica]

Well, I find it unlikely is was anything but pilot error, but it could have been something else.

If it was something else, we'll never know. The FAA and NTSB are gummint entities, and the gummint is under the control of lobbyists employed by Boeing, who have an interest in deflecting all liability for the crash to the pilots.

We can only hope a firefighter goes in there and rips off the flight recorder, and sends it to an independent (or foreign) agency for inspection.

 

[Lutherf]

If it was something else, we'll never know. The FAA and NTSB are gummint entities, and the gummint is under the control of lobbyists employed by Boeing, who have an interest in deflecting all liability for the crash to the pilots.

We can only hope a firefighter goes in there and rips off the flight recorder, and sends it to an independent (or foreign) agency for inspection.

:doh

Just when you think you've heard it all.....