Boeing 777 crash
 

In San Francisco airport. It's from Korea. I hope people are ok, Prayers needed.

Declaired emergency landing is what it was/is called.

Praying for everyone on plane and their families.

Looks like the tail hit the edge of the runway and broke off.

New update: At least (2) people now confirmed dead.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...o-airport?lite

Flown on the triple 7's many times, pretty nice ride. Gotta wonder what the neck happened, micro burst, pilot error?

Sounds like the pilot screwed-up royally.

Just watching one of the cable news, and the latest is that the ILS was not working when they came in.

A visual approach shouldn't be a problem for an experienced pilot.

The pilot explaining it says that the position of the moon before or behind, plus the water approach is hard to accurately figure the AGL.

I wish him luck convincing his boss of that, particularly since every other pilot who landed there today did fine.

Well, I'm sure they will check when the ILS went out, I bet there is records of it. So, we do not know if that just went out or not.

But, it may be pilot error, or it may be equipment failure.

Nevada - since you've said what an experienced pilot can and would do - have you piloted an airplane so you'll know these things first hand?

I haven't flown for a long time, but I don't accept the "gosh, their job is hard" excuse. You know something, designing distillation towers for refineries is difficult work too, but I would never use that as an excuse for screwing up.

If a professional pilot can't handle a visual approach on a clear day with light winds, he needs to look for another line of work. I suspect he will too.

Okay - then I'll understand all you've posted about the pilot is the your opinion of how he should do his job.
And you were a Pilot, how neat.

I'm going to wait to hear about the equipment before I post about the pilot and how badly he did.

Fair enough.

But regardless of instrument failure, if a Boeing 777 can't be landed visually in good weather conditions then the aircraft is fundamentally unsafe. But I don't think that's the case, since so many heavy aircraft landed successfully at SFO today -- before and after the accident. I see no way to escape this case coming down to pilot error.

It appears that an engine is missing.

It looks like to me that the one of the engines came off and rolled up beside the fuselage and set the plane on fire. The other engine hasn't showed up yet. It might be around the pictures just haven't showed it yet. If the plane had a sink rate of 1400 feet per minute it was almost two to three times the normal sink rate. I suspect a loss of power.

the airline’s president said engine failure was likely not the cause of the crash
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...rash-site?lite

I for one would not want to ride with a pilot that could not land the aircraft he was flying without an ILS system. Even if the ILS system were out, the pilot should be able to use the altimeter to determine his AGL when approaching the threshold.

I wonder what happened as I've seen reports that the tail hit and broke off first.
That would mean that the plane was in an almost stall attitude when it hit the ground, rather that nose lower than that.
I know you basically pull up to stall position to bleed off the speed and then basically touch down the back gear then the front -

Has anyone else seen a report that the tail hit first and broke off ?

The talking head experts aren't any easier on the pilot than I am.

The so-called Glide Path technology, which calculates an airplane's path of descent and transmits the data to pilots in real time, is a commonly used but by no means essential tool, said Barry Schiff, a pilot and author who has written extensively about aviation safety.

"The system was designed to be used at nights or during inclement weather events, like fog," Schiff told NBC News on Sunday. "But it's not anything that's required on a clear, beautiful day like yesterday."
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ing-crash?lite

He went on to criticize the pilot even more sharply.

"He showed a lack of skill, a lack of recognition that he was coming in too low and too slow," Schiff opined. "He should have recognized that before he got to the seawall. If he had, everything would have turned out fine."

"That's the big mystery," Schiff added. "Why didn't he recognize that?"

And their OPINIONS mean exactly as much as yours, since they are based on speculation.

I have to wonder . . .
 

* * * * * * * *
if he's as much of a pilot as you are?

Seems to be so much easier to 'assume' pilot error, then to wait and gather

facts and other relevant data . . . .besides lawsuits are costly when trying to file

against vast corporations that have gooberment contracts and lawyers on retainer.

News reports aren't good. Somehow the air speed was allowed to get too low. Whether they were using automation or not, there's no excuse for not monitoring air speed. There's just no escaping the fact that the pilot made a bad approach.

just seeing on the news - saying that one of the pilots may not have even been certified yet for this 777 aircraft.

So, your version is getting more news to make it seem almost as if pilot error, and to me, maybe error on the airlines for putting insufficiently trained pilots on that aircraft.

I heard what Angie heard a pilot in training. I do agree air speed is super important in a landing. Also I heard the engines were at idle up to 7 seconds before impact, while I am not sure but I think that they need to be spooled up a bit on landing. I heard the stick bumper went off 1.5 seconds before the crash, this is used for a stall warning. They said that 7 seconds before the crash power was called for. It takes about that long before the engines can respond. I guess the missing engine wasn't a problem from my earlier post, didn't see it from the pictures. It sounds to me like the pilot in command was way behind the plane.

A guy captured it on video.

Its a long ways off, but it is from the very beginning even before the plane crashed.
The guy says "Its Nose Is Up. That must be as the pilot tried to abort the landing and put power to the engines but it was already too late.

she almost went over just before she stopped. WOW.

On the news this morning - said that this was the first time the pilot was landing at that airport. Had 7 or 9 of the required 10 landings in that aircraft, so was not certified on it; but the co-pilot was certified and experienced (so why didn't he take over?)

I think maybe that air line has a lot to answer for, also.

And everyone talking about the stick shaking indiciating stall warning - that goes back to the tail hitting first, etc since they were too low for that.

Interesting as more comes out.

30 posts and no one's blamed Obama yet?!?

Angie I believe the stick shaker was from low airspeed and happened a few seconds before contact. I don't know how much feed back they get from fly by wire. I don't suspect to much. So when the tail hit I don't suspect there was to much feed back to the yoke. And then the hydraulics were sheared off. They were to low to recover from a stall.

We've been Blessed that we haven't had to look at his mugg lately. I'm sure he getting ready somewhere....

yep, Dave - I know that in a small Cessna 2 seater we would only do stalls 1500 AGL, so a few feet , and if he didn't recognize the feel before it happened all the shaking sticks in the world would be too late.

Awww c'mon...... Wheres your sense of adventure? ;)

If the good Lord had wanted us to fly... He'd a put feathers on our backsides. :)

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,4427725.story

I think this last paragraph from above link may have something to do with the crash - or at least could be a factor.

(I did the bolding). And that article said there were 4 pilots on board, 2 were relief, etc. It's an interesting article.

........