A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
User avatar
slowstream
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:15 am
Location: Canada

A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

Post by slowstream » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:22 pm

This just happened

http://www.businessinsider.com/plane-cr ... sco-2013-7

i am hoping and praying that everyone is okay
---------- ADS -----------
  

Snowy
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:25 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Snowy » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:24 pm

---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Spinner
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:42 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Spinner » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:53 pm

CNN shows a debris field from the waters edge in the lead up to runway. Reports are aircraft pitched up. An "eyewitness" says he saw the aircraft cartwheel and loose both wings (cant figure that one as both wings appear to be still attached). Tail section from rear bulkhead aft is gone.

was it a 777 that landed short in Heathrow when the engines would not spool up?

Hope everyone made it out ok.
---------- ADS -----------
  

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by boeingboy » Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:01 pm

For whatever reason they were below the glideslope and struck the tail on the seawall - ripping off the tail.

Why they were low is anybodies guess. The BA accident was fixed by an AD and i believe only applied to a certain engine model.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rudy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1168
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:00 am
Location: N. Ont

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Rudy » Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:32 pm

Yeah definitely looks like they came up short.

Image


Image
---------- ADS -----------
  

tbaylx
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by tbaylx » Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:39 pm

boeingboy wrote:For whatever reason they were below the glideslope and struck the tail on the seawall - ripping off the tail.

Why they were low is anybodies guess. The BA accident was fixed by an AD and i believe only applied to a certain engine model.
This aircraft had P&W engines, the AD and icing issue only applied to RR engines. Also on the ATC tapes there was no indication at all of an emergency, they acknowledged a normal landing clearance on final a minute or two before they touched down. A United aircraft was holding short and must have got a pretty good view of it.

They were well below a normal approach path for reasons yet to be determined and sheared the tail off on the break water. Sounds like no one killed, minor injuries only, lucky. (edit looks like that was premature..casualties reported now) Boeing build a pretty strong aircraft by the looks of things.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by tbaylx on Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

HHI
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: CZBB/CYVR

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by HHI » Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:55 pm

One of the pictures shows passengers walking away from the 2nd forward left side evac slide.......

Carrying among other items, a roll aboard suitcase. :smt013

Stupid people taking overhead bin items during an evacuation have knocked others unconscious and impeded the evacuation resulting in the deaths of fella passengers. Sure hope no one was killed or injured by these stupid and selfish actions.

Henry
---------- ADS -----------
  

cgartly
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by cgartly » Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:12 pm

If he hit the sea wall he was not only low on th glide path but was also quite a bit off of runway centerline according to this picture.
---------- ADS -----------
  

flyinthebug
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1684
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
Location: CYPA

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by flyinthebug » Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:15 pm

CBS news just reported 2 fatalities and 60 injured.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/ne ... o/2495099/

This article says no fatalities. Lets hope its the article that is reporting accurately.
---------- ADS -----------
  

snag
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:00 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by snag » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:08 pm

I thought I saw some NOTAMs there for ILS and Glidepath outages. Non-Precision Approach maybe?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Spinner
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:42 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Spinner » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:17 pm

Thanks for the info on the engines. I could not remember the full incident.

"eyewitness" on CNN says the gear hit either on or close to the break wall. Least ways they are not saying the wings were ripped off.
---------- ADS -----------
  

TheNewKid
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:05 am
Location: GTA

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by TheNewKid » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:20 pm

Approach Path of Asiana 214
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOhIDCWCUAApHFV.jpg:large

Looks like glide slope is out of use for 28L/R until August 22nd.
http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeronav/ ... Status.pdf

ATC audio with AAR214 at SFO
https://soundcloud.com/martyn-williams- ... c-with-sfo

Too early to speculate but it seems like pilot error at this point. Despite the reports I hope everyone made it off.
---------- ADS -----------
  

crazy_aviator
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:13 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by crazy_aviator » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:32 pm

I would bet anyone here $100 bucks that it was an unstabilized approach, PNF saying diddly squat ( Asian CRM ) VISUAL approach for pilots who are bad at hand flying, Got it a little high, chopped the power to do a greaser early (Another regional fault) NOW got too low and slow and with a slow spool up and LATE overshoot, the tail will hit, with spooling up engines, one breaking off, the other sending the A/C off the runway. :roll: OKAY , investigation CLOSED off to another topic :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by boeingboy » Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:53 pm

Survivor Benjamin Levy told local a local NBC station by phone that he believed the plane had been coming in too low.

"I know the airport pretty well, so I realized the guy was a bit too low, too fast, and somehow he was not going to hit the runway on time, so he was too low ... he put some gas and tried to go up again," he said.

"But it was too late, so we hit the runway pretty bad, and then we started going up in the air again, and then landed again, pretty hard," Levy said.
The above was taken from a Yahoo news article. It does sound like an unstabilized approach. If he "put gas to it" doesn't sound like they ran the tanks dry.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/asiana-airline ... .html?vp=1
---------- ADS -----------
  

GRK
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:57 am
Location: not where I want to be...

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by GRK » Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:59 pm

Ok...Crazy aviator
I won't question your experience here, but in order to get that "greaser" you mention in a heavy jet? Not possible if you "chop" that power when you're too high...all that will do is lower your nose and that usually ends up putting you in a worse situation than you might have been already. And if you're too low...splash down! The killer in most accidents like this is the unstable approach. Speed too high, aircraft too low, or speed too low, or too high or not configured properly, and we all can be found guilty of it from time to time no matter WHERE we are from. To be certain, some cultures hate to admit failure and the resulting possibility of loss of face has caused many an aircraft to land short, or run off the end or side of the runway with no support from your crew member(s). Most airlines have a stabilized approach criteria that if not followed must be corrected with a go around. Usually by 1000 feet above ground. (With no jeopardy from the boss to the crew that follow the criteria.) More and more safety departments now teach and follow the Just Safety Culture that allows for a crew to admit a mistake if it was inadvertent with no jeopardy, but must be investigated to ensure company SOP compliance. If that same crew tried to cover up an incident then it's a different problem. Cover ups are not taken lightly. In this case, I would try to ignore the media and their incessant bleating in the race to cover it first, and wait to hear what the reasons were for this to happen. Was there a mechanical issue? Loss of fuel or no fuel? A medical issue? It's way too early to tell. So grab a cold one and have a laugh at CNN or FOX or whoever you're watching and sit tight. The results will be out eventually. Fly safe.
GRK
---------- ADS -----------
  

cheeky cough
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:16 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by cheeky cough » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:12 pm

I agree with all previous posts, however almost
every time we land on the 28 s in KSFO, they leave you high
on downwind because of terrain and traffic and then try
and make you take the visual, when they turn you to base. Having a u/s glideslope
does not help at all. They will call pilot error,
make some recommendations, and carry on as normal.
There are airports in the US that should be closed but they
cannot afford to lose them.
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4505
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by trey kule » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:29 pm

Too early to speculate but it seems like pilot error at this point.
....

Classic ...
---------- ADS -----------
  

crazy_aviator
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:13 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by crazy_aviator » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:26 pm

To be certain, some cultures hate to admit failure and the resulting possibility of loss of face has caused many an aircraft to land short, or run off the end or side of the runway with no support from your crew member(s).
GRK, Wonderful post and i agree wholeheartedly! I do suspect a perfectly good A/C being flown into the "breakwall" and the main factor being cultural norms, followed by lack of hand flying skills, being the cause of this accident (( NO excuse, that is a worldwide phenomenum (error)) , witnessed by the American "Magenta line" speech
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by grimey » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:04 pm

crazy_aviator wrote:
To be certain, some cultures hate to admit failure and the resulting possibility of loss of face has caused many an aircraft to land short, or run off the end or side of the runway with no support from your crew member(s).
GRK, Wonderful post and i agree wholeheartedly! I do suspect a perfectly good A/C being flown into the "breakwall" and the main factor being cultural norms, followed by lack of hand flying skills, being the cause of this accident (( NO excuse, that is a worldwide phenomenum (error)) , witnessed by the American "Magenta line" speech
http://www.safetyxchange.org/compliance ... ty-culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801

Asiana would not be the first Korean airline with this issue, if that is what happened.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Flying Nutcracker
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:14 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Flying Nutcracker » Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:22 pm

FMA-awareness. It's not "What is it doing now"... It's "What is it NOT doing now"

Been guilty of many things myself, and this looks familiar. Not speculating, just sayin that sometimes when that Magenta line is "not there" it can be hard to remember what the airplane will and will not do. SFO is full of traps. Visual, no vertical path, left high by ATC, traffic (sometimes very close formation)... All that, and having Flight Directors going wonky because you choose the wrong mode...

Trap-hole!

Idle descend to get to a 3 degree path, forget that the FMA is not protecting your speed, slowly but surely... You go too slow! In my case... Caught it at 1500 feet. Judging by Flightaware... OZ214 around 200 feet.

Not speculating, just saying.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7513
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Colonel Sanders » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:10 am

almost every time we land on the 28 s in KSFO, they leave you high on downwind because of terrain and traffic and then try and make you take the visual, when they turn you to base. Having a u/s glideslope does not help at all.
From elsewhere on the internet:
... it appears that AAR214 flew an unstabilized approach ... used FlightAware radar return data to plot the groundspeed and altitude AAR214 (red) as well as UAL852 (black), another 777 that landed successfully only 10 minutes earlier.

What you can see is that the UAL582 approach is stabilized, with a nearly contant 3.2 deg glideslope, and Vref=145 kt for the final 3 nm of the approach.

On the other hand, AAR214 is 500 feet or so above glideslope, and 20 kt or so faster, for much of the approach. The aircraft is descending with a high sink rate and slowing, so that about 1.5 nm out, the aircraft finally hits the glideslope and Vref (assuming that Vref is about 145 kt), but continues to slow and descend below glideslope.

... looks like the aircraft got low and slow trying to recover from a high and fast approach
Clearly, overshooting from an unstabilized approach
was never an option. AF358 @ YYZ taught us that.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 677
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Gino Under » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:34 am

BA38 had Rolls Royce Trent engines.
The Asiana accident aircraft had PW engines.
DIFFERENT engines. Yes. But, both engines use the Goodrich FADEC.
So, what were the specifics of the AD in terms of the 777 fuel feed?

While the FADEC itself may not be the immediate cause, what role will the fuel system components play. IF icing in the fuel filters turns out to be the culprit, and it could well be, it explains why they hit the tail short of the landing threshold in a similar fashion to BA38.

A visual Localizer approach should be a non-event for VNAV PATH NPA backup to this runway especially for an experienced crew. If, in fact, that was their backup?
PAPI outage, I doubt this will be much of a factor.

If AT doesn't maintain speed (as BA38) then manual nose up pitch to arrest the descent that late in the approach could result in a tail strike, stall or loss of control.

I'm not going to point my finger at this crew just yet.

We'll see in the days ahead.

Gino Under :partyman:
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Gino Under on Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3073
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Bede » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:51 am

Any guesses why the top of the fuselage burnt and not the wing tanks or center tank?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Pratt X 3
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:19 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Pratt X 3 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:19 am

Bede wrote:Any guesses why the top of the fuselage burnt and not the wing tanks or center tank?
Best guess would be the engine (right?) that ended up next to the right side of the fuselage had something to do with the fire starting.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 677
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Gino Under » Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:23 am

Heat rises.
Combustible material in the ceiling catches fire.
Fire burns through the roof.
Oxygen makes it worse.

That's my analysis.

Gino :drinkers:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”