Plane Crash At SF Int.

:ty: for sharing. hell of a story to tell!
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUd9NlTlNBg]Aeroplane crash compilation 2012 - YouTube[/ame]
 
Jiro said:
not exactly an explanation I'm looking for.
Click to expand...

Read on another forum, from a pilot, that the on ground instruments that let pilots know if they're coming in too low or high MAY not have been working as the airport had been doing work on that runway. I would GUESS it was pilot error since this "help" had been unavailable for other planes and none of them came in too low to cause a crash.
 
I believe the cause is that they had ran dangerously low on fuel. Planes requires lots of fuel for take offs and landing but not while cruising. If there was enough fuel on them, the wings will be already on flames. Don't forget the fuel tanks are in the wings. And nothing happens to the wings so far.
 
One passenger who was injured and was released from the hospital told the reporters what happened. He said that when the plane was landing, he heard the engine revved up, then bam. Looks like a pilot error to me since the pilot might realize that he landed the plane too soon so he tried to pull it up but it was too late.

Asiana, the commericial airline announced that the pilot is one of the best. Actually, it doesn't matter because everyone makes mistakes. At this time, the pilot was not careful.
 
diehardbiker said:
I believe the cause is that they had ran dangerously low on fuel. Planes requires lots of fuel for take offs and landing but not while cruising. If there was enough fuel on them, the wings will be already on flames. Don't forget the fuel tanks are in the wings. And nothing happens to the wings so far.
Click to expand...

trust me - no. extremely unlikely. in fact.... it's so remote that such situation would happen because of strict FAA regulation.
 
How slow down plane? There is no brake in the air, so when need slow down, they reverse the thrust which requires alot of fuel.

Think, if plane is too low, then plane need to speed up a bit by increase the engine speed which requires more fuel, then when right spot, reverse the plane to slow down as braking.

My Dad used to work at airport and was told him how its done and he told me that,

CrazyPaul said:
How is that so? He landed the plane too soon because it didn't have enough fuel? If it landed only 50 feet farther, it would land safely.
Click to expand...
 
It came from Asia country where FAA don't really have full control!

In history have plane ran out of fuel while in the air before? Of course you can bet your ass on it.

Jiro said:
trust me - no. extremely unlikely. in fact.... it's so remote that such situation would happen because of strict FAA regulation.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
It came from Asia country where FAA don't really have full control!
Click to expand...
if you're landing in America, you gotta follow it or you're not allowed to fly in American airspace anymore. simple as that.

diehardbiker said:
In history have plane ran out of fuel while in the air before? Of course you can bet your ass on it.
Click to expand...
like I said.... extremely unlikely in this case and it's nearly unheard of for a commercial plane to run out of fuel. this is not some Cessna plane....
 
diehardbiker said:
How slow down plane? There is no brake in the air, so when need slow down, they reverse the thrust which requires alot of fuel.

Think, if plane is too low, then plane need to speed up a bit by increase the engine speed which requires more fuel, then when right spot, reverse the plane to slow down as braking.

My Dad used to work at airport and was told him how its done and he told me that,
Click to expand...

well.... flaps are used to reduce the speed while in air......
 
You seems don't understand, if they don't follow FAA by running out of fuel is going to stop them from landing? They will LAND once fuel is out no matter what the regulations are.

Jiro said:
if you're landing in America, you gotta follow it or you're not allowed to fly in American airspace anymore. simple as that.


like I said.... extremely unlikely in this case and it's nearly unheard of for a commercial plane to run out of fuel. this is not some Cessna plane....
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
You seems don't understand, if they don't follow FAA by running out of fuel is going to stop them from landing? They will LAND once fuel is out no matter what the regulations are.
Click to expand...

um.... you do realize that the investigation's not over yet? and plus - pilots have never stated low fuel emergency? at least that's what the initial report says.

and you do realize that in order to fly to America.... they'll have to follow the FAA regulations before they even take off? and why in the world would they run out of fuel? this is an international flight. it's routine.

this would be a much better and more likely explanation than "low fuel"... fuel leak. malfunction in fuel system.
 
diehardbiker said:
You seems don't understand, if they don't follow FAA by running out of fuel is going to stop them from landing? They will LAND once fuel is out no matter what the regulations are.
Click to expand...
But it was not an emergency landing. SF was its destination.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/san-francisco-plane-crash.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp
Flame retardant materials inside the plane, including foil wrapping under the seats, most likely helped protect many passengers said Steven B. Wallace, who was the director of the office of accident investigation at the Federal Aviation Administration from 2000 to 2008.

The F.A.A. has required the use of such materials for several decades. Mr. Wallace said that even though an Air France A340 suffered a worse fire after overrunning a runway in Toronto in 2005, all 309 people on board survived. Only 12 were seriously injured. “It seems clear that the airplane hit short of the runway,” Mr. Wallace said. “Why that happened, I don’t know.”

Mr. Wallace, who is a licensed commercial pilot, said the pilot could have made a mistake and come in too low or there could have been wind shear.

An aviation official, who did not want to be identified discussing a developing investigation, said that the plane was not making an emergency landing, and that the situation had been routine until the crash.
Click to expand...

there you go, DHB... FAA regulation.

and yes you are correct, CrazyPaul... it was not making an emergency landing.

another possible explanation - newbie pilot?

One question for investigators, Mr. Reiner said, is who was at the controls. The 777 has a two-pilot cockpit, but on a flight that long, there is typically a “relief pilot” or two on board, so no one has to work continuously for such a long period. That may have resulted in a junior person at the controls.

The South Korean transport ministry said Sunday that there were four crew members assigned to the cockpit. It identified the chief pilot as Lee Jeong-min, who has worked at Asiana since 1996. The co-pilot, Lee Kang-guk, joined Asiana in 1994 as a pilot trainee and won his passenger jet pilot’s license in 2001, it said.

Mr. Yoon, of Asiana Airlines, said three of the four pilots had each logged more than 10,000 hours of flight time, and that the fourth had logged slightly fewer than that.

South Korean carriers have faced safety difficulties in the past. In August 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration froze service from South Korean carriers coming into the United States, limiting them to the schedules and aircraft they were then flying, because it said that safety regulation by the South Korean government was inadequate. The restrictions were later lifted.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top