Plane Crash At SF Int.

First of all, there wasn't emergency landing; fuel can run out just in nick of time for crash without declaring emergency landing!

In news, there is NOTHING mentioned about fuel, all they said there wasn't any mechanical failure. What does that leaves? Fuel itself is NOT mechanical, its just a energy stuff thats all.

There wasn't landing gear deployed, and nothing happens til crash.

I still suspect it has to do with fuel issues Flaps can't do all the work, the landing gear brake is nothing, they depend on the engine to control the landing. Better way to explain, perhaps they ran out of fuel just a mile before they plan to land, do pilot have time to declare landing emergency? Do pilot have enough time to react? If they ran out of fuel 5 miles before the intended landing they could declare emergency and we would know by that time but not at 1 mile or less.
 
diehardbiker said:
First of all, there wasn't emergency landing; fuel can run out just in nick of time for crash without declaring emergency landing!

In news, there is NOTHING mentioned about fuel, all they said there wasn't any mechanical failure. What does that leaves? Fuel itself is NOT mechanical, its just a energy stuff thats all.

There wasn't landing gear deployed, and nothing happens til crash.

I still suspect it has to do with fuel issues Flaps can't do all the work, the landing gear brake is nothing, they depend on the engine to control the landing.
Click to expand...
um... you do know that pilots can know far far far in advance if they're going to run low on fuel to destination? the only way for a plane to suddenly "run out" of fuel without any warning is obviously either a system failure (system not reading amount of fuel correctly) or ice crystal blockage in fuel pipe (which is not likely since it's hot out there).

this is a commercial plane with computers advanced enough to land itself.... and you're telling me that pilots are like "oh crap... oops! we are bingo on fuel" upon approach at last minute?

ok well that's fine if that's what you strongly believe even though it's comically far-fetched.

*backing off*
 
CNN has been saying that SF's airport Instrument Landing System was not functional yesterday, so the pilot may have under or over-estimated something. Maybe other pilots did a little better with having to make decisions without that Instrument Landing System that so there was only one crash.
 
diehardbiker said:
Pilot was 17 years veteran, so its not newbie.

Came from CNN news

The pilot operating the aircraft was a veteran who had been flying for Asiana since 1996, the airline said. Evidence in the investigation will include data that show what action the pilots took during the approach to the airport.
Click to expand...

that's not who I'm referring to. I was referring to a junior pilot - a relief pilot to take over for veteran pilot.

I wouldn't be surprised if he let the junior pilot to try to land a plane...
 
AlleyCat said:
CNN has been saying that SF's airport Instrument Landing System was not functional yesterday, so the pilot may have under or over-estimated something. Maybe other pilots did a little better with having to make decisions without that Instrument Landing System that so there was only one crash.
Click to expand...
OIC, if that's a fact, I wonder if Asiana will blame the control tower.
 
AlleyCat said:
CNN has been saying that SF's airport Instrument Landing System was not functional yesterday, so the pilot may have under or over-estimated something. Maybe other pilots did a little better with having to make decisions without that Instrument Landing System that so there was only one crash.
Click to expand...

My pilot source said he flew into SFO recently w/o the ILS and that the ILS has been "off" due to work being done on that runway (& I believe the same is true for the other runway that is used for landings).
 
Sure at sea level its hot out there, but when the plane is more than 25,000 feet high, their temperature can be as low as minus 50 degrees F, EVEN during hot summer days. That's why clouds crystallized in the sky and yeah planes are above where the clouds floats.

Think about this, you know when the fuel in air in ambient temperature as low as say minus 30 degrees for hours and hours then dive to very hot ambient temperature, they can form condensation right there and can cause havoc for engine. Jet fuel itself is oil based and they don't change temperature as fast as air or water based.

Jiro said:
or ice crystal blockage in fuel pipe (which is not likely since it's hot out there).
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Sure at sea level its hot out there, but when the plane is more than a mile high, their temperature can be as low as minus 50 degrees F, EVEN during hot summer days.
Click to expand...

*groan*

it just continues to pain me as you continue to speak out of your ass.

trust me... nope. why? um... gee.... as it's descending (long before runaway).... the temperature rises up rapidly... and plus... this plane is a relatively new one.. 7 years old... it's a very simple thing to ensure that fuel line doesn't get crystalized...

diehardbiker said:
That's why clouds crystallized in the sky and yeah planes are above where the clouds floats.
Click to expand...
dude man.. *groan*

clouds? crystalized in the sky? in summer? *groan* that's just.... oh man.... lol oh man... so brutally painful for me to read that...
 
CrazyPaul said:
OIC, if that's a fact, I wonder if Asiana will blame the control tower.
Click to expand...

no. this is a routine landing. many commercial pilots can land without ILS. if they couldn't - they must be drunk, sleepy, or just plain dang negligent.
 
Nope, I still stand my theory. There was mention of possible fuel issue in the CNN news

"For whatever reason, the pilot did not have enough power available to correct the rate of descent that brought him into contact with the ground before he wanted to be there," Jim Tilmon, an aviation expert and former airline pilot, told CNN.
Plane crash-lands in San Francisco Plane crash-lands in San Francisco
NTSB: We'll look for flight recorders
Passenger: 'We just jumped off' plane
'The wheels ... were too low, too soon'
Plane loses tail during crash landing

"There are a number of other considerations that may or may not have been made clear: One of them has to do with the fact that at least on one other occasion -- with a [Boeing] 777 in London -- they were on approach to land and they also ended up landing short. It's my understanding that it was all because of a fuel situation. For one reason or another, the throttles were moving but the engines were not increasing their thrust. Therefore they landed short of the runway and short of the power they needed to continue with a safe landing."


They mentioned "Short of power" eh? What power? Does it run off from wall outlet?
 
diehardbiker said:
Nope, I still stand my theory. There was mention of possible fuel issue in the CNN news

"For whatever reason, the pilot did not have enough power available to correct the rate of descent that brought him into contact with the ground before he wanted to be there," Jim Tilmon, an aviation expert and former airline pilot, told CNN.
Plane crash-lands in San Francisco Plane crash-lands in San Francisco
NTSB: We'll look for flight recorders
Passenger: 'We just jumped off' plane
'The wheels ... were too low, too soon'
Plane loses tail during crash landing

"There are a number of other considerations that may or may not have been made clear: One of them has to do with the fact that at least on one other occasion -- with a [Boeing] 777 in London -- they were on approach to land and they also ended up landing short. It's my understanding that it was all because of a fuel situation. For one reason or another, the throttles were moving but the engines were not increasing their thrust. Therefore they landed short of the runway and short of the power they needed to continue with a safe landing."


They mentioned "Short of power" eh? What power? Does it run off from wall outlet?
Click to expand...

mechanical issue. not low fuel.

"short of power" means not enough thrust which doesn't mean low fuel. you do understand that the fuel gauge in commercial plane is not the same as fuel gauge in your Ford truck, right?
 
Nope, mechanical was fine, just that they don't get enough fuel.

If your car ran out of gas, is it really mechanical issues? Do mechanic needs tools to fix that problem? No! Add fuel will fix the problem.

Jiro said:
mechanical issue. not low fuel.
Click to expand...
 
If I were you, I will wait for full report about how caused an accident. :dunno:
 
diehardbiker said:
Nope, mechanical was fine, just that they don't get enough fuel.

If your car ran out of gas, is it really mechanical issues? Do mechanic needs tools to fix that problem? No! Add fuel will fix the problem.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

you do understand that they would know if they're going to run out fuel far in advance? you do understand that they have to follow FAA regulation regarding fuel situation?

this plane is equipped with ultrasonic fuel quantity gauge system which is very precise and rarely failed. for every flight, a crew does a fuel check. pilots performs MEL. no report from either pilots or flight controller about bingo fuel.

if your car has enough gas but "ran" out of gas... is it a mechanical issue? there you go.
 
This is very similar to London flight in 2008 the fuel was crystallized.

Lets see what these investigator got to say and I will be back here.

Jiro said:
*sigh*

you do understand that they would know if they're going to run out fuel far in advance? you do understand that they have to follow FAA regulation regarding fuel situation?

this plane is equipped with ultrasonic fuel quantity gauge system which is very precise and rarely failed. for every flight, a crew does a fuel check. pilots performs MEL. no report from either pilots or flight controller about bingo fuel.

if your car has enough gas but "ran" out of gas... is it a mechanical issue? there you go.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
This is very similar to London flight in 2008 the fuel was crystallized.

Lets see what these investigator got to say and I will be back here.
Click to expand...

take a look at when did it happen.

and don't you think we would have implemented something that would prevent such case?
 
This wasn't a fuel issue. This was pilot error. Possibly caused by wind but I am still calling that pilot error because people who fly into SFO know and are trained for wind on landing. Landing in that direction at SFO is difficult because the final approach take you from low humidity winds to 11 miles of humid winds over the bay. This is important because dry winds have very little "heft" but the more humid winds have weight to them and push more. It appears to me the plane was either hit by a last second wind from the south or a wind from the north with the pilot over correcting. Assuming the debris field is accurate, the aircraft hit well to the right (north) of the mark. Still within the runway but well to the right of the skid pattern (remember the debris was the center of the aircraft).

Also, anyone that flys a lot knows pilots seem to "aim short" (use all of the runway). I would say at least of 1/3 of the flights I am on the pilot has to throttle on approach to make an adjustment. A 777 being a larger plane means that the throttle will be slower...more sluggish so a pilot has to be more alert and accurate.
 
TXgolfer said:
This wasn't a fuel issue. This was pilot error. Possibly caused by wind but I am still calling that pilot error because people who fly into SFO know and are trained for wind on landing. Landing in that direction at SFO is difficult because the final approach take you from low humidity winds to 11 miles of humid winds over the bay. This is important because dry winds have very little "heft" but the more humid winds have weight to them and push more. It appears to me the plane was either hit by a last second wind from the south or a wind from the north with the pilot over correcting. Assuming the debris field is accurate, the aircraft hit well to the right (north) of the mark. Still within the runway but well to the right of the skid pattern (remember the debris was the center of the aircraft).

Also, anyone that flys a lot knows pilots seem to "aim short" (use all of the runway). I would say at least of 1/3 of the flights I am on the pilot has to throttle on approach to make an adjustment. A 777 being a larger plane means that the throttle will be slower...more sluggish so a pilot has to be more alert and accurate.
Click to expand...

What happen to pilot after plane crash? retirement? fired? assignment to other position?
 
Back
Top