Plane Crash At SF Int.

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.

yep. according to pilot/enthusiast forum.... SFO is notorious for difficult, unpredictable weather pattern, wind condition, sudden change in humidity/lift, etc for approach.
 
What happen to pilot after plane crash? retirement? fired? assignment to other position?

accident like this? he's pretty much done for.

US Airways Flight 1549 pilot retired after the crash.
 
yep. according to pilot/enthusiast forum.... SFO is notorious for difficult, unpredictable weather pattern, wind condition, sudden change in humidity/lift, etc for approach.

It is the vast changes in topography. You have to account for it when playing golf there too. You can have a 20mph wind that doesn't affect ball flight on one hole and 4 holes later have a 5mph wind affect ball flight by 10 yards.
 
I agree with the views that it WAS NOT a low fuel problem ... the fuel on those things are calculated probably almost to the gallon needed but always have a reserve ... the less fuel it carries the less it burns without the added weight plus the more cargo/passengers it can carry with less fuel weight hence why its closely calculated/monitored ... if it was a fuel problem it would be more widespread and there would be planes dropping out of the sky like flies everywhere ...
 
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...
Do you mean co-pilot?
 
I agree with the views that it WAS NOT a low fuel problem ... the fuel on those things are calculated probably almost to the gallon needed but always have a reserve ... the less fuel it carries the less it burns without the added weight plus the more cargo/passengers it can carry with less fuel weight hence why its closely calculated/monitored ... if it was a fuel problem it would be more widespread and there would be planes dropping out of the sky like flies everywhere ...

Not only that, they have to consider how much fuel will be left due to weight of plane when landing. Can't have too much fuel otherwise they would have to dump fuel before landing and that is waste of $$$$.

I personally think it is pilot error but there is a history of fuel not getting to engine one time as mentioned before. I hope they have fixed that and I think they did but a variation of problem could appear that they didn't expect. Fuel flow stopped again on this one like one before but in a different way. Would have to see what their investigation tells them and fix it accordingly.
 
Do you mean co-pilot?

if memory serves.. there was 4 pilots on that plane. Co-pilot would be one that is not in charge of cockpit.

Relief pilots would be in area of plane that is not cockpit.

Pilot would be one in charge and co-pilot would be under command of pilot however co-pilot does fly quite a bit.
 
if memory serves.. there was 4 pilots on that plane. Co-pilot would be one that is not in charge of cockpit.

Relief pilots would be in area of plane that is not cockpit.

Pilot would be one in charge and co pilot would be one under command however co-pilot does fly quite a bit instead of pilot.
I'm not familiar with the term "junior" pilots. I thought they would all be qualified as full pilots but, positionally, one pilot would be in charge of the co-pilots.
 
if memory serves.. there was 4 pilots on that plane. Co-pilot would be one that is not in charge of cockpit.

Relief pilots would be in area of plane that is not cockpit.

Pilot would be one in charge and co-pilot would be under command of pilot however co-pilot does fly quite a bit.

Pilots often let co-pilots (1st Officers) land planes to gain/maintain certs. Not sure if that happened here.
 
There is plane crash caught on tape... amateur video.

[yt]sEDZerwU7uE[/yt]
 
There is news conference with NTSB... it appears to be leaning to pilot error on the part. They said the plane was operating normally until landing.

Wow. Looks like he just came in to low and flat. Tough to pull out of that.
 
There is news conference with NTSB... it appears to be leaning to pilot error on the part. They said the plane was operating normally until landing.

Just saw that the Data recorder said plane was too slow on approach. Tried to increase throttle. Voice recorder shows a call to abort landing. Not sure if that was by ATC or pilot.
 
Yes, it's all preliminary investigations. It's going to be a while for them to analyze the recorder and informations.

Just saw that the Data recorder said plane was too slow on approach. Tried to increase throttle. Voice recorder shows a call to abort landing. Not sure if that was by ATC or pilot.
 
This is what the interior of the Asiana Flight 214 looks like after the crash.

130707184655-51-san-francisco-plane-crash-horizontal-gallery.jpg


Source
 
This is what the interior of the Asiana Flight 214 looks like after the crash.

130707184655-51-san-francisco-plane-crash-horizontal-gallery.jpg


Source

That actually doesn't look so bad for what they went through. Doesn't look like they got a lot of smoke which probably saved many of them. (Obviously they got some smoke)
 
Back
Top