Plane Crash At SF Int.

Evo Dragon said:
News said two passengers killed were two 16 years old schoolgirls from China.

Asiana Airlines flight 214 crash victims were 16-year-old Chinese schoolgirls - CBS News
Click to expand...

San_Fran_victims_620x350.jpg
 
CrazyPaul said:
I agree but what the hell with this?
Click to expand...

I just gave you a detail.

Construction to extend a runway safety area temporarily shut off the so-called glide slope system, which is one of several options pilots have to help them land planes safely, Hersman said.
Click to expand...

None of the runaways were closed due to construction. Just one of the systems called "Glide Slope System" was disabled.

Beside... it's an outdated info because the latest info is now saying it's a pilot error because it's pilot's first time to land at SFO. He flew too low and too slow.
 
Jiro said:
I just gave you a detail.



None of the runaways were closed due to construction. Just one of the systems called "Glide Slope System" was disabled.

Beside... it's an outdated info because the latest info is now saying it's a pilot error because it's pilot's first time to land at SFO. He flew too low and too slow.
Click to expand...

Not quite accurate.. The pilot has landed at SFO few times including that same runway he crashed on. He has flown other planes like 747 and etc and landed those at SFO. If I recall correctly, he has almost 10,000 hours flying.. but only has few hours in 777.
 
Secretblend said:
Not quite accurate.. The pilot has landed at SFO few times including that same runway he crashed on. He has flown other planes like 747 and etc and landed those at SFO. If I recall correctly, he has almost 10,000 hours flying.. but only has few hours in 777.
Click to expand...

he never landed with 777 at SFO
 
Jiro said:
I always sit on aisle side, middle
Click to expand...

Yes, in past, I prefer to sit at next to window so I can have a nice ariel view from window. My last fly from BHM/ATL to DC was seat, next to window.

I'm more toward to aisle seat because of easier to get out and don't have ask passenger to excuse me to get of seat.
 
...and there's been some concerns of the safety regarding the reliability of the Boeing 777...too many crashes from this plane in the last 5 years in comparison to the low fatality rate of a 747....


my guess is
that the 777's engine is too powerful, as one on each wings. this is the worlds biggest twin jet...it is designed for fuel economy...and long distance quite right...(also production costs) OH, its a fly-by wire plane..ALL instrument dials in the cockpit are all digital, ALL LCD...NO good old fashioned precision needles...(which concerns me too!)...it cut production of avionics by half...but compromising got me wondering...
and the twin jet's engines too powerful, as a new report once said (last week).., than a polit with long flying hours on this particular aircraft...pushed on the blast of the jet too soon to elevate the plane but plane flipped...!!...
i reckon the 4 engines of 747 would have a more gentle lift...AND if one engine fails...you still got 3 engines running (and a chance to cut one off for balance)

that's safe!, i also reckon with technology,they can STILL make like 4 engines even more efficient...but (blades of jets expensive)...but i reckon that can be argued against...and should so

hmm

i reckon they better recall the 777'sand do a double check QUICK...
and maybe mod it to be a 4 small jets...
but WIDE body = lots weight...grrr go back to drawing board Alan Mullady!!
 
Grummer said:
...and there's been some concerns of the safety regarding the reliability of the Boeing 777...too many crashes from this plane in the last 5 years in comparison to the low fatality rate of a 747....


my guess is
that the 777's engine is too powerful, as one on each wings. this is the worlds biggest twin jet...it is designed for fuel economy...and long distance quite right...(also production costs) OH, its a fly-by wire plane..ALL instrument dials in the cockpit are all digital, ALL LCD...NO good old fashioned precision needles...(which concerns me too!)...it cut production of avionics by half...but compromising got me wondering...
and the twin jet's engines too powerful, as a new report once said (last week).., than a polit with long flying hours on this particular aircraft...pushed on the blast of the jet too soon to elevate the plane but plane flipped...!!...
i reckon the 4 engines of 747 would have a more gentle lift...AND if one engine fails...you still got 3 engines running (and a chance to cut one off for balance)

that's safe!, i also reckon with technology,they can STILL make like 4 engines even more efficient...but (blades of jets expensive)...but i reckon that can be argued against...and should so

hmm

i reckon they better recall the 777'sand do a double check QUICK...
and maybe mod it to be a 4 small jets...
but WIDE body = lots weight...grrr go back to drawing board Alan Mullady!!
Click to expand...

Only 2 777 have crashed in 20 years. One in London few years back and recently in SFO last week
 
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...

Bingo fuel is a military slang for low fuel. Aircraft controllers will not accept term bingo fuel, you have to declare a fuel emergency.

And Diehard biker just doesn't get it. It was not a fuel issued. The pilots screwed up simple as that
 
Back
Top