Asiana Airlines Flt 214 crashes at SFO; early reports (error?) said it departed from TPE

wsav.com/story/22773322/boei … co-airport
gmanetwork.com/news/story/31 … uthorities

[quote]July 7, 2013 3:06am
SAN FRANCISCO - A Boeing 777 aircraft crash landed at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, the US Federal Aviation Administration said, with no immediate reports of casualties.

Still pictures showed the plane, an Asiana Airlines passenger aircraft arriving from Taipei, engulfed in a large plume of smoke on the runway. — Agence France-Presse
[/quote]

Edit: This report says it is Flight 214, and that it was from Incheon, South Korea.
californiabeat.org/2013/07/0 … ire-at-sfo

Youtube video:
youtube.com/watch?v=0dFtmSybpuw

Damn!
I hope tommy, and his clan, are awright!

Airliners.net thread on it:
airliners.net/aviation-forum … 07/#menu52

Current reports are that most passengers seem to have escaped without serious injuries. (Obviously they haven’t confirmed yet that all are ok.)

Also appears to have been an Incheon to SFO flight, recent reports don’t indicate that it went through TPE. (Probably a mistake in the earlier reports.)

Some reports are that the tail broke off during a hard landing (higher probability), others are that it fell off just before landing (much lower probability).

Big news here in san francisco of course. Unconfirmed reports are that the plane came in too low and the tail hit the sea wall just before the runway and separated. The aircraft then went out of control but most everyone was able to leave the aircraft after it came to a stop. Before the ensuing fire.

THe airport reportedly , unconfirmed again, was under visual flight rules at this time, due to the instrument landing system being out for service/replacement.

Most pilots are not super well versed with visual landings as most airlines require instrument landing. This may have something to do with this crash.

ONe report has two dead, but unconfirmed.

Although certainly possible due to the impact of the tail section. People sitting at the tail section could have to endure very high impact forces.

Press conference coming at 3pm local time. Obama was informed that 291 were onboard, including 16 crew. Deaths or injuries still unconfirmed.

The airport remains closed , at least for the next few hours.

The airplane was flying from Seoul.

Seems the crew did a great job getting people out and the pilot had called for help after the plane came to a stop.

We are hoping that all survived and there were no major injuries in this spectacular crash.

Saw it on twitter, hopefully all survivors will come out of this ok.

From what I remember, the tail is actually statistically the safest part of a modern airliner to sit in.

Sitting at the tail is usually safer, except when the plane lands first on its tail. Not all details in yet, but seems there are 2 fatalities and one still missing from the 307 people reportedly on board (291 passengers and 16 crew).

in view of the circumstances, it is lucky not more are dead and severely injured. Tragic though it remains for those killed or injured of course.

There was a British Airways flight a few years back that crashed just short of the runway, also a Boeing 777. Wonder if the causes are similar?

I’ll be interested to see how many passenger cell phone videos emerge of the evacuation itself.
Ideally none, as everyone was too busy evacuating the plane safely.

So far no indication it was a frozen fuel engine flame out like the BA 777 crash landing.

The plane was reported to be very slow at 85knots close to the runway. This speed is too slow, should be closer to 140knots . Engines were spooled up in a possible attempt to Go ARound. But sink rate too high and tail hit the runway and separated apparently.

NOT fact, just what has been suggested from available info.

NOt sure why speed allowed to get so low, possibly because pilots were preoccupied with lining up the plane since no PAPI lights were available or VASI slope indicators. ILS out as well. NO visual aids available makes things hard for a crew not used to working a landing in such conditions. Especially after a long long night flight over the pacific. They may have inadvertently allowed their air speed to drop too low, possibly stalling just before impact as was suggested.

Sad fact is that 2 are confirmed dead. Possibly two females ,possibly stewardesses or chinese students . They were chinese passport holders thrown out of the aircraft upon separation of the tail.
They died quite horribly to be thrown out and mangled like that onto the runway.

[quote=“tommy525”]NOt sure why speed allowed to get so low, possibly because pilots were preoccupied with lining up the plane since no PAPI lights were available or VASI slope indicators. ILS out as well. NO visual aids available makes things hard for a crew not used to working a landing in such conditions. Especially after a long long night flight over the pacific. They may have inadvertently allowed their air speed to drop too low, possibly stalling just before impact as was suggested.

Sad fact is that 2 are confirmed dead. Possibly two females ,possibly stewardesses or chinese students . They were chinese passport holders thrown out of the aircraft upon separation of the tail.
They died quite horribly to be thrown out and mangled like that onto the runway.[/quote]

This is the worry about flying these days - whilst planes are generally safer, the problems seem to arise when flight crew have to fall back on manual operations. Given the excellent vis that morning over San Fran, this should still be a very routine landing, even with slope indicators out. I read that a stall was possible, but then again read that some passengers were reporting sudden increase thrust before landing - crew either trying to instigate a go-around (surely too late?) or adjust for a too-low approach.

Doesn’t sound good for the crew, if it wasn’t a birdstrike or other engine issue.

I’ll be interested to see what Patrick Smith has to say about it on his ‘Ask the Pilot’ website. He usually posts something with a few days of this type of thing happening.

Not having flown a commercial passenger jet myself, I’m not sure I feel confident analyzing the causes.

Yup most of us are not pilots. And even the commercial pilots are only guesstimating at this time. The evidence will be gathered and the whole story will be put forth in due course.

In the meantime, this thread at the pilots forum offers a lot of good views:
pprune.org/rumours-news/5185 … cisco.html

Excellent that the survival rate was so high with many passengers suffering only minor injuries , if any. There were some serious injuries. The very sad part is that there were two deaths. Both 16 year old Chinese high school students (on a school trip to the USA, possibly for the first time). They died a horrible death being somehow thrown off the crashing aircraft.

scmp.com/news/world/article/ … nese-board

[quote=“tommy525”]Yup most of us are not pilots. And even the commercial pilots are only guesstimating at this time. The evidence will be gathered and the whole story will be put forth in due course.

In the meantime, this thread at the pilots forum offers a lot of good views:
pprune.org/rumours-news/5185 … cisco.html[/quote]

Food for thought from the pprune forum, next time you’re up there in an Asian carrier.

[quote]From my observations after 10 years flying with Korean Air and China Airlines the pilots fear visual approaches and in general cannot fly them. Going into SFO requires special training and not all pilots are scheduled for this trip.

Many of the pilots I flew with (and I never flew for Asiana) will not disconnect the auto pilot until around 500-300 feet when everything is set and stabilized. The auto pilot cannot make the necessary changes in glide path on such a demanding approach well enough to remain stabilized but the pilots persist because they do not trust their own skills to do it manually.

They get no training on visual approaches. Especially on line flights. I am amazed that they allow flights into SFO without any glide path guidance.

The FOs [First Officers] hardly ever get a landing and have no skills in this area. They are next to useless in seeing and alerting the pilot of any impending screw up. Especially with the rigid seniority, even if they did see something going wrong they would not offer advice, nor would the pilot take it.

If you search these forums for references to Korean (etc) pilots being unable to actually fly their airplanes, and especially unable to fly visual approaches, you will find plenty. I (and others) have been warning you about this for many years. There are many more pilots out there like this poor guy, who was given no tools or training to handle a difficult task and probably exceeded his skill levels. I do not know this pilot and never flew with him and he could be a much better pilot than I could ever hope to be, so this is surmise only.[/quote]

All those uninjured got very lucky that day. We’re now seeing what a dramatic crash this was.

I thought that’s why some dude went to Korea and forced all the pilots to speak entirely in English when in the cockpit, so the language imposed seniority will not interfere with people offering opinions.

Currently discussion is focused as well on one of the two dead Chinese teenagers. Apparently one of them was killed when thrown onto the runway. Perhaps they were not buckled in tight enough. And the other may have been alive but was run over by a fire truck or ambulance !!

They are trying to ascertain if she was dead already when run over or was alive and then run over.

Sad either case. Both teenagers were going to attend a two week Christian summer camp.

Chinese from PRC, teenagers, attending Christine summer camp? that is a lot of words that don’t usually mix…

I always thought that San Francisco airport was famous for the landings with a long time gliding above the water, with the hills to the left.
Wasn’t there a time where the pilots did this once a year for a special show.

I remember landing one time in SF and the plane was gliding very low for ever. After touch down, everyone was cheering and clapping for quite some time.

I suspect that that airport is perfect for training manual landings. The only big danger are the hills to the left. If there are some very cold fall winds coming from that hills, it could cause some major disaster, just as witnessed in this video.
The pacific is always very cold there, all the way down to Santa Cruz.

Yeah us non pilots who do land at SFO used to think it was pretty much an easy runway to land at. But what what I am reading apparently it is not as easy as we thought.

Some pilots said that SFO is a hot and heavy landing. Meaning that they are kept rather high (i guess to clear the san mateo bridge) and then drop down to land. And for heavy jets like the 777 you have to get it just right. WEll actually you have to get it right, in any aircraft.

And apparently , capturing the proper glide slope from “above” means that you have to descend a bit rapidly and then level off .

News is saying that this particular airplane was higher then usual on approach and going faster then usual. It then descended faster then normal but went below the glide slope and then speed decreased to below the norm and that 7 seconds before impact they were below the glide slope, 4 seconds before they were stalling due to underspeed, corrective action taken 1.5 seconds before impact but too late.

They say SFO is a great airport to land visual. But apparently visual landings are not the norm for asian airlines (or most large jets worldwide).

We don’t know the exact cause yet. But what we do know is that the jet crashed and there are casualties and lessons to be learned.

Pilot flying, although he has many hours, he has less then 50 on this type and this was his first 777 flight into SFO. He was being helped by a trainer pilot who had thousands of hours on the 777. But somehow this one got away from them both.

It can happen and it did happen this time.