Slashdot Mirror
Boeing 777 Crashes At San Francisco Airport
Asiana Flight 214 from Seoul crashed while landing at San Francisco Airport today. Early reports suggest the plane was unstable as it touched down, which led to the tail of the plane breaking off. There are no official casualty reports yet, but passengers were seen walking off the plane. Preliminary estimates say one or two dead and 75 being transported to area hospitals. (Others are reporting two dead and several dozen injured.) Eyewitness report: "You heard a pop and you immediately saw a large, brief fireball that came out from underneath the aircraft," Anthony Castorani said on CNN. "At that moment, you could see that that aircraft was again starting to lift and it began to cartwheel [Ed: he likely means spinning horizontally, like a top]. The wing broke off on the left hand side. You could see the tail immediately fly off of the aircraft. As the aircraft cartwheeled, it then landed down and the other wing had broken." The media has estimated about 290 people were on board the plane. The top of the cabin was aflame at one point, but it's not known yet whether that affected the passengers. "Federal sources told NBC News that there was no indication of terrorism." Some images from the news make it look like the plane may have tried to touch down too early, hitting the seawall just before the runway.
...just saying...
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking!
This is the problem with non-free airplanes. If the blueprints had been free under a freedom preserving license I'm sure the problem that caused the hiccup had been found.
plane crash? the site has ceased being about tech. How long till kardashians invade?
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SFO_crash-e1373139561971.png
Shows it upright, with at least one wing still attached.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It didn't cartwheel, it spun around like a top.
maybe its tome for the 3d printed airplane? ;)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The cause of death in the overwhelming majority of crash landings is the combustible fuel burning the passengers and very has very little to do with impacts.
This doesn't really sound like geek news.
Pictures show the aircraft sat on the ground with the tail missing and the forward roof burnt out but it certainly did NOT cartwheel or bits would be scattered down the runway. It seems that all passengers and crew have been accounted for with no fatalities.
Ganty
The most likely 'report' (I've seen) is that the tail was ripped off at the seawall that precedes the runway on approach.
I'm going to go on record saying that hitting the sea-wall first instead of the runway had something to do with it. You know, physics, and all that shit.
I'll be willing to bet a Bitcoin that the pilot was trying to land the airplane instead of just letting the computer do it.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Surely you must be joking?
I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley.
Samsun Exec. David Eun survives, posts pic. Then proceeds to teach CNN some manners.
" The wing broke off on the left hand side." Yeah but it didn't....both wings intact in all photos....
The tail broke off, not the wings. And the aircraft didn't "cartwheel". There are many good pictures of the wreckage. The wreckage is sitting on the ground alongside the runway, right side up, wings intact, on its belly. The tail assembly is completely detached from the plane. Much fire damage to the top of the fuselage, which is puzzling.
There are pictures of the passengers evacuating, including, inevitably, one of the passengers who just evacuated taking pictures of the plane.
Too early to discuss causes. Reports indicate the plane landed short in an nose-up attitude, but it's too early to say why.
http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0
The aircraft burst into flames and burned out, all occupants were able to evacuate the aircraft in time and are alive. There are reports of a number of injuries, mainly burns, the majority of occupants escaped without injuries.
Emergency services reported all occupants have been accounted for and are alive.
No shit, how the hell have we gotten to the point where every accident report is accompanied with that phrase.
Never trust eyewitness, because from the actual photos that are online the wings seem very much attached to the plane. The tail is missing and the top is burned out, though.
Second, here is a photo, taken across a small bay, showing the plane crashing: https://twitter.com/stefanielaine/status/353591123958173696/photo/1
And, most interesting, a comparison of flightpath data (from flightaware.com) of yesterday's flight against today's flight: https://twitter.com/sbaker/status/353611787750494208/photo/1
While I am no expert, it looks like it hit the ground short of the runway, like the previous crash of a 777 (BA 34).
Another 777 landed short of the runway at Heathrow in 2008 after losing engine power because of ice in the fuel lines. I wonder if something similar happened here? The preliminary report that the aircraft "seemed unstable" could have been because the pilot was flying just above stall speed in a desperate attempt to maintain altitude in a power loss situation. That could also explain the tail damage; the aircraft would have been in an extremely nose-high attitude as the pilot attempted to maximize lift to avoid hitting the water.
This is a repeat of flight 38 that crashed in London in 2008. Ice crystals in the fuel, clogged the fuel-oil heat exchangers on final approach. The engines would not spool up on final approach. The pilot stretched the glide by trading airspeed for distance resulting in the tail striking the ground due to an incipient stall condition. Gear collapses, plane skids down the runway.
This is a known problem with Rolls-Royce engines.
If I ever have to do an emergency evacuation and the guy in front of me has his cabin baggage with him (like we see in some of those pictures) I'm gonna throw it into the fire.
n/t
That would explain the human error part of things.
Oh, wait. I forgot - "We're all the same", in spite of the evidence of a thousand years of history: Exhibit A: Africa. Third world shithole. Never invented or created ANYTHING of any value whatsoever.
Exhibit B: Europe. Need I explain?
I guess they're luckier than the Boeing 666.
Someone managed to place this word once more.
Are you sure it didn't involve Chinese APTs neither ? And WMD, did it have some ? And the meds for treating paranoïa, did you take it America ?
Even when there's not the slightest trace of terrorism it still manages to be major part of the news somehow.
Because you know that's generally how planes crash... not. The show must go on, 9/11, muricah patriot, dem terrorists took our jobs &c
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3894355&cid=44078875
It means serious injuries or deaths. In military speak, which is where it comes from, it means a soldier hurt to the point they can't go back and fight. So someone who's dead: casualty. Someone who has a compound fracture in both legs: casualty. Someone who has a surface cut on their arm: not a casualty.
There's not as hard and fast a civilian definition, but it is just if the injury is serious. It is a useful number for determining how bad something is. Number of injuries period is irrelevant, number of fatalities while relevant doesn't tell the whole store. Number of fatalities and casualties gives a good idea of the human damage that happened in an incident.
I'm not exactly a trained insurance adjuster, but i'm gonna have to call this one a total loss. If it were just the frame that bent, we might have gotten away with a little body work, but the moment those bags inflate, you're adding a few thou in repairs.
I just heard this joke the other day. An Irish/Polish/{insert chosen nationality of stupid as decided by your own culture} lands the plane, and slams on the brakes sending all the passengers into the seats in front. He turns to his copilot and says, "Damn, that's the shortest runway I ever landed on." Then he looks left and right out of the window and says,
"Sure is wide, though."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
TFA: ...there was no indication of terrorism..."
Why is this still included in any US media article about any aviation accident, or similar event, in the news?
As an ordinary citizen, the question of terrorism is not anywhere near the top of my list of questions regarding "how" or "why" an accident may have occurred. Not at all. Now, the question of "who screwed up? Maintenance, pilot, management, etc.?" is the kind of question that springs to mind.
Or, perhaps, maybe the problem is with me? Should I learn to be more afraid?
Nuff said. If it was an Airbus, all would have been dead. That is fact.
and about 700 more shuttled to hospitals around the state. They also found nine other uncrashed planes in the vicinity.
well, better check the facebook page of your hard partying pilot captain sir before your next flight. check-out psy korea wiki on weekend partying! at least on airasia flights the cabin crew smokes a cigarette after leaving the toilet so the condom smell isnt so obvious ...
Between taking the time to take your carry-on off that plane and the timely Google ad (pic.twitter.com/WhbmXZc1Hh), let me off this bus. We're all Bozos.
fortunately the plane landed near the runway area instead of the ocean. close call. pilots deserve credit for guiding the plane in under extreme circumstances. crew also deserves credit for evacuating all the passengers in under two minutes from what I heard on cable news. amazing how the crew can evacuate some 300 people off the plane in two minutes or less.
the friends and family members of those on board are probably worried. hopefully everyone is able to contact their friends and family soon.
heard most of the flights were being diverted to Los Angeles and San Diego. don't know if the planes are still going to Lax and San Diego.
Remember, the US has had years of no deaths in commercial aviation. There's a reason flying is so safe.
It is very apparent from pictures of the end of the runway where they landed, that they actually landed short. There is a rock retaining wall coming out of the ocean and you can see significant damage and scrape marks to the retaining wall continuing onto the runway and the beginning of the wreckage trails showing that the landing gear at least, touched down short of the runway. From the way it looked it is easy to see how the tail could have smacked into the runway either at that time or just after and then breaking free.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
People being interviewed who were on the plane keep says that passengers hit their heads on the ceiling during the crash. Being this crash was during the landing how was this possible. People should be have been fastened in their seat. Did the seat belts fail? Did the fuselage flex that far? Did the overhead bins flex down? The news media has been repeating this "fact." What are people's thoughts on this mystery?
-rd
Interestingly there was a similar accident in 2009. In that case a BA flight landed short of the runway at Heathrow. They decided in that case that it was due to a blocked fuel filter which had led to a sudden loss of power on the final approach. They fixed the problem for the future by redesigning the filter. Possibilities that come to find are 1. They haven't applied the repair to this plane 2. The crash investigators were mistaken about the cause of the accident and it was actually due to something else.
Expected? Also, yes. Accidents happen. Airbus and Boeing have roughly equal numbers of incidents per year.
By sheer number of flights, one of those two was going to have an incident soon. It would be nice if aircraft were more reliable, but they will never be perfect. The best we can realistically hope for is a better underbelly for these sorts of accidents, since it's unclear there's anything in Formula 1 on impact resistance, energy dissipation or explosion resistance that could help.
Fuel fires are the main danger in aircraft, but it's my understanding that they use fuel bladders these days so that there is never any space for fuel vapor (the main danger). Damage to the bladder/tanks would be a problem - Formula 1 and other high-speed sports use sponge-filled tanks so that spillage is negligible, but they have weight capacity to spare (there's often some ballast) whereas aircraft carriers try to maximize profits by adding as little surplus as they can. Also, F1 cars can afford occasional fuel glitches, whereas aircraft really can't.
WTF? I cannot believe that and not because it's obviously true, I just figured they would use it to start another war and rape some more of our rights to protect us! All in the name of freedom, or whatever, fuck you.
He was really in china still and hopped a flight to sfo...he's chilling with a clever disguise while the whole world thinks he's in russia en route to venezuela
asian drivers...am I right?
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/img/photos/2013/07/06/Asiana_Airline_jet_crash.JPG
from the limited news jibberish i've read it seems like the pilot may have lost power on final, pulled up to avoid prematurely hitting the ground and the tail struck the ground before the main undercarriage... seems pretty straightforward (except for the cause of the power loss of course)
there are fuel tanks in the lower fuselage between the wings (in the "wing box") and i can see how an extremely hard landing could have caused main undercarriage structure to fail, leading to rupture of this tank and then fire, which could have burnt through into the cabin if there was also damage to the cabin floor structure
there doesn't seem to be any signs that the aircraft rolled over or cartwheeled or any other weird things because much of the unburnt portions of the fuselage is undamaged (except for rear lower)...
what could have caused the fire in the forward fuselage?
this airplane has just made a trip from seoul to san fransisco, so it wouldn't have been chock full of fuel at the time
also, the sides of the fuselage are undamaged in the forward section
the only thing i can see is a burnt area just forward of the starboard side wing leading edge below the cabin floor level
maybe the nose gear structure also failed and caused damage to the fuselage, or maybe parts of the engine came loose and flew into the underside of the fuselage (apparently rr trent engines on a 777 rotate clockwise which would put a dislodged starboard compressor fan into the fuse - assuming it could become dislodged, which seems a little far fetched but then again the entire starboard engine has come adrift (must have been right at the end though else it would have been away from the aircraft more).
the problem with both these theories is that there's still nothing to propagate a fire in the forward cabin
- all materials used in a cabin are (should be) self-extinguishing
- no fuel tanks in/under forward cabin
- weird unburnt area snaking along the side of the fuse between the two main fire damage holes (suggests fire wasn't continuous between two areas)
- occurred at end of international flight (so shouldn't have been a huge amount of fuel in tanks)
- no sign of fuel vapour explosion
the smoke pattern from the tops of the windows suggests the fire was burning for a long time on the ground (not in flight because the smoke doesn't trail aft), so how long did it take fire services to get to the crash?
what the heck fuelled the fire for such an apparently long time?
maybe this aircraft had the same cabin insulation in the roof as swissair flight 111, 1998 which would explain fire propagation along the roof space, which appears to be where most of the fire damage has occurred
not sure what caused the fire in the first place, but there would have been a bit of fuel left, engines are hot, or the shock of landing could have caused damage to electrical power equipment and shorting... probably though when the engine came off the starboard pylon and thrust/rotated into the starboard lower fuselage, the exhaust (the hot bit) set a mixture of baggage and insulation alight, and the fire propagated up the insulation in the walls and into the roof.
it looks like there may be a substantial amount of fire damage inside the cabin to, which seems unusual without an excessive amount of fuel due to self-extinguishing properties of cabin materials. dunno how the fuel could have got into the cabin (maybe though damage to floor) but also could be burnt debris fallen from the roof. that there were so few casualties seems to favour the latter as if burning fuel was in the cabin there would have been more casualties.
will be interesting to see what ntsb finds... i wouldn't mind betting that flammability standards for materials used in the fuse/cabin come under fire (pardon the pun)
In the other news: 80 people missing in Canada after train exploded. Why is it that plain crashes always get so much attention, while it has been for a long time one of the safests means of transportation?
"Federal sources told NBC News that there was no indication of terrorism."
Federal sources told me that there was no indication of attack by raccoons. About the same number of planes have been brought down by raccoons as have been brought down by terrorists, plus or minus 4. Why even mention terrorism?
Q: What did they serve on flight 214?
A: Korean Barbeque.
apologies.
"but a more sensible flight control design would have likely prevented the pilot error"
In other word we add more safety to prevent pilot error. Why again are pilot necessary , oh right for the black swan event. And yet they screw up more often than not, and even taking into account sceurity advance, the pilot is the main factor for errors. Makes one wonder if we would not be better off without pilot, with autoland everywhere.
It's no biggie. I play flightgear and crash my airplane at KSFO literally all the time, and I'm still here.
More professional points of view: http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0
Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
They're not telling you, they're telling all the "crazy" triggers around the world to stand down or even disappear because "see it wasn't terrorism this time either, stop worrying unless when we want you to and when it makes you listen to us". Not that they would know or tell the truth unless it benefits them.
All western and international media has been reduced to shoddy psy-ops tending their farms, mixing the feed, filling space "correctly", rotating the manufactured emotions and interests, staying in your face as much as possible, dominating you, obfuscating thought and reason.
You should be more afraid if it helps get your butt off the ground. Have you realized you're nearly guaranteed to die if it continues like this? Wouldn't you like to live forever and well? Realized what has happened during the last thousand years? The last hundred years? The last ten years?
What about the next decade? Or one hundred years in the future? A thousand? Million? A billion years of improvement? Nobody is insignificant, not even those who require and who can only accept help..
Why aren't "they" talking about that? Not as false promises but as something we can reach. It is not one thing, it is trillions of things big and small and tiny.
Are you that fucking stupid to think that after a crash at a major airport, local emergency services can't get your wife an insulin shot?
You are to stupid to live, do yourself and everyone else a favor and kill yourself.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It appears that the plane had a VERY hard landing for one reason: the flight crew did not follow correct procedures on the final descent.
From reports of survivors on the plane sitting in the window seats, it appears the plane was descending towards the runway threshold at an unusually steep angle, but when the flight crew realized this and tried to apply engine power to level the plane off, it was too late and the plane hit the end of the runway at a fairly high angle of attack (AOA). In my humble opinion, this tells me the flight crew attempted a completely visual flight rule landing and not following landing procedures correctly. One wonders if this 777-200ER had a high-accuracy three-axis GPS system, which if programmed properly would have allowed a completely automatic landing based on "listening" to at minimum six GPS satellites to get very high position accuracy for latitude, longitude and altitude.
With the "black boxes" now recovered from the plane, we should soon get an idea if my supposition is right.
Wrong, they had the PAPI. It wasn't marked as out of service until the crash.
Everyone has heard by now the Crash story involving the USA place. but in greece 5 min before the USA plan event, Greece was having its own crash? Same make and model as the one in the USA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCSn0LqdDgE
Linux = "batting a 1000" this week including Detroit too http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/07/06/1437255/detroits-emergency-dispatch-system-fails
Early reports suggest the plane was unstable as it touched down, which led to the tail of the plane breaking off.
You jackasses should have retracted this by now. The headline should read 'stupid Korean pilots augur in at SFO'. The NTSB just verified it. The Boeing plane performed magnificently.
an ill wind that blows no good
According to this Guardian article, the Instrument Landing System glide slope system was not operating at the time of the crash.
Asiana said mechanical failure did not appear to be a factor in the crash. Hersman confirmed that a part of the airport's instrument-landing system was offline on Saturday but cautioned against drawing conclusions from that, noting that the so-called glide slope system was not essential to safe operations in good weather. She said it was a clear day with good visibility.
I am fairly sure this means that the automated landing systems on airplanes will not work. Thus, the landing by the pilots would have been a fully manual approach. According to the article, the airplane came in too slow:
A stall warning sounded four seconds before impact, and the crew tried to abort the landing and initiate what's known as a "go around" manoeuvre just 1.5 seconds before crashing, Hersman said.
"Air speed was significantly below the target airspeed," she said.
From where I am sitting, this looks like full-on pilot error.
I am not a pilot but I used to be able to land the big iron planes fairly reliably on flight simulators. The simple principle is that you control your descent rate with engines and your airspeed with your angle of attack. You are at your slowest before touchdown when you nose up, and your angle of attack reaches its maximum. It sounds to me like the pilot had too large a descent rate and lost too much altitude before the runway. They probably started their flare too soon, and were not watching their airspeed. The fact that the stall alarm went on (indicating too low an airspeed and to large an angle of attack) supports this hypothesis. Their late effort to decrease their descent rate by throttling up the engines failed because it came too late (though likely saved lives by preventing the plane from nosing into the seawall).
The stall hypothesis is also supported by witness accounts of the plane looking "out of control". An airplane that is stalling might look out of control because it is in essence falling. Just google "Bagram 747 crash" to see what happens when a plane stalls. Also, the apparent fact that the pilot was able to throttle up the engines in the end indicates that the engines were functioning properly. The fundamental pilot error here was likely that the pilot did not throttle up the engines sooner to slow his descent rate.
This then leads to a discussion of the fact that many landings pilots make are automated, made possible by Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) on the ground and autopilots on the plane. How many pilots are in fact out of practice when manually landing airplanes? Did the lack of an ILS glide slope signal play a significant role in this crash? It shouldn't have, since the visibility on approach was unobstructed. Were the pilots out of practice? Was there something about the instrument data displays on the 777 that makes such a botched approach more likely?
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
http://www.globalair.com/airport/airport.aspx?AptCode=SFO
Roger roger
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/epic-ktvu-fail-anchor-reports-pilot-names-including-sum-ting-wong-and-wi-tu-lo_b97368
the station claimed it had just learned the names of the 4 pilots on board Asiana flight 214 which crashed last Saturday
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/07/15/2013071501692.html
Free translation
1.Let's biased coverage in the media over.
2.Americans will suffer because Boeing is wrong? Let's spread the false rumor.
3.To make the accomplice.(No.2)
4. Let's put pressure on the U.S. government in the diplomatic
5.Let's put pressure on Boeing.
this is claimed .by three killed country
this is Korea . this is Korean.