• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag GB Flag 
14:29 EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesAsiana 777 (AAR214) Crashes at SFO - Two Fatalities, Dozens Injured

Back to Squawk list

Asiana 777 (AAR214) Crashes at SFO - Two Fatalities, Dozens Injured

Submitted
 
Asiana Flight 214, a Boeing 777-200ER, from Seoul to San Francisco crashed during landing at San Francisco International Airport (KSFO). The flight from Seoul was 10 hours and 23 minutes and seats 295 passengers. (flightaware.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


dm831
Dave McCoy 23
Looks like the plane landed short and hit the breakwater wall at the start of the runway.
AONeal79
AONeal79 4
Wondering whether the short landing could have resulted from a stall or just simply a pilot coming in too low. Would love to hear convo between the cockpit and ATC.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 2
The ATC recording is out and it was a routine "cleared to land" call. In fact someone else called the emergency so when 214 called back after the crash the controller advised emergency vehicles were on the way.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 2
KSFO VGSI Angle is 2.85 degrees. B777 approach recommended speed is 160 KIAS. That requires descend rate 806 feet per minute. AAR214 entered glideslope at 4500 feet at 3 degree angle and at 3700 feet had an angle of 3.54 degrees. Descent (sink) rate of more than 1000 feet per second in not considered a stabilised approach: http://www.737ng.co.uk/B777%20FCTM%20Flight%20Crew%20Training%20Manual.pdf Should the pilot have declared missed approach at 3700 feet altitude?
preacher1
preacher1 2
You sure you don't mean mph. Here is the link to Boeing's chart on approach speed. Naturally some like it hotter.lol
AABABY
FRANK MARTINOLI 0
Preacher1- I thought everything went metric with regard to speed, weights and measures when the 757 hit the airways. Remember the Air Canada 'Gimli Glider"?
Clarify please?
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 4
Thanks, Preacher. According to the Boeing chart 777-200 approach speed is 136 to 140 knots depending on the configuration. That translates to 686-706 feet per minute recommended sink rate at KSFO. AAR214 was dropping at almost twice the recommended rate. At the outer marker (4.5 miles from the threshold) he should have been at 1180 feet altitude but he was at 2200! If you are at twice the altitude at 100 seconds before touchdown would'n you declare missed approach rather than sink at a reckless rate?
preacher1
preacher1 2
I think I would but the NTSB conference is on so hopefully it will end the speculation.
sddaledawson
Dale Dawson 1
okay guys it gets even more bad when you look at the right tables not 200 series and at the 300 er charts the numbers even get worse thanks Pawel for the link been awhile since i flew heavys and never supers 57-67 series also had higher over the fence speeds hell even a lear has higher speeds then these guys had not a good day in the cockpit really really hope there was something out of the ordinary :(
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
One of the eyewitnesses who regularily observes landing traffic there remarked she could see the plane was too high and watched as it suddenly slowed then nosed way up. The PAPI lights would have been 3 RED which would tell them they were too low.
JetMech24
JetMech24 2
NO, nothing changed, was just bad math by the crew that day.
silaxo1
Art Buller 3
I read from one person the aircraft was high and on a steeper than normal approach. Appears to me he slowed the aircraft too slow. Somebody said the wings were going up and down. When an aircraft is near its stall speed or at a very slow speed, the pilot has less control. I would say the aircraft came in nose high (really nose high) and short of the runway, the tail hit the break water rocks, and the rest is history, and if all that is true, the pilot should be too.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 0
There is a youtube post with the convo. Not much there until after the incident.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Apologies - not finding the link - would you mind posting?
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Thank you - first question - why the designation "Heavy"? I thought that it would be naturally NOT heavy on fuel....
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 5
Wide bodied aircraft are called "heavies" during radio communications. Boeing 747-777, Airbus 330, 340, 380 are examples.
preacher1
preacher1 7
Any Aircraft capable of a takeoff weight of 300,000 lbs + is required to ID as heavy. For years, the 757,although not in that weight range, was listed in that category as well, due to the wake turbulence. In recent years though, the 57 has relegated to the Large category, although the separation for wake must be maintained. The A380 has a designation of SUPER
f111jock
Art Turner 0
Hey preacher how have you been? give me a call next time you are headed to sln and if it meets with y schedule i will meet you for lunch.
preacher1
preacher1 0
I'd have to check the log for the exact date, but we were up there a couple weeks ago; just a day trip up and back. KPRC tomorrow afternoon and Wednesday. Corporation owner out there we helped set up lost a son and nephew in that fire. They were 19 and on the hotshot team. Memorial service Tuesday. We are sending a crew to handle essential services.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Please extend our condolences for their loss and sacrifice. That was another tragedy.
mikepilot
Mike Layton 2
A38 0has the sufix "super" in ATC communications
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 2
Since I wasn't sure about all of the aircraft that are "heavy", I was citing examples. I also stand corrected on the 380.
KDOVATC
Mike Grzybek 4
Aircraft over 300,000 pounds MTOW (including all variants of the B777) are called "heavy" in ATC communications, regardless of whether they are operating at this weight in a given phase of flight.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Thank you very much Ken and Mike.
ArthurWohlers
Arthur Wohlers -1
I watched a live feed shortly after the crash from a local TV station helicopter. Anyone have a link to this?
It showed what looked like a strike against the breakwater about 50 feet to the right of the rabbit / centerline (right landing gear?) Then scraps everywhere until the three tail sections about 500 feet past breakwater, but before displaced threshold. Then a set of main gear on the runway after threshold (left gear). Then a single set of swerving tire track to left of runway (nose gear?). Looks like nose gear stayed on most of the way, allowing it to track in a fairly straight line given the damage.
Steve1822
Steve1822 14
A couple of posters are posting inaccurate info on altitudes.
We know Asiana 214 was on a visual to RWY 28L. This approach has a GP of 2.85 degrees
Standard procedure would have been backing up the visual by tuning in the RWY 28L ILS or.....have it programmed into the FMS so the PNF can monitor the approach. The crossing altitude at the FAF (there is no LOM/outer marker on this aprch)is 1,800 MSL. Since only the localizer was available and GP and DME notamed out of service, I assume they had it programmed into the box (FMS). If in fact they were at 2200 MSL at DUYET intersection vs. 1800 MSL it's not the end of the world and correctable with 7.4 miles to go.........if they corrected in time. Obviously waiting longer means greater corrective action getting down to the glide path. Calling for a go around 1.5 seconds before impact and out of energy at that low of an altitude would be a challenge for the best pilot. This is all preliminary of course, and (all) the facts and data are still forthcoming.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 8
Processed FA log with comments. I had to use dots to make it more readable:

Dist.Sink....Glide..Altitude.Alt...Rel..Speed..Time.Marker.Comment
.....Rate....slope...........Error.Alt..Error..To.
nm...ft/min..Altitude.feet....ft...Err..vs.137.Impact........
.............@2.85deg
15.717..-1200...4754...4800....46....1%..77%...308........
15.500...-780...4688...4800...112....2%..78%...304..WETOR.......
15.248..-1740...4612...4700....88....2%..77%...301........
15.004...-900...4539...4600....61....1%..77%...297........
14.718...-540...4452...4600...148....3%..75%...293........
14.222...-840...4302...4500...198....5%..73%...285.........LOC.fix
13.241...-540...4005...4300...295....7%..66%...270........
12.650...-240...3826...4300...474...12%..61%...261..ROKME.Coming.in
11.677...-720...3532...4200...668...19%..55%...245........light
10.643...-960...3219...3900...681...21%..52%...228.........and
9.835...-1080...2975...3700...725...24%..49%...214..HEMAN.fast
8.966...-1200...2712...3400...688...25%..48%...198........
8.108...-1140...2452...3100...648...26%..42%...183........
7.248...-1500...2192...2800...608...28%..39%...167........
6.546...-1320...1980...2400...420...21%..36%...154........
5.785...-1080...1750...2200...450...26%..36%...139..DUYET.......
5.083...-1020...1537...1900...363...24%..36%...126........White.PAPI
4.277...-1020...1294...1700...406...31%..30%...110........Too.high..
3.580...-1380...1083...1400...317...29%..23%....96..NEPIC.Max.Flaps?
2.492...-1380....754....800....46....6%...6%....73.......On.Glideslope
2.118...-1320....641....600...-41...-6%...3%....64........Red.PAPI
1.742....-900....527....400..-127..-24%..-2%....54........PULL.UP!!
1.369....-840....414....300..-114..-28%..-10%...44........Loses.speed
0.990....-120....300....100..-200..-67%..-20%...33........Nose.up....
0.000.....120......0....200.....0....0%..-38%....0........Impact....
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 8
The columns are:
1. Distance to threshold [nm]
2. Sink rate [feet per min]
3. Glideslope altitude @ 2.85 degrees
4. Altitude error [feet]
5. Relative altitude error [%}
6. Speed Error vs. 137 knots [%]
7. Time to impact [s]
8. Marker from charts
8. Comment
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 5
There are roughly FOUR phases in this unstabilized approach:

1. Fast and Light. From fixing LOC beacon at ~285 seconds to ~100 seconds before impact. Glideslope altitude exceeded 20-30%, speed exceeded 30-60%. At 100 seconds pilot sees white PAPI lights and max flaps are extended to correct.

2. Rapid Sink. From ~ 100 seconds to ~54 seconds before impact. Altitude error drops from +29% to -24%. Speed becomes target. Sink rate is so great that aircraft goes under proper glideslope. Pilot sees red PAPI lights and realizes the aircraft is undershooting the runway.

3. Pull Up. From ~54 seconds to ~7 seconds, aircraft nose goes up, sink rate drops, but no power is added, airspeed drops over 20%, altitude error -67%, stall warning kicks in.

4. Climb. From ~7 seconds to impact, power is applied too late to avoid impact.

Timing is extracted from airspeed, so is approximate, except for 7 seconds from NTSB statement. You can copy the table to a text editor or word processor with a Courier font to see the columns better.
AABABY
FRANK MARTINOLI 1
Pawel--Even though I am not a pilot, I have A high interest in aviation. Your posts re: FA log are very helpful and the commentary is right on the mark.
I wonder why pilot did not make an earlier effort to correct the obvious speed/alt error? Would it be his inexperience with A/C type, or general conditions on flight deck? Crew culture? "I can do this, leave me alone." or-- "You have it, fly it."?
Was there teamwork or not?
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 2
Frank, I can not comment on the crew culture. My background in engineering. Perhaps a pilot with a wide-body experience could comment.
AABABY
FRANK MARTINOLI 2
I think that's where the NTSB panel is heading. Human factors and A/C factors.
I think only a pilot from the specific airline could shed light on culture.
Excerpt from news article-- Following the first full day of the investigation into the crash of Asiana Flight 214, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Deborah Hersman, cautioned against making rash conclusions from preliminary information. “We’re looking at some issues with respect to the crew,” she said. “We want to understand the humans, we want to understand the aircraft.”
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Reports of potentially CRM-deficient culture in the front, which may have contributed to the crash; contrast with a more dynamic culture in the back of the plane.

There have been repeated reports of bravery of the crew in evacuating all passengers from the plane as quickly as possible, as aircraft crews are trained to do.

Stories of bravery emerge from Asiana crash:
http://www.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jul/09/stories-bravery-asiana-airlines-crash

- "The crew's bravery may help ease the sting if pilot error is deemed the cause of the crash."
- "automation dependency – in which over-reliance on computerisation can diminish flight skills – may have contributed."
sporty222
Brian Franklin 1
Hey, canyou plot that on a graph, x = time in minutes/ seconds?
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 1
It's posted in aircraft picture gallery 100 seconds:http://e0.photos.flightcdn.com/photos/retriever/3bafb73b2b5595c6648c6aad346f80bdab5f5aca
and 5 minutes: http://flightaware.com/photos/view/786230-082f175ed06f2de3b60cd1683b43fc15aa10fef5/all/sort/date/page/1
Glideslope is not exactly aligned with radar data, but you can see how the aircraft was behaving.
sporty222
Brian Franklin 1
Thank you.
bravowren
bravowren 3
Good points. Just one clarification - LOC Z approach plate for 28L shows 5.5 nm from DUYET to touchdown.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 3
Their glidepath was much too steep until they reached 600 feet altitude, where they wend under 2.85 degree prescribed in KSFO approach. At that point ~ 56 seconds before impact they had plenty of time to correct it and it appears that they did some correction because the sink rate at 400 feet altitude is closer to normal. However pulling up to reduce the sink rate without adding power caused loss of speed: It was only 123 knots at 300 feet and 109 knots at 100 feet altitude, much before 137 knots prescribed.

[This poster has been suspended.]

onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
James....when does it just stop giving ground proximity and start barking out pull up....or is that feature disabled whenever the aircraft is in landing configuration?
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
When you select flaps inhibit on older stuff. Can't say for 777.
AONeal79
AONeal79 2
At the risk of being eviscerated for not being a pilot, can someone explain what DUYET stands for? Google isn't helping.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 2
123 knots at 300 feet and 109 knots at 100 feet altitude...no wonder they dropped 200' in 1.5 seconds.
Steve1822
Steve1822 2
I was referencing the ILS to 28L. You mention LOC-Z. Both reflect 7.4 DME I-SFO (OTS at the time). You are correct at 5.5 miles NM along the earth and crossing at 1800 MSL. Whether DME or actual distance, the target altitude is 1800 MSL at the FAF. The larger issue is were they fully configured, on speed, on a stabilized GP at that point along the approach.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I'm not a pilot, but that is an intersection on the approach to SFO 28 L.
On the left panel put in KSFO in the Airport tracker and find the tab IFR Plates
The one RNAV GPS... 28L is shown below.

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/RNAV+%28GPS%29+PRM+RWY+28L

Your question is one of the learning curve. Most of the squawkers do this for a living and it is probably second nature to them.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Thank you.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
At the risk of being eviscerated for not being a pilot, can someone explain what DUYET stands for? Google isn't helping.
keithsroberts
Keith Roberts 1
DUYET is a three-dimensional waypoint fix used for instrument navigation on the 28L approach at SFO. These 5-letter GPS fixes are common on instrument approaches and enroute charts used by pilots and ATC for navigation. If you know any pilots they will be happy to show you these charts and how they are used. No evisceration here, just glad you are interested.
aircmdr
Capt. Robert Frangione -1
another clarification .. they are "approach CHARTS, not plates".
Sanderjay
John Sander 1
Quite right Captain! Another example of the non-standard aviation terminology used in the USA as compared to the standard used by the rest of the world.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 2
Agree Steve. Failing to do any of the above, student pilots in initial training may use the PAPI lights mnemonic, "WHITE you're light, RED you're dead" until they are used to the lights meaning. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Approach_Path_Indicator
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 2
Thank you. Right on.
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 2
Thank you for this analysis.
smoki
smoki 2
The PAPI was illuminated and functioning normal as a visual glideslope reference given the Notamed out GS on 28L. There had to be nothing but all red lights showing for a long time during that approach. Red over Red, your dead! 300 feet per mile represents essentially a 3 degree GS. It ain't that hard to keep that in your head during a visual approach. This Asian culture barrier excuse and lack of CRM is a red herring. My guess is the IP/PIC in the right seat and presumably the flying pilot, Captain, in the left seat had their heads up their backsides apparently enjoying the view. The preliminary report that the FDR showed the throttles at idle during the approach with the airspeed slowly bleeding off well below the target bug speed is itself a clear indication of a serious breakdown in scan and situational awareness. Little wonder that the stick shaker sounded just prior to impact as the nose was rotated in a desperate attempt to initiate a go around. If the pax can sense in the seat of their pants that the airplane is low and slow as some did according to post crash interviews then that begs the obvious question: Why didn't the pilots have that same sense in the seat of their pants? Maybe their heads were in the way!
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
"300 ft per nm = 3 degree GS"

But at DUYET they were at 2200 instead of 1800, do they had an extra 400 ft to get through.

So they probably descended at 400 ft for the first 4 miles. If I remember correctly they adjusted their attitude at 600 ft to stay on the glidepath at the prescribed 300 ft per nm descent.

It was at this new setting that the airspeed began to decay. The reduced rate of descent was insufficient to keep the aircraft at speed, and the plane progressively slowed down. Every incremental adjustment to pitch to try toaintaim the prescribed glidepath, only further decayed their speed.

Those last 600 ft happened in the literal last minute of a 10 hour flight. Maybe they should've called a go around like the flight the day before instead of counting on perfection in adjusting their glidepath in the last minute of flight.

I hope pilots are hitting the sims all over the world on the off chance they'll be called to fly into SFO on a sunny day, and may be expected to fly in manually onto s runway NOTAMed ILS.

Or at the very least ALL pilots should be discussed the importance of scanning altitude and airspeed in all modes of flight (manual or automatic). No one wants to be the next pilot to bring down a perfectly functionin plane full of people and live through it.
Steve1822
Steve1822 2
Pawel, in this case the PAPI was NOTAM'd out of service. So the old fashion way, hand flying. Still, if they had it in the box (FMS) at least the command bars would be giving them back up cue's for the approach. Complicant matters by coming in over a flat smooth water surface and normal visual cues get messed up. The old 3 to 1 altitude/distance rule never fails. All about situational awareness.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 3
Steve, I thought I have heard Debbie Hersman say today that PAPI was NOTAM'd as a result of this crash and that it was operational before the crash. Is this correct?
Steve1822
Steve1822 4
Good catch Pawel. The PAPI NOTAM was posted/effective at 1519 local. The accident occurred aproximately 1128 local time. I pulled up the KSFO weather at 1330 local and thought I saw a PAPI notam or read about that. I'll go with what you heard from Chairman Hersman. However, if the pilots had either the RWY 28L ILS programmed or even the Quiet Bridge Visual programmed into the FMS,they would still be getting back up cues on their respective ADI's and/or HSI's to monitor. At any rate if was a bad day for this crew and the airline industry. I'm still holding out the CVR and FDR will indicate some anomaly that the crew was facing.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 4
Thanks, Steve. As bad as it was, it amazing how 777 hull held up. Solid construction saves lives.
chalet
chalet 1
According to the lady head of the NTSB the PAPI and ILS for that runway were NOT operating on that day. A friend of mine who is a /// captain for a Middle East airline told me that his company´s rules are very strict: any and all approaches into a U.S. airport shall be conducted only when full ILS (runway locator and glide slope) and the PAPI are fully operational, having said this he added that he and other full captains for his and other airlines strongly believe that weather permitting making visual/manual approaches at least once a week should me mandatory in order to maintain a high degree of airmanship and pilotage proficiency, being too instruments/technology dependant leads to absurd accidents like this, or AF 214 AB 330 flying from Rio to Paris.
jrbeejay
John Beech 1
Sorry, but the PAPI was serviceable until it was wiped out by the crash.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 1
Processed FA log with my comments:

Dist Sink Glide Altitude Alt. Rel. Speed Time Marker Comment
Rate slope Error Alt. Error To
nm ft/min Altitude feet ft Err. vs.137 Impact
@2.85deg
15.717 -1200 4754 4800 46 1% 77% 308
15.500 -780 4688 4800 112 2% 78% 304 WETOR
15.248 -1740 4612 4700 88 2% 77% 301
15.004 -900 4539 4600 61 1% 77% 297
14.718 -540 4452 4600 148 3% 75% 293
14.222 -840 4302 4500 198 5% 73% 285 LOC fix
13.241 -540 4005 4300 295 7% 66% 270
12.650 -240 3826 4300 474 12% 61% 261 ROKME Coming in
11.677 -720 3532 4200 668 19% 55% 245 light
10.643 -960 3219 3900 681 21% 52% 228 and
9.835 -1080 2975 3700 725 24% 49% 214 HEMAN fast
8.966 -1200 2712 3400 688 25% 48% 198
8.108 -1140 2452 3100 648 26% 42% 183
7.248 -1500 2192 2800 608 28% 39% 167
6.546 -1320 1980 2400 420 21% 36% 154
5.785 -1080 1750 2200 450 26% 36% 139 DUYET
5.083 -1020 1537 1900 363 24% 36% 126 White PAPI
4.277 -1020 1294 1700 406 31% 30% 110 Too high
3.580 -1380 1083 1400 317 29% 23% 96 NEPIC Max Flaps?
2.492 -1380 754 800 46 6% 6% 73 On Glideslope
2.118 -1320 641 600 -41 -6% 3% 64 Red PAPI
1.742 -900 527 400 -127 -24% -2% 54 PULL UP!!
1.369 -840 414 300 -114 -28% -10% 44 Loses speed
0.990 -120 300 100 -200 -67% -20% 33 Nose up
0.000 120 0 200 0 0% -38% 0 Impact
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 1
Spaces got stripped. Is there a way to post a table?
sparkie624
sparkie624 7
NTSB States: Normal Visual approach acepted. Target speed 137 kts. 7seconds call for more power, engines responded, stick shacker started at 4 sec, 1.5 sec remaining called for go around.. NTSB further stated that they were a significant below the Target Speed.

Bottom line. They stalled the plane below a recoverable altitude.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 4
The FA log shows that they came in high at outer marker at twice the altitude (2200) they should have (1180 feet) and then they increased the sink rate to 1380 feet per second - twice the normal rate, killing the air speed in the process, so instead of overshooting the runway they had trouble making to the threshold.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Ie did they try to slip it in and misjudged the roll out of the sideslip ?
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 4
I do not think the slip was intentional. The sideslip could have been the result of the stall condition on one of the wings. Their course was stable, but they came in too high at the outer marker (4.5 miles from runway thershold). When you fly too high so close to the runway, you are in danger of landing too far from threshold and overshooting the runway - either crashing at the end of the runway or having to pull the plan back up. So it appears that they used max flats and low speed to get their altitude down ASAP and overdid it, resulting in not enough speed to retain control.
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 1
Do you have a link to the NTSB findings thus far?
JD345
JD345 1
sparkie624
sparkie624 18
All these idiots saying this thing cart wheeled is full of crap.... LOL, NO WAY! Fox just made a perfect description.. "A Really Bad Belly Landing". It appears he stalled and Belly Flopped....
brizone
brizone 6
Right?!?

A whole bunch of people who apparently can't figure out that "cartwheel" and "spin" are two words in English with DIFFERENT meanings! Can't stand people who choose their words carelessly...
AONeal79
AONeal79 3
I think people are saying "Cartwheel" when they just mean spinning.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Just to show you how smart the media is, one said that it cart wheeled then rolled over before coming to a stop... LOL, the media is STUPID. None of that happened. The top would have been crushed, scraped up at the very least, and the wings would be much worse damaged.
xmrrushx
Jason Ho 0
Video proves those idiots somewhat correct, I call it more a pirouette that a cartwheel.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
There was no Cart Wheel. The wing floated back up... But it DID NOT cartwheel... They also said it flipped over, and that never happened either.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Yes. I see a spin with one of the wings pushed somewhat aloft.
SootBox
SootBox 2
Ask United 232's crew if this was a carthwheel... they KNOW cartwheels...
AONeal79
AONeal79 3
Investigation showed that UA232 didn't cartwheel. It just appeared that way because of the movement of the flames. Trying to find a good link as a source.
SootBox
SootBox 8
Yeah, you're right, Al Haynes himself said it wasn't a cartwheel but then it's a DC-10, too fat to cartwheel anyway.

Al Haynes: "And the airplane slammed on the ground, and we did not hit
and cartwheel, like all the news says. We hit and slid on the ground,
on the left main gear and the right wing stub. Slid along sideways,
for about 2000' or so, when the left wing came up. Also, on impact,
the tail broke off, the entire tail section of the aircraft broke off,
so there's no weight in the tail at all. So when the left wing came
up--probably because of our speed--the tail came up. the aircraft went
up on its nose, bounced on the runway three times, on the nose, leaving
radome marks on the runway. We went upside down and airborne about
right here. We were thinking--even that tape that you see there,
that's all we have in the way of tape, and nobody really remembers, and
there was so much fire and smoke that nobody could tell. We hit right
about here, and upside down. And fortunately for us, the cockpit broke
off, and unfortunately for the first-class cabin. And then the
aircraft went over on its back and skidded to a halt right over here."
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Thanks for this.
AONeal79
AONeal79 2
Oh for the love of god, even Mary Schiavo just said UA232 cartwheeled. Of all people to get that wrong!
SootBox
SootBox 1
Well, it DID cartwheel but like a fat uncoordinated person does it, with their feet behind them.
AONeal79
AONeal79 2
Then it's really not a cartwheel as most people understand it. Sorry, I hate it when people misuse terminology.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
It was not even close to a cart wheel
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
LOL, I like the Analogy... Going to have to steel that one.
sstuff
sstuff 1
I’m sure you meant “ . . . steal that one.” Spell-checkers strike again to totally change the intended word and, yes, nerdy language geeks strike again.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Oops.... Yup... You right.. I spelled it right, just chose the wrong correct one:)
richcraft
richcraft 1
I think the term a lot of non-pilots are unfamiliar with is "ground looped," a rapid rotation of the aircraft in the horizontal plane. Hard to tell which tracks are from the gear and which are from rescue vehicles, but it looks like there are two sets of lines that would correspond with a ground loop.

"Cartwheeling" is a non-technical (and not very useful) term for a landing aircraft which impacts or transitions to steep roll angle, often causing contact with the "four corners" (nose, wing tips, tail). Ethiopian Air 961 "cartwheeled" when it hit the water on 16 July 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5FMFVbVZ0

A spin is a useful term for a stalled aircraft which rotates around a vertical axis near its center of gravity, but airplanes don't "spin" *on* the ground (though they can certainly spin *into* the ground!).
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 6
I do not see this as having a negative impact on the reputation of Boeing 777-200ER.
preacher1
preacher1 5
No, but the million$ question is what caused the speed loss and moreso, why didn't they catch it, or maybe they did and just too late?
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 3
Getting behind the plane is my fear. The call to go around wasn't made by (pilot) until after the stall warning blared out. I think about Air France 447 where they stopped flying the plane. We will see.
20U60N4
STEVE EMERY 3
um, flying too slow?
20U60N4
STEVE EMERY 2
spot on Elizabeth!
bdarnell
Brad Darnell 1
Sounds like the PIC got task-saturated and got behind the airplane.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 1
The slowdown looks intentional. The FA log shows that they came in high at outer marker at twice the altitude (2200) they should have (1180 feet), so being afraid of overshooting the runway the slowed the plane down to max the sink rate.
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 1
Perhaps - They saw themselves too high on approach and thought they could get down to proper glide path altitude if they controlled their speed at minimums. Misjudged it, and came in too high at 28L, tried to over-compensate with accelerated sink rate and minimum speed, realized they couldn't do it, then decided to go around, but...........too late.
Av8nut
Michael Fuquay 2
I hope not. Although, you'd be surprised what the Airburst advocates would do.
pdixonj
pdixonj 12
Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of hearing Richard Quest give his "expert" opinion on all things aviation related?
germanji
Brandon Sewell 5
I had to switch to Fox just to get away from that guy. At least they are talking with a commercial pilot right now.
NedRubin
Ned Rubin 5
He is at once pompous and very ill-informed.
Kingair31
Kingair31 1
I heard on reporter say "the pilot switched to visual flight rules and landed the airplane themselves" ugh.
Jezza1974
Jeremy Langdon 1
Terrible terrible narrator of a complete amateurism. How do you go from reporting business news to aviation, he's hardly a David Learmout...
bentwing60
bentwing60 -6
If you are so spiffy at landing a Kingair stud, what makes you think they can't land a 777. And the reporter was the food editor!
Kingair31
Kingair31 2
You missed my point Bentwing60. The reporter was saying it is extremely uncommon for an aircraft to do a visual approach (which isn't true) and to hand fly the airplane (again, not true). That was my point and it wasn't the food editor, it was an aviation "expert". So it had nothing to do with me being a "spiffy lander" and me saying they can't land a 777. Thanks for the "stud" comment btw.
bentwing60
bentwing60 4
Out of order. My apologies. A little miffed at the number of rush to judgment posts that have already convicted the crew, and misread yours as another one. Sorry. The reporter comment was my not so subtle way of addressing the fact that the media, once again, is quick to inform the low information public on a subject they, the media, know nothing about. As a few of my somewhat cynical buddies and I say, "according to the FAA, if the pilot hadn't been there the accident wouldn't have happened, ergo, pilot error. More than a few on this forum seem to have bought into that logic.
Kingair31
Kingair31 3
No worries. I heard your frustration in your reply and I completely agree with you. The fact the media twists the facts to make a story more interesting. They dumb it down to the point of ingnorance.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
LOL, I do not beleive what the reports say... If you do that plane flipped over, cart wheeled and then spun around... LOL, that is one heavy duty plane to keep the wings on thru all of that... If they were hand flying and bringing it in VFR as alot of pilots do, then it was simply PILOT ERROR, nothing complicated about that... He screwed up in Royal Proportions. The fact the ILS was down, you do not use an ILS for a visual approach... We do know he landed with power, because witnesses heard heavy power being applied at the last seconds, and I am sure many of you realize that a Turbin Engine does not accellerate as fast as a Recip. Again, I say, Pilot Error, He recognized the problem, but way too late to do anything about it.
AONeal79
AONeal79 -1
He's not as bad as Don Lemon. *shudder*
distar97
Dennis Harper 2
Don Lemon and nearly every other reporter go crazy when a tsunami disaster happens. They go nuts when they learn waves go 500 MPH in mid ocean. They ignore or are simply incapable of understanding it is not visible or felt as it passes under vessels. So now we have a CARTWHEELING AIRPLANE = 500MPH WAVES. They don't care to hear explanations.
ImA1032
Robert Rauchfleisch 12
http://www.ferndaleenterprise.com/category/blog/

Just witnessed the MOST unbelievable thing I’ve ever seen in my life. As my plane landed in SF we hit some turbulence & our plane jolted to the left, turning about 30 degrees before we quickly straightened out-barely making our landing, taking a sharp left & skidding to a stop on the strip between 2 runways. Just as we pulled perpendicular to the incoming runway, we looked up to the left & saw a huge plane (an off duty pilot riding as a passenger on my flight said it was a 777) literally drop from the sky & slam into the ground, almost bouncing it hit so hard. It threw an engine into the center divider that bursted into flames, before the plane turned sideways off the runway & slid until it came to a stop in the dirt. It quickly went up in flames towards the center of the plane & then a few minutes later we saw the emergency slide deploy from the front. No news on passengers. Anyways, long story short Kimberly, they shutdown the airport & nothing is currently coming/going (I’ll keep you posted). Absolutely terrified to board another flight. Pray that everyone gets off that plane!!! — at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
auok
a u 1
You say your plane experienced turbulence just before landing. Could that be significant? Maybe the crashed plane also experienced some turbulence, and that contributed to the accident?
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard -1
Ah hah! Thank you. Great report.
sddaledawson
Dale Dawson -2
this explains the missing left hand engine from the crash site
wow thanks for this post hope it helps the investigation
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 3
Slide deployment, evacuation and arrival of first responders:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/52423611/#52423611
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 3
National Transportation Safety Board chief Deborah Hersman said the Pratt & Whitney engines were on idle.

...this gets more depressing as information comes to light.
cwfmd
cwfmd 3
Question for CNN and other media:

How do you get experience landing a jet at SFO, without ever doing your first approach and landing?

(I can't get anything but CNN, overseas)
How do you get to be an anchor and authority on Airliner mishaps, on CNN?
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
There is on variable that is missing here and that is the EGPWS... What happened to the messages "Too Low Terrain" and "Sink Rate, Sink Rate". that should have been too good clues for the crew.
lbbramel
leo bramel 3
Stall crashing on a visual approach is a lack of basic skills. Airspeed and altitude and a spot on runway. This can not be replaced.....
gearup328
Peter Steitz 3
I only have one comment. FLY THE AIRPLANE!!! There has to be one of the pilots actually flying the airplane either completely manually or monitoring the automation. Who was watching the airspeed do it's steady decrease? Who was noting that the 2.85 (3) degree glide path that they should have been monitoring wasn't being flown----300 feet per NM. 6 NM from the runway = 1800 feet and so on to touchdown. An aircraft that size shouldn't be flown like you maybe would an RJ. It has to be more precise. There was no one flying the plane that day or no one would speak up due to the Asian culture barrier---no CRM. Can't disregard rank. Don't tell the pilot flying because that is inappropriate. Terrible.
AABABY
FRANK MARTINOLI 2
cwfmd-- I agree with your idea regarding experiencing a landing at SFO. However, maybe a few dozen landings where the conditions are better and navaids, etc are all working would be better choice.
As for CNN, a large grain of salt with everything they say would be good.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Re your second question is a 2 part answer:
1) Get hired as a CNN anchor
2) Say "I am an authority on Airliner mishaps"

CNN reporting is contraindicated for a low sodium diet due to all the needed grains of salt.
20U60N4
STEVE EMERY 2
isn't it called a co-pilot??? all the tech in the world can't fix stupid
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 2
Sad commentary but so very accurate. So focussed on lining up on the centerline... There is an insightful "squawk" on FlightAware from a former Asiana/KAL sim instructor.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 3
Yes, Elizabeth, I've read that. I teach primary and instrument for a university program and give the test question----if you're confused, over taxed, have a real emergency, what is the most important thing you still MUST do? I give extra credit for a correct answer----FLY THE AIRPLANE!!!
AABABY
FRANK MARTINOLI 1
Ms. Robillard- please be so kind as to supply the 'Squawk' you are referring to. I would like to read it. Thanks.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Interesting. Because I could not locate that squawk...went back to Airliners.net:
This Op-Ed expresses the personal viewpoint of the writer who is unaffiliated with the Airliners.net editorial board in any shape or form. The work is presented here in its unedited form. Opposing and/or contrasting viewpoints are welcome and will be presented on this site with the same prominence.


In deference of the author's request to remove this material, we are doing so. We also received a supporting request for removal from Boeing Communications.

"The subject matter is sensitive in light of the ongoing investigation and we would respectfully ask that this be removed at this time. "

Written by
Suresh Atapattu/Article Editor
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Frank, Preacher1 pasted the text in related squawk
http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/direct/linked/35466/
AABABY
FRANK MARTINOLI 1
I saw it.
smoki
smoki 1
It is my understanding there were two Captains up front, an IP/PIC in the right seat, who had never landed at SFO, and the flying pilot, Captain, in the left seat. The Asian culture barrier and lack of CRM because of it is a red herring in my view. Could be something as basic as a failure to acknowledge transfer of control from one side to the other when commencing the final approach at the FAF. The AP was presumably coupled to the Localizer with the throttles left at idle (auto-throttles failed to engage, disengaged or was never engaged?) resulting in the airspeed slowly bleeding off well below the target approach bug speed and the airplane settling well below GS (Red over Red on the PAPI) resulting in the stick shaker being actuated as the nose was rotated in a desperate attempt to initiate a go around 1.5 seconds prior to impact. It would appear that they both had their heads up and locked where the sun never shines throughout the approach until it was obvious they were going to land short. Then it was too little too late. The GS could easily have been approximated mentally using the ratio of 300ft per mile for the visual approach.

All of that was bad enough but then it was followed by an inexplicable 90 second delay in initiating the evacuation a time delay that exactly matches the minimum standard set for evacuation by the FAA for certification. Post crash fire is always the concern in evacuating surviving pax as quickly as possible. Reportedly these two pilots were talking on the radio to the tower using battery electrical power, a potential source of ignition of jet fuel spilling out of ruptured fuel tanks. Fire was in progress already according to the senior FA/Purser. All power should have been shutdown immediately and evacuation initiated.
auok
a u 1
The video looks like they were coming in at just the right altitude if the runway was at the same altitude as the water. Does the "Too Low Terrain" warning work over water? Maybe their brains got fooled with the visual clues?
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 1
Does anyone know the EGPWS threshold for SINK RATE, PULL UP warning?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
It may not always be the same. With EGPWS it will use the GPS for location so the sink rate may be different at different altitudes and different locations around the country and again for different a/c types.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Yes it will. The RA may show a little erratic, but still should have worked.
pmsurmanis
Peter Surmanis 4
Whoa- talk about taking a picture at the right time (not my picture):
just realized I have a picture of the actual crash. holy [obscenity deleted}. pic.twitter.com/5TnOX96Gsi
— stefanielaine (@stefanielaine) July 6, 2013
pilot62
Scott Campbell 4
You can see the exposed green pressurization cap, at the rear where the tail was,
shows how strong the fusalage really is, and I think proves the passsenger cabin remained in tact. Amazing that even passengers knew it was too low on approach. Going to
be tought one I imagine, unless the flight recorder has definitive proof.
vanstaalduinenj
Jon Van Staalduinen 4
I was a first responder at the air France crash at YYZ in 2005, and the preliminary pictures I just saw are very similar. It appears the cabin remained pretty much intact and passenger were able to exit before the fire. This appears to be a little more favorable as the chutes on the a340 failed to reach ground due to where the plane came to a rest in a creek bed valley with uneven ground. Many passengers had to jump from 5-10 metres to the ground. I realize it's preliminary but I suspect minimal if any casualties.
preacher1
preacher1 4
CNN just released a spotter video and interview; it shows nose high, and an end up flip that resembled a cartwheel.
dm831
Dave McCoy 3
My first reaction was how much worse this accident could have been, also given that the 747 was so close.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 2
Yeah, how would you like to be the pilots sitting there? Preacher, I'll bet that flip was from the port engine being sheared off.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Yes - I wonder if part of the spinning (if the pilot had much control, that is) could have been an attempt to avoid the 747?
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Angie...the tail and gear ripped off on first impact. The AC struck some debris which sent it up and turning on its wingtip for a 90 degree turn in the air after which it slammed down onto the dirt and quickly stopped. There are 3 areas of "clouds" 1. Initial impact 2. Tail crashes on runway 3. AC sliding in the dirt. The pilot had no control the moment that tail severed off. And about that United 747...it returned to the gate, changed crew and got back into the air.
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 2
Why do you keep saying you wish it was a fault with the machine itself? Are you saying you'd rather have hundreds of potentially at-risk 777's cruising around? These pilots deserve to be jailed alongside that cruise ship captain.
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 1
Sorry preacher, I meant for this to be in reply to your comment to bentwing.
AONeal79
AONeal79 3
Consider the perspective of a layperson, though. ANY approach over water is going to feel "too low." I've had the same thought myself coming in to DCA.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, it's obvious he landed short. Reason why is the question. I hope they don't take long with the CVR and FDR, and as bad as the crash is, I hope they find a mechanical or external problem rather than pilot error.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -2
Here's what I'm SPECULATING. I had to put that in bold letters because I'm not trying to be the big man here like some of these people that joined FA 2 minutes ago and are googling and posting. I wonder if they had a problem on final and he was just trying to get that thing on the runway as fast as he could, misjudged it and hit the wall with the gear or tail. I know there was no emergency call prior to landing, BUT there is the language barrier and the culture that has to be taken into account...
HerrThor
HerrThor 1
Hi Thrustt, very nice dog and your comments are very cool! In another link of flight aware there is a conversation between Asiana and ATC, one can hear a "what happened", then "I'm in trouble", ATC answers "...heavy emergency vehicules are in the runway". Could that be the Asiana flight?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
If it was the same one I listened to, the ATC identified the flight as 214 in regards to the vehicles.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
Thanks,I don't know,I didn't hear it.
lvdudeman
lvdudeman 0
Listen to the ATC again Thrustt, 7 miles old, no issues, cleared to land, no issues. You can hear another controller in the background say something like, "what happened over there". Then the controller goes into overdrive. My SPECULATION is the pilot screwed up.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 0
I heard that too and there was 1 full minute before Asiana called the tower which had by then already dispatched the trucks. The post landing PA's informed they had landed and instructed the passengers to remain seated. Only when they saw the fire did they egress.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
So there you go, the crew wasn't communicating which kind of supports my comment above...
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
Ditto.... This crew had a lot of communication issues.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
I did acknowledge there was no emergency call prior to landing, and I gave reason to why I was wondering. Read the last two lines in the comment.
sparkie624
sparkie624 5
I cannot buy the Language Barrier... It is international law that every Licensed Pilot and Licensed Mechanic to "Read, Speak, and understand the English language fluently".

Ref: FAA Rules and Regs: 60-28 - English Language Skill Standards Required by 14 CFR Parts 61, 63 and 65

If he can't do it, then he is not legal to fly anywhere in the world. Don't like it tough luck.

A german controller (having a bad day) once asked "Why do I have to speak english when I am at a German Airport, controlling a German Airplane". A BA Captain answered him very simply: "Because you lost the war".
JD345
JD345 4
For what it's worth, I couldn't understand a word the dude was saying.

I thought it was funny though, when Fox played the clip with the supposed transcript on screen ... most of even what the controller was saying was "inaudible" and they messed up some pretty basic stuff. Granted, pilots and controllers do talk a mile a minute and the uninitiated have little hope of understanding, and even if they could hear it, it's all pretty esoteric... but when they transcribe "Runway 28L" as "Runway to your left" I don't think they're even trying. It's been 24 hours and I'm already about sick of hearing these media dinks slaughter aviation lingo.
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 3
From flight instructing to flying jets internationally I always shake my head at what passes for "fluent". I like your attitude but it just isn't how the real world of flying works.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Sparkie624, have you ever heard the Kennedy ground controller trying to converse with China Air? No, not ALL foreign carriers have English proficiency.
Sanderjay
John Sander 1
Hey Sparkie, I agree with you that the language barrier has nothing to do with this sad crash. But your statement stating that by international law all pilots and mechanics have to read speak and understand English fluently is absolutely wrong.
Since when does a pilot from Brasil have to speak English to get licensed??? Or any other non-english speaking country for that matter? the answer is that they don't. And that is in accordance with international aviation law! However flying internationally is a different matter. And although ICAO has instituted English language fluency tests, the reality is that you would be hard pressed to understand the English spoken by foreign nationals flying in international airspace and by ATC in these countries,providing international service. BTW the English spoken by a lot ofKorean pilots is terrible and can be barely understood, if at all. At least it is somewhat better than before when the only English spoken by a lot of pilots and controllers was ICAO english. You would never have been able to have a conversation with them as they only spoke and responded to the aviation words and phrases mandated by ICAO.
The situation is further complicated when foreign pilots fly into the US where the words and phrases used by Americans are completely different that the words and phrases mandated by ICAO. In other words non-standard R/T is used in US airspace as compared to rest of the world. As you can imagine, this poses a challenge to english challenged pilots flying to the US and is a factor in pilot-controller miscommunication and busted clearances. And that is because the USA uses non-standard R/T compared to the standard R/T used by the rest of the world.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The US system was in existence and entrenched decades before ICAO created international 'standards'. If it were so important for the standards to be the same everywhere, they should've just adopted the US system. Most of the world's aviation is patterned after the example set by US aviation. It was stupid for ICAO to depart so radically from the US example, at least if the case is being made that there should be more uniformity.

[This poster has been suspended.]

AONeal79
AONeal79 -2
They're not flying into US airspace.

[This poster has been suspended.]

sparkie624
sparkie624 3
It is INTERNATIONAL LAW. They have to... Some don't but it is still the law. You probably have gone faster than the speed limit, you know it was illegal, but sometimes you are lucky and sometimes you get caught. But it is still the law.
aircmdr
Some are. Although English is the accepted International Aviation Language, many countries allow their pilots, citizens of their country to speak the native language. Certainly gets confusing to many other pilots
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
Of course they are, try listening to Air China communicating with YYZ and CLE center over BUF!!!
HerrThor
HerrThor 0
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
English as the ICAO language doesn't mean much, there is a bad problem with the language barrier...
preacher1
preacher1 2
It is required but the language barrier IS a big problem. In country or not, at major hubs and airports overseas, you got aircraft from multiple countries. There has got to be something common.
preacher1
preacher1 1
It is required but the language barrier IS a big problem. In country or not, at major hubs and airports overseas, you got aircraft from multiple countries. There has got to be something common.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Forgive me for being rude... If they cannot speak it, don't fly it. I have to work with mechanics who speak broken english... Sometimes I have to tell them to have an english person to call me. If you can't do the job, get another one. Speaking English FLUENTLY is critical to safety and if you cannot do it, get out until you can. Touch luck and I don't feel bad for those who can't
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
To correct some terminology here, that green Pressurization cap is called a "Pressure Bulkhead" The FDR and CVR both have positive proof. They screwed up.
skykingsdtr
Daughter Sky King 0
From NBC's helicopter video, you can see where something hit the ground and dragged the entire way.

The intact vertical stabilizer and both horizontal stabilizers can be seen laying on the runway.
http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=275275
mech986
Bartley Yee -1
If you look at the pics of the right side of the aircraft, the rear section underside looks splayed open forward of the tail section that is gone. Consistent with the tail strike, loss of tail. What I'm thinking is how did the 2 dead passengers (and more) end up outside of the plane? I think what may have happened is the tail and rear section struck, opening up something, and as the nose hit, the rear section went up again and if the rear compartment was opened, it shed passengers out while bouncing down the runway. Possibly pulled out via the rear pressure dome section as well?

the two dead chinese students were said to have been at or near the rear. Question though is one survivor stated the flight attendant seated at the rear was pinned by an inward deployment of the door chute until it was physically moved so she could be released from her jump seat. No one said they could see outside (at least no comment).

So could the bottom of the rear of the plane been torn out and dropped away with passengers in their seats, or unbelted passengers ejected from below? No sign that there was any direct cabin intrusion or openings for passengers to be ejected?

Or did these passengers get injured, managed to get out, then collapsed? Trauma has a way of causing strange internal injuries and it can happen (torn blood vessels, etc.).
rfsahae
rfsahae 2
ILS glideslope was out, by NOTAM. They were too low and too slow. Did they have recent training landing under visual conditions with PAPI or just by eyeballing it? Any pilot must be able to land by visual reference!

NTSB will be looking into training, and how rested they were. NTSB says crew member called for power 7 seconds before crash, did they get power or was there an engine problem? One passenger said plane was so low that engines were kicking up water, which would have been invisible to crew.... did that affect power developed? Most accidents have more than one cause. Remains to be seen.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 2
Too low and too slow with portions of the underside of the tail section found embedded in the stones of the seawall and in the water.
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 2
Wow what a thread, so many possibilities and the data is changing rapidly... I'm as guilty a anyone of forming opinions, let the FAA sort it out. One puzzles me, the BBC reported this was the first landing at SFO for the Pilot. So was it a trainee riding with the 8000-10,000 hour veteran... Who was flying the plane? Has the other engine found buried under the fuselage or is it still missing?
ahbeja
Jason Ahbe 2
Although early on in the investigation the cause is most likely due to pilot error rather than an aircraft malfunction we must also look at the South Korean culture and how individuals interact with each other. If you recall a little more than a decade ago South Korean airlines suffered many crashes as the result of pilot error and the lack of communication between the captain, first officer, and other crew members. In addition, in reference to Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" chapter 7 he discusses how Korean culture affected how cockpit emergencies were handled. Furthermore, if you examine Trompenaars cultural dimension measurement of "power distance" South Korea ranks in the highest category. Due to their culture, it is common for persons of lower authority not to question a higher authority or higher ranking persons because of disrespect. As a result of the crashes Korean airlines had to completely redesign their pilot training programs and further educate them on Crew Resource Management and to speak up to the pilot flying the aircraft if a situation is deteriorating despite the pilots higher experience or ranking. This should definitely be investigated as a contributing factor to the cause of the recent accident of Asiana flight 214.
dazsworld
Daz Weir 2
Someone please tell the non-aviator news anchors to shut the hell up. They have no idea what they are talking about in regards to their speculation into the cause of the accident. Obviously airspeed is the issue, however, the BS is getting old.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
No need for concern. It is one of the safest aircraft types in use today, and in the history of aviation. If you listen to the NTSB briefings, you will hear that that all the avionics and aircraft systems are operating as expected and without deviation from the norm.

I wish the same could be said for the pilots charged with keeping the aircraft flying. I had been hoping for an external explanation such as a wind shear microburst, to help explain the difficulty of the pilots to maintain the proper approach altitude and sufficient aircraft speed to maintain flight.

But if any large aircraft is falling for many minutes (intentionally as in this case) or inadvertently, with the engines in idle, and the pilots only apply thrust below 100 ft, it is unlikely for the engines to be able to supply enough power to be able to lift the aircraft BEFORE the aircraft strikes the ground. 

If the aircraft is over a runway or other flat ground with sufficient distance to bring the aircraft to a stop, no problem. In this case, the aircraft was over a body of water with a seawall between tbeir position and the runway that would allow to return to the ground without an extraordinary incident.

1. The pilots primarily failed to monitor airspeed (and altitude).
2. They also failed to discontinue approach and perform a go-around in sufficient time to Allie the aircraft to avoid crashing.
3. Before that, they failed to put the aircraft in a stabilized approach, well in advance of touching down. Ideally, the rate of descent and the amount of thrust should reach an equilibrium in advance and not need last minute corrective action.

Not only did this approach require last minute intervention to bring the aircraft to the runway, but monitoring of the basics of flight (altitude, airspeed) were insufficient for even a novice pilot, and the actions taken were too few and too late.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 2
Third person dies from injuries: A child who was critically injured in Saturday's crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 died Friday morning from her injuries, San Francisco General Hospital.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 2
They did not know that they had to correct until it was too late which still makes me believe they were not paying attention to their job. This is not the type of accident that we should be having in 2013.
germanji
Brandon Sewell 2
NTSB briefing just now summarized CVR and FDR data. Sounds like pilots allowed the aircraft to slow below target speed for approach, stick shaker activated and go around called for seconds prior to impact with the sea wall.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
I can understand the attitude many US aviators have toward automation, and the potential detrimental effect automation may have on aviator skills. How can you have a country with the majority of commercial airline pilots are afraid of performing a manual landing? There must be a review of the training and on-going maintenance of basic skills of all commercial airline pilots, particularly in Korea, but elsewhere as well. Anywhere, where pilots do most of their flying with automation and allow themselves and their skills to get lazy.

Overreliance on automation can and does lead to deterioration of skills and situation awareness. A concerted effort needs to be in place to counter that naturally occurring phenomenon. These kinds of accidents should not be happening in this day and age, on beautiful days with clear weather. It is bad enough that there is the occasional irrecoverable incident, that no matter what the pilots do, they will not prevent a crash (either because a load shift, or last-minute wind shear, etc.) Sometimes, you just run out of sky.

But incidents such as Asiana 214 and Air France 447 should just not be happening. Two perfectly good airplanes filled with passengers were crashed to the ground because of insufficient sutuatikzl awareness and insufficient action by the pilots to prevent preventable accidents.

The only commonality is that the pilots were Airbus pilots. All the Air Frsnce pilots were flying A330 type. Even the pilot flying on the Asiana 777 had spent the last few years on the A320, and only recently switched back to Boeing, and was iniating his flying of 777 type. The instructor pilot spent the kast several years on the type and should be intimately familiar with all 777 controls and approaches. There is no excuse for him not to intervene sooner, or at least to monitor the basics (altitude, airspeed) and advise the flying pilot to take appropriate action. There should have been more urgency to rectify the situation sooner, especially given that the pattern was that they were falling through the glide path, getting increasing closer to the ground and away from a landing at the prescribed location on the intended runway.

The approach should gave been aborted, and a second attempt made at landing with a controlled approach. This unstable approach meant that the monitoring and last minute corrective actions of these pilots needed to be perfect to avoid disaster. We now know thar their performance was anything but perfect.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 2
Focusing on the human aspect of the accident; this was a terrible and sad event that really shouldn't have happened....thoughts and prayers for everyone involved.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 2
Only 634 comments? You people can do better! Lots of opinions, some informed, lots of data, charts, facts, and figures all important to determine how to avoid accidents in the future. The NTSB will piece it all together.

One comment Sparkie made about using English in the cockpit and the hanger needs to be explored more. Everyone involved in aviation should use a common language. English is the best choice because of its ability to render rich descriptions and create words as necessary, and abbreviations that are easily remembered. English for all its faults is the most descriptive and communicative language in wide use.

Many cultures borrow words from English because it is more easily understood than constructs in their own language. Translation from English to other languages is very difficult because often there is no expression in the foreign language that represents directly the English meaning.

Language and culture can create problems where respect of elders, and the inability to say NO directly can contribute to chaos in the cockpit and cab (where air traffic controllers work.) Confucian societies find it difficult culturally to tell a person that they are doing something wrong. They hold their tongue if the person has higher status or is older.

I am most concerned that foreign pilots are speaking English to ATC, but speak to each other in their native language. This is where miscommunication can occur because the same word in a foreign language can mean several things in English.

I think it is wonderful people can speak more than one language, it makes for greater understanding of culture and art, but I do think all communication between crew members on both sides of the cockpit door should be conducted in English

It looks more and more that this accident turns on 15 feet of altitude, and the inability of the FO to instruct the senior PC on correct operation of the aircraft systems.



AONeal79
AONeal79 2
Patrick Smith's take (author of Cockpit Confidential)
http://www.askthepilot.com/sfo-asiana-crash/
Doobs
Dee Lowry 2
With the advanced technology in today's Aircraft, is "Automation Addiction" becoming a detriment to commercial airline pilots? Are pilots forgetting how to fly? How to recover in a serious situation using the "Hands on" method of flying? Crew Resource Management should be a mandatory requirement for all flight crews, foriegn and domestic, cockpit and cabin crews. Keep "Culture" etiquette out of the cockpit and cabin. And give Flight Attendants the authority to initiate an evacuation. UAL implemented that authority to us years ago. 90 seconds to wait for a cockpit command to evac is beyond my comprehension. If the Flight Attendants initiated the evac immediately, there might have been a different ending to this unfortuane accident. These Flight Attendants did an outstanding job!
distar97
Dennis Harper 2
If the airplane had no faults then it comes down to one of the first rules I learned in flight school and it applies to everything from hot air balloons to 777's.
Bad Approach = Bad Landing.
JD345
JD345 1
Complacency kills.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Pilot at controls had 47 hours on the B777. Maiden flight. Asiana Airlines said the pilot in charge of landing the Boeing 777, Lee Kang-kook, was training for the long-range plane and it was his first flight to that airport with the jet. Asiana Airlines said he had previously flown to San Francisco on different planes and was being assisted by another pilot more experienced with the Boeing 777.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Lewis, have you ever had something go wrong while flying an airplane?
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
smh....really sorry about that
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
1.5 seconds.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
JD345
JD345 2
We're all humans, and we all make mistakes regardless of our best efforts. I'm not a pilot but I do have a safety-intense job where a moment's lapse of attention can kill people. You can never become complacent even when you've done something a million times.

We'll see what the cause is when the investigation is complete, but if it does come back to pilot error it will not be the first and will not be the last.
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 1
Thank you....
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
If this PIC had flown to SFO in "other aircraft", surely they were also heavies and landed on the same runway, which suggests he was familiar with the major factors affecting this flight.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
The pilot "has a lot of experience" and previously flown a Boeing 747 to San Francisco's airport.

The airline says Lee, who started his career at Asiana as an intern in 1994, has 9,793 hours of flying experience, but only 43 hours with the Boeing 777 jet.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 2
Looking at Incheon International Airport Departures it appears that all Asiana 747 are 747-400s. Their recommended approach speed is 157 knots vs. 137 knots for 777-200ER that crashed. It should be even more alarming to the pilot that he has lost the airspeed.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Overcompensation?
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 1
I do not think so. Their speed was ok until ~56 seconds before impact when the pilot started correcting the sink rate by pulling up the nose. He should have added power at the same time to avoid dropping speed, but he waited over 40 seconds until the stall warning kicked in. Times are approximate based on the FA log.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Or had he spent the first 5 hrs doing "training", then flew while being "instructed". Lot of stress there.

And why didn't the more experienced pilot take the plane back. Instead he is heard on the recorder saying "There is trouble".
AONeal79
AONeal79 2
This just keeps getting sadder to me, now that things are pointing towards human factors and psychology, partially because at least mechanical failures seem so much more cut and dry. I hope the pilots are disclosing everything so we can learn as much as possible, thereby preventing a similar accident.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Bet they are. Within hours of the accident, the President of Asiana made a statement saying the problem was not mechanical. He then apologized to the families.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Agreed - that statement (and the short timeframe it took to make it) IS pretty telling.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Should have added - the non-mechanical bit, to me, is telling. The apology I would have expected (with variations on wording) no matter the cause.
mariescreations
Jerry Rader 1
I think that the number of hours in pilots log book does not indicate his proficiency in the case of these heavies where the flight typically takes 10 to 12 hours to complete. It would not take many flights to accumulate 43 hours. The more important statistic may be his number of approaches and landings in type. The second pilot in the cockpit is equally at fault. As a team, they should work together and if the airplane gets ahead of one member, the other one should not just "let him learn by experience" so he doesn't make the same mistake again. A pilot carrying passengers must be responsible and take his responsibility seriously.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That's what it sounds like to me. Everything happened in less than 5 seconds. Even calling the go round and shoving power, that ain't enough time for spool up and full power
preacher1
preacher1 4
Bentwing60, you're out of luck bud. As you, I was hopin' it wasn't so but this appears to be right in the crew's lap.
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Beer's on me and I ate the crow yesterday , with salt & pepper & plenty of catsup. Still can't quite wrap my noggin around how a qualified crew, in ideal VMC, can get that far behind the power curve and not see any of it till that late. Guess it's better than having 1100 some odd 777's in question, but, as they say, you just can't make this stuff up. I'll get under the bus now. See Ya.
germanji
Brandon Sewell 3
"significantly less than 137kts target speed...not talking about a few knots" strong words from the NTSB
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
She was allergic to the word STALLED the A/C
preacher1
preacher1 3
Big question still is though, what happened to let them get that slow in the first place? Wind, head up the hiney, or what
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
they may have just been suffering from fatigue...disengaged the auto-throttle and just forgot about the speed aspect until it was clear that they weren't going to make the runway....the stall was a result of them trying to clear the seawall.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 1
I couldn't agree more. Fatigue? Distraction? I was thinking possibly a bird strike, but the NTSB kind of put the kyboshes on that.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
They were on a visual approach... The Auto Throttles would not have been engaged in that mode of flight
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
You're posting a lot, are you even a pilot???
RobSJC
Clement Roberts 4
While CNN not reporting fatalities or injuries .. A friend and Senior Security Officer at Stanford University Hospital has told me, they have had helicopters bringing in patients from SFO
ArthurWohlers
Arthur Wohlers 3
Watched an early live shot from news helicopter that showed clear impact with breakwater and junk on rocks and in the water. Tail pieces are 500' after impact ( but before displaced threshold - came in way too low!). Suspect right landing gear at breakwater. Left mains (?) look to be on runway ~800' after impact. Suspect one set of swerving tracks are nose gear?
BeachComer
Beach Comer 3
Old info (tail). It's definitely off, however, both wings are on and the tail coming off anytime except after the mains were on the runway would be a no-survivors pitchover and auger in as aircraft are balanced slightly nose heavy for proper dynamic pitch stability.

Looking at the pix from overhead, it looks like an attic fire that broke out, no fuel involved but top of the aircraft is burnt out. Wings are intact.
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 1
Best forensics I've read on this thread yet. Cheers.
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown 3
What I find mind boggling about this accident are the pictures of passengers evacuating the burning aircraft carrying luggage. It appears that almost half the passengers took time to grab their carry-on! How stupid can people be? Look at this picture in addition to luggage some idiot lugged two large shopping bags off the aircraft. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=393431874111860&set=pb.226324334155949.-2207520000.1373168145.&type=3&theater
pthomas745
Pa Thomas 3
Love how many people in this thread are "members from just a few minutes ago".
kiwipop
Geoff Arkley 3
"Some Idiot" might be an understatement Kevin. A friend of mine tells the story of being a flight attendant who was involved in a "Get Everyone Out" in 90 seconds on a 747. The first woman down the chute failed to remove high heels and punctured the chute. Five or six subsequent passengers broke their ankles as a result of this one total moron. The fun part of the story is that the buzzing suitcase that caused it was an electric razor.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 3
Wait a second, I would guess that a landing hard enough to snap off the tail would also cause the overhead bins to fall or open. The passengers might have grabbed their bags to clear the way.

There was also a sizable number of students on board travelling together. It is probably the first time they have flown or been near an airport. Their tender age and inexperience as well as a language barrier wants to make me look the other way on this one.
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 0
I believe it to be a reasonable question to ask whether the "total moron" was the FA or the high heel wearer? We've absolved individuals of responsibility in this society. If the FA did not instruct the wearer to remove the heels, who was the root cause? Some of us foresee the consequences of our actions; most do not....
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Six years for me, but hey, we all have to start somewhere, right?
HerrThor
HerrThor 1
Only three years for me, but I look very much the posts by Thrustt and Preacher1.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Think of it as "FA discovered", lots of free advertizing.
Of course there is also, "there goes the neigborhood".
2 years, just a newbie
preacher1
preacher1 2
About 7 for me. Yeah Angie, we all gotta start but there are a whole lot that have joined and jumped in here as a result of the crash and are all of a sudden EXPERTS.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
Preach on Preacherman, I'll put you back in the positive...
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
there's you thumbs up too...lol
eater1952
Kent Thompson 1
A whole lot of nonsense, because of the fact that 7-9 people doesn't constitute a "whole lot that have joined and jumped in here as a result of the crash."
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
They actually may be experts, just new to FlightAware...
BeachComer
Beach Comer 2
Old info being repeated (tail came off in flight as causative). If the tail came off in the air, there would be a crater and no survivors, it would have pitched over instantly and gone straight in, as aircraft are balanced slightly nose-heavy for positive static and dynamic stability. No tail downforce keeping the nose up would have spelled instant disaster.

Plane is right side up and mostly in one piece. Wings are intact, doesn't appear fuel was involved in the fire unless center tank minor amount.

Speculation: Looks more like a classic attic fire. In this case, loss of control due to smoke could account for a hard landing, tail coming off at that time, and off-runway excursion.
Steve1822
Steve1822 2
Rick Hunt ends his post with ATP & 35 years as a CFI. Most pro pilots I know would never post such predictions. At the most they would post known facts and let the informed reader make conclusions. I no real facts, no predications or accusations and waiting for a preliminary statement of findings from the NTSB. This is what (real) professional would do.
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 2
I am hopeful that some high resolution photography or videos surface that shows the accident unfold. Considering the number of spotters out there and the number of people uploading photos of seemingly every flight to FlightAware and elsewhere, it seems inevitable. If anyone comes across this, please post a reply with the link.
Flyingmartian1
Flyingmartian1 2
The FAA's Citation "N3" just landed at SFO. I presume this is the NTSB's Go Team.
kiwipop
Geoff Arkley 2
Anyone find the very bottom line of this interesting.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog
When a plane is descending on final shouldn't the little orange arrows continue showing descent rather than ascent? Or, does this log tell us that he was trying to regain altitude? Just wondering!
dm831
Dave McCoy 2
Might be just an anomaly but from Flightaware data plane tried to climb at last second....

07:27PM 37.6103 -122.355 298° West 109 125 100 -120 Descending FlightAware
07:28PM 37.617 -122.374 294° West 85 98 200 120 Climbing FlightAware
Ninaboens
Lucas Jr 2
I think the engine we are seeing to the right side is actually the left engine. Look at the angle of the nose of the plane is pointing to. If it slid on the ground at this angle, then the right engine should have been thorn behind the right wing. Also, look at the mount on the engine - it is oriented away from the fuselage. If this was the right engine, the mount should be oriented toward the fuselage. It appears that the right engine is the one missing (maybe it broke off at water's edge), and that the plane slid on the ground and rolled over the left engine which came to rest on the right site of the fuselage.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 1
I compared the tracking information from the previous day to this day's on Flightaware. Today's flight had a rapid sink rate while of final compared to the day before. Of course, Flightaware's data isn't official, more of a guideline.

The aircraft was not aligned correctly either.

This incident is eerily similar to BA 38. Just saying...
MultiComm
Spencer McLennan 1
Keep in mind this reports are in hundreds of feet...it could have pinged the "100" when the aircraft really at say 90 feet and then approx 10-15 seconds (based on 4-5 pings per minute) later the attempted go-around OR the tail hit resulting in the nose popping up could have pinged the "200" with the aircraft at 110 feet. [Gross estimations of course]

It all depends on where the transponder antenna is and the exact timing of the pings.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
I invite your attention to the Reuters pictures here:

http://preview.reuters.com/2013/7/6/gallery-san-francisco-plane-crash?topic=united-states

You can see the #1 engine under the wing.

Horrifying I read in Singapore Strait Times that when striking the breakwater flight attendants were thrown through the rear pressure bulkhead. May God have mercy.
Ninaboens
Lucas Jr 1
Missing engine found! See photo on CNN gallery showing this engine on the right side of the runway. There is actually a large patch of burnt grass where this engine is. This photograph is consistent with the interpretation that the engine resting next to the fuselage is actually the left side engine (engine 1):

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us/gallery/san-fransisco-plane-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
HBFlyer
HBFlyer 0
Very similar to BA 38. Ice crystals in the fuel line.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 0
Apologies, Bentwing. Didn't mean to copy your quote.
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 0
CNN's Richard Quest declared it pilot error around 2p PT yesterday, while the plane was still burning, so he had everyone beat.
rgeisel
rgeisel 3
Another testimony not to watch CNN....totally irresponsible.
rgeisel
rgeisel 1
Do some research on Mr. Quest before you quote him as a reliable resource: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/richard-quest-cnn-reporte_n_97466.html
A tad kinky to say the least.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Since when does kink = unreliable?
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Kink will only occur if the person is "reliABLE..."
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
I have been saying that since yesterday.... LOL, could not be more obvious. I hope the NTSB puts together a good animation like they did for Colgan Q400 over Buffalo.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
I just saw one on the news but I couldn't find it to post.....Preacher said they are supposed to a preliminary report around 3....The video does depict the plane striking the sea wall nose high.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
Also there's no such thing as a Certified Flight Instructor, it's Certificated...
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Yep, saw that. Possible attempt at aborted landing? Or getting out of a stall?
pdixonj
pdixonj 0
It's possible that they realized they were too low as they approached the runway end and tried to stop the descent, but we don't know if it was a glidepath error or if some mechanical problem occurred that caused them to come in so low.
silaxo1
Art Buller 0
Fire came into the aircraft from the outside.
silaxo1
Art Buller 2
Pretty tough to climb out of a stall.
preacher1
preacher1 3
AF447 proved that
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I think he was in a stall.... Even if the tail had struck during landing he would have not collapsed the gear that bad.... This guy hit HARD... If he had a normal approach path, but fell short he probably would not have lost the tail or the gear. He got to slow and low, stalled and no time to recover.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre -1
Yeah, I saw that and didn't know what to make of it. It was like it was too low for a couple of minutes before landing. Weird.
Steve1822
Steve1822 2
Hopefully no more fatalities. Gotta love the media. They try to come across as so knowledgeable, even when ignorant of the facts, which unfortunately to the lay person take as the facts and truth. Based on one witness saying the tail hit first, debris and strike marks beginning at or before the rocks at waters edge and beginning of displaced threshold and looking at rapid change in ground speed on flighaware at 300 feet and below? Thoughts go out to the family of the two passengers that didn't make it.

[This poster has been suspended.]

silaxo1
Art Buller 0
I think the speeds will be real close with radar antenna on the SFO field.
jeffprui
Jeff Pruitt 0
Great find! Thanks..
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 2
Note that it's SOP for fighting an airliner fire for the trucks to slice the top of the plane off with the water cannon to get the smoke and fumes out of the cabin. That's likely why the roof is gone.
DMenscha
Bill Schmiett 3
Well that is just simply not true. The pressure vessel can withstand a whole lot more force than can be applied by a stream of water. Not to mention, if it could, one would be slicing passengers in half. Once the cabin doors open and the slides deploy, the smoke layer escapes there.

The overhead of the plane is gone because the fire burned through it on the starboard side.

Standard firefighting procedure is an acronym. RECEO. Rescue, Exposure, Containment, Extinguishment, Overhaul.

First unit on scene is (did) lay a layer of foam to protect against the possibility of a large amount of fuel igniting especially in the areas where passengers are evacuating. Then go for a direct attack on the areas of visible flame.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Yeah, I never heard of that crap myself, you would kill the damn passengers in the process!!!
gkkevorkian
Gary Kevorkian -4
I think the left over fuel left under center fuselage burnt in center tank.
The bay is a few hundred feet from threshold of runway. The pilot on a visual approach misjudged his landing point and touched down with his tail first due to high pitch up to avoid landing in the bay. The pilot might have applied full power to go around due to I stabilized approach but it was too late the tail broke off which resulted in LOC loss of control.
Thankfully most passengers survived, I hope. The airplane has really taken a lot of beating and passengers came out alive....pilots need to be questioned with the flight data recorder.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Geez.. Lets not get this Center Fuel tank crap going again... it was that phoney story that has plagued TWA 800....
yr2012
matt jensen -2
Agreed, but we use foam
MultiComm
Spencer McLennan 2
Is there anyway to remove inaccurate photos...there is one that is not the aircraft at all and another that incorrect "maps" the touchdown and resting place of the aircraft
W3DRM
Don McRoberts 1
I'm not a pilot but have noticed that the day prior (7/5/13) to this incident the same flight (AAR214) appears to have made an aborted landing. The FlightAware history logs shows the initial approach and then at around 1900 feet, they started pulling up for a go around. Thirteen minutes later they landed.

You can find that landing at the following link:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130705/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog

Just wondering if anyone else had noticed this?

Don
keithsroberts
Keith Roberts 1
Pilot interviews indicated they thought the AutoThrottle was engaged...and it was not. Airspeed was not in the pilot's scan which accounts for the wild elevation changes. Final telemetry release and NTSB findings will be interesting; but clearly CRM and oversight of a short-time 777 driver are evident. Thank God only 3 souls were lost.

This is a safe ship IMHO. First casualties on US soil EVER...and it looks like pilot error.
I would fly one tomorrow, but not a 787.
209flyboy
209flyboy 1
Unfortunately a third has died, a child.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Here's the computer generated video of the final approach with a comparison of what the final should have been. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1396882603859485
Pilotblueca
Rob Beck 1
big boo boo
auok
a u 1
CNN just showed some amateur video of plane as it crashed.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 1
cnn.com homepage has two actual videos of the accident by spotters.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
distant shot of aircraft on final
jfertic
John Fertic 1
Could be an issue with wake turbulence? I read another 777 approached and landed about one minute before Fight 214. It could explain why 214 was short and to the right of the center line. I understand the winds were light during the 214 decent, approach, and landing. Maybe the wind only moved the wake turbulence down the runway towards the seawall and not off the runway left or right.
johnnydue
johnny due 1
Robert Rauchfleisch (below) tells us of his experience with an unusual landing due to sudden sidewinds seconds before the 214 crash!
johnnydue
johnny due 1
Isn't this a tailwind-incident? Or downwind? Given a 3 degree slope of approach and the fact tha the plane hit ground level approximately 1000 feet early, the plane was some 50 feet to low when it passed the seawall. Pilot fatigue isn't the first thing that comes to mind considering that they have had a 10 hour flight behind them with plenty of time to sleep. They are likely to have followed normal procedure flawlessly and then whoops, too low, nose up, no good, stall, Bang!
elroy85750
elroy85750 1
Any discussion about a possible bird strike?
Pileits
Pileits 1
Mr Jacobs, like it or not that headline is accurate. The NTSB NEVER rushes to judgement like you seemed to have done.
danishnelson
Danish Nelson 1
I think what matters the most out of all this dilemma, is the fact the 300 lives where saved & nobody got hurt so badly in the sense that once the injured recover, they can walk away.
cwfmd
cwfmd 1
No mention of sink rate warning by NTSC
Anybody know when this goes off or other gpss?
If so is it triggered from radar altitude, gps, fms?
Over relatively water is a setup for disorienting illusion similar to "black hole illusion" at night
benjammin
Ben Talbot 1
It's rather surprising to me how much information Asiana Airlines is publicly releasing. Kinda seems to me like they are throwing the pilot in command under the bus. Not sure if it is the media, or the airline that is really highlighting his 43 hours in a 777 and that this was his first landing at KSFO in a 777. Seems like his 9K hours in other aircraft is really being downplayed...
Pilot error may very well be the cause of the accident (I personally believe it is highly likely), but it kinda makes me sad to see this pilot being thrown under the bus so bad publicly.
EVM
Eugene Melekh 1
I'm sorry...
sheka
mark tufts 1
it is surprising that alot survived this crash kudos to the pilots who did a great job
tommyleeyyz
T K 1
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Is there another source for up-to-date information that DOESN'T include calls for non-pilots to be excluded from the board and suggestions that questions are unwelcome?

(This is not sarcasm. I really am seeking out add'l sources.)
aircmdr
Everyone is a Monday morning quarterback. The Captain was behind the power curve. And one of the worse problems with this type of crash is the media and their ignorance in their reporting.
mjl1966
mike lawrence 1
Are/were the PAPI lights broken? Everybody keeps talking about the ILS, which was out of service and various workarounds with the FMC. Visual approach using the PAPI seems the most sensible thing to me. Simple, works fine, lasts long time. Any thoughts?
cwfmd
cwfmd 1
There are good questions, and some good answers, here on FA. It's much better than CNN.
Tom Wolfe described a syndrome called the 'right stuff'(RS). Young pilots, usually, with around a few hundred hours, develop lots of excessive confidence and bravado. RS is a defense mechanism, saying..., 'that could only happen to him, or her, not me'. With more experience they realize certain illusions, visual and vestibular, can completely disorient
the best pilot.
I suggest, given the current NTSB releases, this was a visual over-water illusion, of height and vertical speed disorientation, caused by "lack of ground rush cues" which disoriented all four pilots. I would have loaded the GPS 28L(IF IT EXISTS?) procedure into the GPS or FMS for GLIDE SLOPE cues. NTSB chair's press conf (Monday afternoon) seems to indicate all sink rate/terrain warnings were off, because of landing config? This could be an excellent learning point, to add a "minute to live cue". In USN we trained never to let the vertical speed exceed the AGL altitude- here MSL works just as well...
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 1
The pilot of AAR214 was in training---see the New York Times
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 1
The San Mateo coroner Robert Foucrault hopes to have a report on the possible run over of one of the Chinese girls tomorrow.
SEnVel
SEn Vel 1
Is it possible that instead of pulling the stick, if they just continue to land, the aircraft will be intact and it is a simple hard landing ?
isardriver
isardriver 1
mr. gradzki/mr. lundgren, thank you and some of the others for the analysis. while i am not a pilot, but an aviation enthusiast, i appreciate these technical insights. as i try to learn as much as i can about flying, having only completed ground school and a few flying hours back in the late 70's/early 80's as my "grass cutting money could no longer cover the expenses of a pilots license (16 yrs old), i am beginning to learn more and more every day (not just because of this incident, but just in general). your posts, as well as a few others have shed plausible light onto why certain things happen and what actions may be taken to rectify an issue/event. i appreciate your diligent research as well as some of the other "posters". thank you
JimSpensley
Jim Spensley 1
The question that needs to be asked is "Was the originally steep descent and the low speed at the end directed or assumed by the ATCT?" Two reasons that this is pertinent: 1] It is wrong to assume the pilot was altogether free to do the approach by the charts without the glide-slope indicator; 2] it has not been reported what operations had been just beforehand on R28L -- perhaps intervals were too short or slow to clear the runway or in the way of a go-around or the possibility of wake turbulence, or a delayed communication.

The NTSB on July 1 wrote the FAA that it is unsafe to operate arrivals at minimum separations without allowing for a go-around into clear airspace (intersecting runways or runway headings or the possibility of a go-around overtaking a same-runway departure all are risky. High peak rates and congestion are not "efficient," but actually require more resources for less safety margin.
mpradel
Marcus Pradel 1
ogivati
Ofer Givati 1
Aviation industry should build another layer of flight competence, where all flight information are continuously uploaded (via SATCOM) onto autopilot removed from the aircraft, having an overriding capability. Pilots should not attempt taking off and landing manually when there are passengers onboard. The notion that human judgment is safer must be outdated.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 1
Elizabeth Robillard-amazing!
vanstaalduinenj
Jon Van Staalduinen 1
Is there any fact/truth at all to support that one of the victims was run over by rescue? That is a bold rumor to float out there
DavidHowells
David Howells 1
Obviously we haven't heard from the flight deck crew yet but aren't there enough similarities between this incident and the same aircraft type of BA at LHR 5 years ago to get authorities concerned about the aircraft type? In the BA crash an experienced crew couldn't get additional power when under-shooting at the last minute and landed short.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Asiana Flight 214 KSFO Final Approach was just posted as a new squawk with an overlay map/photo. Good visual. Check it out.
carregosa
Concordo perfeitamente. Todas as normas de treinamento desse pessoal (principalmente dos oriundos do Airbus - que é automatizado demais levando ao piloto tornar-se preguiçoso em relação aos fundamentos basicos de pilotagem - ) tem que ser revisto. Por outro lado os instrutores e supervisores - Master de voos - também tem que ter em sua formação a atitude mais defensiva em relação a possiveis erros como o do piloto inexperiente deste voo. Aliás esse tipo de treinamento tem que ser dado apenas para as tripulações e não em aeronaves lotadas de passageiros entregues a toda sorte de desatinos por parte de pilotos inexperientes.
intdln
Dennis Noah 1
I have spent a great deal of time in Asia and cannot help speculating that their culture not to question superiors or elders was a factor. It may have been in the KAL cargo that crashed outside STN in 1997.
upperclassdude5
Gary Pierre 1
the info on the aircraft is in accurate.. it was a Boeing 777-300
intdln
Dennis Noah 1
Sorry I still think the cultural aspect must be considered. Why did the cockpit not permit the cabin crew to open emergency exits for 90 seconds? And why did the cabin crew wait? They had to know that they had a seriously broken aircraft? Cannot see that happeing with a western or European crew. Culture has to be considered. Also looking at the speed variances I find it hard to believe the entire cockpit was in la la land and failed to note speed. In 1971 I bounced a Piper Cherokee down the runway on my first solo. My IP grabbed me by my shirt and said: speed, altitude, and runway line up. I screwed up all three on my solo by coming in too high and fast and too long. I dumped it heavy and the plane had to undergo inspection as I hit so hard. Never forgot that. So why did the Asiana crew land heavy? And no one said a word until too late.? Its a FNG mistake not a 10k pilot regardless of equipment. Makes no sense.
jhwenger
jhwenger 1
Third victim succumbed to injuries this morning at SF General.
sporty222
Brian Franklin 1
Hey, can you post a plotted graph where x = time in seconds?
miket3
Michael Taylor 1
Not dissimilar to the BA 777 incident at Heathrow a little while ago when they applied the throttles on the final approach there was nil response I believe was caused by ice within the engines is this still happening??
cwfmd
cwfmd 1
That was "over relatively smooth watr" (sorry iPad )
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 3
That's what it looks like on the video as well. I fear they throttled up and pulled back on the yoke thus exacerbating the stall. Too low/slow. Remember Air Florida?
Steve1822
Steve1822 2
Mark, have you read the lastest facts and data? Great job???
wsudu
John Jacobs 2
Calm down, it was sarcasm. I know they don't and that wasn't what I was implying. I'm saying that we all have rushed to judgement and if you read some of these comments, they are quite ridiculous.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
San Mateo County Coroner Robert Foucrault said senior San Francisco Fire Department officials notified him and his staff at the crash site on Saturday that one of the 16-year-olds may have been struck on the runaway. The other (body) was found on the left side of the plane about 30 feet away from where the jetliner came to rest.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
The 16-year-old girl was found near the evacuation slide near the left wing of Asiana Flight 214 which crashed Saturday during a landing at San Francisco International Airport. The girl was not identified.

San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White said Sunday her injuries are consistent with her having been run over.

"As it possibly could have happened, based on the injuries sustained, it could have been one of our vehicles that added to the injuries, or another vehicle," Hayes-White said. "That could have been something that happened in the chaos. It will be part of our investigation."
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Blows my mind that this isn't charred, based on other photos....
benjammin
Ben Talbot 1
Particularly only a day after the accident. I'd like to see an official cause released by the NTSB before the pilot gets publicly destroyed.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Understand.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
This is exactly what I'd picture happening. I'm not an expert, though.
Zekamaboy
Frank Collins 1
To David Howells: Two fatalities in 3 hull loss incidents in 18 years, with over 1,100 777's flying? The aircraft has a superb safety record! The BA crash was sheeted home to a defect in the Rolls Royce Trent 895 engines, a problem not shared by the other two engine manufacturers for that model, GE and Pratt & Whitney.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
try posting to discussion board
dbaker
Daniel Baker 1
In general, it is good that so many people survived or weren't hurt. However, please keep in mind that two passengers were found dead and that dozens more have very serious injuries that may last a lifetime.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
I am unfamiliar with current acceptable commercial procedures with 300,000 lbs. If, as some claimed, he was high, is it possible he was trying to slip it in and misjudged the roll out ? - Power back, left boot, right stick with slight back pressure, (when she shudders slightly relax the back pressure), watch the asi, sink rate and threshold in the left window and be heart thumpingly ready for plenty of forward stick and right boot when you're back in the envelope ? Anyone got some free 777 simulator time ? I once managed to get a Westwind simulator going backwards just before she hit at KILG by reversing thrust at 100 feet agl
danishnelson
Danish Nelson 1
Daniel Baker - I do understand that yes. Though that is why I chose not to mention it, to keep our minds & thoughts towards the good.
sjwecks
I'm betting on this explanation.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
I don't know if slipping a jet, especially a big one, will end up okay. I'm thinking about airflow to the engines...
jfertic
John Fertic 1
I have just read the information from the press conference with the NSTB. It appears the pilot called for a go around about 1.5 seconds before impact. Even considering the glide slope is not operational at SFO and the pilot was attempting a slip, using the VASI, the pilot would have know he was too low and in trouble a lot sooner than 1.5 seconds.I would have guess that the event(s) that cause the plane to impact the sea wall and crash was immediate and unexpected. I am still leaning towards wake turbulence.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
Friends , kindly do not over react to the guarded statements of Asiana . Even NTSB are careful while making statements ! And rightly so. Any misstatement or over statement may have unfavorable media reaction and hence the public opinion at large. And this can be detrimental to the detailed inquiry that has to follow.
So let us all make comments without faulting any one, be those Ariana , NTSB or even any of our peers , the blogging readers !
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 0
4x sink rate? Where is this data coming from? The FA log shows 2x sink rate.
kalirick
Rick Hunt 1
Predictions: Since the ILS and VASI were OTS (out of service) the flying pilot (Captain or First Officer) was flying a visual approach totally "seat of the pants". Flight Data Recorder will indicate an unstabilized approach that began too high at the Final Approach Fix. A higher than rapid descent rate was commanded at an angle higher than the normal 3 degree glide path. In the final 30 seconds Cockpit Voice Recorder will show the Captain and First arguing about the situation until aircraft ended up low and slow with power applied too late to fully recover. In an effort not to land short the flying pilot commanded a nose high attitude and the aircraft struck the breakwater wall short of the runway in a very nose high attitude in a partially stalled (aerodynamically, that is) condition with engines commanded at full power but most likely not yet developing full power due to spool up delay. End of story....

ATP & +35 years as Certified (now Authorized) Flight Instructor
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 1
Agree, other factors, interesting the PC had estimated 8000 plus hours probably most of his landings were on the gauges and other aids. Now we add a few other factors, both the VASI and ILS were kaput, maybe the PC was out of touch with a non precision approach, what was the radar altimeter, DME, GPS and an approach plate doing at the time. Possibly the overconfident Pride, "the I can make it, got it attempt", one of the two had to have a clue as to what was going on... too late and too slow on the spool up power, lots of ignored signs.....
Did they share the Notams before and during crew seat swapping during the flight.

Possible...GA pilots VFR it, occasionally needing (if trained and qualified) an IFR approach. ATP fly IFR occasionally getting an VFR landing in. During the gas shortage I jump seated on a Delta into Tampa and it was a slow beautiful day and the Pilot cancelled IFR and grease balled that aircraft in five minutes early and a lot of gas saved. It was a 180 work of art right on the hash marks. His hair was grayer than mine, and it was a pleasure watching a pro work that plane. I told him so, he replied, never get lazy, you sometimes have to do it all. I though it quite appropriate. This accident brought it back to me....
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 1
Agree 100% although you missed one point -- the crew will invariably blame mechanical failure of the engines to respond in time. I don't doubt it felt like an eternity.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki 1
Rick, what flap setting would you need to descend so fast on 777?
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 1
Max I believe was 35 degrees but mention has been made his airspeed was high..... the boxes will tell....
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson 1
Just goes to show you, how wrong initial info is and i apologize, the actual time in the triple seven according to a BBC report was 47 hours for the new pilot in type, and the maiden landing for this Pilot in KSFO. I imagine the 8000-or 10,000 veteran was instructing, But the point I was trying to make is all the backups and secondary equipment didn't get utilized, and like we say in restaurant fire investigations, we look at the cook or the griller first....
AJACOBS2
Alan Jacobson -1
Undoubtably the blame game will kick in, and ONE other point, where did the left engine go, it's missing... have they found it yet?
kalirick
Rick Hunt 0
Looks like the NTSB version just backed me up!
gkkevorkian
Gary Kevorkian 0
Agree. I wonder if in non precision approach like this one, without glideslope, the PF was following a correct Flight Path Angle set by Pilots, prior to the final approach , at the correct time / intersection, to establish a simulated Glide slope. If the simulated glide path is set prior to the right location, a false glideslope signal would be shown on primary flight display of LOC and G/S. But since the rate of descent was high 1450ft per min and varying quite a bit, most probably an unstabilized approach would be a major factor.
marksmccaffrey
Mark McCaffrey 1
Malcolm Gladwel in his book Outliers wrote about the bad track record of Korean airlines, suggesting that deeply rooted hierarchy and poor English could contribute to the problems they've had historically: http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/12/04/malcolm-gladwell-on-culture-cockpit-communication-and-plane-crashes/

I was hiking today west of Palo Alto and saw the plane turning toward the airport to the north of me. It was low and slow, lumbering along, but it was close enough that I could see the tail insignia and I thought: that's odd-- why is it turning there to the north of me?

The flight path in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/07/07/us/plane-map-2.html suggests it did the normal loop clear down at the south end of the SF Bay, but it appeared to me to have turned to the airport approach a bit further north, lumbering along.

Then I heard on the radio what had happened shortly after and checked Flight Aware to get a better idea of what happened. KGO radio interviewed a commercial pilot who was saying "off the record" (as if there is such a thing to a reporter) that the airport's normal system for providing signals to incoming aircraft wasn't working because of construction, and they'd been moving transceivers around, implying that could have also contributed to the problem.
NedRubin
Ned Rubin 1
He is, at once, pompous and ill-informed (much like the rest of CNN)
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
This thread may be a record topper for posts. So may we separate the wheat from the chafe by saying that Airline Transport Pilots are not in the habit of deep stalling transport category aircraft with pax. on board on short final. Loss of power is the only plausible, though speculative answer. Shades of Speedbird 38 at Heathrow. Been mentioned twice. My point is, I'll go out on a limb here and say yes the airplane was stalled at impact. At least he made the airport with minimal loss of life and the crew probably made that happen. Let the NTSB decide.
wsudu
John Jacobs 1
This headline is not true at all! I found the cause in only five minutes. All those investigators need to do is go over to the comments section and the answers are right there.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 1
Too steep became too low
cli123
Clint Burns 1
The first Boeing 777 that crashed, British Airways BA38 in 2008 was also a 777-200ER and crashed just short of the runway. The cause was ruled as ice water in the fuel lines in the Rolls Royce engines. Different airline, but too similar of situations - both crashed just short of the runway and both Boeing 777-200ER. Did this one also have Rolls Royce engines?
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 1
Being low on fuel probably saved many lives.
AONeal79
AONeal79 4
No. Pratt & Whitney.
JD345
JD345 2
It took three ATPs with how many tens of thousands of hours between them to bellyflop an A330 from FL380 into the Atlantic. ATPs aren't in the habit of that, either.

We'll learn the cause in due time. Loss of power is certainly a plausible answer, but by no means is it the ONLY plausible answer. So long as humans are involved, operator error is ALWAYS plausible.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I hope for the crew's sake that it is mechanical, but let's not rule out the possibility of a massive brain fart
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 1
Baloney. Plane came in high, got over corrected in abn effort to get it down and last second power up wasn't enough to clear. I listened to the ATC and the pilot was calm and cleared to land.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
No, he does have a point. It's been noted that there is a problem with the Korean crews hierarchy.
AONeal79
AONeal79 -1
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
Not sure why you were downvoted. Your statement is true.
MultiComm
Spencer McLennan 1
With such a steep descent angle and low airspeed, once would assume stall but it is very plausible that the tail struck the sea wall (outside of a stalled condition) as a result of trying to either go around however once this happened there was no recovery...
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -4
Yeah, I hate to say it, but membership should be restricted to Pilots and MX only!!!
unitrig
unitrig 1
Airspeed was only 125mph at 100ft agl. Other Asiana planes were at 140-150mph.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 1
Robert Bierman wants us to partially believe that the pilot made it that far then loses it.
vanstaalduinenj
Jon Van Staalduinen 1
The B.A defect was recognized and repaired, not to mention the b.a plane had different engine manufacturer regardless
kangforpres
Paul Schiesser 1
Black boxes are in the tail which was demolished at impact but I'm sure they withstood the blow and can be recovered. I believe 28L and 28R are having enhancements done on them and ILS may have not been available but it was VFR conditions and a visual approach came up tragically short and could not adjust.
ualiah
Peter Crew 1
Isnt the media great,,,already speculating on causes....
jdaustin294
James Austin 1
Has anyone found any video of crash at all? Security cameras or anything yet?
Squigish
Squigish 1
I've been listening to the tower feed on liveatc. The airfield has been totally closed to non-lifeguard traffic since the accident, and at least two medevac helicopters have landed. They're starting to taxi other planes now, presumably to get them on their way.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 1
Eyewitnesses need to give much more detailed accountings.
oallen
Owen Allen 1
The flight tracking data log shows a sudden gain in altitude (100 ft to 200 ft) and simultaneous loss of air speed (to below 100 kts) in the last entry before the crash. Assuming these data are accurate, this seems consistent with a stall right before landing. Also, the landing gear were sheared, which is also consistent with a hard stall landing. The tail might have been the first thing to hit the runway, explaining why it is missing.
Quackers
Quackers 1
one of the engines next to the fuselage. couldnt see the other in the live shot, but looks like most of them got out thankfully. Tail sheared off clean.
BeachComer
Beach Comer 1
Oops - pardon the double post, was not logged in and screen blanked after first post, thought it had been dropped.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 1
One of the main gears is laying near the numbers.
Quackers
Quackers 1
Kudos to KSFO crew. Hopefully this ends like the Air France crash at Pearson.
BERspotterDE
Michael Laue 1
FlightAware was seen on CNN Intl.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Shades of the TWA mishap 17 years ago. The FBI has taken charge. Don't that make you feel warm & fuzzy?
Steve1822
Steve1822 1
Dudeman you have a good point, but keep in mind KSFO has ASDE-X surface movement radar and can reach out and supplement primary up to 5nm with data block info. While not perfect, the flightaware trend is what attracted my attention. Look at the data on the same Asiana flight number the previous 3 days. The speed profiles are more consistent with what we normally would expect to see(taking into account winds). Like someone said previously, the FDR and CVR will give us the info that really counts. Clearly, flight crew experienced some sort of deviation, for whatever reason
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Eerily similar to a BA 777 hard landing at Heathrow in 2009. The crew will have their say, as will the CVR and FDR's. Time will tell, and all else at this point is speculation.
maokh
maokh 1
Anyone receiving ADS-B in this area?
nssd70
nssd70 1
Prayers to the people and their families of all involved in this terrible crash.
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 3
Uh oh. Low and slow. Eyewitnesses report the plane waffled Left/Right as it descended, then the tail kit the breakwall and sheared off (probably into the water). Also heard that Stanford LifeFlight transported patients and SF General has cordoned off an entire wing...to allow the patients their own area and control the press.
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 2
The eyewitness reports are perhaps the most inaccurate pieces of information circulating.
JD345
JD345 1
No kidding ... all of these pax knew it was too low. I'm sure something about the plane smashing into the ground short of the runway, skidding out of control, and exploding into flames may have slightly affected their recollection of the approach.
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
I think the more informed eyewitness accounts (nearby flight crews, etc) will actually be extremely helpful.
jhwenger
jhwenger 1
Looking forward to reading the interview with the United 85 crew that was parked right at the 28L hold line.
wfung99
William Fung 2
I think it was UAL885 to Kansai.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Rememder that's groundspeed, not airspeed.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
fche
Frank Ch. Eigler -2
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Didn't you notice I corrected myself three hours before you did???
randomguy
john public 1
Whereas many of the people here...
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Make that 01/17/2008 at Heathrow.
sddaledawson
Dale Dawson 1
it is a crime scene until NTSB gets there they should be there soon, as being LA Team should be there any moment then lets see what happens
when the Go Teams get there we should and i said should see a shift in the scene
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 1
That's actually commensurate with an interview I just heard on KCBS of an eyewitness at a nearby hotel that said "I didn't know an airplane could bounce like that."

NBC also interviewed Greg Feith who noted that the debris field started short of the threshold and was off center.
joshb40
Josh Baxter 0
Classic on the "bounce" comment. He would have had a crab angle for wind correction which may would put his tail to the right of the centerline, right? Weather between 10 and 11 am was 6-7kts at 210 degrees.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
I'd like to know more about how reliance is placed on ILS during typical commercial landings.
joshb40
Josh Baxter 0
Good call on looking at this data. I'm not hearing any reference to these numbers yet on the media. Looks like a classic stall, no?
benjammin
Ben Talbot 1
Under a visual approach you have visual contact with the runway, and don't need to look at the ILS at all. RWY 28L has a PAPI light system that shines white/red lights corresponding to where you are on the glide path. There is no requirement to have the ILS dialed in for a visual approach, though individual airlines might have their own requirements. For me personally, I like to have the ILS (or any instrument approach) dialed in on my HSI all the time (habit), but typically never look at it for a visual approach.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Thank you. This fits with my (admittedly lacking) understanding.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
correction - that should read "I'd like to know more about how MUCH reliance is placed on ILS during typical commercial landings."
preacher1
preacher1 -1
777 should have been about 140min

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 0
Just FYI, following you into ATL when you are on one, FA is showing you coming down to about 140 from about 3000' on in. Glad you posted this as I have always wondered about that. Not that much difference here on the 67
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
QUIT DUPLICATE SQUAWKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THRUSTT
THRUSTT -1
Easy there Boyd
flyerkeizer
flyerkeizer 0
Wake turbulence possibility from the 777 landing 1min prior. More importantly- hope everyone is ok and safe.
theschoolofchuck
Charles Collins 0
I don't know why it crashed, but I hope everybody is OK.
MultiComm
Spencer McLennan 0
Can another 777 really cause enough wake turbulence to affect that of the same type aircraft? I could understand if it were a A380 or 747 but not too sure about this theory...
nathankeizer
nathan keizer 0
It definitely can. The path and thrust of the prior aircraft is unknown compared to this 777. When you are low and slow, if you get trapped in another aircrafts wake it can next to impossible to climb out of depending on how quick you lose speed and/or how quick your wing drops when the turbulence hits. Especially true if it hits when you are only 100ft off the ground. No airplane would want to experience of a 777.
727clamshell
Clam Shell 0
Terrible. I hope the fatalities are low as currently being reported.
Bad as it is, it appears here initially that it could have been a lot worse
with much sadder outcome.

I see that the LH A380 FRA>SFO diverted to OAK. That would be cool to watch
that (assumed) ferry flight from OAK across the bay to SFO, which I assume they'll get to once the immediate crisis is dealt with.
tbpera
Tom Pera 0
ILS inop due to construction.... wonder how many manual landings pilot has made in last 2-3 years? seems like most landings in modern aircraft are "auto-land"... maybe he just blew it?
kapocius
Marius Kapocius 0
Did someone have noticed that engine No1 is nowhere in site?
AnkieConsen
Ankie Consen 0
Hoping for the best for the passengers !!
TXCAVU
Elizabeth Robillard 0
Unreal. United pilot reports that as the pax were egressing, he saw a woman exit the aircraft with her carry on in hand. 2 confirmed deaths and sure hope they weren't delayed deplaning because of this.
metsgiantsfan234
Gary Savell 0
Emergency services reported all occupants have been accounted for and are alive. Emergency services repeated ALL occupants have been accounted for in response to media reports that two people have been killed and said, these reports are untrue. A number of people were taken to hospitals with injuries of varying degrees.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0
dronezboeing39
Dylan Wang 0
This aircraft's first flight took place in late February 2006. It was delivered to Asiana Airlines on March 7, 2006.
ericdasilva
Eric da Silva 0
I hope everybody is okay, and gets out in time, scary how the tail is ripped off clean.I wonder how the passengers siting in the back of the 777-200 reacted when the tail was ripped off? Weird how the wings aren't burned but the roof of the 777 is burned, maybe one of the center fuel tanks exploded on impact and started the fire.
lsh2429516
SOONHO LEE 0
KSFO ground is currently asking the aircraft to turn back to the gate.
JetMech24
JetMech24 2
He had a couple 777 landings already, this was his first 777 landing at SFO
MultiComm
Spencer McLennan 2
The ILS INOP should not be a factor. 3 takeoff and landing in 90 days, while it may be a stretch, are not to be completed with a coupled autopilot and they are to be in the type aircraft in which they are certified.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 2
The left engine is in sight. It is located under the wing. The airplane was too low and without enough power at the boundary between the sea and the runway. It hit the sea wall nose high and struck near the joint between the fuselage and the empennage. The empennage separated and some parts went in the bay, and some had enough momentum to land on the ground. The fuselage left a trail of debris for a few yards and the rear tried to pass the front. As the craft was spinning on the ground the front gear was detached. The spin on the ground continued as the plane went off the pavement on a dirt area between runways which slowed the plane quickly detaching the #2 engine which wound up in front of the wing against the fuselage.

Prayers to the passengers and families.
gkkevorkian
Gary Kevorkian 2
Afterv13 hrs flying there will be only 3000 pounds of fuel left in center tank. That is why the fuel burned in center area of fuselage.
paultruzzi
Paul Truzzi 4
Fuel is burned from the Center Wing Tank first, then from the mains. The center tank would have been empty hours earlier.
AABABY
FRANK MARTINOLI 1
Daniel-- Looks like total SNAFU. I guess it will also be his last if all the facts bear out.
What a waste of people and equipment.
News this evening implied that one of the fatalities MAY have been run over by rescue vehicle. Not good.
KW10001
Kylan Walters 1
Unbelievable
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
"seems like most landings in modern aircraft are "auto-land"

Would like some other opinions on whether this is true....
klimchuk
Nikolay Klimchuk 2
benjammin
Ben Talbot 2
For me, any Category II or III approach will be auto-land. The FAA also requires that for a plane to maintain its CAT III certification, it needs to perform an autoland every 28 days. So if it has under 10 days until it loses its certification, I'll do an autoland. Other than that, I don't use the autoland. I have no idea how prevalent its use is with airlines that fly jumbos for many hours over the ocean.
MultiComm
Spencer McLennan 1
Large transport category aircraft have autopilots that can land the aircraft with zero visibility to include auto throttles and auto brakes. However in visual conditions, it is unlikely this was the case.

The only exception is the requirement for crews to have a minimum number of "auto" landings to remain properly currency but they would not have been doing this if the ILS/Glideslope was INOP (inoperative).
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I strongly disagree... Cat II is for approach to landing only and is NOT auto-land captible.

Cat II is Verticle Height of 100', RVR is 1000'

Many airlines will have different limitations, but CAT II IS NOT AUTOLAND, CAT III is.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 2
Thank you! "sparkie624" is 100% correct. CAT II is not an AutoLand procedure. Yes, it is usually flown with the Autopilot, but once landing is assured (at or before reaching DH -- "Decision Height" -- the A/P is disconnected not later than 50 feet BELOW DH. Landing then accomplished manually. IF, at any time, sufficient visual cues are lost, then a Go-Around is mandated ('Missed Approach'). The G/A can be accomplished using the A/P, or manually if the insufficient visual cues occur after A/P disconnect.

For Asiana 214 @KSFO yesterday, this is all moot. It was 'severe clear', and I understand the electronic G/S was NOTAMed OTS. Based on reports trickling in, seems most probable that this was a very un-stabilized approach scenario, due to crew mis-handling. As always, the CVR and DFDR will provide the ultimate info during the investigation.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
The avionics in modern aircraft wouldn't need the physical ILS to be working, they could just fly it off of the FMS.
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
All occupants have not been accounted for, according to SF FD press conference just now.
SilentH
Larry Hrablook -2
It's amazing how anyone/everyone including the novices, are ready to jump to a conclusion of "pilot error" when they have no idea what they are talking about!! The 777/200, 777ER, 777/300 is a highly sophisticated aircraft with a stellar performance history that is typically flown by the autopilot/autoland function(s)and largely a glass cockpit where the pilot is managing systems instead of "flying" the plane. I would'nt be surprised to hear that these are the same people asking what's a "Heavy"? Read, educate, experience and learn first, comment only when you are absolutely certain you know what you're talking about, and only then, still just ask questions! Then go sit on a plane, any plane, with the rest of the clowns who worry about being "terrified" to board another as they're driving. Let's talk about safety percentages for both those forms of transportation and then ask ourselves how they might cross an ocean without a plane, let alone travel in our great country..
JD345
JD345 2
Aviation is incredibly safe. Airplanes are very reliable and flight crews are extremely good at their jobs. But perfectly good airplanes can break and perfectly competent pilots make mistakes.

I understand your point, but this is an odd place for you to be if you don't like reading what other people have to say.
richcraft
richcraft 3
We're all just guessing, based on what we're seeing and hearing, but some of us are trying to make educated guesses based on our experience as pilots and our knowledge of past crashes. Some of us are all too aware that many fatal accidents are the result of pilots "managing systems instead of 'flying the plane.'" My favorite is Eastern Air 401, which crashed because the entire crew was focused on the landing gear light instead of flying the airplane, they inadvertently turned off their autopilot and lost situational awareness, and descended into terrain, killing 101 people.

Don't get me wrong, commercial flying is safer than it has ever been, the risk of flying is statistically insignificant! But pilots still make errors, some of those errors have to do with the sophistication of the aircraft they are flying. Just look at all the crashes in the last 20 years that were caused by pilots relying on technology they didn't understand.

Korean Air 801 is just one of many examples. The pilot flew into the DME antennae because he thought that the DME was at the runway threshold, instead of three kilometers in front of the threshold. 228 killed.

I think that right now pilot error is a pretty good guess, but I am holding that opinion lightly until the NTSB releases their report.
andriy17
Andriy Tsyupka -2
Well said! Too many inexperienced folks making ridiculous conclusions without knowing much. Hopefully we will know soon what caused this unfortunate event.
gkkevorkian
Gary Kevorkian -1
Helooooooooo.
Loss of control.
Approach not stabilized.
Visual approach....10 mile visibility.
Pilot manual flying technique becomes critical.
NTSB WILL TELL US WHAT HAPPENED.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick -1
This could have been a whole lot worse and for that we should be grateful.
AABABY
FRANK MARTINOLI -1
Nothing to add. I just want updates sent.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick -1
Well at least Karl Schneider is awake-Thank You.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki -1
777 manual says:
Slow the aircraft on the glide slope to 160 KIAS and flaps 20°.
However AAR214 was below that speed for about 70 seconds before crash according to the flight log.
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
Exactly....take your own advise and let the professionals do their job and HUSH.
pmg111
Pawel Gradzki -2
His descent rate was over 1300 so the flaps might have been set to 30 and left there too long resulting in stall before for landing.
tshirt
Bruce Bennett 0
SFO FD feed is saying they expect to transport 75 patients, who are now it the International terminal.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
Fox News now saying 2 confirmed fatalities.
caosir
yifeng cao 0
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt 0
Good data and coverage.
vanstaalduinenj
Jon Van Staalduinen 0
Horrid, how could this happen?
AONeal79
AONeal79 0
Is the fact that the debris field is off-center particularly worrying? Or is some deviation from the center normal during landing, especially at touchdown?
lvdudeman
lvdudeman 0
Where in the world is the left engine? Has anyone seen it in any of the video's that has been shown?
mhagerty21
michael hagerty 0
Just an amateur but a 777 heavy landed 1 minute before. If it was on same approach ( guess it was with this large a plane), could vortex turbulance play a role? Is it even remotely possible weather related clear air turbulance from weather alone could play a role at such a low altitude? If not, guess the guy just stalled. Amazing..
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 0
Eyewitness on KCBS (I'm filtering out his stuff that's obviously wrong) said the fire started when the right engine impacted the ground. Also that the aircraft did a 360 as it slid.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Fox just reported that the Airport had tweeted and was getting ready to open 2 runways. Didn't say which ones.
lsh2429516
SOONHO LEE 0
KSFO ground controller is currently asking the aircraft to turn back to the gate and seems like an airplane is on fire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dFtmSybpuw
plumbstar
chris byrne 0
I hope no one died because they couldn't get out in time. If you notice in the pictures, some people paused to get their luggage before exiting. WTF
joholawale
ADEBAYO JOSEPH 0
what causes the crash
Sugar811
Sugar811 0
Iewiew
Ivan Warrington 0
Where is the left engine??
dahetzel
Doug Hetzel 0
Where is the tail? Haven't seen it in any of the coverage.
LewisSckolnick
Lewis Sckolnick 0
Through the windscreen the pilots could see SFO, they could see that their air speed and altitude were way off and that their landing gear was not deployed yet they did nothing until the last 1.5 seconds.