There has unfortunately been an aircraft crash at San Francisco. The talkshop extends our condolences to the families of the two people who lost their lives and best wishes to the injured for speedy recoveries.
When I heard detail news from an eyewitness I immediately thought of a 777 type problem.
I want to avoid scaremongering so up front, on checking the engines are different. NOT COMMON
However on looking for a good link I discover the Daily Mail have the same thought and have up photographs of both crashes.
You are all able to find news elsewhere.
[update:
An Asiana Boeing 777-200, registration HL7742 performing flight OZ-214 from Seoul (South Korea) to San Francisco,CA (USA) with 291 passengers and 16 crew, touched down short of runway 28L impacting the edge separating the runway from the San Francisco Bay 115 meters/375 feet ahead of the runway threshold while landing on San Francisco’s runway 28L at 11:27L (18:27Z), the tail plane, gear and engines separated, the aircraft came to a rest left of the runway about 490 meters/1600 feet past the runway threshold. — Aviation Herald
[UPDATE 2]
“Confirm no G/S on both 28L and 28R. PAPI only”
and the FAA proof
Click to access aeron…ach_Status.pdf
When I heard detail news from an eyewitness I immediately thought of a 777 type problem.
The eyewitness said they are used to seeing planes stacked awaiting landing but in this instance they noticed the 777 at the front of the queue (why they noticed the ordinary, were watching, was not stated) and said it appeared unstable on approach. It came down short just making the runway where there was a bang. This fits with the tail hitting the runway,the rest is in the news.
Now turn to the Heathrow 777 crash. This aircraft inbound from a long flight from China suffered an abrupt double engine power loss on final approach, only made the grass before the runway, suffered heavy damage with the undercarriage punching through injuring passengers. (all 777 were subsequently modified)
Twin engined are not properly redundant so this kind of failure is a risk over 3 or 4 engined.
The cause of the Heathrow crash has never been entirely explained even after a large amount of investigation and testing of systems in laboratories. The best guess is icing in the fuel heat exchangers after flying under unusually cold conditions. [1]
However, this is British Airways fleet of 777 which are unusual in having Rolls Royce engines and necessarily different ancillaries. The systems have subsequently been modified. That China route now uses 747.
A web search for the Airline Asiana Airlines reveals
Boeing 777 – MSN 29174 – HL7732
Engines 2 x PW PW4090 (Pratt & Whitney)
They look like long users of PW, news link
So this is not a commonality but needs definite confirming.
1. I have an interest in air accidents and accidents generally, a long story long time ago where I was involved in investigation. In this case I have seen some of the technical reports. My concern which is a personal opinion is to do with traffic overload runways, runways too short for safety, combined with environmental side effects leading to final approach below the glide path, engines working against drag to keep power up so spooling up is possible on abort runway not clear, but lose power and down it comes, short.
Tim
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
faulty temperature probe>>ice>>
Complete speculation on my part, but didn’t something similar happen on a very famous occasion when an ‘O’-ring malfunction was caused?
The runway at San Francisco is elevated above San Francisco Bay and ends in sloped seawall at the approach end where the crash occurred. The aircraft was too low and the tail section struck the very end of the runway, like tripping over stair step. That tore away the tail cone, stabilizer, and fin and scattered parts of the seawall along the runway.
That runway can be very gusty and turbulent. It is the only airport I’ve been into on a commercial plane where the pilot aborted the landing and tried again (successfully 🙂 ). I’ve not looked at the local area weather but there was a helicopter overhead providing a live video of the scene for a very long time after the crash, and the debris scattered about was not blowing away as would be the case were it more windy than normal. It was a very clear day so visibility is not likely a factor.
As a pilot myself (private planes) I believe this will be assessed as pilot error and perhaps with a complicating factor of miscommunication between ground the cockpit.
Any probes should be duplex but identical is disastrous.
Just noticed both were inbound from China.
Won’t be any reports for ages but a fleet grounding or modifications, change of operation might show early.
.
Debris trail indicates impact before the keys. What is of greater concern is the burn pattern of the cabin fire that developed after impact. Two brown patches of discoloration in the upper skin are visible before burn through. While this may be an electrical fire, the patches match the main aircon/pressurization loops. Did burning material get injested into these ducts from the engines after impact? A design review may be required.
Probably ice in the fuel line…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSII
Just flown into Dubai with Emirates, from New Zealand 3hour delayed take off. Missed connection for UK but already been booked on later flight. Got to spend 5 hours hours here in Dubai now Don’t know if the delay was connected nobody was saying much.
dp
You have never flow into or out of Wellington New Zealand have you – short runway, sea wall both ends and wind either a gusty northerly or strong southerly.
The one piece of news I couldn’t find was how long was there between aircraft movements – if they were stacked up it implies that it was not very long. Hasn’t there been a number of crashes from wind shear remnants from the previous aircraft?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/can-a-microburst-or-wind-shear-crash-a-plane-130415.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/microburst-windshear.html
Modern planes are supposed to have sensors and procedures that prevent it happening but things can go wrong with those.
It doesn’t matter whether or not the engines are PW or RR, if they are starved of fuel on final approach … BA pilot in charge at Heathrow crash reduced flaps slightly to clear buildings and only just made the airfield, albeit short of the runway apron. Similarities too great to ignore at this point. How interesting that airline already are prepared to write-off to pilot error … the ‘hero’ pilots from BA also lost their jobs!! Rich reward for heroic action, huh?? How typical of an airline to put its corporate responsibility (public liability) first ahead of any official investigation. Boeing – you’ve got some work to do here, let’s hope you do not shirk your responsibilities.
Time incident : 11:26 PDT am = 06:26 UTC pm
………………………………………………………………………………..
Studies professor Richelmo Sassara
Click to access Sassara.pdf
Translate : Italian – english
Page n°3
Quote :
“….Se il punto incentro invece si trova nell’atmosfera, data la minima quantità di energia (proporzionata alla scarsa densità dell’aria), di norma non si hanno grandi fenomeni energetici ma forse fenomeni luminosi. Ma se, per rarissimo caso, in quel momento transitasse un aereo che è composto di materiale di alta densità, si verificherebbe quantomeno il fenomeno del vuoto d’aria. Se il “vuoto d’aria” è intenso, i motori, di grande densità e quindi di grande accumulo di energia, verrebbero “sparati” con grande velocità, senza peraltro riuscire a trascinarsi il resto della massa dell’aereo. Pertanto si staccano repentinamente provocando però il crollo della struttura ed anche “altro”. Di solito i grossi aerei , subiscono gli incidenti più gravi durante i periodi di
allineamento del Sole, della Terra e della Luna (novilunio o plenilunio) e mentre sono prossimi al decollo oppure all’atterraggio. Conosco molti incidenti di grossi aerei spiegati forzatamente ed anche qualcuno che non si è riusciti a spiegare con le attuali conoscenze. Ho il dovere di riferire, pur se riceverò quantomeno incomprensione, su questi ed altri fenomeni naturali che da sempre si verificano sulla Terra anche se la spiegazione può sembrare inverosimile….”
Look time and area :
As far as I know the Heathrow crashlanding has not been satisfactorily explained. Attempts to reproduce the claimed fuel-freezing problem have not been successful, and the cutting of both engines at precisely the same time is puzzling.
One pilot contact told me that the incident happened only a few hundred metres from the Prime Minister (Brown), in his special car and entourage. This car is equipped with heavy duty comms equipment (for nuclear signalling etc). Interference with the plane’s controls (which is why they make you switch off things on board) is certainly possible, but has been hushed up.
What’s a earthquake ?
Other examples :
California, Iran, Indonesia….etc….
geological activity zone.
………………………………………………………………………………………
29-09-2011
Air crash nord sumatra
http://www.aciclico.com/esteri/aereo-precipita-in-indonesia-18-morti.html
7.18 (00.18 GMT)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
20-04-2012
http://www.geo.tv/article-45349-127-feared-dead-in-Rawalpindi-plane-crash
According to sources, the a Boeing 737 with 127 passengers on board, which flew from Karachi at 5:00 PM was suppose to land in Islamabad at 6:40 PM, but crashed just before touchdown
Pakistan air crash 15:40 UTC a Rawalpinidi.
http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=313426
M 4.8 – IRAN-PAKISTAN BORDER REGION – 2013-04-20 15:37:20 UTC
……………………………………………………………………………………….
01-05-2013
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/01/company-releases-names-7-americans-killed-in-afghanistan-plane-crash/
The Dubai-bound Boeing 747-400 — operated by National Air Cargo — crashed just after takeoff Monday from Bagram Air Base around 11:20 a.m. local time, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement Tuesday.
Iran-afghanistan-kashmir
Geologic stress
Look : http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Air-crash-01052013.jpg
…………………………………………………………………………………….
28-01-2013 Full-moon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21243203
Kazakhstan’s Scat airlines said it believed everyone on board died when it crashed in heavy fog at 13:00 (07:00 GMT) on approach to Almaty’s airport.
M 6.1 – EASTERN KAZAKHSTAN – 2013-01-28 16:38:53 UTC
http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=302463
Bye
michele
Tim & Roger….
I have a comment in moderation.
thanks,
michele
One eyewitness said the plane was bobbing about on approach which might be indiciative of engine trouble. Could be that the pilot decided to bring it in manually, and either underestimated the height of the breakwater or lost power? Would be consistent with pulling up at the last moment and decking the tailsection on the edge of the sea-wall.
eyewitness:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10165007/San-Francisco-airport-crash-emergency-services-missed-bodies-scattered-on-runway.html
“I know the airport pretty well, so I realized the guy was a bit too low, too fast, and somehow he was not going to hit the runway on time, so he was too low … he put some gas and tried to go up again,” he said.
“But it was too late, so we hit the runway pretty bad, and then we started going up in the air again, and then landed again, pretty hard.”
He opened an emergency door and ushered people out. “We got pretty much everyone in the back section of the plane out,” he said. “When we got out there was some smoke. There was no fire then, the fire came afterward.”
After clambering from the wreckage, Mr Stone said that he and fellow passengers noticed “another five bodies like 500 yards away that nobody saw,” adding they alerted emergency workers, but were frustrated at the response.
“We were yelling at people, yelling at firefighters. Get over here,” he told CNN.
Mr Stone was among 291 passengers and 16 crew who were on Asiana flight 214 from Seoul when it crash-landed at San Francisco around 11.30am on Saturday (7.30pm UK time). Two people were killed and more than 180 injured, with 49 in a serious condition and eight in a critical condition.
Unlikely to be the same as Heathrow as witnesses say the engines spooled up just before the crash.
If you want lots of discussion on the crash currently 28 pages of it then go to:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html
you can view but not post unless you subscribe.
I noticed too the tail section struck the lip of the seawall well off the runway centerline. It is at least a matter of pride to nail that and the subject of some trash talk to miss it badly. It is not a critical thing to a landing, but does reflect on the pilot’s attention to detail. Not hitting the world being another.
Nobody should crash a plane because G/S is off and I would never consider that to be an excuse – people who can’t land a plane in calm CAVU conditions withoug G/S need to sit a few seats aft of the forward bulkhead. The flight recorders hold the answer, but politics may keep the answer a secret.
ppune, oh yes, been reading and gleaning.
A classic catalogue of circumstances came together, perhaps without any particular single item.
Most of the instrument landing systems are switched off but no temporary system installed.
Apart from the USA few if any international airports allow jet aircraft usage for above.
SF airport is in financial trouble as part of California’s being broke, includes air traffic control changes.
Long haul flight, tired crew, need to do visual landing but for some carriers there is little training or experience.
Weather was excellent but seems to have been a strong tail wind.
Some data is available and suggests the approach was bad leading to an excessive descent then trying to get out of it. Aircraft thumped the sea wall ripped off the engines, landing gear and tail.
Heathrow incident involved experimental descent which may have been involved. Nothing similar applies in this case nor were temperatures similar. However there might be a fuel system commonality. Engines heard to spool up from idle does not mean operate normally, so that is still open. Heathrow engines were still running but failed to spool up to sufficient thrust.
We will have to wait.
Evidence so far, including initial NTSB review of black boxes, all leads towards pilot error (in my opinion).
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/07/boeing-777-crashes-at-san-francisco-international-airport/
“NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said during a press conference Sunday afternoon that flight crew on Asiana Airlines Flight 214 had a visible approach to the runway and put the plane’s landing gear down, according to communications heard in the cockpit voice recorder.
Hersman said the plane’s target speed for a landing was 137 knots (158 mph), and the crew had no discussion of anomalies or concerns with the way the plane was coming in for the landing.
But seven seconds before the plane hit into a seawall, one of the crew members called on the pilots to increase speed. Information from the flight data recorder said the plane was going below the target landing speed, and the engine throttles advanced.
Four seconds before impact, a “stick shaker” – a device that emits an oral and physical warning to the crew that the plane is about to stall – sounded off, Hersman said.
The crew then asked to avert the landing and make another attempt 1.5 seconds before impact.”
There are also cultural considerations. Many Asians, particularly Far Eastern, are very much ingrained in seniority and are naturally very averse to challenging those of higher rank and age. Although a crew member did point to the pilot to increase speed seven seconds prior to the impact with the seawall, one has to wonder whether there were inhibitions to challenge him earlier.
Also, I believe Hersman said in the same press conference that in the last few seconds when there was a last gasp effort to correct for the low speed the engines responded as would be expected (albeit of course too late), tending to rule out mechanical issues.
Uncommanded premature engine shutdown followed by tailstrike and tail separation was also experience in the still unexplained 2009 crash of Turkish Airlines flight 1951. The british Airways Boeiing 777 crash at Heathrow also experienced a premature uncommanded engine shutdown.
The likely cause of these crashes was rogue electronic signals either inside the cabin from passenger electronic devices (eg lap tops, cell phones etc) or less likely from external electronic interference. Aircraft manufacturers, engineers and airline pilots are anxious to discredit such claims but the industry itself is in denial because profits come first.
I am a little surprised at some people trying to impart theories and conjecture without evidence. As per my comment above, stick to data and facts such as black box data (and voice recordings) becoming available. In my opinion all evidence leads to pilot error, and really that should be the basis for a null hypothesis.
I disagree Simon. Yes there can be serious problems with cellphones but anything flying which is not tolerant should be grounded immediately if cellphones are allowed on board. (off is no good)
As it happens I’ve worked for a multinational on cellphone EMC so I know how hard it is getting rid of artefacts. However, this was to a hugely tighter standard than necessary for interfering with a control systems, which are not listening. Aircraft have to withstand eg. lightning strikes a whole different league.
Some of the cellphone ban is not about the aircraft at all but about ground cellphone networks having trouble with signals arriving from on high, violating the whole point of cells. Cells are about minimising transmitter power (handhelds are variable transmit power) so that they can’t be heard in nearby cells. Don’t shout [1]. Overflying aircraft can see many cells at once.
Aircraft is affected by a pulse signal from radar sets used for aeronautics etc? Damn well must not.
Signalling in redundant safety critical systems is not some simple scheme.
Cover this up? Ego says yes. Get found out, end of airline or manufacturer.
I suggest cellphone usage bans are usually excuses for something or other and not necessarily justified.
1. One of the sad things is campaign groups trying to stop the installation of base stations on the grounds of irradiation of kids, yet never comprehend that exposure is smaller the more densely cells are packed together. The signals have to be reduced to smaller, lower power,.
Counter-intuitive issues are present for a lot of stupidity.
Doug Huffman says:
July 7, 2013 at 5:07 am
NOTAMS 06/005 SFO NAVIGATION INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM RUNWAY 28L GLIDE PATH OUT OF SERVICE WITH EFFECT FROM OR EFFECTIVE FROM 1306011400-1308222359″.
There’s now a real-time video of the crash:
Still looks like pilot error. Too damn low. There was no radio traffic indicating a problem until after the crash though as a student pilot I was trained to “aviate then communicate”. Pure speculation of course – I still have vivid memories of the Airbus gently flying itself into a stand of trees to become a fireball, all the while the flight control computer was ignoring commands from the pilot.
Back home now but surreal experience watching the news and reading the blog whilst waiting to get on a 777.
It occurs to me San Francisco will eventually have another big shake and land will pop up and down.
i wonder what contingency there is for reclaimed land distress?
“Much of San Francisco was built on three unstable surfaces: steep hillsides, rolling sand dunes, and former marshes. During the 1906 earthquake, structures on made land or infill, suffered the most damage because this land was so unstable and unsettled.”
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/1906_Earthquake/city_destroyed/city-trembles.asp
An official statement said the pilot was the very inexperienced one on the aircraft type although with many flying hours in total. No explanation of what the other three supposed to be on board wre doing. No further explanation.
Final approach was wrong. Cockpit voice recorder apparently revealed more.
Video of the crash exists. It cartwheeled.
I noted the omission of mention of the non-operative ground equipment (there might be more, I am not in thinking mode, sorry)