BREAKING: Boeing 777 crashes at San Francisco Airport.

[premium]

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/

Just breaking, no details yet. Yeah, I know its Fox, but they've shown pictures of a plane on fire at SFO.

Here's the link from ABC News.


A Boeing 777 operated by Asiana Airlines crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The airplane was coming in from Seoul, South Korea and apparently crashed sometime after touching down on Runway 28. No other details were immediately available.

This is a developing story. Check back for more updates.


Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/

---

[Nanjing to Seoul]

1. oh boy

[Hissyspit]

31. Photo from passenger:

http://i.mobypicture.com/user/KeithOlbermann/view/15591232

@Hissyspit: RT @Eunner I just crash landed @ SFO. Tail ripped off. Most everyone seems fine (at @flySFO) [pic] — http://t.co/9BfGqHEBdo

[Voice for Peace]

43. people walking away, wow

[RC]

57. Yep, a good landing is one where you can walk away from.

[AsahinaKimi]

74. That's a relief...

Wow... scary!

[Cooley Hurd]

50. That's a VERY good sign!!!

[nmbluesky]

140. Not good sign

Two people killed and about 70 injury.

[Cooley Hurd]

143. One source says 2 killed.

No other sources.

[Hissyspit]

149. @AP: BREAKING: Hospital official says 10 critically injured in Asiana airline crash at San Francisco

@AP: BREAKING: Hospital official says 10 critically injured in Asiana airline crash at San Francisco airport. -MM

m.twitter.com/AP

[Cooley Hurd]

150. Thank you Hissyspit!

[Hissyspit]

151. CNN Breaking News - San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center treating 8 adults, 2 kids, all

CNN Breaking News - San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center treating 8 adults, 2 kids, all critical, hurt in plane crash.

[Hissyspit]

152. @AP: MORE: The AP contacted police, fire and coroner's officials and didn't confirm any deaths in th

@AP: MORE: The AP contacted police, fire and coroner's officials and didn't confirm any deaths in the jet crash: http://t.co/hZ7HQ5O4TK -RJJ

[hexola]

112. The person in the green shirt...is toting a SUITCASE!!!

Man - even had time to grab their carry on!

(a guy is on ktuv now ranting about this a bit!)

[TheMadMonk]

182. So he should. And those passengers should be identified and hammered.

People putting property ahead of life can explain most of the world's ills for all of recorded history.

[Generic Other]

115. They are carrying away their overhead luggage

I am marveling at the sheer craziness of this photo as I have seen the NBC news shots of the raging fire and rescue operation. These people were minutes away from what looks like the whole midsection of the plane catching fire. They seem rather nonchalant in these shots!

[premium]

116. It seems there wasn't any panic, which is a tribute to the flight crew.

Reminds me of U.S. Airways flight 1549 when it went down in the Hudson River.

[Generic Other]

125. but removing overhead luggage?

It just reminds me of something my mom would do while everyone behind her seethed.

And yes, she is the type of Asian driver who would say to me "I drive speed limit. 30 MPH. Someone give me the finger."

Anyway, I am glad no one was hurt. What an amazing landing.

[premium]

127. Unfortunately,

it is now being reported that there were 2 fatalities and at least 61 injuries, but it could have been much worse.

[panzerfaust]

202. Sun AM: Simply landed short. Guardian has the most coherent report, CNN best video

Based on what I can find on the various news and av sites is that there was no mechanical, no evidence of power loss (as happened with the London crash - using different engines - due to ice crystals). The SFO 777 was completely visual as the glidescope transmitter was shut down on that runway. They simply screwed the pooch.

This could have been so terribly much worse.

Two of SFO runways remain closed this morning.

Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/07/san-francisco-plane-crash-asiana-airlines

Here is a computer simulation video. The interview which follows the vid is not helpful ...
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/07/07/nr-sfo-crash-animation.cnn.html

A still image, which seems to tell the tale:



Well, off to the airport

[Pachamama]

2. OMG - my daughter is at airport and was supposed to leave in 20 mins!

[Control-Z]

4. Have you talked to her?

Is she ok?

[Pachamama]

25. Not to her - but my husband called and has been telling me what happened...

She is really shook up...

Husband said its a bit crazy at airport and all flights canceled....they are saying in airport there are some injuries and possible fatalities.....

[Cooley Hurd]

8. Do you know what airline?

[Pachamama]

12. She was on Alaska airlines headed to Portland....

Husband just called and they are deplaning and all flights being canceled....

[Cooley Hurd]

16. This was Asiana Airlines. The good news is that the aircraft is largely intact-slides were deployed

Tail is not visible, though. I think it might've shed it.

[Pachamama]

19. My husband saw it from gate burning - has full view. This was to be my daughters 1st solo flight

....they deplaned plane minutes ago....canceled flight and she is being rebooking for tommorrow. Poor kid....was going to be her first solo flight ever....

She is shook up apparentely. My husband said that people all over airport are tense and there is anxiety as people grasp that there may be deaths and injuries and also that all flights are being diverted and nothing going in or out until further notice....

[NYC_SKP]

10. She is fine, the aircraft is hundreds of yards away from any terminal.

She will be fine...

[silvershadow]

3. Guess all that outsourcing and sharing the wealth around the world worked out well. Too soon? nt

[NutmegYankee]

28. I thought that was the 787?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. It is the 787 that was outsourced. The 777 was built almost entirely in the US

and it has an excellent safety record. "Outsourcing" is not an issue here.

[NutmegYankee]

35. I know.

I think the person I responded to was making their comment based on thinking it was outsourced.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. Yes, that was what I was responding to.

[NutmegYankee]

42. Oh, you should have replied to him.

I was just trying to be polite by asking the question.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

45. Yup, my bad.

[silvershadow]

66. Whoops, my bad.

[pampango]

200. So if this were a 787 that crashed it would be an indictment of outsourcing.

Does that logic not apply to a 777 built in the US? Do we blame American workers, as a group, for the crash?

Of course we don't. In fact it is very likely that there was nothing wrong with the plane and that the pilot just missed the end of the runway.

[silvershadow]

215. If you're asking if one knee-jerk reaction of mine was intending to be

a tiny clue as to the inner workings of my brain, then yes my brain stores the memories of how the union busting went down, mostly due to third way Democrats. Are you one?

[pampango]

217. I believe in FDR's approach: legal protections for unions, lower tariffs and a strong safety net.

He lowered the high tariffs republicans had erected in the 1920's. He did not blame foreigners for our unions problems. He pushed through legislation protecting them and it worked. As long as we have "right-to-work" states (no progressive country - Canada, Germany or any other - has them) right next door, it will be easy to bust unions without having to travel very far.

[backwoodsbob]

218. 787 is outsourced

do you have links for that?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

219. Many. This has been well-known for years.

Just a couple of examples:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/17727-boeing-s-outsourcing-for-the-787-dreamliner
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/15/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20110215

[backwoodsbob]

220. thanks

didn't know that

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Asiana is one of the top-rated airlines in the world.

And the 777 has an excellent safety record. Sometimes things just go wrong.

[Kablooie]

78. San Francisco is one of the most dangerous airports in the world.

They have cross winds from the bay and makes it very difficult to land.
Often landings will be delayed because of the wind.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

82. Except that the weather wasn't a problem today.

Wind was about 5 mph at the time of the accident.

[kestrel91316]

104. I've only flown into SF one time in my life and I found the approach out of the south where you are

very low over water to be ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING. And I have 5 decades of plane passenger experience.

[premium]

109. I too have only flown into SFO once,

it was in 69 coming home from Vietnam, have no recollection of it, was just glad to be home.

[tofuandbeer]

135. +1

[Gormy Cuss]

174. The side by side runways are what terrify me.

Landing over water is something I'm used to after flying into Logan (BOS) for decades. I've been on only one flight where a plane was landing on the parallel runway at about the same time and it was a pass-the-Grey-Poupon moment--and I hope that I never experience that again. I'd rather fly through downtown San Diego.

[pangaia]

214. No it is not one of the most dangerous airports in the world.

[davidpdx]

134. Yes, they are

I've flown from Seoul to SFO and back on Asiana. Sitting in Seoul now, I'm shocked.

[Psephos]

49. Epic fail. Leave the politics out next time. n/t

[cosmicone]

84. +1 n/t

[CokeMachine]

148. Thank You!! nt

[Cooley Hurd]

5. CNN breaking with it now...

Images show slides were deployed., but smoke billowing from the wreckage.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Possibly more like a very hard landing, smoke, it's an Aseana Airlines flight. (nt)

[Cooley Hurd]

13. Asiana Airlines

...per video on CNN, aircraft is off of its gear, tail appears to have broken off, but emergency slides are shown as deployed.

[sofa king]

99. Maybe clipped the tail section?

Perhaps the landing was a few feet too low. The fire appears to have originated internally, within the cabin, while the fuel tanks clearly did not rupture and ignite. I wonder what happened there? Friction from the slide?

[Cooley Hurd]

101. The fuselage was destroyed by electrical fire. Given the debris on 28L...

...it landed short and lost the empennage of the aircraft at the very beginning of it.

[TheMadMonk]

184. Way too low. The way the tail is sheered off tells the tale.

Plane coming in too low. Pilot realised too late, attempted to get back into the air, and ripped the tail off on the seawall when he lifted the nose to go around.

I suspect it was the best recovery possible given the circumstances, but just how the fuck did he get the plane into that position in the first place?

[Warpy]

7. According to the rumor mill (Twitter)

the flight originated in Taipei.

https://twitter.com/vini_1914/status/353584593800138752

[Pachamama]

9. Just got a call from my husband - my daughter is deplaning from her Flight and being rebooked for

...tommorrow....

More soon from my husband....he said they see smoke and its an emergency situation there with flights being canceled....

[Cooley Hurd]

15. Phew!!!!!

[Pachamama]

20. Yes, indeed she was scheduled to depart at 12:28....

[Cooley Hurd]

24. I hope this doesn't deter her.

This is a rare event, considering the are thousands of flights daily that take place without incident.

[Pachamama]

41. No kidding!! The good news is that she has been traveling for years, including international, so I

...hope when she is home we can talk about it and I can also tell her statistically its safer to fly than be in a car...

Hopefully her 9 year old brain can understand...

[SheilaT]

137. I've always known how safe flying is,

and have absolutely no fear.

About ten years or so ago I was attending a conference being held at a hotel right at the St. Louis airport. My room overlooked the runways, and I spent time in my hotel room just watching airplanes take off or land. Plane after plane. Hour after hour. Just in case I hadn't already known how safe it was to fly, this absolutely proved it.

Meanwhile, thirty or so people die every day from guns. About 30,000 people a year die in car accidents. And huge multiples of both those numbers (gun and car deaths) are injured every single day.

[rebecca_herman]

169. Fears are not always rational and not always curable

I haven't been on an airplane in ten years. The last time I tried I nearly had a full blown panic attack. Many phobias are not logical, but telling the sufferer how illogical their fear is doesn't help. I also have a crippling fear of spiders. I can't remember ever hearing of someone dying from a poisonous spider where I live, but I still can't even go near the things to kill them, I have to use a broom or something. Logical? No. But my brain doesn't get that when it sees one, and same with flying.

[maddezmom]

18. Good news

[Pachamama]

22. Poor kid - first solo flight at age 9 and she is really shook up according to my husband....

So glad she is ok and was departing at time....My husband sees it from gate....

[Iliyah]

56. Glad to know she's ok!

You guys take care.

[premium]

27. Very good news,

very happy she's ok. Hope the passengers are all ok also, still awaiting word on whether any injuries or casualties.
Keeping fingers crossed.

[Faygo Kid]

11. It's on CNN now.

Wow.

[maddezmom]

14. Boeing 777 crashes while landing at San Francisco airport operated by Asiana Airlines in from S Kore

Boeing 777 crashes while landing at San Francisco airport
A Boeing 777 operated by Asiana Airlines crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
The airplane was coming in from Seoul, South Korea and apparently crashed sometime after touching down on Runway 28. No other details were immediately available

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/06/19323541-boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-at-san-francisco-airport

[mindwalker_i]

17. That's what I call "breaking" news

Sorry, I know it's in bad taste.

[orpupilofnature57]

36. You know nothing . I hope that's not in bad taste .

[SunSeeker]

21. The fuselage appears intact for now, with deployed escape shoots. Hoping for the best. nt

[Bosonic]

23. Tail detached during landing

and the plane flipped-over onto its back (according to news I've just listened to).

[Cooley Hurd]

33. It's upright on the runway now...

On edit; looking at the live shots on CNN, it looks like both the port and starboard wings are still attached to the aircraft. I can see the starboard engine nacelle.

The top of the fwd fuselage has burned away, but overall the aircraft is relatively intact.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. Video shows the wings still attached but top of the fuselage burned through.

Tail seems to be missing.

[premium]

46. They're saying that the tail detached during landing and the landing gear collapsed. nt.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. You have to have a pretty violent tail strike for that kind of damage.

Sometimes if an airplane lands with an excessively nose-high attitude it can bump the tail, but there is rarely any serious damage. This looks like something else happened, like sudden main landing gear collapse which could cause the tail to hit the ground hard. Fortunately the NTSB should have no difficulty figuring out what happened here.

[premium]

51. I concur,

The NTSB, FAA, FBI, TSA, and the DHS will be all over this, they should be able to determine what the cause was pretty fast.

[Cooley Hurd]

71. The debris field starts right at the rip rap of the approach end of 28L

It appears she was too low and her tail was sheared off as she crossed the threshold. Debris starts were the red X is:

[premium]

76. Thanks for the pics.

It looks like something struck the very beginning of the runway, I think you called it right, it looks like a tail strike.
It looks like the tail struck the rock jetty, debris in the water. I would image that a flight crew is going to be questioned pretty extensively.

[premium]

40. Looks like the forward top of the fuselage is burned away,

still haven't heard of any casualties. Keeping fingers crossed.

[Cooley Hurd]

44. Given the aircraft is relatively intact, I think any casualties will be, thankfully, minimal.

[Brother Buzz]

58. Local SF radio is saying that's dirt

Interesting Twitter from passenger, now standing on the hard looking at his airplane:

https://twitter.com/eunner

[premium]

63. Have no idea where they're coming up with dirt,

the top of the aircraft is clearly burned away.

[Cooley Hurd]

64. No, that's burned fuselage.

[Brother Buzz]

67. Yes, my radio is now saying the top did burned late into the event

[Brother Buzz]

38. Upright, off the runway - tail did detach.

[Cooley Hurd]

26. A pic of THE Asiana Airlines 777 involved in today's incident:

[PoliticAverse]

47. Some additional pictures as a youtube video...

[TheMadMonk]

185. And the purpose of that promotional montage is? /nt

[Crow73]

32. Here is the photo

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo/nYfcx/
KTVU 2]

[PoliticAverse]

34. Youtube video of the plane on the ground...

[sakabatou]

52. Are the passengers off the plane?

[ailsagirl]

55. Info is sketchy

But I heard that all the passengers who survived are in Bay Area hospitals-- it doesn't look very good, as the plane looks pretty burned and broken up.

[Cooley Hurd]

61. Per Hissyspit's pic upthread, I don't think it's as dire as that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014528925#post31

[ailsagirl]

75. I hope so-- my sister saw the black plume of smoke

We both live near SFO

[Cooley Hurd]

85. There was fire, but by every account I've read, the a/c was evacuated by the time the fire...

...burned thru the fuselage.

[ailsagirl]

168. I'd say the emergency personnel did (are doing) a good job

I just heard there are passengers unaccounted for.

No numbers given.

[warrior1]

53. Not Really a plane crash more like a hard landing

[Cooley Hurd]

59. ...more like a bad landing. There's debris on the 28L overrun...

...indicating she landed short and lost her tail, possibly on the breakwater at the approach end of 28L.

[Cooley Hurd]

54. Bits of the empennage are all over the 28L overrun. Looks like the tail struck BEFORE the main gear

Looks like it landed short.

[premium]

60. Thanks,

they weren't saying if the tail came off just as it was landing or if it was a tail strike, still not saying if there were any casualties.
Redwood City F.D. are saying they have personnel there treating burn victims.

[Cooley Hurd]

62. They showed the overrun of 28L (the approach end) and it's strewn with debris...

Unless the tail fell off just as it crossed the threshold (which, of course is unlikely), it looks like a tail strike that resulted in loss of control as the aircraft landed. Regardless, the a/c is a total loss.

[premium]

65. Agreed.

Don't think they'll be repairing that aircraft.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

68. You have to bang the tail awfully hard for that to happen,

but the indications that they "landed" on the overrun area does suggest somebody really dicked up that landing.

[Cooley Hurd]

72. If the aircraft lost power or control on final, then the crew should be appauded...

That's an IF, though.

[panzerfaust]

178. Yep, the betting at AirDisaster.com is that they landed short - lost the gear, then the tail

http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=55224

Lot to be said for always flying the ILS - which I thought was SOP for heavies?

I suppose it is possible that they were on the ILS and lost power for some reason.

It could have been SO much worse.


Cameras and carry-ons! Myself, I would want to be as far away from that potential fuel explosion as fast as possible - cannot imagine anyone being so unaware as to put a few things in their luggage ahead of the safety of both themselves and of whomever they held up by lugging stuff along.

[panzerfaust]

179. The were on the visual ...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

183. Maybe the baro was set wrong...

...and the alerter woke them up???

[Cooley Hurd]

186. "Don't sink. PULL UP!"

They must've been in a deep slumber to not hear this.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

188. Descent rates show -1320 to -1380...

...until under 600 ft. Even at -2000 fpm you don't get "PULL UP" until your 15 seconds from the ground.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog

[Mr. David]

69. AVHerald's report here:

Includes a video

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

[Sedona]

70. LIVE LOCAL TV NEWS FEED

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/ktvu-live-news/vtSfR/?updated

[hedgehog]

95. Thank you - my husband travels the Seoul -NY route frequently via Asiana, so

I'm grateful for access to these details!

[thelordofhell]

73. Did Snowden get out OK??

[mimi85]

176. If that was supposed to be a joke....

it's not funny and it's definitely in bad taste - at best. I'm surprised someone hasn't sent a mod alert.

[Major Nikon]

77. From what I've heard the plane was at a high angle of attack

...and the tail of the plane hit the seawall and detached.

If this is true, a few possibilities come to mind. Could be the pilot was attempting to abort the landing, or perhaps just a very bad landing attempt.

[TheMadMonk]

187. Has to be an abort. Needs one hell of a lot of rotation to take the tail off like that.

Which begs the question, why was the plane landing so short?

Which begs another question pertinent to the current subject du mois. Given the total surveillance state, why don't airports film the landing and take off of every plane?

Why aren't a lot of things monitored more closely given our ability to do so? Yet when it comes to keeping tabs on little people, the monitoring becomes more and more intrusive.

[Major Nikon]

189. From what I can tell, the runway has no threshold to speak of

So you basically have the seawall and the runway starts immediately with the runway aiming points near the start of the runway.

The flight was almost certainly on a visual approach to the runway which means the pilot is probably not using any radio aids to navigation on the approach. He's literally just looking at the runway and landing on it.

There's a unique challenge to visually landing on runways that are at a different height than their surroundings. It makes it more difficult to judge your height above the landing point.

[TheMadMonk]

191. That part of the runway is called the "over run". Pilots are not supposed...

...to use it for touchdown, unless they bloody well have to. Your reasoning about judging heights being a prime reason why the hell not. And I'll take it even further, The Dam Busters discovered way back in WWII that accurately judging height above water by eye is EXTREMELY difficult.

JUST WHAT THE FUCK WAS A PILOT WITH A COCKPIT FULL OF INSTRUMENTS DOING DICKING AROUND WITH A 100% VISUAL APPROACH TO AN AIRPORT WHICH MULTIPLE POSTERS HAVE IDENTIFIED AS PROBLEMATIC?

[Major Nikon]

193. The technical name is "displaced threshold" if it exists

In the case of 28L, there's not much room between the start of the runway and the seawall. The approach lights are out in the bay.

I don't agree that the airport is "problematic". Certainly SFO is famous for fog, but that didn't apply today. I've landed at SFO before and I didn't think there was much about it that was all that challenging other than congested airspace in the area which would be par for the course for pilots flying big jets.

Even when flying under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) pilots rarely fly anything other than visual approaches in good weather conditions unless Air Traffic Control requires you to do so because of traffic or other conditions. Flying a full approach takes you many miles out of your way and wastes fuel for no good reason. According to the airport Notices to Airmen, the Instrument landing system was out of service anyway during the time of the crash, which would have been the primary means for a precision approach to that runway. That approach does have a Precision Approach Path Indicator which gives the pilot a visual indication of the glidepath he should have been on.

[TheMadMonk]

194. AS per other posts. The pilot should have been aiming for a point much (1000 ft?)...

further down the runway just as a matter of routine.

Googling displaced threshold San Francisco tells me IT HAS ONE.

Problematical, in as much as you yourself said, judging heights of two adjacent surface is difficult, and and as I added, over water is even more so.

Strikes me that not flying into the ground is about the best reason possible not to shave an approach like that.

Absent some evidence of equipment failure or clear air turbulence, the two most likely scenarios are the pilot was paying insufficient attention to his surroundings, or he was deliberately ignoring most of his instruments and aiming for the first inch of blacktop as some sort of macho test of his skillz. (Not to be racist, given past behaviour of senior Korean pilots, the latter is a possibility which needs to be investigated.)

[Major Nikon]

195. Actually no

There are markings in the touchdown zone that pilots use for aiming points. Had the pilot been using the PAPI, it would have directed him to that area of the runway. It's simply good pilotage to land in that area because all the runway you don't use is wasted, and sometimes you actually do need all of it.

There are other things that could have gone wrong as well. Landing an airplane visually is basically an exercise in energy management. Too low or too slow can require more energy from the engines to correct. Too high or too fast can necessitate a reduction in power. You also have to maintain runway alignment while you are doing all of this. Sometimes pilots get behind the aircraft and overcorrect these situations and the only remedy in the end is to go around and try again. Pilot fatigue also comes into play on long flights.

[TheMadMonk]

203. And as far as I can tell THAT first 1000' or so of tarmac IS NOT RUNWAY.

It's the error bar in the harsh statistics involved in kissing the ground as gently as practicable with several hundred tons of aluminium, cargo and flesh.

A pilot may use it if he has to, and in practice, (unless noise abatement/structure avoidance regulations are breached) no one raises a stink if he doesn't use too much of it, but best practice still has a pilot putting down BEYOND the displaced threshold.

Choice here is a pilot who made multiple mistakes as per your various suggestions, without corroboration from ATC recordings, or a pilot thinking he knew exactly what he was doing up until the moment he realised he'd fucked up big time, and it was that fraction of a second too late to correct.

Cockpit recorder may well tell a different story, but until it does my money's on the pilot deliberately shaving his approach and screwing the pooch big time.

[Sedona]

79. From KTUV unconfirmed .....no fatalities

almost all passengers walked away

Those damn union thug airline employees doing their jobs again!

[enlightenment]

103. There might be two fatalities

or at least that's what the local station is reporting.

Flight attendants? If they were in their jump seats in the rear.

Very sad, regardless.

[premium]

113. Local Fox affiliate is now reporting that the

Redwood City F.D. is saying that there were 2 fatalities and 48 injuries.
If true, a tragedy, but it sure could have been much worse.

[enlightenment]

124. True.

Thank you for the update.

[FarCenter]

80. WNEM

CNN reports witnesses heard a pop and saw a fireball emerge from under the plane.

An eyewitness told local station KCBS that the plane looked like it was "at an odd angle" as it was coming in to land.

The plane "started violently shaking" after it hit the runway at San Francisco airport, and then "rolled over," a witness told local channel KTVU.

David Eun posted a photograph on Twitter that he survived a plane crash. Various tech blogs report that Eun is an executive at Samsung.

Shortly after posting the picture, Eun tweeted, "Fire and rescue people all over the place. They're evacuating the injured. I haven't felt this way since 9/11." He also said that most of the passengers appeared to be OK.

KTVU in San Francisco is reporting that the tail came off the plane, which was carrying 300 to 400 passengers. The San Francisco Fire Department says injured passengers are being taken to hospitals, but the number of injured isn't known.

There are no deaths reported at this time.

http://www.wnem.com/story/22773403/boeing-777-crashes-in-san-francisco

[hexola]

81. Looks like one of the engines seperated and got pushed against the fuselage.

Perhaps causing the fire - hopefully people were able to get off before it really lit up.

[premium]

86. They're saying that all passengers and flight crew got off. nt.

[darkangel218]

83. What does cartwheeling mean

[sakabatou]

87. It means the piece of the airplane broke and spun off (possibly)

[darkangel218]

88. Ahh ok. thanks

[premium]

90. Cartwheeling is another word for rolling end over end.

Doesn't look like that's what happened here so far.

[Cooley Hurd]

91. I don't think it "cartwheeled" in the sense that UA 232 did in Sioux City, IA

The aircraft still has both wings. It might've spun around on its yaw axis, though. Still hard to tell...

[premium]

96. I don't think so either,

both wings would have been torn off and the crash would be much worse than it is, and there probably would have been severe injuries and fatalities like in Souix City, IA.

[hexola]

102. Wings look intact - if they saw anything carwheeling - it was parts of the tail...

Looks like the nose was slammed down hard after the tail hit...

[James48]

89. 291 on board- ZERO killed. ZERO serious injuries.

Just some minors ones so far.

This is a tribute to THE U.S. GOVERNMENT's FAA AVIATION SAFETY STARDARDS which require burn resistant materials inside the cabin (14 CFR 25.853); crash resistant seat structures (14 CFR 25.785) etc.


GOVERNMENT WORKS.

[Cooley Hurd]

93. ...and a testament to Boeing.

[KT2000]

132. thank you for that! n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

133. Despite the issues w/ 787, their aircraft are exceptional.

I've flown on everything from a B-17G to a 767. I love them all!

[premium]

138. Flying Fortress.

Quite the Bomber for it's time.

[Cooley Hurd]

139. I won a half-hr ride on one a year ago!

Here's my video of the incredible experience:

[premium]

145. Incredible video.

I was riveted watching it, thanks for posting it.
I must have been fascinating to ride on this beautiful machine, you are one lucky person.

The closest I ever came was sitting in an Grumann F6F Hellcat at an air show one time.



My dad was a fighter pilot during WWII and this is the type of fighter he flew.

[Cooley Hurd]

147. Hellcats of the Navy, baby!!!

Our 1st real challenge to the A6M!

Sorry for the shaky video - a mix of vibration and excitement!

What unit did your Dad fly with? My Dad was an AA Bofors 40mm gun captain in France and Germany. On the other end of things, so to speak.

[premium]

204. He was actually stationed aboard

the U.S.S. Yorktown CV-5 flying the F4F Wildcat with VF-6 until the carrier was sunk during the Battle of Midway, he then was stationed on board the U.S.S. Enterprise CV-6 with VF-10 flying his F4F Wildcat until he trained to fly the Hellcat and then rejoined his squadron aboard the Enterprise.

I dearly miss him.
R.I.P. Dad.

[KT2000]

142. You bet!!

My Dad was an engineer there - he started when Boeing was building furniture!
His planes were - Yankee Clipper - KC-135 (most of his career)- 707 - and several military planes during WWII & Air Force One.
(If you are so inclined, here is a tribute to the KC-135 with some good refueling shots:

He was a serious man as were his colleagues. They never forgot that people's lives depended upon their accuracy. And triple back-up was not considered "too costly."
Bad times in our family was when a KC-135 crashed. I promise you - everyone who worked on a plane that crashed felt it to the bone, questioned their own work, and mourned.)

[Cooley Hurd]

144. Boeing builds awesome aircraft.

A good (and late) friend of mine, Col. Lewis Kesterson, was the USAF's chief test pilot on the KC-135 program.

Man, I loved and still MISS ol' Lew.

[KT2000]

171. Awesome!

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I bet I have a photo of him then. There are a couple pictures of my Dad and Curtis LeMay with several Air Force pilots with the first KC-135. It was a photo op where they appeared to be examining the engine or something, shaking hands etc. The pilots were really handsome guys!

Your friend must have worked closely with LeMay as he was the man to please for the KC-135.

[hexola]

97. Now reporting 2 deaths KTUV

[avaistheone1]

119. 2:02pm KCBS in SF just announced 2 fatalities, 61 injured.

[Cooley Hurd]

136. Not seeing fatalities listed anywhere else...

...at least not yet.

[avaistheone1]

153. Here's a confirmation from another SF station.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo/nYfcx/

[Cooley Hurd]

157. The reason for my questions are these:

The fuselage... including the entire passenger cabin, was intact for several minutes after the incident. Emergency slides were deployed. The tail section, which was apparently destroyed at the moment of impact, was not part of the aircraft that contains passengers - it was clearly JUST the empennage.

Local (i.e. affiliate) news usually has a terrible record regarding breaking news events involving aviation events. They're second-string. I have first-hand experience in this.

[TheMadMonk]

190. This whole thread skiting about American exceptionalism is out of place here.

Particularly, given that the FAA track record on enacting NTSB recommendations after disasters is spotty at best.

It may have improved in recent times, but it doesn't take many episodes of Air Crash Investigations, to see that in the past the FAA has relied more on flight/ground crew awareness of design problems with aircraft, than forcing manufacturers to correct KNOWN FAULTS. The rear cargo hatch on DC-10s is a prime example, but there are plenty more to choose from.

[NBachers]

92. There's raw footage of the plane from local station KTVU here:

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/sf-airport-crash-raw-helicopter-video-of-777-crash/v5z6T/

Reports on the KTVU home page say at least two fatalities.

[Sedona]

94. 747 SFO approach and landing runway 28 right cockpit view

[Cooley Hurd]

98. That's 28R...

[freshwest]

196. Wow, that nearly put me to sleep. Great video, very clear view of the landing. Thanks.

[AsahinaKimi]

100. KCBS is reporting that 12 injuries but NO DEATHS

Amazing.

[Octafish]

106. It is amazing.

Miraculous, all things considered.

[AsahinaKimi]

114. KCBS is now reporting two Deaths..

and three went to St. Francis Hospital for burn treatment.

[Octafish]

123. I am sorry. It was too good to be true.

One eyewitness from the airport indicated the tail hit so hard it fell off, causing the plane to cartwheel. I imagine that would be horizontal spin, as it did not look like the aircraft somersaulted, but rather was damaged in the ensuing fire.

Heartbreaking. Thoughts and prayers to the injured and survivors.

[freshwest]

197. That is good news! Thanks, AsahinaKimi. EDIT: Spoke too soon:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014528925#post181

[Major Nikon]

107. Found the audio recording from the tower

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ksfo/KSFO-Twr-Jul-06-2013-1800Z.mp3

20:00 Asiana 214 checks in with the tower

21:15 Tower clears Asiana 214 to land

22:00 Sounds like someone in the background at the tower says something like "what happened over there?"

22:30 Tower tells Asiana 214 emergency vehicles enroute. Can't make out what Asiana 214 says.

23:00 Tower starts telling people the airport is closed.

23:08 Asiana 214 speaks to tower. Can't make out what Asiana 214 says. Tower tells Asiana 214 emergency vehicles enroute.

24:35 Tower clears emergency vehicle to cross all runways.

[Cooley Hurd]

110. Great find, Major!

[Major Nikon]

122. Near as I can tell the pilot never declares an emergency

Video from CNN shows an impact on the sea wall. The end of the runway is 13' above sea level. Near as I can tell the plane was on a visual approach to runway 28L and probably got too low, causing the impact on the sea wall.

[Iliyah]

108. nbc is on top of it

303 no deaths, hospitals are gearing up for and or receiving burn victims.

[AsahinaKimi]

111. burn victims went to St. Francis

Only three so far, and one was walking in on their own power. KCBS IS now reporting Two dead.

[premium]

118. Several news stations are reporting 2 fatalities

according to the Redwood City F.D..

SFFD now reporting at least 61 injuries.

[East Coast Pirate]

117. The plane looks messed up in this pic.

[hexola]

120. The fire happened after the crash - look at this pic...

[Agschmid]

121. 777 is a great plane...

This accident just shows that. We will learn more obviously.

[East Coast Pirate]

126. Yeah, much better shape there.

[Mr.Bill]

131. Gotta love the idiot

carrying the suitcase off the plane.

[TheMadMonk]

192. NO YOU DON'T! He put lives at risk for property.

An appropriate response would be to shackle that suitcase to his wrist, red hot rivet old school.

[MrsMatt]

199. He's probably in shock

He just went through a plane crash - people do some strange things when they are in shock.

I'd cut him some slack.

[TheMadMonk]

201. Not sure I would. Too much historical evidence of awipes kissing seafloors...

...and other locales inimical to human life over gold, jewels, etcetera.

The fact that he survived is even more reason to hammer him. Either whatever he retrieved is sufficiently valuable that it should be taken from him as a matter of principle, or it is something so frigging banal, that he (and his precious) should be held up as an object of ridicule/contempt, for his willingness to risk the lives of others over nothing.

It's like the texting obliviot driving into a crowd of people. Chances are, killing 1, 2, or a dozen people is a big enough clue stick to beat the message into even their inch thick skulls, but we're not aiming AT them. We should be aiming them (as a missile in their own right) at potential future offenders in the hope that we might hit them before someone else dies. That the missile doesn't survive the experience unscathed should be irrelevant.

[MrsMatt]

205. My point was, he most likely wasn't thinking straight, if at all.

I've never been involved in a near death accident like that, so I'm unwilling to speculate on what was going on based on one photo. It's hard to know exactly how one will behave in a situation so traumatic.

I would feel differently if there were photos of him pushing aside and trampling on other passengers in order to get to his bag, that's a different story. But, as yet, none have come to light.

[TheMadMonk]

213. My feelings are different, because regardless of HIS actions, I DO KNOW...

...of situations EXACTLY like you describe.

"Women and children first" is in fact a self congratulatory fiction attributable to just one or two shipwrecks of the early 20th Century. (The truth is, in most disasters, the weakest disproportionately suffer the greatest casualties, and MANY of those casualties are the result of the stronger individuals' reactions to that disaster.

If you examine the injuries of many shipwreck victims, you will find bootprints of the survivors upon their shoulders.

That this individual's actions failed to cause harm in this instance is no excuse for those actions.

[Mr.Bill]

216. Apparently my sarcasm was missed.

I thought I was being clear by calling them an idiot.

Let me restate and be clear: If I am exiting a burning aircraft and you are in front of me retrieving your baggage, prepare to find my footprints running up your back.

[uppityperson]

128. Another after the fire is out. Whew.

[avaistheone1]

129. KCBS reporting in addition to the 2 fatalities, there are at least 10 critically injured: 2 children

8 adults. San Francisco General Hospital (the major trauma center for the area) is setting up a triage tent and will start attending the injured in waves, the most injured first. Some of the critically injured are already going into surgery.

[premium]

130. So sad,

especially the children, but, the only bright spot, it could have been much, much worse.

Heart goes out to the families of the deceased and injured.

[davidpdx]

141. I've taken many flights between Seoul and SF

and a few on Asiana. They are a good airline.

[Cooley Hurd]

146. Either something weird happened on final (regarding power or control)...

...of the pilot effed up. No idea which at this stage of the investigation.

CNN, however, has ruled out terrorism.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

155. Or, autoland coupled to inaccurate glideslope?

Which seems unlikely. I can't figure out how experienced pilots could have dicked up a visual landing like that, if that's what happened.

[Cooley Hurd]

159. It was severe clear by every wx report.

I'm leaning towards power or control failure.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

162. Could have been doing an autoland anyhow.

Most airlines require autolands to performed regularly irrespective of weather.

[Major Nikon]

207. No autoland without an ILS

The glideslope had been out of service since June and the rest of the ILS was out of service before the crash.

SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359

SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L LLZ/DME OTS WEF 1307071700

IIRC, most airlines haven't implemented WAAS approaches for their crews.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

208. Yup, just read that myself - so that theory's out.

We know what happened, but the mystery still is why they hit the tail on the seawall. Doubt it was the same frozen fuel problem as the 777 in England a few years ago - different engines on that one (Rolls Royce) and anyhow they seem to have fixed that problem.

The mystery will probably be solved once they interview the crew.

[Major Nikon]

209. I'm sure the NTSB and FAA already have a good idea

It's hard to imagine anything other than pilot error. It was a 7.5 hour flight. The pilots were probably fatigued and they would have had to hand fly the approach without any vertical or horizontal guidance from the ILS. The PAPI appears to have been working before the crash, but I suspect the accident wiped it out as it's been NOTAMed out since the crash and I believe the accident was on the same side of the runway as the PAPI. During the day you can't see them all that far out anyway. Less likely it could have been a wake turbulence issue. I believe it was a heavy 757 that landed right before them and they are notorious for generating lots of wake turbulence. Still ATC issued him a warning for that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

211. Fatigue could have been an issue, even though they would have had an augment crew.

So maybe this scenario: No ILS for backup; they didn't program, or didn't follow, a VNAV glide path, so the flight directors aren't very helpful or maybe even giving guidance that made things worse. Maybe a pilot who rarely hand flies the jet for anything other than the last 1000 feet of a very stable straight-in on an ILS. After a very long flight the pilot just didn't make the transition fast enough from automated mode to "stick and rudder" mode. Deceptive visual cues coming in over water could have made it hard to tell he was critically low. When he realized he was in trouble he pulled the nose up and added power but it was too late.

As you say - the NTSB/FAA probably already know pretty much what happened. Read somewhere else on the net (so it must be true, haha) that the CEO of the airlines told media there wasn't a mechanical problem, which indicates they have already talked to the crew.

[get the red out]

163. I like Asiana

I am not a frequent flier but flew on Asiana on my one visit to Asia and was very impressed by the airline.

[railsback]

154. Weird

Happened right behind us as we came back from Foster City on 101. Came home, it was on the news. Thankfully, it wasn't worse than it was.

[jtuck004]

156. Could the water color have become like the runway? From what is being said, the

pilot should not have touched down for about another thousand feet. Also that they come in on visual on nice days, that the height of the plane over the deck is more or less manual, flying by the seat of their pants, as it were.

So could the eyes have been fooled by being unable to distinguish the runway lights and borders during the day, with the sun a little bright, water turns a little gray or black, like the runway?

I don't fly, just curious.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

161. Not likely because even on a visual approach

they will be getting ILS (instrument landing system) indications, and the airplane will give aural warnings from its ground proximity warning system if it's getting too low too soon. Typically there will be an automated voice that says "Sink rate! Sink rate!" or "Glide slope! Glide slope!" So even if they were doing a visual landing they would be getting other information. On a modern airliner a visual approach isn't a seat of the pants operation.

[jtuck004]

170. I gathered that, but your is the most specific confirmation I've gotten.

Still, it came in tail-too-low, apparently, and sheared off not JUST the tail, but nearly the whole, or the whole, of the flight attendants. And it would have to affect more than one - pilot, co-pilot, engineer? Maybe they were texting. The flight attendants go to the rear and buckle in for landing, or might have only been one left at the front of the plane, or not. That rear section got taken off, and a passenger observed that they were "gone", and it was horrible, 5 of them, yeah...etc. That's what they used to do when I flew, years ago.

A preliminary assessment seems to suggest that most of or all of the 290 or so passengers were cut off from any crew at the moment the emergency began. They said 190 "self-evacuated". That witness seemed to suggest they just got out on their own.

That seems avoidable. Maybe they should disperse them, or maybe I am not getting a good picture. But it would seem like a good idea to spread trained people through the cabin.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

177. On a 777 there should be 10-11 flight attendants

but no flight engineer, only a captain and first officer. But since this was a long international flight they would have been using an "augment" crew - an extra captain and/or first officer. I am wondering what happened to the FAs in the aft jumpseats. Looks very bad.

[Major Nikon]

206. The glideslope was out of service

SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359

[James48]

158. They flew it right into the ground

The flight profile over on Flightaware.com shows that they flew it right into the ground. Sky cover was reported at the time as either 800 foot overcast, or 1100 broken cloud cover. (broken means more than 5/10th and less than 9/10th covered. )

The flight profile shows that the aircraft was in a descent of 1,320 feet per minute down, at just 600 feet altitude. That is way too fast for that height. The last entry shows it appear to have hit the ground and actually bounced up in the air a hundred or so feet (cockpit is at 200 feet reading, which would be anything above 150 feet feet in the air).

then it smacked the ground. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214/history/20130706/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog

[Cooley Hurd]

160. We don't know if they had a power (engine) failure on approach.

Not yet, at least. I will always give the pilot the benefit of the doubt until proof is offered otherwise. I'm biased that way.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

164. Engine problems usually don't happen that quickly.

There would have been indications well before the accident happened.

[Cooley Hurd]

166. Oh, they can happen quickly. Usually, not when the engines are at a low power setting...

..like when landing. But we just don't know shit right now.

[hedgehog]

165. Wow! I was looking for that page, thank-you! I use that site to

track when I should leave for the airport to pick up my husband. Compare this page

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/HL7742/history/20130628/0730Z/RKSI/KSFO/tracklog

to get some idea of how odd this landing was.

[RILib]

167. Univision says at least ten injured, eight adults, two children in the hospital.

[Hissyspit]

172. @AP: SF Fire Chief says two are dead in crash of Asiana jetliner at San Francisco International Airp

@AP: SF Fire Chief says two are dead in crash of Asiana jetliner at San Francisco International Airport: http://t.co/empW5tPQRh -MM

m.twitter.com/AP

[Hissyspit]

173. CNN Breaking News - Sixty people are unaccounted for following the plane crash at San Francisco Inte

CNN Breaking News - Sixty people are unaccounted for following the plane crash at San Francisco International Airport, fire chief says. Reply STOP 2 unsub

[mimi85]

175. I just heard that as well.

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

I hate to think the worst, but when people are "unaccounted" for, it's not a good sign. What a tragedy!

Update: Thank goodness, just heard they were already in the airport terminal

[Hissyspit]

180. @BreakingNews: Officials: 1 person unaccounted for after San Francisco plane crash; 181 transported

[warrior1]

181. Breaking news: 181 injured 2 dead, 1 missing

http://www.nbcnews.com/

[jakeXT]

198. The first 777 crash was because of ice crystals in the fuel

http://news.yahoo.com/experts-boeing-777-fantastic-safety-record-230857194.html


They fixed the Rolls Royce engines, but this one had Pratt & Whitney, at least that was what I had heard yesterday on CNN.

[hedgehog]

210. Did people power up their cell phones before things went awry?

[Gormy Cuss]

212. Victims in crash identified as two teens

Two 16 year olds who were seated at the back of the plane. Both bodies found outside of the aircraft.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victims-in-crash-identified-as-two-teens-4650990.php