Crash at SFO

[kham]

Accident: Asiana B772 From AvHerald

touched down short of the runway, broke up and burst into flames. Way too early to say what happened here. Although going low just before touchdown sounds a lot like the BA Crash at Heathrow a few years back

[Duncan Edwards]

Reporting 2 dead and 1 still missing. Not to minimize any loss but if that's as bad as it gets then there were a lot of lucky people who walked away from a totaled aircraft.

[kham]

Yeah the fire looks to have been post-evac, and extinguished pretty fast. What gets me is some of the usual blithering idiots on other boards talking about the 777 in a negative sense. Yeah.... the 777 IS a safe bird, not even 6 hrs after an accident is no time to even say anything. Some of said blithering idiots claiming both wings torn off when they clearly attached even after the fire. Most of these chumps seem to not get that you put Urkel behind the wheel and it doesnt matter what sort of equipment it is. Or mechanical failure. Or some sort of unknown event. Heathrow no one even thought about ice in the fuel, and even then, to the extent that would clog the filters.

[Duncan Edwards]

I've got satellite radio in my truck and kept switching between CNN, FOX, and BBC, on the way back from the office (had to work Saturday) and the most disturbing thing was the inane babbling that the half hour news cycle requires. The moronic things that get said and reported by talking heads and "experts" just looking to fill air time is mind blowing. I could go on and on about that but maybe some other time. I'm sure we all know what I'm talking about. People were already blaming the pilot and maybe it was his fault but how is anyone to know yet? This guy must have had thousands of hours and all of a sudden he forgot how to land a plane? Just like the bad 777 landing at Heathrow these things rarely have any single cause. People were blaming the crew and it turns out they were heroes instead. Let's give it a while.

[bbjohn]

A plane crash and just two dead. I'd say they're pretty lucky. It could've been infinitely worse. I'd look to see if some guardian angels got their feathers singed.

It's way too early at this point to say what happened. Unfortunately, this is when all nut jobs and loose screws come out with their theories as to exactly what happened. You know, of course, that if a nut case says it on the Internet, it must be true!

Seriously, I prefer to wait to see what the investigation reveals. For what it's worth, I've heard no negative comments about the Boeing 777. I know aircraft engineers and designers learn from earlier accidents, and they incorporate their findings into new aircraft designs. That's why air travel today is safer than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Of course, 30 or 40 years ago, you didn't have nut jobs flying planes into the sides of buildings expecting they would receive 72 virgins, but that's a topic for another post.

- Big Bad John

[Mynock]

The media is sad to report the tragic loss of their ratings due to most of the passengers surviving the crash.
Great aerial shot of the crash site. Note in the top left corner there are two really big chunks of what look like either elevators or a rudder (red thing for scale is a fire truck).

SF Plane Crash II.jpg

Complete speculation on my part but I'm going to say the guy behind the wheel realized at the last minute he was short of the runway and tried to pull up. Tail caught on the break water and tore the elevators/rudder off. Oops.

[kham]

At Heathrow, they were coming down the chute and Vref started decaying, and autothrottle wasn't correcting; the PF pushed on the thrust levers for manual control and nothing happened. And this is at about 500 agl and less than a couple miles from the threshold. Having double engine failure just before touchdown isn't something you sim unless the instructor is a total asshole. Because statistically its right up there with being hit by a Soviet Satellite.

[schlamm]

A little right of center and WAY low to have a tail strike on the jetty.
Unlike some of the frantic reports that the tail section 'came off' prior to the crash, I am inclined to believe that was a result of it. Took a 'tech tour' of the 777 when I still worked for the airlines, it is a stout bird and pieces aren't going to 'fall off' unless broken off first. The elevators and rudder did separate from the aircraft...as did the landing gear and no one provided a photo of where the number one engine is (left side)...that is a mighty big hunk of metal to be missing completely. Number two is right next to the right side of the fuselage.
Merely pondering on my part, but there is a chunk of something out in the water, a left bank to correct an off center approach would dip the left wing....I wonder if that is number one out there in the drink. If so, that would damn sure explain the tail section impacting the jetty very shortly there after.

[dlodoski]

...Note in the top left corner there are two really big chunks of what look like either elevators or a rudder (red thing for scale is a fire truck)...

The red (and yellow) chunk is actually the rudder. I think that the majority of fire trucks in the photo are green/yellow.

I saw a picture of the #1 engine laying on or near the runway.

I suspect that there is going to be a lot of chatter about auto-throttles and so on. But in the end, a lot of luck and design experience came together and resulted in very few overall casualties. I personally like the 777. It feels real good - unlike the DC-10, for example, which always felt like it was trying to fly itself apart.

[Duncan Edwards]

... - unlike the DC-10, for example, which always felt like it was trying to fly itself apart.

It did on at least three occasions that I can remember. I've had rides on the DC-10 and it's successor the MD-11 and that's a pretty good description.