Crash at SFO

[kham]

They have updated a lot of the photos recently; the port (#1) engine is about 200m downfield to the right , in the infield between 28L and 28R, closer to the edge of 28L. Engine #2 is right next to the fuse -- which is what likely caused the fire.
One of the mains is in the drink, the other just short of the numbers , the nose gear just about right on the numbers on the right side.

The chattering classes can say what they like, it doesn't improve their image, or reduce their level of imbecility. Boeing tests the hell out of their airplanes, and I mean Flight Tests. Unlike Airbus, who rely WAY too much on computer modeling. If it aint Boeing, I aint going.

[kham]

Try this on for size:

There currently some discrepancy in the NOTAMs regarding the status of the PAPI lights; one says out of service before crash until August , re 'upgrades' mandated by FAA, other says it was updated after the crash, so perhaps they were taken out by crash. Slight problem there, the PAPI lights are usually on the left side of the runway threshold -- and thats not the point of impact. Things that make you go hmm. So, long flight , no ILS, and no glideslope visual feedback information available. Hm boy

[schlamm]

The MD-11 has done some odd things on landing at least 4 times now, twice with Fed-ex and two different commercial carriers have had it flip over following a hard landing (the Tokyo Fed-ex crash is very well documented in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8OW4y3HC44. Yes, it was a botched flare and the nose hit pretty hard right before the rollover....but to happen four times in exactly the same fashion has me refusing to fly on that bird. I've worked on the 'scarebus' A-300, it is a temperamental bitch to work on or with and is designed by someone who will never have to fix anything on it....NOTHING is easy to get to or work on.

Like Kham said, if it ain't Boeing I ain't going

P.S. I cut my teeth on the 727 and 737, love 'em still as they are well designed and good at what they were built to do.

[kham]

Vid shot by someone on shore

Looks like that Boeing wing saved their asses Try to ignore the commentary from the camera operator...

It looks a lot like a botched approach and overrotation trying to salvage the landing. Eh boy.

[dlodoski]

Vid shot by someone on shore

Looks like that Boeing wing saved their asses Try to ignore the commentary from the camera operator... ...

At least he managed to not say "Oh, the humanity"

Pretty stunning to have video of that, all the same. And yea, if they had actually flipped over..... bad news.

[bbjohn]

I saw on Yahoo! news that the pilot of the plane was in training. He was a veteran pilot, but this was his first time out flying a loaded 777.

Be that as it may, please bear in mind we still don't know what caused this crash. It could be something mechanical went wrong. We should also be grateful that only two persons were killed. This could've been a lot worse.

For what it's worth, I hear that airliners built in the former Soviet Union make almost everything built in the West look safe by comparison. Perhaps the most public embarrassment for Soviet aviation came when the Pride of Aeroflot, the Tu-144 supersonic transport, blew up in mid-air at the 1973 Paris Air Show.

The Tu-144 spent it career as a freighter to Siberia. I wonder how many comrades were purged over this debacle.

- Big Bad John

[bbjohn]

As a member of the oft-maligned big bad media, I'd like to say a few words. First, with incidents such as this, the media (and especially broadcast media) run into two often competing goals: speed and accuracy. People want information, and they don't want it right way, they want it yesterday. Unfortunately, much of the early information that comes out about events like this is inaccurate or incomplete. When it gets reported on the air, it later becomes very embarrassing to the media outlets involved.

Some of you may recall that, when President Ronald Reagan was shot in March 1981, there were reports that his press secretary, James Brady, had died. I watched an embarrassed Frank Reynolds of ABC News announcing that report was erroneous and telling the staff to make sure they got it right.

As a print reporter, I personally prefer to wait until I have all the facts before I go with a story. On a couple of occasions, I've been accused of 'protecting' some political figures because I didn't report on some misdeed for a given edition. That wasn't the case at all. I just wanted to make sure I had all the facts right before I went with the story (I love it when those same people who accuse me of protecting someone then say how they forced me to write the story. In this job, there are times you just can't win).

With broadcast media, reporters often find themselves sent out to events like this while they're live and on the air. Often, they know as little about the event as their viewers or listeners. If they're like me, they're the proverbial mile wide and a foot deep: they know something about a lot of things, but not a lot about anything. There may be periods when little is happening to report on, but they're still on the air. So, they try to fill up the dead air with babbling. Unfortunately, what they often show is their ignorance.

I read that, in the early days of television, there was a morning show on WWJ-TV in Detroit where the cast basically ad-libbed for three hours. When they couldn't think of anything to do, they had the cameras look out the window at the traffic on Woodward Avenue or they focused on two playful guinea pigs in their cage.

I'd rather look at guinea pigs than see how some of these reporters embarrass themselves.

- Big Bad John

[Mick]

The Lady running the NTSB investigation has it right: "Nothing is off the table, but it is FAR too soon to know what really happened."

Mick

[schlamm]

Almost, it is painfully evident what happened....to slow and too low.
One can almost always convert air speed to altitude or altitude to air speed, they had neither option available.
The why it happened is still open to debate, but considering the short distance the aircraft stopped in and how violent that was it is amazing that there weren't a lot more fatalities than there were

[Fred588]

Almost, it is painfully evident what happened....to slow and too low.
One can almost always convert air speed to altitude or altitude to air speed, they had neither option available.
The why it happened is still open to debate, but considering the short distance the aircraft stopped in and how violent that was it is amazing that there weren't a lot more fatalities than there were

Schlamm is completely right.Too low and sloow is WHAT happened, not why it happened. Did the pilots just fly too slow? Was the speed indication wrong? Did they hit an unexpected wind? Did something cause a drag of the plane itself? Or did something else happen? It will take a careful and thorough investigation to answer that with authority.