Crash at San Francisco

wretcheddomain

News just in about this, seems an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 from Taipei is reported to have crashed at San Francisco International Airport.

More detail yet to come...

Here's video footage of the fire:

directPEPOD

http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/07/san-francisco-plane-crash-asiana-flight/

shedweller

Some of the tweets in the above link are saying the whole tail came off upon landing. It also looks as though the undercarriage is no longer under the plane.

jamo2oo9

Seems to be massive crash seeing that there is no tail visible from that video. I'm guessing it flipped over whilst landing? Is the plane upside down or what? The slides look a bit high up I think

Kristopherus

On Sky News now.

shedweller

RT says it was a cargo plane.

Peregrine

It looks like the tail section detached and the undercarriage collapsed or came off..

People evacuated at the front. I hope all are okay.

jamo2oo9

Took this off Twitter

#SFO Update:
303 SOB. All 303 accounted for.
SFFD 3rd Alarm + RED Alert
SMCFD 3rd Alarm
USCG O/S
Asiana Flight 214 from Seoul

shedweller

shedweller wrote: »

RT says it was a cargo plane.

Fail on RT's part. It most certainly was a passenger plane.
Some good pics here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/plane-crash-in-san-francisco-2013-7

Strumms

Definitely a passenger airliner... Footage showing on sky news shows that it mush have been a violent impact and then some.. If there are only minor injuries and no fatalities then that will have been some result, fingers crossed that is the case..

Peregrine

Asiana 214 from Seoul

kona

Landing gear snag?

Big credit has to go to manufacturers, crew, training, FAA , easa. Another hull loss in which there seems to be 100% suvivability.

Just saw sky news, looks like a tail strike tool out the ths/ vs.

jamo2oo9

Looks like it. Video on Sky News shows that the landing gear hit the edge of the runway and I think that the pilots tried to abort the landing and thus pulling up but the tail got whacked and presumably fell apart from the fuselage

The Black Oil

http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/6336/web

Live feed EMS/Fire Rescue.

Strumms

It looks like the aircraft just about made it to hard ground.. News feed showing initial impact with the edge of the breakwater ahead of the runway..

shedweller

Strumms wrote: »

It looks like the aircraft just about made it to hard ground.. News feed showing initial impact with the edge of the breakwater ahead of the runway..

I did see a pic in one of the first few links above that showed a cloud of dust seperate to the crash site. This to me is looking similar to the british airways plane that came down hard just short of the runway, or to the side, i can't remember now.
All speculation in any case. Hopefully people arent too messed up with smoke inhalation. It does look like there were no fatalities though. Fingers crossed.

Bsal

I wonder if what happened to the British airways 777 at Heathrow a couple of years ago happened here, fuel freezing in the fuel filters and starving the engines.

devnull

Maybe it's just the pictures I've seen from a bad view, but isn't one wing missing an engine?

Wise Old Elf

devnull wrote: »

Maybe it's just the pictures I've seen from a bad view, but isn't one wing missing an engine?

Looking at pics on sky, rhs engine is forward of wing. Can't see left engine.

L1011

devnull wrote: »

Maybe it's just the pictures I've seen from a bad view, but isn't one wing missing an engine?

Aren't modern engine nacelles designed to break off in certain impact cases?

Strumms

Bsal wrote: »

I wonder if what happened to the British airways 777 at Heathrow a couple of years ago happened here, fuel freezing in the fuel filters and starving the engines.

Same thing I'm thinking about too as the initial impact with the ground is short of the runway. From what I understand the landing was normal and no mayday was issued but I guess it's all or mostly speculation till the facts piece themselves together...

kona

Bsal wrote: »

I wonder if what happened to the British airways 777 at Heathrow a couple of years ago happened here, fuel freezing in the fuel filters and starving the engines.

Not a chance they modded the heat exchangers on the trents to eliminate this. Looks like pilot error tbh

Air asiana use P&W power plants , BA use RR

donvito99

The ILS for 28R was out of action apparently.

cml387

kona wrote: »

Not a chance they modded the heat exchangers on the trents to eliminate this. Looks like pilot error tbh

Slightly premature blaming the pilot,tbh.

donvito99

Anyone know what the weather was like? Looked pretty good.

kona

cml387 wrote: »

Slightly premature blaming the pilot,tbh.

Why?

Kenny2012

---

Here is the ATC courtesy of LiveATC.net

http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3

Kenny2012

Weather at SFO..

METAR text: KSFO 061856Z 21007KT 170V240 10SM FEW016 18/10 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP098 T01830100
Conditions at: KSFO (SAN FRANCISCO , CA, US) observed 1856 UTC 06 July 2013
Temperature: 18.3°C (65°F)
Dewpoint: 10.0°C (50°F) [RH = 58%]
Pressure (altimeter): 29.82 inches Hg (1009.9 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1009.8 mb]
Winds: from the SSW (210 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 10 or more miles (16+ km)
Ceiling: at least 12,000 feet AGL
Clouds: few clouds at 1600 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather observed at this time

donvito99

kona wrote: »

Why?

Because we have no facts, other than that an aeroplane has crashed and that there is some debris leading back to the threshold. And that an aeroplane is a big and complex thing with lots to go wrong. Lay off them 'til we know more. The fact that almost everyone has walked away suggests the pilots did display some ballsy flying, contrary to your assertion.

kona

donvito99 wrote: »

Because we have no facts, other than that an aeroplane has crashed and that there is some debris leading back to the threshold. And that an aeroplane is a big and complex thing with lots to go wrong. Lay off them 'til we know more. The fact that almost everyone has walked away suggests the pilots did display some ballsy flying, contrary to your assertion.

I can make a opinion on what I've seen from pictures and reports. If it was a mechanical issue , it would have been noted and atc informed

Peregrine

Unfortunately, 2 people are reported dead.

EDIT: UNCONFIRMED


It hit the ground so early..the tail struck the ground even before the blast pads and the displaced threshold..

kona

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Unfortunately, 2 people are reported dead.


It hit the ground so early..the tail struck the ground even before the blast pads and the displaced threshold..

Bad news rip

joegriffinjnr

Assholes taking photos while there are still people trying to evacuate. The world we live in now a days. RIP to those who lost their lives.

Peregrine

kona wrote: »

Bad news rip

Actually, just heard that on Sky that it's not confirmed. US media is reporting it.

Strumms

kona wrote: »

I can make a opinion on what I've seen from pictures and reports. If it was a mechanical issue , it would have been noted and atc informed

With respect... The NTSB have highly trained and highly qualified Air Accident Investigators who will take ample time to establish all the facts before they publicly apportion blame or confirm the cause of any crash or incident. If it was all as simple as sitting behind a PC with the TV on and jumping to conclusions based on a fraction of the information that will be available to the investigators then hey I guess we don't need investigators.. We can just ' ask the Internet ' .

kona

Strumms wrote: »

With respect... The NTSB have highly trained and highly qualified Air Accident Investigators who will take ample time to establish all the facts before they publicly apportion blame or confirm the cause of any crash or incident. If it was all as simple as sitting behind a PC with the TV on and jumping to conclusions based on a fraction of the information that will be available to the investigators then hey I guess we don't need investigators.. We can just ' ask the Internet ' .

With all due respect this isn't a NTSB investigation it's a discussion board and I'm sure similar questions are being investigated.

It's called speculation , what should the thread contain ? A heap of sterile rip comments and back patting a crash well done?

Strumms

Well, we have had 3 pages of the thread without sterile RIP comments or 'back patting' whatever that's all about. It's my view that it is inapropriate not to mention pointless to make hard assumptions based on little fact over the cause of something so serious especially when it comes to placing blame on individuals as in this case. Then again I don't make the rules so whatever floats your boat

kona

Strumms wrote: »

Well, we have had 3 pages of the thread with sterile RIP comments or 'back patting' whatever that's all about. It's my view that it is inapropriate not to mention pointless to make hard assumptions based on little fact over the cause of something so serious especially when it comes to placing blame on individuals as in this case. Then again I don't make the rules so whatever floats your boat

Well people were assuming that the engines were starved of fuel like the ba crash . Which isn't true at all. Why not question them? Is it because I blamed a pilot? I'm gunna leave it now before it fills the thread with more ****e!

Peregrine

Few pictures from live feeds:

Impact

Tail and horizontal stabiliser

Landing gear

Aircraft

Aircraft

Grandeeod

Can anyone speculate what caused the fire on board? Roof looks burned off from the live feed I'm looking at.

Wise Old Elf

Grandeeod wrote: »

Can anyone speculate what caused the fire on board? Roof looks burned off from the live feed I'm looking at.

Speculation from a non expert. Right engine detached but was very close to the wing and could have ignited leaking fuel.

stevenmu

Comparison of the approach with the previous day's flight:
https://mobile.twitter.com/sbaker/status/353611787750494208/photo/1

(I've no idea if that indicates anything, it may be entirely within norms afaik)

FWVT

Landing on R28, but wind varying back to 170. Possible that they briefly encountered tailwinds, leading to the steep sink rate. Wind averaging only 7 knots and gusts tend to veer, but still a possible factor.

Calibos

Expert in the loop to some degree on CNN just there making the point that while the media while be making a huge deal about the crash over the next few days, that in the grand scheme of things the 'low single digit fatalities' of this and other accidents in the last decade in the states shows that air travel has never been safer.

So I'd say while not officially confirmed yet, his slip of the tongue would indicate some fatalities.

CNN also just interviewed a passenger. He said after being out of the plane 20 minutes he saw a bloodied woman stagger towards them from the direction of the start of the runway. He said the ran towards her and saw other bodies and he was giving out about the emergency services not coming from the main fuselage even after being told about the bodies back down the runway.

So it looks like some passengers were lost out the back when the tail came off and I'd imagine those are the aformentioned fatalities.

shedweller

^^^^
Shes one lucky woman. RIP to the poor unfortunates that didnt make it.

Grandeeod

60 people unaccounted for so far. UNCONFIRMED.

allthedoyles

garv123

joegriffinjnr wrote: »

Assholes taking photos while there are still people trying to evacuate. The world we live in now a days. RIP to those who lost their lives.

What about the assholes they took pictures of who taught it would be important to take their luggage with them delaying others getting off the plane.

brandon_flowers

BBC saying 2 Chinese passengers dead, 40 seriously injured. Did this flight originate in China and have a stopover in Seoul? Just curious as twice the Chinese to Korean headcount.

http://mobile.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23214513

I fly pretty frequently and I don't mind saying that if there was an evacuation situation and someone was farting about with luggage blocking an aisle they'd be pushed back into their seat. That is simply not on.

Sandwlch

brandon_flowers wrote: »

BBC saying 2 Chinese passengers dead, 40 seriously injured. Did this flight originate in China and have a stopover in Seoul? Just curious as twice the Chinese to Korean headcount..

Origin Shanghai.

smurfjed

So much for the concept that sitting at the back of the aircraft is the safest place to be.

smurfjed