Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For comparison, view the video of the UA DC-10 at Sioux City in 1989.
Apples and oranges. Surely you know that that was an out of control plane, coming into the airport, and it hit the tarmac at close to 3 x the speed of the the 777 at SFO. If the 777 had hit that sea wall at 3 x the speed, I doubt there would have been anything left of the plane.
A better comparison would be Continental Airlines Flight 1404 in Denver. Which was an old Boeing 737-524 that veered off the side of the runway, skidded across a taxiway and a service road, went airborne and then crashed in to a 40-foot-deep ravine several hundred yards from the runway.
Despite all of that, the 737 stayed intact and there were no fatalities. The damage to the plane was pretty comparable to the damage to the 777 at SFO. Like the 777, the 737's fuselage was cracked, fire caused overhead luggage compartments to melt. But there was probably a little less fire damage then in San Francisco, and the tail section didn't disintegrate like 777 did.
So over all I'd say that the 777 didn't hold up any better to the crash, then an old 737.
Apples and oranges. Surely you know that that was an out of control plane, coming into the airport, and it hit the tarmac at close to 3 x the speed of the the 777 at SFO. If the 777 had hit that sea wall at 3 x the speed, I doubt there would have been anything left of the plane.
A better comparison would be Continental Airlines Flight 1404 in Denver. Which was an old Boeing 737-524 that veered off the side of the runway, skidded across a taxiway and a service road, went airborne and then crashed in to a 40-foot-deep ravine several hundred yards from the runway.
Despite all of that, the 737 stayed intact and there were no fatalities. The damage to the plane was pretty comparable to the damage to the 777 at SFO. Like the 777, the 737's fuselage was cracked, fire caused overhead luggage compartments to melt. But there was probably a little less fire damage then in San Francisco, and the tail section didn't disintegrate like 777 did.
So over all I'd say that the 777 didn't hold up any better to the crash, then an old 737.
I find this a bit terrifying. So, for instance, a co-pilot wouldn't question it if he noticed the plane was about to stall if the pilot didn't agree?
I believe that has to do with the Asian culture of not questioning a senior pilot about his actions. But in this case it seems that co-pilot was in the position of being an instructor so he should done something about the pilot at the controls actions sooner.
Captain Bill
Isn't there some sort of Audible Alarm for the slow speed?
As Magnum Mike said, there is a stick shaker that shakes the yoke, and you also hear the vibrator. This occurs at a speed above stall the stall speed. According to the reports so far, the stick shaker did operate, and shortly after that, the power accelerated to 50%.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill
As Magnum Mike said, there is a stick shaker that shakes the yoke, and you also hear the vibrator. This occurs at a speed above stall the stall speed. According to the reports so far, the stick shaker did operate, and shortly after that, the power accelerated to 50%.
Assuming the electrical/mechanical systems were functioning normally the 50% power seems awfully strange unless they were thinking the approach could still be salvaged.
I think you're over-reacting skipper, but my words were not as well-chosen as they should have been, you're right. It is, nevertheless, an interesting and pretty factual analysis of publicly available data that the press ignores, or distorts, in favor of a hot story. It shows what happened on the approach, not why. The causes of the rapid rate of descent, just prior to the landing, combined with the reduced power that put them where they were, when they were, in the last 30 seconds or so before impact need to be discovered; you're right about that. What this analysis shows is that the 777 was in the wrong place at the wrong time with no resources left to recover.
Yes, I agree with that statement. All we know at this time is that the airplane was low, slow, got the stick shaker (stall warning), and according to a passenger, the airplane began shaking, which indicates to me that it was stalling at that point. Then the power was increased to 50% power, and the airplane struck the sea wall.
The NTSB issued a statement that said they have found no indication that the airplane used a steep descent anywhere during the approach.
From the pilot interviews, we also know that the auto throttle was being used, and at some point the instructor pilot noticed that they were too low, started to push the throttle forward, but the other pilot had already started.
Except from the air speed details from the NTSB, the flight origination at Shanghai with a stop in Seoul, that is all we know. We don't know how long the crew had been on duty.
Here is an interview with Captain Sullenberger discussing the investigative procedure:
Assuming the electrical/mechanical systems were functioning normally the 50% power seems awfully strange unless they were thinking the approach could still be salvaged.
Unless there was a problem with the engines or engine control systems, the 50% power would be the maximum that the engines had spooled up to at the time of impact. It does take a few seconds for the engines to spool up to full power.
The NTSB is a highly political organization that will present "facts" collected and give their opinion as to the cause of this tragedy somewhere so far down the road that a whitewash wouldn't generate a whimper of challenge.
Intelligent, independent thinkers will draw their own conclusion and form their own opinion as to the culpability of the pilots.
I honestly think you missed your calling, Bill, because you could stand in front of a jury and spin a double murder into an honest mistake and simple misunderstanding in about 20 minutes.
Personally, I'm overjoyed at the possibility that, at long last, we may have found an honest CEO.
Intelligent, independent thinkers who act on partial information are not using their intelligence in an intelligent manner.
It appears obvious that the pilots allowed the airplane to get too low and too slow. The question that must be answered is WHY? And it will take a long time to gather sufficient information for the NTSB to make that determination. To call it pilot error and drop the matter would be a disservice to the flying public because nothing would have been done to prevent the same thing from happening again.
The NTSB learned a long time ago, that their rush to judgement in calling an accident pilot error because of what appeared to be pilot error at first glance, was faulty, because many of those accidents were not pilot error. Finally, level heads prevailed, and the NTSB learned that they MUST do a complete investigation so they can determine the exact cause of an accident, and all underlying contributing factors.
The safety of the flying public is at stake here. So, while you may be satisfied with a rush to judgement with partial information, I am not. I would like to think that the NTSB, in this accident, as well as accidents that preceded it, will find the root cause, and that airplane modification or flight training and approach procedures for Avian and other airlines will improve because of their diligence in finding all of the underlying causes.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill
Unless there was a problem with the engines or engine control systems, the 50% power would be the maximum that the engines had spooled up to at the time of impact. It does take a few seconds for the engines to spool up to full power.
Ah, I must've missed something somewhere, I was under the impression they'd only advanced the throttles to a 50% poer setting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't that axe sharp enough yet?
