A_Lee

Agree. And so until mechanical failure is ruled out, saying it's "beginning to look like pilot error" is just ridiculous. Of course we all know that pilot error and mechanical failure are way up on the list of the cause of aircraft crashes. And to a lesser extent, weather and terrorism. So naturally pilot error is a very good possibility. But until more is known, speculating about one cause over another is just as bad as the journalists who come off looking like idiots being they know nothing about what they're talking about.

mkjr

I don't like the implication on the media that there is undue reliance on instruments. Is this true?

flyinbob

Interesting to note LH 455 just took off from SFO enroute to Frankfurt off of runway 1 (not sure if L or R). The interesting part is LH 455 is an Airbus A380. Loaded with fuel and passengers and the biggest plane was able to use runway 1. If so, operations should be not too badly impacted.

PVDtoDEL

Yes, it's true. Many airlines require autoland to be used when possible in their SOP, so pilots get limited experience hand-flying VFR approaches. Increased automation is great at reducing the workload of pilots, but it also makes it harder to maintain important basic skills of airmanship.

This theme comes up every time there is a pilot error crash on a modern jet - media had field day with this stuff after the Air France crash a few years ago.

eng3

I've flown out of SFO a few times where they were operating with 2 runways due to weather/winds and it usually caused a delay of about an hour or so.

Herb687

No surprise there really. When AA sent a 757 off the runway and into a snowbank at JAC it was reported on FlyerTalk before any media outlet!

cblaisd

A rather chilling account from a passenger on the flight:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/crash-survi...ry?id=19597759

PVDtoDEL

Next time fog comes in, SFO will be down to 1 runway. That won't be pretty at all...

MikeMpls

(content removed)

FlyWorld

"We heard an announcement saying the plane has safely landed and everyone should stay put."

FWAAA

Earlier today, it flew from OAK to SFO; I would bet money that LH 455 took off with just enough fuel to get to its planned fuel stop - perhaps OAK or SMF or maybe LAS. Very unlikely that it carried any significant amount of fuel let alone enough fuel to make it to FRA nonstop.

zs58

When I lived in Shanghai for a number of years I flew 214 (PVG-ICN-SFO) many, many times. Typically, a large percentage of passengers on that flight were, to put it mildly, not very considerate of safety protocol or even airplane etiquette. It was not uncommon for a dozen people to be up and out of their seats, grabbing for overhead luggage a good 30-60 seconds before we were parked at the gate, or headed to the bathroom right after the landing gear was up on takeoff, barging past you in line to board, etc. Think waiting in "line" for a rush hour subway in a large Chinese city. The Asiana crew was always very professional in dealing with these passengers, but also, understandably, exasperated. Let's also remember that English was, for the crew and the majority of the passengers, their second language.

I think the Asiana crew deserves some major kudos for getting as many off that plane in as quick a fashion as they did. Frankly I'm surprised that more people weren't taking their carry on luggage down the chute with them.

Herb687

Sure won't be. And depending on which way the winds are blowing it could be a CF of epic proportions.

As far as I remember, only three of SFO's eight runways have precision instrument approaches (19L, 28L, 28R).


Likely that if LH455 was fueled to make FRA nonstop that it took a hefty pax/cargo weight restriction in order to takeoff on 1R.

Lower nighttime temps and perhaps some more favorable than typical winds could have also helped the Germans get their A380 off of 1R tonight.

1R will not be a viable solution for many long-haul widebodies departing SFO.

TheBOSman

Just as a note, if luggage did indeed fall down, it may have made more sense, particularly on a nearly full plane, to take any luggage in the aisles off from the plane with you, rather than attempting to restow it. Just want to offer a counterpoint to those who seem, I'll say mystified, that people would leave the plane with bags.

blackjack-21

The angle of attack with the nose gear high would mean that if the nose gear did indeed hit first, the continuing momentum of a high speed landing would have pitched the nose downward and dragged the main gear over those rocks in a split second later, possibly ripping them off also.

OT but.. years ago my wife and I were in our car at the airport in Toronto with a coffee while watching takeoffs and landings at the end of runway 23 on the north end of the airport. The daily KLM B747-400 flight from AMS was on approach and we watched as she flew directly over us at maybe 200 feet above. Passing the threshhold, with full flaps down and gear extended, at perhaps (guessing here) 50 feet high before touching down, suddenly steep nose up, full thrust and wheels retracting for a go around. Ten minutes later she landed safely. We've never seen, or been on such a close in missed approach as the one we saw that day. Turns out the previously landing aircraft had not cleared the runway in time, according to someone sitting in a car nearby who had an aircraft radio and was listening to the tower chatter. So if the Asiana flight deck had time to initiate a missed, did they wait too late, or were they intending to complete the high speed, albeit, short landing?

bj-21.