GetSetJetSet

Not true. On an AF flight NCE-ORY, we had to go around and the pilot came on and apologized, saying that he has misjudged the approach and that necessitated the go around. I was shocked by his candor.

A few months ago on an AV flight CTG-BOG we had not one but TWO go around on the same flight. There was no announcement, but after we landed, I asked one of the FA's what had happened and she told me that both times, as we were on final ATC had vectored traffic on to our intended runway thus requiring us to go around.

Sometimes they'll be honest with you.

Firewind

And so you also must be familiar with the old saying, "It's always, ultimately, pilot error..." Which is also the ironic way of stating that, even if it's the last possible cause standing when all else is ruled out, and so this becomes the only reason given, it may not be.

cerealmarketer

Indeed. Seated in rear, one was explicitly found near the tail remains. Not a lot of possibilities unfortunately.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ns-4650990.php

PVDtoDEL

Right - if the captain is unable to land perfectly, it's considered a loss of face.

At many Asian airlines, go arounds are rare because captains don't want to go around and first officers can't speak up to their superior due to culture. It is very bad for safety indeed.There is immense cultural pressure to "make it work"

Pilots are encouraged to go around, but it doesn't always happen.

Sent from my iPhone

greg99

+1

Just because the NTSB will look at all possible circumstances causing and related to the crash doesn't mean that it won't focus on the most likely circumstances.

For those condemning posters here for highlighting the likelihood of pilot error, perhaps a refresher on Occam's Razor is appropriate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Greg

PVDtoDEL

I wonder if they were wearing seatbelts.

roadkit

In cases with no survivors, that can unfortunately be the case. Not so here. We have all the data recorders, pilots and crew available, etc. This is not "Fate is the Hunter" -- if the pilots screwed up, the NTSB will find out. My only point is that in cases such as these, with the circumstances of the crash being what they are, pilot error is the most likely cause.

<redacted>

malgudi

It wasn't corrected when I saw it ... so quit pontificating

Sounds like he was busted and is now trying to pass it off as a mistake. If it was a mistake, he would've owned up the first time instead of making a flippant remark. Perhaps he changed his mind after all the negative publicity!

A_Lee

I've said that also, and continue thinking about that. Everytime I fly and see children not wearing their seatbelts I think how it's going to turn tragic in the event of a serious, but not normally deadly crash landing. Based on the number of times I observe passengers not belted on OZ and other Asian flights, I can almost guarantee that there were at least several on this flight not buckled in. If true, it's horrible to even think of them being thrown out of the aircraft as it was impacting and/or spinning. If it's an adult just ignoring the safety instructions (provided they understand them), I don't have much sympathy. But for children, especially those who are under adult supervision, but who the adults don't monitor correctly, I think it's the adults to blame. In this specific case, it sounds like there was a large group of school children, so I doubt there was an adult in clear view of each child to check on each of them. But whoever was in charge should had been very stern with them about buckling up.

Hopefully some useful data will come out of this tragedy and the safety video/checks/process can be improved to strengthen what I consider to be the weakest link among Asian airlines. Also some heavy media exposure of how serious not wearing your seatbelts might do some good.

FlyingUnderTheRadar

I was not speculating just noting that in addition to being ejected from the plane there maybe a plausible explanation for the location of the two girls who sadly died.

Next, reread my original comment and do not take it out of context:

Again plausible.

Further there a phenomena called "talk and die" - people seem fine walk away from a crash and die. Sometimes minutes later, sometime hours later, sometimes days later. Look up Natasha Richardson for a well publicized case regarding brain injuries. Again plausible.

Or look at seat belt injuries and internal bleeding. Again plausible.

Any good investigation will go through all plausible explanations and not be blinded.


BTW I know first hand that such can happen as I hauled out my climbing partner out of crevasse after being swept into it and being partially buried due to an avalanche. After getting him out, he walked to a safe area where he collapsed and was pretty much non-ambulatory. He did not die, but he was working on adrenaline and had some pretty serious trauma.

flyboy60

I think it's pretty clear that the one girl found near the tail wreckage, far from where the fuselage came to rest, was ejected. As for the one found 30 feet from the resting fuselage, we simply have not got enough information to know - but ejection seems much less likely in her case.

Firewind

I submit that, regardless of the credentialed persons here using the words "assume" and "assumption" explicitly, it's still possible at this moment that what the person flying the plane did was salutory in the face of a dire condition. It's also possible that s/he did the opposite, as with the person flying the commuter into Buffalo that night, who pulled instead of pushing, or the other way around. At.this.moment.

And as to speculation, you'd better believe that that's what NTSB and anyone with a piece of responsibility in this is doing. About everything. And we should hope that they are. (Apparently, that's what the best of the best with all the responsibility are still doing w/r/t the 787 battery problem.) And so why shouldn't we?

hnl808

Right, and I understand that the airline would like to continue business to the best of their ability. However with SFO being a turn station, the ground staff in SFO may not be fit to service additional flights. They would have been burnt out from yesterdays activities as well as the ongoing activities in regards to the incident.

I have also heard that in the past (previous accidents) the crew could call out because they are emotionally unfit to work the flight.

FlyWorld

You have to go all the way to Saigon, in 1950, to find evidence refuting my assertion that yesterday's crash will not cause a crash today? How many flights have not crashed between 1950 and 2013?

FlyWorld

"It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

Seems to me: Pilot landed short, crashed the plane into seawall.