Jul 6, 2013, 5:58 pm
Last edit by: JDiver
MODERATOR GUIDEPOST: Wikipost instructions: signed in members can minimize or maximize Wikipost by clicking on [-] or [+] box upper right of post; moderators may edit this Wikipost.
OZ 214 ICN-SFO (reg no HL-7742), a 2006 Boeing 777-200ER with P&W PW4090 engines; flew ICN - KIX - ICN immediately prior (not as OZ 214). 291 passengers and 16 crew on board. 3 people dead, 48 seriously injured, 132 less so.
Aircraft landed short on approach (VFR weather, ILS out of service, PAPI working) impacting the seawall delimiting runway 28L with main landing gear and then the tail 11:28 PDT, careering down the runway to a stop and ensuing fire. The empennage and both engines separated from the fuselage, and fire from an oil drip in engine no. 2 burnt a significant part of the upper forward fuselage.
Runway 28L / 10R was closed until 1700 PDT 12 July; all SFO runways are open.
Here is a Link to the Flightaware track. (6 Jul 2013).
Link to original BBC article; Link to BBC photo show
Update: 08 July 2013
Summary of NTSB press conference
Update: 09 July 2013
SF Gate summary of NTSB press conference
Update: 10 July 2013
NBC video and summary of NTSB press conference
Update: 11 July 2013
San Jose Mercury summary of final NTSB press conference
PLEASE NOTE: Due to the sensitive nature of an aircraft crash, Senior Moderators ask that posts be made keeping the surviving passengers, crewmembers and their families in mind. Posts that do not comply with TOS (off-topic and dilatory posts, OMNI, conspiracies, inflammatory, etc.) will be summarily deleted.
OZ 214 ICN-SFO (reg no HL-7742), a 2006 Boeing 777-200ER with P&W PW4090 engines; flew ICN - KIX - ICN immediately prior (not as OZ 214). 291 passengers and 16 crew on board. 3 people dead, 48 seriously injured, 132 less so.
Aircraft landed short on approach (VFR weather, ILS out of service, PAPI working) impacting the seawall delimiting runway 28L with main landing gear and then the tail 11:28 PDT, careering down the runway to a stop and ensuing fire. The empennage and both engines separated from the fuselage, and fire from an oil drip in engine no. 2 burnt a significant part of the upper forward fuselage.
Runway 28L / 10R was closed until 1700 PDT 12 July; all SFO runways are open.
Here is a Link to the Flightaware track. (6 Jul 2013).
Link to original BBC article; Link to BBC photo show
Update: 08 July 2013
Summary of NTSB press conference
Update: 09 July 2013
SF Gate summary of NTSB press conference
Update: 10 July 2013
NBC video and summary of NTSB press conference
Update: 11 July 2013
San Jose Mercury summary of final NTSB press conference
PLEASE NOTE: Due to the sensitive nature of an aircraft crash, Senior Moderators ask that posts be made keeping the surviving passengers, crewmembers and their families in mind. Posts that do not comply with TOS (off-topic and dilatory posts, OMNI, conspiracies, inflammatory, etc.) will be summarily deleted.
Asiana Airline OZ214 777 crash at SFO (6 Jul 2013)
Jul 7, 2013, 4:04 pm
#1021
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: CMH
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM, HH Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 745
How was anyone ejected
I've been reading this thread and I may have missed the post that mentioned it, but how did the girls get ejected? I've not read where the doors opened prematurely and the fuselage is intact when it finally came to rest. I've seen the violent landing video but still wondering how they left the aircraft.
Jul 7, 2013, 4:05 pm
#1022
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Pitot tube failure is certainly possible; 777s have experienced a number of pitot tube failures. But pitot tube icing often occurs at very high elevations, and this would seem to have engendered failures in systems including the ADIRU, FDR not to mention the human eyeball (Mark I).
So we'll have to relax and see what NTSB finds.
So we'll have to relax and see what NTSB finds.
Jul 7, 2013, 4:07 pm
#1023
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NCL
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 484
I am both an Airline Transport rated pilot and flight instructor.
What seemed likely yesterday now seems clear. This was purely pilot error. The glide slope of the ILS (Instrument Landing System) was turned off at SFO. This means that the pilot could not use his autopilot for the approach. However, the weather was perfect and visual approaches were what was required. This means that the pilot had to determine his own glide path to the runway.
Plainly he landed short. Indeed, this has all the earmarks of what student pilots show before they learn to do better. When a glide path is coming up short, the response by the pilots must be application of power. That is the only response that works. Human nature unfortunately suggests raising the nose as that creates the illusion that the short glide path is being fixed. Actually that makes things worse as it does not lengthen the glide path; instead it reduces airspeed.
So what do we see here: throttles at idle position and airspeed 7 knots too slow.
Honestly this is inexcusable incompetence in the flight deck. These are mistakes that student pilots make in Cessna 150s before they are taught to do better. Not in an airliner.
Seems without the crutch of a glide slope and an autopilot coupled approach, this crew was not up to the job.
Tragic, sad, inexplicable, incompetent.
What seemed likely yesterday now seems clear. This was purely pilot error. The glide slope of the ILS (Instrument Landing System) was turned off at SFO. This means that the pilot could not use his autopilot for the approach. However, the weather was perfect and visual approaches were what was required. This means that the pilot had to determine his own glide path to the runway.
Plainly he landed short. Indeed, this has all the earmarks of what student pilots show before they learn to do better. When a glide path is coming up short, the response by the pilots must be application of power. That is the only response that works. Human nature unfortunately suggests raising the nose as that creates the illusion that the short glide path is being fixed. Actually that makes things worse as it does not lengthen the glide path; instead it reduces airspeed.
So what do we see here: throttles at idle position and airspeed 7 knots too slow.
Honestly this is inexcusable incompetence in the flight deck. These are mistakes that student pilots make in Cessna 150s before they are taught to do better. Not in an airliner.
Seems without the crutch of a glide slope and an autopilot coupled approach, this crew was not up to the job.
Tragic, sad, inexplicable, incompetent.
Jul 7, 2013, 4:07 pm
#1024
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 1,498
I've been reading this thread and I may have missed the post that mentioned it, but how did the girls get ejected? I've not read where the doors opened prematurely and the fuselage is intact when it finally came to rest. I've seen the violent landing video but still wondering how they left the aircraft.
Jul 7, 2013, 4:08 pm
#1025
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
I've been reading this thread and I may have missed the post that mentioned it, but how did the girls get ejected? I've not read where the doors opened prematurely and the fuselage is intact when it finally came to rest. I've seen the violent landing video but still wondering how they left the aircraft.
Jul 7, 2013, 4:10 pm
#1026
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NCL
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 484
I've been reading this thread and I may have missed the post that mentioned it, but how did the girls get ejected? I've not read where the doors opened prematurely and the fuselage is intact when it finally came to rest. I've seen the violent landing video but still wondering how they left the aircraft.
Jul 7, 2013, 4:12 pm
#1027
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,189
I believe so, yes.
Jul 7, 2013, 4:23 pm
#1028
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DAY
Programs: AA EXP, IHG Spire, National Exec Elite, Hilton Gold
Posts: 456
When you're that low and slow, it's what pilots call the "backside of the power curve." What it means is that pulling back on the yoke/stick (which raises the nose) will increase the angle of attack - the angle the wings are slicing through the air. At those speeds/power settings, the increase in angle of attack will increase drag far more than it will increase lift.
In short, pull back, airspeed decreases; the only way to regain airspeed (and avoid an aerodynamic stall) is to increase power or trade altitude for airspeed by lowering the nose.
When you're only 10 feet up, there's no altitude to trade.
They were too low and too slow.
Jul 7, 2013, 4:25 pm
#1029
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: UA, BA Avios, AMEX Plat
Posts: 497
The NTSB twitter feed is posting some remarkable pics from inside the fuselage:
http://t.co/YG7F9fE5in
http://t.co/RZ15X2bmY4
http://t.co/YG7F9fE5in
http://t.co/RZ15X2bmY4
Jul 7, 2013, 4:29 pm
#1030
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
Just curious:
- Why the Stall Warning only came on at 4 seconds before the crash? Those who are pilots and have experience, is this behaviour so late by design?
- Also wondering how some experts with experience/training flying both Boeing and Airbus would think Airbus controls and safety systems would have reacted differently if at all? Essentially, would limitations put in place by the flight computer to inputs of pilots made have any difference here?
- Why the Stall Warning only came on at 4 seconds before the crash? Those who are pilots and have experience, is this behaviour so late by design?
- Also wondering how some experts with experience/training flying both Boeing and Airbus would think Airbus controls and safety systems would have reacted differently if at all? Essentially, would limitations put in place by the flight computer to inputs of pilots made have any difference here?
Jul 7, 2013, 4:29 pm
#1031
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: BA Gold/Marriott Gold/HH Diamond/IC Plat Amba
Posts: 5,993
The NTSB twitter feed is posting some remarkable pics from inside the fuselage:
http://t.co/YG7F9fE5in
http://t.co/RZ15X2bmY4
http://t.co/YG7F9fE5in
http://t.co/RZ15X2bmY4
Jul 7, 2013, 4:30 pm
#1032
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SEA
Programs: SPG Plt, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, AA LT Gold
Posts: 424
The NTSB twitter feed is posting some remarkable pics from inside the fuselage:
http://t.co/YG7F9fE5in
http://t.co/RZ15X2bmY4
http://t.co/YG7F9fE5in
http://t.co/RZ15X2bmY4
Jul 7, 2013, 4:31 pm
#1033
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
It's not clear from the statement which 2 of the 4 were controlling the aircraft at the time of the incident.
I'm sure that between Jeong-min and Kang-kook, it would have been Jeong-min.
To put this into perspective, what's the average number of hours that a UA/AA/DL pilot would have behind a 777?
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/0...96603120130707
"One of the pilots of flight 214, Lee Jeong-min, is a veteran who has spent his career at Asiana. He was among four pilots on the plane who rotated in two-person shifts during the 10 hour-plus flight, a senior Asiana official told Reuters.
"The pilot's name is Lee Jeong-min, and (he is) a veteran pilot with long experience," said the official, who requested anonymity. "Our investigation committee is looking into the accident in San Francisco," he said.
Lee, in his late 40s, had 12,387 hours of flying experience, including 3,220 hours on the Boeing 777, according to the Transport Ministry in Seoul.
A second pilot on board the aircraft, Lee Kang-kook, had 9,793 hours flying experience and 43 hours on the 777."
Jul 7, 2013, 4:31 pm
#1034
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SEA
Programs: SPG Plt, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, AA LT Gold
Posts: 424
Just curious:
- Why the Stall Warning only came on at 4 seconds before the crash? Those who are pilots and have experience, is this behaviour so late by design?
- Also wondering how some experts with experience/training flying both Boeing and Airbus would think Airbus controls and safety systems would have reacted differently if at all? Essentially, would limitations put in place by the flight computer to inputs of pilots made have any difference here?
- Why the Stall Warning only came on at 4 seconds before the crash? Those who are pilots and have experience, is this behaviour so late by design?
- Also wondering how some experts with experience/training flying both Boeing and Airbus would think Airbus controls and safety systems would have reacted differently if at all? Essentially, would limitations put in place by the flight computer to inputs of pilots made have any difference here?
Jul 7, 2013, 4:34 pm
#1035
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 42