SFO Aircraft Accident Tower Audio

[MD_Vet]

This is audio from the ATC during the 777 accident at SFO...

http://soberbuildengineer-com.s3.amazonaws.com/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3

[ltxi]

ATC doing their job. What?

[downtownv]

sounded like the pilot advised of a problem ATC called in Emergency vehicles while at 3000 feet.

[MD_Vet]

sounded like the pilot advised of a problem ATC called in Emergency vehicles while at 3000 feet.

I don't think so...traffic was being handled normally by ATC and then you can hear someone in the area of the guy on the tape report the accident, then you can hear the pilot of the flight say something (unintelligible to me) and the ATC controller replay that emergency equipment is on the way. Then the pilot says something else, the controller is issuing go around instructions to other aircraft and clearing emergency crews to the crash site.

[ltxi]

sounded like the pilot advised of a problem ATC called in Emergency vehicles while at 3000 feet.

He lost it on landing. Take away here....don't fly on third world country and/or low dollar airlines. They hire Burger King help.

[muggsy]

He lost it on landing. Take away here....don't fly on third world country and/or low dollar airlines. They hire Burger King help.

Not true. All pilots of commercial aircraft are highly qualified. Remember, Itxi, the pilot is usually the first one at the scene of an accident and he doesn't want to die anymore than you do, unless of course, he's an Islamic Jehadists.

[ltxi]

Not true. All pilots of commercial aircraft are highly qualified. Remember, Itxi, the pilot is usually the first one at the scene of an accident and he doesn't want to die anymore than you do, unless of course, he's an Islamic Jehadists.

I'm be assumin' that was facetious.

[OldLincoln]

It will be interesting to find out if it was a tail strike of the sea wall without malfunction. Those planes have a ton of ILS stuff and horns would have been going off all over. Hard to figure he flew something like 5K miles only to mess up a landing. I used to almost mess up my pants coming in so low over the water not being able to see land on the approach. I wish them all well.

[ltxi]

"For whatever reason, they appeared to go low on approach and then the airplane pitched up suddenly to an extreme attitude, which could have been the pilots trying to keep it out of the ground."

Burger King Help Rejects.....screw up the approach, then stall a heavy, and rip off the tail. Would you like fries with that?

[Alfonse]

The way that aircraft burned is interesting too. Do 777s have a composite fuselage? The way it is burned at the top doesn't look like aluminum to me.

[Planedude]

The crash ripped the APU (AUX POWER UNIT) out of the tail. That unit is a small jet in its own right and with the fuel and power leads that run to it a fire of some sort was just too likely.
He was way low and seemed to start his go around way late. Still the 777 is a tough bird all but two teenage girls sitting at the very back made it out alive.
While 10% of the Fuselage of a "triple seven" is made from composites the shell of the bird is Aluminum.
This NTSB report will be interesting...

[CJB]

A couple of observations -

The ILS is out at the airport, and the NOTAM says its gonna be out till Aug 21, 2013. That covers both the ILS localizer and glideslope. Makes me go hmmm, on a major airport? Sill they were under VFR. There is a supplimental system, either PAPI or VASI that is a series of lights on or close to the runway which show the glideslope. Those have been reported to be intermittant in operation. WTF ? At San Fran? No way... but yes way.


Observation #2 - cops and firefighters on the ground had to literally throw knives up the chutes to the aircrew, in order for them to be able to cut the seatbelts of trapped passengers. Think about that for a sec.... jeeze. Not even a safety belt cutter on board due to anti terrorism measures.

Observation #3 - CNN reported that the head of the airline, in his press conference, started by bowing is head, in symbolic apology. Which is exactly what our bastard president, Obummer does whenever he meets a fookin foreigner.

[ltxi]

VASI was down also. "Explains" a lot more/brings some more sense to picture. Best concise summary opinion I've found off av forums. Pretty close to my first thoughts.

"Predictions: Since the ILS and VASI were OTS (out of service) the flying pilot (Captain or First Officer) was flying a visual approach totally "seat of the pants". Flight Data Recorder will indicate an unstabilized approach that began too high at the Final Approach Fix. A higher than rapid descent rate was commanded at an angle higher than the normal 3 degree glide path. In the final 30 seconds Cockpit Voice Recorder will show the Captain and First arguing about the situation until aircraft ended up low and slow with power applied too late to fully recover. In an effort not to land short the flying pilot commanded a nose high attitude and the aircraft struck the breakwater wall short of the runway in a very nose high attitude in a partially stalled (aerodynamically, that is) condition with engines commanded at full power but most likely not yet developing full power due to spool up delay. End of story...."

[MikeyKahr]

Raw video of Asiana 214 crash by bystander:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Orw3rbj5MI

[CJB]

looks like he was damn near draggin in the water for a ways.....

[Planedude]

Always a camera filming everything someplace in the world. Way late on the go around attempt, looks like he might have done better pushing it a little over (nose down) to pick up speed. He still would have bashed the landing onto the over-run, but it was the tail strike that doomed him.
Monday morning QB-ing here. Sad for the families that lost the two 16yr olds. My prayer are extended to them.

[Linthead]

There is no love lost between the NTSB and the FAA. If both the ILS and VASI were down, I expect that the NTSB will hang the FAA out to dry.

[cloud]

There is no love lost between the NTSB and the FAA. If both the ILS and VASI were down, I expect that the NTSB will hang the FAA out to dry.

It still should've been a non event .It is not that big of a deal.

[CJB]

No personal experience - but.... San Fran decided to upgrade the ILS system in their most unlikely time to need it. The VASI system being intermittant... .. or down.... thats just plain out wrong. WTF...you can see the VASI like.. maybe 5 miles out at mid day. How about at night? What did they do for approaches at night?

Folks saying this will take six months to a year. I bet they already know all they need to, from the intact recorders. Monday, the politics will begin.

[ltxi]

Always a camera filming everything someplace in the world. Way late on the go around attempt, looks like he might have done better pushing it a little over (nose down) to pick up speed. He still would have bashed the landing onto the over-run, but it was the tail strike that doomed him.
Monday morning QB-ing here. Sad for the families that lost the two 16yr olds. My prayer are extended to them.

Don't believe he was attempting a go around. Until maybe the last few seconds. Until then methinks he was/they were trying to salvage the approach.

I'll back off on my earlier comments re BK help. These be experienced pilots who let themselves get in over their heads. For whatever reason. Still, want fries with that?

[O'Dell]

VASI was down also. "Explains" a lot more/brings some more sense to picture. Best concise summary opinion I've found off av forums. Pretty close to my first thoughts.

"Predictions: Since the ILS and VASI were OTS (out of service) the flying pilot (Captain or First Officer) was flying a visual approach totally "seat of the pants". Flight Data Recorder will indicate an unstabilized approach that began too high at the Final Approach Fix. A higher than rapid descent rate was commanded at an angle higher than the normal 3 degree glide path. In the final 30 seconds Cockpit Voice Recorder will show the Captain and First arguing about the situation until aircraft ended up low and slow with power applied too late to fully recover. In an effort not to land short the flying pilot commanded a nose high attitude and the aircraft struck the breakwater wall short of the runway in a very nose high attitude in a partially stalled (aerodynamically, that is) condition with engines commanded at full power but most likely not yet developing full power due to spool up delay. End of story...."

Sounds like you nailed it. I don't think they'll be able to blame Boeing for this one.

[muggsy]

I'm be assumin' that was facetious.

Not really. I was a mechanic for USAir for about eight years. I can't think of one pilot who deliberately wanted to crash a plane. The Japanese and Germans did it in WWII and the Jehadists did it on 9/11. If you crash a plane through pilot error it's usually your last opportunity to do so. Your either killed or fired. You'll do time in prison if negligence can be proven.

[cloud]

Not really. I was a mechanic for USAir for about eight years. I can't think of one pilot who deliberately wanted to crash a plane. The Japanese and Germans did it in WWII and the Jehadists did it on 9/11. If you crash a plane through pilot error it's usually your last opportunity to do so. Your either killed or fired. You'll do time in prison if negligence can be proven.

I agree, but some of their training is lacking compared to the training we get in the states.

[Longitude Zero]

I agree, but some of their training is lacking compared to the training we get in the states.

That depends upon where and what airline you are talking about. Here in the USA we are no paragon of training for pilots. There have been a plethora of crashes blaimed on poor pilot trianing here in the USA.

As a general rule Far East carriers have equal to or better training than we do. I know for a fact that Cathay Pacific/Qantas/British Airways/Air France have pilot training that way exceeds US standards by a long shot.

As a pilot myself my take is that he was low and slow and that with the stick shaker activation the PIC basically stalled the aircraft as O'Dell posted. Shooting a totally visual landing in a comerciall airliner occurs far more often than folks realize.

[cloud]

That depends upon where and what airline you are talking about. Here in the USA we are no paragon of training for pilots. There have been a plethora of crashes blaimed on poor pilot trianing here in the USA.

As a general rule Far East carriers have equal to or better training than we do. I know for a fact that Cathay Pacific/Qantas/British Airways/Air France have pilot training that way exceeds US standards by a long shot.

As a pilot myself my take is that he was low and slow and that with the stick shaker activation the PIC basically stalled the aircraft as O'Dell posted. Shooting a totally visual landing in a comerciall airliner occurs far more often than folks realize.

I also fly for a living . I'm not talking about the airlines you mentioned .I'm talking about the 3rd world.I agree with you, landing at an airport with no vasi or glide slope should have been a non event.Twice a year we have to show proficiency landing our aircraft with no flaps to an airport runway without any vertical guidance glideslope vasi etc.

[muggsy]

I agree, but some of their training is lacking compared to the training we get in the states.

The first officer who was attempting to land had thousands of hours fling commercial aircraft. This was his first attempt at landing the 777. This was a trans oceanic flight. There were two full flight crews aboard. Coming in over water is a whole different ball game from coming in visual over land. You don't have much in the way of visual reference. That's why Navy pilots are so highly regarded.

[cloud]

The first officer who was attempting to land had thousands of hours fling commercial aircraft. This was his first attempt at landing the 777. This was a trans oceanic flight. There were two full flight crews aboard. Coming in over water is a whole different ball game from coming in visual over land. You don't have much in the way of visual reference. That's why Navy pilots are so highly regarded.

now they are saying the capt. was new to the aircraft and what we call in the states I.O. E. training. Coming in over water to a runway that is11,381x200 feet and is not moving in the day time is not a big deal.Still should have been a non event.

[skiflydive]

VASI was down also. "Explains" a lot more/brings some more sense to picture. Best concise summary opinion I've found off av forums. Pretty close to my first thoughts.

"Predictions: Since the ILS and VASI were OTS (out of service) the flying pilot (Captain or First Officer) was flying a visual approach totally "seat of the pants". Flight Data Recorder will indicate an unstabilized approach that began too high at the Final Approach Fix. A higher than rapid descent rate was commanded at an angle higher than the normal 3 degree glide path. In the final 30 seconds Cockpit Voice Recorder will show the Captain and First arguing about the situation until aircraft ended up low and slow with power applied too late to fully recover. In an effort not to land short the flying pilot commanded a nose high attitude and the aircraft struck the breakwater wall short of the runway in a very nose high attitude in a partially stalled (aerodynamically, that is) condition with engines commanded at full power but most likely not yet developing full power due to spool up delay. End of story...."

Sounds sort of like a controller induced slam dunk approach, ergo the throttles at idle. Come rippin' down from above the 3.00 PAPI glide path trying to intercept can be hard in a Cherokee let alone a 777.

[muggsy]

Latest word from the NTSB was that the glide path taken from radar was normal. If the NTSB runs true to form we won't know for sure exactly what happened for at least a year. I don'r see any point to further speculation.

[skiflydive]

This was his first attempt at landing the 777.

He had previously landed 777's at LAX, Narita, Seoul, and some others, not to mention the simulator landings to get type rated in 777's before actually flying them.

[Longitude Zero]

That's why Navy pilots are so highly regarded.

Overstatment here. They are generally highly NOT because they have an approach over water but because they are landing on a very small moving target. Landing over water is not really anymore difficult than land. You have your altitude reference points and when you hit them it isnt a big deal.

[O'Dell]

now they are saying the capt. was new to the aircraft and what we call in the states I.O. E. training. Coming in over water to a runway that is11,381x200 feet and is not moving in the day time is not a big deal.Still should have been a non event.

I would tend to agree, but things aren't always as they seem. As a veteran of over 800 traps, I only had two "incidents". One was partially my fault. I received a late wave-off due to an aircraft across the limit line, but was too low and slow at the time, and my hook caught a wire before I could accelerate and climb. This is an in flight trap and slammed the aircraft onto the deck very hard. The other was due a hit by a SA-2 missile that damaged my Hydraulics and knocked out one engine. I did manage to get it on the deck, but it was touch and go. [no pun intended]

[cloud]

I would tend to agree, but things aren't always as they seem. As a veteran of over 800 traps, I only had two "incidents". One was partially my fault. I received a late wave-off due to an aircraft across the limit line, but was too low and slow at the time, and my hook caught a wire before I could accelerate and climb. This is an in flight trap and slammed the aircraft onto the deck very hard. The other was due a hit by a SA-2 missile that damaged my Hydraulics and knocked out one engine. I did manage to get it on the deck, but it was touch and go. [no pun intended]

I have nothing but respect for the pilots that land on aircraft carriers .11000 ft runway that is not pitching up and down and rolling left and right is not a big deal. Thanks for your service .Was that in an f4? You are correct things are not always as they seem .Do you remember this crash?

http://airlinesafety.com/editorials/Delta554.htm

[jocko]

the amazing thing to me is the amount of lives that were not lost.

[ltxi]

Not really. I was a mechanic for USAir for about eight years. I can't think of one pilot who deliberately wanted to crash a plane. The Japanese and Germans did it in WWII and the Jehadists did it on 9/11. If you crash a plane through pilot error it's usually your last opportunity to do so. Your either killed or fired. You'll do time in prison if negligence can be proven.

I never said nor implied he deliberately wanted to crash anything.

My point was not all pilots are good, nor even adequate. When I was young and naive I thought of pilots as semi-god like creatures. Then I joined the club and quickly realized how bad some really are/can be no matter their certificate level.

[Bawanna]

Ok, ok. I was flying the damn plane. First officer yelled pull up! and I thought he said shut up and the fight began. Some peoples children.

[getsome]

Roger, huh?.... Whats the Vector Victor?... Do we have Clearance Clerance?...Roger,... Huh

[Tinman507]

Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?


What kind of plane is it?
Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.

[Bawanna]

I would tend to agree, but things aren't always as they seem. As a veteran of over 800 traps, I only had two "incidents". One was partially my fault. I received a late wave-off due to an aircraft across the limit line, but was too low and slow at the time, and my hook caught a wire before I could accelerate and climb. This is an in flight trap and slammed the aircraft onto the deck very hard. The other was due a hit by a SA-2 missile that damaged my Hydraulics and knocked out one engine. I did manage to get it on the deck, but it was touch and go. [no pun intended]

800+ traps...that's a lot of traps. Pretty darn good record with that many and only a couple close ones. Did you know them Top Gun guys by any chance.

Just so you know, I've always wanted to do a carrier launch, but never had the slightest desire for a carrier landing. I'll ditch in the sea before trying to hit the postage stamp.

My hats off to ya sir, that's a lot of traps...I'm truly awed seriously.

[ltxi]

800+ traps...that's a lot of traps. Pretty darn good record with that many and only a couple close ones. Did you know them Top Gun guys by any chance.

Just so you know, I've always wanted to do a carrier launch, but never had the slightest desire for a carrier landing. I'll ditch in the sea before trying to hit the postage stamp.

My hats off to ya sir, that's a lot of traps...I'm truly awed seriously.

x2......

[O'Dell]

I have nothing but respect for the pilots that land on aircraft carriers .11000 ft runway that is not pitching up and down and rolling left and right is not a big deal. Thanks for your service .Was that in an f4? You are correct things are not always as they seem .Do you remember this crash?

http://airlinesafety.com/editorials/Delta554.htm

Yeah, I was an F-4 driver - F-4B until the missile strike. They salvaged what they could and pushed the rest over the side. The good news was that, afterwards, I got a shiny new F-4J.

All I meant about the accident is that we don't have all the info yet. It looks obvious now, but that's subject to change. I do know that I would hate to be in the Captain's or First Officer's shoes at this point.

[O'Dell]

800+ traps...that's a lot of traps. Pretty darn good record with that many and only a couple close ones. Did you know them Top Gun guys by any chance.

Just so you know, I've always wanted to do a carrier launch, but never had the slightest desire for a carrier landing. I'll ditch in the sea before trying to hit the postage stamp.

My hats off to ya sir, that's a lot of traps...I'm truly awed seriously.

Thanks Bawanna, but I had the greatest job in the world. Where else could you play with the Navy's latest toys, occasionally get to shoot at someone, and still get paid for it?

Oh, I forgot, no, I wasn't involved with Top Gun and never met any graduates while I was in the Navy. TG was started during my first tour in Southeast Asia, and when I got back to the States a couple of years later, I was assigned to Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon until I left the service. For some reason they wanted a fighter pilot that had flown against Soviet aircraft in actual combat.

[muggsy]

He had previously landed 777's at LAX, Narita, Seoul, and some others, not to mention the simulator landings to get type rated in 777's before actually flying them.

If I heard correctly those landings those landings were in 727s and 747s. I could be wrong. He definitely had 777 simulator training.

[Planedude]

Well every pilot in the world had a first landing in an aircraft type and they will all have a last landing in type...

Seems he killed both those birds with the same stone.

[skiflydive]

If I heard correctly those landings those landings were in 727s and 747s. I could be wrong. He definitely had 777 simulator training.

My take was those were 777 landings. He'd landed 747's at SFO several times.

I think it odd that the throttles were at idle. It takes power to maintain level flight in any aircraft. A 777 has a pretty good sink rate with no power but still isn't a very good glider. It's all just speculation but to me this sounds like a higher than normal initial approach altitude, possibly commanded by the approach controller, and then a power off descent to intercept the normal 3.00 degree final approach angle. The final approach angle, glideslope if you will, is normally intercepted from below and then power is reduced to initiate the descent. If the aircraft is above the 3.00 approach angle and power is reduced more than normal to intercept it can be difficult to accurately power back up without descending through the approach. Add to that that the ILS glideslope and the PAPI approach angle guidance lights were both out of service it would have been a challenging and abnormal approach in any aircraft let alone a heavy category aircraft.

[getsome]

Paper today said they disengaged the auto pilot and somehow they didn't engage the auto throttle to keep airspeed at a preset rate so the engines returned to idle....Captain's first landing of a 777 at SFO...Pilot and Training Officer in right seat was on his first assignment as a TO so he was probably trying to help out the Captain on his visual approach and got busy and didn't notice the auto throttles were off and their airspeed was falling dangerously slow and by the time he did notice it was too late, they firewalled the throttles and pulled hard up causing the tail to slam into the seawall at the end of the runway...This will go down as Pilot error because the crew forgot the number one rule, "Fly the Plane"....

[ltxi]

Maintain stick and rudder skills. Otherwise, Want Fries With That?. Just sayin'

[MD_Vet]

O'Dell.....Looks like 800 traps is gonna be hard to get in the future...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/07/10/navy-drone-successfully-lands-on-aircraft-carrier/?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

[O'Dell]

O'Dell.....Looks like 800 traps is gonna be hard to get in the future...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/07/10/navy-drone-successfully-lands-on-aircraft-carrier/?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

Yeah, I've been watching the progress of the X-47 for a while. It's a prototype for an attack aircraft. Attack missions are pretty simple when you get down to it. Fly to the target, deploy the ordnance, and fly home. The programming for a fighter mission would require much more complicated algorithms, so I think fighter pilots will be around for a while.

[muggsy]

ABC News just announced that the FAA has released the names of the four Chinese pilots of the crashed Boing 777. Their names are Sum Singh Wong, Wie Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fok and Wei Bang Doun. :)

[Longitude Zero]

Yeah, I've been watching the progress of the X-47 for a while. It's a prototype for an attack aircraft. Attack missions are pretty simple when you get down to it. Fly to the target, deploy the ordnance, and fly home. The programming for a fighter mission would require much more complicated algorithms, so I think fighter pilots will be around for a while.

At the rate of tech development I am guessing fighter pilots will be out of the aircraft in two decades or less. The computer programming is already very far along to make pilotless fighter jets a reality. Boeing has a huge lead in this area.

[ltxi]

At the rate of tech development I am guessing fighter pilots will be out of the aircraft in two decades or less. The computer programming is already very far along to make pilotless fighter jets a reality. Boeing has a huge lead in this area.

As witnessed by recent events at SFO.

Sorry, sorta.

[Planedude]

Yeah, I've been watching the progress of the X-47 for a while. It's a prototype for an attack aircraft. Attack missions are pretty simple when you get down to it. Fly to the target, deploy the ordnance, and fly home. The programming for a fighter mission would require much more complicated algorithms, so I think fighter pilots will be around for a while.

Quite right. A man in the seat will be around for many years to come. While the current crop of advance drone is capable of dropping a bomb on a fixed target (we have cruise missiles that can do that too) protecting a carrier battle group from a dynamically changing tactical situation presented by a large group of attacking enemy aircraft...

Well that will take a man in the seat for a very long time to come.

I build gen 5 aircraft in the F-35 and work on deciding the what/how of gen 6 aircraft will be, starting work soon. Gen 6 will still have a seat and a pilot.