Bad crash at San Francisco Airport.

This looks like it could be a bad one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23214513

It appears to have turned out much better than might be expected.

only two deaths, amazing when u see the burnt out shell, if youve watched the re-enactment video it looks like he hit wall at the start of the runway with the tail, which if correct he was about 4 metres to low at that point - had he been say 15ft higher at the threshold and say 120 mph he would have been moving at about say 173ft minute - so at the threshold he would need to drop 15ft with the 173 ft for a safe landing- mind you my maths is worse than my spelling. one day I will tell you the story of my first flying lesson - I feel sick just thinking about it

Quote: tca wrote in post #3

---

only two deaths, amazing when u see the burnt out shell, if youve watched the re-enactment video it looks like he hit wall at the start of the runway with the tail, which if correct he was about 4 metres to low at that point - had he been say 15ft higher at the threshold and say 120 mph he would have been moving at about say 173ft minute - so at the threshold he would need to drop 15ft with the 173 ft for a safe landing- mind you my maths is worse than my spelling. one day I will tell you the story of my first flying lesson - I feel sick just thinking about it

---

hi not sure how the reporting is in the UK , we have two threads here, 1 from Chinese airline, 3 experienced pilots with heaps of experience, the other a report saying a trainee pilot was at the helm, from the USA inital report was - they say the engines were at idle, which I think would be odd they usually go to idle at threshold, also they asked for go around 1.5 seconds from impact, I would think even if they went for full trust at that point the engines could not have got to full thrust very quickly, they would have needed full trust, with a nose up configuration and remenber the flaps would have been at full deployment, even if they got the nose up, I think it would have stalled, either way they were stuffed. BUT the tower would have had them on final approach for at least 5 to 10 minutes they must have known the aircraft was too low - wonder why they did not say anything, if you watch the film, there is an aircraft waiting at the taxiway next to the threshold they would have also been able to see the incoming aircraft was too low, if they had said something maybe it could have gone around. guess the two black boxes will reveal all. will be interesting to hear the tower to aircraft chatter not just the pilots

too slow and two low, odd really - apparently they were coming on full instrument landing - so there really should not be a crash, rumour has it that the auto warning went off for slow and low but they didnt react, more to come I guess

According to Thom 2 p136, "if the QNH is not revised, then if flying towards an area of low pressure, the aeroplane will gradually descend."

In other words, if the local atmospheric pressure correction isn't set correctly in the altimeter the instruments will misinterpret the altitude. As a one mllibar error inversely equates to a 30ft difference in indicated altitude this could prove to be quite a substantial error during an instrument flight rules landing.

Assuming ILS approach wasn't in use and the airfield was at a lower air pressure than the last QNH update, or standard cruising pressure, then the aircraft instruments could have been working on the basis of a higher altitude than the aircraft was actually flying. This could result in landing earlier than required.

according to the latest news ive seen they knew they where too low and slow but the junior officers did not want to correct the senior officer - due to sensitivity of the Korean system

I can imagine a desire not to contradict a senior person like this would arise in many parts of the east, india, japan, china etc.

did you see the interview with the senior hostess, she had to ask the captain is she could let the passengers leave the aircraft even though the slides had been deployed - he said no wait for a while, but the passengers just went anyway

I didn't see that, but am not surprised, having once been at a meeting involving a group of Indian researchers and marketing people and our R&D people. A technical question would be asked by UK people, the only people who had any knowledge on the indian side had to keep quiet till the head marketing person, who knew bugger all of any use (as is true in any country), had voiced his useless opinion, and then asked for comment from his juniors, first his direct subordinate, and then finally to his junior, someone who knew what they were talking about.

There is a book called "Human Factors for Pilots" that, among other things, details this tendency for lower ranks to be more afraid of affecting their career prospects than averting a disaster.

After I read this book I changed my own attitude towards the world. Now I just state the obvious for the avoidance of doubt. You would be surprised how often other people are not aware of the obvious.

Quote: Voltman wrote in post #12

---

There is a book called "Human Factors for Pilots" that, among other things, details this tendency for lower ranks to be more afraid of affecting their career prospects than averting a disaster.

After I read this book I changed my own attitude towards the world. Now I just state the obvious for the avoidance of doubt. You would be surprised how often other people are not aware of the obvious.

---

looks like we are agreed then