No, that was the 787. The aircraft involved was Boeing 777.
Triple 7 crashes at San Fransisco International.
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
No, that was the 787. The aircraft involved was Boeing 777.
KTVU also reporting it
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo/nYfcx/
First entered service in '95 IIRC and according to ASN, this particular aircraft first entered service in 2005.
According to guy on PPRUNE SFO was on visual landings only due to construction work.
"Departed SFO yesterday, no VASIS, PAPIS or ILS at KSFO. Only G/S available according to NOTAMS is what's in your FMS.
It sucks, it's asking for trouble. "
Document found confirming construction until 22 August
http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeronav/acfstatus/Presentations/13-01_AAUP_Approach_Status.pdf
"Departed SFO yesterday, no VASIS, PAPIS or ILS at KSFO. Only G/S available according to NOTAMS is what's in your FMS.
It sucks, it's asking for trouble. "
Document found confirming construction until 22 August
http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeronav/acfstatus/Presentations/13-01_AAUP_Approach_Status.pdf
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 10,234
- Location
- Slough
slightly off topic, but the youtuber nerdcubed is in the CNN video: http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2...r-vo-first-san-francisco-plane-crash.cnn.html
(CNN are playing youtube videos. the related videos flash up for a moment and the first related video is one of his
)
(CNN are playing youtube videos. the related videos flash up for a moment and the first related video is one of his
)Interesting information. In those meteorological conditions, an RNAV approach shouldn't pose any major issues, except maybe lack of crew familiarity and/or training.
I will be very interested to see if this, or the lack of PAPI/VASIS were significant contributing factors.
slightly off topic, but the youtuber nerdcubed is in the CNN video: http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2...r-vo-first-san-francisco-plane-crash.cnn.html
(CNN are playing youtube videos. the related videos flash up for a moment and the first related video is one of his
And playing airport firefighter simulator....how fitting. That's one way to get views anyway!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,941
Possible fatalities? Probably the aircrew sitting at the back of the plane!
Now saying there are a number of critically injured also. Not surprising really, hope they all pull through.
Now saying there are a number of critically injured also. Not surprising really, hope they all pull through.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 220
Dont think anyone died although 30 injured!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
and I am flying on 777 pretty soonish.... frickin hell
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,309
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
You probably have more chance of wining the lottery.
This, winning the lottery is luck, being on a aircraft that is going to crash is bad luck.
"San Francisco fire officials said this afternoon that 181 people on board the flight had been transported to local hospitals and 123 confirmed uninjured.
Two people have been confirmed dead and one person remained unaccounted, fire officials said."
Quote this morning from ktvu news site.
Could have been a whole lot worse I guess but still
Two people have been confirmed dead and one person remained unaccounted, fire officials said."
Quote this morning from ktvu news site.
Could have been a whole lot worse I guess but still
"San Francisco fire officials said this afternoon that 181 people on board the flight had been transported to local hospitals and 123 confirmed uninjured.
Two people have been confirmed dead and one person remained unaccounted, fire officials said."
Quote this morning from ktvu news site.
Could have been a whole lot worse I guess but still
Damn, I feel sorry for the family of the one unaccounted for, we all know what that probably means :/
Very interesting....
Quote from hospitalised passenger,
"it seemed like the pilot underestimated the beginning of the runway.
The guy started pushing the throttle again to try to go back up again because he realized he was not going to make it,“So, there was a lot of water splashing up into the engine, we almost landed in the water.
landing appeared to happen in slow motion.
“Hitting really hard, and then we're going back up and I'm thinking maybe we're going to be taking off again and we didn't. We went back down pretty hard. Bounced."
Quote from hospitalised passenger,
"it seemed like the pilot underestimated the beginning of the runway.
The guy started pushing the throttle again to try to go back up again because he realized he was not going to make it,“So, there was a lot of water splashing up into the engine, we almost landed in the water.
landing appeared to happen in slow motion.
“Hitting really hard, and then we're going back up and I'm thinking maybe we're going to be taking off again and we didn't. We went back down pretty hard. Bounced."
That's exactly what caused it. Will probably lose his pilots license if found to be pilot error.
Flying at 3:15 today, dunno what plane I'm on though lol!