Landing Incident @ SFO
- Thread starter BEEF SUPREME
- Start date
- Status
Zidac
Well-Known Member
From Reuters.... more info on the flight crew's experience.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/us-asiana-korea-idUSBRE96701620130708
Captain Lee Kang-kook:
-"He has a lot of experience and previously flown to San Francisco on different planes including the B747..."-Asiana spokeswoman
-Started his career at Asiana as an intern in 1994
-9,793 hours of flying experience, but only 43 hours with the Boeing 777
First Officer Lee Jeong-min:
-3,220 hours of flying experience with the Boeing 777
-12,387 total time
-"was helping Lee Kang-kook in the landing, the spokeswoman said." -Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/us-asiana-korea-idUSBRE96701620130708
Captain Lee Kang-kook:
-"He has a lot of experience and previously flown to San Francisco on different planes including the B747..."-Asiana spokeswoman
-Started his career at Asiana as an intern in 1994
-9,793 hours of flying experience, but only 43 hours with the Boeing 777
First Officer Lee Jeong-min:
-3,220 hours of flying experience with the Boeing 777
-12,387 total time
-"was helping Lee Kang-kook in the landing, the spokeswoman said." -Reuters
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I am now on my desktop to write more.
I was in SFO this morning. One thing that I noticed from seeing the scene from the air (we got a good view) was actually how compressed the debris field is and how sudden of a stop it was for a plane that size. It is truly a miracle that more were not killed.
I was in SFO this morning. One thing that I noticed from seeing the scene from the air (we got a good view) was actually how compressed the debris field is and how sudden of a stop it was for a plane that size. It is truly a miracle that more were not killed.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
If they ran out of fuel, the NTSB would have made a comment about that today.
89-LX
Well-Known Member
Could a factor have been that it was coming in so slow, that it actually did help save lifes with less energy impacting the ground than say if it was coming in at 150 kts?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I know him!
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Why is that?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
The 'oxygen system' is a very simplistic system as the oxygen is located in individual canisters located in the overhead panels. The chemical reaction for the oxygen to be given to the passengers is not activated until the masks are pull and a safety pin is released in the canisters. There would probably be more burn marks on the masks and cabin as well if the oxygen canisters were compromised.
scooter2525
Very well Member
If the MSM would have anything to say, would be that MSFS would count TOWARD that time.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
That must have been a sobering sight. When I saw the aerial photos, I was struck by the same thought. If you told me they impacted the seawall and the debris was contained to such a small area, I would have assumed all were lost.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
At 150 knots, they would have had the energy to land safely.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Chair Hersman is a great advocate for aviation safety and has done a phenomenal job with the NTSB.
She will probably reach a cabinet level position within a few years.
89-LX
Well-Known Member
I agree, but I was referring to more along the lines of being low and impacting the seawall at 150 knots vs say 105 kts.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
CRM seminars probably just added one more case study.
Heck look at the touchdown marker the plane stopped at. That's a quick dissipation of forward energy.
Maybe, maybe not. Like anything Mark, "it depends" applies to what information is revealed publically and when. While fuel may not even be a factor here in this accident, the fact that it wasn't commented on specifically doesn't necessarily mean anything one way or another. Like any investigation, the revelation of information to the press in the conferences is very measured, and for good reason.
thevideographer
Well-Known Member
Just went to CNN to see:
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Another thought...
I wonder if IOE was being conducted for the pilot that had 44 hours in the aircraft? If it was NOT being conducted and he was the pilot flying, then he would be the equivalent of a 'high mins' crew member which is what we have here in the United States. At least one airline in the United States, prohibits First Officers from landing at SFO due to operational challenges if you have less than 100 hours in type.
I wonder if IOE was being conducted for the pilot that had 44 hours in the aircraft? If it was NOT being conducted and he was the pilot flying, then he would be the equivalent of a 'high mins' crew member which is what we have here in the United States. At least one airline in the United States, prohibits First Officers from landing at SFO due to operational challenges if you have less than 100 hours in type.
Would be interesting to know indeed, and should be easy to figure out. Curiously, for the airline you're referring to, what operational challenges are there landing on a 11,000+ ft runway, or even the 8000' cross runways, that require more than 100 hours in type to master? Especially for someone who is at an air carrier and likely has a good amount of experience in general under their belt already? Am curious as to the reasoning the particular airline uses for that, by singling out one (or more) airfields. It's not like we're talking Kai Tak here with SFO.
- Status