Landing Incident @ SFO

[BobDDuck]

Which I can see the logic there to a fair degree....particular airport and airspace nuances and the like. That makes me wonder why more airlines don't apply that restriction.

They do. The "special airports" list is an FAA thing. There are certain requirements when you operate in to them--things like having seen the special airports "book" within the last year or either pilot having flown in there in the last 6 months. Also, both 121 companies I've worked for prohibit low time FOs from landing at a special quals airport unless they are flying with a checkairman. Some of the airports make sense to be restricted (goofy approaches, lots of terrain, typical strong gusty winds etc) and some don't.

I get plenty of realtime data about failures at my day job. Trust me, I can't draw conclusions about why or when things fail in real time Usually involves looking at lots of other data

You'd be surprised just how quickly the engine and airframe manufacturers can distil down data coming off the plane in real time. Remember, EVERYTHING has a fault code so not only do you know that's it's broken, but often times you know WHY it's broken. When I was still flying a plane with GE engines, I once had a tech rep on board who should be an app on his ipad that showed, in real time, every engine in our fleet. You could bring up an amazing level of detail on each one. When one of the planes there had a high altitude stall and double engine flameout a few months ago, GE knew about it before the company did.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Remember, EVERYTHING has a fault code so not only do you know that's it's broken, but often times you know WHY it's broken.

Exactly why i find "could not duplicate on ground" or "ops check good" to be so frustrating.

When I upgrade in 37 years and hear "could not duplicate on ground" my answer will always be "ok, lets go flying"

 

[dasleben]

When I upgrade in 37 years and hear "could not duplicate on ground" my answer will always be "ok, lets go flying"

I told that to a mechanic once who couldn't duplicate a rough engine on the ground, and was ready to sign it back into service. I have to hand it to him, he came flying.

 

[PositionAndHold]

RE these pictures, MikeD, do you think the oxygen system could have contributed to the burning of the top of the fuselage?

Don't think any one has mentioned this yet, but the engine on the right side of the fuselage (not sure if its actually the right engine) came to rest up against the airframe. In the pictures early in the incident it looks like the fire propagated from that area. The smoke seams to be coming from forward of the right wing. Just a thought.

 

[derg]

Zooooomg!!

(Sarcasm)

 

[tonyw]

It's the screw-T. Expecting accuracy from them is like expecting me to hit a 100 mph fastball.

Well I don't think it crashed then landed else it wouldn't be this intact. Durrrr

View attachment 24346

It's so amusing to me to hear the pundits say, well, he only had 43 hours in the plane. Yes, because a pilot with 10K hours flying doesn't know that when the stick shaker goes off and you hear something saying "stall, stall, stall" you're going too slow.

Then there are the fools who post comments on news articles. They're saying that pilots these days just push buttons and don't know how to really fly. Whatever.

But let's say they're right. For some reason, I think that the autoland system might keep the plane above stall speed. I've got this crazy idea that the system doesn't allow the plane to hit the ground until it's on the runway.

Zooooomg!!

(Sarcasm)

View attachment 24358

 

[dasleben]

Zooooomg!!

(Sarcasm)

View attachment 24358

I landed in SFO for the first time last month.

 

[z987k]

They do. The "special airports" list is an FAA thing. There are certain requirements when you operate in to them--things like having seen the special airports "book" within the last year or either pilot having flown in there in the last 6 months. Also, both 121 companies I've worked for prohibit low time FOs from landing at a special quals airport unless they are flying with a checkairman. Some of the airports make sense to be restricted (goofy approaches, lots of terrain, typical strong gusty winds etc) and some don't.

Huh, I didn't know such a thing existed. We have special approaches, but not special airports. 121 thing?

 

[z987k]

I landed in SFO for the first time last month.

There are 254 DOT maintained airports in this state and who knows how many private/private but public/military. I probably go to a new airport twice a month. Sometimes it's daily. "Go here." "Where's that?"

 

[dasleben]

There are 254 DOT maintained airports in this state and who knows how many private/private but public/military. I probably go to a new airport twice a month. Sometimes it's daily. "Go here." "Where's that?"

I used to go to cool new places regularly.

 

[derg]

Special airports, theater qual, etc.

However most of those are thru "distance learning" so look at a AOL-esque GIF of an airport and "certify"

Theater qual is a little different.

 

[BobDDuck]

121.445

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/opss guidance/specialpicqualairportsmay2013.pdf

That was for z987k... I don't know why it didn't quote the post.

 

[boondr]

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.

They did say both engines responded "normally" to the increased throttle input before impact. Engines wouldn't respond "normally" if starved of fuel would they?

 

[Hacker15e]

Well, that landing certainly is one way to fail your IOE.

 

[v1valarob]

Well, that landing certainly is one way to fail your IOE.

"I'm gonna go ahead and ask training scheduling to give you another trip. I think you're ready, but just need another landing or two...."

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Well, that landing certainly is one way to fail your IOE.

It would almost certainly have been cheaper to do touch and goes.

 

[MikeD]

Don't think any one has mentioned this yet, but the engine on the right side of the fuselage (not sure if its actually the right engine) came to rest up against the airframe. In the pictures early in the incident it looks like the fire propagated from that area. The smoke seams to be coming from forward of the right wing. Just a thought.

Exactly. Not to mention who knows what the landing gear tore through or off when it separated, or what broke/punctured/separated in the lower fuselage area prior to coming to rest.

They did say both engines responded "normally" to the increased throttle input before impact. Engines wouldn't respond "normally" if starved of fuel would they?

I haven't seen/heard anything that indicated there was a fuel starvation issue.

 

[Soul Brotha']

What happened? Did I miss something?

 

[Hacker15e]

What happened? Did I miss something?

Yes -- you crashed a 777 by landing short at SFO.

Your meds will be arriving shortly, so just relax.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

You'd be surprised just how quickly the engine and airframe manufacturers can distil down data coming off the plane in real time. Remember, EVERYTHING has a fault code so not only do you know that's it's broken, but often times you know WHY it's broken. When I was still flying a plane with GE engines, I once had a tech rep on board who should be an app on his ipad that showed, in real time, every engine in our fleet. You could bring up an amazing level of detail on each one. When one of the planes there had a high altitude stall and double engine flameout a few months ago, GE knew about it before the company did.

One of my pals from college did design work on the GE90. Those engines do generate lots of data, no question.