[Yosemitest]

After 30 years of Air Traffic Control experience, most as Tower Watch Supervisor in the USAF, this was a Pilot Error Crash.
The pilot came in too steep, with too much airspeed to bleed off, so he put it into a stall position to get rid of the airspeed.
But he stalled it out and got lucky that he belly landed it into the underrun, and the closed portion of the runway, before the landing threshold and leaving a portion of the tail in the bay.

Both the PAPIs and the Glideslope were NOTAMed off due to the displaced landing threshold.
Had they been on the point of touchdown would have been too short for a safe landing.

But what I'd like to know is the compression rate and control instructions from the air traffic controllers starting with his descent from SF Center, through SF TRACON to the handoff to the tower.
Did the controllers keep him high in altitude and not allow enough of a descent rate due to traffic departing under him (the four-post operation of a busy TRACON)?
And did the controllers keep his speed up with their control instructions, until too short of a final when they handed him off to the tower, and not allow him time to bleed off the airspeed, due to the arrival rate of aircraft they were shoe-stringing down final at that time?

[webstersII]

Is “Glideslope” different from ILS?

[justlurking]

Both the PAPIs and the Glideslope were NOTAMed off due to the displaced landing threshold.

That's interesting: I didn't check the NOTAMs.

Did they just move the threshold? I'm surprised the PAPI's were off.

[eyedigress]

I think you are as accurate to any assessment made. Losing the tail on the jetty is a very alarming angle to touch-down.

[Atlas Sneezed]

That pictures says it all.

Also, with our lives now being surveilled by cameras on nearly every streetcorner, don’t they have cameras monitoring such mundane locations as international airport rulanding zones?

[Big Giant Head]

Yay! Common sense post!

I think you nailed it. Look at the descent rates just a minute or two before “touchdown” and he’s really bringing it. Descending 1500’ fpm at one point, far less at another point, etc. is not a stabilized approach. The very last tick on the Flight aware chart shows the airplane trying to climb and slowing to 85 knots, STALLED IT IN. Tail was low, and hit first.

This is pilot error. Non-stabilized approach requires a go-around and he didn’t. You might question whether the controllers didn’t allow him time to descend or reduce speed, but it doesn’t matter. STABILIZED APPROACH, OR GO AROUND.

[ops33]

I am also a retired USAF air traffic controller and I agree with your assessment. It would be interesting to find out what altitude and distance from runway the aircraft was when he was cleared for his approach.
(Scott Tower, Zweibrucken GCA, Cannon Tower, Berlin Center, 3d Mob)

[ops33]

It also appears that the threshold has been displaced and the PAPI’s and GS transmitter have not been relocated to the new threshold. That would account for them being Notamed out.

[justlurking]

I just noticed your link to the FlightAware tracklog, and that's really interesting.

It looks like they had to rush their descent through the last few thousand feet, and when they checked their descent rate they lost too much airspeed.

[diogenes ghost]

Spoken like a career watch sup.....

You putz, there has been NO information that ATC had a damned thing to do with this accident.

Yet you post your photo and rant on multiple threads, tossing out the intimation that controllers led these little tow-headed, rosy-cheeked pilots down the path of certain doom.

The number of people who become 'supervisors' early in their career, and stay there forever, is an application of the Peter Principle, and you appear to be a perfect example.

Most, (not all, but most) young ATC sups are/were lousy at and/or scared of the job of controlling. I have known of high level staffers/sups who have never actually checked out on operational positions...and lots more who did, but only certified for 'light traffic'.

Any of these sound familiar???? of course they do.

[tcrlaf]

This will end up as a Situational Awareness/Pilot Error situation, in the end. They lost track of where they were, until it was too late to do anything about it.

[vette6387]

“Did the controllers keep him high in altitude and not allow enough of a descent rate due to traffic departing under him (the four-post operation of a busy TRACON)?”

If they did, the pilot should executed a go around. He’s still the final decision maker in this regard. He’s still PIC and his decisions over rule ATC. I’ve landed at SFO many times on trips from the Orient. Bay Approach always takes inbound Pacific traffic down over Moffett which gives the aircraft a very long straight in approach to 28 Left. ( probably at least 15 miles).

[Blueflag]

Still it’s the responsibility of the PIC to land safely.

Controlled flight/descent into terrain due to instrumentation fixation, cultural reluctance of the other crew to say anything to the PIC, and failure to look out the windscreen ...

Been flying since 1996? Can’t blame the controllers if ya ask me.

I wonder what “Bitchin’ Betty” was saying to the crew? “pull up! pull up! terrain terrain terrain!” [ do triple 7s have Betty? ]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Very interesting.....so the runway length was the reason for the ILS being off.

Big Airplanes need a long runway.

[B4Ranch]

That’s a great rant that you gave but it is still the pilot who has the final say on where and when his aircraft is landing or at least that’s the way it goes when I am the PIC.