Posted on 07/06/2013 12:02:24 PM PDT by FreedomPoster
Oakland, Sacramento, and depending on how far out some of the flights are, Portland, Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Burbank, LAX. In fact I'd guess the long overseas hauls will put down at LAX because of long runways and customs facilities.
Well there you go. Maybe they were thinking like me.
"I think SFO's at zero above MSL, isn't it Captain Cho?"
"Sounds good to me, Mr. Kim. Set it for zero, and let's see if we can keep our hands off the controls till we get to the gate."
"Roger that, sir!"
“Those familiar with this airport know that the runway end is elevated slightly over the surface of the bay.”
Possibly to keep it from being under water?
;-)
A thoughtful touch.
Current condition pretty low pressure .
66°
Mostly Clear
San Francisco, (KSFO)
as of 12:56 PM PDST
Relative Humidity: 55%
Dew Point: 50°F
Visibility: 10 Miles
Pressure: 29.81 inches
Flight Rule: VFR
Wind Speed: 5 MPH
Wind Direction: 230°
Cloud Level(s): Few at 1600ft
For passenger comfort and to reduce stress on the landing gear, commercial jets do flare.
Yes, but the air pressure can fluctuate, even at sea level. (low pressure, high pressure, etc.) It can make a difference in what the altimeter is reading from one airport to another.
Most company operating procedures I know of require ILS landings above a certain category of aircraft. VFR does not mean “do as you may”. Yes, you may have the runway in sight. Yes you are cleared to land. But on glide slope and centered on cdi prevent poor cockpit decision making.
Right...I never have landed on a carrier but retired on the
B 777.
Seem to remember this. Then they put them back in action though I believe.
Anyone else not fully confident about planes larger than a 747?
excellent tagger
Not a factor on a visual approach.
Personally, I'm not confident about any plane larger than those wind up balsa models we used to fly as kids.
Mr. Kim/Lee/Park/other is in deep kimchi if this was pilot error
If IFR, maybe. VFR. . .I’d say that is unlikely.
IMHO the guy simply wasn’t watching his sink rate or, as some are reporting, he was given a runway change at the last moment and forgot to let Mr Right-hand push-up the throttles when maneuvering. . .or both.
Just a guess, mind you.
Has anyone seen any pictures of the port engine? Did it fall of in the drink?
Loss of power would explain a short landing.
I recall that when Sully Sullenberger landed US Air flight 1549 in the Hudson River, someone (here I think) said that under-wing engines were designed to detach to prevent the wings from breaking off in the event of water landing.
That may have been idle speculation, I can't remember. Something about shear pins.
Either something got screwed up with the plane as it was landing or the pilot screwed up..maybe he was not familiar with the airport. I have never been to San Francisco but I imagine its a pretty large airport since they take in International Flights
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.