Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

777 Crash at SFO (San Francisco)
Twitter ^ | July 6, 2013

Posted on 07/06/2013 12:02:24 PM PDT by FreedomPoster

Currently just Tweets and locals talking about this, nothing on news sites yet. Lots of stuff in the Twitter feed, including links to uploaded videos of the smoking mess.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 777; airlinecrash; asiana214; boeing; flight214; planecrash; sanfrancisco; sfo; southkorea
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 841-857 next last
To: Hillarys Gate Cult
This could be it, one engine is on the ground next to the fuselage:


301 posted on 07/06/2013 1:34:37 PM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
I’m guessing San Jose airport is seeing a sudden uptick in business.

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.

302 posted on 07/06/2013 1:34:48 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rey
SFO’s elevation is listed as 13 feet.

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!"


303 posted on 07/06/2013 1:35:39 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

“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?

;-)


304 posted on 07/06/2013 1:36:14 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

A thoughtful touch.


305 posted on 07/06/2013 1:36:54 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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


306 posted on 07/06/2013 1:37:46 PM PDT by crosslink (Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: steve86

For passenger comfort and to reduce stress on the landing gear, commercial jets do flare.


307 posted on 07/06/2013 1:37:53 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

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.


308 posted on 07/06/2013 1:38:00 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: NYFreeper

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.


309 posted on 07/06/2013 1:38:12 PM PDT by blackdog (There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Right...I never have landed on a carrier but retired on the
B 777.


310 posted on 07/06/2013 1:38:16 PM PDT by BatGuano (You don't think I'd go into combat with loose change in my pocket, do ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Remember some problems with these even larger planes when they first came out and them being grounded?

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?

311 posted on 07/06/2013 1:38:22 PM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SixIron

excellent tagger


312 posted on 07/06/2013 1:38:53 PM PDT by advertising guy (golf in june in Phoenix ? it's so dry, our gators use Gold Bond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Not a factor on a visual approach.


313 posted on 07/06/2013 1:40:04 PM PDT by BatGuano (You don't think I'd go into combat with loose change in my pocket, do ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins
Anyone else not fully confident about planes larger than a 747?

Personally, I'm not confident about any plane larger than those wind up balsa models we used to fly as kids.

314 posted on 07/06/2013 1:40:25 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Mr. Kim/Lee/Park/other is in deep kimchi if this was pilot error


315 posted on 07/06/2013 1:40:28 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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.


316 posted on 07/06/2013 1:41:28 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf; All
Again, did someone forget to reset the altimeter to San Fransisco conditions?

Has anyone seen any pictures of the port engine? Did it fall of in the drink?

Loss of power would explain a short landing.

317 posted on 07/06/2013 1:41:32 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rats vs. GOPe = Same train, different speed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing
That’s the right engine. Could the left be in the water?
318 posted on 07/06/2013 1:41:55 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Not to argue too much, but engines are not designed to shear off on a hard/crash 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.

319 posted on 07/06/2013 1:42:31 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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


320 posted on 07/06/2013 1:42:36 PM PDT by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 841-857 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson