To: Steely Tom
now confirmed:
It hit the berm at the runway end. That means they were around 1000 feet short on landing.
Again, did someone forget to reset the altimeter to San Fransisco conditions?
268 posted on
07/06/2013 1:20:09 PM PDT by
tcrlaf
(Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
To: tcrlaf
The 777 will land itself. Honestly it doesn’t need a pilot IMHO. Darn near idiot proof. Something mechanical happened if you ask me.
273 posted on
07/06/2013 1:22:31 PM PDT by
Drango
(A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
To: tcrlaf
Again, did someone forget to reset the altimeter to San Fransisco conditions? SFO is more or less at sea level, isn't it?
278 posted on
07/06/2013 1:25:32 PM PDT by
Steely Tom
(If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
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?)
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.)
To: tcrlaf
“Again, did someone forget to reset the altimeter to San Fransisco conditions?”
For a visual landing? Clear weather.
370 posted on
07/06/2013 2:04:36 PM PDT by
CodeToad
(Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson