I agree. No way he could not see the landing zone. He was either distracted, I.L.S. was out and there was a fog condition I have not heard of yet.
That picture upthread sure looked like “severe clear” conditions to me...not a cloud in the sky. The METAR from KSFO at 11:56 local was:
METAR text: KSFO 061856Z 21007KT 170V240 10SM FEW016 18/10 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP098 T01830100
Conditions at: KSFO (SAN FRANCISCO , CA, US) observed 1856 UTC 06 July 2013
Temperature: 18.3°C (65°F)
Dewpoint: 10.0°C (50°F) [RH = 58%]
Pressure (altimeter): 29.82 inches Hg (1009.9 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1009.8 mb]
Winds: from the SSW (210 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 10 or more miles (16+ km)
Ceiling: at least 12,000 feet AGL
Clouds: few clouds at 1600 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather observed at this time
Could be pilot error that caused him to land short, or could’ve been a mechanical problem. Think British Airways 038 at London Heathrow a few years ago, and in fact this crash profile is eerily similar. But, that plane had an issue with its Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines and I think, from what somebody said back a few hundred posts ago, this aircraft had Pratt and Whitney 4090 engines. Similar size, similar power, but different design. (777s can be ordered with GE, P&W, or Rolls-Royce engines depending on airline preference.)
}:-)4
No fog to obscure the landing. I live a few miles from SFO, beautiful clear day. Planes land from the south bay, where it’s clear. Light fog/overcast in Pacifica/Daly City to the northwest, far from the airport. We heard a loud boom at the time, presumably after the plane struck and the engine burst into flames on the ground. Confirmed by eyewitnesses on site, the boom happened after it slid into the dirt. As I said, beautiful clear sky.