P.S. What’s the decision height at SFO and why didn’t the pilot initiate a missed approach?
In this crash, the entire empenage was separated from the airplane near the initial impact site. The vertical stabiler and both horizontal stabs can be seen near runway centerline less than 1000' down the runway. The photos of the airplane at rest provide a clear view of the pressure bulkhead as the remaining structure at the rear of the plane. From the way the tail was ripped off, it seemed to be at a high body angle at initial contact. I'd guess at least a late go-around was initiated, posibly a late go-around without sufficient power applied with very high AOA and subsequent tail strike. The only other thing that could produce such a high body angle would be less-than landing flaps selected, but that should produce considerable automatic aural warning from the airplane. Less-than landing flaps would also produce a different pilots visual reference picture.
This accident appears at first glance to be a near repeat of the Korean Airlines crash at Guam. An inop ground station ILS which was not accounted for by the pilots. In Guam, the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground as a result.
Korean Airlines (not Asiana) had a notorious history of co-pilots refusing to countermand the Captain even when he was wrong. This was causal in the Guam crash, in a 747 freighter crash in London, and several others. I suspect those cultural influences exist at Asiana airlines also. The investigation will surely tell.
P.S. What’s the decision height at SFO and why didn’t the pilot initiate a missed approach?