Korean Passenger Plane Crashes At SFO; 2 Dead, 181 Hospitalized

cbslocal ^ | July 6, 2013 6:00 PM

[batterycommander]

There should be cameras at each end of every runway to record every takeoff and landing.

[roadcat]

I hope it wasn’t the infant who was killed, they just sit on mom or dad’s lap.

Hope not. A while ago, a buddy of mine that was there all afternoon on the ground told me it wasn't pleasant. Lots of personal effects strewn about. Said it sucked seeing the body of a woman. Also told me that he saw some body parts, if true it means critical injuries were not just burns. Sowed me pics he took, but none showing any graphic stuff. Horrible for the injured.

[ncfool]

There are.

[jocon307]

That’s terrible. I’m sorry your friend had to see all that.

[expat2]

My view based on what's known so far:
Pilot came in too low on a visual approach, realized his mistake, added full power and nose up to do a go-around, and the nose-up/tail-down attitude caused the tail to hit the sea wall.

[GOP_Muzik]

From what I can tell from the photos, there are two possible causes - 1) pilot error in which the pilot lost the “feel” for his wheels or 2) altimeter error. This could still be pilot error if the pilot set the altimeter incorrectly on approach or if there was a mechanical problem with the altimeter. It will be interesting to see the NTSA’s report when they release it months from now

It was perfect VFR conditions, it wouldn't matter if the altimeter read 3,000 feet, you don't land using the altimeter unless you are in IFR conditions, the GPS controlled glide slope indicators are your main focus.

It was either major pilot error (my guess) or some weird downdraft that affected the glide slope in a way that shouldn't for an aircraft this size.

[Thud]

The pilot was told during at some point during approach to shift from one of two parallel runways (28R to 28L) and lost just enough altitude to make the crash happen. AFAIK he should have added power earlier or gone around.

The prior comments about the mechanics are correct. The pilot realized too late he was low, slammed on power and tried to nose up, but that moved the tail down just enough to impact the seawall. The tail and vertical stabilizer separated and he lost control. One poster on another thread said

"... The g forces in the rear seats must have been tremendous."

This indicates horrendous spinal column injuries in the rear cabin area. It also appears that the two fatalities were cabin crew in the rearmost seats, against the rear bulkhead.

[Benjamin Dover]

My first thought...without knowing anything.... was pilot error. Windy conditions and cross-winds on landing in SAN FRAN. Wing dipped and touched tarmac.....sending plane in cart-wheel (based on initial reports)

Sounds like he came in too low and clipped tail.

Out of ignorance, I thought planes had altimeters and auto-landing computers. Are most touch-downs done manually by the pilot?

[VRWC For Truth]

I think the pilots forgot to reset the computer to the new runway. Based on the tail debris field, it looks like they tried to correct to the new runway on visual approach. The tail debris starts on the right side of the left runway. Means they were landing in between the two runways. There was another plane waiting to take off on the right runway.

[DustyMoment]

. . . you don't land using the altimeter unless you are in IFR conditions, the GPS controlled glide slope indicators are your main focus.

Not always true. Most aircraft still use the mechanical type altimeter that you have to set the elevation for each airport. If the pilot inserted the altimeter setting incorrectly, it could have caused him to be lower than he thought he was. That's still pilot error and, I agree, that pilot error was probably the cause of the accident.

The only exception to that would be if there were a malfunction of the altimeter that caused it to read incorrectly. It will be interesting to see what the CVR and FDR reveal when those are analyzed.