U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2013, 11:02 AM
 
1,307 posts, read 2,114,953 times
Reputation: 706

Advertisements

I think a taxi driver can be put in jail if his/her negligence causes fatal accident . But can a pilot be put in jail?

Last edited by Scott456; 07-07-2013 at 12:03 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2013, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 4,501,721 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMenscha View Post
1. The missed approach on 28L calls for the pilot to maintain runway heading until the aircraft reaches 4000' altitude. If you can find a Jepp chart that shows otherwise for SFO I'd love to see it.

Agreed. My speculation is that if he were short due to something like a bird strike at the las possible moment, he may have panicked and reacted poorly. I can't understand why that aircraft was where it was when its tail touched down.

2. Missed approaches are not common. especially in decent weather. I've experienced one and that was in Mexican airspace where ATC didn't give us enough time and space to descend.

Also agreed.

3. I haven't looked at the NOTAMS yet and didn't have access to the ATIS, but I read somewhere the ILS for 28L was not in service. Edit: I did look through the NOTAMS and I don't see any reference to the ILS not being in service.

I just heard the same thing about the ILS. Thanks for checking the NOTAMS. On a clear day like yesterday, would heavy pilots typically be using the ILS anyway?

4. 28L is 11,300 feet long. Short of a bird strike killing power to the engine(s), there no reason for experienced crew to ever even touch the displaced threshold, let alone miss it short.
Therein lies the biggest question.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 4,501,721 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHDave View Post
Yeah, cause we know people (no matter their profession) never do stupid things

Wouldn't surprise me in the least, but I'm not one for speculation, we know nothing of the pilot and little of the crash circumstances.
There's a difference between "doing something stupid" and having an accident occur. I was merely saying that, for the pilot's sake, I hope he wasn't negligent and overlooked something (which I doubt he did).

When a pilot reaches the proficiency to fly a 777, he has made thousands of landings in much worse conditions than these. The landing sequence is complex, but is checked and cross-checked with the co-pilot. As the person above states, there is really no good reason to land short like that, aside from something happening, such as a bird strike. The pilot can see out the cockpit and he has a huge runway in front of him. It's unlikely we was acting stupid and more likely he experienced some kind of loss of power very late in his approach for whatever reason.

Is it possible he was negligent? Yes, of course, though it's unlikely the co-pilot and the cockpit alarms would have missed it too.

This guy was nose-up, in a flare, 1000 feet short (by some accounts) of a runway on a clear, calm day. That's not really an "oops". There have to be extenuating circumstances.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 01:36 PM
 
Location: galaxy far far away
3,111 posts, read 4,790,948 times
Reputation: 7215
For those who want more information from a reputable source, the Aviation Herald has updated information. It reads a bit disjointed because they are updating it as new information comes in. This will probably be one of the best resources as the days pass.

The news media is just a joke. Ever since we went to 24/7 news it seems the "norm" is to speculate speculate speculate just so they can fill the air with noise. Some of the "eyewitnesses" on some stations turned out to be people who saw a video on twitter! And don't get me started on Mary Schiavo as an "expert witness." Another good resource for all the aviation enthusiasts here is FlyerTalk -- this is a 59 page thread, so the link starts about 2/3 of the way through where there are some good insights from flight attendants and pilots as well as more aviation links going forward.

Not sure of the accuracy of this report, but it's another interesting tidbit:
One of the passengers said an announcement came over the intercom and said they had landed safely. That could also explain people with luggage. It's all very bizarre. http://abcnews.go.com/US/crash-survi...ry?id=19597759

I tell you, the low number of fatalities on this crash is a testament to the Flight attendants and the crew. As for the people taking baggage off the plane, one commenter on FlyerTalk made a good point. It sounds like the crash caused some of the overhead bins to open and luggage was falling on people's heads. If that's the case, it does make more sense to take the bag off with you than it does to try and figure out where to restow it and then get off the flight. Since we weren't on the flight, we just don't know.

No matter what, this also shows me how much safer planes are now than even a decade ago. They have designed these monsters to fly, and the proof is in the low injury and fatality count.




Last edited by R_Cowgirl; 07-07-2013 at 01:52 PM.. Reason: add link
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 9,163,428 times
Reputation: 8920
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise View Post
There's a difference between "doing something stupid" and having an accident occur. I was merely saying that, for the pilot's sake, I hope he wasn't negligent and overlooked something (which I doubt he did).

When a pilot reaches the proficiency to fly a 777, he has made thousands of landings in much worse conditions than these. The landing sequence is complex, but is checked and cross-checked with the co-pilot. As the person above states, there is really no good reason to land short like that, aside from something happening, such as a bird strike. The pilot can see out the cockpit and he has a huge runway in front of him. It's unlikely we was acting stupid and more likely he experienced some kind of loss of power very late in his approach for whatever reason.

Is it possible he was negligent? Yes, of course, though it's unlikely the co-pilot and the cockpit alarms would have missed it too.

This guy was nose-up, in a flare, 1000 feet short (by some accounts) of a runway on a clear, calm day. That's not really an "oops". There have to be extenuating circumstances.
Human/pilot error is real. I spent many hours talking with the pilots during my time as a flight attendant and learned that pilot error can happen at any time. The lengthy training I received also taught me that pilot error is real and has accounted for several of the jetliner crashes.


This is an interesting aspect of the puzzle: Electronic landing system was off at San Francisco airport during crash - U.S. News

According to this pilot from the link I posted:
"He showed a lack of skill, a lack of recognition that he was coming in too low and too slow," Schiff opined. "He should have recognized that before he got to the seawall. If he had, everything would have turned out fine."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 4,501,721 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVC15 View Post
Human/pilot error is real. I spent many hours talking with the pilots during my time as a flight attendant and learned that pilot error can happen at any time. The lengthy training I received also taught me that pilot error is real and has accounted for several of the jetliner crashes.


This is an interesting aspect of the puzzle: Electronic landing system was off at San Francisco airport during crash - U.S. News

According to this pilot from the link I posted:
"He showed a lack of skill, a lack of recognition that he was coming in too low and too slow," Schiff opined. "He should have recognized that before he got to the seawall. If he had, everything would have turned out fine."
Yes, pilot error happens. Agreed. It's just so perplexing that it would happen in this instance. It's a very long runway. It was a clear day. There was no apparent reason to try to hit the end of that runway. Why not land a little long? That plane would barely use half of that runway to stop. It just doesn't add up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 9,163,428 times
Reputation: 8920
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise View Post
Yes, pilot error happens. Agreed. It's just so perplexing that it would happen in this instance. It's a very long runway. It was a clear day. There was no apparent reason to try to hit the end of that runway. Why not land a little long? That plane would barely use half of that runway to stop. It just doesn't add up.
Agree that is why pilot error seems to be the culprit. Maybe he was fatigued and misjudged, maybe he was hung-over and dehydrated....not uncommon for jetliner pilots, maybe he was on no sleep...but for all conditions to be so perfect and this happened strongly suggests pilot error.

No doubt it will be interesting when they discover what the reason was.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 04:04 PM
 
1,307 posts, read 2,114,953 times
Reputation: 706
But can a pilot be sentenced to jail time if it was indeed his error causing this fatal accident?
Does anyone know?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Brambleton, VA
2,187 posts, read 7,169,477 times
Reputation: 2172
Look at this posted by CNN:
NTSB: Pilots asked to do a 'go-around' 1.5 seconds before impact - CNN.com

These passengers are truly lucky to be alive. A plane slightly cartwheeling isn't a great thing. I have no doubt that this was pilot error. I don't know if a 10 hour flight can justify being fatigued enough to misjudge a situation. I think it caught the seawall because it came in too low, that caught the tail and there was no correcting that. But, this is the job for the NTSB. They have a lot more eyewitness accounts than most accidents, and that has to be a huge resource.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Brambleton, VA
2,187 posts, read 7,169,477 times
Reputation: 2172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott456 View Post
But can a pilot be sentenced to jail time if it was indeed his error causing this fatal accident?
Does anyone know?
Only if they were negligent. But, remember that these pilots are from South Korea so things are very different. That complicates things. The airline will be held more accountable than the pilot. After all, they are the ones with the deep pockets. It will be at least a month before the investigation is completed. Although there aren't many variables that seem to free the pilot from making a bad judgment call, we really don't know if something else happened yet.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top