777 crash at san Francisco airport

[Svnla]

The thought that an asian aircrew would be reticent to perform a rejected landing more than any other is really not accurate.
I have been a passenger on a few dozen commercial flights and never experienced a rejected landing. Has anybody else here been in a commercial airliner that had to go around again?
For any aircrew, it is something to avoid if at all possible. It will always alarm the passengers.
It is really too bad, I am sure accidents and hard landings happen due to this desire to 'git 'er done.'
I always welcomed the opportunity to perform a rejected landing for practice purposes. I've had more than one pilot pull out in front of me and force me to go around on uncontrolled airports. My "type A" buddies would light up the radio and cuss a guy out for it. I preferred the subtle approach.

I flew a lot, both within the US and international (mostly to Asia) and I have to say that I have not experienced with a "do over" landing, ever.

 

[BUTCH1]

It didn't cartwheel. The right wing came up high, but it didn't flip over or anything. It more or less pirouetted flat with a high wing tip up.

You can see that the nose gear stub maintained runway contact all the time, gouging a trail all the way.

http://cfile22.uf.tistory.com/image/23145C3A51D8D91D137059

OK, close enough though, still a pretty tough bird to mostly remain intact despite it had against it it's own mass..

 

[KillerCharlie]

So why are crashes so rare? This is only the second crash of a 777 and the first with fatalities. A plane in service for 18 years.

I believe this is also the first major airline plane crash at SFO with fatalities in a very long time.

Accidents due to airplane design flaws have dropped - crew error makes up the majority of accidents. I have some good ntsb/faa charts that show this but I can't find them.

What I found crazy was the supposed airplane's approach speed - 30 knots too low! Airspeed is the most important thing during final approach. 30 knots is just a massive number to be off by... I just can't express how bad 30 knots is.

 

[BUTCH1]

Accidents due to airplane design flaws have dropped - crew error makes up the majority of accidents. I have some good ntsb/faa charts that show this but I can't find them.

What I found crazy was the supposed airplane's approach speed - 30 knots too low! Airspeed is the most important thing during final approach. 30 knots is just a massive number to be off by... I just can't express how bad 30 knots is.

And what made it much worse is the 777 is a BIG plane, it's going to take that much longer to recover vs say a 737..

 

[LTC8K6]

And what made it much worse is the 777 is a BIG plane, it's going to take that much longer to recover vs say a 737..

The 777 has big engines. My guess is that it accelerates just as well as a 737 overall.

FAA regs also require a relatively quick spool up from passenger aircraft turbofans from flight idle to high thrust. About 6 seconds.

Of course, you can always get too far out near coffin corner and be unable to recover.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Here's a ton of good information about airplane accidents. It's probably the best collection of accident data you can find online.
http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

Summary:
-Total number of fatalities jumps around a lot but accident rate basically decreases every year.
-Loss of control in flight (pilot error), controlled flight into terrain (pilot error), and runway excursion (tower/pilot error) make up the majority of crashes.

 

[skyking]

6 seconds is an eternity when you get that slow/nose high/descending at a high vertical rate. They were screwed.

 

[LTC8K6]

6 seconds is an eternity when you get that slow/nose high/descending at a high vertical rate. They were screwed.

It's not really 6 seconds anyway. It's 6 seconds for the engines to develop high thrust. Much longer for the plane to respond in a meaningful way.

They should have gone around long before they got near the runway. They were too low, too slow, too far right, etc.

 

[bradly1101]

...
I have been a passenger on a few dozen commercial flights and never experienced a rejected landing. Has anybody else here been in a commercial airliner that had to go around again?...

No but I was in an aborted take off once.

It was a DC-10 and they had been having some problems (early 90's).

She was powering down the runway and I felt her lift on her gear. I'm not sure if we got slightly airborne or not, but then the engines shut down, and we were braking hard down what seemed to be the rest of the runway.

The pilot told us that he got a warning light. We went back to the gate.

Fellow passengers hoped that they'd put us on another plane. I agreed.

A half hour later we were backing out of the gate.

Then she thundered down the runway again. As she lifted aloft you could feel a collective sigh of relief in the cabin. It was exciting to say the least.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Has anybody else here been in a commercial airliner that had to go around again?

I have never been on a commercial airliner that had to go around. At work we probably average around 3 per day (600 arrivals). Its very rare to have a pilot initiate a go around on their own. Generally the GAs are for ATC reasons ie planes getting to close together, plane didn't exit the runway fast enough, a dog ran onto a runway (I had this happen to me), etc. Most of the pilot induced GAs are for reasons like wind shear or not established on the approach. I once had the same plane go around 3 times with the final GA they decided to divert to JFK.

 

[bignateyk]

I flew a lot, both within the US and international (mostly to Asia) and I have to say that I have not experienced with a "do over" landing, ever.

I've been on a couple flights where we had to do a "go around". Once was coming into Paris in heavy fog. Apparently there was another plane on the runway still when we got below the fog. Seemed like the wheels were almost on the ground when the engines fired back up and we took off again. That was in a 777.

The other times were in a small turbo-prop in heavy wind where the pilot couldn't get it lined up well enough and had to circle back around.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Yea the CNN animation was so far off it was LOL AND they had the exclusive video!. After a 10hr trip it was probably low on fuel, that might be the only reason there was no fireball, the fact that it slammed into the wall hard enough to rip off the entire tail, cartwheel, and remain mostly intact is a testament to a very solid design..

I believe it is standard practice for all flights to carry a minimum amount of fuel necessary for the trip and perhaps a quick diversion, a couple of aborted landings, or having to maintain a holding pattern in the sky. The more fuel they carry, the heavier the plane will be and the more fuel they have to spend for the trip. Fuel = $$$$$$$.

 

[LTC8K6]

§ 91.151
Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed—
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.
(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

§ 91.167
Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to—
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; and
(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following:
(i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.

 

[AmdEmAll]

I flew a lot, both within the US and international (mostly to Asia) and I have to say that I have not experienced with a "do over" landing, ever.

I experienced an aborted landing flying on a JetBlue A320 into San Juan a few months ago. We were just crossing the bridge and maybe a few seconds after that the plane went 100% on the engines and went straight up and sharp to the right.. was a very aerie feeling for a couple of seconds.. thinking that we might crash instantly came into mind and adrenaline flowed and then all was calm. Pilot came on right away and said a small plane was on the runway and we had to go around. But man even on an A320.. those engines are so damn powerful when you need them.

 

[Phil21]

I flew a lot, both within the US and international (mostly to Asia) and I have to say that I have not experienced with a "do over" landing, ever.

I fly a lot (call it 30+ flights per year) and I've had one go around over the course of about 6 years. So about 1:200 or so for me. It's a lot of fun, especially in a 757.

They aren't really that rare, I don't have any stats but pulling numbers out of my ass I'd guess that there is at least one go-around a day at every major airport in the US?

 

[Crusty]

I experienced an aborted landing flying on a JetBlue A320 into San Juan a few months ago. We were just crossing the bridge and maybe a few seconds after that the plane went 100% on the engines and went straight up and sharp to the right.. was a very aerie feeling for a couple of seconds.. thinking that we might crash instantly came into mind and adrenaline flowed and then all was calm. Pilot came on right away and said a small plane was on the runway and we had to go around. But man even on an A320.. those engines are so damn powerful when you need them.

Funny, I've been on a plane that did the same thing at the same airport for the same reason. Now I know why Puerto Rican's clap every time their plane lands.

 

[Number1]

Very informative WIRED Article.

After Asiana 214, Examining the Intricacies and Perils of Landing a Modern Airliner
BY JASON PAUR07.09.136:30 AM

 

[Mermaidman]

I flew a lot, both within the US and international (mostly to Asia) and I have to say that I have not experienced with a "do over" landing, ever.

I've experienced three aborted landings over the past decade: ATL, CLT, and JAX. Two of the three were due to the pilot being uncomfortable with the traffic on/near the runway. I cannot estimate altitude, but the planes were, in laymans' terms, "hella low!" The pilots gun the engine and we ascend again at a steep angle. A319, A321 and B734.

No but I was in an aborted take off once. . .

. . . Then she thundered down the runway again. As she lifted aloft you could feel a collective sigh of relief in the cabin. It was exciting to say the least.

I would not "sigh in relief" until after the plane landed safely!

 

[zinfamous]

Very informative WIRED Article.

After Asiana 214, Examining the Intricacies and Perils of Landing a Modern Airliner
BY JASON PAUR07.09.136:30 AM

Is this one of those articles that I don't want to read, since I already get the jeebies while flying?

 

[ElFenix]

i was on a go-around last year at ORD. saw an MD-11 do one while sitting on the tarmac at SIN. i think we were a bit too close to the runway for the MD-11's comfort. big cloud of black smoke out the back of the MD-11 and off it went.

 

[BUTCH1]

I believe it is standard practice for all flights to carry a minimum amount of fuel necessary for the trip and perhaps a quick diversion, a couple of aborted landings, or having to maintain a holding pattern in the sky. The more fuel they carry, the heavier the plane will be and the more fuel they have to spend for the trip. Fuel = $$$$$$$.

Well ya, if a trip is 10hrs their not going to carry 10.25 hrs/fuel, my point was the vast majority of the fuel had been consumed during the 10hrs flight time.

 

[BUTCH1]

The 777 has big engines. My guess is that it accelerates just as well as a 737 overall.

FAA regs also require a relatively quick spool up from passenger aircraft turbofans from flight idle to high thrust. About 6 seconds.

Of course, you can always get too far out near coffin corner and be unable to recover.

Not really, the bigger engines are needed to push such a big plane around but mass is mass and overall the "heavy" class planes are particularity unforgiving to approach mistakes, even though they have much more powerful engines those bigger engines still have to overcome the mass, weight, and inertia of the bigger airframe.

 

[Mark R]

I have been a passenger on a few dozen commercial flights and never experienced a rejected landing. Has anybody else here been in a commercial airliner that had to go around again?

I once had a go-around on an American Airlines flight landing at LHR. There was a heck of a lot of cross-wind that day, so I presume that the pilot wasn't happy with the line-up.

 

[Number1]

Is this one of those articles that I don't want to read, since I already get the jeebies while flying?

I don't think so. it's just a description of various technical terms and how pilots line up the plane with the runway.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not really, the bigger engines are needed to push such a big plane around but mass is mass and overall the "heavy" class planes are particularity unforgiving to approach mistakes, even though they have much more powerful engines those bigger engines still have to overcome the mass, weight, and inertia of the bigger airframe.

No, they pretty much all are designed to perform well with their normal loads.

Thrust to weight comparisons will quickly show which can accelerate faster.

Some of the bigger jets have better ratios and can climb faster.

Some jets, like the 757, are known to be "rockets".

The big jets also tend to cruise faster. At cruise, a 777 can leave a 737 behind.