:evil:
The fuselage is still intact so there's hope. If they managed to get the slides out, its possible that most if not all were able to escape before the fire got too big.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 ... 55309.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/asiana-airlines-plane-cra_n_3555309.html)
Still no official word on deaths or injuries, as far as I can find. Though with a crash like that, I can't imagine there weren't at least a number of serious injuries.
It's early yet, so we'll have to wait and see.
Amazingly, it seems no fatalaties. Many passangers have tweeted or used other sicial media saying there were some minor injuries, but everyone got off the plane before the fire spread.
Watching it right now, I am shocked that so far, there haven't been the standard "Thank God" crap I hear in clips, but I have it on CNN.
Quote from: "Solitary"It doesn't look good for many of the people aboard. :cry: Solitary
Some passenger tweets after the fact are conveying a quick exit before the fire got big. According to CNN reports I am watching right now.
Some burns, but no reported critical injuries as of yet.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Some burns, but no reported critical injuries as of yet.
Give it time, if everyone survives the believers will call it a "miracle".
But these same credulous morons would do the same if only one person survived.
I want to know, when it ceases to be a "miracle", when half live and half die?
No one wants to chalk the outcome to CONDITIONS based on multiple factors.
Well let me be the first to say THANK GOD the entire world didn't die from this! :shock:
Admit it..THAT's a miracle...right?
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Well let me be the first to say THANK GOD the entire world didn't die from this! :shock:
Admit it..THAT's a miracle...right?
Yes because death in it's millions of times a year from every aspect never negates willful ignorance and selection bias.
ABBA caused it Brian.. :wink:
I just read a report of 2 deaths and a handful of injuries. Looking at the reckage, it is pretty amazing there are not more dead!
Out of curiosity, anyone know what happened to the roof?
And yeah, Reuters says 2 now.
69 people unaccounted for. Not good.
Two confirmed dead, one left unaccounted for now.
Certainly seems to look like electrical fire spread through the upper cabbies. Maybe those here smarter will know, but are they still using high voltage for lights? I woulda thunk by now they would all be using LED lights. Other than that, what do they have? Blowers at each seat should be ducted unless not enough room for all the ducts, course the duct could be a quick way for fire to spread but surely they have dampers for that.. one would think.
Quote from: "aitm"Certainly seems to look like electrical fire spread through the upper cabbies. Maybe those here smarter will know, but are they still using high voltage for lights? I woulda thunk by now they would all be using LED lights. Other than that, what do they have? Blowers at each seat should be ducted unless not enough room for all the ducts, course the duct could be a quick way for fire to spread but surely they have dampers for that.. one would think.
There's over 170 miles of electrical cable in those planes. You just never know when a piece of cable insulation will get weak.
Quote from: "Johan"Two confirmed dead, one left unaccounted for now.
Hmm..It would appear god is no longer up to the task of punishing SF for all teh gays. If this were a REAL god....1000's dead, millions critically injured..
Quote from: "aitm"Certainly seems to look like electrical fire spread through the upper cabbies. Maybe those here smarter will know, but are they still using high voltage for lights? I woulda thunk by now they would all be using LED lights. Other than that, what do they have? Blowers at each seat should be ducted unless not enough room for all the ducts, course the duct could be a quick way for fire to spread but surely they have dampers for that.. one would think.
There is indeed all manner of wiring running through the ceiling on those birds. But I doubt the fire was electrical in nature. In a fire, the heat and the flames go 'up'. Also the passengers got off via the slides so most of the overhead baggage was likely left behind and that stuff loves to burn.
Early reports indicate the plane hit the runway tail first and the tail separated at that point. It looks like the landing gear might have failed at some point during the sequence as well. Either of those things would be very likely to get a fire started so I would suspect that as the source much more than the electrics but you never know.
Sounds more hydraulic then. Next time you have a huge heat buildup try this: Pour hydraulic fluid right on it and watch as a good time is had by all. :)
:evil:
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "Johan"Two confirmed dead, one left unaccounted for now.
Hmm..It would appear god is no longer up to the task of punishing SF for all teh gays. If this were a REAL god....1000's dead, millions critically injured..
He used up all his "damage points" on Katrina.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "aitm"Certainly seems to look like electrical fire spread through the upper cabbies. Maybe those here smarter will know, but are they still using high voltage for lights? I woulda thunk by now they would all be using LED lights. Other than that, what do they have? Blowers at each seat should be ducted unless not enough room for all the ducts, course the duct could be a quick way for fire to spread but surely they have dampers for that.. one would think.
There is indeed all manner of wiring running through the ceiling on those birds. But I doubt the fire was electrical in nature. In a fire, the heat and the flames go 'up'. Also the passengers got off via the slides so most of the overhead baggage was likely left behind and that stuff loves to burn.
Early reports indicate the plane hit the runway tail first and the tail separated at that point. It looks like the landing gear might have failed at some point during the sequence as well. Either of those things would be very likely to get a fire started so I would suspect that as the source much more than the electrics but you never know.
No, not so sure this is the case. Early reports is that the plane came in too low at the wrong angle. I think the impact and skid caused the fire. Some speculation may be that the the landing procedure might be an error on the pilot's part and industry training is supposed to have the co-pilots question a procedure, which may have not been done in this case.
The fire started after the failed landing, so the impact caused that. My bets are on bad industry standards that didn't allow enough questioning of the pilot by the co-pilots. But the fire after the fact needs to be addressed also so "in case" a fire is less likely no matter what.
Quote from: "Brian37"No, not so sure this is the case. Early reports is that the plane came in too low at the wrong angle. I think the impact and skid caused the fire.
Not to pick nits but that's exactly what I said. The fire was not likely caused by an electrical problem but rather as a result of the tail separating and/or the main gear failing thus dragging the belly and possibly causing at least one of the engines to separate. And all of that happened because, according to witness reports, the approach angle was very low.
QuoteMy bets are on bad industry standards that didn't allow enough questioning of the pilot by the co-pilots. But the fire after the fact needs to be addressed also so "in case" a fire is less likely no matter what.
Every airline establishes its own op specs within the FAA guidelines. That is where crew/flight management procedures are generally established. The thing is, this is one of those areas where no matter what the rules are, how things go are going to be largely dependent on the human beings in question and their personalities. The rules can specify that the pilot not flying can question the pilot flying if something is suspected to be wrong. But if the pilot flying says 'yeah I see it, I got it' and keeps saying that right up until things go horribly wrong, then what?
I saw a report that the glideslope has been out of service since June on that runway. The glideslope is a radio navigation device that will give an indication on a gauge that the plane is at the proper height throughout the approach. Its what they use to land when weather prevents them from being able to see the runway. And in those aircraft the autopilot can easily fly the plane almost to the runway or all the way to landing depending on the equipment. With the weather being clear, as it was, the glideslope indicator would not have been required. But its absence would force the pilot flying to keep the plane on the proper slope visually and that is something this particular crew might have been rusty on.
The thing that boggles my mind is that even if the crew was accustomed to flying the glideslope needle on the panel on every approach and therefore was rusty on doing it the old fashioned visual way, there would still be VASI lights which are visual glideslope indicator lights at the end of the runway which can be easily seen from several miles out in broad daylight and which tell the pilot instantly if the plane is on the right glideslope or above or below it. That they could fly the entire approach with two or three in the red (not sure which types of lights that runway has) and not correct it or abort and go around is a heinous error. Its a career ender at most US based carriers.
So if I were a betting man, my money would be on the ultimate cause falling on the initial and recurrent training procedures of the airline being such that pilots are able to get too out of practice with flying visual approaches by hand. There are lots of possibilities and I could be way off, but that's where my bet would be. Time will tell.
Here's how VASI's work:
(//http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/Images/CPL%20Flight%20Operations/Vasi%20Indications.gif)
Quote from: "Johan"So if I were a betting man, my money would be on the ultimate cause falling on the initial and recurrent training procedures of the airline being such that pilots are able to get too out of practice with flying visual approaches by hand. There are lots of possibilities and I could be way off, but that's where my bet would be. Time will tell.
Looks like I might have guessed right. At least as far as the problem coming down to initial and recurrent training procedures. Now they're saying the pilot flying had logged only 43 hours of time on the 777 and that it was his first landing in that model aircraft at SFO.
:( I was eating lunch the other day when this shot across the news channel,I was on.
I'm too scared at how annoyed I'll get if I search for responses to the crash from media outlets. If the word "Miracle" hasn't been plastered across numerous ones I'll pretty damn surprised.
Local news station fails big time in reporting the supposed pilots of the plane:
[youtube:3gkyqonw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo[/youtube:3gkyqonw]
EDIT: Ah, Seabear beat me to it.
Yeah, someone got punked real bad, but real good.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... e/2513971/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/12/ktvu-gaffe/2513971/)