Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boeing 777 Crashes At San Francisco Airport

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the be-safe dept.

Transportation 506

Asiana Flight 214 from Seoul crashed while landing at San Francisco Airport today. Early reports suggest the plane was unstable as it touched down, which led to the tail of the plane breaking off. There are no official casualty reports yet, but passengers were seen walking off the plane. Preliminary estimates say one or two dead and 75 being transported to area hospitals. (Others are reporting two dead and several dozen injured.) Eyewitness report: "You heard a pop and you immediately saw a large, brief fireball that came out from underneath the aircraft," Anthony Castorani said on CNN. "At that moment, you could see that that aircraft was again starting to lift and it began to cartwheel [Ed: he likely means spinning horizontally, like a top]. The wing broke off on the left hand side. You could see the tail immediately fly off of the aircraft. As the aircraft cartwheeled, it then landed down and the other wing had broken." The media has estimated about 290 people were on board the plane. The top of the cabin was aflame at one point, but it's not known yet whether that affected the passengers. "Federal sources told NBC News that there was no indication of terrorism." Some images from the news make it look like the plane may have tried to touch down too early, hitting the seawall just before the runway.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Crashes in"? (0)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year ago | (#44205067)

...just saying...

Re:"Crashes in"? (0, Offtopic)

Korean Fan (2975153) | about a year ago | (#44205111)

It was a Korean flight. Seriously, look at this Korean girl [youtube.com] .

Re:"Crashes in"? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205269)

I would crash in her, all day and all night.

Re:"Crashes in"? (1)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year ago | (#44205113)

Just to elaborate, the headline made me think 7/6 would be to Silicon Valley what 9/11 is to New York.

Re:"Crashes in"? (4, Informative)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year ago | (#44205143)

Just to elaborate even more (edit function please), anyone who lives around SF and flies knows that the airport is 10 miles south of the city. So an airplane crashing within city limits would be extremely bizarre. Very little air traffic is actually routed through the city...in fact I think most planes that fly overhead are ads for car insurance companies and tires during baseball games.

Re:"Crashes in"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205341)

SFO is technically within the city limits of San Francisco. The city limits aren't contiguous.

Re:"Crashes in"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205369)

Never mind. The airport is still within the jurisdiction of San Mateo county, in terms of police powers. I thought it was annexed, but the city simply owns the land and airport in a private capacity.

Wrong week . . . (5, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | about a year ago | (#44205069)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking!

Re:Wrong week . . . (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#44205093)

Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue!

Re:Wrong week . . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205231)

Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop reading Slashdot (tomorrow).

Open airplanes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205103)

This is the problem with non-free airplanes. If the blueprints had been free under a freedom preserving license I'm sure the problem that caused the hiccup had been found.

Re:Open airplanes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205137)

The problem is that it was apparently a I-D-Ten-T error. Until we have free and open source brains then I guess?

Re:Open airplanes (2, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#44205213)

This is the problem with non-free airplanes. If the blueprints had been free under a freedom preserving license I'm sure the problem that caused the hiccup had been found.

. . . and the plane could have been printed on an off the shelf 3D printer . . .

Re:Open airplanes (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44205567)

Wouldn't even have had to print the plane; just print the passengers at the destination.

news for nerds (-1, Troll)

drwho (4190) | about a year ago | (#44205105)

plane crash? the site has ceased being about tech. How long till kardashians invade?

Re:news for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205199)

As soon as someone leaks anything about them I'm sure.

Re:news for nerds (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | about a year ago | (#44205497)

As soon as something leaks from one of them I'm sure.

FTFY

Re:news for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205201)

Cancel your subscription then.

Re:news for nerds (1)

geekymachoman (1261484) | about a year ago | (#44205205)

So, news for nerds is strictly about computers, mathematics and shit ? Nerds/Geeks are limited to a point that nothing else interests them ?
Or are you just looking for some mod points ? Because opinion like that...on a site like this - should get you some.
You should look at the whole thing from a slightly different perspective. Nerds news site, that doesn't exclude 'relevant' information even if the same is not nerdy.

Although, when they start talking about Kardashians and Beaver.. I mean, Bieber, I and some others might agree with you.

Re:news for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205513)

At least this isn't more Bitcoin bullshit.

Re:news for nerds (1)

JavaBear (9872) | about a year ago | (#44205265)

Samsung VP David Eun was on that plane, that makes it our business.

Re:news for nerds (3, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44205555)

Samsung VP David Eun was on that plane, that makes it our business.

He posted a picture of the crash: https://path.com/p/1lwrZb [path.com] . His post says "most everyone" is fine, but that is selection bias. For crashes like this, the injured/dead are usually in one section, and those are NOT the people you see walking away.

Re:news for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205317)

plane crash? the site has ceased being about tech. How long till kardashians invade?

Don't like it? Submit something better or stop moaning

Re:news for nerds (1)

LiquidPaper (69881) | about a year ago | (#44205351)

Thay have now !!

Re:news for nerds (1)

Smivs (1197859) | about a year ago | (#44205563)

How long till kardashians invade?

The Cardassians? [wikipedia.org] I didn't know they had expanded out of the Alpha Quadrant! [wikipedia.org]

Photo (4, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#44205107)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SFO_crash-e1373139561971.png [thinkprogress.org]

Shows it upright, with at least one wing still attached.

Re:Photo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205299)

Also shows some Korean carrying a suitcase.

Re:Photo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205579)

You can't know if they're Korean or not. All you can reasonably deduce is that they're not in first class since they took the L2 slide.

Except (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205109)

It didn't cartwheel, it spun around like a top.

Re:Except (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205323)

I hated that analogy, they should have said "Like a car spinning around". Kids these days don't even know what a top is, they are archaic toys.

Re:Except (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#44205605)

A better term would have been "pirouette".

Re:Except (1)

White Flame (1074973) | about a year ago | (#44205387)

Listening to the audio clip of the witness who originally said that (third video on the first-linked page), I believe he meant that the airplane began to roll left, not that it actually completed a tumble in any particular direction. The left wing hit the ground during that "beginning to cartwheel" event, then the wheels all touched down and it came to a stop.

maybe its time (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44205115)

maybe its tome for the 3d printed airplane? ;)

Fire (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205117)

The cause of death in the overwhelming majority of crash landings is the combustible fuel burning the passengers and very has very little to do with impacts.

Re:Fire (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205445)

So what you're saying is that we need to replace the dangerous fuel with something that won't burn.

Ok, put water in them.

But what if they drown?

Re:Fire (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205589)

So what you're saying is that we need to replace the dangerous fuel with something that won't burn.

Ok, put water in them.

But what if they drown?

Don't be silly. What it really means: If some genius can come up with a technological solution preventing combustion on impact or "prove" it can be done, there would be a paradigm shift in our perception in what it means to survive a plane crash, besides the obvious in the amount of lives it would save.

An extreme example would be: If non-combustion had existed before the World Trade Center, the damage to all of the buildings, including the Pentagon, would have been next to nothing (relativity speaking) and some of the people would have actually lived; perhaps more so in the Pennsylvanian fields.

Not geek news... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205119)

This doesn't really sound like geek news.

Re:Not geek news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205175)

It's not. It may eventually come out that the cause of the crash would make for some outstanding geek news, but the event itself is not.

I really miss CmdrTaco, I never realized how much of this fluff he kept at bay.

Re:Not geek news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205193)

I think this counts under the "Stuff that matters" category.

Re:Not geek news... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44205217)

I think this counts under the "Stuff that matters" category.

not all plane crashes hit it though.
it's probably because it happened in SF and not Malaysia or somewhere.. it's on other "tech culture" sites as well. some samsungs exec was on it.

Re:Not geek news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205275)

And normally I happily observe that some items will fall into the "stuff that matters" category, but there needs to be a line drawn. Lately, more and more of the balance has shifted away from "news for nerds" into "stuff that matters", and then even further into run-of-the-mill blogspam. It's only getting worse as time goes on. It's depressing seeing what was once THE go-to tech blog become just another Geekosystem or io9.

Re:Not geek news... (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#44205385)

Or Kuro5hin, remember that? Haha! Ah no I am getting mildly annoyed at /. Here's what you do: Take the juiciest stuff from Ars Technica, Discovery News, Geek.com, Gizmag, Livescience.com, Techcrunch, and Wired and let the brain trust hereabouts kick it around. That is all.

Re:Not geek news... (5, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44205531)

The real news here is that this happened today and we're reading about it today. I would have expected to have to wait at least a fortnight for the initial report to show up here. Followed by a week of dupes.

Re:Not geek news... (1)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year ago | (#44205267)

Considering how much of the geek community resides near SFO (and flies SFO), it's perfectly justified. I can't think of anywhere with a greater concentration of slashdotters.

Re:Not geek news... (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#44205339)

I can't think of anywhere with a greater concentration of slashdotters.

. . . and how do you know where we all live . . . ? Have you been dipping into our meta-data, or something . . . ?

Re:Not geek news... (2, Informative)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about a year ago | (#44205495)

It is justified. If only because the underlying tech that brought so many images of the crash so fast from smart phones and whatnot give evidence of the degree that new tech is influencing news.

Also of techie interest is that so many of the passengers survived such a destructive crash. Planes today are a lot more crashworthy than the last generation.

I grant that the babes among us who have never learned to use a sliderule and probably most of them have never even touched one might not recognize the techie aspects of this. But the old geezers among us-- you know, the ancient ones who made the Internet and the digital cameras and cell phones and things like that-- appreciate this story and others like it. It helps us see just what kind of benefits our work has brought to society.

Now get off my damn lawn.

No Cartwheeling (2, Informative)

Ganty (1223066) | about a year ago | (#44205121)

Pictures show the aircraft sat on the ground with the tail missing and the forward roof burnt out but it certainly did NOT cartwheel or bits would be scattered down the runway. It seems that all passengers and crew have been accounted for with no fatalities.

Ganty

Re:No Cartwheeling (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205261)

At least 2 dead, which is quite amazing: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo/nYfcx/

Re:No Cartwheeling (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#44205303)

Pictures show the aircraft sat on the ground with the tail missing and the forward roof burnt out but it certainly did NOT cartwheel...

I happened to check news just as this story was breaking. The word "cartwheel" came from the first eyewitness report. The next two eyewitnesses said it "spun". So I'm guessing that the guy who said "cartwheel" doesn't really know what the word means, and that instead it spun on its belly.

Re:No Cartwheeling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205405)

I'll bet it was the adrenalin talking. People in these kinds of situations tend to say things like "it sounded like a bomb going off", "it was like in a movie or sumthin", or the ever-popular "it happened so fast".

Re:No Cartwheeling (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#44205551)

I'll bet it was the adrenalin talking.

Yes, it occurred to me that he knows perfectly well what "cartwheel" means, and in the excitement of the moment made an imprecise word choice.

Re:No Cartwheeling (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#44205611)

Yes, a cartwheel in an airplane that big is catastrophic. But how do you deal with people who don't know what "yaw" means?

Re:No Cartwheeling (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44205391)

certainly did NOT cartwheel or bits would be scattered down the runway. It seems that all passengers and crew have been accounted for with no fatalities.

The term "cartwheel" has different meanings to different people. Unfortunately, just like with the Boston Bombing, CNN rushed a story out without getting its facts straight, though at least this time it was somewhat more substantial than pure speculation.

At this time, it appears the plane's air speed was too low on final approach, and the pilot may have over-corrected by throttling up and then (mistakenly) putting the nose further up as a panic measure; This resulted in a severe tail strike on the sea wall, and the plane would have become aerodynamically unstable immediately after.

Typically in these scenarios, the plane (appears) to shoot upwards briefly due to the sudden change in weight distribution, and comes down on angled heavily to one side (having lost any ability to control lateral movement). The wing will typically sheer off, as they're actually designed to break away from the fuselage in such an event, and the plane will roll onto its roof then (if speed is high enough) or the nose will take a digger, break off, and the whole thing will flip in the air and then promptly "face plant" in the dirt in one piece.

Either way, the plane did exactly what it was designed to do -- separate the flammables from the fuselage where the passengers were, and maintain integrity until all motion stops. The emergency crew's prompt response is what saved everyone's lives -- most people don't die due to the impact or fire, but rather smoke inhalation.

This is a text-book crash landing, and the investigation will now focus on whether a mechanical fault caused the plane to lose speed at the last moment (bird strike on engine is common), or whether the pilot neglected to flare correctly. Judging by the debris, it looks like it would have been a steep descent with flare at the end -- which results in a faster landing and is preferred at high-volume airports, over a shallower approach, with less flare. If the pilot is inexperienced, distracted, or any number of a dozen other things go wrong (one plane crash I know of was due to a circuit breaker trip-out which meant the captain did not have 'stick shake' or stall alarm warnings in this exact scenario) -- there's very little time to react, and even going to full power take off speed will not prevent disaster due to the steep descent angle, lack of altitude, and lack of speed.

Any airplane pilot knows the key to a successful crash landing is speed and altitude -- they add precious seconds to react to an emergency. This plane had neither.

Re:No Cartwheeling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205613)

Your entire post is 110% conjecture. You're just trying to show off how much you've read about airplanes, except in this case it's entirely possible for you to be more wrong than somebody with less knowledge.

Tail ripped off at seawall on approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205125)

The most likely 'report' (I've seen) is that the tail was ripped off at the seawall that precedes the runway on approach.

I figured it out (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205127)

I'm going to go on record saying that hitting the sea-wall first instead of the runway had something to do with it. You know, physics, and all that shit.

Pilot error? (0)

kurt555gs (309278) | about a year ago | (#44205149)

I'll be willing to bet a Bitcoin that the pilot was trying to land the airplane instead of just letting the computer do it.

Re: Pilot error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205195)

Only a serious man can put that amount of monopoly quid on the table.

Re:Pilot error? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year ago | (#44205319)

I'll be willing to bet that in fact this is another incidence of uncommanded engine rollback, as caused the heathrow crash just short of the runway. Unfortnately, I have no buttcoins to bet with you though.

Re:Pilot error? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#44205429)

The vast majority of landings is not automated - they are flown manually so that pilots have some experience actually flying aircraft instead of pressing buttons and turning knobs.

Re:Pilot error? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#44205631)

The vast majority of landings is not automated - they are flown manually so that pilots have some experience actually flying aircraft instead of pressing buttons and turning knobs.

The pilots have to manually land most long-haul flights or they won't do enough landings to remain certified. I think a lot more short-haul flights are automated.

Re: Pilot error? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205451)

Landings are always done by a pilot during the final moments, past the decision height.Sure, the plane wikl guide itself during most of the glidescope path, but the pilot must take control before touchdown. Unless the plane is operating in an airport with an ILS CAT III and has a certified autoland system.

Re: Pilot error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205465)

>wiki
Meant to type "will"

Re:Pilot error? (1, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44205481)

I'll be willing to bet a Bitcoin that the pilot was trying to land the airplane instead of just letting the computer do it.

You obviously don't know much about aviation safety and procedures then. The most dangerous parts of flight are (as with any mechanical device) during changes of state. For a plane, the most severe emergencies happen during take off, and landing. "auto pilot" is typically only used once the plane reaches target altitude, and its primary function is to make minute and rapid corrections to the flight profile to enhance stability (passenger comfort) and reduce drag (improve fuel efficiency). It is not used during take off or landing, and although either could be handled by computer, I'm not aware of any passenger aircraft that has such a fly by wire system. All of them are on the drawing board.

Planes are not landed by computer; they are landed by human beings. Typically three of them -- the pilot, copilot, and flight engineer. Although, for some aircraft, there is no flight engineer position as that position is increasingly being replaced by sophisticated electronics. The reason for two pilots is in case one of them becomes incapacitated. This is actually an infrequent occurrance -- it's all too easy to become disoriented, especially during a night flight with turbulence. Considerable training is given to identifying these situations and providing smooth hand-off of control. Although injurous to one's pride, a captain should never feel obligated to continue flight operations if he feels disoriented or uncomfortable -- and airlines should never punish a pilot for indicating such incapacitation at any point during the flight to the crew. Sorry, getting preachy... I'll shut up now. ;)

surely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205161)

Surely you must be joking?
I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley.

Re:surely... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year ago | (#44205401)

If you're going to do that line, you should at least get the setup right: "But doctor, surely you must be joking?"
"I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley."

Survivor Story (4, Informative)

XiaoMing (1574363) | about a year ago | (#44205187)

Samsun Exec. David Eun survives, posts pic [theverge.com] . Then proceeds to teach CNN some manners [twitter.com] .

Re:Survivor Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205581)

Then proceeds to teach CNN some manners

They wanted to talk to him about the crash and he said he didn't want to divert attention away from the crash. I'm not even sure what that means.

silly eyewitness (1)

cancerouspete (2746963) | about a year ago | (#44205211)

" The wing broke off on the left hand side." Yeah but it didn't....both wings intact in all photos....

Re:silly eyewitness (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44205557)

The tips are clearly damaged. I guess he meant the tips or something becuase you are clearly correct. Except for the tips.

Re:silly eyewitness (4, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#44205597)

He said "cartwheel" when he meant "spin." I suspect he meant "rudder" when he said "tail," and "elevator" when he said "wing."

Re:silly eyewitness (2)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#44205627)

At least one aileron separated. An untrained witness could easily see that as a "wing".

No, the wings didn't break off (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#44205221)

The tail broke off, not the wings. And the aircraft didn't "cartwheel". There are many good pictures of the wreckage. The wreckage is sitting on the ground alongside the runway, right side up, wings intact, on its belly. The tail assembly is completely detached from the plane. Much fire damage to the top of the fuselage, which is puzzling.

There are pictures of the passengers evacuating, including, inevitably, one of the passengers who just evacuated taking pictures of the plane.

Too early to discuss causes. Reports indicate the plane landed short in an nose-up attitude, but it's too early to say why.

Re:No, the wings didn't break off (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44205337)

the fire damage seems post immediate crash time. there's an early pic from when people were getting out of the plane where the roof doesn't seem burnt through.

Re:No, the wings didn't break off (1)

Coditor (2849497) | about a year ago | (#44205389)

It looks like the pilot came in too steep and managed to slap the tail on the end of the jetty which likely broke it off and this would have made the rest of the landing uncontrollable. I always wondered what might happen if a plane came in short on that runway.

Re:No, the wings didn't break off (1)

jimicus (737525) | about a year ago | (#44205585)

But why? Training error? Instrument error? How the hell did this pilot ever get out of flight school error?

No Casualties (2, Informative)

JavaBear (9872) | about a year ago | (#44205237)

http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0 [avherald.com]

The aircraft burst into flames and burned out, all occupants were able to evacuate the aircraft in time and are alive. There are reports of a number of injuries, mainly burns, the majority of occupants escaped without injuries.

Emergency services reported all occupants have been accounted for and are alive.

Re:No Casualties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205291)

Except now at least 2 casualties are being reported.

Re:No Casualties (2)

JavaBear (9872) | about a year ago | (#44205321)

The reports are conflicting. According to the link I gave, Emergency services refute the claim of casualties. Confusion is only natural in these cases.

Re:No Casualties (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#44205383)

We should have learned by now not to get to fixated on early reports.

And the media will lose interest before the story is pinned down accurately.

Re:No Casualties (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#44205541)

The reports are conflicting. According to the link I gave, Emergency services refute the claim of casualties. Confusion is only natural in these cases.

Why is it natural? If you don't have definitive evidence of casualties, then you don't report casualties.

Re:No Casualties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205621)

A link is not news makes. Expand your coverage.

Re:No Casualties (1)

petsounds (593538) | about a year ago | (#44205411)

NBC is currently reporting two confirmed deaths, 10 people airlifted in critical condition, dozens of others injured.

Not terrorism... (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year ago | (#44205365)

No shit, how the hell have we gotten to the point where every accident report is accompanied with that phrase.

Re:Not terrorism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205477)

Very easy: The soviets were essentially stuffed in the 90s. No more a credible threat. Very bad for the MIC and the SIC (Surveillance Industry Complex). Plus, the Arabs of the Jewish Apartheid were successfully revolting.

Solution: Israel and the SIC/MIC recycle some of their bozos from Afpakistan/Wahabistan. They do something big. Result:

* lots of business for SIC/MIC
* Saddam Hussein, a nuisance for Israel, totally innocent rel. to crushed towers, TAKEN OUT
* quite a few dead sheeple, mostly in innocent places (Iraq)
* Apartheid preserved
* Unparalleled surveillance of totally innocent (because plaintext) communications of EVERYBODY
* noboy dead/prosecuted in Wahabistan, especially not the top Wahabist, King Saud
* PROFIT !

The NY mafia and their sycophants have you for a ride and they call it "terror".

Re:Not terrorism... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about a year ago | (#44205535)

No shit, how the hell have we gotten to the point where every accident report is accompanied with that phrase.

Because, in the hours between when a thing happens and when something is actually known about what happened, the talking head in the news room has to keep talking. Even if what they say is completely inane.

Never trust eyewitnesses. (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44205373)

Never trust eyewitness, because from the actual photos that are online the wings seem very much attached to the plane. The tail is missing and the top is burned out, though.

Re:Never trust eyewitnesses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205483)

Yeah eyewitnesses are usually wrong. There should be Go Pro's on the corner of every street/building as well as a few attached to each plane that flies. We'd know the truth in a lot more things that way.

Interesting Photos & Data on Twitter (5, Interesting)

McGruber (1417641) | about a year ago | (#44205447)

Some interesting photos and data have shown up on twitter today. First, here is (I think) the original source of that photo taken by a passenger: https://twitter.com/Eunner [twitter.com]

Second, here is a photo, taken across a small bay, showing the plane crashing: https://twitter.com/stefanielaine/status/353591123958173696/photo/1 [twitter.com]

And, most interesting, a comparison of flightpath data (from flightaware.com) of yesterday's flight against today's flight: https://twitter.com/sbaker/status/353611787750494208/photo/1 [twitter.com]

While I am no expert, it looks like it hit the ground short of the runway, like the previous crash of a 777 (BA 34).

Similar to Heathrow crash in 2008? (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about a year ago | (#44205463)

Another 777 landed short of the runway at Heathrow in 2008 after losing engine power because of ice in the fuel lines. I wonder if something similar happened here? The preliminary report that the aircraft "seemed unstable" could have been because the pilot was flying just above stall speed in a desperate attempt to maintain altitude in a power loss situation. That could also explain the tail damage; the aircraft would have been in an extremely nose-high attitude as the pilot attempted to maximize lift to avoid hitting the water.

Re:Similar to Heathrow crash in 2008? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205633)

Different engines. Also BA 38 was in January, not July.

Fuel Icing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205471)

This is a repeat of flight 38 that crashed in London in 2008. Ice crystals in the fuel, clogged the fuel-oil heat exchangers on final approach. The engines would not spool up on final approach. The pilot stretched the glide by trading airspeed for distance resulting in the tail striking the ground due to an incipient stall condition. Gear collapses, plane skids down the runway.

This is a known problem with Rolls-Royce engines.

Re:Fuel Icing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205593)

This is a known problem with Pratt & Whitney FADECs actually.
The engine controller inexplicably refused to increase thrust despite the ice blockage having passed.

Why Rolls Royce was forced to include a FADEC made by their main rivals is a mystery.

Cabin Baggage? (2, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#44205489)

If I ever have to do an emergency evacuation and the guy in front of me has his cabin baggage with him (like we see in some of those pictures) I'm gonna throw it into the fire.

News for Nerds, Stuff that's Clickbait (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205569)

n/t

Black pilot perhaps? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205599)

That would explain the human error part of things.
Oh, wait. I forgot - "We're all the same", in spite of the evidence of a thousand years of history: Exhibit A: Africa. Third world shithole. Never invented or created ANYTHING of any value whatsoever.
Exhibit B: Europe. Need I explain?

777... (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | about a year ago | (#44205603)

I guess they're luckier than the Boeing 666.

Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44205645)

Someone managed to place this word once more.

Are you sure it didn't involve Chinese APTs neither ? And WMD, did it have some ? And the meds for treating paranoïa, did you take it America ?
Even when there's not the slightest trace of terrorism it still manages to be major part of the news somehow.

Because you know that's generally how planes crash... not. The show must go on, 9/11, muricah patriot, dem terrorists took our jobs &c

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?