• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Boeing 777 crashes at San Francisco International Airport

Looks like the plane landed upright, and on the YouTube video it shows that several of the emergency ramps have been deployed. Fire is on the starboard side, maybe an engine?
 
This is what the FAA is reporting:

An Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. There were 12 crew members, 290 passengers, and one infant aboard the flight, 214 Asiana Airlines, according to San Francisco Fire and EMS radio traffic. Two people were transported to the hospital, one with serious injuries, according to emergency radio traffic.

The flight originated in Seoul, South Korea.

Air traffic into San Francisco has been halted, according to an FAA advisory. That ground stop is likely to be extended, the agency said.
Click to expand...
Link

Looks like the fire didn't reach the passenger compartment. Hope not. :(
 
Yeah I'm hoping the information from Fire and Rescue is accurate and this crash just looks a lot worse then it is. There's huge charred holes in the cabin, the tail is gone, and there's a huge debris field.

This is only the 3rd hull loss of a 777, which a statistically very safe planes.

CNN is reporting that it appears to be a landing gear failure on touchdown.
 
From Twitter. He's saying most passengers appear to be OK.

HiiU12b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
Yeah I'm hoping the information from Fire and Rescue is accurate and this crash just looks a lot worse then it is. There's huge charred holes in the cabin, the tail is gone, and there's a huge debris field.

This is only the 3rd hull loss of a 777, which a statistically very safe planes.

CNN is reporting that it appears to be a landing gear failure on touchdown.
Click to expand...

I think CNN is wrong. I saw a pic of where the tail struck the sea wall well short of where it should have been landing, let me see if I can find it again...
 
phunk said:
I think CNN is wrong. I saw a pic of where the tail struck the sea wall well short of where it should have been landing, let me see if I can find it again...
Click to expand...

Here we go. Pilot error?

1886151d87cb0df8d8.jpg
 
There's been some first hand reports that the plane might have landed short. One of CNN's talking heads says that the debris trial started departure part of the runway well before where a plane should be touching down.
 
I really want to bang my head against the wall with how stupid the CNN anchors are. Asking the absolute stupidest questions. Not understanding what the eyewitnesses are saying. They keep on quoting the first guy who said he saw the wings rip off even though the pictures showed the wings intact. Yet they're sitting there looking at a plane with the wings still intact. Couldn't they figure out that the first guy was wrong? Idiots. And you can see by the damage that the plane didn't cartwheel and it was obvious that the guy who said the plane cartwheeled actually meant it spun (like a top) but these dummies couldn't figure it out! Not to mention how disappointed they all sound that early reports say that everyone is safe and accounted for. Argh!!!! I hate the media.

phunk said:
Here we go. Pilot error?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1886151d87cb0df8d8.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Seems like a good possibility but it could have been something like what happened to British Airways Flight 38. Could have been instruments giving faulty readings too or anything under the sun really. We'll all know eventually.


The crew should also by commended for getting everybody off the plane safely before smoke and fire got into the cabin. In a crash like this, seconds count.
 
Last edited:
The impact marks look to begin at the sea wall, well short of the portion of the runway intended to be used for landing. At that point on the approach, the plane might have been nose high, and suffered a tail strike from a short landing.
 
shuize said:
Other than the witness who described the plane "cartwheeling"
Click to expand...

It seems like the witnesses were trying to describe the plane spinning out horizontally, not cartwheeling vertically. Everyone seems to be saying had the plane actually cartwheeled the fuselage and especially the wings would not be intact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom