• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FOX News Reporting Boeing 777 Crashes In San Francisco

Was it true that this flight was initially supposed to land on a different runway? Could the height of runway A be lower than the height of runway B and some pilot adjustment need to be made?

I think they are parallel runways there 28-Left and 28-Right so I doubt that would be an issue either. A foot wouldn't make a bit of difference. It isn't that high tech. You fly until your wheels touch the ground. Some of my airline pilot buddies on FB seem to think the flight crew just tried to touch down too soon and got caught in the rip-wrap
 
That's what I heard. Amazing that it's only two.

plane crashes are unpredictable and there are a number of factors that contribute to the severity of a emergency and the chances of surviving.

for example a plane can lose 1 or multiple engines, like the plane that safely landed on the Hudson river back in 2008-2009, and everyone survives.

and then there are cases like jal 123, the deadliest single plane disaster of all time.

Japan Airlines Flight 123 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I think they are parallel runways there 28-Left and 28-Right so I doubt that would be an issue either. A foot wouldn't make a bit of difference. It isn't that high tech. You fly until your wheels touch the ground. Some of my airline pilot buddies on FB seem to think the flight crew just tried to touch down too soon and got caught in the rip-wrap

Oh OK...I was thinking of a landing on a North/South runway versus an East/West runway.
 
:doh

Just when you think you've heard it all.....

Just when you think that conservatives would actually grow enough noodle to know that their government can't be trusted. :rolleyes:
 
Oh OK...I was thinking of a landing on a North/South runway versus an East/West runway.

They run arrivals out of the 28's and departures out of the 1's usually. From what I can google around, they were landing on the shorter 28L which would be more consistent with them trying to hit the leading edge sooner.

One of the stories I found interesting that reaffirms my current theory is:

"Kristina Stapchuck saw the dramatic scene unfold from her seat on a plane on the airport tarmac. Soon after Flight 214 touched down, "it looked like the tires slipped a little bit and it rocked back," she told CNN.

Parts of the plane began to break off as it rocked and then began to spin.

"It all happened so suddenly," Stapchuck told CNN.


Boeing 777 crash lands at San Francisco International Airport - CNN.com


Doesn't sound like the tail became involved until after whatever happened was already happening.
 
They run arrivals out of the 28's and departures out of the 1's usually. From what I can google around, they were landing on the shorter 28L which would be more consistent with them trying to hit the leading edge sooner.

One of the stories I found interesting that reaffirms my current theory is:

"Kristina Stapchuck saw the dramatic scene unfold from her seat on a plane on the airport tarmac. Soon after Flight 214 touched down, "it looked like the tires slipped a little bit and it rocked back," she told CNN.

Parts of the plane began to break off as it rocked and then began to spin.

"It all happened so suddenly," Stapchuck told CNN.


Boeing 777 crash lands at San Francisco International Airport - CNN.com


Doesn't sound like the tail became involved until after whatever happened was already happening.

I don't know about that. The debris field sure looked like the tail hit right about the edge of the water and may have actually hit the water first. It looks to my untrained eye that the pilot simply landed short.
 
I don't know about that. The debris field sure looked like the tail hit right about the edge of the water and may have actually hit the water first. It looks to my untrained eye that the pilot simply landed short.

Well that is my current theory you are taking exception to :lamo

I have never flown anything close to that big, but I suppose in theory they could also have touched down nose gear first and just slammed it into the ground. Novice pilots have been known to do that in small general aviation aircraft and it rips the nose gear right off the plane.
 
Could we assume that the pilot realizing he was too low tried to correct the altitude which would have caused the tail to become lower than the landing gear and to clip the rock wall?

Here comes the NTSB briefing......
 
Well that briefing was a big help..../sarc
 
Tails don't just fall off. I hate to jump to conclusions about terrorism but.....

Oh Jeez...terrorists? I am sick of this semi-paranoia...no offense.

I highly doubt terrorists would blow off it's tail on landing.

They would obviously do it at 30,000 feet to guarantee no one survived.


'Stephanie Turner saw the plane going down and the rescue slides deploy, but returned to her hotel room before seeing any passengers get off the jet, she told ABC News. Turner said when she first saw the flight she noticed right away that the angle of its approach seemed strange.

"It didn't manage to straighten out before hitting the runway," she said. "So the tail of the plane hit the runway, and it cartwheeled and spun and the tail broke off ... I mean we were sure that we had just seen a lot of people die. It was awful.

"And it looked like the plane had completely broken apart," she said. "There were flames and smoke just billowing."

Kate Belding was out jogging just before 11:30 a.m. on a path the water from the airport when she noticed the plane approaching the runway in a way that "just didn't look like it was coming in quite right."


The Daily Breeze - 'Legend' sets box office record for December opening


When a plane hits the ground hard, and the tail hits first - it's probably going to rip off.
 
Last edited:
At least passengers were carrying their luggage off. That tells you a lot about the time they had to evacuate. Air Line industry has been doing wonders with safety - I hope it doesn't start lacking I gotta fly a couple of times this year.
 
Well that is my current theory you are taking exception to :lamo

I have never flown anything close to that big, but I suppose in theory they could also have touched down nose gear first and just slammed it into the ground. Novice pilots have been known to do that in small general aviation aircraft and it rips the nose gear right off the plane.

When they were showing video from a news helicopter you could see debris in the water and the elevators strewn across the pavement within what looked like less than 100 yards from the water. There was also an easily discernible "skid mark" that began where the debris started to thin out. The nose didn't look all that damaged so I have to assume that it hit tail first at or near the sea wall. As far as why it came in short I have no idea but it sure looks to me like the plane touched down before it got to the runway.
 
At least passengers were carrying their luggage off. That tells you a lot about the time they had to evacuate. Air Line industry has been doing wonders with safety - I hope it doesn't start lacking I gotta fly a couple of times this year.

Airlines won't care about safety unless there is a financial incentive to do so, and the only way for that to be the case is for a law to be passed that holds the airline legally liable for ALL aviation accidents.

Unfortunately, no such law exists. . .

The liability of the parties possibly responsible is often varied in aviation accidents. Possible liable parties may include the operators or the owners of an airline, or in other instances, supplies, manufacturers, and maintenance businesses may have been responsible. Other times, simply pilot error is to blame. Expert and experienced aviation attorneys help prove your case by finding the responsible and liable party or parties.

Pilot Error and Negligence Lawsuit | AviationAttorneys.com

Therefore, airlines don't care about safety.

The ALPA needs to do a better job exposing unsafe practices within the airline industry. Although it needn't be said that all safety considerations the airlines do undertake are directly attributed to ALPA efforts.
 
The crap hits the fan at 1:55.

 
When they were showing video from a news helicopter you could see debris in the water and the elevators strewn across the pavement within what looked like less than 100 yards from the water. There was also an easily discernible "skid mark" that began where the debris started to thin out. The nose didn't look all that damaged so I have to assume that it hit tail first at or near the sea wall. As far as why it came in short I have no idea but it sure looks to me like the plane touched down before it got to the runway.

The CNN live feed I saw earlier looked like the skid began at the rip wrap sea wall and the tail fins seems to be on the displaced threshold. My theory is that their main gear caught the sea wall, the back of the plane collapsed with the tail shattering, followed by the loss of the nose gear in the skid. Simple pilot error.

I one time saw a DC-9 over run a runway at a small airport on take off on a blistering hot day and but for the end of the runway being elevated, that plane would have crashed. I thought it had at first because it sent up such a massive cloud of dirt but it slowly inched upward wobbling from side to side and got going. Everybody at the airport knew that this was going to be a hard take off because it was hot, the runway length was at minimum for them, and they were taking off with a tailwind because they weren't 100% sure they could get airborne and didn't want to come down on a commercial shopping center if they didn't make it. It was a government plane. They also knew that if they stuck around they wouldn't be able to make it because the heat was working against them.
 
Landing at SF is always a visual treat for the passengers. They can't see forward and only able to look out the side windows. All you see is the water below as it gets closer and closer and closer. You keep thinking show me some land underneath me. Soon as you see land the wheels seem to hit down. I realize the wheels don't hit that close to the edge but it certainly feels that way to the passenger in the back of the plane.
 
Landing at SF is always a visual treat for the passengers. They can't see forward and only able to look out the side windows. All you see is the water below as it gets closer and closer and closer. You keep thinking show me some land underneath me. Soon as you see land the wheels seem to hit down. I realize the wheels don't hit that close to the edge but it certainly feels that way to the passenger in the back of the plane.

Boston Logan is the same.
 
Prior to landing the tail came off and plane landed upside down.



The Daily Breeze - 'Legend' sets box office record for December opening

Plane was from S. Korea.

hate to say it but its faux news reporting in the title,therefore its a complete lie and we need a more credible source.

naw just joking,but it reminds me of why i dont like to fly,ofcourse im more used to c-17s deploying angel flares while the crew are saying theres nothing wrong but sweating and shaking while they are saying it.
 
These incidents remind me of a "forced parachute" idea I had about planes. Something in the airplane breaks people whom have already worn parachutes before should be hijacked all out of the airplane so as to spare loss of life.

The airplane can go to hell, but why must it confine its passengers to undergo terrible fire related deaths along the way!?
 
:doh

Just when you think you've heard it all.....

Well, it's understandable. Does anyone believe the story of flight 800 was the truth?
 
Could we assume that the pilot realizing he was too low tried to correct the altitude which would have caused the tail to become lower than the landing gear and to clip the rock wall?

Here comes the NTSB briefing......

Yes, I think that is what happened.
 
Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training

Pilot had barely ever flown this type of plane before.

He was flying too low and too slow.

Co-pilot never corrected for this error until seconds before impact.

I am NEVER flying on this airline. This airline should be BANNED from American airspace!!!!!
 
Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training

Pilot had barely ever flown this type of plane before.

He was flying too low and too slow.

Co-pilot never corrected for this error until seconds before impact.

I am NEVER flying on this airline. This airline should be BANNED from American airspace!!!!!

Supposedly, in the Asian culture, the captain flies and is not questioned. Very scary. Also, they probably didn't have much experience flying without a glide slope. They are taught to look at their controls, not outside.
 
Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training

Pilot had barely ever flown this type of plane before.

He was flying too low and too slow.

Co-pilot never corrected for this error until seconds before impact.

I am NEVER flying on this airline. This airline should be BANNED from American airspace!!!!!

How do you know this? Which credible source does that information come from?
 
Back
Top Bottom