Probably the most stupid comment in the whole thread.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Asiana Airlines B777 Crashes at San Francisco International Airport
- Thread starter THE_CHANSTER
- Start date
Probably the most stupid comment in the whole thread.
you are the resident retard.
is it you again OA? did n't i tell you to fxxk up to malaysia and suck malay cock, dun dirty singapore soil.
agree. that is the most idiotic post ever seen on sbf. it was broad daylight landing with no fog and high winds. several flights have been landing on runways 28 l & r with zero incident for decades, even with landing aid off or out of operation. moreover, this flight wasn't the 1st to land that late morning. nothing can make up for stupid pilot incompetence. not even a very long runway that stretches from sfo to incheon.
OA army stop using your multi accounts and pretend to support each other. Go and eatshit n die in malaysia, where you were born, where you should go back and stop contaminating singapore soil. We dun need a retard like you here.
if i'm part of the orichina army, you must be part of the orgasmic arousal platoon.
no amount of false accusations on sbf can make up for sheer idiotic conspiracy theories.
Well said...there seems to be so many clone accusations which becomes unbelievable. I am being accused of being leongsam, OA, mbsslots and god knows what shit papib and nonsense. There is another clown with the moniker iamhere who goes around spamming like a bit and no one takes action.if i'm part of the orichina army, you must be part of the orgasmic arousal platoon.
no amount of false accusations on sbf can make up for sheer idiotic conspiracy theories.
if i'm part of the orichina army, you must be part of the orgasmic arousal platoon.
no amount of false accusations on sbf can make up for sheer idiotic conspiracy theories.
sure we can take the words from a person call eatshitndie seriously.
Yes , the meteorological conditions were perfect for flying. This is just unfortunate. There are certain ' gates' where you check if you are looking good for the landing. When you reach these ' gates' you check your speed, your profile ( high or low on the approach to land ) and your aircraft heading.
At the last gate in normal conditions say around 1000 feet ideally your speed should be at or around target speed, the aircraft should be flying towards the runway centre line and at the correct height with the correct rate of descent to land just about 1000 feet into the runway. Also all the checklists should have been completed. This would then be what the industry calls a ' stabilised' approach.
San Francisco is a very busy airport. The Air Traffic Control bring you in as best as they can but they try to cram in the landings so as a result many aircraft may end up ' high and fast ' or 'low and fast ' or ' low and slow' . It is up to the pilots to manage their aircraft's profiles and energy levels. If by 1000 feet or the very latest 500 feet above the runway and the aircraft is not stabilised as mentioned above, a go-around should be initiated. Executing this maneuvre too late can result in situations like this.
The trainee pilot botching up the approach to land is bad, but if the pilot in command, the instructor in this case didnt try to take over control then that would be worse.
An official report should be out after the investigations and you should be able to watch this saga on TV not too long from now.
the cockpit captain has spoken.
Having watched the latest TV footage of the crash from CNN, I'm sensing that the cause of the crash is squarely pointing at the inexperience of the pilot who had only 43 flying hours on the B777. Moreover, this was also his first time landing at SFO in a B777 despite flying for nearly 20 years and clocking up nearly 10,000 flying hours on 737s,747 and A320s. NTSB also say that the pilot did not have his rating or certification to fly the B777 and "was working to get his operational experience on a triple-seven".
Sadly, just like the SQ 006 pilots, the flying careers of the 2 pilots landing the aircraft may be finished.
The truth will no doubt come out in the NTSB report and I'm guessing there'll be a lot of U.S. litigation lawyers rubbing their hands with glee when it does.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...eing-777-asiana-says-20130707,0,7467256.story
Last edited:
Looks like the instructor pilot tells the trainee pilot to do a go round the last minute....hence the crash. From witness account video, the plane's nose was pointing up, hence the tail obviously pointed down and hit the tarmac and the rest is the crash as you see it.
If the plane had not tried to abort the landing, perhaps there would be no crash.
If the plane had not tried to abort the landing, perhaps there would be no crash.
Last edited:
Pretty clear here that one of the two girls killed did survive the crash, but was killed when run over by the first responder vehicles.
She got out of the escape chute obviously, but most likely she fainted or was too painfully injured to continue moving away from the plane and then was run over by the vehicle.
Would you care to provide some comments on the thread below. Thank you.
http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?...kong-airport-it-was-so-much-fun-landing-on-it
Would you care to provide some comments on the thread below. Thank you.
http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?...kong-airport-it-was-so-much-fun-landing-on-it
Ah this was the old IGS approach as opposed to an ILS approach. In the latter, the instruments in the cockpit communicate with the instruments on the ground and the pilot follows the resultant signals as presented on his instruments to fly straight in to land.
This is good if the approach is ' straight in ' Thus the ILS is an Instrument Landing System.
With the IGS on runway 13 in hongkong the approach to land is not aligned with the runway. The pilots fly guided by something similar to the ILS but after
a certain point , have to break off and fly the final approach visually ( without instrument guidance ) . Thus the IGS is just an Instrument Guidance System.
Another point, most airlines require the approach to be stabilised by 1000 feet for the regular approaches but they accept lower stabilised altitudes under certain conditions eg a runway sidesteps or circling approaches.
A sidestep is when you are initially assigned a certain landing runway but while on the long approach the air traffic control changes your landing runway , usually the parallel runway.
A circling approach ? I guess it can be googled but I could explain if anyone is interested.
A sidestep is when you are initially assigned a certain landing runway but while on the long approach the air traffic control changes your landing runway , usually the parallel runway.
A circling approach ? I guess it can be googled but I could explain if anyone is interested.
captain sadshishamo,
did you normally approach kai tak by turning right on checkered board sign at side of hills and land facing sea or approach directly onto runway and land facing the hills and buildings? i know for take off, it was normally facing sea.
thanks!
Apparently, there were evacuating pax that grab their duty-free purchase, ipad and carry-on as they exit the aircraft.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/travel/asiana-passenger-safety
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/travel/asiana-passenger-safety
Last edited:
Similar threads
