Because the preferred destination for an international fugitive is the country that seeks to imprison him..
Coincidentally, I have been addicted to this series known as "Mayday - Air Crash Investigation" (it's known be a few other names internationally). But it is kinda crazy how the slightest flaw which is insignificant by itself seems to initiate a series of unfortunate coincidences that inevitably result in such horrific crashes.
That being said, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the pilot.
I wonder if the passengers taking their carry on luggage out with them caused a slow escape and lead to injuries or possibly deaths. Where is the air crew and why did they allow passengers to depart with luggage? These are not small bags that go under the seat either but roller bags that usually are stored over head.
Because the preferred destination for an international fugitive is the country that seeks to imprison him..
Coincidentally, I have been addicted to this series known as "Mayday - Air Crash Investigation" (it's known be a few other names internationally). But it is kinda crazy how the slightest flaw which is insignificant by itself seems to initiate a series of unfortunate coincidences that inevitably result in such horrific crashes.
That being said, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the pilot.
There was a short series on our Channel 4 about problems with air travel. It was simply called "Terror on the Skies". The name says it all really. I am not saying it was biased but I doubt I will fly again
If you look at the aerial photograph of the point of impact at the end of the runway, you can clearly see where the left and right side engines hit the ground and where the left side gear hit the rocks and then drags forward debris. It all fits together nicely if you were to superimpose a 777 above the impact site. However, you cannot see where the right side rear gear has impacted with the ground. Absolutely no sign of it at all. Could it be that the RHS gear didn't lower?? Is this possible?
Otherwise it certainly is looking very much like pilot error at this stage.
FWIW here's a photo of the LH engine, some distance from the fuselage.
After watching the crash video I'm rather impressed the aeroplane stayed largely in one piece!
I'd still like to know what hit first though, the tail or the landing gear. If it was the tail first, it almost looks like if the pilot wouldn't have pulled up so much they might have just made it. Just too hard to tell from the angle and distance in the video.
It is probably academic what hit first. From the damage to the sea wall it was probably a combination of underside of the rear fuselage and the undercarriage. I agree with Bill about the strength of the airframe. It is difficult to judge from the video but the aircraft does seem to be very slow, maybe even in a semi-stalled condition just before the impact, which gels with the FlightAware data showing 85 knots just before impact.
It is known that the aircraft was initially high on the approach path. That is fairly routine at many busy US airports. Without a electronic Glideslope to follow the crew may have been using an autopilot mode called Flight Level Change (FLCH) to get back on to the 3 degree profile. FLCH maintains the selected speed and levels off at the selected altitude. They could have also been using an electronically produced glide path that is available for a GPS approach. Or simply judging it visually and cross-referencing their altitudes with known DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) ground aids to maintain the required profile. You also use a simply Rate of descent formula to maintain the correct Glideslope.
When all else fails you simply eyeball the approach like when you were being trained in a Cessna.
One of the main contributors to airline crashes in what is called an unstable approach. Airlines instruct their pilots to have vital approach parameters with certain tolerances at critical points. If you reach these points and one of the parameters, in this case it looks like the rate of descent at 500 feet, is too high then a go-around is required.
My guess is that you will start seeing media references to the Korean culture and its incompatibility with air safety very shortly. Unfortunately Korean pilots are renown for it. A go around is seen by many as a failure and the accident statistics of their major airlines stick out for all the wrong reasons.
There was a point in the 90's where world aviation insurance company's were threatening to not insure Korean Air unless major changes, including the hiring of a certain percentage of western pilots, were made. An audit of Korean Air was done by Delta Airlines which was scathing of the culture. Anecdotal evidence suggests the same at Asiana.
One of my ex-airforce friends is an avid aircraft photographer and he shot a video of a Korean Airlines 747 doing the famous "checkerboard" approach at Kai Tak in Hong Kong when it was still in use. Many of the comments on YouTube praise the skills of the Korean pilot but the professionals see an accident that almost killed 400 people because of the refusal of the captain to admit he had botched the approach, and go around.
In my opinion, the same question will be asked of this captain.
I agree it doesn't matter what hit first, as it would have probably caused the crash either way. Just saying that if the tail was the first to hit, then that should indicate that the wheels cleared and if the wheels cleared he could have landed, at least theoretically. It could be that the last minute power to the engines was just enough for the wheels to clear but not the tail due to pulling up.
Having now seen a clearer video of the accident, and seen some reports from the NTSB about the airspeed deviation on approach, there seems to have been a gross error in judging the approach path and a almost inexplicable failure to realise the predicament until it is too late.
The aircraft is very nose high and slow as it approaches the sea wall. It would have an enormous amount of induced drag as a consequence of this, making recovery without altitude loss almost impossible. Ironically this is probably why many people survived as the forward deceleration forces would have been considerably reduced. It also points to the apparent large number of spinal injuries, both from the initial impact and the secondary one after the "wingover".
The first officer was under training, hence the small number of hours on type. I believe he had over 10000 on other types. This sort of training is routine. Typically a pilot get their type endorsement in the simulator then gets cleared to line flying after some training sectors.
The fact that the captain was a training captain makes this even more inexplicable.
Officials disabled electronic and visual systems while the airport’s main landing strip is undergoing a reconfiguration to give pilot’s more breathing space from the bay, pilot Kirk Koenig, 46, told the Daily News “The landing threshold — sort of where you're aiming for — it's going to be moved back” as part of the reconstruction, said Koenig, a pilot with 30 years of experience. “So they had to turn off the electronic glideslope and they had to disable the light guidance system.”
I've not seen anything official though. And this guy says the threshold is going to be moved back, when it already has been, so his info might be wrong.
NOTAMs I found regarding Runway 28L. I think this confirms it. These were issued the day of the crash.
!SFO 07/046 (KSFO A1326/13) SFO RWY 28L PAPI OTS WEF 1307062219 Translation: SFO Runway 28L Precision Approach Path Indicator, Out of Service Effective from 2013-07-06 22:19
!SFO 07/037 (KSFO A1316/13) SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L LLZ/DME OTS WEF 1307072000-1307072359 Translation: SFO Navigation Instrument Landing System Runway 28L Localizer/ Distance Measuring Equipment, Out of Service Effective from 2013-07-07 20:00 - 2013-07-07 23:59
NOTAMs I found regarding Runway 28L. I think this confirms it. These were issued the day of the crash.
!SFO 07/046 (KSFO A1326/13) SFO RWY 28L PAPI OTS WEF 1307062219 Translation: SFO Runway 28L Precision Approach Path Indicator, Out of Service Effective from 2013-07-06 22:19
!SFO 07/037 (KSFO A1316/13) SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L LLZ/DME OTS WEF 1307072000-1307072359 Translation: SFO Navigation Instrument Landing System Runway 28L Localizer/ Distance Measuring Equipment, Out of Service Effective from 2013-07-07 20:00 - 2013-07-07 23:59
Whoops, read the time wrong. I'll find the ones with the correct times. Did find this one, though: glidepath was out of service.
EDIT: Can't find anything about the PAPI/ILS being out before that time, so disregard the above NOTAMs. Thanks, Mick, for pointing that out.
!SFO 06/005 (KSFO A1056/13) SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359 Translation: SFO Navigation Instrument Landing System Runway 28L Glidepath, Out of Service Effective from 2013-06-01 14:00 - 2013-08-22 23:59
IF I can find it again I'll post it. Right now I can't think of where I saw the link to the thread on GLP. I do remember it was an extremely long thread and it was only a few hours later.
One of the most puzzling aspects of the crash has been why the wide-body Boeing 777 jet came in far too low and slow, clipping its landing gear and then its tail on a rocky seawall just short the runway. The crash killed two of the 307 people and injured scores of others, most not seriously.
I didn't catch the press conference today so I'm not sure if this info came out in it. A few of feet higher or lower and it would have ended in two totally different ways.
The pilot, who was making his first approach into the airport in a Boeing 777, told South Korean and American investigators that as the jetliner descended to 500 feet in altitude, something flashed in his eyes, said Deborah Hersman, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
"We really don't know at this point what it could have been," Hersman said after a reporter at the news conference asked whether it could have been a laser. "We need to look into it. We need to understand what he's talking about. We may need to follow up with him."
Although the flash caused only what Hersman described as "a temporary issue," it occurred at about the same time the pilots realized the plane was flying too low and off center and began working to realign it with the runway. Within seconds, the plane lost significant speed and nearly stalled, striking the rocky seawall and crashing.
Reports of laser flashing at pilots are not unusual, and in 2012 President Obama signed a law criminalizing the act of pointing a laser at a plane. FBI officials have called the problem epidemic.
Hmm... crash was engineered to demonise chemtrail activists who shine lasers at pilots, and engender sympathy to allow draconian anti-chemtrail-activist legislation to pass?
If the report takes off, this WILL be suggested.
Any chance he's trying to invent an excuse? Hard to prove either way.
Hitting the plane is not hard, but the odds of it directly hitting the pilot in the eye and for long enough to cause the pilot to be effected to the point where it causes a crash seems highly unlikely. More likely is it hitting the windscreen and causing an obscured view.
The odds are pretty good considering laser beams spread with distance. A powerful enough green laser is visible in daylight, so much so that they're used for gun sights.
The odds are pretty good considering laser beams spread with distance. A powerful enough green laser is visible in daylight, so much so that they're used for gun sights.
Not ruling it out, just think it seems unlikely that it will effect the pilot directly, like blind him and not just make it hard to see because the laser has hit the window.
