Aviation Appreciation Station - Page 80 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

burn_this_city · 07-06-2013, 02:07 PM

Definitely looks like they shorted the runway. Looks like the cabin was intact, hopefully everyone got out before the fire gutted it.

Acey · 07-06-2013, 02:08 PM

Would be the first fatal crash of a 777. Could have been much worse.

Bigtime · 07-06-2013, 02:10 PM

Well those screen grabs sure tell a story.

Possibly ended up low and went for the go around to late causing the tail to strike the sea wall?

Acey · 07-06-2013, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Well those screen grabs sure tell a story.

Possibly ended up low and went for the go around to late causing the tail to strike the sea wall?

That's what I'm thinking.

For anyone with friends who may have been travelling, the WestJet flight diverted down to LAX, and the SkyWest flight got to about Great Falls, turned around and came back. The late flight will probably cancel.

Air Canada from Toronto diverted to Sacramento.

InSutterWeTrust · 07-06-2013, 02:12 PM

Yikes!

InSutterWeTrust · 07-06-2013, 02:14 PM

Live Feed from a San Francisco channel
http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/ktvu...vtSfR/?updated

InSutterWeTrust · 07-06-2013, 02:24 PM

This photo has popped up on twitter of the accident in the distance.

GirlySports · 07-06-2013, 02:35 PM

amazing how fast news comes in these days.

La Flames Fan · 07-06-2013, 02:38 PM

Cleared to land @ around 7 minutes left.
Crash @ around 5:45 left.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2013-1800Z.mp3

Acey · 07-06-2013, 05:00 PM

Why don't 28L and R have like 1,000 more feet of displaced threshold? No real need to cut it that close. That'd still be 10,000+ feet to land, and give the added benefit of getting landers through the intersection quicker so they can better shoot gaps with departures off 1L and R.

KelVarnsen · 07-06-2013, 06:04 PM

Quote:

From: 2013-06-01 14:00 UTC
To: 2013-08-22 23:59 UTC
ILS RWY 28L GP U/S

No ILS for 28L at SFO.

Peanut · 07-06-2013, 06:36 PM

60 people unaccounted for according to CBC.

Acey · 07-06-2013, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

No ILS for 28L at SFO.

Shouldn't end up having a huge amount of relevance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peanut

60 people unaccounted for according to CBC.

Thankfully, just one now... might end up being as few as 2 dead.

KelVarnsen · 07-07-2013, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acey

Shouldn't end up having a huge amount of relevance.

No, it means that they weren't doing an ILS approach but a RNAV or visual approach to 28L. Which means non-precision. I am not going to specluate what caused the crash, but an ILS U/S(out of service) can play a role. It has before.

annasuave · 07-07-2013, 09:02 AM

From the other thread about 777 in San Fran - can an aviation-geek explain to me how pilots land in dense fog?

Reason I ask is because I was a on a plane full of angry people trying to land in London, ON recently. It was very foggy and after circling London for about 40 minutes we were diverted to Toronto. Folks on the plane were grumbling that it was just as foggy in Toronto and didn't understand why we couldn't have just landed.

I figured it had something to do with the length of the runway. Surely, the pilot has to be able to see the ground at some point? With a short runway, he'd have no margin for error. With a longer runway, does he have more opportunity to correct, or the option to pull up and try again?

I've also missed landings in Kelowna for fogginess and had to wait it out in Vancouver or Calgary. I've always assumed this was because of the short runway - but would love for folks in the know to chime in and tell me what's really at play.

Kipper is King · 07-07-2013, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annasuave

From the other thread about 777 in San Fran - can an aviation-geek explain to me how pilots land in dense fog?

OK, I'm most definitely not an expert, but I think that an ILS approach (Instrument Landing System) involves the plane receiving two radio signals for a runway. One helps the pilot ensure the plane is on the correct trajectory vertically, and the other horizontally.

The landings you missed due to dense fog was possibly because London,ON/Kelowna may not be ILS equipped??? Or the beacons might not have been working.

Can someone more experienced chime in? Am I on the right track...or have I created more of a fog?

STeeLy · 07-07-2013, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annasuave

From the other thread about 777 in San Fran - can an aviation-geek explain to me how pilots land in dense fog?

Reason I ask is because I was a on a plane full of angry people trying to land in London, ON recently. It was very foggy and after circling London for about 40 minutes we were diverted to Toronto. Folks on the plane were grumbling that it was just as foggy in Toronto and didn't understand why we couldn't have just landed.

I figured it had something to do with the length of the runway. Surely, the pilot has to be able to see the ground at some point? With a short runway, he'd have no margin for error. With a longer runway, does he have more opportunity to correct, or the option to pull up and try again?

I've also missed landings in Kelowna for fogginess and had to wait it out in Vancouver or Calgary. I've always assumed this was because of the short runway - but would love for folks in the know to chime in and tell me what's really at play.

I would think that it has less to do with the runway length, but rather the ILS (Instrument Landing System) categories that London and Kelowna runways have.

Toronto and Vancouver (and likely all major airports in the world) will have a higher category ILS, which allows landing in some fairly adverse conditions.

I'm sure pilots on here will be able to give a more proper answer though.

Ryan Coke · 07-07-2013, 03:31 PM

That is basically correct. And while London has an ils on one runway, they have a different type of approach on the other runways, so depending on the winds it is possible the ils wouldn't be able to be used. And as mentioned, there are different categories of ils which allow the aircraft to get lower to the ground and gain contact with the runway in lower visibility. Toronto has those higher categories of ils.

Also, maybe the fog wasn't as dense....it wouldn't be easy to discern the difference between 1600 feet of visibility and 1000, or to tell if the cloud ceiling was 200' or 100'.

Hope that helps.

Ryan Coke · 07-07-2013, 03:32 PM

Also, the absence of the ils is likely a contributing factor in the SFO accident. It shouldn't have caused a problem, but it appears it may well have been contributing.

Acey · 07-07-2013, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

No, it means that they weren't doing an ILS approach but a RNAV or visual approach to 28L. Which means non-precision. I am not going to specluate what caused the crash, but an ILS U/S(out of service) can play a role. It has before.

Yeah it's non-precision but in perfectly clear weather they should be able to land the airplane visually with no problems.

Mech failure notwithstanding, under no circumstance will the probable cause of the accident in the final NTSB report be stated as "the probable cause of this accident was the unavailability of the instrumental landing system..."