Boeing 777 Crash at SFO

[nathanthemayor 1,261]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us/california-plane-incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

^Happened about two hours ago, just heard about it a few minutes ago...

[Meg 368]

Still not much in terms of official word on casualities and injuries.   Most info seems to be coming from Twitter (most people left the plane before it was in engulfed in flames) and news anchors speculating about things (the weather conditions were excellent).   Best description I've seen so far comes from a plane watcher.  (Most airports have people who hang around nearby and watch.)   He said it hit the ground at too steep an angle so the tail hit first.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Only 2 deaths is remarkable  for a crash like this.

[Meg 368]

It is.   Still waiting on word on how bad the injuries are.  Last I heard several patients were critical.  

[Zelgadis 638]

I can't believe some of the pictures I've seen. First of all, I can't believe some of them even exist. Believe me, if I were involved in a plane crash, my very last thought would be to turn around and take a picture of the thing. Then there's the contents of some of those pictures. Some of these idiots are carrying their suitcases! Who... what... Argh, forget your bags and get off the plane! I can imagine snapping up your purse or something before fleeing, but some people in these pictures were carrying max-size carry-ons. 

 

I tell ya, if I were stuck on a burning plane behind someone trying to get their luggage... well, it wouldn't end pretty.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Well if there's enough time there's no point panicking and leaving behind valuable luggage. Mind you I've never carried much luggage with me on planes so... Obviously clothing and stuff could be left behind. 

 

And I think taking pictures is fairly logical given the requirement for data for investigations into the crash.

 

I daresay in future we'll have robot planes computer driven anyway, so this is rather a present-time issue methinks. Bring on the robot planes, I say. 

[Zelgadis 638]

Robot planes would be a major mistake. Looking at the history of crashes might make one think that's a good idea. But if you look at the history of incidents where there was no crash, you can see that for every pilot error crash, there are a dozen more incidents wherein the plane was saved due to pilot skill. I absolutely want two (or three) highly trained human beings up front.

 

As for the luggage, witnesses report that the fire started and the cabin started filling with smoke before the plane even stopped skidding. Leave the luggage. 

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Selfish.

Besides, it's all material possessions anyway. A good mate of mine survived the bushfire that were here a few years ago, losing everything but the clothes on his back. These people should be thankful that at least they'll have a home to return to.

[Porter 68]

There are actually several very important reasons why you should NEVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER carry your luggage with you off a plane that has crashed, this even includes things like purses and man-bags.

 

First, for luggage. This adds a delay for you getting off the plane. Sometimes that extra second is the difference between getting off a not yet burning plane and being trapped with a wall of flames between you and the exit. Also, some people cram those with as much stuff as they can. I don't know about you, but a 50lbs item on my chest down a slide sounds like perfect potential for broken ribs. And thats saying you COULD hold on to it one you suddenly stop at the bottom of the slide. How are you going to grab on to the people at the bottom of the slide meant to catch you? You can't. Your hands are full. And have you ever tried to go from lying down to standing with a giant piece of luggage on top of you? Go try it... I'll wait.... See, not as easy as it sounds. Time is of the essence in these situations and you've now potentially bottlenecked the exit even further. Don't be the guy that sacrifices a few fellow passengers for some laptop. Just don't. 

 

Purses and man-bags. Yes, I know, you need money, identification. But do you think its wise to have something strapped around your neck or arm that you can potentially either get caught on, or even hang yourself on?  I don't. I'll live without an ID until I can get a new one thanks. Or even better, put your wallet in your pocket and keep it in there on takeoff and landing. Problem solved.

 

And lastly... Robot planes... sorry, but this is one of the key reason I don't like stepping on an Airbus. And it all comes down to design mentality. Airbus likes to design their planes to take as much of the pilot out as possible. The pilots new role is to sit and watch dials to make sure the computer is working right. Ever sit and watch a bunch of numbers for hours on end? Humans are not made for this. We get bored and tired with monotony. In fact, I believe the Air France A330 crash a few years back named this as part of the cause... essentially the automation paradox: link. Pilots were too focus on the computer correcting what was wrong, and lost valuable training to fix the problem. As we say in medicine, you don't use your knowledge, you lose it. Boeing, on the other hand, takes the philosophy of the computer automating only the most mundane things and providing the pilot as much information as possible so the he/she can focus on quick second decisions, something humans are very well wired to do.

[Zelgadis 638]

Personally, I believe that taking your luggage off the plane after a crash should be an imprisonable offense. Even a delay of two seconds can mean the difference between life and death for a lot of people. It's blatant reckless endangerment.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If the plane actually was in an improper attitude when landing, one can immediately suspect both pilot error and an on-board automation error.  I believe there are automated warnings about such things, and I wonder just what went on in the bridge.  Someone/something wasn't doing its job.

 

Back to the luggage question: A severe reprimand is due to the passengers.  Zel is right that it could have been a matter of life or death and none of them knew which one.  Further, the person taking time to take pictures could well have gotten his Darwin award for the same reasons.

[Cyclone Boom 16,829]

With any crash landing, the main priority is to get out ASAP. Luggage can always be recovered or replaced. But people can't.
 
If eyewitnesses described the aircraft as being out of control, there's a possibility it might have stalled. This could account for the tail breaking off at impact, where the plane's nose would tilt upwards. By looking at FlightAware's log data (see the table), the rate of decent towards the end is abnormally steep for a plane of this size. At around 5000ft, it begins to loose height and speed quite rapidly, and then remains low on approach. Compared to an identical flight on the previous day, the differences are noticeable. Of course, the real data from the plane's black boxes will eventually tell the full story.
 
From the images, the plane touched-down right on the edge of the runway -- only metres from the water. Based on this, it seems the disaster could have been much worse. The same could be said about the extent of the fire, which started after most were evacuated. At this stage, without sufficient evidence, it's hard to speculate on the exact causes. Though fuel issues are a possibility, as was the case with this crash landing at Heathrow in 2008.

[krbe 193]

If the plane actually was in an improper attitude when landing, one can immediately suspect both pilot error and an on-board automation error.  I believe there are automated warnings about such things, and I wonder just what went on in the bridge.  Someone/something wasn't doing its job.

 

Some are suspecting frozen fuel, similar to what happened at Heathrow. Apparently the fuel heating / oil cooling systems were to be amended, but they couldn't be sure if this had been carried on this particular plane.

 

What I want to know is how the roof could burn so cleanly, with no spreading to wings / engine parts. It is looking rather peculiar with that big rift in the roof.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

CBC Follow Up.

 

Looks like a sudden emergency made the pilots want to go around again, but it was too late or something didn't work.

[AkemiAzula 280]

As for the dangers of taking luggage, if they designed a luggage holding facility with an airtight fireproof (think black box) casing that could survive a crash, then luggage could be automatically saved and parachuted to ground.

 

As to robotic planes there is a limit to human intelligence, and one day robots will inevitably overtake this limit. At that point fully-automated planes, trains and cars will seem perfectly logical.

[hym 358]

For what it is worth, there is no such thing as an intelligent computer nor will there ever be one. Computers are no more capable of attaining intelligence than humans are capable of flying by flapping one's arms quickly.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

For what it is worth, there is no such thing as an intelligent computer nor will there ever be one. Computers are no more capable of attaining intelligence than humans are capable of flying by flapping one's arms quickly.

The idea of a computer that has achieved true (artificial) intelligence means that it must be not only self-aware but capable of reproducing itself.  I don't think we need to consider the creation of such a monster in our lifetimes, at least I hope not.

 

Back on topic:  The reports say that the aircraft was off the correct glide path for landing (too low) and I think I saw something about the automatic landing guidance system was off the air at San Francisco.  This could mean over-dependence on robotics.

[Zelgadis 638]

As for the dangers of taking luggage, if they designed a luggage holding facility with an airtight fireproof (think black box) casing that could survive a crash, then luggage could be automatically saved and parachuted to ground.

 

[krbe 193]

 

As for the dangers of taking luggage, if they designed a luggage holding facility with an airtight fireproof (think black box) casing that could survive a crash, then luggage could be automatically saved and parachuted to ground.

 

 

 

Only if you buy the exorbitant Continuity of Luggage fee, of course.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Well I am just suggesting a practical solution that's all.

 

And computers are already smarter than us. Try doing calculations as quickly as a computer, I dare you. I'll gladly eat my hat if you can do what a computer can in the same timeframe. Flawless robotics is a myth. So is flawless human brains. 

 

The future lies in computers, not in humans. Humans are old school and derelict machines.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In over 50 years of using computers, including at the hardware coding level, I can assure you that a computer is not smart.  It is only a fast adding machine.  The human brain is far more complex than any digital box of tricks you've ever seen or will ever see.  No computer is creative. 

 

Artificial Intelligence is an oxymoron.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I have to challenge you there Moose. Technology will advance, inevitably, beyond our human capacity. I can not possibly see a future of dumb computers doing work for humans like a dog doing tricks. Instead they will think like people and eventually become better at this than people. Just because when you type into Google it comes up with 

 

I hate it when a Velociraptor throws chickens at me on Easter

 

as a suggestion doesn't mean technology will remain this stupid. I really must say that the idea of singularity, of robotic intelligence beating ours, is merely a matter of time. Looking at the curve of technological advancement in recent history it would be highly illogical to argue we'll still be using I Pods and Google Glasses in the future. Most likely we'll have integrated computer systems within our brains.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Mark, I am afraid you lack the experience with machines that I have.  If we had self-aware computers how would you ever be able to pull the plug?  They are machines, you know.  Maybe you should take a look at a few episodes of Battlestar Galactica.  For that matter, have a good look at the Terminator trilogy.

 

There is an old science fiction story about creating the world's most advanced computer and they fed it the sum of all knowledge.  The first question it was asked was "Is there a God", and the answer was "Now there is", and a bolt of lightning removed all the controls and fused the power connections permanently.

 

Meanwhile, back at the topic: CNN is saying what they want to tell you so far.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Not a digital computer anyway.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Back on topic: Careless driving by first responders?

 

Now it comes down to which emergency vehicle, and who was driving does it not?  Somebody wasn't very well trained.

[nathanthemayor 1,261]

Just announced: A Third Person died from injuries sustained in the crash:

http://news.yahoo.com/third-person-dies-asiana-air-crash-san-francisco-223415013.html

[Easy Bakes 253]

the names are fake but the news broadcast is not.

this just proves ,again, that news readers pay no attention to what they say.

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

{giggle} I trust you meant to say "news readers".  Somebody really scammed that station.

[Easy Bakes 253]

corrected

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Sum Ting Wong is a staple of the fake Asian name jokes, like Ben Dover etc.
Amazing they didn't pick it up.