2 confirmed dead so far.
2 confirmed dead so far.
letsrun is a cesspool wrote:
wuuuttt??? wrote:No it doesn't. Those are simple observations, you retard.
He wrote: "Looks like it came down before the runway based on the debris trail."
That is more than an observation. That is an observation and an inferred conclusion. How does someone as dumb as you function in everyday society?
Sounds to me like they are repeating what they saw and heard on tv or the net.
dsuud wrote:
letsrun is a cesspool wrote:Oh great...lets's cue all the armchair aviation experts. Thank god the world is run by actual experts and not Letsrun.
There are thousands of people on lets run. Don't you think that it's likely that some of them are experts?
No
doclove wrote:
dsuud wrote:There are thousands of people on lets run. Don't you think that it's likely that some of them are experts?
No
Yea, would have to agree. A lot of really stupid fvcktards on LR. A whole lot.
Flight Instructor wrote:
doclove wrote:No
Yea, would have to agree. A lot of really stupid fvcktards on LR. A whole lot.
There are not 1000's on this site , a few hundred at best , poster's are largely made of high schoolers , bored collegiate athletes , old guys living in past with sticky old T&F News copies in hand with a few , very few knowledge posters.
Once a great runner wrote:
Flight Instructor wrote:Yea, would have to agree. A lot of really stupid fvcktards on LR. A whole lot.
There are not 1000's on this site , a few hundred at best , poster's are largely made of high schoolers , bored collegiate athletes , old guys living in past with sticky old T&F News copies in hand with a few , very few knowledge posters.
Why sticky?
HOT!
Not George Bush's fault!
Mickster wrote:
Not George Bush's fault!
Prove it.
Tax the airline for the cleanup. Tax SFO airport authority for the cleanup. Tax the passengers for simply being on the plane and requiring medical assistance. Tax the medical providers for providing said medical assistance.
105 1/2 laps on a track wrote:
People seemed pretty casual about the whole affair. Walking away from the wreckage carrying their luggage and having a jolly old time. If I was there I would've sprinted the f&ck away from the wreckage in case it blows up into a fiery ball of death.
I think I'd punch that lady who took her roller bag down when the plane was burning up.
John12941515 wrote:
105 1/2 laps on a track wrote:People seemed pretty casual about the whole affair. Walking away from the wreckage carrying their luggage and having a jolly old time. If I was there I would've sprinted the f&ck away from the wreckage in case it blows up into a fiery ball of death.
I think I'd punch that lady who took her roller bag down when the plane was burning up.
She was worried about her privates.
She had a suitcase full of NSA secrets.
Uh oh. Sixty people missing and unaccounted for.
Bingo!
Guppy wrote:
Took off from Korea... probably crashed due to the copilot not wanting to speak up about an obvious problem to his superior. Anyone?
hear me out bro wrote:
Looks like it came down before the runway based on the debris trail. Tail section can be seen at the very start of the runway.
Agree with this guy, you can see the debris trail starting well before the runway threshold (the line of white >>> symbols) from TV images. Witnesses in media reports talk about the approach being low too.
Maybe the pilot messed up the approach, maybe there was already a crisis onboard (with the fire). If the pilot did mess up the approach, it might be one of the simplest, yet most instinctive mistakes someone can make on an approach that is falling short of the runway - the tendency to pull back on the stick to try and raise the nose, thinking that will keep you in the air longer - when really you should add power to increase airspeed and lift.
Before anyone goes knocking this, even professional pilots can make this error. The AF Airbus flight that crashed into the mid -Atlantic some years back - they lost airpseed indications because a pitot tube was iced over. The relief pilot was pulling back on the stick constantly, trying to counter altitude loss, even as the plane was stalling. By pulling back on the stick this pilot essentially robbed the airplane of forward speed, causing a stall - when the plane hit the water it was in a high nose-up attitude, something like 40 degrees, even as it was falling thousands of feet per minute. The rest of the crew had no idea of the situation because they had no readings, and the fact that Airbus aircraft like the A330 use side stick controls, which are not connected to each other (so inputs on one control cannot be felt by the other pilot.) There was a real breakdown in CRM in this case - something airlines from Korea have had some catching up to do in, and you might hear some of this come out soon enough.
seoulpurpose wrote:
hear me out bro wrote:Looks like it came down before the runway based on the debris trail. Tail section can be seen at the very start of the runway.
Agree with this guy, you can see the debris trail starting well before the runway threshold (the line of white >>> symbols) from TV images. Witnesses in media reports talk about the approach being low too.
Maybe the pilot messed up the approach, maybe there was already a crisis onboard (with the fire). If the pilot did mess up the approach, it might be one of the simplest, yet most instinctive mistakes someone can make on an approach that is falling short of the runway - the tendency to pull back on the stick to try and raise the nose, thinking that will keep you in the air longer - when really you should add power to increase airspeed and lift.
Before anyone goes knocking this, even professional pilots can make this error. The AF Airbus flight that crashed into the mid -Atlantic some years back - they lost airpseed indications because a pitot tube was iced over. The relief pilot was pulling back on the stick constantly, trying to counter altitude loss, even as the plane was stalling. By pulling back on the stick this pilot essentially robbed the airplane of forward speed, causing a stall - when the plane hit the water it was in a high nose-up attitude, something like 40 degrees, even as it was falling thousands of feet per minute. The rest of the crew had no idea of the situation because they had no readings, and the fact that Airbus aircraft like the A330 use side stick controls, which are not connected to each other (so inputs on one control cannot be felt by the other pilot.) There was a real breakdown in CRM in this case - something airlines from Korea have had some catching up to do in, and you might hear some of this come out soon enough.
You're sitting there all smug because you read the Malcolm Gladwell book 10 years ago, so you think you have some really valuable insight about what went on.
You realize that flight was 16 years ago, right? Do you really think that they didn't take steps to address the crew culture after that? I'm curious...do you think Korean airlines are behind in CRM because you are a racist or because you think, somehow, you are the only one with access to the hundreds of reports that have been written about the culture problem on flight 801?
Also, you seem to have inferred an awful lot from the TV footage and the witnesses. Do you work for the NTSB? What do you think the chances are that the witnesses had any freaking idea what "too low" would look like? Someone saw a plane crash and then, retrospectively, described the approach as "too low." Shocking! Let's draw lots of conclusions from that!
armchair experts abound! wrote:
Also, you seem to have inferred an awful lot from the TV footage and the witnesses. Do you work for the NTSB? What do you think the chances are that the witnesses had any freaking idea what "too low" would look like? Someone saw a plane crash and then, retrospectively, described the approach as "too low." Shocking! Let's draw lots of conclusions from that!
Plane hit the sea wall short of the runway. This is an indisputable fact. It would be pretty damn hard to pull that off if the approach wasn't too low.
No longer breaking news....this happened yesterday
lololololol wrote:
armchair experts abound! wrote:Also, you seem to have inferred an awful lot from the TV footage and the witnesses. Do you work for the NTSB? What do you think the chances are that the witnesses had any freaking idea what "too low" would look like? Someone saw a plane crash and then, retrospectively, described the approach as "too low." Shocking! Let's draw lots of conclusions from that!
Plane hit the sea wall short of the runway. This is an indisputable fact. It would be pretty damn hard to pull that off if the approach wasn't too low.
I guess if you're using a layperson definition of "approach", then yes. But then what good is the witness statement. Might as well have said, "Well he was supposed to land on the runway in one piece but instead he landed short of the runway in a bunch of pieces."