In a 777 when the GPWS calls out 50 ft, should the aicraft be above the numbers?

You should be over the threshold at 50ft

thanks

It looks like the threshold used to be a lot closer to the water. How long ago was that changed. You can see the black paint on the runway where they pushed back the threshold and now they have some distance between the yellow chevrons and the start of the runway

Gets me  when some thing  tragic like  this has  happened  the experts  come out  what caused  the crash  and who's  fault  its  is,  why  don't  you just  post your  findings  to the ntsb  crew  and  save  them time  in investigating  the crash, which will probably take more  time  then you have

 

Too true. 

 

I have to say I was surprised that already we're up to ten pages of useless speculation.

 

Such tragedies always bring out the bar stool experts and rubberneckers...

Too true. 

 

I have to say I was surprised that already we're up to ten pages of useless speculation.

 

Such tragedies always bring out the bar stool experts and rubberneckers...

If we aren't allowed to speculate or post pictures then what's the point of the thread? It's a very tragic incident. This we agree on. We are also posting in an aviation forum. People are expressing their condolences to the people on board while trying to guess what happened. If that's too much for some I trust the mods to know when this thread is no longer appropriate.

 

Let the moderators do their jobs.

 

Also CNN has a new video of the actual incident. It's pretty far away but you can see the impact. To my surprise the wing looks like it went pretty far in the air as it was spinning on the ground.

Too true. 

 

I have to say I was surprised that already we're up to ten pages of useless speculation.

 

Such tragedies always bring out the bar stool experts and rubberneckers...

 

I wouldn't say it's useless at all. Where I work we encourage our pilots to speculate as wildly as they like, they may be totally off the wall, but the advantage of this is you're getting them to think out of the box, so whether this was windshear, engine failure, inability to fly a visual approach etc, it doesn't matter, if all of our pilots are speculating as to the cause and how best to deal with it that's an education and make us safer.

 

We learn from the mistakes of others, but this way, people don't have to make those mistakes for us to learn from them, we can guess what could have been and then come up with our solutions. We come up with these solutions with a calm level head with likely much more time than the pilots would have on the day, so god forbid if any of these speculative scenarios did happen to one of our crews, they'd have already thought out that scenario and hopefully would be better able to make the right decision.

 

This policy has worked for us, we haven't had a single fatality in our 77 year history that was down to pilot error. So don't be so quick to shoot down those using their imagination as to possible causes and solutions, it's not totally useless.

 

Regards,

Ró.

CNN is now showing a video from a spotter of the entire crash.  OMG!

I think that's what Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger might have seen while viewing the crash site on the local newscasts. In a telephone interview with a local radio station (KCBS), about 2 hrs after the crash, he said "it was possible that ongoing construction at the airport might have been a factor..." Later in the interview he called SFO a "special airport".

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/tag/chesley-sully-sullenberger/

edit:
A) my response is to post #243
 b ) The link doesn't actually quote Sully but, I did hear the radio interview, and he said that the 1st place he'd look into for contributing factors was was the rnwy construction (the new threshold, perhaps?). He also said, paraphrasing here, that visual approaches into SFO were anything but routine.

Also CNN has a new video of the actual incident. It's pretty far away but you can see the impact. To my surprise the wing looks like it went pretty far in the air as it was spinning on the ground.

 

yeah, to me it looks like the tail section (the part that was still attached to the fuselage) went way up, while the plane was spinning with the left wing slightly down, than it slammed in the ground approximately in the final position. can't imagine what those passengers went through

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes

 

 moment of impact

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/v...tesy-fred-hayes
 
 moment of impact

Wow. The initial impact did not seem too severe, compared to what followed. I am guessing that the spin was responsible for most of the injuries and damage to the aircraft.

Whoa! That's some crash!

There is another plane taxiing can be seen so they should have seen the crash.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes

 

 moment of impact

That looks like a loss of power to me, but so far all reports are saying the engines worked normally. Must have been horrible for all those at the back.

 

I hope this isn't a case of pilot error/not meeting stable approach criteria. They should have been flying a missed approach from before that video began.

There is another plane taxiing can be seen so they should have seen the crash.

United 885. 747 400 I think