Along with the exacuation speed and emergency services response.

Though the fire brigade definitely responded immediately, I thought a passenger said in a CNN interview that he was "disappointed" by the time medical vehicles took to arrive (20 to 30 minutes). Perhaps waiting under such stressful conditions just felt that long?

Wow I didn't realise, that's a eternity for the injured.

On the 17 of January 2008 British Airways Flight 38 (speedbird 38) , a boeing 777 -236 ER registration G-YMMM , crashed on approach to London Heathrow . According to the accident report reported in Wikipedia , the final AAIB issued on 2-9-2010 sited simultaneous loss of power to both engines was due to ice crystals which had formed in the fuel and had blocked the fuel lines.

 

Heres the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38

 

 

I'm not speculating, how ever the similarity's are striking.

 

Also did anyone else notice how far to the right the debris trail appears to be off the center line of the runway threshold?

Well, point of perception is 20/20 but distorted - especially time.  SFO has 2 Paramedic units with crews - they were there with the rest of the trucks..  As first responders their job is to triage, treat and transport.  I know they used the CG for some evac very quickly.   If this pax was able to do an interview he would have been low on the triage list.  In a situation like this everything rolls....quickly. 

zowen11, on 06 Jul 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

Though the fire brigade definitely responded immediately, I thought a passenger said in a CNN interview that he was "disappointed" by the time medical vehicles took to arrive (20 to 30 minutes). Perhaps waiting under such stressful conditions just felt that long?

A big airport might have one or two meatwagons stationed on airport grounds--to roll large numbers of off-airport emergency responders, some coming from probably as far as 10-20 miles away, get them to/through the perimeter gates and then escorted out to a distant triage point on the airport infield in 20-30 minutes is actually a success story. I'd bet there were ambulances still arriving from adjacent jurisdictions an hour or more after the crash. The call for a mass-casualty level response probably doesn't get made until the first fire dept responders arrive on-scene and can assess the situation and request the incident commander to make that call. So the ambulance response times were probably extended a good 5 minutes considering the time that elapsed from tower first observing the crash, hitting the alarm, fire dept suiting-up, and then rolling several miles out to the crash site.

 

In a mass casualty event like this, with 180+ people needing transport to a hospital, many people will have to wait an hour or more at the on-scene triage site as the ambulances make multiple runs to shuttle victims to/from the disaster site and hospitals.

 

Regards

I'm not speculating, how ever the similarity's are striking.

 

This was also my first thought. There are still a couple of differences.

 

The BA flight flew over norther Russia, where the pilots noticed low fuel temperatures, but not low enough to cause concern (according to specs). There have also been reports, that the engines had started to spool up before the impact.

 

What strikes me odd is, that the aircraft came to a stop before the first taxiway off the 28L. The ground speed on the approach has been extremely slow for an aircraft that big to roll such a short distance. At least compared to the POL 767, that did a gear up landing not that long ago.

 

It's a sad thing to hear that lives were lost.

Here is the ATC recording during the incident.

 

 

 

as the ambulances make multiple runs to shuttle victims to/from the disaster site and hospitals.

 

And those ambulances may need a few moments to restock on emergency supplies, change the sheets on the stretcher, etc in between runs. 

Found this video, it's in german

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaFwp9Qmjes

 

Apparently everything was fine until the rear wheels touched down, then some eyewitnesses heard a loud noise and the nose pulled up, the aircraft began to spin and the tail broke off. Don't know how accurate these infos are but at least that's what they say.

I would be surprised if the lack of ILS was NOT the key to the NTSB investigation.  The questions I have not seen anyone from the media ask is "how often do these pilots practice landing 777's manually without ILS"?  I would imagine it's pretty rare that a 777 lands at any airport that isn't equipped with ILS.  Based on the glidescope information, the pilot was obviously having a difficult time even under almost perfect weather conditions.

 

My understanding was the ILS was out for 28R, but he landed on 28L which also has an ILS, which was operating. Weather conditions reported good, he probably did fly manual at some point though.

A quote that got my attention:

 

The airline said mechanical problems did not cause the crash.

 

"Currently we understand that there were no engine or mechanical problems," Asiana chief executive Yoon Young-Doo told a news conference in Seoul.

Source

Extremely lucky... the fatality count would have likely been everyone in both planes, and it would be the end of Asiana.

 

Can you imagine, with both jumbos full (if the 777 is considered a jumbo?) it would probably go down as one of the worst air disasters of all time, rivaling Tenerife in 1977.

I have been thinking of that a lot today, how much worse things could have been.   A spin sure is better than cartwheeling on the ground, like the United DC-10 accident in Sioux City Iowa.

 

Does anyone know if video was shot of the accident as it happened?  I would think it would be a good idea to have cameras positioned at the approach ends of major airports during all times, just in case, as the video evidence would help so much.

A quote that got my attention:

 

 

Source

Obviously until the investigation is complete engine or other mechanical failure can't realistically be ruled out. Based though on the fact the pilot didn't report a problem (Until he already crashed), there at least doesn't appear to have been one detected, by the pilot.

My understanding was the ILS was out for 28R, but he landed on 28L which also has an ILS, which was operating.

Both ILS were unavailable, according to the NOTAMS:

 

!SFO 06/010 SFO NAV LDA RWY 28R GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359

!SFO 06/009 SFO NAV ILS RWY 28R CAT 2/3 NA WEF 1306011400-1308222359

!SFO 06/005 SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359

!SFO 06/004 SFO NAV ILS RWY 28R GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359

!SFO 06/003 SFO RWY 28R ALS OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359

 

Obviously until the investigation is complete engine or other mechanical failure can't realistically be ruled out.

That's why it surprises me that the airline's chief executive already came with this statement.

I hope it is not the case, but this wouldn't be the first crash caused by the crew trying to "fly" an INOP ILS.

 

Here is one of them:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801