The carry on luggage thing is pretty bad as it no doubt ate up valuable evacuation time (what if the fire started earlier and you're stuck in the back because Mrs. Kim can't leave the plane without her 20 packets of Shin Ramyun that she packs with her on vacation...), but it should really come as no surprise. People don't think and do dumb things all the time.

Maybe airlines should make it clearer in their safety demonstrations and safety cards. Drop everything and just GO!!

Finally found a picture that shows the entire scope of the crash... Everything I've see up till now was up close.

 

Engine 2 is at the top right of the picture, left side of the taxiway hold short point. That's a fair distance from the main wreckage.

Maybe airlines should make it clearer in their safety demonstrations and safety cards. Drop everything and just GO!!

 

I have sat through literally thousands of safety demonstrations and I don't know how much clearer those instructions can be. People are going to do as they do everywhere; don't listen and do as they damn well please. What airlines should do is just not allow anything more than a purse or a laptop bag aboard. No carry ons at all beyond that and certainly no luggage in any form.

I have sat through literally thousands of safety demonstrations and I don't know how much clearer those instructions can be. People are going to do as they do everywhere; don't listen and do as they damn well please. What airlines should do is just not allow anything more than a purse or a laptop bag aboard. No carry ons at all beyond that and certainly no luggage in any form.

 

This. I was always amazed what kind of lugagge are people allowed to bring aboard, especially on the international / transatlantic flights.

I know under Irish Law, (so onboard any EI- registered aircraft (Aer Lingus, Ryanair, City-Jet, Aer Arann, Some Alitalia Aircraft, Norwegian's new 787s etc) ) if in an evacuation, you stop to get your carry on luggage from the overhead and block peoples paths, you will be charged with attempted manslaughter, if you do it and someone who was delayed by you dies, you will be charged with actual manslaughter.

 

Luckily so far this has never actually been brought against someone, but next time you think that you'll only be a minute to grab your laptop down from overhead, remember that you could be looking at upwards of 10 years in prison.

 

Regards,

Ró.

I've not yet seen anyone mention that one of the main gear struts/wheels was found in the water. This suggests that at least one of the main gear actually struck the rocks and was sheared off.

 

 

you will be charged with attempted manslaughter, if you do it and someone who was delayed by you dies, you will be charged with actual manslaughter.

 

I don't know but maybe some of those people who try to save their luggage are operating on some kind of autopilot because they are in a state of shock and usually would never do this?

I don't know but maybe some of those people who try to save their luggage are operating on some kind of autopilot because they are in a state of shock and usually would never do this?

 

IMHO unlikely, but that sounds like a very effective case for the defence in a hypothetical trial.

I have sat through literally thousands of safety demonstrations and I don't know how much clearer those instructions can be. People are going to do as they do everywhere; don't listen and do as they damn well please. What airlines should do is just not allow anything more than a purse or a laptop bag aboard. No carry ons at all beyond that and certainly no luggage in any form.

Or maybe airlines should introduce a locking mechanism that doesn't allow passengers to access the overhead bins below 10,000ft /or until cabin crew have disabled the locks. 

 

If airlines include information about such features in their safety demonstrations then maybe pax will actually listen and know about such features!™

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

 

What gets me is people who get mad over others speculating.  

 

People will always speculate, and I think it's a good thing. May even learn something while researching a accident.  Of course none of us have all the info needed to know what happened  but we can discuss it, no harm in that.  

There is a lot of speculation from major news companies with apparently little knowledge and a need to quickly blame someone.  No one seems to think this through.

 

First, it does sound like a fairly credible story that the aircraft may have been low, slow and even stalled.  Witnesses reporting the high nose up attitude, the debris field and apparent strike at the rock bern and even some claiming the tail was wobbling do fit with this.  What no one is recognizing is that this doesn't mean it was the pilots fault.  Turn off the two engines and either a short landing, stall or both are effectively inevitable.  I'm not saying the engines failed, perhaps a piece of the flap system broke away decreasing lift or the spoilers errantly deployed or something.  Point is that mechanical failures can put pilots in a circumstance where this is almost unavoidable.  Or perhaps they were caught in wind shear with little warning.

 

Data from flight tracking sights is being used as almost gospel.  Sure, they do seem to indicated low and slow which is consistent with what others have seen.  But this data needs to be cautiously reviewed.  Anything that doesn't come from the black box is I think very tenuous.  Even ATC radar feeds only update every few seconds and many other sources use time averages (so an aircraft that was at 170 kts at the start of the time interval and stopped at 0 kts at the end of monitoring would be a speed of 85 kts).

 

Media is focusing on the inoperative ILS.  SOP varies by airline, but in VFR conditions many (dare I even say most?) have the pilot fly manually anyway.  Someone who is trusted to fly a 777 costing a couple hundred million is certainly well trained to fly manually.  Certainly mistakes can still be made.  Others are saying it had to be in the AP systems because those fly the airplane down to 200'...well not if ILS is inop. 

 

I don't think it is practical to have any real idea as to the true cause this early.  It sure is starting to look like the end result was a low landing possibly complicated by low airspeed and/or a stall.  However, there are still a million reasons for this ranging from pilot error to mechanical failure to meteorological phenomenon. 

There is a lot of speculation from major news companies with apparently little knowledge and a need to quickly blame someone. No one seems to think this through.

 

First, it does sound like a fairly credible story that the aircraft may have been low, slow and even stalled. Witnesses reporting the high nose up attitude, the debris field and apparent strike at the rock bern and even some claiming the tail was wobbling do fit with this. What no one is recognizing is that this doesn't mean it was the pilots fault. Turn off the two engines and either a short landing, stall or both are effectively inevitable. I'm not saying the engines failed, perhaps a piece of the flap system broke away decreasing lift or the spoilers errantly deployed or something. Point is that mechanical failures can put pilots in a circumstance where this is almost unavoidable. Or perhaps they were caught in wind shear with little warning.

 

Data from flight tracking sights is being used as almost gospel. Sure, they do seem to indicated low and slow which is consistent with what others have seen. But this data needs to be cautiously reviewed. Anything that doesn't come from the black box is I think very tenuous. Even ATC radar feeds only update every few seconds and many other sources use time averages (so an aircraft that was at 170 kts at the start of the time interval and stopped at 0 kts at the end of monitoring would be a speed of 85 kts).

 

Media is focusing on the inoperative ILS. SOP varies by airline, but in VFR conditions many (dare I even say most?) have the pilot fly manually anyway. Someone who is trusted to fly a 777 costing a couple hundred million is certainly well trained to fly manually. Certainly mistakes can still be made. Others are saying it had to be in the AP systems because those fly the airplane down to 200'...well not if ILS is inop.

 

I don't think it is practical to have any real idea as to the true cause this early. It sure is starting to look like the end result was a low landing possibly complicated by low airspeed and/or a stall. However, there are still a million reasons for this ranging from pilot error to mechanical failure to meteorological phenomenon.

 

A lot of things are possible, but it seems pretty clear this plane was low and slow.. For what reason??? who knows we do not have the data. Pilot error is possible but I doubt it's because the ILS was out. As Ro who is a professional pilot on a plane almost as big pointed out the conditions were CAVOK, I am confident a professional with enough experience to convince a company to let him or her  pilot a  250 million dollar 777 can handle landing in near perfect conditions without a ILS.

 

If it is pilot error and that's a big IF then it's most likely that the pilot flying lost situational awareness and allowed the airspeed to decay enough to cause the approach to become unstable and if the reports are true that the engines spooled before impact then a recovery attempt was too late.

 

 

BUT we do not have enough data to know if this happened.

 

1. we do not know what the airspeed was, I saw the flightaware data but I don't trust that enough to draw conclusions.. However I did compare it to 5 prior 777 flights and the one that crashed was the only one that reported speeds that low.

 

2. If the airspeed did indeed drop below Vref then WHY? maybe the engines did not respond like BA38 or maybe the pilots became distracted and lost track of airspeed.. We do not have enough info to know.....

 

 

Those black boxes know..

IMHO unlikely, but that sounds like a very effective case for the defence in a hypothetical trial.

I've heard of cases where passengers began to light up a cigarette only 1 or 2 minutes after they escaped the crashed aircraft because they were in a state of shock and intuitively tried to restore the everyday life. Just a theory though.

Today's AAR214 just landed on Rwy19R. 

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