Asiana 777 hull loss at SFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
On that, just wondering if the baggages (or what's left) have been returned to the passengers (or their relatives)
 
On that, just wondering if the baggages (or what's left) have been returned to the passengers (or their relatives)


Eventually, I would imagine the investigation would need them for a little while to rule out causes, despite what most think is obvious in that respect.
 
Would the $10,000 be part of an initial 'no further claim' settlement? The article states down payments are required, but is unclear whether this is such.

AFAIK, the $10,000 payment is to cover any immediate needs and does not prevent further claims. The airline has also stated that for any pax who has a claim against them which ends up been less than the $10,000 given to them initially they still get to keep the full $10,000.
 
It really is incredible that there were so few lives lost / relatively few injuries.
 
Very curious to find out what the report will say due to be released today...
 
This is almost a classic unstable approach. Too high. Too fast. Much too high a sink rate. Basically way too much energy (initially anyway) and not really controlling it. Fix the speed first, then fix the height.

It's also an interesting Airbus/Boeing issue too. The pilot flying was used to the A320. He was used to thrust levers that were rarely, if ever, moved in flight. So, to him having them sit at one position (idle) probably did not feel all that wrong. Boeing pilots are used to them moving, and also habitually move them even when the autothrust is engaged.

Basically Airbus experience desensitises pilots to thrust lever position.
 

Whilst it makes pretty horrifying reading overall, I'm surprised that there is no mention of the US ATC habit of presenting aircraft with high energy situations. The ATC requirement of 180 knots to 5 nm is unreasonable, with 180 to about 8, and 160 to 5 being much more manageable.

There are many striking facts in the report, but perhaps one that should be taken to heart by everyone....two of the passengers who were killed, did not have their seat belts done up, and most likely would have survived had they done so. Whilst this sort of accident is, thankfully, rare, turbulence events are not, and the only people who are generally injured are those without seat belts...or the people they land on.
 
I agree I am amazed that people don't have their seatbelt on at landing (or take off) which are generally the most dangerous points in flight
 
I agree I am amazed that people don't have their seatbelt on at landing (or take off) which are generally the most dangerous points in flight

Well, they obviously travel at their own peril. The airlines/crew do their best to advise safety aspects of flight.
 
Agree. Suspect it may also make a big difference in the civil cases that are proceeding.
 
Australia's highest-earning Velocity Frequent Flyer credit card: Offer expires: 21 Jan 2025
- Earn 60,000 bonus Velocity Points
- Get unlimited Virgin Australia Lounge access
- Enjoy a complimentary return Virgin Australia domestic flight each year

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top