The accuracy of something like flighradar24 at low altitudes (where the difference between a landing and a crash is a matter of feet) is not high enough, and the data reporting interval is not small enough, to be used to do more than guess what happened. The article gives 3-4 data points <i>per minute</i>. You can't look at that data and draw any conclusions about the motion of an aircraft.<p>It's fun speculating, but please remember that the data from ADS-B is not designed to reflect the aircraft's motion over the time periods that matter in a crash. We have no idea what delays are present in the system, what delays flightradar's system adds in, and what the accuracy of the system is. It's very important to understand the limitations of any sensor data you analyse. It would be good to mention that in the article.<p>Edit: I notice that there's a little disclaimer at the bottom of the article saying that Flightradar24/flightaware data is "not 100% accurate", which is sort of covering the issue. However, when dealing with data like this it's important to remember that there's all sorts of ways data can be "accurate" or not. The uncertainty of the data itself, the frequency of data captured, the accuracy of the timestamps attached to the data and all sorts of other variables need to be considered when you're trying to understand the picture that sensor data is painting.
It goes without saying that my qualifications in aviation matters are only as an aviation enthusiast and for the full cause of the accident, we'll have to wait for the NTSB report (which has access to vital black box data and cockpit recordings).<p>However, I did give this accident some thought as well given the circumstances of the accident and came the pretty much the same final conclusion as the OP.<p>An airline pilot I once spoke to told me once that all the big jetliners use automated ILS with autopilot to automate the landings. The system is pretty accurate and reliable and can deliver landings as good as a well-trained and experienced pilot can.<p>When I saw the rather steep final approach the aircraft was making, I had suspected that the pilots were doing a manual landing. Now that we have information that the ILS was temporarily inoperational this appears to be what transpired and the pilots manually flew the final approach.<p>The precise reasons for why the manual approach ended up in this accident are still to be determined. One thing that I will point out though is that pilots for modern jetliners do relatively little actual manual flying of the plane. Modern airplanes have advanced FMS (Flight Management System) that allow for automatic flying from lift-off until landing with pilots overseeing the system. Given this lack of manual flying, there is a greater potential for human error when a pilot is required to actually do manual flying.
Here is graphical comparison of safe landing and Asiana crash:
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOhIDCWCUAApHFV.jpg:large" rel="nofollow">https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOhIDCWCUAApHFV.jpg:large</a> .<p>Also it appears that runway was modified: <a href="http://metabunk.org/sk/HL7742_777_Crash%2C_Korean_Asiana_Airlines%2C_San_Francisco_%7C_Metabunk-20130706-142510.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://metabunk.org/sk/HL7742_777_Crash%2C_Korean_Asiana_Air...</a>
NY Daily News is reporting that VASI was down as well (<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/expert-runway-guidance-systems-sfo-disabled-article-1.1392294" rel="nofollow">http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/expert-runway-guida...</a>) Which appears to be due to someone incorrectly reading a post-crash NOTAM which is about the aids being gone due to the crash, so there's no particular reason to think VASI was down before the crash.<p>I really don't think I'd trust SF city government to run an airport, even under FAA regulations. Look at every other city service SF has, and imagine that quality applied to preventing hundred ton soda cans full of people and jet fuel from exploding.
Sorry to go offtopic here, but the images seem to be used without any credits. The first one was taken by David Eun (<a href="https://path.com/p/1lwrZb" rel="nofollow">https://path.com/p/1lwrZb</a>)
There is an excellent posting with graphs comparing the Asiana flight to a United 777 that landed 10 minutes before. The graphs compare height, speed and importantly energy. <a href="http://flyingprofessors.net/what-happened-to-asiana-airlines-flight-214-2/" rel="nofollow">http://flyingprofessors.net/what-happened-to-asiana-airlines...</a><p>As most have hypothesized, it was an unstabilized approach and they should have done a go around (barring unknown technical/mechanical factors).
I heard a reporter on TV reporting that the airplane was doing cartwheels on the runway, and I pictured the semi-truck being flipped over in Batman. And then I thought what the hell could have done that? Fishtailed makes more sense, thanks for the clarification.
It looks like this was an unstabilized approach right down to the ground. It would be interesting to see what the company SOP is. Any safe airline has a no-fault go-around policy for unstabilized approaches, and you'll actually get in trouble if you continue with an unstabilized approach and you don't go around. From what pilots are saying on the message boards it seems that a lot of Asian airlines have pretty much the opposite policy - you get in trouble if you go around for any reason, and they would prefer you to salvage an unstabilized approach to save money.
This is an excellent article. Like Air France 447, seems very plausible that pilot error did play some role. This reinforces my respect for the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549, Captain Sullenberger.
Curious as to why autopilot isn't being used to land planes yet. My understanding is that pilots can choose to use it to land, but only do so when visibility is very low. (ex: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOFs-oa-bbc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOFs-oa-bbc</a>)
Here is my one minute as an <i>armchair air crash investigator</i>.<p>In recent times I've read some very strange incidents reports with regard to airline pilots.<p>One plane crashed on landing while coming in to final approach at twice the recommended speed.<p>Another was coming in for final approach some 500 feet below the allowable height and off the designated flight path.<p>These are examples of some very basic flying errors.<p>In years previous pilots had to do many hours in light aircraft, then move on to bigger aircraft and only after decades of flying experience did they make it onto the big jets.<p>But in todays <i>cut price flying</i> environment I suspect most pilots don’t do that much flying and as such they don’t know as much about flying as they should.<p>This one is going to be pilot error.
I don't really like when people post these sort of "arm-chair" hypotheses. As much as it's fun to try to figure things out, there is always the danger of people jumping to conclusions based on bad or incomplete data. It reminds me a lot of the reddit people immediately following the Boston Marathon bombings. It's definitely an interesting read, but I don't want to take it for much more than just idle speculation.
Cellphone video shot by a guy, Fred Hayes, watching aircraft land yesterday at SFO shows the tail dragging in the water for quite a distance before striking the seawall.<p><a href="http://statter911.com/2013/07/07/must-see-crash-of-asiana-flight-214-captured-on-video/" rel="nofollow">http://statter911.com/2013/07/07/must-see-crash-of-asiana-fl...</a><p>I'm guessing that the pilot was praying for those engines to spool-up faster.
Some more relevant news just breaking now ... <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/asiana-flight-214-pilots-realized-seconds-crash-approach-slow-article-1.1392535" rel="nofollow">http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/asiana-flight-214-p...</a>
Does anyone know if they've released the information about where the people who died/were severely injured were sitting in the plane? I'd love to see a seating chart that shows the safest and least safe seats on a 777.
"The final bit of information is interesting. It shows a positive rate of climb – 120 feet per minute to be exact, which for a jet airliner, is very slow. For reference, at takeoff the vertical speed is most often +1500 feet per minute. Another interesting bit of information is the aircraft’s airspeed; 85 kts – for a Boeing 777 that is (and I’m guessing here) probably way below stall speed."<p>That is actually expected. It is called the flare just before touchdown:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_flare" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_flare</a>
To the OP just curious -- are you a licensed pilot? Not to question you since you did say this was just speculation but just wondering. It's pretty well informed.
Is anyone else puking mad at those people carrying their luggage in the photo? I feel like getting off a burning plane should take priority over duty free purchases.