Yesterday, owing to the unusual winds what blew away* the fog, I saw jumbo jets above S.F. in places where I normally don’t, but I couldn’t really hear them. (I guess jets have gotten a lot quieter these days.)
Like this low-flying United Air 747-400 near the Ferry Building – you could hardly hear it:
Click to expand
*I suppose – cf. yesterday’s Blue Sky Red Bridge from Burrito Justice
(As always, If You Assume That Any Given Plane Crash is Due to Pilot Error, You’ll Probably Be Right.)
Here’s an article about the new NTSB report.
Does it make sense to commute to Los Angeles for work, assuming you had a pilot’s license and an airplane? I don’t know.
Does it make sense to listen to the advice of your air traffic controller concerning the advisability of taking off into heavy fog, even if you don’t have to? Yes it does.
Is there a reason why pilots are told to turn over the Bay after takeoff? Yes there is.
Oh well.
Here’s what people down Palo Alto Way are saying.
And here‘s the “chilling recording” from a SpotShotter tower. (It’s about what you’d expect, with crashing noises and the yelling of the day care center kids who saw the crash.)
The former N5225J, a Cessna 310R with relatively new, perfectly-fine-at-the-time engines:
(I’ll tell you, I don’t know why our federal government subsidizes Tesla Automotive (and for that matter, General Monkeybusiness in Detroit). Was Tesla paying for the avgas that this Cessna was burning? Does Tesla reimburse CEO Elon Musk for the jet fuel that he burns as he joyrides around the world, as is his wont? I think Tesla used to, but I don’t know about these days. You know, for an electric car company what’s produced not a whole bunch of electric cars, Tesla seems to burn up a lot of petroleum…)
Anyway, here’s the summary – the whole thing you’ll find after the jump.
“NTSB Identification: WPR10FA136
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, February 17, 2010 in Palo Alto, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/22/2011
Aircraft: CESSNA 310R, registration: N5225J
Injuries: 3 Fatal.
The pilot departed the airport in near-zero visibility instrument meteorological conditions, and shortly after takeoff, struck a power pole and power lines before impacting terrain. Review of recorded air traffic control tower (ATCT) transmissions revealed that the pilot was initially given his instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance to turn right to a heading of 060 degrees and climb to 3,000 feet. Shortly after verifying his IFR clearance, the pilot received his IFR release from the ATCT controller and was informed that the runway was not visible to the controller. The controller further informed the pilot that takeoff was at his own risk. Shortly after, the controller notified the pilot that he had two minutes for his IFR release, before it expired. The pilot stated that he did not hear a “cleared for takeoff” instruction from the controller. The controller responded that he could not clear the pilot for takeoff, due to not having the runway environment in sight and that “the release is all yours and it’s at your own risk sir.” The pilot acknowledged the transmission and proceeded to take off. One witness, who was adjacent to the accident site, reported that she observed an airplane “suddenly appear from the fog” left of her position. The witness stated that she continued to watch the airplane fly in a level or slightly nose up attitude until it impacted power lines.
Accident site evidence was indicative of a level impact with a power pole about 50 feet above ground level (agl) and at a high airspeed. All major structural components of the airplane were located within the wreckage debris path. Examination of the airframe, engines and propellers disclosed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomaly. Weather conditions reported five minutes prior to the accident were wind variable at 5 knots, visibility 1/8th mile, fog, and vertical visibility of 100 feet agl. Weather conditions recorded by the ATCT 11 minutes after the time of the accident were visibility 1/16th mile, fog, and a vertical visibility of 100 feet agl.
Local law enforcement provided recordings from a sound recording system, which captured the accident sequence. The recordings were coupled with airport surveillance radar to interpolate a flightpath for the airplane. The interpolated flightpath indicated an approximate 45-degree left turn shortly after departure to the area of initial impact with the power pole and power lines. A sound spectrum study determined both engines were operating near full power.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s failure follow the standard instrument departure as instructed, and his failure to attain a sufficient altitude to maintain clearance from power lines during takeoff in instrument meteorological conditions.”
Where to begin on this one, uh, how about this bit from just last week talking about how long SFO has been waiting for the arrival of regular A380 service.
All right, well, as you might know by now, the news just recently came out about how Lufthansa is going to use Airbus A380′s instead of Boeing 747-400′s on daily flights from Frankfurt, Germany.
Is this really a “windfall,” as the Mayor said (or actually, as the Mayor’s holdover staff wrote)? Well, probably not, as a windfall is something you luck into, like when coconuts fall into your arms from a stiff breeze.
And actually, SFO has been planning for the arrival of A380 for more than a decade now.
Here’s what it means to be “A380 ready.” See how one plane has three jetways in its gate? That’s one of the ways you can tell that SFO readied itself for the A380.
But actually, what we’re doing is losing service from one double-decker jumbo jet and gaining service from another, slightly bigger, jumbo jet.
Is the A380 really “the world’s most fuel-efficient aircraft” as the Mayor says it is?
Nope. A Boeing 747 or 777 making the same flight would burn less fuel.
And will these kinds of flights “help appease Peninsula residents who for decades have complained that it’s too loud to live near the airport or under flight paths?”
Nope, not in the least.
And are some A380′s still grounded due to an issue with Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines?
Yep.
And does Lufthansa use A380′s with Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines (instead of the more American, less blow-uppy Engine Alliance GP7200 engines?”
Yep.
Oh well.
(Oh, in other news, the reason why Qantas (oh, snap! “Qantas Incident” is like the most popular search term on Google these days it seems) left us for Texas is because them melon farmers down there paid the Aussies $3.5 million buckaroos to make the move.)
See the press releases, after the jump. Try to contain your excitement…
Here’s a recent view from the Western Addition towards the west, so the giant American flag you can see is indicating an atypical stiff breeze from the south, more or less.
Airline passengers don’t fly in three-engined tri-jets anymore because the concept isn’t fit for the 21st century. But the stuff you order on the Amazon rides old-school Fed-Ex Cargo McDonnell Douglas DC-10‘s and MD-11‘s all the time.
Now, the DC-10 got a bad rep about three decades back – some of that wasn’t its fault (like when a pilot heard 1500 feet instead of 1500 meters) but some of it was. So Mickey D came out with a replacement, the MD-11. It was better in a lot of ways but it turned out to be more crashy than its predecessor and that’s a whole story in itself.*
Anyway, these MD trijets generally do fine when they land facing straight into the wind, as here:
Click to expand
Stay safe in your pterodactyls, in your flying dinosaurs, Fed-Ex pilots!
*Like how they made the landing gear stronger to handle the stretched body, so they’re stronger than the wing they’re hanging from – that situation has killed passengers and pilots. McDonnell Douglas simply tried way too hard to make up for the fact that its only jumbo design just happened to have an unnecessary third engine sucking up a lot of fuel.
