Posts Tagged ‘SFO’

Seen Above Frisco: A Special Emirates A-380 with Wildlife Livery – Living with the Large Electronic Devices Ban

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

Seen heading north, which is how you get to Dubai, more or less. And speaking of special, I think this is one of the higher weight versions, the better to make a 16-hour flight:

7J7C0475 copy

1. So this explains the elephants and whatnot on the side.

2. And I don’t know what explains the electronics ban. Maybe it’s mostly protectionism.

And man, just look at that stubby jet. Compare with the twice-stretched Boeing 747:

b747-8i_lufthansa_02

Since the A380 was built to be stretched, its wings are too big. If Airbus never ends up doing a cabin stretch, then the extra big wings will just be a waste. And that’s just part of the reason why the big A380 was more of an evolution rather than a revolution.

Anyway, it’s Euro tourist season now, so we have a lot of extra A380’s overhead. Happy Spring.

AIRSERV IS HIRING at SFO, Looks Like

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

But where you’re going to live and how you’re going to get to the airport every day, well, that’s up to you. The pay seems pretty low for the pricy Bay Area

7J7C5414 copy

Recalling (Again) the Close Call United Flight 863 had with Mount San Bruno Back in 1998

Thursday, December 8th, 2016

Here’s an excellent report from the WSJ back in 1999.

And here’s a more better photo than I had in back in aught-nine:

7j7c0758-copy

Same mountain, same antennas, same general direction for the plane (except the 1998 incident occurred at night and with fog/clouds).

Anyway, United Airlines took things seriously and aviation is the better for it…

I See This Flight Every Day – Hawaiian 11 SFO-HNL – Everybody’s Going to Hawaii But Me

Friday, October 21st, 2016

Look for this Airbus 330 just after 9:00 AM, over the Financh, heading west with a little south thrown in – that’s what you can see lately:

7j7c3086-copy

Now back in the day, people told me, “Don’t fly Hawaiian.” But geez, zero passenger deaths over the years and decades. Hawaiian is a winner airline and this jet, an Airbus 330-200 widebody, is a winner aircraft – better all around than any stretched-out Boeing 757 narrowbody that, say United, might choose to get you to the 808 State…

Frisco Loses “Hometown Airline,” “Thousands of Jobs” – Let’s Look at Excessive Hype for SFO the Past Decade – QANTAS and Vaunted A380

Monday, April 4th, 2016

1. Here’s the news:

Alaska Air Agrees to Buy Virgin America for $2.6 Billion

Does this airline deal “make sense?” IDK, we’ll see.

But let’s now take the chance to take a look at the hype over Virgin America nine years ago, when the Mayor of SF boasted of the “thousands of jobs” what would come from our “hometown airline.”

Flip to the next page to see that.

2. What else, oh the already-failed Airbus A380, the “green” plane what was “going to change everything.” From 2006:

These (A380) aircraft are also very efficient.

But no, not at all, not really. Actually, that’s the problem – A380’s aren’t all that efficient.

Now, did it make sense for SFO to prepare for the arrival of the A380 starting 10-20 years ago? IDK, perhaps, since the feds were paying for most of the work. But this plane certainly was not the future of air travel, as should have obvious to anyone a decade ago.

3. What else, oh, QANTAS.

The airline plans to bring its A380 aircraft to San Francisco on a regular basis in the next few years.

Hey, did this work out? No, not at all. In fact, QANTAS completely abandoned SFO a short time later. It preferred Texas(!) and, of course, Los Angeles, for various reasons.

(And that’s the way it’s been since the 1950’s – QANTAS comes to SFO then starts losing money and then it leaves us and then it comes back to us. This really isn’t under the control of any local Mayors.)

Anyway, that’s how things have gone at SFO the past decade.

(more…)

The Reason Why These Planes Take Off So Close Together is Because of SFO’s Runways are Too Close Together – Any Help?

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016

Nope, no help.

7J7C9473 copy

Check for yourself: SFO RUNWAY SEPARATION.

Osculate Then Aviate: Aptly Named “Kiss ‘N Fly” Option at SFO Isn’t Actually All That Useful, It Would Seem

Tuesday, January 12th, 2016

Here it is, for dropping off your “loved ones” at SFO:

IMG_9417 copy

And here’s the map:

map-kiss-and-fly copy

And here’s how things got started, back in aught-seven.

IDK, man. This doesn’t seem like all that great an option, so like I don’t get this, man.

JMO

Press Release: “Asiana suit dismissal vindicates firefighters’ ‘heroic efforts’ in tragic crash, Dennis Herrera says”

Friday, August 7th, 2015

Just released, see below.

I don’t know. The NTSB weighed in and the SFFD certainly DID NOT get an A+ grade, to say the least:

“The overall triage process in this mass casualty incident was effective with the exception of the failure of responders to verify their visual assessments of the condition of passenger 41E.

The San Francisco Fire Department’s aircraft rescue and firefighting staffing level was instrumental in the department’s ability to conduct a successful interior fire attack and successfully rescue five passengers who were unable to self-evacuate amid rapidly deteriorating cabin conditions.

Although no additional injuries or loss of life were attributed to the fire attack supervisor’s lack of aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) knowledge and training, the decisions and assumptions he made demonstrate the potential strategic and tactical challenges associated with having non-ARFF trained personnel in positions of command at an airplane accident.

Although some of the communications difficulties encountered during the emergency response, including the lack of radio interoperability, have been remedied, others, such as the breakdown in communications between the airport and city dispatch centers, should be addressed.

The Alert 3 section of the San Francisco International Airport’s emergency procedures manual was not sufficiently robust to anticipate and prevent the problems that occurred in the accident response.”

Here’s some more on Flight 214 from San Francisco Magazine. Some quotes in there from SFFD personnel appeared to show a bit of self deception, IMO.

And there’s this, from the San Jose Mercury News:

San Francisco’s emergency personnel also were criticized. While praising firefighters for rescuing several passengers from the burning wreckage and having more than the required number of personnel on hand, the report said “the arriving incident commander placed an officer in charge of the fire attack” who hadn’t been properly trained. The responders also had communication problems, including being unable “to speak directly with units from the airport on a common radio frequency” and didn’t rush medical buses to the scene, which “delayed the arrival of backboards to treat seriously injured passengers.” In addition, the report said airport emergency officials in general lack policies “for ensuring the safety of passengers and crew at risk of being struck or rolled over by a vehicle” during rescue operations. During the chaotic initial response to the Asiana crash, two firetrucks ran over one of the teenage passengers lying outside the plane. The San Mateo County coroner ruled the girl was alive when she was hit, but the San Francisco Fire Department disputes that finding.

Obviously, this was an aircraft accident that involved pilot error, as most do. Equally obviously, some of the problems on that day showed that the SFFD wasn’t training properly, realistically.

All right, here’s the release:

“Asiana suit dismissal vindicates firefighters’ ‘heroic efforts’ in tragic crash, Herrera says. City Attorney adds, ‘Our hearts go out to the parents of Ye Ming Yuan and to all the surviving loved ones of the three who lost their lives’ in 2013’s Asiana tragedy

SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 7, 2015) — Parents of the 16-year-old passenger who was ejected and killed in the crash of Asiana Flight 214 on July 6, 2013 dismissed their civil lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco today. Neither the plaintiffs nor their attorneys appear to have issued a public statement accompanying their dismissal, which was filed in U.S. District Court this afternoon.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement in response:

“Our hearts go out to the parents of Ye Ming Yuan and to all the surviving loved ones of the three who lost their lives in the tragic crash of Asiana Flight 214. We’re grateful for a dismissal that will spare everyone involved the added heartache and costs of litigation, which we believed from the beginning to be without legal merit.
“As we remember those who lost their lives in the Asiana crash, I hope we acknowledge, too, the heroic efforts of San Francisco’s firefighters and police who saved hundreds of lives that day. With thousands of gallons of venting jet fuel threatening unimaginable calamity, our firefighters initiated a daring interior search-and-rescue that within minutes extricated trapped passengers, and moved them safely to medical triage. In the face of great danger to their own lives, our emergency responders showed heroism and selflessness that day. They deserve our honor and gratitude.”

The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the crash of Asiana flight 214 was caused by the Asiana flight crew’s mismanagement in approaching and inadequately monitoring the airspeed of the Boeing 777 on its approach to San Francisco International Airport, according to the NTSB’s June 24, 2014 announcement. The NTSB also found that the flight crew’s misunderstanding of the autothrottle and autopilot flight director systems contributed to the tragedy.

On July 3, 2014, NTSB Member Mark R. Rosekind issued a concurrent statement that praised San Francisco’s first responders: “The critical role of the emergency response personnel at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and the firefighters from the San Francisco Fire Department cannot be underestimated. Although certain issues regarding communications, triage, and training became evident from the investigation and must be addressed, emergency responders were faced with the extremely rare situation of having to enter a burning airplane to perform rescue operations. Their quick and professional action in concert with a diligent flight crew evacuated the remaining passengers and prevented this catastrophe from becoming much worse. In addition, the emergency response infrastructure and resources at SFO that supported firefighting and recovery after the crash are admirable, significantly exceeding minimum requirements.”

Asiana Flight 214 struck the seawall short of SFO’s Runway 28L shortly before 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, July 6, 2013, beginning a violent impact sequence that sheared off the tail assembly, rotated the aircraft approximately 330 degrees, and created a heavy cloud of dust and debris before the aircraft finally came to rest approximately 2300 feet from its initial site of impact. The sheared-off tail assembly and force of rotation resulted in the ejection of five people: two crewmembers still strapped into the rear jump seats, and three passengers seated in the last two passenger rows. All three ejected passengers suffered fatal injuries: two died at the scene, and one died six days later.

With nearly 3,000 gallons of jet fuel venting from fuel lines where two engines detached during the crash sequence, a fire started in one engines that was wedged against the fuselage. A fire also began in the insulation lining the fuselage interior, beginning near the front of the aircraft. The interior fire produced heavy smoke inside the aircraft and posed extremely dangerous conditions given the volatility of leaking jet fuel and its proximity to potentially explosive oxygen tanks. In the face of imminent explosion, the rescue effort safely evacuated and triaged of some 300 people. Asiana flight 214 carried 307 individuals: 4 flight crew, 12 cabin crewmembers and 291 passengers. Three of the 291 passengers were fatally injured.

The case is: Gan Ye and Xiao Yun Zheng, et al v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. C14-04941, filed Aug. 13, 2014. Learn more about the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office at http://www.sfcityattorney.org/.”

The Fastest Delivery Vehicle Ever: Mercedes V8 Biturbo from SFO’s Clock Freight – Absolutely, Positively

Wednesday, June 10th, 2015

Zoom zoom:

7J7C9093 copy

Become an SFPD “Community Police Services Aide” and Make More Money Than Most of the World’s Cops – No Sidearm Tho

Thursday, April 16th, 2015

No gun = lots of problems avoided for your employer, the People of San Francisco.

How does this job title compare with Community Service Officer, the kind of gig they have Down South and Up North? I know not, but it all seems the same to me.

9209 Community Police Services Aide

Recruitment #CBT-9209-900934
Department Police
Analyst Jennifer London
Date Opened 4/7/2015 8:00:00 AM
Filing Deadline 4/17/2015 5:00:00 PM
Salary $55,510.00 – $67,496.00/year
Job Type CBT Discrete
Employment Type Full-Time
Go Back Click HERE to apply Click HERE to view benefits
INTRODUCTION

Announcement clerically amended on 4/9/2015 to include exam related information, to provide information regarding candidate requests, to correct the eligible list duration, and to extend the final filing deadline. Receipt of applications will close at 5:00pm on 4/17/2015.

Applicants who already applied to this recruitment (CBT-9209-900934 Community Police Service Aide) do not need to reapply.

Under general supervision, a Community Police Services Aide performs a variety of police related duties for the San Francisco Police Department. Essential functions may vary depending on assignment and may include: directs traffic and issues citations for parking violations at the San Francisco International Airport; regulates, directs, and searches vehicles entering the Airport Operations Area; accepts and processes complaints in person or over the telephone; ensures security of restricted areas and property; utilizes two-way radios; completes reports and forms; provides information and assistance to the public; assists ill or injured citizens; assists in receiving, storing, and releasing of property; utilizes a computer terminal to enter and retrieve information; provides crowd management during events and emergency situations; sorts, files, and maintains reports and records; transports and retrieves evidence to and from Property Room; maintains inventory of office supplies and operates departmental vehicles. Incumbents also perform related duties as required.

Employees in this classification will be given assignments that may require occasional lifting, moving or carrying materials weighing up to 55 lbs.; extended standing, walking and/or sitting; working in inclement weather; climbing up and down a 4 – 6 feet ladder and working in a noisy environment.

Appointees to this classification must be willing to work days, nights, weekends, holidays, and/or rotating shifts as needed. This job also requires mandatory overtime.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

1. Possession of a high school diploma or successful completion of an equivalency test (G.E.D. or California High School Proficiency Examination); AND

2. Possession of a valid Driver License; AND

3. Must be at least 18 years old at the time of application; AND

4. One year of satisfactory full time public contact in a work situation (2000 hours) or military experience.