Video shows plane's moment of impact at SFO

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html

by hofimax • 13 years ago

144 95 13 years ago

edition.cnn.com

mikeyouse• 13 years ago

That video puts all the initial 'cartwheeling' and 'flipping' comments into much better context. It's easy to see how onlookers could've mistaken that action with the plane turning over. I'm seriously impressed that there were only two fatalities.

fnordfnordfnord6• 13 years ago

The plane did do a 360.

suyash2• 13 years ago

I didn't see a 360, it just tipped to the slide after the nose going up.

LoganCale• 13 years ago

It did a 180, spinning around with the nose digging into the ground.

neurotech12• 13 years ago

It looked like the wingtip dug in, causing the "flip up", then aircraft slowed, the jet settled back down.

If the jet had done a 360, its unlikely the main fuselage would stay together, it would have broken into several large pieces.

johnpowell2• 13 years ago

Yeah, I thought there was a bit of hyperbole going on. I am stunned people walked away from that.

momavujisic2• 13 years ago

I was very skeptical of comments that the plane 'cartwheeled' and 'flipped'. I just didn't believe there was not only not enough energy, but there would be a lot more fatalities and the airframe would be even more wrecked.

However, this video was quite the shocker. Not only does the aircraft do a near 360 degree spin, but you could see the bottom of the aircraft as it spins with the tail up and nose down with the right wing up in the air. Amazing only 2 fatalities so far and the aircraft was intact as it was.

Someone2• 13 years ago

I don't think the 'not enough energy' argument is particularly strong. To flip a plane over, you have to lift up the plane's center of gravity by about half its length (probably less, as the nose can go down a bit during the flip. Also, if the pivot point is below the fuselage, the engines will provide torque during flipping.

Let's take a 60m long body and assume perfect conversion of horizontal speed (=kinetic energy) into vertical speed (=potential energy). To lift the body by an average 30m, it would need a speed of sqrt(2gh) = sqrt(600) or less than 25m/s. That's less than 90 km/h.

Google gives me a landing speed of about 250 km/h for a 777. That gives us a factor of 3 in speed, or 7 to 8 in kinetic energy to cater for inelastic collisions, air resistance, energy loss digging the nose wheel or the whole nose into the ground to create a pivot point, etc.

Also, and probably more convincing, there's the example from a DC-10 crash in Sioux City in 1989. Both http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-06.pdf and http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19890719-1 mention the word 'cartwheel', and that's also what I remember from the video (which I can't find now)

mikeash• 13 years ago

The Sioux City DC-10 did not cartwheel. I believe a wing detached which is why people thought it did.

momavujisic2• 13 years ago

I'm not going to question you, because the plane did indeed have enough energy to the "flip". I'm just going to suggest things about the speed. The approach speed a 777 at 250km/h, is correct, that's 134 kts which is maybe a tad bit slower then what it should be. However, the NTSB confirmed today that the aircraft was significantly slower than that – which why the plane ended up coming up short and stalling. Furthermore there is at least a couple seconds of the plane skidding on the ground which would have slowed it yet even more before it did the "flip".

sneak• 13 years ago

Amazing only 2 fatalities so far and the aircraft was intact as it was.

Something on the close order of a half-dozen more have spinal fractures and other injuries they won't ever fully recover from.

Of the 307 on board, about 170 of them were injured, ~25 quite seriously.

alexmarcy• 13 years ago

I was wondering last night why there isn't video of airplane landings being taken as a routine course of action? If nothing eventful happens they can delete the footage but in an instance like this they would have video of exactly what happened.

melling2• 13 years ago

How often is there a crash landing at an airport? Video would probably be more useful in automobiles. There are lots of accidents every day. At some point video at airports or on planes be be useful for collision warnings. Camera on the plane could warn the tower and pilot.

joering2• 13 years ago

Whats the difference does it make "how often"? When it happens its usually fatal and this looks like a miracle only 2 dead (RIP).

How often per year you have terrorist attack (1 this year?) and yet you have billions of dollars spent and US Constitution shredded with the possibility of some sweating pot-belly stranger grouping your three-years daughter between her crotch, checking if you hadn't packed some explosives there (just like every american parent would sacrifice their child for their terrorist threat [just being extremely sarcastic here obviously]).

Its actually weird that each airport does not have close-circuit cameras recording each runway. I dont see a problem just make it what 24hours closed recording and its enough in case there is situation like this one.

Side note: from the initial pictures how the roof looked like, my assumption was that there were two bombs in overhead compartments. I would never guess that a belly diving would cause such a sever damage to the roof of the airplane where it looks like it was extensively burned.

waster• 13 years ago

Cars in Russia routinely have dash-mounted cams to record driving; helps for insurance claims. It's one reason why there were so many videos of the meteorite that hit Chelyabinsk, taken while driving.

fnordfnordfnord6• 13 years ago

The cost of minimal useful equipment to accomplish that task at every international airport in the US (~150) would be less than the cost of a single 777 empty ($300MM). The value of that footage? I don't know, but it sounds like a bargain to me.

aylons3• 13 years ago

Fatal crashes like this are rare enough to make the headlines, but near-accidents, non-fatal accidents and other minor events could be better documented and help improve the overall safety and efficiency.

Given the current low price of high-quality video equipment, and the cost of both safety equipment and investigation, even in minor cases, this sounds actually like a good idea. Footage could be deleted quickly if nothing eventful happens, reducing the costs even further.

It would be much more helpful and less privacy-invasive than the rest of the airport camera circuit, and probably cheaper.

anigbrowl• 13 years ago

The cost is trivial in proportion to the benefit (and pretty trivial in absolute terms; for a few thousand you could have a high resolution image shooting at a high frame rate). Most car journeys don't involve an accident either, it's just that there's so many of them.

hnriot• 13 years ago

A few dozen go pro's are not going to cost much and we have surveillance pretty much everywhere else, so why not here. Every post office in the USA has about 25 high res cameras.

antmldr• 13 years ago

Not sure how you'd warn a pilot about a crash simply using a camera? Either way, there is already a (practically P2P) collision avoidance system that's pretty reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS

coin2• 13 years ago

The Flight Data Recorder will have recorded everything anyways

dredmorbius• 13 years ago

The FDR / CVR will record much data, including controls and communications. They won't record:

Other aircraft or objects in the vicinity.

Parts of the aircraft which have separated. Look to the telemetry data / communications in the case of the Columbia shuttle disaster as ground control tried to work out what was happening with the off-range readings for tire pressure sensors -- as the wing of the shuttle was being carved out from the inside by 6000°F reentry plasma.

Fine-grained movement of the aircraft, its components, the interior, fire and/or smoke, debris, etc, at 16-1000 frames per second 1080p resolution.

Runway incursions, airspace incursions, and other near-miss phenomena.

Small aircraft without FDR/CVR equipment.

The equipment cost is minimal. Equipping the plane itself with video capabilities would be an additional feature, but simply having ground, runway, approach, and departure path video would be useful. As others have noted, not only for the (very rare) emergencies, but for the far more common "incidents".

On the negative side: inclement weather, including rain, snow, and fog (the latter being common at SFO) would limit utility somewhat.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incurs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/06/runway_incursi...

From that last (and presumably applying to Canada, not the US):

A Star analysis of Transport Canada data counted 5,677 incursions by aircraft, vehicles and pedestrians since 1999, averaging almost 400 a year.

teeja2• 13 years ago

Maybe all available surveillance cams were in use on your street, catching teens flipping each other off and trading "contraband".

morsch2• 13 years ago

Maybe you presume incorrectly and videos of airplane landings are taken as a routine course of action -- but not released publicly.

lsaferite3• 13 years ago

I was in a hotel that looked across the water (Red Roof Inn) and saw the crash. I talked to several pilots that were watching the aftermath with me and they said the FAA does actually have cameras recording landings and takeoffs.

jonknee• 13 years ago

You could even get the private market to finance it--at least for larger airports. I'm sure sites like FlightAware and Airliners.net would love the footage.

adventured• 13 years ago

There is video of every take off and landing. It is not released to the public.

yread• 13 years ago

You've heard about the black box, right? That has all the information that they need to figure it out. I admit that video is cooler to watch than some squiggly lines of accelarations, roll and pitch, though

mseebach• 13 years ago

Probably because video isn't terribly useful in determining what happened. Plane came in too low, tail struck the seawall. Assuming that is actually what happened, this was clear as soon as the news helicopters were on site. All video would contribute (assuming that it doesn't exist as just isn't released as is suggested) is entertainment to the public.

The interesting question to answer isn't the exact mechanics of the crash, but why the plane came in too low. All the video footage in the world is not going to answer the why - the flight data and cockpit voice recorders might, on the other hand.

mavhc• 13 years ago

dear cnn plane filmer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA&feature=youtu.be

lostlogin• 13 years ago

There is a funny podcast (accidental tech podcast) episode where Marco and Casey discuss how they had to explain to the phone camera operator how important it is to shoot landscape, all whilst going round the Nuremberg ring.

morsch2• 13 years ago

It'd be nice if video sites supported arbitrary aspect ratios and displayed them correctly. I can't turn my monitor to view videos in page orientation -- well, I could, but I won't -- but I can easily turn my phone. Movies are wide screen for good reason, but I'm sure there are genres well suited to page orientation.

phildeschaine• 13 years ago

Agreed. That might put an end to the endless complaints on reddit and other sites about vertical videos.

The problem is, when you hold your phone horizontally it's painfully obvious to other people you're taking a video. Holding it vertically allows for being more discreet. You might just be texting or something.

Smartphone manufacturers could also solve this problem by somehow auto-rotating the camera internally.

drcode2• 13 years ago

"Nobody cares about you!"

That made me laugh harder than anything yet this month.

aylons3• 13 years ago

Actually, it looks like the video was edited to become vertical after the fact. Look at the blurry images in the sides of the video.

aspensmonster• 13 years ago

I always assumed that broadcasters added those blurry sidebars in on purpose from data in the middle section so that they weren't just displaying blank black bars on two-thirds of the screen.

zobzu• 13 years ago

"oh and you're filming it!"

Yeah seems like a legit reason for excitement.

saraid2163• 13 years ago

I couldn't keep the sound on and had to mute it.

teeja2• 13 years ago

OH MY GOD, WHY? OH MY GOD. OH MY GOD.

suyash2• 13 years ago

That woman was so annoying with her comments..obviously he is filmy it, was she blind?

robflynn• 13 years ago

People react strangely and unpredictably in circumstances with which they are not familiar. I think her reaction was probably more along the lines of "This is crazy and you just happen to be filming it."

drcode2• 13 years ago

It seems like it's a good idea if you realize the person next to you is doing something very important to make double sure they're aware this is the case.

beachstartup2• 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0

video of boeing stress-testing 777 wings by deflecting them up with cables, against a stationary fuselage

first thing that came to mind after seeing the video of the crashed plane do a cartwheel on its wing.

arepb• 13 years ago

The final closeup of the person in the video reacting is former Boeing exec and now Ford CEO Alan Mulally.

jser• 13 years ago

Also relevant -- an MD-80 losing it's tail during a test flight after a hard landing: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SXVmsm_pmUo

general_failure• 13 years ago

I might be missing something obvious but... Why not ask the pilots for their reasons? They are fine right?

ghayes• 13 years ago

Just because the NTSB hasn't released information on the cause of the crash, it doesn't mean they don't have strong working theories (based on information, including from the pilots). I assume the organization would want to compile a full report before publicly releasing details or theories. This, I'm sure, applies doubly if the cause could end up being pilot error, which has a strong weight on public opinion.

bdon4• 13 years ago

Question for anyone with media/newsroom experience:

How does CNN get exclusive access to an amateur video like this? What process was in place such that this didn't end up on YouTube first?

samstave• 13 years ago

I wondered the same thing, and my thought was this guy calling CNN: "hey, I have iPhone vid of that plane crashing at SFO, how much will you pay me for the exclusive rights to it?"

bdon4• 13 years ago

That's the scenario I imagined as well. Which gave me pause, because I thought most onlookers in this situation, including myself, would value publishing the video immediately instead of collecting a payoff.

The entire transaction strikes me as a bit tasteless (perhaps even Ballardian), but raises another interesting question: once you have such a video, how do you put a value on it, given that there may be any number of other amateur videos taken, with a good chance that they're of better quality than your own?

beachstartup2• 13 years ago

joonix2• 13 years ago

I'm almost certain he sold the footage to CNN. They probably waited a day to see if it was the only footage of the crash then msde an offer.

joshbaptiste• 13 years ago

I'm betting the fact that they were older and maybe not that technically savvy is the reason for not being on twitter,Vine,Instagram,Youtube immediately. A technically savvy person's first instinct is to share this footage instantly and receive the credit/thousands of re-tweets etc..

AndrewKemendo• 13 years ago

As a semi-unrelated note, as someone who has to watch a lot of near east homemade "terrorist" videos, this video gives a great western corollary to the incessant "Allahu Akbar" that is chanted throughout those videos. The "Oh my god" is almost literally a translation and is used in similar manner and contexts, though not all.

jakejake• 13 years ago

That's interesting, I had always thought of it as more of a celebratory expression rather than "oh my god," which usually indicates shock or sadness.

srisa• 13 years ago

"Allahu Akbar" is "Allah is great" not "Oh my God".

wldlyinaccurate• 13 years ago

Yes, that's a literal translation. We say many similar things in English to express shock: "good God", "my God", "God almighty", etc.

devcpp• 13 years ago

I think it depends on the tone of the Allahu Akbar. There's is a "this is breathtaking" tone (much like Oh my God) and a "Fellows, let's praise God" tone. I would say that chanting or shouting that phrase corresponds to the latter case.

Video shows plane's moment of impact at SFO

Related Stories