Is San Fran Asiana Flight 214 Another MSM Hoax?

[KiwiElf]

What am I doing on this thread? Aviation is a field of expertise I DO possess. I'm laughing - hysterically!

[Sidney]

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
I would say that I think some people on this (ridiculous) thread are suffering massive doses of paranoia (and ought to research a few more airplane crashes from history). Pilot error - plain and simple (and it DID happen). Yes, we're all entitled to an opinion but what is yours based on? RESEARCHED Fact, FEAR or fiction?

My opinion that mainstream media cannot be trusted is based on a PATTERN. A very LONGGGGG pattern of lies, along with government. Media and Gov't are joined at the hip. C'Mon. Obama got a NOBEL PEACE prize for increasing WAR .
That for starters.
Have you even watch the video that the OP posted? The subject of this plane crash warrants a closer look. Just like Sandy hook, Boston, and 911.

[indigopete]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
Now you are getting really bizarre, it may have been an accident it might not have been, I don't know and obviously you don't either

That's true, I don't know if it was a "fake" accident.

I also don't know if you're a plain and simple troll sent here to disrupt genuine discourse with a lot of unwarranted nonsense and the setting up of straw men all over the place. So I've got to make a decision on *which* of the two is more likely.

Guess which one's winning.

[sigma6]

Posted by indigopete (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)
Now you are getting really bizarre, it may have been an accident it might not have been, I don't know and obviously you don't either

That's true, I don't know if it was a "fake" accident.
I also don't know if you're a plain and simple troll sent here to disrupt genuine discourse with a lot of unwarranted nonsense and the setting up of straw men all over the place. So I've got to make a decision on *which* of the two is more likely.
Guess which one's winning.

That's your response? (ouch) I guess you knew where I was leading with your responses... shall we take a vote indigopetey?
I just made a clear statement that people who don't want to discuss alternative explanations are free to find a thread on good fairies and I will have all the respect for you... (not my agreement, and if you asked my opinion, you'd get it...) But I wouldn't see the point in going into a thread and trying to be the expert on who is justified in having an opinion on an alternative opinion or not... you really think your judgement of other's logical analysis of illogical information is really that up to par?... from a guy who considers 3rd party theorizing as "factual data" I'd say you are really stretching yourself thin, but that is just my opinion... based on what little I have to deal with ...

And the second complaint is why are the naysayers not at the VERY LEAST dealing with the actual information presented? Isn't that considered a troll technique, granted this is a tad more sophisticated but all I hear is attacks on me, and tribal boogeymen, and not being comparable to the great David Icke, to living in a box... etc, etc, etc ad nauseum... HEY SHOUT OUT .... Can someone please discuss the information the pictures, the videos and commentary that has been dished out by the media!!! HELLOO!!!

I am looking for analysis of the information that is being provided by the media... not this trashy ego point game, I'm not in high school anymore... so the thrill of the cheap point, although it is childs play to me, doesn't have the same thrill.... BACK ON POINT PLEASE...

[sigma6]

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
What am I doing on this thread? Aviation is a field of expertise I DO possess. I'm laughing - hysterically!

Then quit talking about yourself and give explanation to the video, images and commentary... and if you think you need to be an aviation expert to do that all the better...

[ThePythonicCow]

Should I rename this thread to "Who is the troll today?" .

[KiwiElf]

The plane was approaching too slowly and virtually stalled on the runway - pilot(s) error (and that was at approx 125 kts at impact - the recommended approach speed is 137 kts). Fire broke out after the impact (nothing unusual there - I recommend you look at the ramains of the China Airlines 737 that caught fire from overheated brakes at Okinawa several years ago after it had PARKED).
And yes, I am a pilot for your LEARN-ED information. You... and the idiot who made this video, are talking complete rubbish.

Do the press/MSM exaggerate? Scramble their facts? No argument. This was an unfortunate accident - nothing more, nothing less. Believe what you want

[sigma6]

That's a disappointing response Paul... is that supposed to encourage your friends as they struggle to come up with more non related topic matter, once again,
Now that we hopefully got through the trash talk, distraction and cheap shots of other's character,

I would encourage others who have PHOTOS, VIDEO or any media commentary with analysis, and I won't deny I would be interested if you found something that seems odd, out of place, contradictory, etc... Which I don't think will be that difficult... and you don't have to be an expert in any special field either. You just have to have an opinion based on what you have come across, I am sure there are plenty more anomalies...

Again it has been pointed out that planes can and do crash... and I would have to agree that I am hard pressed to believe that they don't... I am more focused on the context, since we know media is controlled. The only mistakes they make is on quality. And that exposes flaws and points to things they may be trying to hide in what they have been told to "project" onto the public. Assume nothing. Question everything.

[indigopete]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
I am looking for analysis of the information that is being provided by the media... not this trashy ego point game, I'm not in high school anymore... so the thrill of the cheap point, although it is childs play to me, doesn't have the same thrill.... BACK ON POINT PLEASE

The reason you've not got many takers for that is that the video is a spoof.

It's a guy taking the 'P' out of the whole Sandy Hook / Cinema shootings video analysis frenzies. He's just going through picking up on any old thing he can think of and making a point out of it for point's sake.

For example - the grass. He shows one photo of the grass from 5 feet away and says "note the long grass". Then compares it with an aerial shot from a helicopter at about 500 feet " - well, surprise surprise, the grass looks shorter.

The whole thing's a string of spoof observations in a similar vein.

Maybe the joke's lost on you - I'm sure it's lost on those who were involved. It's certainly wasted a lot of bandwidth.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
That's a disappointing response Paul...

My sarcasm was unclear, sorry.

I recommend that members quit implying you're a troll, and that several of those posting here quit making this personal.

Let's get back to the reports of this crash, and the discrepancies that you brought to the table.

==

My present guess, on that topic, is that:

• Korean pilots have less hands on flying time, more time on auto pilot, than say US pilots.
• This pilot was coming in low and slow, and did have very little time in that aircraft.
• His co-pilot had more time in that aircraft, but reacted too late to apply power.
• There was a crash, and there were injuries.
• What is reported is, as your opening post demonstrates, a confused mess.

[sigma6]

Posted by indigopete (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)
I am looking for analysis of the information that is being provided by the media... not this trashy ego point game, I'm not in high school anymore... so the thrill of the cheap point, although it is childs play to me, doesn't have the same thrill.... BACK ON POINT PLEASE

The reason you've not got many takers for that is that the video is a spoof.
It's a guy taking the 'P' out of the whole Sandy Hook / Cinema shootings video analysis frenzies. He's just going through picking up on any old thing he can think of and making a point out of it for point's sake.
For example - the grass. He shows one photo of the grass from 5 feet away and says "note the long grass". Then compares it with an aerial shot from a helicopter at about 500 feet " - well, surprise surprise, the grass looks shorter.
The whole thing's a string of spoof observations in a similar vein.
Maybe the joke's lost on you - I'm sure it's lost on those who were involved. It's certainly wasted a lot of bandwidth.

Ok I guess have to give that an e for effort, thanks for the rehash of your previous post...
but you do have something to go with, I wonder if others think the dirt is actually grass but you just can't "see it"?

and thank you Paul for clarification and focus on topic...
Now that is another interesting issue, I have read some very good articles that regarding this low flying, I have heard that it is a favoured technique of many alphabet agencies both east and west, (with enough sophisticated technology) that can cause a planes instrumentation to give false readings that cause the crash in the first place...

In other cases they can cause the plane to crash into a mountain, this reminds me of JFK junior's crash...

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by grannyfranny100 (here)
Suggest listening to Joel Skousen http://www.talkshoe.com/resources/ta...30709.3of3.mp3 starts at approximately12:00 concerning the lack of hands on training by Korean pilots who are good at memorizing but lack experience without autopilot.

I wouldn't dismiss it as a MSN hoax but definitely something that will not be covered by lamestream media.

I found Joel Skousen's explanation of the different standards for Korean commercial pilots to be convincing.

I also give credence to the report that some of the landing instruments on the ground at SFO were disabled due to some maintenance, so the plane was landing using hands flying, not auto pilot.

I remain comfortable with the basic scenario - that he was coming in "low and slow", and that the co-pilot (perhaps with too little time himself flying off autopilot) was tardy in grabbing control or powering up for a fly-over.

===

At the same time, the discrepancies reported in sigma6's posts do not surprise me. My disrespect for American news media is deeper and stronger than anything I might think about Korean commercial pilots.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Looking at these two photos:

• The grass in the first one is not three feet (as the video in the opening post said) but more like three inches.
• The grass or ground above the lime green fire truck in the second image appears to have similar tire marks as the grass in the first image, and similar coloring (allowing for the darker image.)
• The pavement that cuts across the foreground of the first image may or may not be in the part of the second image that obscures the ground with the fire truck and some sort of white stuff (the foam?)

In sum, I don't see unambiguous differences that force me to conclude that these are images of different planes or on different days (much less different years, as the video in the opening post said).

[Mike]

Posted by Paul (here)
Should I rename this thread to "Who is the troll today?" .

A poll, perhaps?

(More sarcasm...)

[sigma6]

Also all this emphasis on Pilot error in an age of remote control of instrumentation... Also if that is true that "landing instruments on the ground at SFO were disabled" that could be significant, what if that was the case AND his instrumentation was giving false readings. That would be a doozy! So there is lots of angles to consider.

Reminds me of the emphasis on the lone gun theory in JFK's murder, in that case, by doing so it limited Federal investigation, and left to be manipulated by the very State that should have been suspected. (not that the FBI looked like they would have done anything)

So I am saying the idea of putting so much pre-emptive focus on something so early is questionable... and what could be the implications, or further contexts, possible mis-directions? For example what is the insurance liability interpretation? If the fault was the ground station? vs if the fault was the pilot? or even worse, the combination of the two, all suppositions mind you...

[KiwiElf]

Paul brings up some interesting facts regarding diminishing "pilotage" skills. FLYING magazine has run several articles over the last few months regarding high-tech cockpits versus training (or lack thereof) and basic hand flying skills. The Cirrus, a top selling general aviation aircraft with a "glass cockpit" (essentially 2 or 3 TV screens instead of little round dials), and the only one flying with a built in parachute for the whole aircraft, is widely heralded as one, if not THE safest aircraft flying. The accident statistics would say otherwise - it has a disproportionately higher accident rate compared to other aircraft in its class. Over 95% = pilot error, ie too much (over) confidence in the technology. Pilots trained on this aircraft and others like it with glass cockpits also showed a noticeably higher lack of pilotage (hand flying) skills. Same can be said for modern cars, which may indeed be safer on paper, but drivers on the whole have become more complacent, lazier and UNsafer, as accident statistics would bear out.

[sigma6]

That also brings up the issue of driving by instrumentation vs driving (or flying) by direct sensory, and in the case of a huge 777 I am going to guess you would be hard pressed to differentiate the experience from a simulator... and in both cases, the more instrumentation the easier to remote control the systems... and if that happened, without any expectation on the part of the operator (and even with) your toast... we know this happens, question is does this apply here?

have they made the black box recording public yet?

[KiwiElf]

The simulators are pretty good actually - but your mind tricks you - it's just a simulation - you cannot die or be injured. Life is not like that. But culture has probably played a roll here too. Not just Korean culture but flying culture. Does a "junior" officer question the skills of his superior (instructor)? No, not if he wants to keep his job. (They will both probably lose their jobs in this case anyway, and as it happened on US soil, they can be sued - astronomical amounts). Also budget airlines versus full-pay-service airline. The budget airlines are cost cutting (often on maintenance and pilot training) no matter how you look at it.

Even the most experienced pilots have fracked up. It happens. That's life.

Yes, the initial black box results are in - give me a moment and I'll paste them here.

- EDIT -

"Vref was apparently 137 kts. Rate of Descent after passing 1400ft increased to 1380 fpm down until 600 ft.
Idle power to 400 ft. Late "SPEED" callout and then TOGA applied. Ideally the aircraft should have been onslope at 142 kts (137 + 5) at around 650 to 700 fpm ROD.
It would all appear consistent with an unstabilised approach. With a heavy aircraft, a high ROD and speed well below VRef the aircraft would be well on the backside of the drag curve with a significant delay in a transition from descent to climb."

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
That also brings up the issue of driving by instrumentation vs driving (or flying) by direct sensory, and in the case of a huge 777 I am going to guess you would be hard pressed to differentiate the experience from a simulator... and in both cases, the more instrumentation the easy to remote control the systems...

I'll agree that we (well, "they") can certainly remotely control such planes, and that they sometimes do so, and sometimes they are up to no good when they do so.

Much will depend, in my mind, on what future actions are taken by the powers that be, using this crash as a justification.

Sometimes pilot error and plane crashes really are pilot error and plane crashes. Sometimes they aren't.

If they treat this like a reasonably honest crash investigation, and if any policy or procedure or mechanical changes that come out of this investigation seem reasonable to me, in light of the evidence presented (or suspected to be suppressed), then fine.

If this turns into another "operation" for nefarious purposes, then may the bastards in power go to hell in a handcart, real soon now.

[gittarpikk]

Please note I have placed my quotes in red ...inside of the original quote

Posted by indigopete (here)

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)
In "The Celestine Prophecy", this would be immediately recognized as the "Poor Me" drama being acted out.

A lot has changed in the last few years regarding internet discourse. I remember when I first started "posting" on a public forum - it was quite a big step to make. You would certainly not post something that you hadn't put quite a bit of thought into because you knew you had a public audience and would get an instant reaction. Nowadays, people think nothing of sounding off on their iPhone at a bus stop at the drop of a hat.

I agree 100%!!... having been an international moderator ...pre-internet...(back in the BBS days) people gave a LOT more thought to what they said as there was plenty of eyeballs viewing and a lot more critical thinking going on with plenty of time to edit anything written before it got 'uploaded'


For example, regarding the point about the closed 3rd exit door - if you've ever read a safety instruction card in an airplane you'll know why that exit was left shut. Overwing exits are NEVER to be used in the event of fire. In fact there will have been cabin crew standing next to it stopping people from opening it because it sits right on top of the fuel tank. (I realise that exit isn't right on top of the wing, but it will qualify as the 'overwing' one for operational purposes). They are for use mainly in emergency sea ditchings (in which the front and rear exits are to be kept closed and ONLY the overwing exit used).

you are exactly right my friend...flight crews are well trained



I'm not surprised the video doesn't mention that - it's purpose is not to inform, just to attract attention where none is merited (see what the "The Celestine Prophecy" has to say about that).

What I am surprised (and frustrated) at is the amount of un challenged acceptance this stuff gets on this forum. The same with the chemtrails stuff. So much of it is clearly bogus - it's stuff that people can check out for themselves and yet they don't bother. They'd rather stay in the conspiratorial comfort zone where there's a categorical "knowing".

another 'home run'!!... I've seen so many chicken little posts about chemtrails ...from people who know absolutely nothing about what really causes a contrail...and even less about what effect various types of weather , humidity and pressure has on contrails. If they see a contrail....their damn sure its a chemtrail...period and offer the lamest non-scientific 'conspiracy theory' regurgitation's as to how you tell the difference.

I know for a fact that there ARE planes that seed clouds etc...and take part upper atmosphere testing by spraying...it is a fact (been going on way before jets and is used to modify /assist weather such as rain where needed)...but waaaaay too many of simple contrails are considered chemtrails for reasons as you described. I am not saying evil does not exist...especially within this guberment...but IMHO, way to much 'credit' is given them concerning this chemtrail issue.

BTW... the video of that plane crashing was accurate...not cgi on the basis that it did exactly what a plane would do with the tail broken off .This is exactly what would happen if a plane was too low and hit the edge of the runway at a very nose high attitude...caused by a stall...and is what delta winged craft do when power is applied and wing stalls... A delta will go into 'high alpha' if stalled very easily
In this instance ,the tail less plane pancaked crushing the landing gear...and skidded at high speed until enough air was under the wing to lift it and allow the changed center of gravity and lack of tail to keep the nose pointed forward whipping it around to the new direction.

The passengers , I am sure, would experience a lot of g forces but were strapped in as was the luggage and the plane maintained sufficient integrity to not break apart as it was skidding flat on the ground and due to this saved a LOT of peoples lives.... great engineering here and a fine example of how it is meant to work.

The wing did NOT strike anything that would have dislodged them and is why they did not tear off....again exactly what would happen if you built a few solid models (balanced like the full scale plane) and threw them on the ground in a similar angle breaking off the tail .

One could easily mimic that crash

This is a sort of 'ground loop'...and happens a lot on a poorly landed RC plane.(unfortunately ,we get to see more than a fair share of such landings due to learning rc pilots and get to go 'pick up the pieces') I design a LOT of planes...very unusual non-conventional ones and fully understand the dynamics of any plane that is missing 'parts'...or not

Good observation...and you easily caught the true agenda of the author of the video.