11 ms·
Video shows plane's moment of impact at SFO
- mikeyouse 13y agoThat 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.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoThe plane did do a 360.
- suyash 13y agoI didn't see a 360, it just tipped to the slide after the nose going up.
- johnpowell 13y agoLife is a bit easier if you aren't as.. Tedious.
- abc_lisper 13y agoLook again. Look at the direction of the wings, they are pointed in reverse for a while, and then you see it doing the other half turn.
- LoganCale 13y agoIt did a 180, spinning around with the nose digging into the ground.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoIt turned at least >270. It may have reversed its direction. I'm not sure what the final "heading" of the hull ended up being.
- neurotech1 13y agoIt 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.
- neurotech1 13y agoCorrection: It was an airborne near-360 after the flip up. If the jet had done a 360 on the ground, it wouldn't have stayed together. Still surprising that most passengers survived with minor or no injuries. Sad two young girls died and some received critical or possibly permanent spinal/or and head injuries.
- johnpowell 13y agoYeah, I thought there was a bit of hyperbole going on. I am stunned people walked away from that.
- momavujisic 13y agoI 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.
- Someone 13y agoI 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 http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-06.pdf and http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19890719-1 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 13y agoThe Sioux City DC-10 did not cartwheel. I believe a wing detached which is why people thought it did.
- momavujisic 13y agoI'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".
- alexmarcy 13y agoI 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.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- melling 13y agoHow 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 13y agoWhats 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.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
- mavhc 13y agodear cnn plane filmer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA&feature=youtu.be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA&feature=youtu.be
- lostlogin 13y agoThere 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.
- morsch 13y agoIt'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 13y agoAgreed. 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.
- drcode 13y ago"Nobody cares about you!" That made me laugh harder than anything yet this month.
- aylons 13y agoActually, it looks like the video was edited to become vertical after the fact. Look at the blurry images in the sides of the video.
- 13y ago
- zobzu 13y ago"oh and you're filming it!" Yeah seems like a legit reason for excitement.
- saraid216 13y agoI couldn't keep the sound on and had to mute it.
- suyash 13y agoThat woman was so annoying with her comments..obviously he is filmy it, was she blind?
- robflynn 13y agoPeople 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."
- drcode 13y agoIt 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.
- beachstartup 13y agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0 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.
- general_failure 13y agoI might be missing something obvious but... Why not ask the pilots for their reasons? They are fine right?
- ghayes 13y agoJust 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.
- bdon 13y agoQuestion 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 13y agoI 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?"
- bdon 13y agoThat'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?
- jcnnghm 13y agoThe entire transaction strikes me as a bit tasteless I agree, but it does cause me to pause to consider the entire news business. CNN would pay for a video like this because they'll generate substantial revenue from it. If it were posted on Youtube, Google would generate substantial revenue from it. So I guess the question is, where is the line. Is for-profit news ethical? I definitely get immediately turned off when I see people profiting from stuff like this, but doesn't the media do exactly the same thing, just at scale?
- bdon 13y agoThe distinction here is that I as an individual have a lot more control over what's on YouTube compared to what's published on CNN. The utility of that freedom being that if I had published the video immediately and forfeited my copyright, It would have better informed the audience earlier in the news cycle and led to less speculation.
- AndrewKemendo 13y agoAs 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 13y agoThat'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 13y ago"Allahu Akbar" is "Allah is great" not "Oh my God".
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- omarali 13y agoexample video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8UxUKoYhs8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8UxUKoYhs8
- wldlyinaccurate 13y agoYes, that's a literal translation. We say many similar things in English to express shock: "good God", "my God", "God almighty", etc.
- Terretta 13y agoA particularly colorful example of multiple constructions in a blend of "shock" and "awesome" reactions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRItYDKSqpQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRItYDKSqpQ (Language emphatically not work safe.)
- 13y ago