
Video shows plane's moment of impact at SFO - hofimax
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/index.html
======
mikeyouse
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.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
The plane _did_ do a 360.

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

~~~
abc_lisper
Look 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.

------
AndrewKemendo
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.

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

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

~~~
Terretta
A 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.)

------
alexmarcy
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.

~~~
melling
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
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.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
The fire caused that roof damage.

~~~
jeffbarr
Every photo that I have seems shows the open roof. I can't tell if the fire
burned it through or if the roof was ripped open by the fire fighters and the
rescue teams.

If the former, I wonder if the plane's vertical profile was designed in such a
way as to keep the fire above the passengers (if such a thing is even
possible).

~~~
lsaferite
David Eun's post right after evacuating the aircraft shows the roof still
intact. [https://path.com/p/1lwrZb](https://path.com/p/1lwrZb)

------
beachstartup
[http://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.

~~~
jser
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](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SXVmsm_pmUo)

------
momavujisic
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.

~~~
Someone
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](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)

~~~
momavujisic
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".

~~~
Someone
OK. Let me question myself, then :-) . Energy-wise, I still think it is easy
to flip a plane in a crash. I would only call it cartwheeling if there were
two flips in succession. That would be tight, as the impact on the ground
after the first flip would be quite inelastic.

Also, for both flips, you would have to have the mass of the plane straight
behind the pivot point. That is hard to achieve, as everybody who has done
cartwheels will know (if not, imagine maiign a handstand on one hand with too
much rotation that continues into a landing on one leg)

------
mavhc
dear cnn plane filmer:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA&feature=youtu.be](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA&feature=youtu.be)

~~~
morsch
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
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.

------
bdon
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
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?"

~~~
bdon
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?

~~~
jcnnghm
_The 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
The 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.

~~~
jcnnghm
_informed the audience earlier in the news cycle and led to less speculation_

Interesting. Does reducing audience (public) speculation actually matter? What
if the person that captured the video immediately sent it to the NTSB and FAA
so as not to impede the investigation, but sold it to the media?

CNN had the video endlessly looping for hours today, so my assumption would be
it has serious economic value.

~~~
bdon
My personal opinion is that any objective evidence does matter, although
mostly in the context of the investigation like you mentioned. I hadn't
thought of that particular choice.

In any case, it's reasonable to predict that CNN has better footage already
that they've chosen not to release yet.

------
zobzu
"oh and you're filming it!"

Yeah seems like a legit reason for excitement.

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

~~~
robflynn
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."

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

~~~
ghayes
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.

