Major Plane Crash in San Francisco

[Lord Naarghul]

Boeing 777 crashes at San Francisco International Airport | Fox News

It...looks bad.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

My uncle, aunt and cousin are in San Francisco. I haven't heard from them. It's like Boston all over again.

 

[Almonds]

My uncle, aunt and cousin are in San Francisco. I haven't heard from them. It's like Boston all over again.

The plane crashed into the open runway in the airport - so it hasn't harmed any residential areas. Also, according to the news reported, the reason for the crash is likely a malfunction to the plane, or maybe because of the pilot's mishandling. Nothing's been confirmed as of yet. However, any possibilities of terrorists being involved is practically zero. I'm sure your relatives are safe.

Hopefully everyone who's been injured in this crash receives proper care.

 

[S.S. Shadow Minun]

I might think Boeing will not be responsible for this incident. This is cause of pilot's faulty or something else. As the largest aircraft maker in the USA and in the world, Boeing have checked everything else before selling their aircraft. That 777 was bought by Korea-based Asiana Airlines in 2006, and it's seven-year old already. It was stalled too early so it crashed before its suitable landing position.

 

[Kelleo]

I blame whoever had the bright idea to let an inexperienced pilot make this flight. And one of the two dead people was most likely killed by one of the RESCUE vehicles? Ironic and very pathetic.

 

[Fig]

I love how the plane crash with two dead gets more attention than the train explosion that devastated a town and killed 13 with around 40 still missing and probably dead too.

 

[DerMißingno]

I blame whoever had the bright idea to let an inexperienced pilot make this flight. And one of the two dead people was most likely killed by one of the RESCUE vehicles? Ironic and very pathetic.

It said it was his first landing at San Francisco airport, not his first time landing the plane. The misleading nature of this article is instantly apparent. Later on it goes on to say that the copilot had 3,220 hours in the 777, and you have to land for your first time sometime, so I'd say blaming whoever set up the flight is kind of silly.

That being said, I think we can be thankful that this disaster didn't turn out much worse since all but 2 passengers were able to escape from the event with their lives.

I love how the plane crash with two dead gets more attention than the train explosion that devastated a town and killed 13 with around 40 still missing and probably dead too.

On the contrary, I find the contrast kind of interesting. This article, which opens up by blaming the copilot and the rescue workers, instantly sets up a controversy which kind of covers up the fact that the survival rate was extremely high as far as plane crashes go. The article that you posted seems to do a better job of simply reporting the news rather than not-so-subtly telling the reader who to blame. This article is more commentable than the other one, it has nothing to do with how many people died.

 

[97SaturnSL1]

I love how the plane crash with two dead gets more attention than the train explosion that devastated a town and killed 13 with around 40 still missing and probably dead too.

Most rail accidents happen in low populated areas or industrial rail yards where there is less human interaction wheras most airports are around big citys. Also trains can carry a varity of things besides people too ranging from cars, coal, oil, ect. ect whereas most planes carry people. trains have more controll of movement then planes do and plus a plane can go anywhere there is sky. also most rail accidents today tend to have very few injurys or fatalitys due to failsafes and blackbox recorders. not everything is a guarenteed failsafe but the risk of injurys and fatalitys are reduced from many years ago. there are always accidents like the one in Quebec but most derailments and crashes have very few injurys or fatalitys that mostly consist of the train crew. but as the railroad has become more for commercial and industrial transport and people are either flying or driving, the focus of civilians will follow on the current main mode of transport. Dont get me wrong, that crash in quebec was horrenedous but with aircraft cargo mainly consisting of people, it becomes more attetnion because the plane can end up almost anywhere with 450 people on board and most freight trains have one or two people on board while the train has enviromental factors such as hills, turns, ect that can greatly affect the speed and or the direction

 

[Fig]

Would be nice if any of that was really true.

1)Train accidents kill and injure few :
So far in 2013, the body counts are as follow:
Planes: 46 dead, 244 injured.
Train: 84 dead, 1226 injured

2)Trains stay away from cities, most of their accidents are outside, where airports are inside cities, thus more of a risk to bystanders
There hasn't been a single bystander killed or injured by a plane crash in North America since 2009. Meanwhile, 2012, just like 2013, saw 50+ bystanders killed or injured by trains.
There were durign that same period no incident where people had to evacuate homes due to plane crashes, versus seven (five in the US, two in Canada) from train crashes.

While it's certainly true that airports are in major urban centers, that's also where the railways are. And while most airports have a safety zone around the airport where houses are not found, houses next to railways are a dime-a-dozen in the United States and Canada.

The notion that planes are a bigger threat, and more likely to kill us, is simply not backed by reality.

 

[DerMißingno]

There hasn't been a single bystander killed or injured by a plane crash in North America since 2009. Meanwhile, 2012, just like 2013, saw 50+ bystanders killed or injured by trains.

Does this include suicide?

 

[Fig]

It doesn't count suicides. I think it may include one or two incidents where a car got crashed into by a train at a rail crossing, but the vast majority of the toll in both cases comes from industrial train accidents:

-Coal trains derailing, resulting in people nearby being buried under coal : 4 deaths in 2 separate incidents in 2012.
-Oil trains exploding: 50 deaths in the Mégantic incident, 2013 (estimated)
-Toxic trains dreailing and leaking: 40+ treated for respiratory issues as a result in the Paulsboro, NJ incident in 2012
-Infrastructure damage resulting from train accidents: 5 injured as a result of an overpass collapse during a train collision in Missouri in 2012

 

[The Thin White Duke]

I love how the plane crash with two dead gets more attention than the train explosion that devastated a town and killed 13 with around 40 still missing and probably dead too.

You have a point there. Correct me if I'm wrong but I suppose it's because the plane crash was before the train explosion and when the train explosion happened people were still worrying about the plane crash.

Update: My uncle, aunt and cousin are fine.

 

[Fig]

Nope. Train explosion happened around thirteen hours later - both on the 6th of July, but at 11:28 AM PDT (2:28 Eastern PM) for San Francisco, while Mégantic happened at 1:15 AM Eastern.

 

[DerMißingno]

The only train related thing that I've heard about from news in recent years was a guy from my area who killed his family then laid down on some train tracks. I guess the media just wants to perpetuate the fallacy that air travel is dangerous.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

Nope. Train explosion happened around thirteen hours later - both on the 6th of July, but at 11:28 AM PDT (2:28 Eastern PM) for San Francisco, while Mégantic happened at 1:15 AM Eastern.

Then the plane crash got more publicity because Fox News was all over it, possibly? That's my last theory.

 

[Fig]

Seems about right to me. Fox and NBC both were all over the plane with only a little mention on their front page (NBC) and none at all (Fox) for the train. Though CNN, to its credit, gave the train matter some very thorough coverage, and often gave it the headline status above the plane.

 

[Impossabro]

I love how the plane crash with two dead gets more attention than the train explosion that devastated a town and killed 13 with around 40 still missing and probably dead too.

Plane accidents are rarer and potentially more devastating.

 

[Fig]

Rarer: yes.

Potentially more devastating: Not really. Excluding terrorist action (ie, september 11), and people who were killed on trains due to major ongoing disaster (Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004), ultimately the three biggest railway accident of the twenty first century all killed more people than the biggest air accident of the same - the biggest air accident this century killed 275, while rail accidents have killed 281, 320 and 383 people in the same time period.

Throughout history, only one air accident (again, this excludes terrorist action) even got past 500 deaths. Several train accidents have got above 500, and quite a few have come close to 1000 deaths or more.

Now I'll give you that air disasters tend to be more spectacular.

 

[xXAragon]

My uncle, aunt and cousin are in San Francisco. I haven't heard from them. It's like Boston all over again.

The plane crashed into the open runway in the airport - so it hasn't harmed any residential areas. Also, according to the news reported, the reason for the crash is likely a malfunction to the plane, or maybe because of the pilot's mishandling. Nothing's been confirmed as of yet. However, any possibilities of terrorists being involved is practically zero. I'm sure your relatives are safe.

Hopefully everyone who's been injured in this crash receives proper care.

I may not have paid attention to any other years, but from what I can see 2012-2013 has been horrible for planes.

 

[Fig]

Some of the least accident prone years in the history of commercial aviation - and far better than 2010 or 2011: 26 incidents in 2010, 25 in 2011, dropping down to 13 in 2012.