![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Great article, SuperJumbo, thanks! I was an eyewitness to the landing of PA845, from a nearby hilltop. There was ongoing radio news coverage after the takeoff accident, and my mother and I (I was a teenager at the time) walked a few blocks from home with binoculars and a VHF aviation-band radio. There were a few dozen people who watched and listened. Very memorable. MCB 00:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
A coworker, who was aboard this aircraft, read this at my desk on 15 May 2006. He says the account is extremely accurate and adds these nits:
I was a passenger on this flight. I was 13 years old at the time and this was my first flight without a parent accompanying me. My recollection:
A few months later, my family took a vacation in the Marianas and flew first class on a Pan Am 707 from Toyko to Guam. It was a lightly loaded evening flight and the captain came back to spend some time with the passengers. I remember him speaking of the captain of flight 845 reverentially and saying that with 3 of 4 hydraulic systems out of service, it was truly a remarkable piece of flying to have saved the aircraft (preventing it from "cartwheeling into the bay", I think he said). There was a documentary TV series called "Escape" several years ago, one episode of which dealt with the development in aircraft escape slides. This episode includes video of the slides on this 747 being blown around by high winds after landing, and that this led to the development of much more rigid slides in future aircraft. Twelveup ( talk) 16:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do they always claim Pilot Error?
My Grandfather was the Captain of Pan Am flight 845. Contrary to the tone of the Wikipedia article on this accident, which seems to place the bulk of the blame on the Pilot of the Aircraft, I have been informed by many active and retired pilots that he displayed amazing skill and performed admirably under some of the worst circumstances possible.
I have been raised on stories of this accident. According to the information I have been told the following occurred:
1) My grandfather was instructed to depart on 1R. He was aware that the first 1000 feet of the runway were not usable due to the blast requirements for the freeway, decreasing the length of the runway. This was apparently common knowledge for pilots flying out of San Francisco, but the Pan Am flight directors were "unaware" of it as it was a procedural issue that applied only to large thrust airplanes that routinely used runway 28R and not an issue with either smaller planes nor an actual shortening of the physical runway. He questioned the length of the runway, and requested to use runway 28.
That a discussion took place as to the length of the runway is part of the NTSB record. After consultation with the tower (in which the tower and the Pan Am director mis-communicated) my Grandfather was provided an incorrect runway length. Had the runway been the length he was instructed, the plane would have had sufficient distance to clear the runway without incident. The velocity speed calculation would not have been an issue as the plane would have cleared the end of the runway with almost 1000 feet.
2) My Grandfather also questioned the plane's ability to take off on runway 1R at her calculated weight. He insisted on clarification from the manufacturer (Boeing). Boeing (in Seattle) was contacted by the Pan Am office in San Francisco by phone, and they instructed Pan Am that the plane would lift off runway 1R, well clear of the end of the runway at her reported weight.
3) My Grandfather had concerns about taking off from runway 1R in a 747. He questioned the Tower, he questioned Pan Am, and he went so far as to ask clarification from Boeing. He was informed that if he did not immediately roll the plane into take-off position that he would be removed as Captain and another pilot brought in to ensure the plane's timely departure.
He was basically told that he was wrong, and to shut up and fly the plane or they would get someone who would.
That the plane made it off the ground was a miracle.
The NTSB report shows that my Grandfather was correct in his belief that the runway was too short. Both the physical situation of the runway (the clearway which was not clear), and the requirement to not use throttle for the first 1000 feet of the runway decreased the length to such a degree that no thrust heavy plane should have been using it. The cross wind exceeded the parameters for the use of 1R further decreasing takeoff conditions, and had he been properly informed of the runway length, he would have taxied the plane back to the gate regardless of Pan Am's instructions.
The NTSB report also shows that the engines did not perform to take off thrust per manufacturer specifications. It took an additional 200-300 feet of runway to achieve take off velocity, above and beyond Boeing's calculation. That is a significant amount of runway. The NTSB report clearly states that Boeing was unable to explain why the engines underperformed to this degree, but no mention of the lack of performance is stated as a causal factor.
This reduced engine performance further compounded the mistake that Boeing had made in their calculations for the runways at SFO. Had the plane performed to Boeing's published specifications, even with the rotation at 161 knots, and an under-reported runway length, the plane would have lifted clear of the landing lights that ripped through her fuselage.
The report also shows that the plane was overweight for the runway. Maximum lift off for the 747 for this length of runway was 697,400 lbs. The actual weight of the aircraft was 708,000 meaning that the aircraft was almost 11,000 lbs overweight. 11,000 lbs overweight is not a minor issue. That Boeing did not recognize my Grandfather's concerns when contacted by Pan Am in San Francisco regarding this issue is particularly troubling. No mention is made in the NTSB report regarding the call to Boeing Seattle or my Grandfather's question about the length of the runway and the effect of the additional weight on the take off of the plane.
It is significant that the NTSB report allows that no cockpit voice recorded data was available to review for the time period before the take off. While the Pan Am and the tower do refer to communication between the plane and both of those entities, there is no actual record of what was said. At the inquest, My Grandfather was allowed to answer only "yes" and "no" to questions that he was asked. He was not allowed to clarify any response, nor to explain or add information to the record. It is easy to steer the results of an investigation if you limit the response of the main participants.
I think the true proof of his ability as a pilot are the facts that he was able to get the plane off the ground at all, and that while attempting to land his severely crippled aircraft, an attempt that had never previously been attempted in that model, he was able to do so with no loss of life. The only injuries sustained during the landing occurred when passengers tried to use the emergency escape slides after landing. It took exceptional skill to bring that wounded plane safely in for landing. The loss of elevator control which did not become apparent until it was too late to abort the landing, the failure of the engines to go into reverse, the collapse of the landing gear, I have been told by numerous pilots that this was a truly remarkable feat of flying. And finally, I think the following two items speak for themselves.
At the time this accident took place, the 747 was a new model for Boeing, and both Pan Am and Boeing were depending on its use for the economic success of their respective companies. How comfortable would you be flying on a plane if you heard that the manufacturer did not know the weight limits of its own planes, or that the plane's engines did not perform the way they should? And really, how much faith would a traveler have flying in and out of San Francisco International Airport if it had been reported that the airport did not know long its runways were? Both of these statements were accurate, and were economic poison.
The Wikipedia article places the blame for this accident almost solely on the shoulders of the pilot. The NTSB was facing significant pressure to present the accident as the result of pilot error. When you read the report in full, take into account the lack of cockpit voice data, the refusal of the committee to allow the pilot, or co-pilot to answer except in one word responses, and the pressure being brought to bear to keep consumer confidence in Pan Am, Boeing, and the San Francisco International Airport. Read the report in full, not just the first page, and you will see that there is more to the story that the pilot using the wrong velocity calculations.
Well said. But sadly Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not interested in the truth only accepted "fact". I suggest you write a book about the event, your grandfather deserves it. That would also provide reference. Meanwhile getting that crippled Jumbo down without loss of life was great piloting and great heroism and how may families lived out their lives happy because of your grandfather. In good faith AMM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.110.146 ( talk) 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else read the caption to the image (where it references 1971 twice) that the image was taken in 1971 (the year of the incident)? If that is the case, the article suggests it was given it's name 'Clipper Juan T. Trippe' after being repaired and returned to Pan Am some years later and that is what is printed on the aircraft in the image 82.23.66.109 ( talk) 12:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Great article, SuperJumbo, thanks! I was an eyewitness to the landing of PA845, from a nearby hilltop. There was ongoing radio news coverage after the takeoff accident, and my mother and I (I was a teenager at the time) walked a few blocks from home with binoculars and a VHF aviation-band radio. There were a few dozen people who watched and listened. Very memorable. MCB 00:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
A coworker, who was aboard this aircraft, read this at my desk on 15 May 2006. He says the account is extremely accurate and adds these nits:
I was a passenger on this flight. I was 13 years old at the time and this was my first flight without a parent accompanying me. My recollection:
A few months later, my family took a vacation in the Marianas and flew first class on a Pan Am 707 from Toyko to Guam. It was a lightly loaded evening flight and the captain came back to spend some time with the passengers. I remember him speaking of the captain of flight 845 reverentially and saying that with 3 of 4 hydraulic systems out of service, it was truly a remarkable piece of flying to have saved the aircraft (preventing it from "cartwheeling into the bay", I think he said). There was a documentary TV series called "Escape" several years ago, one episode of which dealt with the development in aircraft escape slides. This episode includes video of the slides on this 747 being blown around by high winds after landing, and that this led to the development of much more rigid slides in future aircraft. Twelveup ( talk) 16:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do they always claim Pilot Error?
My Grandfather was the Captain of Pan Am flight 845. Contrary to the tone of the Wikipedia article on this accident, which seems to place the bulk of the blame on the Pilot of the Aircraft, I have been informed by many active and retired pilots that he displayed amazing skill and performed admirably under some of the worst circumstances possible.
I have been raised on stories of this accident. According to the information I have been told the following occurred:
1) My grandfather was instructed to depart on 1R. He was aware that the first 1000 feet of the runway were not usable due to the blast requirements for the freeway, decreasing the length of the runway. This was apparently common knowledge for pilots flying out of San Francisco, but the Pan Am flight directors were "unaware" of it as it was a procedural issue that applied only to large thrust airplanes that routinely used runway 28R and not an issue with either smaller planes nor an actual shortening of the physical runway. He questioned the length of the runway, and requested to use runway 28.
That a discussion took place as to the length of the runway is part of the NTSB record. After consultation with the tower (in which the tower and the Pan Am director mis-communicated) my Grandfather was provided an incorrect runway length. Had the runway been the length he was instructed, the plane would have had sufficient distance to clear the runway without incident. The velocity speed calculation would not have been an issue as the plane would have cleared the end of the runway with almost 1000 feet.
2) My Grandfather also questioned the plane's ability to take off on runway 1R at her calculated weight. He insisted on clarification from the manufacturer (Boeing). Boeing (in Seattle) was contacted by the Pan Am office in San Francisco by phone, and they instructed Pan Am that the plane would lift off runway 1R, well clear of the end of the runway at her reported weight.
3) My Grandfather had concerns about taking off from runway 1R in a 747. He questioned the Tower, he questioned Pan Am, and he went so far as to ask clarification from Boeing. He was informed that if he did not immediately roll the plane into take-off position that he would be removed as Captain and another pilot brought in to ensure the plane's timely departure.
He was basically told that he was wrong, and to shut up and fly the plane or they would get someone who would.
That the plane made it off the ground was a miracle.
The NTSB report shows that my Grandfather was correct in his belief that the runway was too short. Both the physical situation of the runway (the clearway which was not clear), and the requirement to not use throttle for the first 1000 feet of the runway decreased the length to such a degree that no thrust heavy plane should have been using it. The cross wind exceeded the parameters for the use of 1R further decreasing takeoff conditions, and had he been properly informed of the runway length, he would have taxied the plane back to the gate regardless of Pan Am's instructions.
The NTSB report also shows that the engines did not perform to take off thrust per manufacturer specifications. It took an additional 200-300 feet of runway to achieve take off velocity, above and beyond Boeing's calculation. That is a significant amount of runway. The NTSB report clearly states that Boeing was unable to explain why the engines underperformed to this degree, but no mention of the lack of performance is stated as a causal factor.
This reduced engine performance further compounded the mistake that Boeing had made in their calculations for the runways at SFO. Had the plane performed to Boeing's published specifications, even with the rotation at 161 knots, and an under-reported runway length, the plane would have lifted clear of the landing lights that ripped through her fuselage.
The report also shows that the plane was overweight for the runway. Maximum lift off for the 747 for this length of runway was 697,400 lbs. The actual weight of the aircraft was 708,000 meaning that the aircraft was almost 11,000 lbs overweight. 11,000 lbs overweight is not a minor issue. That Boeing did not recognize my Grandfather's concerns when contacted by Pan Am in San Francisco regarding this issue is particularly troubling. No mention is made in the NTSB report regarding the call to Boeing Seattle or my Grandfather's question about the length of the runway and the effect of the additional weight on the take off of the plane.
It is significant that the NTSB report allows that no cockpit voice recorded data was available to review for the time period before the take off. While the Pan Am and the tower do refer to communication between the plane and both of those entities, there is no actual record of what was said. At the inquest, My Grandfather was allowed to answer only "yes" and "no" to questions that he was asked. He was not allowed to clarify any response, nor to explain or add information to the record. It is easy to steer the results of an investigation if you limit the response of the main participants.
I think the true proof of his ability as a pilot are the facts that he was able to get the plane off the ground at all, and that while attempting to land his severely crippled aircraft, an attempt that had never previously been attempted in that model, he was able to do so with no loss of life. The only injuries sustained during the landing occurred when passengers tried to use the emergency escape slides after landing. It took exceptional skill to bring that wounded plane safely in for landing. The loss of elevator control which did not become apparent until it was too late to abort the landing, the failure of the engines to go into reverse, the collapse of the landing gear, I have been told by numerous pilots that this was a truly remarkable feat of flying. And finally, I think the following two items speak for themselves.
At the time this accident took place, the 747 was a new model for Boeing, and both Pan Am and Boeing were depending on its use for the economic success of their respective companies. How comfortable would you be flying on a plane if you heard that the manufacturer did not know the weight limits of its own planes, or that the plane's engines did not perform the way they should? And really, how much faith would a traveler have flying in and out of San Francisco International Airport if it had been reported that the airport did not know long its runways were? Both of these statements were accurate, and were economic poison.
The Wikipedia article places the blame for this accident almost solely on the shoulders of the pilot. The NTSB was facing significant pressure to present the accident as the result of pilot error. When you read the report in full, take into account the lack of cockpit voice data, the refusal of the committee to allow the pilot, or co-pilot to answer except in one word responses, and the pressure being brought to bear to keep consumer confidence in Pan Am, Boeing, and the San Francisco International Airport. Read the report in full, not just the first page, and you will see that there is more to the story that the pilot using the wrong velocity calculations.
Well said. But sadly Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not interested in the truth only accepted "fact". I suggest you write a book about the event, your grandfather deserves it. That would also provide reference. Meanwhile getting that crippled Jumbo down without loss of life was great piloting and great heroism and how may families lived out their lives happy because of your grandfather. In good faith AMM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.110.146 ( talk) 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else read the caption to the image (where it references 1971 twice) that the image was taken in 1971 (the year of the incident)? If that is the case, the article suggests it was given it's name 'Clipper Juan T. Trippe' after being repaired and returned to Pan Am some years later and that is what is printed on the aircraft in the image 82.23.66.109 ( talk) 12:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)