# Fire Truck Possibly Ran Over Airplane Crash Victim



## MMiz (Jul 9, 2013)

*Probe So Far Inconclusive On Whether Fire Truck Ran Over Plane Crash Victim*

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — Investigators have reviewed San Francisco International Airport surveillance video to determine whether an emergency vehicle ran over one of two teenage girls killed in Saturday’s plane crash, but “it wasn’t conclusive,” a federal official said Monday.

Read more!

Working the night shift, this was one of my fears when working MVCs, and other uncontrolled scenes.  Would any technology or training have prevented this (if it's true)?


----------



## shfd739 (Jul 9, 2013)

A local FD actually did this earlier this year/end of last year. 

Highly intoxicated unresponsive patient was lying in the middle of the road, middle of the night plus heavy fog. Crew didn't realize guy was in the road until after the "bump" from a front wheel after rolling over him with an F450 chassis truck. 

Initial caller had reported pt being further down the road and on the side of the road. They were scanning the roadsides and just missed him being in the middle of the road.

Being on nights it's a fear of mine as well. My way of preventing is to slow down further away from the scene than some would/take our time approaching watching for any hazards and splitting the road with my partner to scan and watch.


----------



## EMDispatch (Jul 9, 2013)

Roughly 40 tons traveling 50-70 mph plus chaos equals a tragedy. Those ARFF units are generally equipped with all the extreme high tech gadgets including IR HUDs for the drivers and turret controller. 

After watching the videos, i thought the first units on scene made attack on the opposite side of the craft from the slides. I haven't watched them since this report came out though. Also, if she was injured or killed prior being struck, I'd imagine a vehicle strike like that would just about ruin chances of determining that.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 9, 2013)

Yeah, a crash truck is more like the weight of two busses on the chassis of a single beefed-up one. Smoke, fire, foam, people moving around, debris, not hard to do. I know flight attendants are trained to scream at the pasengers to get them out, I wonder how they are supposed to marshal them outside?


----------



## DPM (Jul 9, 2013)

SFFD and NTSB aren't saying much. One of the two confirmed fatalities *may* have been struck by one of the fire/rescue vehicles. 

So far investigators don't know if she was actually hit. So they're trying to find that out, and if it's the case they then need to find out whether it contributed to her death or happened post-mortem.


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jul 9, 2013)

Hit and ran over because a person is laid out in the tallish grass is 2 totally different things. 

First, it's not confirmed yet but is certainly a possibility. 

Second we as professionals should hold judgement until we know for sure what happened since we all know about the sensationalism that goes on in public news channels.


----------



## wanderingmedic (Jul 9, 2013)

Corky said:


> Second we as professionals should hold judgement until we know for sure what happened since we all know about the sensationalism that goes on in public news channels.



Wisdom.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jul 9, 2013)

Emergency crews responded to a tragic accident involving hundreds of people many more of whom could have been killed or critically injured (than there were). 

To be honest it would be tragic if this person was killed by an emergency response vehicle (or if it contributed to her death).

But, even if a vehicle did hit her, overall the emergency response crews did a fantastic job quickly moving people out of the hot zone into an area that enable triage and prompt medical treatment of hundreds of people. I think the focus should be on all the excellent positive lessons we can learn for response in our own areas whether it be trains, cars, ferries, planes, light rails, etc....we all know the dangers of responding in emergency response vehicles, but do we all know the positive aspects of what went on there...


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 9, 2013)

azemtb255 said:


> Wisdom.



Smartness squared. The first reports are ALWAYS wrong.
Damn odd burn pattern, wings are still white and just busted up. Maybe the wing cells were empty?


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Jul 9, 2013)

I was there from the very beginning and it was the most awe inspiring view of the ICS at work you could possibly get.  

 I made the Wall Street Journal twice  and now People Magazine but I'll let you detectives figure out which one i am


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 9, 2013)

Corky said:


> I was there from the very beginning and it was the most awe inspiring view of the ICS at work you could possibly get.
> 
> I made the Wall Street Journal twice  but I'll let you detectives figure out which one i am



Public Radio cited local hospitals highly praising "the airport's triage department".


----------



## DPM (Jul 11, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> Damn odd burn pattern, wings are still white and just busted up. Maybe the wing cells were empty?



Accounts show that the Crash tenders were on scene putting out retardant on the wings etc. pretty quickly. It sounds like the majority of the fire came from an oil tank above the right engine rupturing and spilling oil into the hot engine.

In perfect conditions the fuel tanks will only have their "emergency" fuel left in them on landing. Any extra fuel is just dead weight that costs money to transport. The fuselage is burnt out after the contents burnt through / melted the skin.

In other news- did anyone watch the first responder press conference? Apparently two or three of the firefighters ran up an escape slide to make entry to the cabin... Toughness levels are off the charts on that one.


----------



## AK_SAR (Jul 11, 2013)

DPM said:


> mycrofft said:
> 
> 
> > Damn odd burn pattern, wings are still white and just busted up. Maybe the wing cells were empty?
> ...


What's odd is that the burned areas seem to be concentrated in a couple of  spots on the top of the fuselage. Some of the photos show a smaller burned area around the right engine, but most of the fire damage appears to be on top of the fuselage. 

As I recall the cabin emergency oxygen tanks are often in the overhead luggage bins in airliners.  I'm wondering if that might be related to why the burned areas are where they are?  Just speculating.


----------



## DPM (Jul 11, 2013)

Pretty much everything in a air craft has to be self extinguishing, the exceptions to this rule being the content of the over head bins (i.e. the passenger's luggage.)

This isn't an uncommon burn pattern in passenger aircraft.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 12, 2013)

The wings usually shear off and tear apart, and any fuel in them atomizes into a fireball. These broke off like someone snapped them. Odd physics, the pane must have basically slammed down onto the runway like a pancake, as compared to a regular landing rollout. 

Overhead bins are near the emergency oxygen generators which are exothermic, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator

Ceiling burning through is not uncommon. but seeing that without other fire is odd.

PS: ever slide down an emergency slide? They can be pretty rough-textured. THat's why you keep your arms crossed, to avoid friction burns. Still, double-tough to run up one.


----------



## Akulahawk (Jul 12, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> The wings usually shear off and tear apart, and any fuel in them atomizes into a fireball. These broke off like someone snapped them. Odd physics, the pane must have basically slammed down onto the runway like a pancake, as compared to a regular landing rollout.
> 
> Overhead bins are near the emergency oxygen generators which are exothermic, no?
> 
> ...


To me, it looks like the tail hit, causing the fuselage to slam onto the runway as if a very hard landing (broke the main gear) and then slid down the runway for a bit, then probably as it slid off the runway, it spun a little bit, getting air under the wings, picking up the back end of the fuselage and causing it to again slam to the ground. You're right though, not having MORE fire is odd, however, if the fuel tanks didn't rupture...


----------



## DPM (Jul 12, 2013)

Akulahawk said:


> To me, it looks like the tail hit, causing the fuselage to slam onto the runway as if a very hard landing (broke the main gear) and then slid down the runway for a bit, then probably as it slid off the runway, it spun a little bit, getting air under the wings, picking up the back end of the fuselage and causing it to again slam to the ground. You're right though, not having MORE fire is odd, however, if the fuel tanks didn't rupture...



Those aircraft are designed well, so that the tanks can remain intact in this very situation. A similar accident happened to a Chinese 777 attempting to land at London Heathrow in 2006. It was found that ice forming in a filter / heat exchange caused a momentary loss in power. The plane hit the grass, lost it's gear etc but stayed mainly intact.

The 777 is a new aircraft with a good track record. There have been 2 incidents where a 777 has crashed on landing, resulting in a complete hull loss. The London crash had no loss of life and approximately 50 injuries, and also the more severe SFO crash. Self sealing fuel cells, flame retardant and self extinguishing furnishings, seats rated up to 16 G, 10 emergency exits... I'm not surprised that this many people walked away.

SFPD have released a statement saying that they do believe that one of the girls that was killed was in fact hit by a rescue vehicle. At the time, her body was out of the aircraft, on the runway close to the sea wall, in an area where 3 flight attendants were also thrown clear of the aircraft. At the time she was struck her body was covered in fire retardant foam making her nearly impossible to see. Her exact cause of death has yet to be determined.

http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/22827636/fire-chief-crews-did-run-over-sfo-plane-crash-victim


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 12, 2013)

DPM said:


> Those aircraft are designed well, so that the tanks can remain intact in this very situation. A similar accident happened to a Chinese 777 attempting to land at London Heathrow in 2006. It was found that ice forming in a filter / heat exchange caused a momentary loss in power. The plane hit the grass, lost it's gear etc but stayed mainly intact.
> 
> The 777 is a new aircraft with a good track record. There have been 2 incidents where a 777 has crashed on landing, resulting in a complete hull loss. The London crash had no loss of life and approximately 50 injuries, and also the more severe SFO crash. Self sealing fuel cells, flame retardant and self extinguishing furnishings, seats rated up to 16 G, 10 emergency exits... I'm not surprised that this many people walked away.
> 
> ...



The 777 sounds like an aircraft which has finally "got it right". This was a sort of weird impact but not bizarre. Ejected people in crash-landing aircraft normally do not survive. Good luck and good engineering plus absence of TOTAL chaos ruled the day.

A victim covered with foam or wandering the scene and getting run down was always in the backs of our minds. Not pleasant. The driver(s) will be in trouble and deep self-questioning for quite a while.


----------



## Akulahawk (Jul 12, 2013)

Among the reasons why the hull survived largely intact, IMHO, is that the impact occurred basically right at stall, which was probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 115 KIAS, if not a bit lower, instead of a more normal approach of 135-150 KIAS. 

That airframe did benefit greatly from what appears to be a very good design that took crashworthiness into account.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 12, 2013)

*I made a mistake*



mycrofft said:


> The wings usually shear off and tear apart, and any fuel in them atomizes into a fireball. _*These broke off like someone snapped them*_. Odd physics, the plane must have basically slammed down onto the runway like a pancake, as compared to a regular landing rollout.
> 
> .



The wings are still apparently attached to the fuselage pretty well, considering, still even exhibit dihedral. My goof.


----------



## Akulahawk (Jul 12, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> The wings are still apparently attached to the fuselage pretty well, considering, still even exhibit dihedral. My goof.


Don't feel too bad... they'll be snapped off during runway cleanup. Might take a bit to snap them though. They're pretty darned strong!


----------



## MMiz (Jul 19, 2013)

It turns out the girl was alive before being killed by the fire truck.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-ln-asiana-girl-fire-truck-20130719,0,3168780.story


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 19, 2013)

Oh, excremento. Well, let the investigation dictate the lessons to be learned. 

I know personally it can be tempting to "open 'er up" on a runway with the scene in sight, but there are reasons all runway/taxiway movements are controlled.* I don't know what happened at SFO*, just saying any incident is an opportunity to review or learn airport ops. (The casualty could also be an ambulance or fire truck given the right circumstances and the wrong moves).


----------



## abckidsmom (Jul 19, 2013)

I'm going to go on record as saying that this is an extremely unfortunate accident, and given the scene when they pulled up, totally defensible. 

My prayers are with the fire crews that responded, and I hope their anonymity is maintained. What a difficult situation for everyone involved.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 20, 2013)

abckidsmom said:


> I'm going to go on record as saying that this is an extremely unfortunate accident, and given the scene when they pulled up, totally defensible.
> 
> My prayers are with the fire crews that responded, and I hope their anonymity is maintained. What a difficult situation for everyone involved.



The Chinese government has taken this opportunity to demand answers etc. More difficult than we know, I fear. I wonder if they are demanding the South Koreans "reveal" why the pilot and trainer were such a poor pairing? This could lead to some real political haygathering by the PRC, unfortunately.


----------



## Clipper1 (Jul 20, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> The Chinese government has taken this opportunity to demand answers etc. More difficult than we know, I fear. I wonder if they are demanding the South Koreans "reveal" why the pilot and trainer were such a poor pairing? This could lead to some real political haygathering by the PRC, unfortunately.



Let's not get carried away to where we forget the tragic death of a 16 y/o girl.  Nor should excuses be made to gloss over something that went horribly wrong which no one could have imagined happening despite hours of training.  The FFs were the ones who stepped up initially.  The chief is also meeting with the family in person. No one could possibly imagine what this family is going through hearing what their daughter's last few minutes of life involved.  Any parent would want answers. I applaud the FD for being so up front regardless of the.international scrutiny.  There will hopefully be lessons learned so this little girl's death is remembered but not to punish or be a political pawn.


----------



## DPM (Jul 20, 2013)

Sad news. The San Mateo county coroner has ruled that Ye Meng Yuan was in fact struck and killed by a rescue vehicle.



> Officials said she died of multiple blunt injuries that are consistent with being run over by a motor vehicle



More here


----------



## DrParasite (Jul 20, 2013)

two important sentences from the article:





> As the plane burned, the 16-year-old Chinese student was buried by the firefighting foam rescue workers were spraying to douse the flames.
> 
> And in the chaotic moments that followed — flames devouring the fuselage, those aboard escaping by emergency slides, flight attendants frantically cutting away seat belts to free passengers — a fire truck ran over Yuan, killing her.



Truely a tragedy, and one any of us could have made, given the same circumstances


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 3, 2013)

*Asiana plane crash: Firefighter not charged in death*

SAN FRANCISCO (KABC) -- A firefighter who ran over and killed an Asiana Airlines crash survivor at San Francisco International Airport will not be charged with a crime, prosecutors said on Friday.

Chinese student Ye Mengyuan, 16, survived the July 6 crash, only to be run over by a fire truck while she was covered in firefighting foam, authorities said.

Prosecutors said on Friday that their investigation determined it was a "tragic accident," and that the firefighter driving the truck broke no laws.

read the rest here: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?id=9292452


----------



## EMT B (Nov 3, 2013)

pretty sure you aren't supposed to break the foam seal...


----------



## p1l0t (Nov 3, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> The wings usually shear off and tear apart, and any fuel in them atomizes into a fireball. These broke off like someone snapped them. Odd physics, the pane must have basically slammed down onto the runway like a pancake, as compared to a regular landing rollout.
> 
> Overhead bins are near the emergency oxygen generators which are exothermic, no?
> 
> ...











mycrofft said:


> The wings are still apparently attached to the fuselage pretty well, considering, still even exhibit dihedral. My goof.



Well the wings aside your pretty much on the money. The jet hit the ground tail first and then the rest slammed down hard enough to shear the main gears right off. I don't know the exact stall speed of the 777 but if their target approach speed (usually 1.2 times stall) was 137kts then the stall speed is probably around 120kts. The lowest recorded speed by ATC's (Air Traffic Control) radar was 103kts. The low speed and the really high AOA (angle of attack) suggests they may have stalled. This is because the airspeed of a jet is determined by it's AOA regardless of power. (Power determines whether you're climbing out or descending at that speed but only while making lift). So if they were pitched up that high they probably had airflow separation over the wings. They weren't flying, they were falling. I don't think the NTSB has released a full report yet but between the low speed, high AOA (nose-up attitude), and I believe the stick shaker even went off (simulated buffeting a smaller airplane would feel before stall)... It's pretty safe to speculate they hit the ground full stall (real hard). Basically in free fall albeit with a good amount of drag. Luckily for the passengers after the long ten hour flight there wasn't much fuel left in the tanks. The interviews with the pilots suggested they were waiting for the auto-throttles to kick in when they weren't activated and by the time they tried to manually add power they were already too slow and sinking way too fast to recover before hitting the sea wall before the runway. 

[BTW by stall I mean aerodynamic stall not engine stall just to clarify for non-aviation enthusiasts]


----------

