Look out below

[libertango]

I'm just home from Federal Way, and I saw this while it flew overhead.

Basically, an Asiana Air 777 was flying by. You could hear it before you saw it closely -- ba-da-DUM, ba-da-DUM. With each sound, one could see flames in the port engine, and on the third beat the flames would be in a long trail. It was almost like an old car backfiring.

Well above me, so I never felt in danger, but scary nonetheless.

Comments

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

It landed safely, we saw it on the TV at the gym. I was thinking of you, in fact, wondering if you'd heard or seen it. Glad it worked out. Not as exciting as landing in the Hudson River, but I bet exciting enough for the people aboard.

[m-cobweb.livejournal.com]

Yes, I can see how that would be a little alarming. Yikes.

[jackwilliambell.livejournal.com]

Well, being as everyone was safe and everything turned out OK, I guess it is acceptable for me to say "Cool!"

Five and a half years ago I had my own fortuitous sighting of something rare in flight, although the circumstances were completely different. And, considering no one will ever see it again, much sadder...

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there was a gal in the parking lot who was very concerned. "They've got to know about that, right?"

But I wouldn't (and didn't) call 911 about it. Nothing actionable by them until it comes down. Not much point calling the airport, either, unless you wanted to make the assumption the radio was out, and that seemed unlikely.

Now, had it actually crashed, I might've called the NTSB in case they wanted testimony. I've yet to see photo/video that shows what I saw -- and they were right overhead.

[shikzoid.livejournal.com]

I would assume a call from the air traffic controllers would carry a tad more weight.

I was surprised the other day to hear that Airbus planes don't usually have the ability to dump fuel. Seems like a nasty oversight, eh?

[shikzoid.livejournal.com]

The P-I articles say there was no fire. Wouldn't be the first time Boeing tried to downplay something like that.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Following up on this, I've posted to the P-I's comment board, and sent email to the reporter.

*^*^*

"No injuries were reported and no part of the plane was on fire when it landed, Sea-Tac spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt said.

"There was a report of fire," she said. "A lot of times when an engine blows out it will flame out. That's probably what people saw."

I was standing in the parking lot at the Federal Way Barnes & Noble. I was able to see the aircraft.

You could hear it before you saw it closely -- ba-da-DUM, ba-da-DUM. With each sound, one could see flames in the port engine, and on the third beat the flames would be in a long trail. It was almost like an old car backfiring. It did this multiple times.

Now, perhaps that was fuel in the engine igniting in a non-standard way, and thus the engine itself was not precisely "on fire."

But a "blowout" implies a single event. That does not match the cyclical set of events I observed.

I tried to use my cell phone's camera to take a picture, but against the 3PM sky there was too much glare for me to get the shot.

After it passed overhead heading southerly, I saw it do a banked turn towards the west. This would match the reports of the turn taking place just before Tacoma. I also noticed the booms stopped. I kept an eye for a while on the western horizon for any smoke, as I feared the airplane had lost power and augured in.

I'm glad that fear was without merit. But this story does not match what I saw and heard.