My second thought was the utterly ridiculous hero worship for Al Haines for doing what anyone would have done. There was no mention in the aviation press of the disagreement on the voice recorder between him and the jumpseater about which way the throttles should be jockyed just prior to impact…..who was right? Doesn’t matter since the public needs that comfy feeling that the pilots are “in control.”
Obviously your simplification of what actually happened in that cockpit as well as the actions of Al Haines has given you one of the most jaded and ridiculous attitudes I’ve ever heard by anyone of that event. He did what anyone else would have done? Well since we have never before or since seen any pilot put in such a situation like that your statement is comes across as an attempt of being inflammatory than actually a reflection on his actions or what we could expect from anyone in his situation.
Some seem to come to the conclusion that the calm demeanor or apparent ease of command in such situations as a sign of easiness or for others to be able to duplicate or exceed their outcome. What you are blind to is the years of experience and his ability to lead that made the situation appear so reproducible by others as you believe.
United Airlines recreated the system failures those 4 crew members were up against in a DC-10 simulator in Denver soon after the accident and few if anyone who attempted the flight lived. Rather odd considering that you feel anyone could have done the same.
Yes, Al Haines got the lions share of the accolades after the accident but it was his command that got them there. But if you’ve ever seen him talk about the events that day he continually praises the actions of his other crew members (both in the cockpit and in the back) as well as every person who responded on the ground. It was the combined skill of himself, his FO, FE and the DC-10 instructor who joined them on the jumpseat that won that day. He knows his place among the heroes that day.
You sir, are an idiot. I guess you spent too many hours sniffing fumes in the L-1011 wing all those years ago.
More commonly scheduled takeoff times are referred to “wheels up” times. “Gear up” is easily confused with gear up landings.
China is building A320s for Airbus now i thought?
I know they are building the EMB-145.
Thanks gentlemen, I knew I had come to the right place. 🙂
WD, where do you fly from in Ohio, and what do you fly? We could be neighbors :).
The E145 out of CLE.
I’ve probably done around 10-15 checkrides for certificates/type ratings/etc. and they are all the same when you get down to it. The big thing is to know your aircraft (limitations/procedures/equipment) cold, just about everything else it’s important to know where you can find the appropriate information when/if you don’t know the answer. Don’t remember how to read a TAF? Know where you can find list of the codes explained.
Most examiners will push you during the oral just to see what you do know and where you knowledge limit is. Ask enough questions and we’ll all run out of answers after a while. If you don’t know something then always remember to answer “No, but I know where I can find the answer.”
The flight is easier in the sense that you know exactly what to expect and what the pass/fail limits are. Which is a good reminder to know your PTS. You’re bound to not be pleased with you 100% of your performance even if it is within the PTS. The key is to not let those small goofs get to you as they can lead to bigger goofs down the line if you are dwelling on them. The examiner is looking for control of the aircraft and good decision making. If you goof, acknowledge the mistake, fix it and continue on. They won’t bust you for dipping 110′ off your assigned altitude but they will if you fly along at 110′ off your altitude.
Most examiners try to making the test (both oral and practical) a learning experience. I’ve always learned a few things during every test.
A lot of folks tell you it’s no big deal or to enjoy the test but I don’t buy that. I’ve never felt it was no big deal when I was being grilled by the examiner or trying to land in a stiff crosswind. The only time I felt any relief was when it was over. Perhaps in hindsight I may have enjoyed the test experience but I probably enjoyed the freshly minted certificate in my pocket more.
Best of luck, let us know how it goes. 😀
What would the sheer pin allow, the gear to fall off?
Even if the pilot was late on the flare, the planed should not have broken like that. The gear, if I’m not mistaken, is designed to give way at certain high loadings to prevent this sort of thing.
I reckon the fuse was weak in some way, fatigue or possibly corrosion. Too early to tell of course, but just my own personal inkling
I’ve never heard of gear being designed to give way and serious doubt that is the case. It’s been seen before, aircraft breaking in 2 after a hard landing while the gear stands up to the punishment. There’s that footage of the DC-9 test flight landing where they snap the tail off and 5-6 years ago an EMB-145 crew snapped the tail off while landing.
Only one thing concerns me……
Taken from the above link!
With a maximum takeoff weight of 41,600kg (91,800lb), the CRJ1000 aircraft will offer a maximum range of 3,140km (1,690nm) with 100 passengers, “under certain operating conditions”, says Bombardier
Be interesting to find out what certain operating conditions they are talking about
Manufacturer stated ranges are based on very specific conditions (standard pressure, standard temperature, standard fuel reserve, etc.). Obviously that doesn’t happen very often so real world ranges are less than advertised more likely.
Would any patient member here be prepared to explain how the feeder Airline system in America works, as in how the agreement between (in this instance) CO and ExpressJet works;
Ta,
Wozza
I’ll try. There are 2 types of feeders, wholly owned and independent. The wholly owned are just that, owned outright by the major airline they feed. American Eagle is an example of this. Independent feeders are stand alone companies that sell their services to one or more major airlines. Chautauqua Airlines is an example of this. CHQ flies for American, Delta, US Airways and now Continental and Frontier.
The deals between a major and independent feeder vary quite a bit. Sometimes the major will help finance the operation and equipment while other times they’ll just pay for the service. A popular agreement between 2 companies is a Capacity Purchase Agreement. With a CPA the major airline buys every available seat on every airplane flown under their livery and usually sells the gas to fly them at a fixed rate to the feeder airline. Basically the feeder gets paid a fixed amount per hour to fly the airplane no matter how many passengers are in the back. The major airline sells tickets to cover that cost/hour amount as well as try to generate profit above that mark. Usually a CPA limits any profits the feeder makes to a certain percentage.
The major airlines seem to like this agreement as it guarantees the feeder service for the life of the CPA at a fixed cost. The feeders like it since it guarantees them income for the life of the CPA.
ExpressJet Airlines use to be Continental Express, a wholly owned division of Continental Airlines. In 2002 CO sold off COEX and it became it’s own company known as ExpressJet Airlines. Most of the wholly owned feeders have been sold off by their parent companies in the last few years as the majors are desperately trying to generate cash. CO and XJT have a CPA agreement which use to be exclusive until last year. In 2006 CO announced they were removing 69 airplanes worth of XJT service from the CO system and put a bid out to other airlines to come in and fly those routes. XJT in turn as taken those airplanes and rebranded them as ExpressJet Airlines, their own brand of flying. Initially the XJT brand was being used for charter operations but soon will include XJT flying out of the ONT airport to start. Rumors are that the service will be expanded to have a chain of hubs across the country. The only limitation is that XJT can’t operate XJT branded flying in/out of the CO hubs as it would be a conflict of interest as XJT is still flying under the CO brand in those hubs.
The first airplanes are starting to arrive…
Here’s the full aircraft.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1167332/L/
I really like it.
“Wow” is all I can say.
I wouldn’t have guessed windshear as it didn’t appear that the airplane was in anything more than light turbulence on the approach. In my experience windshear is associated with a bit more of a bumpy ride.
My guess would have been an excessive sink rate close to the ground due to poor power management. The power was set to TOGA in order to arrest the rapid decent but a bit too late at the airplane smacked the runway before going around. I’ve never had a go-around out of that maneuver but I have been in plenty of carrier landings as a result of excessive sink rates close to the ground.