Those Crazy Sweedish Dash Drivers! (gear collapse)

[WSurf]

According to the local PDX newscast, that gear problem has to do with the fact that the Q400 is a high-wing airplane!

As my coffee shoots thru my nose!!

How about the Gear Problem has to do with the????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

F'IN GEAR..... YOU MEDIA MORONS!!!!

 

[The_Russian]

I agree that sometimes you need to think outside of the box. However, the checklist were written for a reason. When you start being a cowboy and doing your own procedures, you dang better know what you are getting into. If not, then you are only making things worse.

I just said that no one was being a cowboy and the procedures would be followed. How can you say anything outside the checklist makes things worse? That makes no sense.

 

[The_Russian]

This isn't a part 91 310 trying to save engines...none of us are Bob Hoover, don't make the problem worse.

You missed the point too. I am talking about secondary damage and injury.

 

[The_Russian]

Here I go!

The Russian makes some good points. I have seen a few people shy away from making a decision because they are afraid to shoulder the responsability of making a decision. I have not been afraid to make those decisions and if I should make one thats wrong, then hold me liable.

On the other hand, Russian. I don't like this quote from you.

"Their technique sent them careening off of the runway at an excessive rate of speed causing injuries. How can you say it was a good landing?"

It wasn't a great landing or outcome, but only 5 people were injured and no-one killed.

How do you know that even if they had shutdown at least the right engine the outcome would not have been the same? You are being very judgemental here.

Perhaps it was the landing gear collapsing the way it did and digging into the runway surface that was the main cause of the runway excursion. Wait until the safety reports are complete, then you can read it along with everyone else and ascertain if it indeed was their fault.

I will agree with you that not shutting down the engine was perhaps an error in judgement. But what do we know of the status of engine driven generators, hyd pumps or anythign else that may have elad to their decision to leave the right engine running? We don't, so for now I find it difficult to criticize.

They touched down left wheel first absorbing a great amount of the momentum. The right did not collapse on touchdown, but shortly there after and it just may have caused the aircraft to swerve no matter what was going on with the right engine.

Wow, good post. I can definitely agree with what you say here.

Yes, these things could be a possibility. And, I am a little out of line for doing a little "Monday Morning QB'n". On the other hand, the same thing I am doing was most likely what saved the next crew from doing as much damage. I am sure they sat around the crew room speculating about what happened and thinking of what they would do in the same situation. As you can see, it paid off in the second crash.

 

[The_Russian]

You are completely, utterly, totally, insane.

Yep, I am sure you have evidence to back that statement up, right?

 

[The_Russian]

Ruskie you are concerning a lot of us with your amazing sense of airline "logic" (mind you I use the term loosely). As others have said and I repeat company policies and procedures have been thought out for a reason straying, from them might be appropriate in a "life or death situation (landing an uncontrollable DC10 in a corn field) but this situation was far from that....

Why do you take this personnally? Can't you have an objective discussion? Now, no one is talking about straying from procedures. We are talking about performing additional actions required to increase safety in the outcome of the accident. A gear up landing can definately be a "life or death" situation if not handled properly.

Keep in mind that if you have a major emergency the FAA will be there pulling fdr's and cvr's to see if you followed procedures.

Under what part of the regulations does it say they have to? If the emergency turns out ot be a non-event, they won't pull anything. They may not pull anything even if you crash the thing as long as you aren't dead.

If a crew is discussing additional actions to take prior to the emergency, it will be on the CVR. So, if you are explaining your reasoning to the other crew member, it will be recorded. Additionally, you would NOT stray from procedures. You would complete the checklist to a "T". Remember, I am talking about additional actions and technique to meet the emergency.

Sure an emergency gives you the authorization to do what it take to get things safely on the ground but it has to be done in a rational and sane manner.

When did I suggest doing something rash or dangerous? Remember that there must be balance. Sacraficing something to save something else must be done in some cases. If you are going to put a Dash 8 in, shutting down both engines at or prior to touchdown won't hurt anything. Why? Because you won't need the brakes if your belly is skidding across the ground.

Making things up from the "Rusty Ruskie" rules of thumb checklist will do one of several things; get you hurt, killed or fired, please just don't take anyone with you.

What would your checklist be called? Remember that your decisions can get you killed too. You are not immune to bad judgement or even good judgement. Get over yourself, please!

Second guessing a flight crews actions when you don't have a clue about the systems involved and certainly don't have the specific facts of the incident (you only saw a video remember? You weren't sitting on the jumpseat during that flight were you?) shows gross negligence on your part of even reasoning like a pilot... not to mention is pretty unprofessional on your part.

Wrong. it shows that I am looking at the situation and seeing how it can be done better next time. This is what saves lives. This is why organizations like the NTSB were created. As expert witnesses, we have the right and duty to try to reduce the error chain.

I'm even regretting what i titled this thread because my mention of the word "crazy" was not directed toward the crews actions it was meant in the context of a "crazy" or bad day!

This has nothing to do with why I said anything in the first place.

Could you let me know what city pairs you operate out of so I can avoid those airports and make sure that my family is not on board any of your flights?

Thanks in advance!

Can you do the same for me? I don't want to fly with someone who can't perform under pressure or hides behind a checklist. Nor do I want to fly with someone who can't read and interperet simple English.

Thanks in advance!

 

[The_Russian]

How do you know they weren't injured on the emergency evacuation?

I don't. It doesn't matter anyway. How and why did they get into a situation were they would get hurt in an emergency egress? Maybe it had something to do with departing the runway and crashing into a knoll.

 

[The_Russian]

Just when I've decided you're a hopeless tool, you pop back up and declare you're a d0uchebag too. "Pilots did not think about primary procedures for a controlled crash." I'll bet you'd be thrilled if you just had a crash and then some PFT a$$hat half a world away declared you weren't thinking about "primary procedures" based on a 30 sec video clip she saw, without knowing an iota about the airplane.

Wow, you must be intelligent. Resorting to talk like this? C'mon!

I am sure you have never analyzed or speculated anything! If I wasn't a world a way, i would give them the benifit of the doubt by letting them answer some questions.

SAS has been keeping Horizon in the loop and the following info was passed on down to the peons: in the Aalborg crash, the Captain moved the passengers to the left side of the airplane and away from the prop arc. So he or she was indeed concerned about a disintegrating prop, even though there's nothing about this in the Emergency/Abnormal Checklist. One prop blade fragment did indeed end up penetrating the cabin but did not injure anyone thanks to the Captain's precautions.

Was he following the QRH by doing so? If not, then he wasn't following the checklist. Why are you giving me crap, when you should be giving him crap too? This is what we are talking about here. These are the things you are debating with me. You defend his reasoning for moving passengers but you wouldn't defend him if any similar precaution was taken? Including the possibility of shutting both engines down close to touchdown?

The five light injuries were sustained on evacuation. Oh let me guess, next you're going to say the Captain shouldn't have evacuated since CFR was obviously gonna put out the fire soon.

Why the heck would I say that? Stop assuming me for a fool.

Incidently, the captain in the Vilnius crash did elect to shut down the right engine. It's not in the checklist, but based on the 20/20 hindsight provided by the crash three days prior, the pilots elected to do it.

What?!?! It's not in the checklist and now it is OK? Get your story straight man. Is it OK or not OK for a crew to stray from the procedure to meet the extent of the emergency? Yes it is!

20/20 hindsight? Isn't that what we are doing now? Everyone is saying how bad this is, but another Captain just prevented injuries by analyzing and adjusting un-published procedures. To you he is the hero? Amazing.

There was much less damage to the airplane, so naturally everybody's congratulating the Captain on a job well done.

No crap. He went above and beyond and did his job. He didn't hide behind a QRH or a fear of investigation. Speaking of which, did he get investigated? He did NOT follow written procedures, he went beyond the procedures. According to you folks, his career is over. The reality of the situation is that his career will continue unharmed because he did the right thing.

But what if things hadn't gone so well. Everybody would be heaping scorn on the Captain for not following the checklist and exacerbating their emergency with yet another one, and you would no doubt be the leading the charge.

Things would have gone so well. He would have ignored reasoning and slammed the plane in, just like the first guy. People would have been injured or killed and he would be criticizied. The aviation analysts and the media would be all over that guy. Maye I would criticize him, if I had reason to. Just as you think you have reason to do to me.

Pwn'd, M.F.

How old are you, thirteen? You must be, because this doesn't come from my generation.

 

[The_Russian]

Anyone think deactivating the roll/ground spoilers with the push off switch could have helped keep the wing flying a bit longer?

Perhaps this, if accompanied by the luck of a smooth landing in a D8, could have helped things out.

Well, I suggested that and was label an unsafe moron/idiot/cowboy. But, I am sure they won't do the same to you. They will commend you for suggesting it.

BTW, Russian, carbon fiber fragments vs. kevlar shrouding on fuselage, kevlar wins.

Usually, but you can't count on it.

 

[quinnlake]

They may not have needed to do a simultaneous dual engine shutdown, but they could have done something more appropriate for their aircraft type.-- The Russian

-But on the first page of this thread that is exactly what you suggested the pilots were negilgent for NOT doing.