Those Crazy Sweedish Dash Drivers! (gear collapse)

[My name is EARL]

The Russian you have to remember is not use to flying an advanced aircraft, all his hrs in MIG's, SU's and AN's are all steel and cables. Advanced technology for WWII aircraft. Thats how they won the cold war!

My question to you is it ok to let your kid fly the plane?

 

[Captzaahlie]

The Russian you have to remember is not use to flying an advanced aircraft, all his hrs in MIG's, SU's and AN's are all steel and cables. Advanced technology for WWII aircraft. Thats how they won the cold war!

My question to you is it ok to let your kid fly the plane?

I agree the ruskie has overdosed on the combat flight sim's........ because the electro-hydro -nuclear back up systems he refers to just don't seem to be part of our real airline world....

Heck yes it's OK to let your kid fly the plane, see my new avatar!

 

[Flying-Corporal]

Some idiot makes a non-sense comment and the whole thread turns into a discussion about it ... Incredible...

If QRH doesn't say anything about shutting the engines down, then don't do it.

If any line pilot comes up with his own "good sense" procedure in an emergency (instead of following the QRH) then I doubt any of us will pass our initial FO checkride.

Russian, are you sure you fly airplanes for living??? I don't mean Cessnas, MS Fsim, remote-control, etc.

 

[The_Russian]

Hey Rush,

The spelling of your fore mentioned "simple" English seems to have you confused!

How can I read "your" English when you can't spell words like "interpret"?

C minus on the spelling dude........

Thanks for keeping all of us amused!
:laugh:

Sorry for the spelling. A lot of responses with an early education in phonics doesn't help. I can do calculus in my head but grammer and spelling is a constant challenge.

 

[The_Russian]

We never ever said that one is confined by the QRH. Our point was basically that once you do something that's not only outside the QRH but not even on the same planet - like shut both engines down and killing every means of directional control you have - everything better turn out perfect and you'd better have a dang good excuse if it doesn't.

Right. There should be reasoning behind the decision.

You've changed your tune considerable since this thread started. At first you were condemning the crew for being irresponsible and endangering their passengers, and now you're meekly asserting the right of a Captain to do something outside the QRH. Well, duh.

Sure. IMHO, I still condemn them for not at least shutting down the right engine and not holding that wing off of the ground. As soon as that prop hit, they lost all directional control of that aircraft. Thankfully, the next crew used their heads and shut the prop down, staying on the runway this time. If you do a good comparison to other gear-up landings, you will notice how poor this one went compared to others.

I just hope you're never that Captain.

Thanks. I'm sure you can surmise my Captainship from a single discussion. Apparently eveyone else can too.

Awright, I'm done here. Debating kinda presupposes that both sides have the benefit of logic.

Right.

 

[Captzaahlie]

Sorry for the spelling. A lot of responses with an early education in phonics doesn't help. I can do calculus in my head but grammer and spelling is a constant challenge.

very impressive.....

I'm done here too.....

I heard NASA is looking for you Russian , they want you to develop a plan to land the Space Shuttle engine less! (wait they already do that, but I'm sure you could perfect the QRH).
:laugh:

 

[whymeworry?]

Not at all. You secure both of the engines just prior to touchdown. It is the safe and prudent thing to do in a turboprop. DASH in my profile would not make a difference.

That would be completely foolish. Pilots are not calibrated to judge glide performance of an aircraft without power. They can certainly be taught, but there is no training program in the world that includes such a manuever with time allotted for repeated practice.

When I was a checkairman in the sims, I use to introduce a dual engine flamout on my PCs just as a teaching tool ( would never fail a guy for not being able to perform one to a landing). Over time, I found that 9 out of 10 pilots landing (or crash landed as it were) just short of the runway. Not their fault, it was the fault of our industry which basically believes dual flameouts are impossible these days (yeah, tell that to the Airtransat A330 crew). If pilots aren't trained to perform a certain manuever, one can't expect them to pull it off flawlessly.

Had they shutdown both motors and misjudged the glide performance of the aircraft, they surely would have crashed just short of the runway. How many would have been killed in that scenario?

 

[DashTrash400]

Sure. IMHO, I still condemn them for not at least shutting down the right engine and not holding that wing off of the ground. As soon as that prop hit, they lost all directional control of that aircraft. Thankfully, the next crew used their heads and shut the prop down, staying on the runway this time. If you do a good comparison to other gear-up landings, you will notice how poor this one went compared to others.

Whew, we can all let this thread die now, Ruskie has finally stopped arguing that the only responsible thing to do is shut both engines down and Bob Hoover it down without benefit of hydraulics or most electronics (in a very hydraulic, electronic airplane).

I actually agree with you, Ruskie, that shutting down one engine did cause less damage in Vilnius. I'm sure the pilots will get a healthy Christmas bonus for that. So far as passenger safety is concerned, it didn't make a difference: the five light injuries in the first accident were all unrelated to the prop turning, they were evacuation injuries.

In the 2nd accident, I'm curious what flap setting the pilots landed with. On one engine, our E/A checklist calls for Flaps 15, but that increases Vref by 10 kts. If you decided to land Flaps 35 for the slower Vref, you need like 60% torque on the good engine just to maintain glidepath. I suspect we'll see some guidance on this in the E/A checklist in the future.

 

[AV80R]

They did a horrible job with that landing. Very unprofessional, very bad airmenship.

Say what you want. The flying pilot slammed it in and never secured the engines. No respect for the safety of the passengers.

Shame on you SAS pilots.


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…


Doesn't this show that I'm listening?...

Everyone has been quick to accuse me of not absorbing the material presented.

IMHO, I still condemn them for not at least shutting down the right engine and not holding that wing off of the ground…

I highlighted your statements in red, I figured a commie such as yourself would appreciate that…

So are you ‘absorbing the material’ well enough to say

…“sorry SAS pilots” for “condemning” you and for ridiculing your airmanship and your handling of the emergency when in fact I know absolutely nothing about your procedures, your aircraft, your aircraft’s mechanical circumstances, etc. Frankly, I know absolutely nothing about flying except that I like to use a picture of mass murders Godfather as my avatar…

Yeah…I didn’t think so…

 

[The_Russian]

I highlighted your statements in red, I figured a commie such as yourself would appreciate that…

So are you ‘absorbing the material’ well enough to say

…“sorry SAS pilots” for “condemning” you and for ridiculing your airmanship and your handling of the emergency when in fact I know absolutely nothing about your procedures, your aircraft, your aircraft’s mechanical circumstances, etc. Frankly, I know absolutely nothing about flying except that I like to use a picture of mass murders Godfather as my avatar…

Yeah…I didn’t think so…

Oh, you won the debate with that point! Get real. Compare this landing to the second crew's work and you will understand what I am talking about here. Also, I recommend going back and reading the Airplane Flying Handbook. Along with that, you can take the time to apply some "common sense" flying techniques to the accident video. From that you will see what was done wrong.

This is how we learn. Stop trying to insist that sitting here praising this crews poor airmanship is better than analyzing cause. You wouldn't be saying any of this if the second flight crashed and hurt more innocent people. I won't say "sorry" because there is reasoning behind my statements. Other posters with appropriate backgrounds have noted that. Whether or not you agree with that is your passengers problem, not mine.