ExpWayVis31
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Posts
- 76
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In no way did I state or imply that. I did compliment my own landings, though!My thoughts (which won't be anywhere near as professional or correct as the Russian)
False unsafe indication? As a crew member, you do not have the right to assume a false indication. What may look normal from afar may not be. Those pilots, if they followed procedures, would have tried all alternate means of obtaining a green light on that landing gear. Crossing the fence, they knew that the gear was not secure. You would know too.That gear looked awfully normal to me, and looking out the window they probably thought it was a FALSE unsafe indication.....which happens a whole lot more than an actual unsafe gear.
Why would I second guess the crew for making an attempt to be safe? From the beginning of training, pilots are taught to secure the engine prior to a possible or imminent impact. I would rather look silly than be injured or dead.They sure would have looked silly, and probably even secondguessed by you had they shut two perfectly normal motors down. I don't think the Dash 8's have APU,s but not sure about the -400.
You do, and so do I. Maybe we can learn from theirs.good thing I never make mistakes
Geez! You got me I'm a Zookeeper.Come on Russian...Tell us the truth...Your really not a pilot.
There must be a manual reversion to use the rudder. Otherwise, that aircraft would not have been certified. The problem is that the props will fragment, possible killing or injuring passengers and crew members in the aircraft.
Those guys had EVERY reason to believe that the gear was going to collapse. You must treat every unsafe gear indication as the real thing, even if there is a chance that the gear is ok. The aircraft would not have been gliding for more than a few seconds. I have stated many times that the proper time to secure is in the flare closer to touchdown.
I answered your question, so don't try to act like I was dodging you. If you didn't like my answer, respond to that. If you are settled with my answer, move on to another question.Russian, for the last time..
What does the Dash-400 QRH say in reference to "landing with unsafe gear"
This was not in either QRH.Both turboprop QRH's I have dealt with recommend securing the engines just prior to touchdown.
We are talking about basic airmenship here, not procedural errors.
Can you explain the systems to me then? Why can't they run a standby hyd on batt or APU? Do they even need hyd to complete the landing? Why can't the spoilers be disabled from deploying?All the other stuff that Russian is saying about rigging Hyd systems and disabling spoilers is just crazy talk.
If you shut down both motors, you will have no rudder. You will also only have enough brake accumulation for 3 pumps on the brakes. If I remember right, there are no electric hydraulic pumps, so if you lose both engines you are SOL, so to speak.
Another correction,BTW, I could not find the information to support this statement. Somehow I got confused in my debate and threw this one out there. It is by no means the truth. However, I still stand by my other posts.
This was not in either QRH.
Can you run the hyd off of standby power? If so, these guys could have had brakes and still shut down the engines.There are two electric standby hydraulic pumps on the 1/2/3. I can't remember if they're available in essential power, though. And for The Russian, on the 1/2/3, the APU is WOW-switched for ground ops only. You couldn't light it in flight if you wanted to. But anyway, I don't think any of this matters until a 400 driver comes on here to clarify the extent to which that series is similar to the earlier models.