What about brake failure, ground spoilers, landing gear, or the engines themselves? Or is the reverser the only failure or malfunction that can take place during a landing?
Last edited:
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,763
- 5,924
- 146
The beauty of this is that it is all there and not some mangled wreckage. It is not the gear because it is down and rolled them off the end nicely into the water.
It's all there, nothing is damaged? How do you know that? Most of it is not visible, it's underwater, or at least in the videos that have been in the news. Do you have some source that gives more information? What it comes down to, is I think you are missing the point. That point is, you don't have enough information to jump to the conclusions based off what information that has been released, and you sure as hell can't come to any rational conclusion when all you see is a plane in the water with vital parts that may give some insight to what happened, hidden under the water, or inside the plane itself..
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,763
- 5,924
- 146
FFS have you seen damaged gear? does it roll off the end of the runway? No, it makes a big sparky groovy mess on the runway, and the stopping is pretty damn quick.
your examples suck there. My money is firmly on a pilot fuckup.
your examples suck there. My money is firmly on a pilot fuckup.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,780
- 8,355
- 136
Just the kind of guy that hopefully ends up piloting Trump Force One.
As an aside, if it was determined that pilot error caused the incident, would you happen to know if the pilot will be able to operate US gov't property ever again? Also, do you know if the FAA will be involved given that a military aircraft was involved?
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,763
- 5,924
- 146
The military does it's own thing.
That is really cool you have driven across that runway and experienced the FOD shaker. I had no idea that was a thing you could do there.
Those later gen 737's have squashed nacelles to get crosswind landing clearance needed, they are classic FOD eaters.
It comes from two sources. The nosegear will kick stuff into an engine, and the reversers can do it also. They have specific operation procedures to minimize the latter, but keeping things off the runway is the key. In your case if Billy Bob has some big gravel in his knobby tires that he leaves out there it's bad berries.
That is really cool you have driven across that runway and experienced the FOD shaker. I had no idea that was a thing you could do there.
Those later gen 737's have squashed nacelles to get crosswind landing clearance needed, they are classic FOD eaters.
It comes from two sources. The nosegear will kick stuff into an engine, and the reversers can do it also. They have specific operation procedures to minimize the latter, but keeping things off the runway is the key. In your case if Billy Bob has some big gravel in his knobby tires that he leaves out there it's bad berries.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,780
- 8,355
- 136
If you ever wanted to knock out some loose fillings in your teeth take a ride over the shaker in a horse drawn wagon from those old western movies, but make sure your kidneys are insured first.
FFS, do you only see what you want to see? Landing gear was only 1 of the 4 examples I listed out of many possible malfuctions or failures, it was the 3rd one to be exact, as you ignored all the others. I didn't say it was the cause, but it's the only one you are focused on. How many systems, be it mechanical, hardware, electrical, and/or software work together, outside of the pilot, for a plane to land and stop safetly and correctly? How many of those, can you determine where working as they should from a video/picture? Lets take the brakes for example, if they fail, can a plane go off the end of the runway if they don't reverse the engines? What about runway contamination and braking? On a short run way, if the engines need to be reversed, and they fail, can a plane go off the end of the runway? Or are going to talk about the landing gear more because that is all you took from what I wrote, because I included it as an example, as one of the possible areas that might have malfucntioned or failed?
Last edited:
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,763
- 5,924
- 146
Go back and read my first statement. If they land at the right place and speed on the runway, they don't go in the bay. Pick one, reversers or brakes, they get stopped. Fail both? Get the fuck outta here with that LOL.
They landed hot or long or both.
They landed hot or long or both.
Why do I need to go read your first statement? It doesn't change anything, as your assumption is not based on known facts.
According to the Flight Safety Foundation, these are the common causes of runway excursions during landing: Mechanical malfunction. Long touchdown. Ineffective braking because of runway contamination, improper technique, or hydroplaning.
According to you, non of those other common causes, are possible, outside of pilot error. Why have you avoided talking about the systems that are involved during a landing, that could have malfuctioned? All you are doing is beating your chest with your responses, as you ignore other possibilities.
Last edited:
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,763
- 5,924
- 146
‘Contaminated runway’ means a runway of which more than 25% of the runway surface area within the required length and width being used is covered by the following:
On a wet runway, the braking is reduced due to the formation of a film of water around the tire which prevents it from touching the surface. This may lead to something called hydroplaning, which will be discussed later.
https://simpleflying.com/wet-contaminated-runways-braking-handling-effects/
I think it's safe to say that there was no snow, ice, slush.
"Wind gusts were up to 21 miles per hour at the time of the crash, with mist limiting visibility to around a mile, according to the National Weather Service."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-navy-jet-crash-hawaii-b2451152.html
Mists and 1 mile visibility is not a heavy rain. It is doubtful that the wet runway rose to the level of "contaminated".
"gusts to 21" is kinda snotty, but how much so depends on the direction.
The aircraft's home base is NAS Whidbey, on a couple of 8000' runways. The runway length is not a factor, IMO.
It's on the aircrew to make a decision on the conditions, and to abort a landing or use an alternate in bad weather. HNL is nearby with a couple of 12000' runways and a 9k and 7k long runway too.
- Surface water more than 3 mm (0.125 in) deep, or by slush, or loose snow, equivalent to more than 3 mm (0.125 in) of water; snow which has been compressed into a solid mass which resists further compression and will hold together or break into lumps if picked up (compacted snow); or
- Ice, including wet ice.
On a wet runway, the braking is reduced due to the formation of a film of water around the tire which prevents it from touching the surface. This may lead to something called hydroplaning, which will be discussed later.
https://simpleflying.com/wet-contaminated-runways-braking-handling-effects/
I think it's safe to say that there was no snow, ice, slush.
"Wind gusts were up to 21 miles per hour at the time of the crash, with mist limiting visibility to around a mile, according to the National Weather Service."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-navy-jet-crash-hawaii-b2451152.html
Mists and 1 mile visibility is not a heavy rain. It is doubtful that the wet runway rose to the level of "contaminated".
"gusts to 21" is kinda snotty, but how much so depends on the direction.
The aircraft's home base is NAS Whidbey, on a couple of 8000' runways. The runway length is not a factor, IMO.
It's on the aircrew to make a decision on the conditions, and to abort a landing or use an alternate in bad weather. HNL is nearby with a couple of 12000' runways and a 9k and 7k long runway too.
Last edited:
Why do you avoided talking about the systems that are involved during a landing, that could malfunction? I have mentioned it in almost all of my posts to you, yet you bypass it and go to something else. It's the first thing listed as the most common reason.. yet you are avoiding it, why?
As for contaminated runway; are you telling me that there is nothing else other than water based contamination that could get on a runway, that could cause problems with braking? Maybe a runway maintenance vehicle leaking oil, that nobody caught, or even hydrolic fluid, or some other possible contamination, or is water based contaminates the only possiblity?
as for rain: It doesn't have to be a heavy rain to cause 25% of the runway surface to have 3mm of standing water. standing water means it is not running off, so it's pooling. IF the ground crew isn't removing that pooling water, guess what, it sits there till it evaperates.
It was raining that day:
"Dircks and her family had just returned to the dock after rainy weather cut their pontoon boat trip short when her daughter noticed the plane in the water."
Military Daily News
Daily updates of everything that you need know about what is going on in the military community and abroad including military gear and equipment, breaking news, international news and more.
At the time of the crash there was only mist, but if it rained prior, how is pilot supposed to determine if the runway has standing water on it from the air?
How about those possible malfunctions that can take place, are you ready to talk about those yet, or are you going to discount that possiblity, even though once again, there are no known facts given as to what happend?
How about we wait till we get the facts before we start blaming the pilots?
Last edited:
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,763
- 5,924
- 146
"At the time of the crash there was only mist, but if it rained prior, how is pilot supposed to determine if the runway has standing water on it from the air?"
The runway is wet? oh fuck we can't land on that we might hydroplane. They prepare for that every time they land all over the world. You can land on ice if you are prepared for that too.
It would not surprise me for them to make a claim of some nonexistent mechanical issue to cover their ass. It's human nature to shift the blame and in this case they do not have an independent investigator like the NTSB going over the incident. Yeah I'm a little bit cynical when it comes to the military.
The runway is wet? oh fuck we can't land on that we might hydroplane. They prepare for that every time they land all over the world. You can land on ice if you are prepared for that too.
It would not surprise me for them to make a claim of some nonexistent mechanical issue to cover their ass. It's human nature to shift the blame and in this case they do not have an independent investigator like the NTSB going over the incident. Yeah I'm a little bit cynical when it comes to the military.
Last edited:
Zorba
Lifer
- Oct 22, 1999
- 15,613
- 11,255
- 136
Yup, maximum landing distances are calculated assuming failed reversers. 737 also has 3 sources of power for the brakes.
A full loss of antiskid or airbrakes could cause an overrun, but in both of those causes you should go around and find a longer field. Especially in an aircraft with aerial refueling. A full loss of either system would require multiple failures that all produce warnings.
There have been many 737 over runs, I'm not aware of any that weren't ruled pilot error.
Zorba
Lifer
- Oct 22, 1999
- 15,613
- 11,255
- 136
I agree with you that gear up stopping is usually pretty quick, but a FedEx 757 just belly flopped in Chattanooga and went off the end of the runway.
If this plane had landed gears up, it would've been in the news stories and they would've almost certainly gone to a longer runway. Failure to divert to a more suitable field would also be pilot error.
Who said anything about not landing on wet runways.. that is not what I said. There is a difference between a wet looking runway, and one that has pooling water. Everyone knows that plans land on wet runways all the time around the wrold. I know you are just talking like a fucking bully on a play ground, because you are trying to make yourself look like the man, and attempt to make me look dumb, but how about you grow the fuck up.
You can start by not talking like runway contamination and hydroplaining are the same thing.. they are not. They are two different things that can cause a plane to go off the end of the runway. Contamination effects braking because it loses it's friction reducing the braking capabilities. Hydroplaning is when the tires lift up off the ground due to water and speed, causing loss of control, which you lose all ability to brake until speed is reduced and the tires come back down to the hard survace. Can contamination cause hydroplaning, yes, but hydroplaning is not always the result of contaimination and loss of braking ability. That's why it's listed by the Flight Safety Foundations as two seperate common causes. I noticed you didn't answer if water contaimination is the only possible contamination.. why do you refuse to answer questions? I am all for you teaching me and others something, but you have to be willing to answer questions and admit to yourself that there are other possible causes before you can teach anyone anything. till then you are just being arrogant.
You claim it wouldn't suprise you if they blame it on a non existant mechanical issue.. So you are not willing to talk about those systems that can fail, and already removing that as a cause no matter if it's true or not because your own ego won't let you believe it, or is it to protect your ego? talk about fucked up arrogance.
You remind me of an investigator who has already made up his mind on guilt/cause before even starting the investigation, which leads to an investigation looking for evidence to support your predetermined conclusion, rather than looking for evidence that supports the true facts of what really happened.
Last edited:
Can't landing gear fail on landing? What prevents it from opening up, no alarms, and the locking mechism failing causing it to fold partway down the runway, or something in the landing gear itself breaking on impact. From my understanding, failed landing gear doesn't always damage the runway. Does that mean it won't leave marks, I don't know. I imagine that such information will come available once the investigation is complete. That's the whole point.. some people are jumping to conclussion when no facts with any substance has been released to the public. They have automatically blamed the pilot, and can't fathum it being something else.. It may be pilot error, but it's ignorant to jump to that conclusion before the investigation has completed and all the facts are known. It's arrogance to be unwilling to even entertain or discuss those other possible causes, when no facts are known about why it happened. (I am not refering to you).
Last edited:
Zorba
Lifer
- Oct 22, 1999
- 15,613
- 11,255
- 136
If one Main Landing Gear collapsed, the wing would've impacted the ground the aircraft would have departed the prepared surface to the side and likely ended up with a post event fire. It would've scrapped up the runway and the dirt around the runway as the aircraft departed the side. If the nose gear collapsed, the brakes would've continued to work and the extra drag of scrapping fuselage would've help stop the aircraft quicker.
This is what happens when 1 main gear collapses:
38°43'27.5"N 93°32'55.0"W · 38.724306, -93.548611
There might have been some type of failure, but the vast majority of possible failures should've still allowed the crew to abort, and fly to HNL. I've been involved in multiple over run investigations and multiple collapsed landing gear collapses. This has all the general hallmarks of over shoot landing zone with a forced landing. This happens all time but generally only bites the pilot in the ass when there is also a wet runway.
ETA: There was one accident I was involved with where the aircraft lost antiskid, but it was due to the pilot improperly responding an electrical failure. They then ran the aircraft battery all the way out, so they lost all electrical power on the aircraft. Then they failed to realize they wouldn't have antiskid and landed on the shortest runway at the field. Luckily they realized they weren't going to stop and kicked it over to grass and got stuck in the mud.
Last edited:
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,763
- 5,924
- 146
projecting much?
LOL.
gear failures result in more drag and shorter runout, not longer.
here are the facts at hand.
There is a plane in the water off a 7700' long runway.
As @Zorba has confirmed, if it were placed in the right spot at the right speed to begin with, No reversers needed.
This is your bone here, if you can't let it go I can. I won't revisit the thread until something interesting turns up.
Are folks really surprised to find out that an intentionally ablative surface attached to smooth bearings and a round wheel has a lower friction coefficient than the bare aluminum underside of a 200,000kg cylinder on asphalt?
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,763
- 5,924
- 146
It's about 70,000 KG but yeah. Somebody called it a heavy but anything 757 or smaller is an ICAO Medium.
Zorba
Lifer
- Oct 22, 1999
- 15,613
- 11,255
- 136
Even most 757-200s are mediums, they toe the line and the increased gross weight is an optional service bulletin.
I'm not projecting at all. You are the one who is making assumptions with no facts, and refuses to answer questions while you attemp to talk down to me. You are an arrogant fuck!
Smooth metal surface, specially aluminum which is what the aircraft's skin is made of, and a wet runway equals less resistence if the gear buckles and it ends up on it's belly.
How about you don't revisit here until you are man enough to actually answer the questions I asked, and willing to discuss the systems that are envolved in landing a plan, which can fail, mechanical or otherwise, as you have refused to do so yet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter