Tweet
this one certainly went way beyond v1...
glad nobody was injured
-
this one certainly went way beyond v1...
glad nobody was injured -
Yes, aborted beyond V1, beyond Vr, beyond lift-off...Originally posted by hongmng View Post
And still stopped 1300 ft short of the end of the "just-6500-ft-long" runway.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials --- -
Must have been light. The loaded Q400 is not what you could call STOL.Comment
-
Well, only 16 pax and the distance is less than 100 miles by car!!!Originally posted by Evan View Post
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
I'm trying to imagine the scenario in my head where they have the time to take-off, retract the gear, realize there is serious smoke in the aft cabin (FA on the PA/phone?) and decide to put it back down with that much room to spare...I don't know why you would put the plane on its belly unless there was clear indication of a serious fire back there...and how could it have come all at once like that?Originally posted by Gabriel View PostComment
-
Scenario: Small CRM issue. Captain is PF... inexperienced F/O pulls the gear up before CPT requests it... unaware of this, CPT see's an APU fire indication or a cargo smoke indication... is aware of the expanse of remaining runway... decides to put it back down... landing altitude is a couple feet lower than takeoff altitude... hmmm, that's strange...Originally posted by Leftseat86 View PostComment
-
So does this support the broad general fundamental that trying to abort after V1 generally has more bad outcomes than trying to continue??...
...not that common sense, quick thinking, and FCOM/QRH/Memory checklists and decision tress can't be used, but then again, quick thinking/quick action is also a bit more error prone in some cases like....ummm......this one??Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
I think the broad fundmental when you are on fire is to get it back on the runway as soon as possible. If enough runway is still in front of you, I guess you just land again.Originally posted by 3WE View Post
The SOP in most post V1 cases is to continue, stabilize, run the QRH and pre-landing checklist and then return without overlooking something like the landing gear status. But I guess being on fire is its own ball game.Comment
-
Scenario 2: 20 people desperately yelling "FIRE, FIRE!!!!" at once. The captain decides to land and doesn't really care at all if the gear is up or down.Originally posted by Evan View Post
I can't remember a gear-up landing that resulted in death or serious injury, so if you think that the situation is so serious that continuing flight may result in a major catastrophe, the condition of the landing gear is absolutely low priority. If the situation is such that I am considering to abort the take-off after lift off, the gear being up or down would have no place in my decision process.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
So no one noticed smoke or anything until after liftoff and within that time period it was bad enough to warrant putting the plane back on the runway with the gear up?Originally posted by Gabriel View PostComment
-
I can't find any info on whether or not a fire was actually discovered, or just the initial smoke developing in the aft cabin...Comment
-
If there was time to pull the gear up, there must have been time to drop it back down again. I think it was just overlooked. Understandably, but still, that might qualify as pilot error.Originally posted by Gabriel View PostComment
-
Well, sitting here at my keyboard, it seems that what they really should have done is a nice, aggressive teardrop 180 and landed back downwind.Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
Anyone else concur?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
Maybe it wasn't as bad and the crowd (of 20) overreacted. How bad was the situation does't matter. What matters is what the pilots judged the situation to be.Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
And again, if the situation is so daring that you are considering aborting the take-off after the lift-off, the gear condition is absolutely secondary in my opinion.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
And one IMPORTANT thing: This is all speculation. We have no idea of what happened up there (well, not so much "up"). We don't know if the pax yelled fire, we don't know if the crew had a smoke or fire warning, we don't even know if there was really any smoke or fire BEFORE the landing (sure there was a lot after the belly landing), we don't know if the crew decided to land or the plane recontacted the ground for other reasons like too early rotation (or no flaps) and stall, double engine failure, windshear....
All that I am saying is that, even if the pilots decided to abort the take off after lift-off and wit the gear up (that we don't know if the decision even existed) without having a hint of information of what happened, because there are scenarios where doing so could very well have saved all these lives while continuing with the take-off may have costed all the lives.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
Comment