Seeing the damage to the wingtip, slats, flaps and aileron, they could have very easily lost control control.
The following video is in Spanish, but has a some very clear pictures of the damage, especially that of the aileron.
The pilot (the one with brown jacket) has 25,000 hours. He said that he had had the runway in sight since long before the touchdown, but due to the low level mist and the angle of the sun, lost sight at the last moment.
I say bullshit. The plane touched down in a bank, well off the runway centerline, and well off the runway heading. It looks to me that the pilot touched down while still making corrections to line-up with the runway. An in any event, they were in a visual approach. If he lost sight of the runway he had to go-around.
He also mentioned that they never realized of the damage because the plane kept behaving normally. If that's true, then it was an immense luck (it already was the the aileron didn't lock or that a flap or slat panel wasn't lost).
Wow, that really looked like the engine was only inches obove the runway! But I guess you mean Sky Airline_ and not Sky Airlines of Turkey? This looks like a B732 to me
__________________
Canon EOS 400D + Canon 70-300 IS USM. Enough for me to get 2000+ pics online =)
Geezus, "brown jacket" indeed but thank God they spared us a look at the brown skid marks on his Jockey shorts!
Why skid marks? Again, he said he didn't even realized that there was any damage at all. Maybe he didn't even realize that there was a wing strike. That he didn't realize of the awfully unstabilized approach may be a clue.
The pilot (the one with brown jacket) has 25,000 hours. He said that he had had the runway in sight since long before the touchdown, but due to the low level mist and the angle of the sun, lost sight at the last moment.
I say bullshit. The plane touched down in a bank, well off the runway centerline, and well off the runway heading. It looks to me that the pilot touched down while still making corrections to line-up with the runway. An in any event, they were in a visual approach. If he lost sight of the runway he had to go-around.
Shades of that A330 crash in Libya. Still holding out for the report on that one?
I think all those folks should have gone out and bought a lottery ticket. They're damn lucky. Looks like the guy tried to save an approach that was unsaveable (if that's even a word...).
__________________
The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
I think all those folks should have gone out and bought a lottery ticket. They're damn lucky. Looks like the guy tried to save an approach that was unsaveable (if that's even a word...).
What am I missing? I didn't see much evidence of wind.
And, I struggle with "what is an unsaveable approach"...At the last minute, if things are going south, yeah.
But seeing things like Kai Tek, Carnsie, (and others), videos in crosswinds and extensive MSFS time landing after "crazy unstabilized" approaches...
...strikes me as awfully incompetent to shoot that far off the runway, while at the same time making a "respectable" flare and touchdown..
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think an unstabllized approach caused this. Instead it was crappy flying. (And that a good pilot could have made a very respecable landing from this approach- even though they would probably go around much earlier if the approach was truly screwed up)
What am I missing? I didn't see much evidence of wind.
And, I struggle with "what is an unsaveable approach"...At the last minute, if things are going south, yeah.
But seeing things like Kai Tek, Carnsie, (and others), videos in crosswinds and extensive MSFS time landing after "crazy unstabilized" approaches...
...strikes me as awfully incompetent to shoot that far off the runway, while at the same time making a "respectable" flare and touchdown..
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think an unstabllized approach caused this. Instead it was crappy flying. (And that a good pilot could have made a very respecable landing from this approach- even though they would probably go around much earlier if the approach was truly screwed up)
He touched down with a bank angle, off the centerline, and not on the runway heading. He was still ligning up with the runway at the moment of touchdown. That is non-stabilized by definition. I don't think that the wind had anything to do.
Speculation here, but maybe he was dodging fog patches.
Gabe .... "skid marks" are a term used when you soil your Jockey Shorts (a brand of underwear), after a rough landing.
I think you are correct. The camera is looking straight down through the haze and scud while the pilot is looking through it at a considerably greater distance.
__________________
Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.
...That is non-stabilized by definition... I don't think that the wind had anything to do.
I know- I cannot win semantically, and struggle for the right words. (Not arguing- just trying to get a subtle point across)
When folks say "unstabilized approach" I tend to think of guys crossing the outer marker 6 KM out... very high, very fast, and very off course...
...and I'm thinking a decent pilot can straighten out a LOT in that 6 KM- especially in 'visual' conditions.
What I struggle to say is that this guy royally screwed TWO things (runway alignment AND not going around) In the FEW SECONDS before touchdown.
...I don't think you can neccesarily blame this on things that happened in the MINUTES before touchdown...
...Sure, it may be bad practice to continue when you are FUBAR'd all over the place at the outer marker, but that doesn't MAKE YOU shoot off the side of the runway and briefly touch down. His mistake isn't "continuing" a 2000 ft from the marker, it's "continuing" the final 50 feet to the ground- he could have called it off at any point before that.
AND
Going to opposite extreme, you could execute a near-perfect, stabilized approach from the marker, and THEN in the last FEW SECONDS steer off the side of the runway (as student pilots sometimes do)(it almost looks like that's what happened).
Interestingly, this is amazing similar to the Gal that scraped the Air-Bus wing tip in Germany a few years back- EXCEPT she was landing in a huge-ass crosswind.
I know- I cannot win semantically, and struggle for the right words. (Not arguing- just trying to get a subtle point across)
When folks say "unstabilized approach" I tend to think of guys crossing the outer marker 6 KM out... very high, very fast, and very off course...
...and I'm thinking a decent pilot can straighten out a LOT in that 6 KM- especially in 'visual' conditions.
What I struggle to say is that this guy royally screwed TWO things (runway alignment AND not going around) In the FEW SECONDS before touchdown.
...I don't think you can neccesarily blame this on things that happened in the MINUTES before touchdown...
...Sure, it may be bad practice to continue when you are FUBAR'd all over the place at the outer marker, but that doesn't MAKE YOU shoot off the side of the runway and briefly touch down. His mistake isn't "continuing" a 2000 ft from the marker, it's "continuing" the final 50 feet to the ground- he could have called it off at any point before that.
AND
Going to opposite extreme, you could execute a near-perfect, stabilized approach from the marker, and THEN in the last FEW SECONDS steer off the side of the runway (it almost looks like that's what happened).
Interestingly, this is amazing similar to the Gal that scraped the Air-Bus wing tip in Germany a few years back- EXCEPT she was landing in a huge-ass crosswind.
3WE, obvoiusly I am not clear.
It looks to me that the plane was turning right when it touched down and not only that, but it had been turing down for the last several seconds before the touch-down.
As if, after celaring the last "patch" of fog, he saw the runway out there somewhere but not exactly ahead and started to line-up (all this, several seconds before the touch-down) and was still lining-up when he touched down.
He touched down with a bank angle, off the centerline, and not on the runway heading. He was still ligning up with the runway at the moment of touchdown. That is non-stabilized by definition. I don't think that the wind had anything to do.
Speculation here, but maybe he was dodging fog patches.
Maybe he was trying to dodge the proverbial "busload of nuns" on the runway. (Simulator instructors sometimes want you to go around from the flare. In the past I've had them say "there's a busload of nuns on the runway--go around!)
__________________
The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
Sky Airlines real close call
Linear Mode
