Aviation

I've only seen very poor quality video but it appears as already mentioned, that the rate of descent was nowhere near sufficiently reduced in the flare resulting in a hard landing. Further to that, there was a significant crosswind component from the right side, and the aircraft has touched down with apparent sideslip onto the right main gear. I don't fly the CRJ, so don't know if sideslip landings are an approved technique from the manufacturer...They are on a Boeing.

High rate of descent, no flare, sideslipped heavy landing onto only the right main gear...potentially with some prior compromised structural integrity of gear assembly causing failure of right main gear - possibly gear strut pushing up and rupturing fuel tank from underneath, fuel igniting, right wing rips off, left wing still producing lift rolls the remains of the aircraft to the right and aircraft ends up inverted.

It's a miracle that there are no fatalities from this.
 

Rita_Poon said:
Watching the video, it looks to my untrained eye that the right rear landing gear has collapsed, this has then put the weight of that side of the plane onto the engine and wing and it's given almost immediately and suffered catastrophic failure then exploded taking the remaining fuel with it.

All on board are very lucky the accident occurred on landing and not fully fueled up on take off.
Click to expand...
This is what i thought too
 
I'm not a fan if flying. A trip back from Canada, in 1998, where the plane only had 2 engines, and one of those failed mid flight, put a nail in the coffin for me. It was a week later my sister made the same trip home, and the same flight that left a few hours after hers crashed into the Atlantic off Nova Scotia. I thought ... nah ... that'll do.

Then about a decade ago my neice in Canada was one of only 3 survivors in a crash coningvin to land in the Canadian arctic when the jet she was in had sone kind of avionics failure caused, I believe, by something the military was doing nearby.

Fact us i now trust gravity far more than i do the aerosol. It's been around 13 thousand million years longer, and when push cones to shove, that experience always comes out on top.

And the whole airport experience, being fleeced for parking and even dropping someone off, their latest scam. Damn! There's nothing on earth that important or that interesting that I'll fly to it!!
 
chrismpw said:
I'm not a fan if flying. A trip back from Canada, in 1998, where the plane only had 2 engines, and one of those failed mid flight, put a nail in the coffin for me. It was a week later my sister made the same trip home, and the same flight that left a few hours after hers crashed into the Atlantic off Nova Scotia. I thought ... nah ... that'll do.

Then about a decade ago my neice in Canada was one of only 3 survivors in a crash coningvin to land in the Canadian arctic when the jet she was in had sone kind of avionics failure caused, I believe, by something the military was doing nearby.

Fact us i now trust gravity far more than i do the aerosol. It's been around 13 thousand million years longer, and when push cones to shove, that experience always comes out on top.

And the whole airport experience, being fleeced for parking and even dropping someone off, their latest scam. Damn! There's nothing on earth that important or that interesting that I'll fly to it!!
Click to expand...
2 engines for a reason Sir...so you have another one should the other fail! All two engine aircraft certified for public transport must by design standard be able to maintain directional control with a failure of the most critical engine at the worst possible time (on take off) and at maximum weight.

Making your peace with flying, like any form of transport, is simply a process of risk management. We know statistics say that driving is more dangerous, however most of us happily accept that heightened relative risk compared to flying, with the mitigations of having safety equipment such as seatbelts and airbags, and increasing our awareness when behind the wheel.
 

slipstream86 said:
2 engines for a reason Sir...so you have another one should the other fail! All two engine aircraft certified for public transport must by design standard be able to maintain directional control with a failure of the most critical engine at the worst possible time (on take off) and at maximum weight.

Making your peace with flying, like any form of transport, is simply a process of risk management. We know statistics say that driving is more dangerous, however most of us happily accept that heightened relative risk compared to flying, with the mitigations of having safety equipment such as seatbelts and airbags, and increasing our awareness when behind the wheel.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm aware they can fly on one engine. But those engines will have probably been the same age and undergone the same maintenance schedule, maybe by the same teams and if you're down to your last one....

I'd have been happy down to three engines.

But today it's MAINLY the whole airport experience that puts me off. If I could park at a reasonable cost ... let's say a couple if quid a day (still more than I want to pay for switching an engine off), rock up a few minutes before boarding, hand over my luggage, flash a ticket and get on, LIKE A BUS, I'd be all over that.
 
chrismpw said:
Oh I'm aware they can fly on one engine. But those engines will have probably been the same age and undergone the same maintenance schedule, maybe by the same teams and if you're down to your last one....

I'd have been happy down to three engines.

But today it's MAINLY the whole airport experience that puts me off. If I could park at a reasonable cost ... let's say a couple if quid a day (still more than I want to pay for switching an engine off), rock up a few minutes before boarding, hand over my luggage, flash a ticket and get on, LIKE A BUS, I'd be all over that.
Click to expand...
There was a man, his name was Freddie Laker. A visionary. Look him up, could be your ticket to a new chapter of your career. I'd like discounted tickets for this prompt when you make it please.
 
Rita_Poon said:
There was a man, his name was Freddie Laker. A visionary. Look him up, could be your ticket to a new chapter of your career. I'd like discounted tickets for this prompt when you make it please.
Click to expand...
I remember him. He ruined international cricket for a while. A forerunner to Sky buggering up sport forthcoming masses.
 
chrismpw said:
I remember him. He ruined international cricket for a while. A forerunner to Sky buggering up sport forthcoming masses.
Click to expand...
There's those double spaces again. What's goin on man? This some sort of morse code for off world intelligence?

Anyway, Freddie set up the crash bang wallop on n off quick, stuff the meals, travel like a taxi, do it on a budget, I'll have the market thankyou very much.

Silver service with all the trimmings, or dirt cheap get it done and enjoy your holiday. One offering empowered the masses. That's why the silver service brigade rounded on him and bankrupted him. He later beat them in court.
 

slipstream86 said:
I've only seen very poor quality video but it appears as already mentioned, that the rate of descent was nowhere near sufficiently reduced in the flare resulting in a hard landing. Further to that, there was a significant crosswind component from the right side, and the aircraft has touched down with apparent sideslip onto the right main gear. I don't fly the CRJ, so don't know if sideslip landings are an approved technique from the manufacturer...They are on a Boeing.

High rate of descent, no flare, sideslipped heavy landing onto only the right main gear...potentially with some prior compromised structural integrity of gear assembly causing failure of right main gear - possibly gear strut pushing up and rupturing fuel tank from underneath, fuel igniting, right wing rips off, left wing still producing lift rolls the remains of the aircraft to the right and aircraft ends up inverted.

It's a miracle that there are no fatalities from this.
Click to expand...
You’ve been waiting a while for this opportunity haven’t you?

Fair play mate.
 
BlueInNZ said:
I flew from Wellington to Nelson recently, a 30 minute flight over the Cook Strait. Went over in an older 12 seater that was like a transit van with wings. Back on a more modern 10 seater. Both flights have just the one pilot, no cabin crew, direct line of sight to the cockpit and view through front screen to the runway. Like a fairground ride tbh.

View attachment 295602View attachment 295603View attachment 295604
Click to expand...
you're not supposed to use your phone on a plane you crazy reckless fool, thats probably how Canada plane ended up on its asre
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top