Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
אַרְיֵה |
I'm not sure what a "crash landing" is. I always thought that it was either one or the other: either a crash, or a landing. הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
I know they say it was a 'bird strike' but you have to wonder what the fuel gauges say... | |||
|
| Member |
There is cell phone video from one of the passengers that shows the birds as the plane is taking off. | |||
|
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
 ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan "Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle | |||
|
| Member |
They don't say anything. You have to look at them. I'll be here all week.
I've been on board for a few that could be best described as a "controlled crash," and a few that could be assessed as uncontrolled landings. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
Cool, just a question when a plane like that doesn't burn at all after landing. It is RUSSIAN after all, like guppy said, they don't run the tightest / by-the-book outfits on the planet...  | |||
|
| Member |
Yeah, that's the first thing one generally thinks about when there's a crash and something doesn't burn: what happened to all the fuel? Big airplanes are still built out of expensive beer can material that rips and pulls apart during a foced landing in a large aircraft, in most cases resulting in ruptured fuel cells and a fire. Perhaps no fire occurred because the engines were already flamed out, or perhaps he touched it down with the gear out to mitigate impact, or perhaps the engines simply held in place; engines are held to the pylon by concentric bolts which typically shear and fail in such a case. From the pictures in the article, the airplane is remarkably intact and upright. | |||
|
| אַרְיֵה |
הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים | |||
|
Baroque Bloke |
“… When one engine failed they thought they could still turn back to the airport, Capt Yusupov said. "When we saw that the second was also losing power, despite all of our efforts, the plane began losing height," he said. "I changed my mind several times, because I was planning to gain height," he said. But Flightradar data shows that the A321 had only reached 243m (797ft). "I planned to reach a certain height, hold it there, figure out the engine failure, make the correct decision, work it all out. But then it turned out there was really hardly any time." Capt Yusupov and his co-pilot, Georgi Murzin, managed to stop the fuel supply to the engines and kept the jet level, gliding it down into the corn field, without lowering the undercarriage. With the wheels down, there is a risk of flying debris rupturing the plane's fuel tanks…” www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49369172 Serious about crackers | |||
|
| Member |
With the gear not down, there's a considerably higher risk of rupturing the fuel tanks. From less than 800', however, to transition to a descent and begin emergency procedures and set up for a forced landing, very little time exists to ensure control, let alone begin or complete a gear cycle. Additionally, extending the landing gear increases drag not just because of the landing gear, but gear doors which open and then close in sequence, during gear extension. Already slow and with limited time and very little glide option, extending gear would increase sink, decrease speed, and rapidly reduce the available options the flight could reach prior to impact. Most notably, a dual engine failure after takeoff in a twin engine transport category airplane isn't something trained for, nor is a forced landing in the same. Given that the crew's options all lay outside the scope of their training, they did well. | |||
|
paradox in a box |
Good thing the adults were found quickly.   These go to eleven. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024