Flybe Dash 8 400 nosegear failure at Belfast airport
Strewth.
From Collins Concise English Dictionary:
Aircraft do not "collide" with the runway, they land on it.
Question: Did the Jetblue A320 with the nosewheel stuck at 90 degrees "crash" or "collide" when it landed at LAX some years ago?
Answer: No.
If you don't believe me have a look on youtube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVNZkYSht4
From Collins Concise English Dictionary:
Collide 1. to crash together with a violent impact. 2. to conflict, clash, disagree.
Question: Did the Jetblue A320 with the nosewheel stuck at 90 degrees "crash" or "collide" when it landed at LAX some years ago?
Answer: No.
If you don't believe me have a look on youtube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVNZkYSht4
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semantics
Folks we are getting hung up on semantics here.
What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.
So I will bow to your desire to use the word crash or collision. As pilots we are trained how to respond to such situations to work the lists and manage the problem. We practice a whole variety of situations in the simulator on a regular basis.
As a pilot what I cannot and will not accept is the normalising of this and the suggestion that because it happens every now and again it is somehow an unremarkable, everyday occurrence, move on nothing to see here.
In all my experience I have never landed an a/c with any of the gear up. Indeed I have been fortunate enough never to have experienced more than a (very) minor tire deflation. I have never scraped a runway with any part of the airframe. I have never ended up being unable to vacate a runway. I doubt that I have been especially lucky.
This accident, incident, nonevent however you want to categorise it was;
a. Newsworthy
b. Undesireable
c. Very expensive
d. A major career event for both crew involved
There are lots of situations which can be fun in the simulator but I would prefer not to do for real with a load of lives back there.
What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.
So I will bow to your desire to use the word crash or collision. As pilots we are trained how to respond to such situations to work the lists and manage the problem. We practice a whole variety of situations in the simulator on a regular basis.
As a pilot what I cannot and will not accept is the normalising of this and the suggestion that because it happens every now and again it is somehow an unremarkable, everyday occurrence, move on nothing to see here.
In all my experience I have never landed an a/c with any of the gear up. Indeed I have been fortunate enough never to have experienced more than a (very) minor tire deflation. I have never scraped a runway with any part of the airframe. I have never ended up being unable to vacate a runway. I doubt that I have been especially lucky.
This accident, incident, nonevent however you want to categorise it was;
a. Newsworthy
b. Undesireable
c. Very expensive
d. A major career event for both crew involved
There are lots of situations which can be fun in the simulator but I would prefer not to do for real with a load of lives back there.
This event would be classified as an Abnormal Runway Contact (ARC), preceded in this case by a System/Component Failure or Malfunction (SCF-NP).
There's little point in arguing about semantics in a professional forum when our industry already has a taxonomy that's widely accepted.
Moderator
I doubt that either pilot went to the Chief Pilot's office and said "I crashed the plane". They reported that they landed as normally as possible, knowing that the nose gear would not extend. Damage occurred, airplanes are repairable, and consumable.
Moderator
Formalizing the use of the word "crash"
In my work writing flight manual supplements for both fixed and rotor wing aircraft, I have had serious discussions with regulators that the word "crash" sometimes be used in at flight manual - here's why:
Much more so for rotorcraft than fixed wing, there can be situations where being on the surface as soon as possible is best. Examples of this include a uncontrolled fire, but more so, a transmission failure in a helicopter = the rotor may stop turning.
I have asserted that for such conditions, the commonly used term of "land immediately" is actually a trap for conscientious pilots. If I, as a pilot, am instructed to land an aircraft, I'll infer that I should find a place to put the aircraft where it may be reusable after I'm done. I may have to explain to someone why damage was done if I don't do a good job.
On the other hand, if for such critical conditions, like the rotor may stop turning in a minute or two, if the prevailing instruction to the pilot is to "crash" the aircraft, the pilot will clearly know that the intended outcome of their effort will be a crashed aircraft really close to the place on the flight path where that critical condition was detected. They're not going to fly onward to look for a place to "land", they'll just put it down where they are, as safely as they can. Of course, any pilot who has read and understood the instruction to crash an aircraft will still do their best to preserve life as best they can, so I'm not worried about them simply holding the nose down and closing their eyes.
If the pilots of a Cougar S-92 flight off Newfoundland were instructed to crash (ditch) the helicopter rather than "land immediately" they would be alive.
I opine that the word "crash" can be very useful, in the right circumstances. Helicopter drops onto a sports field and rolls over; news report says it "crashed". We all agree, because the pilot followed the FM instructions, and crashed it, 'cause of a transmission warning. It all lines up well....
Much more so for rotorcraft than fixed wing, there can be situations where being on the surface as soon as possible is best. Examples of this include a uncontrolled fire, but more so, a transmission failure in a helicopter = the rotor may stop turning.
I have asserted that for such conditions, the commonly used term of "land immediately" is actually a trap for conscientious pilots. If I, as a pilot, am instructed to land an aircraft, I'll infer that I should find a place to put the aircraft where it may be reusable after I'm done. I may have to explain to someone why damage was done if I don't do a good job.
On the other hand, if for such critical conditions, like the rotor may stop turning in a minute or two, if the prevailing instruction to the pilot is to "crash" the aircraft, the pilot will clearly know that the intended outcome of their effort will be a crashed aircraft really close to the place on the flight path where that critical condition was detected. They're not going to fly onward to look for a place to "land", they'll just put it down where they are, as safely as they can. Of course, any pilot who has read and understood the instruction to crash an aircraft will still do their best to preserve life as best they can, so I'm not worried about them simply holding the nose down and closing their eyes.
If the pilots of a Cougar S-92 flight off Newfoundland were instructed to crash (ditch) the helicopter rather than "land immediately" they would be alive.
I opine that the word "crash" can be very useful, in the right circumstances. Helicopter drops onto a sports field and rolls over; news report says it "crashed". We all agree, because the pilot followed the FM instructions, and crashed it, 'cause of a transmission warning. It all lines up well....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we agree on accident? (albeit a minor one) That is how AH categorises it. And it will clearly be subject to an AAIB investigation
I wouldn't pay too much attention to how AH categorises an event, but in this case it almost certainly satisfies the Annex 13 definition of an accident (which is dependent on the degree of structural damage sustained).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 73
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is an abnormal event for a pilot may be a fairly normal one for the ground crews, as they routinely do TENS of landings AN HOUR all day long. They probably face one abnormal situation a month, it's not theory to them. Thus I'm saying that a term is needed to describe the fact a LANDING AT THE AIRPORT is abnormal.It's the equivalent of the airport crew declaring an emergency. This term could then be used in reporting to explain an airport shutdown, with no need to panic the readers. As in "Flight XXX blew a tire on departure, dumped fuel, and effected an abnormal landing, leading to a 2 hour closure of XXX and the diversion of some traffic to YYY".
Folks we are getting hung up on semantics here.
What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.
So I will bow to your desire to use the word crash or collision. As pilots we are trained how to respond to such situations to work the lists and manage the problem. We practice a whole variety of situations in the simulator on a regular basis.
As a pilot what I cannot and will not accept is the normalising of this and the suggestion that because it happens every now and again it is somehow an unremarkable, everyday occurrence, move on nothing to see here.
In all my experience I have never landed an a/c with any of the gear up. Indeed I have been fortunate enough never to have experienced more than a (very) minor tire deflation. I have never scraped a runway with any part of the airframe. I have never ended up being unable to vacate a runway. I doubt that I have been especially lucky.
This accident, incident, nonevent however you want to categorise it was;
a. Newsworthy
b. Undesireable
c. Very expensive
d. A major career event for both crew involved
There are lots of situations which can be fun in the simulator but I would prefer not to do for real with a load of lives back there.
What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.
So I will bow to your desire to use the word crash or collision. As pilots we are trained how to respond to such situations to work the lists and manage the problem. We practice a whole variety of situations in the simulator on a regular basis.
As a pilot what I cannot and will not accept is the normalising of this and the suggestion that because it happens every now and again it is somehow an unremarkable, everyday occurrence, move on nothing to see here.
In all my experience I have never landed an a/c with any of the gear up. Indeed I have been fortunate enough never to have experienced more than a (very) minor tire deflation. I have never scraped a runway with any part of the airframe. I have never ended up being unable to vacate a runway. I doubt that I have been especially lucky.
This accident, incident, nonevent however you want to categorise it was;
a. Newsworthy
b. Undesireable
c. Very expensive
d. A major career event for both crew involved
There are lots of situations which can be fun in the simulator but I would prefer not to do for real with a load of lives back there.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no fan of Flybe ........i did work there a long time ago , however i do happen to know that there are quite a few very very experienced Captains in there .I also know that EZY and FR have many many CPT with less than a quarter the experience of a lot of the Flybe "less experienced crews"
take you pick
take you pick
