A comment from "AME" on Avherald may provide a clue....

The thread title should be changed. This was not a crash landing, it was a controlled response to a defective landing gear.

Looks like a particularly smooth landing all things considered. Good job by the crew.

Oh, OK. I'll try that.

If the airlines sued the manufacturer. Bombardier wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Not yet, keep an eye on this page: https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/ond...-february-2017

I disagree. A technical failure meant that the crew where completely unable to avoid impacting the runway. The fact that it was handled impeccably by the crew doesn't change that in any way.

One person was taken to hospital and many were badly shaken up. But for the professionalism of the crew and some luck with the weather people could have died. It is a dangerous precedent when stuff like this can be categorised by airlines as an operational issue!

It was a minor crash landing incident on the scale of things but a crash landing nonetheless.

Absolutely. Must bare in mind some of the comments on this forum next time as a fare paying pax when something goes wrong on the Dash 8 landing gear...remind myself this is not a crash landing but merely a controlled malfunction landing! Must pay more for that...

The crew landed 'normally' on both main landing gears. They kept the aircraft safe and under control, and lowered the nose onto the tarmac as gently as they could. Had there been anything they were not comfortable with after the mains touched, (for example; directional control), they could have gone around for another attempt or diverted to another airport. The situation was under control.

In no way was this a "crash" landing - a crash implies a violent and uncontrollable impact.

In no way did the aircraft 'skid to a halt', (as reported by the newspaper). 'Skid' implies having no control over direction of travel or speed.

Please, passengers, journalists and other non pilots: can you at least understand the differences here and not be so sensationalist.

Very well done, the crew of that Flybe Dash. Good job ! :ok:

I agree with the suggestion that it was not a "crash". It certainly seems that the crew landed the aircraft as they intended, maintaining control throughout until the aircraft stopped (perhaps nosewheel steering excepted). I see this as being similar to landing with a locked brake, or following a birdstrike - the aircraft returned damaged, but it was never out of control.

For this reason, I believe that we are much further from pilotless airplanes than some futurists would like us to dream.

LOL, You will be lucky. All sense of reality has left us for ever thanks to social media. Very depressing!

As a journo, hack, etc I think I may venture an opinion. I think you're being a bit pilot-centric here: such a landing can shut down the runway for a while. This is an item of local news, for anyone whose living is connected with that airport or who needs to fly through.

A landing without nose gear such as here would presumably -I'm SLF- require alerting the fire trucks, have a supervisor ready in the tower in case something goes pear-shape and the runway gets polluted or blocked or ambulances are required. There is a strong possibility that following aircraft may have to divert even if all that happens is a runway excursion. Or do you intend to message that that the exact outcome of a no-nosegear landing is perfectly predictable, that the plane will taxi to stand and take off for the next sector after a 20 minute turnaround?

A phrase is needed for the act of safely landing a plane on the runway, albeit in an abnormal fashion such that the airport's processes may be impacted.

The definition of a crash is when a vehicle impacts something resulting in damage to the vehicle (don't take my word for it see the OED). If you have a minor crash in your car you may well be able to retain a degree of control. This was a crash. A quite minor crash, a crash where the crew maintained a high degree of control but unequiocally a crash. As a pilot I do not consider an impact a normal outcome of a revenue sector on a commercial aircraft. So I really don't think it matters if you are a pilot, journalist or member of the public. When Bombardier considered this failure mode the desired outcome was manual gear extension maybe with the added problem of loss of nosewheel steering. Of that failed and there was an impact then the thing was designed to minimise the consequences of such an event.

Birmingham,

I would suggest the general term "disabled landing", which messages that the aircraft is flying under control but at the very least not fully functional, needs special landing conditions, and suggests it will not be functional immediately after.

I am sure that pilots could and indeed should find a term that would be forthright while satisfactory to their community and the press. some of the terminology adopted for describing irregular events eg. CFIT is excessively euphemistic.

The news report said a passenger had a hurt hand. I am guessing he sprained his thumb in his panic trying to text his lawyer :rolleyes:

The definition of "crash" in my Collins dictionary is:

Neither part of that definition even remotely describes how the Flybe Dash in question landed at Belfast, and this is why the use of the term "crash landing" to describe this incident is inaccurate (and sensationalist).

Yes, the emergency services would have been called and asked to attend the landing - as a perfectly sensible safety precaution. Also, yes the runway would have been blocked until a) The pilots and fire crews determined that the aircraft and its occupants were safe, and b) A means was found to move the aircraft from the runway.

So, yes the incident might have been newsworthy but it was not a "crash landing" because there was no crash. Do you say you crashed your car when you scrape the side or the alloys against a post when driving out of the supermarket car park?.

Perhaps "abnormal landing" would convey better a situation like this where an aircraft safely alighted on a runway with a high degree of control, but nevertheless an abnormal configuration, such as having no nose-wheel deployed.

Edmund

I agree. There are many euphemistic terms such as CFIT and your diabled landing would indeed suffice here. But I am not sure why crash is so anathema to many pilots. After all if a truck strikes a plane it is called a collision not something euphmistic like a ground handling error!

This was indeed a "disabled landing" which caused a minor crash which the airport,crew and aircraft were fully prepared to deal with.


My problem with some of us in the aviation industry is that we seem to have fallen into the trap of using pr spin to describe everything e.g. smaller seats is 'densification" or "providing an enhanced passenger experience".
CFIT is a useful term which qualifies rather than replaces accident.

This was a minor crash resulting from an NLG failure. The pilots followed the checklists, used their skill and experience and the aircraft was designed to withstand the incident. So more a question of s@!# happens so we prepare.

Possibly because it implies a smoking hole in the ground. Regardless of what the OED says, that's what generally peoples first impression is when you hear the term. Lots of bits of aircraft, smoke, blood, limbs etc. Its human nature (unfortunately). Nothing more than morbid curiosity.

The media hype we find ourselves surrounded by is nothing more than sensationalism to sell column inches. People wouldn't look twice if the headline said "Passengers safe and well after well trained crew do their jobs".

This was in my opinion nothing to write home about.... an emergency landing resulting from the abnormal operation of an on board system. With all due respect to the two up front and the girls and boys down the back - these are the situations where we earn our money as pilots and cabin crew. It's what we're paid to do - our primary function - to keep those in our trust safe.

Not quite...grabbing his bag from the overhead locker. (apparently)

Ok I accept I seem to be in the minority but incidents can be underplayed as well as sensationalised. I have never landed an aircraft without a nose wheel and despite the assurance of many here that it is perfectly normal and it is what I am trained to do, I for one am in no rush to try! Well done to the Flybe crew.

There is an interview with one of the passengers on the Belfast Telegraph web-site now, which praises the pilot and crew, and says that the landing was so smooth that he didn't know they had landed.