Yet another "incident" at YPJT
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yet another "incident" at YPJT
In case you didn't see the 20 second clip on C9 news tonight, yet another incident occured at JT this afternoon, when a twin apparently landed and the right gear collapsed causing it to skew off R12 and into the sand. Fortunately both of the crew walked away unhurt Gott sei dank. And which company did it belong to? Yes none other than the company that has had two similarly dangerous accidents in the last year. Wonder what reason/excuse the owner will come up with this time. I notice he wasn't interviewed. Getting repetitive I suppose.
Beam me up Scotty.
[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
Beam me up Scotty.
[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if nobody was hurt, then Bwaaahahahaha.. .well you know what they say, what goes around comes around. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good Attitude, I don't know exactly how strong the x-wind was but if the pilot of a certain pilot "training" school and charter co. not far from the RFDS is to believed, it was 26 knots (sic). That's right, as if the CFI/testing officer of any school would attempt a landing in an x-wind way in excess of that recommended. The flight was an endorsement/check ride flight for the pilot by all accounts.
All morning the RAC, SA and CSA along with the smaller schools were taking off and landing, so one can only assume that if they can manage the x-wind in 150s and 172s a Seneca can do likewise. Otherwise they shouldn't have gone up.
All morning the RAC, SA and CSA along with the smaller schools were taking off and landing, so one can only assume that if they can manage the x-wind in 150s and 172s a Seneca can do likewise. Otherwise they shouldn't have gone up.
Moderator
Finnair, what is your point? Is this about the seneca, or alleging that someone else told porkies about the wind? Seems like you have an axe or two to grind.
I wasn't here that day, However I'm sure ATC would be able to give the information about the crosswind, rahter than indulging in speculation.
And as for the crosswind limits on various types of aircraft, have a look at the handling notes, you may be surprised.
Word is the reason for the undercarriage collapse was mechanical, nothing to do with wind or who the pilot was or who the operator was etc etc.
I wasn't here that day, However I'm sure ATC would be able to give the information about the crosswind, rahter than indulging in speculation.
And as for the crosswind limits on various types of aircraft, have a look at the handling notes, you may be surprised.
Word is the reason for the undercarriage collapse was mechanical, nothing to do with wind or who the pilot was or who the operator was etc etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CFI, nothing at all to do with the pilots or their abilities; I have from a very reliable source that both are more than capable pilots. As I said in my first posting, thank heavens they weren't injured, likewise those others involved in accidents at YPJT in this last year.
But for someone to be spewing crap about a landing in a 26-knot x-wind is out of order.
But for someone to be spewing crap about a landing in a 26-knot x-wind is out of order.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Earth
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finnair,
You sound like you are rather disgruntled. No point going into Finn accident investigation mode without all the facts at hand, sort of like ordering fuel for the hell of it 10t here 5t there just cause the dropbears asked you to.
Wooblah.
You sound like you are rather disgruntled. No point going into Finn accident investigation mode without all the facts at hand, sort of like ordering fuel for the hell of it 10t here 5t there just cause the dropbears asked you to.
Wooblah.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly, x-wind was less than 12 knots, that's why we were on RWY 12. Wind has been funny last few days right between 12 and 06, but 12 was best choice.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is a case of the proverbial Chinese Whispers.
The undercarriage collapsed on Rwy 12 when the wind would have been as stated by Moby.
Wasn't a change to rwy 24 then made due to the blocked 12? If so, then perhaps the 26kt figure being bandied about may have been on these rwys.
My thoughts anyway. .Moby, Good to have you back
IJ, Legend in my own lunchbox
[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Islander Jock ]</p>
The undercarriage collapsed on Rwy 12 when the wind would have been as stated by Moby.
Wasn't a change to rwy 24 then made due to the blocked 12? If so, then perhaps the 26kt figure being bandied about may have been on these rwys.
My thoughts anyway. .Moby, Good to have you back
IJ, Legend in my own lunchbox
[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Islander Jock ]</p>
