Beech 1900 Belly landing at Woodbourne (NZWB), New Zealand
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beech 1900 Belly landing at Woodbourne (NZWB), New Zealand
Just happened a couple of hours ago.
Below is from a local newspaper
............................................................ .........................
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4099286a10.html
Below is from a local newspaper
............................................................ .........................
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4099286a10.html
Thanks for that. Unusually good photo.
Oh. So they didn't choose to land like that. Good.
Well done the crew! Nice outcome.
(From the story) Air New Zealand spokesman David Jamieson said the aircraft had an undercarriage malfunction.
Well done the crew! Nice outcome.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hotels, usually
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An amazing photo and well done to the crew. Brilliant!
Having flown this type many years ago (UC, long thin type), I remember that the gear was kept up with hydraulic pressure, as there were no uplocks. If the gear was stuck, then possibly the gear was somehow stuck in the wheel well??
Having flown this type many years ago (UC, long thin type), I remember that the gear was kept up with hydraulic pressure, as there were no uplocks. If the gear was stuck, then possibly the gear was somehow stuck in the wheel well??
Last edited by planecrazi; 18th Jun 2007 at 06:42.
Just watched on tv3 news, and on the website. Had to have a wee guffaw at how far removed from reality the reporter was, in describing it as a "heavy" landing. It was very smooth, and very well controlled. Pax kept informed throughout, cabin properly prepared, well done, folks.
But, wow! Did those props fly apart, or what?
But, wow! Did those props fly apart, or what?
do the B1900 checks require the engines to be shut down before touch down?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Holland
Age: 47
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also flew the UC & UB series and we had a couple of problems with the landing gear which all came down after using the handpump using much more than the amount of movements said by Raytheon, one of our crews had over 200 movements but they had a lot of good luck as there was a rowing team on board.
The UC gear up line might have a problem not depressurizing and keeping the gear up.
The UC gear up line might have a problem not depressurizing and keeping the gear up.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a pro-pilot and these guys did a magnificent job, however as it was a small commuter plane would it not have been safer/caused less damage to aircraft and runway/reduced debris on the runway if the aircraft had landed on the grass, parallel to the runway, provided there were no obstacles such as papi's etc to get in the way. Just wondering.
I guess it is standard procedure to land on the runway to allow easier access by the fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
I guess it is standard procedure to land on the runway to allow easier access by the fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
Last edited by smith; 18th Jun 2007 at 09:37. Reason: punctuation
I'm not a pro pilot either, but grass is more likely to cause the aircraft to flip, due to its relatively irregular surface, and even if no flipping occurs, will likely cause more damage, for the same reason.
I've landed on the grass at NZWB, and it feels pretty darned good, one of the better grass runways, but the suspension soaks up a lot of the bumps. Also, despite appearances to the contrary, grass can be almost as hard (unyielding) as seal to land on. Hard+ bumpy = broken aeroplane.
I've landed on the grass at NZWB, and it feels pretty darned good, one of the better grass runways, but the suspension soaks up a lot of the bumps. Also, despite appearances to the contrary, grass can be almost as hard (unyielding) as seal to land on. Hard+ bumpy = broken aeroplane.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
foaming of runways has been suspended for more than 20 years in the US. did they foam the runways in NZ for this landing? or was the foam applied post crash?
someone mentioned props coming apart...couldn't see video. is that the case or did the engines get shut down prior to touchdown? props could be slowed with pt6 type engine without actually shutting off fuel.
just wondering
someone mentioned props coming apart...couldn't see video. is that the case or did the engines get shut down prior to touchdown? props could be slowed with pt6 type engine without actually shutting off fuel.
just wondering
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this history of foaming runways is an interesting one. as I said, in the USA no foam for over twenty years at civil airport...none at military airports for over 15.
HIGH protein foam was used and it did help a tiny bit...time constraints demanded foaming within 15 minutes of landing. foams were made from animal byproducts, hence the term "BLOOD AND GUTS" foam. very hard to clean up. Very specialized gadgets to make the foam.
Current foam is more like soap and is used after a landing/crash.
in the old days, gasoline was a bit more likely to explode than jet a...at military fields planes with nuclear bombs were given every advantage ;-)
I would have to feel that I would want to shut down the engines prior to touchdown and try to get props to stop by selecting feather...having them break apart on touchdown might be bad...of course the "book" has to be followed and once shutdown, YOU ARE LANDING...no go around.
bravo to aany crew with a good landing!
HIGH protein foam was used and it did help a tiny bit...time constraints demanded foaming within 15 minutes of landing. foams were made from animal byproducts, hence the term "BLOOD AND GUTS" foam. very hard to clean up. Very specialized gadgets to make the foam.
Current foam is more like soap and is used after a landing/crash.
in the old days, gasoline was a bit more likely to explode than jet a...at military fields planes with nuclear bombs were given every advantage ;-)
I would have to feel that I would want to shut down the engines prior to touchdown and try to get props to stop by selecting feather...having them break apart on touchdown might be bad...of course the "book" has to be followed and once shutdown, YOU ARE LANDING...no go around.
bravo to aany crew with a good landing!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great job by the crew, but ditto the questions on the engine shutdown. I don't think I'd like being a passenger sitting alongside those props as they fragment and fly apart. The skin on a B1900 is probably not going to do more than slow a direct hit down a bit. Any pieces coming through the skin or the glass could be lethal.
Top marks to the pilots involved, and the safety crew on standby at Woodbourne. Everyone got out safe, and the passengers gave great reports to the media. Let's not over-analyse what the pilots did too much, it all turned out exceptionally well.
