BE200 XHV
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Downunder
BE200 XHV
Scheduled NTL-PQQ but news.com.au reporting gear problem. Anyone know what's going on? https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/VHXDV https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...8bc04f89ce8142
Thoughts and hope for the crew and pax.
Thoughts and hope for the crew and pax.
Last edited by OPSH24; 13th May 2024 at 02:05.
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 142
Likes: 90
From: Depends
FlightRadar warning
Warning: watching the flightpath on FlightRadar24 will make you dizzy!
Glad it ended OK and all are safe.
in the landing video somebody is overheard to comment 'Dun dat well' Bravo.
Glad it ended OK and all are safe.
in the landing video somebody is overheard to comment 'Dun dat well' Bravo.
Last edited by Thirsty; 13th May 2024 at 02:56.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,157
Likes: 97
From: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Question for those 'in the know'.......
In such a case, for both the aircraft and the outcome, is it better to land on the grass, less friction, = less damage(?), or the hard bitumen?
I witnessed a Be55 Baron at Perth many moons ago land on the bitumen at YPPH and the noise was 'shrieking', in that one could imagine the metal underbelly being ripped open like a sardine can.....whereas on the grass would be 'softer' would it not?
I remember the C.310 at SY many many moons ago, when the pilot selected the grass, made a long approach, engines off, used the starter motors to align the two-bladed props horizontal, and slid it along the grass, with what was described as 'minimal damage'.....
Never had to do it, but, always thought that the grass would have been my choice.......
OVAH!
P.S.......'WELL DONE' that pilot
In such a case, for both the aircraft and the outcome, is it better to land on the grass, less friction, = less damage(?), or the hard bitumen?
I witnessed a Be55 Baron at Perth many moons ago land on the bitumen at YPPH and the noise was 'shrieking', in that one could imagine the metal underbelly being ripped open like a sardine can.....whereas on the grass would be 'softer' would it not?
I remember the C.310 at SY many many moons ago, when the pilot selected the grass, made a long approach, engines off, used the starter motors to align the two-bladed props horizontal, and slid it along the grass, with what was described as 'minimal damage'.....
Never had to do it, but, always thought that the grass would have been my choice.......
OVAH!
P.S.......'WELL DONE' that pilot
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 284
Likes: 23
From: Australia
It will sound horrible (search youtube). But for small/medium aircraft, expect very little hull damage - new beacons, new props & engines, lick of paint and it's good to go! And anyway, it's an insurance job, so safety is much more important than extent of repairs.
For landings on grass, there is a good chance of something digging into a lump/bump/soft-patch and then there will be rapid deceleration and spinning/flipping - not such a good outcome.
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,379
Likes: 490
From: Melbourne
Excellent job, super smooth by the pilot!
I chuckled ever so slightly when I saw right rudder kicked in during the very final moments. I wonder what rudder authority is like with the wheels up at low speed!
I chuckled ever so slightly when I saw right rudder kicked in during the very final moments. I wonder what rudder authority is like with the wheels up at low speed!
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 260
Likes: 44
From: Perth
Question for those 'in the know'.......
In such a case, for both the aircraft and the outcome, is it better to land on the grass, less friction, = less damage(?), or the hard bitumen?
I witnessed a Be55 Baron at Perth many moons ago land on the bitumen at YPPH and the noise was 'shrieking', in that one could imagine the metal underbelly being ripped open like a sardine can.....whereas on the grass would be 'softer' would it not?
I remember the C.310 at SY many many moons ago, when the pilot selected the grass, made a long approach, engines off, used the starter motors to align the two-bladed props horizontal, and slid it along the grass, with what was described as 'minimal damage'.....
Never had to do it, but, always thought that the grass would have been my choice.......
OVAH!
P.S.......'WELL DONE' that pilot
In such a case, for both the aircraft and the outcome, is it better to land on the grass, less friction, = less damage(?), or the hard bitumen?
I witnessed a Be55 Baron at Perth many moons ago land on the bitumen at YPPH and the noise was 'shrieking', in that one could imagine the metal underbelly being ripped open like a sardine can.....whereas on the grass would be 'softer' would it not?
I remember the C.310 at SY many many moons ago, when the pilot selected the grass, made a long approach, engines off, used the starter motors to align the two-bladed props horizontal, and slid it along the grass, with what was described as 'minimal damage'.....
Never had to do it, but, always thought that the grass would have been my choice.......
OVAH!
P.S.......'WELL DONE' that pilot
Joined: Jul 2010
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 278
From: Asia
The runway is hard, flat, straight and regularly inspected. I’d rather put down on one than chance it on the grass which might result in something digging in and possibly flipping the aircraft over. There might be a bit more metal scraped off the underside but it’s an insurance job and there will be a fair bit of work needed anyway. It’s also faster and easier for emergency services to get to an aircraft on the runway.
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 76
Likes: 23
From: somers