Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Beech 1900 landing gear incident at KFLL

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Beech 1900 landing gear incident at KFLL

Old 29th May 2006, 15:19
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 79
Posts: 807
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you Tinns. Further googling traces the 1900 back to the 99 and that to the Beech 18.
broadreach is offline  
Old 29th May 2006, 22:17
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello all,

I say if the way this plane handled from balanced flying to the lowest energy touchdown possible then more aerodynamic appendages for everyone!

Dan
WasHighPing Duck is offline  
Old 29th May 2006, 22:47
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by broadreach
Bless you Dan for the cool, factual passenger report.
How do you know it's factual
banana9999 is offline  
Old 29th May 2006, 23:47
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 79
Posts: 807
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smile

The obvious answer, Banana, is that one can't be certain it's factual. You read, then you read again, and you make a value judgement, that's all. WasHighPing Duck's description of the incident - and he made it plain it was from a passenger's viewpoint - was straitforward, believable, no great fuss, just what he saw. The NTSB report will verify or deny that some day. In the meantime, he's contributed some interesting text and photos, not least those demonstrating how the pilots kept the (full) aircraft from settling to starboard until the last few seconds, and still smack on the centreline.

You asked!

edited 30 Jun: ok not quite "smack on the centreline", just a few metres to the right of it.

Last edited by broadreach; 30th May 2006 at 15:22.
broadreach is offline  
Old 30th May 2006, 00:48
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tinstaafl
...
The additional aerodynamic devices would be doing things like widen a CG envelope that would be rather constrained without them, maintain stability in various axes eg pitch & yaw, provide pitch down forces at high angles of attack or improve the effective span to compensate for increased weight.
But considering all the additional intersection drag at the root of each -- ummm -- device, one can't help but think there are better ways to do the job.

And - increasing the effective span must have the structural effect of increasing the physical span, in that the spanwise center of lift is moved outboard. Thus all else being equal, the center section sees higher bending loads.

On the other hand - since this is the biggest buggy built in the Beech barn, maybe the constraint is the size of the hangar door.
barit1 is offline  
Old 30th May 2006, 02:19
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello all,

Doesn't the unique photo I posted of the landing before the fire dept. got there to foam at least prove I was a passenger?

I sat in the centre back, three seats there and one of the guys next to me wasn't enjoying the ride near as much as I was so to take his mind off it I told him airline jokes.

A plane flying over the Atlantic announces that they lost an engine and would be a half an hour late.
Then engine 2 an hour late, and engine 3 an hour and a half late.
Finally the Newfoundlander speaks up, "I hope they don't lose that last engine or we'll be up here all night"!

Don't like it, either did he, the guy next to me that didn't enjoy the emergency.
Look I was under pressure; I didn't have a plethora of material.
I was too busy watching what was going on!

We did secure heavy stuff in the cabin before the landing.
Everyone was helpful.
A passenger from up front spoke to the Pilots and came back to look at the wheels from the second last windows. We made ourselves as small as possible but we were in the way of the last windows.
His estimation was that they both looked down but they were different.
One of the guys next to me said "whatís he know about wheels", that struck me funny because I was more concerned if the guy was good at sesame street, "one of these things is not like the other".

The moral of the flight "Wings Good, Wheels not so Good!"

Dan
WasHighPing Duck is offline  
Old 30th May 2006, 10:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WasHighPing Duck
Hello all,









I don't see the thumbnaiils on my system but they do bring up the pictures for me, do they work for anyone else?

Thank you CW.

Dan

Dan -

Off the thread topic, but the same situation for me -- the thumbnails are just little squares with red 'x's inside. And clicking the boxes reveals your pictures.

Yet, Barit's pic appeared just fine.

Can anyone offer some suggestions (settings, etc.) that would enable the thumbnails to display on my laptop?

Thanks,

Zeff
Zeffy is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2006, 19:35
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester
Age: 52
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cookies

Originally Posted by Zeffy
Dan -

Off the thread topic, but the same situation for me -- the thumbnails are just little squares with red 'x's inside. And clicking the boxes reveals your pictures.

Yet, Barit's pic appeared just fine.

Can anyone offer some suggestions (settings, etc.) that would enable the thumbnails to display on my laptop?

Thanks,

Zeff
HI

You need to temporarily allow cookiies.. if you look at the bottom of your screen you will see a red circle with a line through it.. click on that and select the temporarily accept cookies.. and view away!!!

Albi
albi is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2006, 12:25
  #29 (permalink)  
Props are for boats!
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like a good landing considering. Well done to the Crew.

The damage looks relatively minor aswell.


Sheep
Sheep Guts is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2006, 00:18
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
21 occupants? I am a 1900 CA and about half of our 1900's have a 20th O2 mask. This limits our maximum passengers in those aircraft to 20 (at least one being a lap child.) I was just curious if anyone knows if Gulfstream's aircraft have two extra masks, therefore allowing for 21 pax?

By the way, lap children are counted as passengers at my airline.
Trogdor is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2006, 03:28
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Holland
Age: 48
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Back in the late 90's they had a max 19 (adult) pax. These planes came from COEX and I'm pretty sure they're 19 seaters.
Coastrider26 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2006, 16:49
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: blue side of the world
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
"Infant are not accounted as pax in the manifest"
Perhaps at your airline, but not at all airlines.
When I say not accounted as pax, means that there are listed on the manifest but do not need seats. From 0 to less than 2 years old.
I think it's in line with ICAO
Soft Ride is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 12:46
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 71
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fwiw the 3M B1900d's come from a variety of carriers...including UAX cast off's. The incident closed the only main runway at KFLL for over 4 hrs and delayed a slew of flights that were suddenly overweight for the shorter diagonal runway...compounded by the fact there was only 1 tanker truck available to defuel the entire airport. Those that had not been fueled left light and flagstopped for fuel if needed. Further this was the second B1900D 3M gear incident in the last 6 months or so that blocked the main runway for a lengthy amount of time. As a result there is talk of sending these down to KMIA in the future which has far more concrete available to be closed without seriously impacting their operation.
Hiflyer1757 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.