UA landing at Newark
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not about SOP's, it's about common sense.
I fail to see the call for stairs here.
It's one thing if we're talking about a wheel/tire/brake problem or even a tailpipe fire, but when you've pranged the nacelle as in this case, evacuation is clearly the prudent move.
It's one thing if we're talking about a wheel/tire/brake problem or even a tailpipe fire, but when you've pranged the nacelle as in this case, evacuation is clearly the prudent move.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from the page with pictures....
Quote: While earlier reports indicated that the aircraft's right wing had been damaged in addition to the underside of the right engine nacelle after the gear-up landing, airline officials after lifting the twin-jet from the ground determined that damage was limited to the nacelle "and some scratches on the underside of the aircraft", says an FAA spokesman...END QUOTE
Noathing about a fuel leak...though some foam was sprayed around in the pictures.
Tell me, do you evacuate using the slides when the fuel truck accidently spills fuel near your plane?
Quote: While earlier reports indicated that the aircraft's right wing had been damaged in addition to the underside of the right engine nacelle after the gear-up landing, airline officials after lifting the twin-jet from the ground determined that damage was limited to the nacelle "and some scratches on the underside of the aircraft", says an FAA spokesman...END QUOTE
Noathing about a fuel leak...though some foam was sprayed around in the pictures.
Tell me, do you evacuate using the slides when the fuel truck accidently spills fuel near your plane?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me, do you evacuate using the slides when the fuel truck accidently spills fuel near your plane?
customers on board.
Generally it would be every man for himself, amongst the crew.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok lets have a look at recent events:
- BA38 at Heathrow
- BA288 in Phoenix
- Air India 829
- This United landing at Newark
ALL successful evacuations with only very minor injuries.
The idea of waiting for a minute or two for the fuel chief to inspect for signs of a fuel leak is simply hilarious! Let alone seeing a few sets of airstairs hurtling down the runway at 80mph. Can the fire chief declare there are no internal leaks? Or fires caused by something other than a fuel leak?
What happens if you position these stairs and then something else catches fire? The slides can no longer be used so you've got to pile everyone else out down the stairs - horrendously dangerous!
- BA38 at Heathrow
- BA288 in Phoenix
- Air India 829
- This United landing at Newark
ALL successful evacuations with only very minor injuries.
The idea of waiting for a minute or two for the fuel chief to inspect for signs of a fuel leak is simply hilarious! Let alone seeing a few sets of airstairs hurtling down the runway at 80mph. Can the fire chief declare there are no internal leaks? Or fires caused by something other than a fuel leak?
What happens if you position these stairs and then something else catches fire? The slides can no longer be used so you've got to pile everyone else out down the stairs - horrendously dangerous!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm saying the plane was evacuated prior to the foam. I could be wrong, it is only conjecture. Since we're talking hypotheticals, has anyone seen what sane people do when they see flames? "Stay Put! We are waiting for stairs!" In an enclosed environment, flames turn people into animals. PTH's point is out the door if he's wrong. There would be broken necks, crushed skulls and collapsed lungs at a minimum, and that's before the exits are exposed. then it's fifteen feet to the concrete, with half those successful at egress landing on their noggins. Am I saying stairs would NEVER be appropriate? No, I am not.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was attending a training event...new crop of FA's...they were going down the slide...in a safe, enclosed training facility.
And one broke their ankle. And this was a 22 year old girl in great physical shape.
Now...imagine 80 year olds, in not great shape.
Am I saying stairs are the only way to go if the fecal matter hits the oscillating ventilator? no. BUT THINK...flames, smoke...slides
under control and things getting better (more and more help coming and properly responding)...think
And one broke their ankle. And this was a 22 year old girl in great physical shape.
Now...imagine 80 year olds, in not great shape.
Am I saying stairs are the only way to go if the fecal matter hits the oscillating ventilator? no. BUT THINK...flames, smoke...slides
under control and things getting better (more and more help coming and properly responding)...think
Let me see. Which would I rather experience? A few weeks in a cast or third degree burns sustained while someone second guessed a pretty simple decision in a damaged airplane? Yeah, that's a tough choice. 
You can beak off all you like, I'm done with this subject. This much I know. If it were my wife and kids in the back of that airplane, I know what I would want their captain to do. That which was done by the UAL captain at EWR last weekend. No second guesses at all.
P.S. I would bet money that Sully would have evacuated too. You seem to admire him so much, maybe this will give you pause for second thought.
You can beak off all you like, I'm done with this subject. This much I know. If it were my wife and kids in the back of that airplane, I know what I would want their captain to do. That which was done by the UAL captain at EWR last weekend. No second guesses at all.
P.S. I would bet money that Sully would have evacuated too. You seem to admire him so much, maybe this will give you pause for second thought.
Last edited by J.O.; 16th Jan 2010 at 02:51.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTH
from the page with pictures....
Quote: While earlier reports indicated that the aircraft's right wing had been damaged in addition to the underside of the right engine nacelle after the gear-up landing, airline officials after lifting the twin-jet from the ground determined that damage was limited to the nacelle "and some scratches on the underside of the aircraft", says an FAA spokesman...END QUOTE
Noathing about a fuel leak...though some foam was sprayed around in the pictures.
Tell me, do you evacuate using the slides when the fuel truck accidently spills fuel near your plane?
Quote: While earlier reports indicated that the aircraft's right wing had been damaged in addition to the underside of the right engine nacelle after the gear-up landing, airline officials after lifting the twin-jet from the ground determined that damage was limited to the nacelle "and some scratches on the underside of the aircraft", says an FAA spokesman...END QUOTE
Noathing about a fuel leak...though some foam was sprayed around in the pictures.
Tell me, do you evacuate using the slides when the fuel truck accidently spills fuel near your plane?
I was attending a training event...new crop of FA's...they were going down the slide...in a safe, enclosed training facility.
And one broke their ankle. And this was a 22 year old girl in great physical shape.
Now...imagine 80 year olds, in not great shape.
Am I saying stairs are the only way to go if the fecal matter hits the oscillating ventilator? no. BUT THINK...flames, smoke...slides
under control and things getting better (more and more help coming and properly responding)...think
And one broke their ankle. And this was a 22 year old girl in great physical shape.
Now...imagine 80 year olds, in not great shape.
Am I saying stairs are the only way to go if the fecal matter hits the oscillating ventilator? no. BUT THINK...flames, smoke...slides
under control and things getting better (more and more help coming and properly responding)...think
sAx
Last edited by sAx_R54; 16th Jan 2010 at 12:26.
I'm just going to preface this post as aI iknow that passengers are reading,..there are case of passengers jumpiong into running engines or into fire becasue they 'self evacuated without following flight crew instrcution ,..so how do you know what to do the nice man or lady tells at the bginning and they even wrote it down so if you really cared about your children,...you'd learn how to drag them alive from the burning plane,...
Ok,...
there seeems to be many issues at once going on here,...now evacuation procedure is still left at the captain's discretion and of course depending on the parameters 'other flight crew have their parameters too' if command advice is unobtainable [legally, speaking],...and of course I guess an every-man for himself evacuation is should be obvious to all,...it is within the command responsibilties to decide if other external enviromentel factors--for example--- cause more hazard than an evacuation that is why in these case emergency authority prevails--see no emoticons
please let's discuss this issues withoput 'flaming matches' it's getting hot in here
Ok,...
there seeems to be many issues at once going on here,...now evacuation procedure is still left at the captain's discretion and of course depending on the parameters 'other flight crew have their parameters too' if command advice is unobtainable [legally, speaking],...and of course I guess an every-man for himself evacuation is should be obvious to all,...it is within the command responsibilties to decide if other external enviromentel factors--for example--- cause more hazard than an evacuation that is why in these case emergency authority prevails--see no emoticons
please let's discuss this issues withoput 'flaming matches' it's getting hot in here
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand by what I've written. This discussion has turned amazingly acrid.
I now address all of those not involved with the ''flaming''.
Someone breaking a hip is likely to have real problems. I think that someone who wants to jump down the slides is thinking of themselves and not the well being of all passengers.
There was no sign of fire. CFR (that's crash fire rescue to you novice pilots) was right there. It would not have taken a huge inspection to determine that a fire was not about to happen. Airplanes are built to take a landing with one or more gear(s) up, without blowing up.
Some monkeys can learn to press a button to get a food pellet. Some pilots shout evacuation in the simulator without really thinking.
So, I ask all of you (other than the close minded ones ...you know who you are) to really think things through...before things get bad...when you are sitting at home, or at the sim center, or in a crm class with flight attendants.
Know what you will ask for before you land...take charge of the whole thing...make arrangements for the fire chief to be on frequency and hear your instructions...ask what resources he has available.
all those who have ''flamed me'' haven't the foggiest notion of thinking things through...so you, those who can think for yourselves...study things and truly consider what is best for your passengers and crew.
don't just push the button and get the pellet...command...think...analyze.
I now address all of those not involved with the ''flaming''.
Someone breaking a hip is likely to have real problems. I think that someone who wants to jump down the slides is thinking of themselves and not the well being of all passengers.
There was no sign of fire. CFR (that's crash fire rescue to you novice pilots) was right there. It would not have taken a huge inspection to determine that a fire was not about to happen. Airplanes are built to take a landing with one or more gear(s) up, without blowing up.
Some monkeys can learn to press a button to get a food pellet. Some pilots shout evacuation in the simulator without really thinking.
So, I ask all of you (other than the close minded ones ...you know who you are) to really think things through...before things get bad...when you are sitting at home, or at the sim center, or in a crm class with flight attendants.
Know what you will ask for before you land...take charge of the whole thing...make arrangements for the fire chief to be on frequency and hear your instructions...ask what resources he has available.
all those who have ''flamed me'' haven't the foggiest notion of thinking things through...so you, those who can think for yourselves...study things and truly consider what is best for your passengers and crew.
don't just push the button and get the pellet...command...think...analyze.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having CFR right there doesn't necessarily mean any fire will stay under control so I'm also amazed at any criticism of the pilot for getting people off quickly.
The manchester disaster in 85 showed how quickly any fire can take hold even on the tarmac with CFR in attendance.
The manchester disaster in 85 showed how quickly any fire can take hold even on the tarmac with CFR in attendance.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing that should have shaped this discussion was the skill of the handling pilot, who brought the aircraft to a standstill without break-up or injury to any of its occupants, notwithstanding some elements that the may not have been under his/her control (i.e aircraft catapulting following landing). For the professionals who sit at front end of these things (for clarification I am not one), surely you would support all aspects of the PF/PNF decision making that saved all SoB.
PTH suggest the thread be closed and that you apply your undoubted knowledge, wisdom and insight into the other parts of this forum where it is needed. There is nothing left to discuss here.
Rgds
sAx
PTH suggest the thread be closed and that you apply your undoubted knowledge, wisdom and insight into the other parts of this forum where it is needed. There is nothing left to discuss here.
Rgds
sAx
I respond with reluctance, given the already-acrimonious state of this thread but we've all been here many times before and live to write another day; I will offer a response to sAx R54 and perhaps others.
sAx R54;
Yes, I think those who fly transports professionally either currently or who have since retired such as myself have, and continue to, already contribute widely in other threads and there is no need for PTH to tell us where to go. I would suggest a search on any of the names that appear here and it will become abundantly clear for most, that there are many who know what they are talking about.
The push-back that PTH is receiving and the ultimate "firmness" is a result of a preaching stance which assumes that few are as knowledgeable, wise or as experienced as the gentleman is and that, by his posts, he implores his colleagues to learn (because we obviously don't know enough to agree with the gentleman), to think, (because we obviously do things by rote and don't consider circumstances or consequences) and to take our disagreements elsewhere, (because the gentleman clearly perceives himself as the only one who has the correct answer).
Now PTH has made a point that internet communications are not the best place to convey these kinds of points, but I and likely others would offer, that very few of us who both fly professionally and who write with interest in a collegial dialogue in an exchange between equals, have such difficulties and where we do we sort them out with discussion, not polemics dressed up with emotional appeals for others to "learn, think but above all, agree".
These are intelligent, trained and experienced people who contribute here and who, because they DO think, actually have different opinions and world views. PTH would have us think and do otherwise such that his is the world view that survives, otherwise "we here, are not learning, not thinking, and instead are being difficult and disagreeable". But fear not, PTH says, "for we (who transgress and who have the temerity to challenge) know who we are". There is clearly only one operative definition of competency here, and the conclusion is therefore, none of us who disagree, "measure up" and "should learn or think".
Such a perception of others' skills and experience not only is an obvious misapprehension for here we are, still alive, but it does not encourage a civilized exchange of views and therefore learning. Rather, the pattern is, after the back-and-forth on the point at hand, we are treated with preaching to begin and where some remain recalcitrant, an impatient derision, rather than addressing the points being offered in a pleasant discussion.
Unless the fight is between Irishmen in which case everyone can join in, very few have the time or inclination to engage in discussions which, when the author is challenged, is presented with unpleasant histrionics. No thank you - there just isn't the time.
Like many, many other contributors, perhaps including PTH, I have contributed to this forum for many years, sticking mainly to organizational flight safety issues in accident investigation and flight data analysis as well as flying full time. I have spent 40 years flying, 35 of them with a major carrier and almost 20,000hrs in nine transport aircraft types on domestic and overseas operations on all continents except South America. This isn't bragging, this is fact and is not at all unlike many others here who will have similar experience in both military and civilian work - it is what we do. As such, we have earned the right to be treated and responded to respectfully and, where wrong, to be informed in a respectful manner with a discussion on how and why. There is no monopoly on knowledge, of course.
As it is with other professionals who do not put their disagreements on display as we do here, aviators of all walks feel it a professional duty to provide for those following in our footsteps and this forum serves wonderfully for that purpose, even if the lessons are not as pleasant as some of the illusions about airline flying would have it. In fact I am sure that PTH's motivations in this are honorable and that others are indeed learning. But there is a subtle difference between those who have been doing it for a while and those fresh to aviation. SLF's, (I dislike that term intensely as it does not respect those who pay our salary), contribute by asking intelligent questions and receive willing, intelligent answers in return.
For me anyway, that is the way discussion takes place: even if firm at times, it is always respectful. While a hot-behind-the-eyes visceral response may be felt, as a professional, one keeps such anger in abeyance and always deals with one's colleagues professionally even if one wishes not to. Aviation has neither room for superiority nor hubris because the airplane does not care a whit about who we are or how good we are with our hands, feet, brain or language.
Enough time and words spent on this.
PJ2
sAx R54;
PTH suggest the thread be closed and that you apply your undoubted knowledge, wisdom and insight into the other parts of this forum where it is needed. There is nothing left to discuss here.
The push-back that PTH is receiving and the ultimate "firmness" is a result of a preaching stance which assumes that few are as knowledgeable, wise or as experienced as the gentleman is and that, by his posts, he implores his colleagues to learn (because we obviously don't know enough to agree with the gentleman), to think, (because we obviously do things by rote and don't consider circumstances or consequences) and to take our disagreements elsewhere, (because the gentleman clearly perceives himself as the only one who has the correct answer).
Now PTH has made a point that internet communications are not the best place to convey these kinds of points, but I and likely others would offer, that very few of us who both fly professionally and who write with interest in a collegial dialogue in an exchange between equals, have such difficulties and where we do we sort them out with discussion, not polemics dressed up with emotional appeals for others to "learn, think but above all, agree".
These are intelligent, trained and experienced people who contribute here and who, because they DO think, actually have different opinions and world views. PTH would have us think and do otherwise such that his is the world view that survives, otherwise "we here, are not learning, not thinking, and instead are being difficult and disagreeable". But fear not, PTH says, "for we (who transgress and who have the temerity to challenge) know who we are". There is clearly only one operative definition of competency here, and the conclusion is therefore, none of us who disagree, "measure up" and "should learn or think".
Such a perception of others' skills and experience not only is an obvious misapprehension for here we are, still alive, but it does not encourage a civilized exchange of views and therefore learning. Rather, the pattern is, after the back-and-forth on the point at hand, we are treated with preaching to begin and where some remain recalcitrant, an impatient derision, rather than addressing the points being offered in a pleasant discussion.
Unless the fight is between Irishmen in which case everyone can join in, very few have the time or inclination to engage in discussions which, when the author is challenged, is presented with unpleasant histrionics. No thank you - there just isn't the time.
Like many, many other contributors, perhaps including PTH, I have contributed to this forum for many years, sticking mainly to organizational flight safety issues in accident investigation and flight data analysis as well as flying full time. I have spent 40 years flying, 35 of them with a major carrier and almost 20,000hrs in nine transport aircraft types on domestic and overseas operations on all continents except South America. This isn't bragging, this is fact and is not at all unlike many others here who will have similar experience in both military and civilian work - it is what we do. As such, we have earned the right to be treated and responded to respectfully and, where wrong, to be informed in a respectful manner with a discussion on how and why. There is no monopoly on knowledge, of course.
As it is with other professionals who do not put their disagreements on display as we do here, aviators of all walks feel it a professional duty to provide for those following in our footsteps and this forum serves wonderfully for that purpose, even if the lessons are not as pleasant as some of the illusions about airline flying would have it. In fact I am sure that PTH's motivations in this are honorable and that others are indeed learning. But there is a subtle difference between those who have been doing it for a while and those fresh to aviation. SLF's, (I dislike that term intensely as it does not respect those who pay our salary), contribute by asking intelligent questions and receive willing, intelligent answers in return.
For me anyway, that is the way discussion takes place: even if firm at times, it is always respectful. While a hot-behind-the-eyes visceral response may be felt, as a professional, one keeps such anger in abeyance and always deals with one's colleagues professionally even if one wishes not to. Aviation has neither room for superiority nor hubris because the airplane does not care a whit about who we are or how good we are with our hands, feet, brain or language.
Enough time and words spent on this.
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 17th Jan 2010 at 18:00.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2,
Agree wholeheartedly! My earlier comment to close the thread was not meant in any way to be a slight on you or any of your fellow professionals who had concurred that in this particular case the pilot(s) had performed in an exemplary manner. The intention was to encourage PTH that the concensus was so overwhelming, that he could achieve nothing but damage his credibility, from equally knowledgeable and experienced peers on this forum.
I have enjoyed the absorbing technical insight given by notables such as yourself justme69, Rainboe, NoD, Vailpilot(?) and number more whose names escape me at the moment, into some of the saddest and miraculous outcomes experienced by crew and passengers alike. So long may it continue!
Cheers
sAx
Agree wholeheartedly! My earlier comment to close the thread was not meant in any way to be a slight on you or any of your fellow professionals who had concurred that in this particular case the pilot(s) had performed in an exemplary manner. The intention was to encourage PTH that the concensus was so overwhelming, that he could achieve nothing but damage his credibility, from equally knowledgeable and experienced peers on this forum.
I have enjoyed the absorbing technical insight given by notables such as yourself justme69, Rainboe, NoD, Vailpilot(?) and number more whose names escape me at the moment, into some of the saddest and miraculous outcomes experienced by crew and passengers alike. So long may it continue!
Cheers
sAx
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes...the evidence is conclusive...I am wrong and the huge amount of folks on this thread are right.
Yes, some 10 against one must make them right.
so , next time deploy the slides. right away. don't even think twice.
Yes, some 10 against one must make them right.
so , next time deploy the slides. right away. don't even think twice.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sAx_R54 > those are wise words. Yes indeed, praise should be made to the pilot flying who got the plane on the ground without major disaster.
protectthehornet > are you really that naive and dumb to think that for the sake of saving the money in not deploying the slides that that is a much better scenario than get the passengers off a damaged, fire-risk aircraft asap? If so I hope I am never on an aircraft with you in charge, I value my life too much to risk subjecting it to your misguided ideas of airplane safety
protectthehornet > are you really that naive and dumb to think that for the sake of saving the money in not deploying the slides that that is a much better scenario than get the passengers off a damaged, fire-risk aircraft asap? If so I hope I am never on an aircraft with you in charge, I value my life too much to risk subjecting it to your misguided ideas of airplane safety
Guest
Posts: n/a
PTH
I for one don't think you are anything but whom you say you are. You are not necessarily wrong, but the evidence instead points to the UA crew being right. I haven't said stairs are not an option, nor have I seen anyone say that. The Captain's decision is what it is, and as I have said, to state he was wrong implies you not only know something we don't, but you know something the Captain didn't know. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I'll go along with the Captain's call. PJ2 is a long standing contributor, who is known for extreme patience, to get him riled speaks rather ill of one, for my money.
Hope to see you soon.
bearfoil (real Captain)
I for one don't think you are anything but whom you say you are. You are not necessarily wrong, but the evidence instead points to the UA crew being right. I haven't said stairs are not an option, nor have I seen anyone say that. The Captain's decision is what it is, and as I have said, to state he was wrong implies you not only know something we don't, but you know something the Captain didn't know. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I'll go along with the Captain's call. PJ2 is a long standing contributor, who is known for extreme patience, to get him riled speaks rather ill of one, for my money.
Hope to see you soon.
bearfoil (real Captain)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackofalltrades
Please tell me exactly where I wrote: don't deploy the slides in order to save money.
We will not fly together and I am the lucky one for that. I did suggest that using the stairs might reduce passenger injury.
Perhaps you think of yourself as a typical passenger. You are probably young and in good health.
I've seen too many passengers who are seniors, or not perfect specimens. I was thinking of them.
My airline has had at least one gear up incident. No fire. No problems. Plane repaired and in service today. I've written from my experience.
The great majority of writers on this forum seem to disagree with me. That is their right.
But again, I challenge you to show me my words on money.
We will not fly together and I am the lucky one for that. I did suggest that using the stairs might reduce passenger injury.
Perhaps you think of yourself as a typical passenger. You are probably young and in good health.
I've seen too many passengers who are seniors, or not perfect specimens. I was thinking of them.
My airline has had at least one gear up incident. No fire. No problems. Plane repaired and in service today. I've written from my experience.
The great majority of writers on this forum seem to disagree with me. That is their right.
But again, I challenge you to show me my words on money.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't want to wade in on this argument (I'm not yet qualified) but I feel compelled to. Here is my "two penneth".
PTH,
I can see your point,
You're exercising your judgment - that's what you're paid to do. Fair enough.
However, you were not there. We were not there. We can't judge the situation in the same way as the crew. They are also paid to exercise their professional judgment. Thus, who are we (you) to comment on the crew's actions that day?
The fact remains that a metal tube full of fuel and spinning parts just slid on it's belly down a runway at 150mph, and everyone has walked (ish) away with cool story to tell in the bar that evening. Let's not get complaisant about this, whichever way you slice it, it's a big deal. Don't loose sight of what you do - it may be routine, but it carries with it great risk when things go sour.
Amongst all this bickering over T&C's, Pay To Fly, Standards etc, here is a shining example of a potential disaster made good, and all we do is complain about how they did it.
We should be applauding these guys, not questioning their (clearly sound) judgment.
PTH,
I can see your point,
You're exercising your judgment - that's what you're paid to do. Fair enough.
However, you were not there. We were not there. We can't judge the situation in the same way as the crew. They are also paid to exercise their professional judgment. Thus, who are we (you) to comment on the crew's actions that day?
The fact remains that a metal tube full of fuel and spinning parts just slid on it's belly down a runway at 150mph, and everyone has walked (ish) away with cool story to tell in the bar that evening. Let's not get complaisant about this, whichever way you slice it, it's a big deal. Don't loose sight of what you do - it may be routine, but it carries with it great risk when things go sour.
Amongst all this bickering over T&C's, Pay To Fly, Standards etc, here is a shining example of a potential disaster made good, and all we do is complain about how they did it.
We should be applauding these guys, not questioning their (clearly sound) judgment.