Southwest KLGA gear collapse.
... highlighting the need for the pilots to get on the PA ASAP and say something!
The avionics bay on the 737 is behind the nose gear, so yes it's safe to say the nose gear collapsed in an aft direction!!
Ouch.....
Ouch.....
Last edited by nitpicker330; 26th Jul 2013 at 08:43.
When will the riff raff of the world learn to hold their cameras STEADY during crash landings??
Perhaps we should ask when will the riff raff learn to "turn off all
electronic devices for landing" (or isn't a mobile phone with camera an
electronic device?)
electronic devices for landing" (or isn't a mobile phone with camera an
electronic device?)
Obviously, the use of this electronic device negatively influenced the landing, which is why one is supposed to have them off until the PA announcement is made that they can be turned back on.
/sarcasm off
Volume makes a good point: a landing is the end of a controlled flight maneuver intended to bring the aircraft to the ground safely. Was the impact with the ground controlled? IF not, is it a landing?
On the other hand, any landing you can walk away from ...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a landing is the end of a controlled flight maneuver intended to bring the aircraft to the ground safely. Was the impact with the ground controlled? IF not, is it a landing?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experienced a similar landing, though with less dramatic results, in San Diego many years ago in a DC-9. PF floated it, then dipped the nose to get it onto the short runway, which we then hit somewhat hard. As we taxied off the runway, the CC announced, "Now that we have successfully attacked Lindbergh Field, please enjoy your stay in San Diego."
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experienced a similar landing, though with less dramatic results, in San Diego many years ago in a DC-9. PF floated it, then dipped the nose to get it onto the short runway, which we then hit somewhat hard. As we taxied off the runway, the CC announced, "Now that we have successfully attacked Lindbergh Field, please enjoy your stay in San Diego."
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironbutt57 wrote:
How about the airplane's -3deg attitude at touchdown and high rate of descent?
absolutely correct, however seeing as the gear normally retracts forward, but in this instance failed AFT, it suggests structural failure of some gear components, caused by???
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting comparing the lack of comment on visual landing prowess in this thread with the comments on visual landing prowess in the thread of OZ214 at SFO. 
Ian, the failure mode was different. In one, an approach was never stable, and it was realized (too late) that they need to Go Around. High ROD, nose high. Calling that a landing seems to me a mistake.
In this one, an approach came a cropper in the flare.
Whether or not it was stable up to that point we'll need to find out from the NTSB. If it wasn't stable, then the two events are at least similar in root cause. This one, as SpeedofSound points out, looks to have been a landing ~ a poor one, but a landing nonetheless.
If the 737 was on a stable approach, then the two occasions don't compare very well -- though one does wonder, if the approach was stable up to the flare, why things went pearshaped in the flare. Hopefully NTSB has some info on that.
The rate of info spread, given that it wasn't quite as horrific an impact with the ground as 214, is understandably less pressing.
In this one, an approach came a cropper in the flare.
Whether or not it was stable up to that point we'll need to find out from the NTSB. If it wasn't stable, then the two events are at least similar in root cause. This one, as SpeedofSound points out, looks to have been a landing ~ a poor one, but a landing nonetheless.
If the 737 was on a stable approach, then the two occasions don't compare very well -- though one does wonder, if the approach was stable up to the flare, why things went pearshaped in the flare.
Hopefully NTSB has some info on that. The rate of info spread, given that it wasn't quite as horrific an impact with the ground as 214, is understandably less pressing.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 26th Jul 2013 at 17:51.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: the lake!
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...seeing as the gear normally retracts forward, but in this instance failed AFT, it suggests structural failure of some gear components, caused by???
See the post @ 152:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post7960658
Flaps setting was changed at T minus 56 seconds from 30 degrees to 40 according to the NTSB, is that normal in a stabilized approach on a 737?
Approximately passing WARIN - 860 feet and 2.5 miles from threshold, assuming 135 kts.
http://flightaware.com/resources/air...C+RWY+04/png/1
I stand to be corrected by a current 737 driver.
4 seconds before touchdown they were 134 kts, flaps 40, pitch up 2 degrees. Which seems fine. It just appears* they flared a bit high - over-corrected - planted the nose.
*videos, NTSC numbers, pilot eyewitness on ground.
Late-ish selection of F40 is not unusual - the limit speed is only 162kts. Doing sums it appears they were fully configured by 500' so would have met the criteria in that respect. Speed sounds in the right ballpark too, though normal pitch angle is about +0 on a 3° slope with F40.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American culture of cowboy hard landings?
Is there a SWA culture of slamming the plane down? Or are there some other American cowboy cultural attributes at play here?
No one needs to answer - I'm just being sarcastic given the amount of drivel about Asians generated in the Asiana thread.
It appears there is a fundamental problem with hand-flying the plane that appears to be increasing in frequency and it appears that the Americans, from whose tail the sun shines, are nor exempt.
No one needs to answer - I'm just being sarcastic given the amount of drivel about Asians generated in the Asiana thread.
It appears there is a fundamental problem with hand-flying the plane that appears to be increasing in frequency and it appears that the Americans, from whose tail the sun shines, are nor exempt.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 58
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any flare at all in that video, it's flown into the runway rather than onto. I'm trying to picture how any pilot neglects to flare but my imagination fails me.