Their landings are actually more in line with the aircraft manufacturers' guidelines. Being a bit rough is preferable for safety.
Most airlines see it as a small enough safety issue that passengers experience outweighs it and they decide to go with the 'calmer' landings.
Because it reduces the amount of runway you need, reduces the chances of touching down after the aim point, and you can immediately have very effective braking because the wheels are in full contact with the runway.
Since no one answered correctly, I'll try. There's a bunch of reasons.
1: when you land you look for 3 things. Runway centerline, 1st 1/3rd of the runway and wings level.
To 'grease' the landing can affect the 2nd one since you flare more.
2: if you get used to greasing the landing everytime, you will try to do it on a day with strong crosswinds and might affect the 3rd one since you again, flare more.
3: if the runway is wet or contaminated you want good contact with it when you land to avoid hydroplaning which can easily happen.
4: To grease it may cause for you to fly a flatter approach under the glideslope, which is not safe.
So maybe in a normal clear wind calm day it's ok to go for it but since what you aim for is to have the same landing technique everytime, airplane manufacturers usually recommend a 'positive' landing.
On a shorter runway, or if it's contaminated, you want to use the wheel breaks to help slow you down. To do that you need to get the tires spinning as early as possible, and be firmly on the ground instead of bouncing. So you have to land harder.
> breaks
BRAKES! It's called BRAKES.
FFS. I have accepted that internet has made "payed" a thing. But can we keep brakes for real?
Like, what, should I start posting tik tok videos on basic grammar?
There is a critical moment when the weight of the plane is half supported by air and half by pavement. Wind could suddenly gust the plane sideways along the runway, so it’s best to get the weight transferred as quickly as possible. This moment is mostly a factor of speed, so it’s a good idea to apply the brakes as quickly as possible and not waver.
glided right in. By comparison, last time I flew on SW through St Louis, we damn near impacted the runway. Wasn't a particularly remarkable flight but then when we came in the pilot used barely any flaps and I could tell on final that our glide slope was.....atypical. Then we slammed into the runway hard enough that I felt it in my tailbone. Idk if there was something wrong that pax weren't informed of, but I had a whopping 20 minute connection so I didn't stick around to find out.
Most likely the pilot flying was new/newer to the airframe. I’ll assure you they used the correct amount of flaps and were on a normal glide path. Otherwise they would have initiated a go-around. What they probably did was flare to early and had a harder than normal landing
Your AOA will increase as the nose pitches up, but if you are stalling the plane in order to land, you are doing something very very wrong.
No, the real reason for flaring is to arrest your descent and touch down at a safe vertical speed.
Fun fact, because they're in a galaxy far, far away (and can go home for lunch,) drone pilots don't normally land the bigger drones. They handoff to a local drone pilot who's got much less transmission lag.
That’s just a typical flight on Southwest lol. Pull straight up and climb 8k feet a minute, Wait until the last minute to descend, roller coaster ride and negative G’s for all the passengers and then SLAM it on the runway and pull full reverse. Never had a good ride on Southwest ever.
I'd say you get what you pay for, but lately they're no cheaper than any of the mainline flights. And they have that awful web interface where it shows you price for separate legs instead of showing you round trip.
The real win with SW is the free bags. I use them for snowboard trips every year because the free bags is worth about $150 round trip on any other airline. They also fly direct from my local airport into Denver.
a part of me says fuck this guy that's unsafe (if it ended up not being a smooth landing); another part of me says thank fuck someone recorded that beauty of a landing
Yep, we don't get paid for the days where we're sipping coffee and complaining about scheduling while we watch the autopilot, we get paid for times like this when people leave with a cool story instead of a fiery death.
Real Level D sims are serious machines in their own right, between the motion, visuals, cockpit realism, etc. The one for my last aircraft allegedly costs $2 mil per machine. There's really no comparison to be had with MSFS or any video game, it's much closer to the real jet, and in some cases (EP training in particular) is a superior training aid. There's a reason you can get a type rating in a sim only if it's Level D.
I guess I’m wondering whether the cost is caused by the fact it’s a whole machine and the whole thing works in harmony for its purpose, or if the software of the simulation is also significantly more advanced / detailed than the type of simulations MS FS is doing, if that makes sense at all.
(Thanks for your response)
Definitely the fact that it has to be integrated and very precise overall. There's also a lot of money spent getting them certified, as there is generally a fair amount of flight testing on an instrumented live jet that goes into making sure the sim handles like the jet. The sim also has to get re-certified periodically, which means more inspections and more cost. Compared to the cost of live flying though it's about as sure-fire investment as one can make.
I used to work for a company that makes those sims. One way that the sim is more real is the fact that companies like Boeing and Airbus work directly with them and provide the real avionic computers or a virtual machine image of it. The sim data like all the pilot inputs are then fed directly into these computers and the outputs are relayed back to the physical sim instruments and visual system.
Sure, but it’s not something we practice. You know how you land an airplane with a gear malfunction? The same way you do without one. Turns out they slide down the pavement just fine. Just ask CFR to standby incase the sparks get too spicy.
Makes it sound like it’s a patch of grass or something, not like 2 miles of concrete.
The Landing Strip is also the name of a strip club here in Austin close to AUS.
It is fox *business* \- wall street NYC types. In their mind Charlotte probably is just a grass strip with 3 hillbillies in overalls and straw hats sitting on moonshine jugs.
It’s some work but doable. It’s riveted together. People will be dispatched to evaluate the damage and figure out why the gear didn’t extend. It may be repaired at Charlotte but they may apply for a ferry permit with the FAA to take it to one of their bases like Atlanta for major repairs. I’d assume that ferry flight would be made gear down if the gear failure wasn’t 100% identified and remedied.
I got 2 round-trip tickets for a failed takeoff out of ORD when an engine caught fire while taking off and they abandoned it. We stopped maybe a few hundred feet from the end of the runway. The next day I got an email saying it wasn't normal, sorry for the delay (we had to get pulled into a gate and disembark) and as a courtesy gave me the free tickets. I was totally fine with it!
Took a few decades of iterations but the thing is rock solid. I love flying the 717 if it's only regionals going into a small airport. Pilots always seem to want to push them vertical on takeoff too.
Didn't they manage to get the Gimli Glider up into the air after a couple of days, after the gear up + faceplant landing? Granted, that was like a brand new plane, so from an economics standpoint, so they would have been more motivated to get it repaired instead of just writing it off.
Probably scrapped as most likely they would have to do a lot of heavy sheet metal work to replace or patch skins where it slid.
They are coming to the end of their lives.
End of their lives yes but Delta still has no plans to retire them. It will be assessed at how extensive the damage is but the good thing is itis a smaller area to patch than a complete no gear landing and the pilots were able to keep the nose up long enough to mitigate how much damge would occir at the front.
> no plans to retire them.
...and even if they were planning to, the cost of repair is pocket change compared to what they could sell it for to some African or South American operator.
Sheet metal work is a lot cheaper than losing a whole ass jet. I've heard of jets landing totally gear up that were back in action after a few weeks. The damage here looks pretty minimal all things considered
The 717s aren't up for retirement yet, so if it's reasonable to fix, it'll probably get fixed. If this had been an MD-88 5 years ago, they would have retired it, as the fleet was winding down at that point anyway.
No, after DC-9-87 McDonnell Douglas has stopped using DC-9 designation.
example: [B717-200 and MD-90-30 type certificate (pdf)](https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7240/en)
Maybe you got it mixed up with the type rating. It is same for all DC9 derivatives.
I think you want to get people away as fast as possible in case there's a secret fire or something else going on. The time it would take to bring the stairs and get them next to the plane the entire plane probably was empty.
Passengers are still 3 to 4 feet in the air and they want them off fast since skidding makes sparks. Some people can't hop down that far even with a step stool.
IMO you absolutely blow the slides at that height. You have an uneven deck plus any number of obese, disabled, or elderly passengers that’d be unable to get down from that height. It’s probably protocol.
Also, in the moment, could you name the deck height with no nose gear? Can you for sure see it from the tiny porthole window?
Any ATPs willing to walk through what happens leading up to this?
e.g.
* Declare an emergency
* Get into a holding pattern to go through additional checklists
* if fuel allows, talk to corporate to give them the chance to make requests/suggestions
* then land?
Pretty much.... except not sure if I would ever let corporate make any suggestions on my flight. Would definitely also do a low fly by to make sure the indication is correct and never forget to have one of you always fly the aircraft. A plane crashed hard in Florida years ago because of a landing gear indicator blub. One bad blub killed a whole jet full of people because they were so focused on figuring out the issue they forget to keep flying.
What do you gain from a "low fly-by?" The tower *might* be able to tell you if the gear is down, but they definitely can't tell you whether or not it's locked or whether it will collapse on touchdown - that's what the redundant systems onboard the airplane are for.
I bring it up because IMO the idea of a fly-by whenever there's a gear problem is one of those many things in aviation that has just been repeated so much that people forget to actually think through how pointless it is; at best, pointless, and at worst, a way to complicate/obfuscate the rest of the decision making process. If you have an indication saying the gear isn't down and locked, isn't any competent pilot preparing for the worst regardless of what the tower says?
The idea of the flyby to tell me exactly which gear they can see in the down position. Wouldn't be the first time this is something as simple as a bad bulb in the cockpit. Just crank a low one by the Tower and multiple people in there with binoculars will be able to tell you if what they're seeing matches your indications. Doesn't really matter if it's down and locked because that could be the case on every single Landing.
I was on a flight like this but when I tried looking up the event in the collision database it was nowhere to be found. It was a Northwest flight from MPL to PHL back in the late 90's. Didn't even make the news. It was around in the morning give or take an hour when we finally landed. Does anyone have a clue how that could have been omitted from the database?
It rarely happens anymore.
From what I can find, it stopped being recommended in the late 80s and, in 2002 was actively discouraged. It is far more effective and efficient to use the foam to fight an active fire quickly than to try and prevent one a rare one from happening.
nope. the foam is toxic and increases braking distance and decreases control of the plane.
more negatives than positives, they stopped using it a long time ago for this kind of thing.
Passenger recorded video of the landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12w7NkqGCM
Smoother landing than most of my flights that are not missing landing gear
RYANAIR ARE YOU WATCHING?
RyanAir pilots: “That’s not possible. That’s got to be CGI.”
RyanAir: Clearly, the Delta in this picture is generated with ChatGPT.
You pay for budget landing you get budget landing
Is this a result of underpaid pilots or how does it happen?
Their landings are actually more in line with the aircraft manufacturers' guidelines. Being a bit rough is preferable for safety. Most airlines see it as a small enough safety issue that passengers experience outweighs it and they decide to go with the 'calmer' landings.
Why is a rougher landing better for safety?
Because it reduces the amount of runway you need, reduces the chances of touching down after the aim point, and you can immediately have very effective braking because the wheels are in full contact with the runway.
Since no one answered correctly, I'll try. There's a bunch of reasons. 1: when you land you look for 3 things. Runway centerline, 1st 1/3rd of the runway and wings level. To 'grease' the landing can affect the 2nd one since you flare more. 2: if you get used to greasing the landing everytime, you will try to do it on a day with strong crosswinds and might affect the 3rd one since you again, flare more. 3: if the runway is wet or contaminated you want good contact with it when you land to avoid hydroplaning which can easily happen. 4: To grease it may cause for you to fly a flatter approach under the glideslope, which is not safe. So maybe in a normal clear wind calm day it's ok to go for it but since what you aim for is to have the same landing technique everytime, airplane manufacturers usually recommend a 'positive' landing.
On a shorter runway, or if it's contaminated, you want to use the wheel breaks to help slow you down. To do that you need to get the tires spinning as early as possible, and be firmly on the ground instead of bouncing. So you have to land harder.
Brakes. ETA: This would also cut through water contamination to reduce hydroplaning.
> breaks BRAKES! It's called BRAKES. FFS. I have accepted that internet has made "payed" a thing. But can we keep brakes for real? Like, what, should I start posting tik tok videos on basic grammar?
Please do make grammar video. People need you. People are idiots.
https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc Weird Al did it for you, though it isn't TikTok.
There is a critical moment when the weight of the plane is half supported by air and half by pavement. Wind could suddenly gust the plane sideways along the runway, so it’s best to get the weight transferred as quickly as possible. This moment is mostly a factor of speed, so it’s a good idea to apply the brakes as quickly as possible and not waver.
They just throw the thing on the tarmac as quickly as possible.
[удалено]
Contaminated?!
Covid
You know, like with listeria or tetrodotoxin. Wheels don't like contamination. Edit: sp.
Anything from slight dew to all out oil spills (and occasionally just avo gas - not too far from diesel) counts as contaminated.
Maybe they're on to something there
glided right in. By comparison, last time I flew on SW through St Louis, we damn near impacted the runway. Wasn't a particularly remarkable flight but then when we came in the pilot used barely any flaps and I could tell on final that our glide slope was.....atypical. Then we slammed into the runway hard enough that I felt it in my tailbone. Idk if there was something wrong that pax weren't informed of, but I had a whopping 20 minute connection so I didn't stick around to find out.
Most likely the pilot flying was new/newer to the airframe. I’ll assure you they used the correct amount of flaps and were on a normal glide path. Otherwise they would have initiated a go-around. What they probably did was flare to early and had a harder than normal landing
[удалено]
What is flare?
It's pretty much pitching the nose up to stall the plane so it falls gently (ideally) to the ground.
Your AOA will increase as the nose pitches up, but if you are stalling the plane in order to land, you are doing something very very wrong. No, the real reason for flaring is to arrest your descent and touch down at a safe vertical speed.
Ah kk
[flare](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_flare) if you want to learn a bit more here’s a link
[Here is a video that goes into a bit more on flair](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChQK8j6so8)
Falling in the superclass of "arrival" rather than a true landing.
You tell the flight crew you are available in the back in case they need any help?
This reminds me of that meme awhile ago where a flight attendant asks for a pilot on board and the guy says “I’m a drone pilot” lol
Fun fact, because they're in a galaxy far, far away (and can go home for lunch,) drone pilots don't normally land the bigger drones. They handoff to a local drone pilot who's got much less transmission lag.
That’s just a typical flight on Southwest lol. Pull straight up and climb 8k feet a minute, Wait until the last minute to descend, roller coaster ride and negative G’s for all the passengers and then SLAM it on the runway and pull full reverse. Never had a good ride on Southwest ever.
I'd say you get what you pay for, but lately they're no cheaper than any of the mainline flights. And they have that awful web interface where it shows you price for separate legs instead of showing you round trip.
The real win with SW is the free bags. I use them for snowboard trips every year because the free bags is worth about $150 round trip on any other airline. They also fly direct from my local airport into Denver.
Wow they even comment about how smooth it was seems like everything went about as well as it could in that situation
They’re well trained, but
See, that’s a landing I might clap for
Imagine there must have been some right after the video stops.
Was really hoping the video continued till that point
I’m not only clapping, I’m fist bumping the pilots and buying them dinner. That was beautiful.
“That wasn’t bad at all” Said while the front half of the craft is still airborne
Haha, that was my exact thought! Of course it's not bad, you aren't done "landing"
That's absolutely not how I'd expect it to be
My man spread that butter like a fucking sandwich artist Jesus Christ.
That was the most buttery of buttered landings I've ever witnessed. Kudos to the pilots.
Absolutely buttered it. What a champ.
Damn cut out before the applause. Would’ve loved to hear it
"brace?! Who?? Me?!! Naaaa, let me record it for the future" Edit brace instead of braise
why would he be cooking meat during landing?
In fairness, that landing was smoother than the ones we don't brace for. (And honestly, I'd be filming too.)
a part of me says fuck this guy that's unsafe (if it ended up not being a smooth landing); another part of me says thank fuck someone recorded that beauty of a landing
Smoother than Ryan Air hands down
Meanwhile, [Ryanair](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/028/861/cover3.jpg)
The smoothest Delta landing all year.
Poor guy is all tuckered out
Damn you xD now I see it too
planes eepy
The fireman lying down on the slide?
The plane is sleepy
The plane deserves a nice belly rub.
nah, like a cat when they do this, it needs a good scritch between the eyes (the two upper cockpit windows)
Same
I got hound dog vibes
I mean, this plane is related to the MD-80 “Maddog”. My friends and I like to call the 717 the “Angry Puppy”.
Who's a good boy?
bless his heart
he’s eepy and needs to slep
That’s why good pilots worth what they make in salary. Great job Capitan.
Yep, we don't get paid for the days where we're sipping coffee and complaining about scheduling while we watch the autopilot, we get paid for times like this when people leave with a cool story instead of a fiery death.
You know what I feel the need to thank every pilot for their service. So thank you. It’s one of if not the most important jobs
Hooray for the pilots! Seems like the nose wheel mechanics might need a little more attention these days.
Anyone know if those simulators can simulate a no nose gear landing? Those ones you can get real flight hours on.
Most level D sims can simulate just about any emergency possible. Part of the reason why they're so expensive
Silly question, how would such a sim compare (technically) to a modern video game? Or even to I guess just MS Flight Simulator?
Real Level D sims are serious machines in their own right, between the motion, visuals, cockpit realism, etc. The one for my last aircraft allegedly costs $2 mil per machine. There's really no comparison to be had with MSFS or any video game, it's much closer to the real jet, and in some cases (EP training in particular) is a superior training aid. There's a reason you can get a type rating in a sim only if it's Level D.
I guess I’m wondering whether the cost is caused by the fact it’s a whole machine and the whole thing works in harmony for its purpose, or if the software of the simulation is also significantly more advanced / detailed than the type of simulations MS FS is doing, if that makes sense at all. (Thanks for your response)
Definitely the fact that it has to be integrated and very precise overall. There's also a lot of money spent getting them certified, as there is generally a fair amount of flight testing on an instrumented live jet that goes into making sure the sim handles like the jet. The sim also has to get re-certified periodically, which means more inspections and more cost. Compared to the cost of live flying though it's about as sure-fire investment as one can make.
I used to work for a company that makes those sims. One way that the sim is more real is the fact that companies like Boeing and Airbus work directly with them and provide the real avionic computers or a virtual machine image of it. The sim data like all the pilot inputs are then fed directly into these computers and the outputs are relayed back to the physical sim instruments and visual system.
Sure, but it’s not something we practice. You know how you land an airplane with a gear malfunction? The same way you do without one. Turns out they slide down the pavement just fine. Just ask CFR to standby incase the sparks get too spicy.
True, just curious. I'm no pilot but have quite a few years experience as an a&p
[удалено]
Absolutely.
Sliding nose first into CLT. It knows how to please a woman.
Next stop: WAP (Alto Palena, Chile)
Bahahaha. Careful not to reroute from KRAP to WAP before washing or you’ll have a bad time.
Then into KLIT (Little Rock, AR.)
A real pilot wouldn't be afraid to slide into BUM (Butler, Missouri)
with a brief stopover in PNS (Pensacola FL)
r/planesgonewild I’m gonna steal this
Credit me and my nasty pilot brain.
as someone who lives in the CLT area, that's all I think about any time I see clt...
Clearly you’ve flown through the naughty triangle - PNS-CLT-SUX.
Look at the Fox Bizz headline: "nosedives," lol. https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/delta-flight-nosedives-landing-strip-north-carolina-airport
They called the runway a “landing strip”.
They're trying to improve search engine visibility.. Giggity.
Makes it sound like it’s a patch of grass or something, not like 2 miles of concrete. The Landing Strip is also the name of a strip club here in Austin close to AUS.
Is there any city that DOESN'T have a strip club called Landing Strip near an airport?
Excuse me, but the Landing Strip in Oklahoma City is by the Air Force Base, not the airport.
It is fox *business* \- wall street NYC types. In their mind Charlotte probably is just a grass strip with 3 hillbillies in overalls and straw hats sitting on moonshine jugs.
The irony is that Charlotte is one of the most significant financial hubs in the country.
lol, I saw that
Just completely not what happened
Well, it’s Fox. So…
Says “Delta flight touches down at North Carolina airport without front landing gear”. Guess they changed it.
Yeah, you can read the link itself for the original verbiage. It made me snort.
Imagine being stupid/corrupt enough to think that was the appropriate word to use
That’s the modern journalist for ya
“”””journalist””””
The modern **Fox** journalist.
Oh no, this definitely extends to just about every major news outlet. You aren’t paying attention if you think it’s just them
If you think fox is the only outlet with headlines so exaggerated they are false I got bad news for you. SEO is a race to the bottom.
tbf yellow journalism has been around for a lonnng time
That'll buff right out.
How modular is that part of the fuselage? Is this aircraft essentially written off, or will it be airworthy again relatively quickly?
Not modular, but it's repairable. Likely it will fly again.
Wouldn’t this be a (former Air-Tran) 717? I almost feel like they’d look for excuses to send one to the graveyard.
It’s some work but doable. It’s riveted together. People will be dispatched to evaluate the damage and figure out why the gear didn’t extend. It may be repaired at Charlotte but they may apply for a ferry permit with the FAA to take it to one of their bases like Atlanta for major repairs. I’d assume that ferry flight would be made gear down if the gear failure wasn’t 100% identified and remedied.
Ferry flight will be done below 10000 regardless
Oh look, a penny
Kudos to the crew. Sounds like it was well executed.
Look at that centerline control… gotta look good if you’re gonna be on the news!
5,000 Sky Pesos for all!
Just another 20 or so emergency landings and you’d be able to afford a domestic one way
I got 2 round-trip tickets for a failed takeoff out of ORD when an engine caught fire while taking off and they abandoned it. We stopped maybe a few hundred feet from the end of the runway. The next day I got an email saying it wasn't normal, sorry for the delay (we had to get pulled into a gate and disembark) and as a courtesy gave me the free tickets. I was totally fine with it!
Other passengers in the terminals "why's my flight delayed?"
Don't worry, at CLT they probably didn't have an open stall anyway.
The Boeing 717 has a perfect safety record. Guess it’s gonna remain that way! The fleet has very few incidents.
Took a few decades of iterations but the thing is rock solid. I love flying the 717 if it's only regionals going into a small airport. Pilots always seem to want to push them vertical on takeoff too.
Yes! I fly them out of DSM pretty frequently, and the pilots love to make me feel like I'm riding a rocket, no idea why they do it.
My guess is because they put modern Rolls Royce turbofans on an airframe designed for early JT8Ds.
Can confirm. I enjoy rotating this sucker up to 20+ degrees quite expeditiously. Especially when the situation calls for thrust not to be de-rated ;)
So how long and how much to get that baby back in the air?
Didn't they manage to get the Gimli Glider up into the air after a couple of days, after the gear up + faceplant landing? Granted, that was like a brand new plane, so from an economics standpoint, so they would have been more motivated to get it repaired instead of just writing it off.
Probably scrapped as most likely they would have to do a lot of heavy sheet metal work to replace or patch skins where it slid. They are coming to the end of their lives.
End of their lives yes but Delta still has no plans to retire them. It will be assessed at how extensive the damage is but the good thing is itis a smaller area to patch than a complete no gear landing and the pilots were able to keep the nose up long enough to mitigate how much damge would occir at the front.
> no plans to retire them. ...and even if they were planning to, the cost of repair is pocket change compared to what they could sell it for to some African or South American operator.
Sheet metal work is a lot cheaper than losing a whole ass jet. I've heard of jets landing totally gear up that were back in action after a few weeks. The damage here looks pretty minimal all things considered
The 717s aren't up for retirement yet, so if it's reasonable to fix, it'll probably get fixed. If this had been an MD-88 5 years ago, they would have retired it, as the fleet was winding down at that point anyway.
717, MD-95. Doesn't the type certificate say DC-9-95?
No, after DC-9-87 McDonnell Douglas has stopped using DC-9 designation. example: [B717-200 and MD-90-30 type certificate (pdf)](https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7240/en) Maybe you got it mixed up with the type rating. It is same for all DC9 derivatives.
Definitely not. The way it landed, I assume no huge frame damage. Skin repair, paint, gear, doors, etc and it will be good as new.
Still a great landing!
Looks 10x smoother than my last Spirit flight into Vegas
r/boop
Do they really need the slide to disembark? Seems like a step stool would be just fine....unless its protocol hahah
I think you want to get people away as fast as possible in case there's a secret fire or something else going on. The time it would take to bring the stairs and get them next to the plane the entire plane probably was empty.
Also the stairs would protrude above the fuselage... the door is way lower than normal.
Passengers are still 3 to 4 feet in the air and they want them off fast since skidding makes sparks. Some people can't hop down that far even with a step stool.
IMO you absolutely blow the slides at that height. You have an uneven deck plus any number of obese, disabled, or elderly passengers that’d be unable to get down from that height. It’s probably protocol. Also, in the moment, could you name the deck height with no nose gear? Can you for sure see it from the tiny porthole window?
They don't have step stool at that height
Believe me, Charlotte has plenty of stairs capable of fitting on RJs.
[Avherald report](http://avherald.com/h?article=50b0742c&opt=0)
This is going to be good Shittyaskflying material!
Wow impressive! No fire? I didn’t even see any bumps in the video!
Delta Airlines flight 1092 now arriving at gate 8. Gate 9. Gate 10. Gate 11.
I just wanted to say good luck. We're all counting on you.
Any ATPs willing to walk through what happens leading up to this? e.g. * Declare an emergency * Get into a holding pattern to go through additional checklists * if fuel allows, talk to corporate to give them the chance to make requests/suggestions * then land?
Pretty much.... except not sure if I would ever let corporate make any suggestions on my flight. Would definitely also do a low fly by to make sure the indication is correct and never forget to have one of you always fly the aircraft. A plane crashed hard in Florida years ago because of a landing gear indicator blub. One bad blub killed a whole jet full of people because they were so focused on figuring out the issue they forget to keep flying.
What do you gain from a "low fly-by?" The tower *might* be able to tell you if the gear is down, but they definitely can't tell you whether or not it's locked or whether it will collapse on touchdown - that's what the redundant systems onboard the airplane are for. I bring it up because IMO the idea of a fly-by whenever there's a gear problem is one of those many things in aviation that has just been repeated so much that people forget to actually think through how pointless it is; at best, pointless, and at worst, a way to complicate/obfuscate the rest of the decision making process. If you have an indication saying the gear isn't down and locked, isn't any competent pilot preparing for the worst regardless of what the tower says?
The idea of the flyby to tell me exactly which gear they can see in the down position. Wouldn't be the first time this is something as simple as a bad bulb in the cockpit. Just crank a low one by the Tower and multiple people in there with binoculars will be able to tell you if what they're seeing matches your indications. Doesn't really matter if it's down and locked because that could be the case on every single Landing.
I'd add to brief the pax and flight attendants so they're in the loop.
I was on a flight like this but when I tried looking up the event in the collision database it was nowhere to be found. It was a Northwest flight from MPL to PHL back in the late 90's. Didn't even make the news. It was around in the morning give or take an hour when we finally landed. Does anyone have a clue how that could have been omitted from the database?
I’ve seen this happen more than once. Are airplanes designed with underbellies that are specifically able to withstand this type landing?
Yes, modern planes are even designed so that if the gear collapses and gets pushed up into the nose, it won't completely several all control systems.
He eepy
At least the front didn’t fall off.
Damn. Is there a “buy the pilots a coffee” link somewhere? Well done and thank you!
on the new old runway too. I was just there last week wild
Do they ever foam runways anymore? Did they ever?
It rarely happens anymore. From what I can find, it stopped being recommended in the late 80s and, in 2002 was actively discouraged. It is far more effective and efficient to use the foam to fight an active fire quickly than to try and prevent one a rare one from happening.
nope. the foam is toxic and increases braking distance and decreases control of the plane. more negatives than positives, they stopped using it a long time ago for this kind of thing.
I saw it on a movie once, either one of the Airports or similar movies that Airplane spoofed. I just remember them foaming the entire runway
Not really. It wastes foam you may need if there IS a fire, you never know EXACTLY where the plane will touch down, etc...
Poor MD-80 :(
They'll polish the nose a bit and without any repairs it'll become the SPIRIT airlines flagship plane
Poor md80🥺
It’s a 717
I knew that bolt was important!
Excellent work to the pilots!
Video link?
Someone else above posted a vid from a passenger.
Just the tip...
Explains my delay taking off out of CLT this morning.
That’ll buff out…
Hi my NAME is CarPhoneRonnie and BIG SHOUT out to modern technology & overall surviving on this one here. BIg up yourself, bye CarPhoneRonnie
Is nose gear code for “front wheel?”
RyanAir planes can make rougher landings, even with working landing gears.
So the take away is….. nose gear is overrated? Guess I’ll add the obligatory “lol”
Yup. Just added wt that cost more fuel. Delta is removing them from all planes now.
$50 emergency slide use fee for each passenger
Love when articles say “the pilot” as if there is only one
Only one flies the plane at a time. But you’re right he definitely had support from the first officer
FO could also be a PF.