Those Crazy Sweedish Dash Drivers! (gear collapse)

[Captzaahlie]

Here's a pretty cool video clip, it's almost like the fire dept. is trying to drown the pax!
Then again getting wet is better than being on the menu at a barbecue.....

Glad no there was no fatalities!



http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/emergenc...s-smashing-engine-blade-into-cabin-298042.php

 

[The_Russian]

They did a horrible job with that landing. Very unprofessional, very bad airmenship.

Say what you want. The flying pilot slammed it in and never secured the engines. No respect for the safety of the passengers.

Shame on you SAS pilots.

 

[j41driver]

Did the crew know of a potential gear problem before it actually collapsed?

 

[The_Russian]

Yes. They burned fuel off before the landing was attempted.

 

[Turbine Pilot]

Dash's are not easy to get greasers unlike you guys in the jets. I've got several thousand hours and still can't get greasers on demand. It's just luck sometimes. They are hard to get. Look at the gear. They don't give much. Well other then in this case...
Also you can't secure engines in the Dash unless you shut it completly down. Then you have a dead engine to boot and it's not a cakewalk in a Dash unlike the jet... No pun intended... just different machines... even way different then a B-1900. Much harder to land and control single engine, I have flown them too. They are much easier to land and you barely notice an engine failure... I think the crew did a nice job, I couldn't have done any better.

 

[HoldShort31C]

So Russian....
What part of that was such a bad job, more importantly...what was so unprofessional about that?

No serious injuries, etc....what is the basis of your comments???

 

[c9skytrain]

What is Sweedish? A new jelly?

 

[The_Russian]

So Russian....
What part of that was such a bad job, more importantly...what was so unprofessional about that?

No serious injuries, etc....what is the basis of your comments???

Let's see....

Both engines should have been secured prior to touchdown. This is not only for the safety of the passengers, but to reduce damge to the aircraft.

and,

The landing was made with poor technique, allowing the aircraft to contact the runway extremely hard. Much harder than should be considered for an unsafe gear situation.

I hate to say it myself, but it was a botched job. That aircraft could have been landed on the centerline with minimal damage. Instead, it took a hard right after an uncontrolled touchdown and departed the runway.

 

[quinnlake]

Let's see....

Both engines should have been secured prior to touchdown. This is not only for the safety of the passengers, but to reduce damge to the aircraft.

and,

The landing was made with poor technique, allowing the aircraft to contact the runway extremely hard. Much harder than should be considered for an unsafe gear situation.

I hate to say it myself, but it was a botched job. That aircraft could have been landed on the centerline with minimal damage. Instead, it took a hard right after an uncontrolled touchdown and departed the runway.

I see several aircraft listed on you're profile, but not a DASH. Are you suggesting that they should have flown a dead stick landing in order to secure the engines? Wow.

 

[BoilerUP]

Why secure the engines?

With already one emergency with a gear unsafe situation, why create another one for yourself by fiddling with the engines in the critical approach-to-landing phase?