Edit:
Answer: Yes
... the crew initiated a go around due to a unsafe nose gear indication, climbed to 4000 feet and entered a hold to work the checklists. After working the checklists the crew declared emergency and requested emergency services on stand by. The aircraft performed a low approach to runway 36L, positioned for another approach to runway 36L and landed without nose gear extended at 08:54L (12:54Z) about 12 minutes after the second go around and about 30 minutes after the first go around.
This is how I got my commercial pilot's license, and I'm a senior software engineer.
It just "clicked" with my brain to follow specific procedures ("algorithms") for absolutely everything. Checklists, strict rules, "flows", handling emergencies. It all felt natural to me.
They will throw random stuff at you during checkrides. Pull the power back on one of the engines right after takeoff saying it failed, fail instruments that you were using to navigate, blindfold you ("foggles") and put you almost upside down and then say "recover!".
But you have everything so ingrained in your mind by that point that it's almost robotic. You just look at the inputs (almost upside down, engine #2 is gone, no attitude indicator, whatever it is) and know what the output is supposed to be (roll to unload Gs, lower the nose, full power, check the standby AI, etc).
I happen to work well when there are strict rules and procedures. If this, then that.
Not that people shouldn’t help but you gotta be careful with maneuvers you don’t typically make, even if trying to be helpful / are a pilot.
In fact there's an exception that proves that rule: there was not an algorithm to handle pitot tube ice causing an MCAS failure on the 737 MAX, because the type certificate was shared with earlier aircraft that didn't have an MCAS to fail.
And two planes crashed because pilots didn't have an algorithm to follow to tell them what was happening when their trim went crazy.
I've been wondering for a while when I read stuff like this, why don't modern airplanes have exterior cameras that cover every surface? I watched a video recently about a flight where one of the engines literally detached and the pilots didn't know the extent of the damage until after. Why not just have cameras they can quickly pull up to check stuff like this?
A lot of incident reports have flight attendants or copilots leaving to try to make visual confirmation of things that it seems would be better suited if there were some actual visual feedback.
VASAviation is one of the “air traffic control recording” YouTube channels but there are a few others that are equally as good.
There are at least two YouTube channels[2] dedicated to recording the crazy boat ramps around Miami. Nothing is more entertaining than watching all the chaos around a boat ramp. Especially ones are busy as those around Miami.
There are dozens of channels publishing multi-hour first person view trips from rail conductors traveling through various scenic rail lines[3]. Some get 100’s of thousands of views per video! I wonder what fraction of that traffic watches the entire trip!
Let’s not forget Australian jetters [1]! You too can watch at least two channels worth of drain cleaning videos complete with all manner of foul disgusting water bubbling up out of random bits of pipe. Kids love this stuff!
These channels publish frequently and get a reasonable amount of watches. It’s nuts how a platform like YouTube can grow such strangely niche channels.
1: https://youtube.com/@DrainAddict
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-a-wwii-spitfire-he...
And then they wonder why people try to take their bags during an emergency off boarding.... Because they know they will not see it for a long time if ever again.
Stupid policy
Things can move from “ugh this is annoying, where is the truck with the stairs” to “the landing gear caught on fire after all” very quickly.
https://www.insider.com/russian-plane-crash-aeroflot-passeng...
The complaint is about the FAA hold passenger items after the emergnecy is over while they "investigate"
The process should be
Evac -> Fire Dept clears the plane > Airline gets passengers there stuff
it should not be
Evac > Fire Dept > NTSB Looks at things > FAA Looks at things > Someone 3 years later Passengers get their things
because the FAA as the latter policy, people will be more prone to try to take their stuff, then if they knew once evacuated they would get their belongings before leaving the airport, not at some undetermined time later
FAA Policy increases the danger for everyone.
That said, my laptop, being sufficiently valuable, is also automatically and constantly backed up, so I'm not too worried about losing it in an emergency, just like I'm not worried about someone stealing it from me on the subway which I suspect is a more likely occurrence.
The last thing everybody on the plane needs is you fetching that one important small thing from the overhead bin/under your seat/the aisle after you dropped it/...
yes if you did not pay for the items, it will not cost you anything to replace the items then doubt you would think about them...
it will be shocking for you to learn that some times people travel with possessions that are not paid for by other people.
The goal during an evacuation is to get every one off in 90seconds or less, since it’s possible there’s a fire, which has the potential to become extremely dangerous very quickly. Consider how long it takes to board a plane with luggage.
We’re all really quick to assume this is simply bureaucrats inventing rules to annoy us.
No the airline/FAA won't steal your stuff, that's not the concern. The problem is whatever you leave on the plane will remain there until the end of the investigation, which means that you can basically write all of it off for a month. Have the rule say that the airline will be on the hook to return all belongings within 48 hours and people would likely be much more comfortable leaving their things on the place.
It's not rational to try and save "things" in an emergency situation, but neither is a company/FAA just shrugging and saying "you'll get your belongings when you'll get your belongings".
Now their driver’s licenses and their credit cards are all in handbags around seat 34A/B. They won’t be able to rent a car, make calls, or even prove their lawful entry to the soil they’re on.
I almost always have my wallet and a phone in trousers and/or jacket pockets anyway, so this is likely never be a problem for me, but not everyone even has a pocket on their clothings.
He’s saying that because of policies like those (the FAA holding the plane), people are going to want to take their bags in an emergency situation.
Reasons they may need the bags: Possible interference (bombs, sabotage and such). Weight and balance of the aircraft. Possible fires. Possible crash-related evidence in those bags (ie bags exposed to G/chemicals/fires etc). There are any number of scenarios where the bags might be useful to the investigation. Until those are ruled out, and ruled out properly though the process, the survivors can wait.
Just be glad the FAA isn't confiscating clothing. They can do that. In cases of fire or chemical exposure they very well can confiscate clothing that might contain useful evidence. In some circumstances even blood samples could be taken (chemical exposure etc). Got a cellphone video of the landing? It is in their power to take that too. Planes are as safe as they are because crash investigators have carte blanche. Passenger inconvenience should never trump that proven process.
You could argue “well they should rapidly diagnose and make a decision” and, sure, but that diagnosis is exactly the question isn’t it?
Agree it is a stupid policy. As long as there is no fire, at least let people grab their carry-ons.
edit for clarity: I understand the issue you face regarding your medication being trapped on the plane and believe airlines should indeed have a duty of care to ensure you have rapid access to replacement medication at their expense, but I'm specifically addressing why they have the policy of telling people to not grab carry-on items during evacuation.
GA (General aviation, people who own a little plane and maybe just fly it for fun, or it's a professional expense for say a plastic surgeon and allows them to fly 300 miles home on Thursday evening after working four days in the big city) is not safe. A few hundred of these people die, not just smash up their planes or get hurt, but die, sometimes with family or friends aboard, every year. It might make the local TV news, at most. Unless they were a celebrity it won't make national news.
Commercial is more complicated because there are so many possibilities. Cargo is pretty safe, if your job is to move boxes of stuff from one big jet airport to another in a civilized country you'll likely die in bed of old age. But if you fly a police helicopter, or medevac, or you're a crop duster, or you fly custom pick up jobs, when the client wants and where they want - those jobs can go badly wrong much too easily, without you really understanding what you've got yourself into until it's too late. These people are (or at least should be) better trained than in GA, but they're also often flying more demanding missions. You may operate out of somewhere with not-so-great capabilities, on short notice, in poor weather and/or at night, and you may be expected to go places that you ordinarily wouldn't, close to buildings, close to other aircraft, even close to the ground - all of which narrows your options if things go wrong.
Military is also pretty bad as I understand it. It needn't be, but there's some sense that the job is "supposed" to be dangerous, which maybe makes sense for front line infantry, but really not for the vast majority of military pilots - way too many of them die far from any enemy, as a result of somebody screwing up, just like in GA or commercial.
The plane landed with power to only one engine (according to the announcers), but you would have never even known there was anything wrong. It just looked like any other landing.
1) https://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b717-55017.htm 2) https://www.airfleets.net/listing/b717-1-statdesc.htm
And yet these "extensive maintenance checklists" did not prevent such a serious malfunction. They were lucky that the weather was cooperating. In bad weather and strong winds who knows what would have happened.
I wonder how the runway fares after this.
There are also rules about exactly where a plane can touch down on the runway. Only some of a runway is engineered to be strong enough to bear the weight of a massive plane dropping onto the pavement. The rest is called a "displaced threshold" and is OK for parking, taxiing, and taking off.
Runways have 3-4 different defined areas, each with different properties and usable in different ways. For example, the grass at the sides is important for safety, must be cleared a certain distance back, must not rise above a certain level above the tarmac, etc, and all those rules are distinct from the rules that apply to the concrete at the ends of the runway, distinct from the rules regarding surrounding buildings and trees, and so on. The area managed as a runway can extend kilometers out on every side.
Now, if you have a plane break down at one end, or a support vehicle crash on the grass or something, you don't actually have to put the runway out of action, but you do have to re-declare the usable distance, and that's based on the location, size, and importantly height of the obstacle. You then need to plot the angle of landing/takeoff based on that height, accounting for the segment of the runway it's in, and the given runway's pre-approved angle (varies by city/terrain).
It was a fascinating project and a good example of how problems are often so much more complex and nuanced than they initially appear.
Source: Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B Airport Design, 3.5.3 (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...)
When it is impractical to locate a threshold at the beginning of the runway, it may be
necessary to apply a displaced threshold. A displaced threshold reduces runway length
available for landings in one direction. The portion of the runway prior to the displaced
threshold typically remains available for takeoffs. Depending on the circumstances
surrounding the displacement, operations from the opposite runway end may or may not
be affected. Refer to Appendix H for related information on declared distances.
Generally, a runway threshold displacement provides:
1. A means for obtaining additional RSA prior to the threshold.
2. A means for obtaining additional ROFA prior to the threshold.
3. A means for locating the RPZ to mitigate incompatible land uses.
4. A means for obstacle clearance prior to the threshold.
5. Increased arrival capacity with certain parallel runway approach procedures. See
FAA Order 7110.308, Simultaneous Dependent Approaches to Closely Spaced
Parallel Runways
Glossary: RSA: Runway Safety Area
ROFA: Runway Object Free Area
RPZ: Runway Protection Zone
Note that all of the given reasons are for clearance of obstacles or various other mandatory safety areas based on clearance from taxiways or other runway traffic, not for durability of the runway.Blancolirio covers this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D2Kj0t4t9s
So at least in this case, it doesn't seem to have had a serious impact on the runway
I was somewhat thinking of the passengers.
And on the watching side you're pushed into a needlessly unfriendly UI. Like I generally just use the YT web interface and don't go out of my way to routinely yt-dlp or Newpipe, but now I might have to change that.
Everything that happened was well within the stress tolerance parameters of the majority of involved humans as well.
there's a real risk of injury from evacuating, so it needs consideration by the pilot.
Like, that's leaving people without their wallets (aka id, money) and so on. Sounds like they may not get it back for an unknown period of time (weeks, months?) either.
UK/US relations are pretty good. I'm sure this situation could have been a lot worse in more unfriendly countries but I'm still shocked this solution was even possible.
Also, there’s no indication that anyone who left the plane without their ID or passport is just being left in the terminal for days, making this guideline even less valuable.
Because US Airlines have such a good reputation for taking care of their stranded passengers? /s
(or always bring a large USB)
They were probably rushed off due to being unsure about fire hazards, and people digging through carryons for wallets and stuff would probably slow that down a lot, considering how long a normal deplaning takes.
There's probably a bit of a safety and practicality aspect of accessing a plane with a collapsed gear.
Doesn't seem like they should get their way when it comes to people's id and other personal docs, if that's what's really going on.
Potentially stranding international passengers without their passport (etc) is really not on.
And then there's the passport and any other important documentation. That stuff is pretty much always in either my carry-on or a jacket pocket (which is usually also in the overhead).
Yeah, keeping my cell on my person probably avoids 80%-90% of the annoyance, but you aren't getting through customs or security without a physical ID in most places.
I wouldn't want to be stuck away from home on a flight without some physical ID. Also don't want to completely rely on Apple Pay to buy anything (not to mention that some stores still don't take Apple Pay).
Second, any place that doesnt take Apple Pay is not a place you should do business at. Even lowly kiosks and vending machines accept Apple Pay now. The places that are NOT accepting Apple Pay are a red flag, they are doing something nefarious by holding onto the old system of credit card processing (there are benefits and incentives to use contact less payments and places that refuse are actively missing out for a reason, there is literally no good reason to not take Apple Pay).
One of my favorite station IDs was an independent local analog UHF channel 56 with call letters WLVI. I heard those letters for years before I realized it was 56 in Roman numerals.
You can think of it as the "smash like and subscribe" of the radio days!
TV stations are allowed to do it visually. When I was young it was common to see it as a full screen ID in between shows (often with a quick weather report, “time and temperature”). Later most stations I saw quit that and just put it as a bug at the bottom of the screen over top of the show.
Bangor, ME has an ABC affiliate WVII broadcasting on VHF channel 7.
It must be weird to live near the Mississippi and get a mix of K and W station call signs!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_signs_in_the_United_State...
KOME:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rMhtoniG82o
(I wish I could find a recording of the one that went;: "Don't touch that dial!!! You've got KOME on your radio." or "The KOME spot on your FM dial.")
Vintage WWDC:
WRC-TV - NBC Washington
similar to...
KIAD - Dulles International
Fun fact: Pilots can have a non-zero BAC (I think .04). So they could have it while on duty too if it’s not a double!
Edit: that is indeed the case https://simpleflying.com/delta-retirements-aircraft/
NTSB report (pdf): https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2001/20010809-0_B712_N24...
Current incident: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/316147
This plane's deets:
Boeing 717-2BD (derived from MD-80)
model year 2000
ser 55017
reg N955AT
leaser Wells Fargo
As an immediate stop gap, I think the FAA should issue an AD for the 717/MD-80 family that should rough front gear noises, underpowered response, or rolling sluggishness occur, ground crews should inspect the nose gear's NLG spray deflector for damage prior to any takeoff. For anyone unfamiliar, the deflector is thing that trails behind the nose wheel that limits FOD and water ingestion into MD-80's tail-mounted engines. Wing-mounted engines generally don't have this problem unless they're located near wing roots.
It's difficult to trust a news source that can't properly identify an airframe model in an article about an airplane crash. As far as I can as a tell, Boeing has never produced a model 712, it appears what the plane in question is some variant of the 717[1] but that's only a guess as I'm not an expert in the field.
As soon as I have a little free time I'll do my best to update the relevant Wikipedia pages in hopes fewer people are confused by the nomenclature in the future.
This is an almost 23 year old plane. Even with checks and maintenance, was age a factor?
Age is always a factor in mechanical failure, but I’m sure this failure will be inspected in detail to try and avoid it again in the future
I have seen (on one of the YouTube ATC channels) a comercial jet (747, IIRC) that DID lose one of its main landing gear on take-off. Another pilot (in another jet) saw the wheel bounce across the runway.
That plane continued on its way and landed normally. It was just one wheel of a four-wheel truck/assembly (of which a 747 has 4 sets).
All very calm to everyone’s credit.
Via Tepix's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36519150
In combination with what mannykannot replied to you, that doesn't sound particularly rushed to me (not that I'm an expert, but it would be surprising if they'd needed an hour for such a relatively common type of incident).
Once you've run all the relevant checklists and ARFF is in position, you land the plane.
Seems a lot less risky to drag the back than scrape the front - which can flip the plane
Is it simply the center of gravity? (engines look like they're behind)
They do align the plane as much as they can to keep the nose off the ground for as long as they can.
But yes, it's the total center of gravity, it can't land on the tail.
You could bring up ALL the gear but then you have no control and it will almost certainly veer off the runway and then it may break apart.
In a gear abnormal, land on what you have and the outcome is almost always great for the occupants.
Any injuries are likely to be from the evacuation after everything is stopped.
In fact, I've just looked at a video on YouTube "AIRLIVE" [0] and you can see the shadow of the nose off the ground when the plane shakes (at 0:07s) indicating the rear gear has made contact. I think the nose contacts at 0:13, so gently it's amazing.
If you like that, check out JetBlue 292; landing's about half way through the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epKrA8KjYvg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_Mania#Relative_frequencies
Maybe there are concerns about potentially damaging the APU?