Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 115916	2011-02-09 06:04:00	When is a crash landing not a crash landing?	tuiruru (12277)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1176655	2011-02-09 23:37:00	Yes I think it was crash landing. And I think the pilot did a great job. I'd like to know why they did not let it land at Wellington where there are probably lots of fire engines and emergency crew, versus Blenheim where there is probably one fire engine and two firemen ? And was it a Dash - or a Bomabardier ? One is Canadian and one is Brazilain. P'raps they thought the News Crews wouldn't get to Blenheim in time!! :banana 3 News said it was a Dash and they ain't never wrong, right? :rolleyes:	tuiruru (12277)
1176656	2011-02-09 23:46:00	It's a Bombardier Q300, Canadian. Used to be called a DeHavilland Canada Dash 8, or a DHC-8. The Q in the model denotes the quieter cabins, which they released in the late 90s I believe.	wratterus (105)
1176657	2011-02-10 00:03:00	Yes I think it was crash landing. And I think the pilot did a great job. I'd like to know why they did not let it land at Wellington where there are probably lots of fire engines and emergency crew, versus Blenheim where there is probably one fire engine and two firemen ? And was it a Dash - or a Bomabardier ? One is Canadian and one is Brazilain. The aircraft was diverted to Blenheim, which does have appropriate on-call emergency equipment and crews to cope with an emergency situation for this size of aircraft and passenger capacity. Because the emergency was not an immediate time critical situation, there was time to burn off fuel, and bring in additional tenders and ambulance personnel. Better to do this at Woodbourne and close it's runway, than Wellington's runway. The disruption to air traffic at Wellington would have taken many hours to clear, in the meantime inconveniencing and disrupting the travel plans of hundreds even thousands as the ripple effects kicked in. So given a choice and safety is not compromised, Woodbourne it was. The aircraft? The Bombardier Dash 8 or Q Series, previously known as the de Havilland Canada Dash 8 or DHC-8, is a series of twin-engined, medium range, turboprop airliners. Introduced by de Havilland Canada (DHC) in 1984, they are now produced by Bombardier Aerospace. (Wiki) I think you may be confusing them with Embraer. There is some tie up but what the mechanics are, I don't know. A crash landing? Nope. It was a precision, controlled emergency landing. A crash landing in my book is where things get hopelessly out of control - sudden airframe failure, component or engine failure, or crew incapacitation. An unplanned landing would also be included. (My attempt to define a crash landing). This was a professional aircrew doing everything by the book for a text book landing prescribed for this known malfunction of the nosegear, and they cannot be faulted in any way. Hats off, a great job. :thumbs:	WalOne (4202)
1176658	2011-02-10 00:27:00	@Walone, Thanks for that very good report. Yes I got confused with Embraer. (anyway I'd rather have a Brazilian than a Canadian)	Digby (677)
1176659	2011-02-10 02:05:00	Some reasons for going to Woodbourne rather than Wellington: It is a great deal harder to slide into the sea. There is a wider flat area around the airport without buildings. It's not Wellington. And calling it a "crash landing" is more acceptable to marketing than calling it a "normal Bombadier face-plant arrival".	R2x1 (4628)
1176660	2011-02-10 06:26:00	Some reasons for going to Woodbourne rather than Wellington: It is a great deal harder to slide into the sea. There is a wider flat area around the airport without buildings. It's not Wellington. And calling it a "crash landing" is more acceptable to marketing than calling it a "normal Bombadier face-plant arrival". :groan: - I asked for that! :lol::lol::lol: BTW on the subject of crash landings, today's single engine light aircraft's effort in OZ was what I call a crash landing. Fortunately nobody on board, the two people and their dog, suffered nothing more than shock ...	WalOne (4202)
1176661	2011-02-10 07:02:00	The post-landing paperwork indicates the normality of the landing/arrival/augering into terrain. For helicopters and parachutists,different standards apply. ;)	R2x1 (4628)
1176662	2011-02-10 19:54:00	I was infuriated by the use of the term 'crash landing'. It was far from being a crash. It was a safe, controlled landing. "Crash landing" should be restricted to cases where there is a loss of control or an unintended return to earth! This case was neither of those, and the brainless sensationalist reporting was stupid at best. One reporter said it, and the other sheep on the channel copied it. If a car comes to a halt with a flat tyre do we call that a crash? If a car lost a wheel and came to a halt without drama would we call that a crash? No. So why call it a crash when a plane experiences the equivalent. Emergency landing, yes, kind of. Crash landing, no. It was more of a non-standard landing, carried off perfectly. Nice job done in the cockpit!	Paul.Cov (425)
1176663	2011-02-10 19:57:00	I was infuriated by the use of the term 'crash landing'. It was far from being a crash. It was a safe, controlled landing. "Crash landing" should be restricted to cases where there is a loss of control or an unintended return to earth! This case was neither of those, and the brainless sensationalist reporting was stupid at best. One reporter said it, and the other sheep on the channel copied it. If a car comes to a halt with a flat tyre do we call that a crash? If a car lost a wheel and came to a halt without drama would we call that a crash? No. So why call it a crash when a plane experiences the equivalent. Emergency landing, yes, kind of. Crash landing, no. It was more of a non-standard landing, carried off perfectly. Nice job done in the cockpit! x2	prefect (6291)
1176664	2011-02-10 20:01:00	And calling it a "crash landing" is more acceptable to marketing than calling it a "normal Bombadier face-plant arrival". LMAO !!! That was beautiful!:clap	Paul.Cov (425)
1 2 3