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.
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...
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 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".
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.
Agree it is a stupid policy. As long as there is no fire, at least let people grab their carry-ons.
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.
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.
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.
Everything that happened was well within the stress tolerance parameters of the majority of involved humans as well.
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.
(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).
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!
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).
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?
