351–360 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too bad the airport couldn't find the funds to put a dash cam in the tower. Grump grump grump.
For anyone unaware, Walter worked for Boeing for years and probably knows more about planes than anyone on the forum. It's likely not a morbid curiosity here, especially since noone died AFAIK, but genuine technical curiosity so he can see what happened, and perhaps educate us readers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of that engineering feature is to ensure the wings stay on.
The comment was merely illustrating the concept in general being used on planes, or at least that's how I read it.
The integrity of the wings is a function that supersedes just about every other possible thing on a plane. You can safely land without any engines. You can safely land without hydraulics. You can safely land without gear. Without wings, a plane is a brick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link. Yes, that's technically video I guess, but it's trash and doesn't look like the camera was set up to capture takeoffs and landings. More like a utility shed and road... at '90s webcam frame rates and quality.
Hahah, wow, who was offended by those easily-verified observations?
Maybe people think you are kind of creepy for being so insistent (and hyperbolically so)?
> This looks like wind shear to me. It was a stable approach and then it suddenly got slammed into the ground. That doesn't look like pilot-induced change in descent rate, it is too sudden for that. A sudden change in wind direction (shear) when that slow can absolutely cause a sudden loss of lift.
> We have had almost 2 feet of snow up here since Friday, and are experiencing wind gusts up to 65 mph. Has basically been a winter hurricane.
> This is a CRJ landing on Runway 23 at YYZ. It is an 11,000’ runway. Winds at the time where gusting from the NE likely north of 30 knots, so this was a cross wind landing. My bet is that it wasn’t the worst situation that any of the pilots had been in. Delta is a pretty good company. Guessing (as a GA pilot and talking to pilots of bigger birds than this —- I know a few). Likely wind shear or wake turbulence. The wake turbulence part would be a reach considering the cross wind component would have blown it away by the time of this landing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I seriously, seriously doubt it. The wings are so utterly critical to flight I can’t possibly imagine any situation they’d be engineered to snap off under. Further, that’s where the fuel is and any crash involving a wing rupture is dramatically more dangerous given the risk of fire. Hell even in a crash landing like this you want the plane to stay upright and stable.
It's probably preferable to have the wing break off than for it to apply sufficient stress to the fuselage that the fuselage disintegrates - you're going to lose the wing either way and if you're in the air that's going to be bad, but if you're on or near the ground it's probably preferable to have an intact fuselage?
The fuselage couldn’t take a fraction of the stress the wings are designed to endure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a video posted elsewhere in this discussion [0]. Looks like the plane landed incredibly hard and the gear buckled. Extreme wind shear? [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1is1qoy/video_of_...
Thanks for the link. Yes, that's technically video I guess, but it's trash and doesn't look like the camera was set up to capture takeoffs and landings. More like a utility shed and road... at '90s webcam frame rates and quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For anyone unaware, Walter worked for Boeing for years and probably knows more about planes than anyone on the forum. It's likely not a morbid curiosity here, especially since noone died AFAIK, but genuine technical curiosity so he can see what happened, and perhaps educate us readers.
[flagged]
You seem to know a lot about him, which indicates you bravely made a throwaway to write this drivel. Please seek help. In the meantime, I do hope our lone mod IP bans such low effort members.