wingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2999 times:
I make of this incident as a case of sensational journalism. Disaster narrowly avoided? really? Does this journalist have some type of future vision. Last time I checked, most planes that have had landing gear problems recently have landed successfully with no fatalities (commercial aircraft). Yes, we know the school has had an airplane disaster in its history, but this is really reaching for a story if you ask me!
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
Tigerguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1067 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2990 times:
Well...looks like it was probably a CRJ-100. While a belly landing isn't necessarily the easiest and safest thing in the world to do, I don't think there would have been a disaster of any kind. Yes, there's the danger of the plane flipping over or breaking up, but it sounds like (from what there is, anyway) the pilots had control of the aircraft, and thus would not have been coming in at an excessive/uncontrollable rate of speed.
Flying friendly for a while, but is that a widget I see in the rear-view mirror?
type-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2078 times:
Actually belly landings aren't that bad. Sure you may lose some antennas but if the fuel tanks don't get punctured you slide to a stop. There was a CO DC-9 that landed gear up at IAH back in the 90s. It slid off into the grass and came to a stop. Most of the passengers just thought that the plane settled "a little lower than usual" during the landing.
I think the article is just trying to stir up old memories. A gear up landing is not in the same league as a busted minimum during and instrument approach in low IFR conditions.