Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
dennypayne wrote:For a light GA aircraft, I think it’s much better to find an open field for an emergency landing versus a road. There are typically many more obstacles to hit on a road that you wouldn’t be able to see until it was too late - signposts, power lines, guardrails, vehicles, you name it. But the amount of fields large enough to accommodate an airliner would seem to be low enough in most areas that the calculation likely differs.
Starlionblue wrote:For a forced landing the gear should be down, whilst for a ditching (water landing) the gear should be up.
xl0hr wrote:Starlionblue wrote:For a forced landing the gear should be down, whilst for a ditching (water landing) the gear should be up.
What about U6178? I think to remember that "Russian Sully" did not lower the gear on purpose when landing in a field after dual engine failure. Something like "let's it float on the crop better" they said imho. I would have thought the strength and shock absorption of the gear would be more important.
Starlionblue wrote:xl0hr wrote:Starlionblue wrote:For a forced landing the gear should be down, whilst for a ditching (water landing) the gear should be up.
What about U6178? I think to remember that "Russian Sully" did not lower the gear on purpose when landing in a field after dual engine failure. Something like "let's it float on the crop better" they said imho. I would have thought the strength and shock absorption of the gear would be more important.
In case of doubt, I'd err on the side of manufacturer's recommendation. But the commander is the commander.
dennypayne wrote:For a light GA aircraft, I think it’s much better to find an open field for an emergency landing versus a road. There are typically many more obstacles to hit on a road that you wouldn’t be able to see until it was too late - signposts, power lines, guardrails, vehicles, you name it. But the amount of fields large enough to accommodate an airliner would seem to be low enough in most areas that the calculation likely differs.
ozark1 wrote:2) When Southern 242 initially started getting into trouble or even at a point afterward why did McKenzie (Captain) not take over from F/O Keele? It seemed like a complete role reversal, but i cannot find any mention of this in any report. Captain McKenzie told Keele TWICE to find an open field. Keele refused. So my mind went back to the midair collision between the Eastern Connie and the TWA 707 over Carmel N.Y. in 65. TWA had no problem reaching JFK, even with a large part of a wing missing. But Eastern was mortally wounded. Thanks to the skill and courage of Captain White and his crew, they were able to set it down in a field. Unfortunately a wing clipped a tree and smoke and fire ensued. However, in the end, there were only 2 fatalies, one being that of White, who had gone in and out of the cabin attempting to rescue people until he was overcome by smoke inhalation.
SO my question is this. Would it not have been a better decision to put it down in a field as opposed to a highway? Did they not see any fields? Why was copilot Keele so adamant about landing on a road?
If they had found a field, would the plane be with gear up or gear down?
Thank you so very much for any info you might have. Have a great day.
ozark1 wrote:1) The UA DC8 made a few mistakes and overflew a checkpoint. There is absolutely no comment on the fact that the cockpit crew had flown the plane in as an all-nighter from LAX to ORD. The flight attendants joined them there, and they departed. Why is there no mention of fatigue in this crash? Perhaps fatigue did not even become a factor until much much later, but I am curious that it was simply not listed as a cause.Everything that I have read states that they had flown in from LAX on the allnighter.