If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Quote of the week: "We do have some information that the aircraft did land long." Flaming wreckage 220 yards off the end of the runway apparently not conclusive enough   (cnn.com) divider line 143
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

5620 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2005 at 12:21 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-08-05 12:22:50 PM
My aircraft landed long once.

/sounds dirty
 
2005-08-05 12:23:56 PM
I have a long aircraft in my pants.
 
2005-08-05 12:24:06 PM
Third post.
 
2005-08-05 12:24:15 PM
Some of us oldtimers prefer a grassy landing strip.
 
2005-08-05 12:24:27 PM
If your aircraft lands short does the tower say "That's not it" ?
 
2005-08-05 12:25:44 PM
my Fuselage prefers a smooth landing strip.
 
2005-08-05 12:25:47 PM
Kinda reminds me of mission control during the Challenger disaster: "We appear to have some sort of problem."

In MC's defense, they didn't have TV monitors, so they didn't see what every other person did...

Captain Obvious is on the job!!!
 
2005-08-05 12:26:04 PM
What a miracle.
 
2005-08-05 12:26:21 PM
submitter must be desperate for a greenlight.

In other words, crash investigators are leaning toward the accident being pilot error as opposed to an "act of God".
 
2005-08-05 12:26:41 PM
Here's another priceless gem: "Well no shiat Sherlock!"
 
2005-08-05 12:27:18 PM
My Hovercraft is full of eels.
 
2005-08-05 12:27:36 PM
Nothing like a punch in the face to go with the passengers kick in the ballz.

/filter?
 
2005-08-05 12:28:37 PM
of course this could be in response to a stupid question from a reporter like: "what happened here? Do you think it missed the runway?"
 
2005-08-05 12:28:58 PM
I don't understand what Rupaul was doing there...
 
2005-08-05 12:29:01 PM
Quadruplator, this is not slashdot, and I think I speak for everyone when I say "I'd like to keep it that way"
 
2005-08-05 12:29:11 PM
`the ravine at the end of the runway may have contributed to the crash.'

Yeah, had it not been there the plane would have crossed (18) lanes of highway traffic. Much safer.
 
2005-08-05 12:29:18 PM
Oh really doctor? Is that your professional opinion?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-08-05 12:29:21 PM
He emphasized that wind shear likely was not a factor in the crash -- as has been speculated -- because that usually would only affect aircraft in flight.

Sudden headwind on final approach, aircraft rises, pilot decides to try landing rather than go around. Sound plausible, pilots?
 
2005-08-05 12:31:52 PM
Silly submitter. The aircraft could have landed exactly where it was meant to land but:

1. At too high speed
2. Suffered a subsequent brake failure or blow-out
3. aquaplaned over the surface...
4... etc.

But no. It landed initially too far up the strip. So the statement that the aircraft landed long is neither obvious nor self evident.

Carry on.
 
2005-08-05 12:32:04 PM
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
 
2005-08-05 12:32:13 PM
Flaming wreckage 220 yards off the end of the runway apparently not conclusive enough

Well duh, of course it isn't. Just because the wreckage is beyond the end of the runway, it doesn't tell you if it got there by slipping on the runway or by landing too far down.

I'm just happy that the gawkers are starting to go away, unclogging the 401.
 
2005-08-05 12:32:22 PM
Is wind shear the same as a micro-burst? I seem to be hearing those to terms thrown around as a possible cause.

Know nothing about flying except how to crash remote control airplanes.
 
2005-08-05 12:32:31 PM
In case it's not clear, the "land long" comment means he hit the runway too far down (as opposed to landing in the right spot, but still skidding so far he went off the end). Got it?
 
2005-08-05 12:32:37 PM
What's the point of crashing a jet if no one dies?

/Course, Quantas never crashed.
 
2005-08-05 12:32:45 PM
Another story about it

I did not submit this with any headline.
 
2005-08-05 12:33:21 PM
If people had died during this crash would they have been referred to as french fry's?
 
2005-08-05 12:33:55 PM
headline is funny

AND

the statement is not as ridiculous as it is being made to seem (plane could have landed correctly and then had some other failure).
 
2005-08-05 12:33:59 PM
Look at his name, he's gotta be a quebec-er....
 
2005-08-05 12:34:17 PM
Quadruplator: Third post.

Dude...

Ok, I'll probably get banned for threadjacking if I ask...but, email me with your reason for doing that.

I really gotta know what reason you validated the effort to do that.
 
2005-08-05 12:36:08 PM
The quotation makes sense. LANDING is where the plane touches down (on land), not where it comes to a STOP. Clearly, it came to a STOP "long" -- which you can do even if you LAND short or LAND "on target." STOPPING long can owe to a number of reasons -- gail-force tailwinds, bad brakes, blown tires, unresponsive controls, Slip-n-Slides, oil slicks, etc.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-08-05 12:36:52 PM
Is wind shear the same as a micro-burst?

Microbursts cause wind shear. Not all wind shear is caused by microbursts.
 
2005-08-05 12:37:00 PM
No doubt that pilot will soon be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shiat outta Hong Kong.
 
2005-08-05 12:37:39 PM

They are suggesting he thought about going around, then didn't, which made it worse.

"We don't use the words 'pilot error' any more," Mr. Levasseur said yesterday. "But some 'human factors' are huge," he added.


"So, Timmy. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-08-05 12:38:47 PM
He also said investigators have determined that all four engine thrust-reversers were in operation and working, "so that's a good sign."

Why is that a good sign?
 
2005-08-05 12:38:52 PM
ZAZ: Microbursts cause wind shear. Not all wind shear is caused by microbursts.


Thanks I almost understand now.
 
2005-08-05 12:39:25 PM
& yet no one has reposted the photo of the French/French Canadian/Canadian/Passenger/Relative/HOTTIE.

For shame, Farkistan. For. Shame.
 
2005-08-05 12:39:31 PM
there was statements that it was lightning right as it happened. people said they saw lightning strike right where the plane was.

now imagine if it would've happened 60 seconds earlier; they'd all be gone.

what's odd tho is you'd think you'd have heard it strike if you were on the plane (i can't really recall anyone ever saying what that'd be like so dunno, read about it with some airforce deal as a kid), so maybe it didn't really strike the plane but the plane got caught in a dispersed charge and tripped all the breakers and it was too stressful to reset them all.

or pegged something. either way it shouldn't have lost all power.

i betchya it was someone using a cell phone, yea that's the ticket.
 
2005-08-05 12:40:07 PM
FAA Rule #1: It's *always* pilot error.

Pilot: "We landed long and went off the runway"
FAA: "You should've went around again. Pilot Error."

Pilot: "The engine siezed and we were forced down into a field"
FAA: "You should've checked the engine more throughly during preflight. Pilot Error."

Pilot: "I was shot down over Iraq by a barrage of surface to air missles."
FAA: "You shouldn't have been flying over Iraq. Pilot Error."

Pilot: "The hand of God came down and struck my plane from the sky."
FAA: "If you were athiest, that wouldn't have happened. Pilot Error."
 
2005-08-05 12:40:45 PM
I was gonna guess teleporter malfunctioned, but this seems more plausible.
 
2005-08-05 12:41:23 PM


That depends on what your definition of "landing" is.
 
2005-08-05 12:41:48 PM
for those that don't know (submitter), when an aircraft 'lands long' it means it touched down late ie. halfway down the runway. That means it did't have enough room to slow down/stop, especially in torrential rain, and subsequently went off the end of the runway.
 
2005-08-05 12:42:00 PM
OMG, this happened, like, 10 blocks from where I grew up!@#$
 
2005-08-05 12:44:07 PM
That's because I'm not a very good doctor.
 
2005-08-05 12:44:20 PM
Was that quote from Dr. Obvious?
 
2005-08-05 12:44:30 PM
The general tone of the article suggests that it was either pilot mistake (landing to long) or equipment failure (couldn't stop). Then there is this gem at the end of the article:

"The Air Line Pilots Association however, disputed [the safety and length of the runway], saying the ravine at the end of the runway may have contributed to the crash."


Pilots apparently feel that a plane should have enough room to coast to a comfortable stop, regardless of where it lands on the runway.
 
2005-08-05 12:44:43 PM
ronery
 
2005-08-05 12:45:27 PM
There are other possible causes than landing long. He could've landed at the right point, but failed to slow sufficiently -- runway surface conditions, brake and/or control surface failure.

But hey, submitter, it's easier to be a know-it-all than to apply some actual thought. Retard.
 
2005-08-05 12:46:09 PM
Air France said the co-pilot had 10,700 hours of flying time, and the 57-year-old pilot had 15,000 hours.

Don't most French workers retire at age 45 or something like that?

/At least it didn't crash into a farmer's market
 
2005-08-05 12:46:09 PM
Slikrx:

Kinda reminds me of mission control during the Challenger disaster: "We appear to have some sort of problem."


According to the book The Black Box the last words recorded by the Challenger's cockpit voice recorder were "Uh oh..."

I remember reading that and almost falling of my chair laughing. Then regret struck in and I couldn't sleep that night, feeling like I was no more than 2 inches tall.
 
2005-08-05 12:46:29 PM
I submitted this with a funnier headline to a totally different site so I'm not sure why I'm biatching about it here.

Hm.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report