Jeju Air 737-800 gear up landing slams into wall

Richman said:
Funny how that term has entered into the general lexicon as "the no-win scenario". I get blank stares, however, when I hear a bad transmission and say "maybe their Chamber's coil is overloading their com system".

In any event, this year ST2 was entered into the United States Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry, so for one brief moment in time, all is right with the world.
Click to expand...
The other night the FAs introduced themselves to me...

"Hi, I'm Gerri"
"and I'm Ryan"

I thought it was cool as hell. Even after I explained they still didn't seem to get it.
 
MikeD said:
Re-enter is requesting clearance to fly the outside downwind pattern, which returns you to initial for the break. Requesting closed clears you for the inside downwind where you configure and at the 180, normal descent to land.



You guys also descend to 800’ after the break into the inside downwind, and still plop it onto the runway even when there’s 14,000’ of runway available. :)
Click to expand...

Point of order, it is an 800' break, 600' pattern/downwind, for the "Carrier pattern". Not available at a lot of NAS these days, but you can still do it in Fallon, Key West, El Centro, and maybe Lemoore?. Think there is one other place I'm forgetting, maybe like JRB NOLA. There are no rules relating to fighter aircraft in or around NOLA, seemingly. Most of the time though, we do the normal 1500' break, 1000' pattern, if the field doesn't participate in the carrier break.
 
///AMG said:
Point of order, it is an 800' break, 600' pattern/downwind, for the "Carrier pattern". Not available at a lot of NAS these days, but you can still do it in Fallon, Key West, El Centro, and maybe Lemoore?. Think there is one other place I'm forgetting, maybe like JRB NOLA. There are no rules relating to fighter aircraft in or around NOLA, seemingly. Most of the time though, we do the normal 1500' break, 1000' pattern, if the field doesn't participate in the carrier break.
Click to expand...

Good call on the altitudes, but it still looks just like a very tight circling approach to me. That doesn’t mean it looks bad, just that’s what it resembles, a tight low circling pattern. 😂

Didn’t know some NASs/MCASs don’t allow it anymore? USAF base would think you’re about to crash.
 
MikeD said:
Good call on the altitudes, but it still looks just like a very tight circling approach to me. That doesn’t mean it looks bad, just that’s what it resembles, a tight low circling pattern. 😂

Didn’t know some NASs/MCASs don’t allow it anymore? USAF base would think you’re about to crash.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is designed to be a continuous turn from the 180 until rolling out on final if you do it right. We don't go nearly as wide on downwind as you AF guys. If you are truly doing FCLPs, then you time 15-18 seconds from abeam the numbers, to start the turn, no wind. Which results in 15-18 seconds of time "in the groove" on final. Adjust timing based on actual winds of course. When not doing a true FCLP session, in practice, I turn when it feels about right, which is probably still that amount of time, and the descent rate is just a bit bigger in the first half of the approach turn to still get to the 45 at about 380-400 ft.
 
///AMG said:
Yeah it is designed to be a continuous turn from the 180 until rolling out on final if you do it right. We don't go nearly as wide on downwind as you AF guys. If you are truly doing FCLPs, then you time 15-18 seconds from abeam the numbers, to start the turn, no wind. Which results in 15-18 seconds of time "in the groove" on final. Adjust timing based on actual winds of course. When not doing a true FCLP session, in practice, I turn when it feels about right, which is probably still that amount of time, and the descent rate is just a bit bigger in the first half of the approach turn to still get to the 45 at about 380-400 ft.
Click to expand...

Overhead Initial break anywhere past the approach end numbers, is weak :)
 
ChasenSFO said:
The French carriers (except French Bee because they were mostly Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian) were worse than the Asian carriers. Yes, the Asian carriers were annoying and would stop all the time, be scared to move, whatever. But the French carriers would just move without clearance and go off freq during taxi all the time. All but one of the times I thought there was going to be an accident on a taxiway or in the ramp was Air France or XL Airways France over like a 7 year period lol. Either they would screw up, or a bad instruction would be given, but they'd be paying no attention to ramp or ground just chugging along into a hazard. I heard one pilot say "I'll be filing a report" and the ATC reply was "Yeah, tell them about the part where you went NORDO and almost collided with Alaska".

I think the most SkyGod Audacious thing I ever saw in person was an Air France A380 starting taxi NORDO with 2 planes nose to nose with it and traffic passing perpendicular behind them in both directions. Like where tf could he even go? So Avianca steps on me trying to stop them with some long winded "Uh why is the Air France coming at us? He will hit us. There is nowhere for him to go" transmission then Air France starts flashing the landing lights as I tell Avianca and the plane behind him to make a 180 and keep going. AF captain comes on all pissed like "Why are there planes in our way? We are the biggest plane. We have right of way". I told him he needs to call for taxi next time but gave him instructions. He replied "There are planes everywhere, we go to ground control, sir" in this derogatory tone and I never heard from him again as he blew past the Cathay I asked him to hold for, and I think he thinks flashing his lights is what made everything move. Lol. I was so used to them doing this kind of crap and creating "golden tow bars" (needing a tug to un-eff a nose to nose or similar) that it wasn't even worth it. Kinda glorious, but pretty sketchy. Most French carriers have some of the best pay and work rules in the EU lol.

Oh as far as the best and the brightest; they're looking for someone with like 500 hours and EASA ratings to work like 3/4 of every month being SFO/LAX "based" but really dead heading to PPT or ORY every time they need you. And it's like $40,000ish probation pay and below 6 figures until you upgrade. LOL no wonder they can't get FOs to do it, but they don't want to PAY to base you in SFO of course. Now they'll put you up in resorts and high class hotels and the cabin crew are awesome and invite the pilots on various adventures, and you get to fly an A350 mostly just to PPT/ORY but...my buddy in the top 10 CAs was almost never off 14 solid days per month and recently rage quit after being treated like a SkyWest reserve captain for too long. US carriers really are the best job IMO.
Click to expand...
In the infamous words of Pam Poovey, “Holy Sh*t snacks”
 
MikeD said:
Overhead Initial break anywhere past the approach end numbers, is weak :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant from after you arrive on downwind following the break. But I agree......though tower does love to direct weird stuff out here with all the big wing traffic, like "break a mile past the departure end"......which is often out over the ocean/water here
 
That's really weird. The CVR should be recording pretty much any time at an engine is running and 5-10 minutes after last shutdown, possibly even more time, depending on the airline option.

Earlier I speculated that alternate flap extension was being used and that electrical power for the standby hydraulic pump may not have been available.
 
Minuteman said:
That's really weird. The CVR should be recording pretty much any time at an engine is running and 5-10 minutes after last shutdown, possibly even more time, depending on the airline option.

Earlier I speculated that alternate flap extension was being used and that electrical power for the standby hydraulic pump may not have been available.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Here in the U.S. we have a regulation dictating the duration in which the recorders must be operational.

Subpart K gets a little deep as is distinguishes the needs among different turbine operations (four engine, two engine, etc.)


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top