Preliminary Report from CLE Shuttle America accident

Why the heck wouldnt he have arranged an emergency evac PDQ?? whats with the sitting there for an hour without any announcement from the cockpit ?
 
CFIse said:
Oh it crashed all right. I think it certainly broke noisily, it certainly underwent sudden damage on impact, I'm sure there was a sudden loud noise and no doubt the final movements were noisy and we know they caused damage.

Oh it crashed just fine.

crash 1 (krsh)
v. crashed, crash·ing, crash·es
v.intr.
1.
a. To break violently or noisily; smash.
b. To undergo sudden damage or destruction on impact: Their car crashed into a guardrail. The airplane crashed over the ocean.
2. To make a sudden loud noise: breakers crashing against the rocks.
3. To move noisily or so as to cause damage: went crashing through the woods.
4. To undergo a sudden severe downturn, as a market or economy.
Click to expand...

Congrats, you just proved that Webster didn't write the FAR's.

Now would you like to pull up the FAA's definition of an accident/incident? Because I think those words are a little bit more applicable in this situation.
 
aussieflyer said:
Why the heck wouldnt he have arranged an emergency evac PDQ?? whats with the sitting there for an hour without any announcement from the cockpit ?
Click to expand...

Because popping the slides and throwin people out into the cold is more like to get them hurt than sitting there and waiting for the air stairs.

Now not telling the passangers what was going on? Bad move. Not popping the slides and waiting for the air stairs? Good move.
 
jtrain609 said:
Congrats, you just proved that Webster didn't write the FAR's.

Now would you like to pull up the FAA's definition of an accident/incident? Because I think those words are a little bit more applicable in this situation.
Click to expand...

Let me get this clear - you expect a news organization that is comunicating to the general public to use an obscure set of definitions specific to the aviation community to describe something as opposed to words well understood by the majority and defined in the dictionary? Is it your position that this event does not meet the definition of crash?

You do live in your own little world don't you.
 
aussieflyer said:
Why the heck wouldnt he have arranged an emergency evac PDQ?? whats with the sitting there for an hour without any announcement from the cockpit ?
Click to expand...

I wasn't there, and presumably neither were you. But you have to give some consideration to the fact that they'd just left the runway, at the far side of the airport from civilization, it's was snowing like crazy, the visibility was piss poor and the aircraft wasn't on fire nor did the fuselage seem compromised. Releasing a load of passengers, down the slides (and you never read of a slide evacuation that doesn't include minor injuries) to wander around an airport in a snowstorm might not have been the best option available.

I'm not saying the whole thing was handled in an exemplary manner, if reports are accurate, but I'm not sure the decision not to evacuate shouldn't be given at least some credence.
 
sidenote (really a question)

What the heck is a "crash landing"?

And why is a "near miss" mean you nearly hit someone?

Back to your regularly scheduled program.
 
CFIse said:
I wasn't there, and presumably neither were you. But you have to give some consideration to the fact that they'd just left the runway, at the far side of the airport from civilization, it's was snowing like crazy, the visibility was piss poor and the aircraft wasn't on fire nor did the fuselage seem compromised. Releasing a load of passengers, down the slides (and you never read of a slide evacuation that doesn't include minor injuries) to wander around an airport in a snowstorm might not have been the best option available.

I'm not saying the whole thing was handled in an exemplary manner, if reports are accurate, but I'm not sure the decision not to evacuate shouldn't be given at least some credence.
Click to expand...

You obviously make some good points but the thing is how can anyone guarantee that its not going to go up in flames. There really would be no way to know what damage has been done internally or externally. So are you safe to assume that it wont go up in smoke and then wait it out? or do you take the risk of injuries from the slides and deplane the passengers??

Serious Question and IMHO its a tough call and a decision you wouldnt want to get wrong. Now granted its kinda tough to tell from the pics on the news as to how much damage was done and in this case the pic obviously made the right choice but seriously would anyone really be able to call if its going to go up in flames or not? even 25 mins or an hour later?

Anyway, Its a mute point as it didnt burn so therefore it was seemingly the right decision.
 
CFIse said:
Let me get this clear - you expect a news organization that is comunicating to the general public to use an obscure set of definitions specific to the aviation community to describe something as opposed to words well understood by the majority and defined in the dictionary? Is it your position that this event does not meet the definition of crash?

You do live in your own little world don't you.
Click to expand...

Yup, my own little world where a Mesa FO decides to argue:

-121 regs with a Continental Captain
-135 regs with two 135 training captains, a Metro driver and a Chieftain driver
-How websters definition of a crash landing applies in any way to FAA regulations and FAR part 1 definitions.

Didn't go to Riddle did you?
 
aussieflyer said:
You obviously make some good points but the thing is how can anyone guarantee that its not going to go up in flames. There really would be no way to know what damage has been done internally or externally. So are you safe to assume that it wont go up in smoke and then wait it out? or do you take the risk of injuries from the slides and deplane the passengers??

Serious Question and IMHO its a tough call and a decision you wouldnt want to get wrong. Now granted its kinda tough to tell from the pics on the news as to how much damage was done and in this case the pic obviously made the right choice but seriously would anyone really be able to call if its going to go up in flames or not? even 25 mins or an hour later?

Anyway, Its a mute point as it didnt burn so therefore it was seemingly the right decision.
Click to expand...

I'd guess the lack of fire alarms going off in the cockpit, but that's only my first guess.

Running a few feet off the end of the runway is pretty much a non event, save for what it does to your career.
 
John,

We are all Monday night quaterbacking here and we weren't there but based on what I have read and heard I don't know how one could determine the plane was intact or not. IMHO not making an annoucement was a big error. Why did it take people an hour to reach the plane?

I forgot who made the comment about being commited to landing. IMO being commited to a landing even in large aircraft comes pretty late in the game. You are generally commited once the wheels are down and the boards come out. Anytime before that you can go around if the need or desire to arises.
 
No doubt Eric, they screwed up on that one; but it's not always a dire emergency when a plane runs off the runway. We had a G2 do it here a few months ago and he was about 25 feet off the end of the runway, if that. They dropped their air stairs and walked off, not a big deal.

And it was me about being dedicated to landing.
 
Wow ... methinks the news crew decided to find anyone possibly involved who had bad hair. Really, Mr. Kadambi, you're not fooling anyone.

Anyway, a loaded question.
Who do you think is more likely to have an overrun first: the crew that always keeps their speed up to make the last taxiway, or the crew that always lands with crummy braking action? :)
 
Braking action. If you have the grip to do it, you'd be supprised how quickly some planes will stop, at least our planes.
 
I know that violations come in pairs. But if in this same situation it was a hypothetical captain flying the approach, and the FO spoke up and was heard on the CVR saying that he didn't agree with the captains go decision and that they should go missed.

But the captain kept trucking along, and had the same results would both flight crew members be suject to termination in this scenario or just the captain?

I ask because on a few other boards people are Monday morning quarterbacking and said that it's a wrap for the pilots. That they're outa the plastic, and outa a job!
 
Maximillian_Jenius,

That's a tough one and probably would depend on the mood the FAA was in as well as the FO's previous record with the company. In you hypothetical situation the FO could call for the go around and advise ATC they are going around. This would force the CAPT to go around or land illegally.

On another note with the airlines getting insanely low mins for FO's, they may not even realize the danger in when a Capt goes sniffing for concrete.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
I know that violations come in pairs. But if in this same situation it was a hypothetical captain flying the approach, and the FO spoke up and was heard on the CVR saying that he didn't agree with the captains go decision and that they should go missed.

But the captain kept trucking along, and had the same results would both flight crew members be suject to termination in this scenario or just the captain?

I ask because on a few other boards people are Monday morning quarterbacking and said that it's a wrap for the pilots. That they're outa the plastic, and outa a job!
Click to expand...



In the situation you described, the most likely action taken would be for the FO to have to go back for remedial training in the simulator and then take a line check (yes...even though he was against the capt's action the whole way) and the captain might have a difficult time retaining his employment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top