SWA Landing gear collapse at LGA

Nick said:
Came in about a month ago at 11PM and had a 40kt tailwind at the marker and broke out AT minimums. Everyone else behind us diverted; we were the last ones in. 180knots groundspeed at 1000' :eek:
Click to expand...
ClarkGriswold and I both know someone that can mentor you on your choices. :). Yea this summer has been weird like that. They report winds at the field and it is no where near what it's doing 1000 above.
 
amorris311 said:
Did you guys land those on 6000ft available?
Click to expand...

You physically could with the drag chute, but legally we had to have 10,000 available if I remember right....

DE727UPS said:
Did the F117 have an auto-parachute 10 setting?
Click to expand...

Haha, no. No flaps or speedbrake either. Just landing gear and a chute. Or a no-chute landing, but that was hard on the brakes and hot brakes were common, since aerobraking was specifically prohibited.
 
Adler said:
why?
Click to expand...

Being that the 117 is essentially a lifting body with a full flat undersurface, it couldn't efficiently or effectively be aerobraked and was very susceptible to lifting back off the runway if even the slightest bit of excess backstick was applied while attempting to aerobrake...something extremely detrimental at anything slower than touchdown speed (has happened). So the procedure for a no-chute landing called for normal touchdown, then briskly get the nose to the runway and hold forward pressure on the stick while commencing light-moderate braking, ending up in about a 9000-10,000 foot rollout in order to avoid hot brakes, another thing the 117 was highly susceptible to. For me, it felt completely unnatural to be forcing pressure onto the nose gear due to my background of always learning and putting into practice "protect the nose gear". But that was the procedure.
 
amorris311 said:
I don't know if our hairy friend flew the c model. Maybe he did. Either way he's not as manly as he claims since there were two pilots up front.
Click to expand...

Stop acting hard.
 
Was
Autothrust Blue said:
I think it was NWA who put a bolt in the flap lever tracks and prohibited people from landing the 727 at Flaps 40 a ways back. Difference was "meh."
Click to expand...
Wasn't NWA, I know Mesaba put a plate on the Saab blocking flaps 35. Completely different animals though! Random tidbit
 
ClarkGriswold said:
Was
Wasn't NWA, I know Mesaba put a plate on the Saab blocking flaps 35. Completely different animals though! Random tidbit
Click to expand...

I have yet to meet an airplane that didn't land "better" in some way at its maximum design flap setting than at a reduced one.

(not necessarily smoother :eek::eek:)
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I have yet to meet an airplane that didn't land "better" in some way at its maximum design flap setting than at a reduced one.

(not necessarily smoother :eek::eek:)
Click to expand...
Saab 340. Flaps 35 was not a better landing. Almost to the point that if you had to go around and lost an engine with flaps 35 you were going to have issues if you didn't get it cleaned up quickly.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I have yet to meet an airplane that didn't land "better" in some way at its maximum design flap setting than at a reduced one.

(not necessarily smoother :eek::eek:)
Click to expand...

Beech 1900 landed better at max design flap setting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top