|
Originally Posted by GravellyPointer
(Post 2582950)
AFAIK the NWA DC-9 flew near a storm that was produced a tornado, it didn’t fly through a tornado. A KLM Fokker Jet did, and all aboard died when it crashed.
A CA friend from my airline was holding short of runway 21 and saw Allegiant pass over, according to him they were high and he never saw them touchdown. He was surprised they were shooting the approach. With 1800 RVR it’s not surprising he didn’t see them touchdown. I am assuming the feds will determine their touchdown point. At my regional we are taught we have to touch down on the thousand foot markers on a contaminated runway that is the minimum distance available for the conditions. Savvy pilots should plan for worse RCC and braking action than reported if there has been any significant time since the last report when snow is falling, especially moderate or heavy snow. They were in a tough spot. They took the risk and did a good job getting it stopped. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Thanks for that sage advice, Professor. Also kind of you patronize pilots who probably have a lot more flying experience than you do. But I'm sure you learned all that aeronautical knowledge at The Harvard of the Sky. Thanks for weighing in. That settles it then. |
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
(Post 2583067)
Was this a drunk post? I’m having hard time understanding the point or the theme...it swerves all over the place.
...and the NWA DC9 flew immediately adjacent to the tornado, as witnessed by a county storm spotter who was near the airport and having a recorded conversation with Minnehaha County Metro Communications (their public safety dispatching agency) and stated by the FO after the go-around. Absolutely sober, late night after a short day. Thanks for correcting the bit about the NWA DC-9 and the tornado, while not acknowledging the factual incorrectness of your original statement. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by ecam
(Post 2583086)
Let me guess. Skywest? :rolleyes:
Thanks for that sage advice, Professor. Also kind of you patronize pilots who probably have a lot more flying experience than you do. But I'm sure you learned all that aeronautical knowledge at The Harvard of the Sky. Thanks for weighing in. That settles it then. I gave them credit for getting it stopped! I didn’t write they shouldn’t have continued the approach, I am waiting for the outcome, if there is an investigation. Not SkyWest. I flew the MD-80 for Vanguard Airlines in 2002. And I’m done with this thread. Got too Much to do than continue to respond to your bait. You and squakvfr reminded me why I don’t post often. You two could be much less jerky. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by GravellyPointer
(Post 2583111)
I gave them credit for getting it stopped! I didn’t write they shouldn’t have continued the approach, I am waiting for the outcome, if there is an investigation.
Not SkyWest. I flew the MD-80 for Vanguard Airlines in 2002. And I’m done with this thread. Got too Much to do than continue to respond to your bait. You and squakvfr reminded me why I don’t post often. You two could be much less jerky. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by GravellyPointer
(Post 2583111)
You and squakvfr reminded me why I don’t post often. You two could be much less jerky.
Get lost. |
It is so obvious the crew was already at taxi speed well before they even got to the end of the runway. The FO calmly gave a braking report mid field. Doubt he'd do that careening down the runway while unable to stop. Don't understand why anyone would even bring up touchdown zone, wind or RVR with that in mind.
When they went to turn off the runway at the end, the plane probably didn't turn. Engine idle thrust was likely enough to overcome braking action, and they went off the end at slow taxi speed. Happens to one airline or another every year. This is the risk we ALL take flying into those conditions. The braking action report was wrong. That's a big deal. We need that to be right or at least close. Don't give a crew "good" when its F'ing "NIL." Come on! Only way to avoid this is to never fly in snowing conditions or anytime ice is even possible. Cancel my flights with pay protection, you wont hear any arguments from me. Otherwise, if you want year round flying, this is going to happen, and we don't need second guessing from management or worse, fellow aviators, who should know better. Might be you next time Iceman. Think about it. |
Originally Posted by GravellyPointer
(Post 2582950)
AFAIK the NWA DC-9 flew near a storm that was produced a tornado, it didn’t fly through a tornado. A KLM Fokker Jet did, and all aboard died when it crashed.
A CA friend from my airline was holding short of runway 21 and saw Allegiant pass over, according to him they were high and he never saw them touchdown. He was surprised they were shooting the approach. With 1800 RVR it’s not surprising he didn’t see them touchdown. I am assuming the feds will determine their touchdown point. At my regional we are taught we have to touch down on the thousand foot markers on a contaminated runway that is the minimum distance available for the conditions. Savvy pilots should plan for worse RCC and braking action than reported if there has been any significant time since the last report when snow is falling, especially moderate or heavy snow. They were in a tough spot. They took the risk and did a good job getting it stopped. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:32 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands