Page 1 of 2

Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:09 pm
by TundraTire

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:54 pm
by Colonel
That gravel which stops the aircraft past the end of the runway - that’s an ICAO thing, right?

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 12:34 am
by David MacRay
Some say, “Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.”

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:43 am
by Colonel
TC would agree with you.

Let’s say you are out of currency for pax carrying so you crash five C172 in the morning, trying to unsuccessfully land them. You are now current!

Legally in Canada you can now load your pax into a 6th 172 and take off and and kill everyone on board.

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 3:03 am
by mcrit
14s from coming over the button until the mains touched. At ~ 100kts that’s 2400’.

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 12:09 pm
by Colonel
Probably better than I’ve ever done!

Though I dunno - have you ever landed out of a surface loop? It’s a hoot. Your exit speed on the loop is generally in excess of twice your stall speed, which is a sporty Vref

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 4:30 pm
by Squaretail
Colonel wrote:
Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:43 am
TC would agree with you.

Let’s say you are out of currency for pax carrying so you crash five C172 in the morning, trying to unsuccessfully land them. You are now current!

Legally in Canada you can now load your pax into a 6th 172 and take off and and kill everyone on board.
To be fair, do you know of any regulation, or regulator that specifically forbids people wrecking stuff? I mean you can smash up a lot of cars and they still let you have a driver's license in most places. It seems to me that wreckin' stuff is a God-given right that the people fiercely defend. The only thing regulators strive to enforce is that you don't do things that increase the probability of wreckin' stuff while charging the unwitting masses money especially if said wreckin' stuff might kill them in the process.

I mean wasn't there some guy who after failing something like 14 instrument check rides finally got his IFR and then promptly crashed his twin within a month of the passed ride?

Personally, this accident just looks like another with no pilots on board. I imagine there was a stunned moment on the flight deck where they both look at each other and realize the other guy doesn't know what he's doing either.

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:23 pm
by Colonel
Down here when someone does something monumentally stupid in an airplane, it is routine for the FAA to schedule a 409 ride.

You have to take the flight test again for whatever certificate you hold, and pass it according to the PTS.

Most donkeys know they couldn’t pass their flight test, and they’re done.

Those of us that spent decades on the IFR flight test and instructor flight test treadmills with TC Inspectors can laugh so hard we pee our pants.

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:38 pm
by Squaretail
Down here when someone does something monumentally stupid in an airplane, it is routine for the FAA to schedule a 409 ride.
How often is routine? I mean there's a lot of stupid pilots out there. Would you say all of them get this? How monumental are we talking?

Re: Impressively bad "landing".

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:54 pm
by Colonel
Making the evening news is a good start.

I remember one guy here, had two reportable accidents in one day. Not the airport. One pilot. I think he got a 409.