Author Topic: Glide slope is a tad steep... (Read 775 times)

Ripsnort · « **on:** February 03, 2004, 12:19:10 PM »

Here's an MD-80 that rips its tail off on a steep approach:

Wanker · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2004, 12:24:05 PM »

Holy ****! Were there passengers onboard?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2004, 12:28:42 PM »

I have no story on it, sent by an Engineer, which was sent by another engineer, which was sent...well, you get the picture.

gofaster · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2004, 01:34:52 PM »

I didn't see any airline mentioned on the fuselage nor tail, and its suspicious that a camera would be filming a common airliner descent, so I'm guessing it was a R/C structural test of some sort.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2004, 01:45:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gofaster
I didn't see any airline mentioned on the fuselage nor tail, and its suspicious that a camera would be filming a common airliner descent, so I'm guessing it was a R/C structural test of some sort.

Thats my guess to.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2004, 02:30:58 PM »

This has happened to DC-9 and variants many times. Hard landing causes fuselage failure. If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2004, 03:58:33 PM »

the cabin seems to be holding-up amazingly well, concidering.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:10:01 PM »

Yeah most of the accidents of this type have zero fatalities. As long as the landing gear stays attached and the plane stays on the runway, good times.

Dinger · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:11:19 PM »

Maniac · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:11:30 PM »

I wouldnt want to be in the rear toilet when that happened...

Dinger · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:32:10 PM »

my guess is that's an unreported incident from a mainland chinese carrier, possibly one that's using MD-80s produced under license.

Vulcan · « **Reply #11 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:52:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gofaster
I didn't see any airline mentioned on the fuselage nor tail, and its suspicious that a camera would be filming a common airliner descent, so I'm guessing it was a R/C structural test of some sort.

Doesn't look like the usual test area backgrounds, and the camera is pretty crappy and closer than what you normally see. Maybe there was an engine out, doesn't the MD-80 have 'smokey' engines?

icemaw · « **Reply #12 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:56:02 PM »

Bad day in Baghdad
http://aviation-safety.net/pictures/displayphoto.php?id=20031122-0&vnr=4&kind=C

Octavius · « **Reply #13 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:00:31 PM »

From Dinger's last link:

Quote

This air ambulance C-9A, a military variant of the DC-9, was operated by the Military Airlift Command's 375 MAW. Reportedly the plane was barrel rolled, causing the fuselage to be overstressed. The plane was damaged beyond repair

It was flown by a MAW, what do you expect?

icemaw · « **Reply #14 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:04:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Octavius
From Dinger's last link:

It was flown by a MAW, what do you expect?

Hey he got it down ok. Just broke the plane a little.