Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: KTM520guy on September 06, 2006, 09:08:45 PM
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA
Make sure you watch the whole thing!
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
The owner sent the engines back to Williams International and wanted them fixed, honest to gods truth :rofl
shamus
-
Great video!
-
That was like watching the aeroplane version of Herbie.
-
haha, that was classic :lol
what a muppet, what field was that he tried to land on? looked fairly basic and dis-used, impatient maroon :rolleyes:
-
Speaking from a strictly law enforcement perspective, I want to know which two idiots lost their jobs (or at least got days off) for driving their freaking patrol cars right across the last known path of the crashed aircraft. I am no expert in Federal aviation investigations, but I would think that someone (NHTSA and/or FAA) was not happy that two rookie boys drove their patrol cars right across potential evidence. I am not even going to begin to comment on the fact that nobody asked the camera guys to stop trampling and possibly tampering with the evidence.
On an entertainment sense... Great video!!
<>
-
I may be an impatient bastard or I may be normal I don't know... but I can't stand to sit there and watch a 10+ miinute video on the internet for a possible funny ending. especially when it is loading so slow you can't skip forward.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
I may be an impatient bastard or I may be normal I don't know... but I can't stand to sit there and watch a 10+ miinute video on the internet for a possible funny ending. especially when it is loading so slow you can't skip forward.
just watch the first 2 mins then, it's definitely worth it. then if you feel like you want to see what happens watch the end :D
on an even funnier note, i found out what field that was, warmed up my citation in FS2004 and tried it lol. even on the approach you can tell that you're never going to make it. i had to jump into the citation X for the reverse thrust buckets, just to keep my speed down to about 40 knts when i went into the drink instead of the 95 that i did several times in the cj1
i can't tell exactly what model that citation is but that pilot is either blind, stupid, or both :lol he must have been desperately trying to get down, probably very low on fuel lol. poor guy, imagine the insurance premiums from now on :rofl
-
NCLawman thats the beauty of being at the scene of the crime before the cops get there! You get to poke around at all the cool stuff and sell a cool video to a newsnetwork.
Personally I didnt see any problem with what they did. At the time they arrived people were in danger of drowning or worse. I would think that any investigation protocal would come in second to immediate threat to life.
-
it's a CJ2, biggles. Trying to land at Bader in Atlantic City. Hypothesis I heard from a guy who flys one is that he didn't shut the engines down properly (no kidding, right?) and just got out of dodge. Leaving the ingitions on and the power levers above cutoff leaves fuel/fire in the engine. As soon as it lights you've got a working engine. The give away I'm told that they are at idle is the black thrust attenuator behind the engine being in the deployed position. If they were in cutoff the TA paddle would be stowed against the fuselage.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA085&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA085&rpt=fa
Found these. Says the right engine was bent but still at idle rather than idle cutoff.
-
oh and the NTSB just makes me laugh.
The pilot performed "a low pass" over the runway, and then touched down approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of the
2,948-foot long runway, with a tailwind of approximately 10 knots. After touchdown, the airplane continued off the end of the runway,
and subsequently impacted water. According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an airplane with a landing weight of 11,400 pounds
required 3,000 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With a 10 knot tailwind, the airplane required 3,570 feet of landing
distance. The published airport diagram for the airport, was observed attached to the pilot's control column after the accident. A
notation, which read, "airport closed to jet aircraft" was observed on the diagram. Additionally, the same notation, "Arpt CLOSED to jet
traffic," was observed in the FAA Airport/Facility Directory. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical deficiencies.
NOTAM: AIRPORT CLOSED TO JET AIRCRAFT....
-
lol, just read both reports. what a muppet!
was there anything about an investigation into the ATC officer? allowing the guy to land at AIY in a C525 :rolleyes:
the pilot said he lost brakes but apparently, there wasn't anything wrong with them when the FAA investigators checked. at the end of the day though, i have to give him some credit for almost making what should have been a 3750 ft landing in less than 1750 ft!
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
oh and the NTSB just makes me laugh.
The pilot performed "a low pass" over the runway, and then touched down approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of the
2,948-foot long runway, with a tailwind of approximately 10 knots. After touchdown, the airplane continued off the end of the runway,
and subsequently impacted water. According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an airplane with a landing weight of 11,400 pounds
required 3,000 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With a 10 knot tailwind, the airplane required 3,570 feet of landing
distance. The published airport diagram for the airport, was observed attached to the pilot's control column after the accident. A
notation, which read, "airport closed to jet aircraft" was observed on the diagram. Additionally, the same notation, "Arpt CLOSED to jet
traffic," was observed in the FAA Airport/Facility Directory. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical deficiencies.
NOTAM: AIRPORT CLOSED TO JET AIRCRAFT....
hehe, i had a good laugh at that too :)
sorry i haven't sent that BoB footage yet, been so busy, jumping on my gmail now and sending it pronto my friend ;)
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
lol, just read both reports. what a muppet!
was there anything about an investigation into the ATC officer? allowing the guy to land at AIY in a C525 :rolleyes:
the pilot said he lost brakes but apparently, there wasn't anything wrong with them when the FAA investigators checked. at the end of the day though, i have to give him some credit for almost making what should have been a 3750 ft landing in less than 1750 ft!
Its an uncontrolled field.
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
hehe, i had a good laugh at that too :)
sorry i haven't sent that BoB footage yet, been so busy, jumping on my gmail now and sending it pronto my friend ;)
just got it - muchas gras
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Its an uncontrolled field.
it said in the report that he'd been cleared by atlantic approach vfr, to that exact runway. bit of a cockup on their part too methinks, although the pilot knew what he was getting himself into and ignored all the warnings. it doesnt say anything in the report about him trying to land due to lack of fuel. it strikes me to think that the maroon was landing there to beat the pattern traffic at Atlantic City Intl, and boy did he learn his lesson :lol
any of you guys fly FS2004 much? might be fun to setup an AH FS2004 room, just for us :) unfortunately MSN games have ceased all their CD game support, so all the large internet servers aren't about anymore, but IP play is still going. dunno if anyone here has a static IP, but, it might be fun :)
-
http://www.westcoastatc.com
They've got a 24 hour server anyone can login to.
http://64.119.37.62/
TeamSpeak IP: 64.119.37.62
-
Me not be a pilot type person I'm just guessing here, but if the runway was to short to land that plane would it also mean the runway wasnt long enough to take off from? Maybe they were lucky they only ended up in the water. If he had managed to not run off the runway he might have crashed on takeoff later and have a repeat of Kentucky.
-
it's usually far easier on takeoff, the power of the engines is a lot more than the slowing effect of the brakes, and so on takeoff the transfer of energy and momentum is far more noticable (basic physics). basically, the engines can accelerate the plane to takeoff speed in a much shorter distance, and takeoff distances are usually far shorter than landing distances in smaller A/C, the larger jets and such are different, as they have pretty darn powerful brakes and reverse thrusters to avoid things just like this ;)
he also touched down 1000 foot down the runway, a 1000 ft that he would have used better when he took off ;)
and wolf, thanks for the server tip, will have to check it out, i've only ever played over MSN before :)