Plane skids off runway at LaGuardia
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,825
- 4,428
robbedagain
Veteran
Kev3188
Veteran
robbedagain
Veteran
xUT
Veteran
If I were in charge, I wouldn't have approved the joke about the "pilots not even spilling their drinks," along with the photo of the drunk pilot, but the quip about the "$45 crash survival fee" was hilarious.xUT said:Well, that's SNL.
No one was killed and they had to give a jab at fees.
It's funny when no one is killed or maimed, not so much otherwise.
xUT
When nobody is killed or seriously hurt, then it's ok to laugh. It's all fun and games until someone puts an eye out.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
from the WSJ under the title "Delta Crash: Investigators Suspect Possible Brake Problems"
Federal investigators suspect potential brake problems, perhaps complicated by other factors, caused a Delta Air Lines Inc. jet to skid off a snowy runway last week at New York’s La Guardia Airport, according to people familiar with the probe.
After a normal approach and touchdown, thrust-reversers were deployed as expected, but the plane still veered off the runway at roughly 100 miles an hour, said one of those people familiar with the situation.
Based on preliminary information retrieved from “black box” recorders and pilot interviews, this person said, investigators are focusing on the performance of the braking system, which was set to operate automatically consistent with the airline’s procedures and safety rules.
and
So far, indications are that the crew didn’t approach too fast or land the twin-engine jetliner too far down the strip. Thrust-reversers located on the rear of the engines—movable panels designed to shift the direction of thrust to help slow down the jet in conjunction with brakes—seemingly functioned normally, according to one person familiar with the details.
The probe, however, is complicated by the unusually tricky handling characteristics of the MD-88, an 1980s-vintage workhorse serving relatively short-range routes.
and
If the preliminary theory pans out, the accident could provide ammunition for safety groups and pilot representatives urging adoption of new technologies to provide real-time runway braking reports to cockpits.
Globally, an average of about 30 aircraft skid off wet or icy runways each year, and the number of runway excursions has climbed sharply in recent years to become the primary cause of major damage to airliners.
Federal investigators suspect potential brake problems, perhaps complicated by other factors, caused a Delta Air Lines Inc. jet to skid off a snowy runway last week at New York’s La Guardia Airport, according to people familiar with the probe.
After a normal approach and touchdown, thrust-reversers were deployed as expected, but the plane still veered off the runway at roughly 100 miles an hour, said one of those people familiar with the situation.
Based on preliminary information retrieved from “black box” recorders and pilot interviews, this person said, investigators are focusing on the performance of the braking system, which was set to operate automatically consistent with the airline’s procedures and safety rules.
and
So far, indications are that the crew didn’t approach too fast or land the twin-engine jetliner too far down the strip. Thrust-reversers located on the rear of the engines—movable panels designed to shift the direction of thrust to help slow down the jet in conjunction with brakes—seemingly functioned normally, according to one person familiar with the details.
The probe, however, is complicated by the unusually tricky handling characteristics of the MD-88, an 1980s-vintage workhorse serving relatively short-range routes.
and
If the preliminary theory pans out, the accident could provide ammunition for safety groups and pilot representatives urging adoption of new technologies to provide real-time runway braking reports to cockpits.
Globally, an average of about 30 aircraft skid off wet or icy runways each year, and the number of runway excursions has climbed sharply in recent years to become the primary cause of major damage to airliners.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
oh, please. what a ridiculously stupid comment.
you a little peeved that WN's LGA accident was caused by pilot error but DL's does not appear to be?
the pilots union and DL according to the preliminary NTSB information didn't need to make any calls. They did their job right.
The focus appears to be on braking with weather, runway conditions, and M80 handling still issues to be investigated.
it's actually very gratifying that they have made as much progress as they have in the short amount of time since the accident.
- Thread Starter
- #117
Well since the NTSB has not released any official statements in regard to any causes, I would say World Fraudster is making up "facts" once again.
This is the only official statement:
Your lying again, go figure.
This is the only official statement:
Seems now World Fraudster is making himself to be an Aircraft Accident Safety Expert.
Your lying again, go figure.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
poor 700,
you don't know that the reason why the Wall Street Journal is the most widely read business journal in the world is because they know how to get the information.
The WSJ has talked to NTSB who made the statements I cited.
the WSJ certainly doesn't have the means to proclaim that the pilots' aspect of the landing was per DL safety and training procedures. They do have the means to quote NTSB officials who told them that.
plz be sure and let me know if the case turns towards a focus on the pilots.
you don't know that the reason why the Wall Street Journal is the most widely read business journal in the world is because they know how to get the information.
The WSJ has talked to NTSB who made the statements I cited.
the WSJ certainly doesn't have the means to proclaim that the pilots' aspect of the landing was per DL safety and training procedures. They do have the means to quote NTSB officials who told them that.
plz be sure and let me know if the case turns towards a focus on the pilots.
Uhh, you didn't "cite" anything. You merely cut and pasted a portion of the Wall St Journal's work without any indication that you were quoting the article. No quotation marks and no use of very-simple UBB quote code tags. A reader who had not read the WSJ story and skimmed your post would not be on notice that you were actually quoting the WSJ in your post.WorldTraveler said:
I pointed this behaviour out to you previously but your response was that you had earned numerous doctorates and that you were familiar with the proper quotation/attribution styles, but choose not to use any of them. Apparently, you truly are special.
Similar threads
