DIYbanter - View Single Post

Douglas Johnson[_2_]

wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:55:30 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.

Obviouly spoken by a non-pilot.

He sounds like a pilot to this pilot.

That plane is designed to land on WHEELS. LOTS of BIG wheels - and on
HARD surfaces - SOLID hard surfaces, like 2 feet of re-enforced
concrete.

This stuff is really important if you want the plane to take off again after the
landing. Not so important otherwise.

The underbelly , made of something like .035" aluminum
sheet, and the protruding engine pods, are NOT designed to land on
water at ANY speed.

As the loss of one engine and some panels from the bottom demonstrates.

The design of a flying boat or float plane is MUCH different than an
A320. And landing without power is NOT standard "short field" or "soft
field" practice.

Oh, really. Please quote the relevant section of the operating handbook. He
certainly didn't need a short field landing. He had the longest "runway" he was
ever going to see. He did appear to do a nice soft field landing. Power is
often used, but not essential

Nor is a power out 180 degree turn at 3000 feet AGL.

This is basic flight school stuff. I don't recall whether it was before my
first solo or after, but it was somewhere around there. Why do you think a
power off 180 from 3000 feet AGL is hard? It is just like any other 180, except
you lose some altitude.

The FACT that only ONE other airliner in history has landed intact on
water with no loss of life says something - and a whole lot more than
what you are spouting.

Not true. JAL 2, Pan Am 943, a deHaviland DHA-2, and an Aeroflot Tu-124. But
beyond that, just what does it say? Exactly what did the captain do in handling
the aircraft that is outside normal practice? As Smitty Two said, he landed at
the correct speed and the correct attitude. That is more nose up than a
conventional landing, but my God, where is the magic?

I know numerous airline pilots who fly A320 planes - and without
exception, they ALL say they are sure glad it wasn't them.

Every pilot in the world is glad it isn't him?

They are
all high time pilots - very skilled, and in one case a long-time
INSTRUCTOR on Airbus planes. NONE of them would expect to be able to
pull off that kind of a landing under those conditions.

Did they actually say that? All of them? What did they say the difficulties
are?

Thanks,
Doug