Woah!

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253449/Plane-spotting-enthusiasts-come-inches-death-military-aircraft-misses-runway.html

 

And I thought Princess Juliana Int in St Maarten was up close and personal . This is even better . Thanks for posting this amazing video .

 

JB

Surely a spotter's worst nightmare, at least for the people right by the props. While the article suggests that it is unlikely an investigation will take place, because it was the last flight of the type, I find that questionable. Regardless of the type of aircraft, there is the possibility that pilot error is a factor.

 

If the pilot reported he could not see the end of the runway, then he was already too low and in a nose high attitude. Why then did he not power up and go around for another try? Granted, it ended without fatality, but that was luck more than piloting judgement I would conjecture.

 

This incident cries out for at least an investigation as to whether mechanical problems caused it, or piloting judgement. If. I was mechanical, the incident is closed with the retirement of the aircraft. If it was an error on the part of the pilot, he should be given the opportunity to review what happened and to seek some remedial training at the very least.

 

Kenneth

 

I don't understand the term near miss. Technically that means they almost missed, and hit each other. George Carlin brought this up once in an oxymoron skit. But it is an industry term. I know.

That one happened a while ago but this is the best shot I've seen of it so far.

From the picture, it seems like the pilot is wondering 'why do they build runways of 60ft length but 10000ft width?'. :angry:

 

But Matthew is right, we had a video of the thing a while ago. I'm still amazed about the actual event and the, fortunately, good outcome though.

 

I don't understand the term near miss. Technically that means they almost missed, and hit each other.

Good point actually. Maybe it has to be read like 'it was near, but luckily missed' or something. Just guessing. Wouldn't be the first term getting shortened to almost illogical levels. Maybe the rw flyers and/or history cracks know more.

Two points of order here:

 

1. Pilot was a she, not a he... ^_^

 

2. The runway was too short for a normal approach and landing (I don't recall the exact length now, but is is far too short. The aircraft could not take off from there now, even if they wanted to...

 

Because of #2, the pilot simply made a minor error in descent, which could have resulted in a crash and/or fatal injuries to those too close.

I've left out #1 intentionally. :blush:

 

On #2. I can't confirm or confute the note on the runway length. But I think the flight aimed at landing for the last time and then decommission the aircraft. They can land really short and may have been empty or even 'more empty' as some equipment already got removed. There was bunch of them that day, sharing the same fate. The picture is from the one landing which went wrong. Well, not too wrong fortunately.

 

Here's the video again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUMsu2nkBhk

Skip to around 00:34 to .

Maybe she thought she needed that little bounce of the berm of the road to clear the little white fence... :lol:

:lol: Always be ahead of the airplane. Literally!

 

Not really on the case, but always a good read. http://www.flightsim...ing_Landing.php

Bounce On Touchdown

Your instructor logs three landings for the flight; you recognize that an airplane does indeed have some of the same properties as a basketball.

Approach Too Slow

You can't concentrate because that darn stall warning horn won't stop blaring

^_^

From the picture, it seems like the pilot is wondering 'why do they build runways of 60ft length but 10000ft width?'. :angry:

 

But Matthew is right, we had a video of the thing a while ago. I'm still amazed about the actual event and the, fortunately, good outcome though.

 

 

Good point actually. Maybe it has to be read like 'it was near, but luckily missed' or something. Just guessing. Wouldn't be the first term getting shortened to almost illogical levels. Maybe the rw flyers and/or history cracks know more.

From the picture, it seems like the pilot is wondering 'why do they build runways of 60ft length but 10000ft width?'. :angry:

 

But Matthew is right, we had a video of the thing a while ago. I'm still amazed about the actual event and the, fortunately, good outcome though.

 

 

Good point actually. Maybe it has to be read like 'it was near, but luckily missed' or something. Just guessing. Wouldn't be the first term getting shortened to almost illogical levels. Maybe the rw flyers and/or history cracks know more.

It's like "flammable" and "inflammable" (which logically should be analogous to "edible" and "inedible")

Your post is unreadable. Which I can only tell because.. I could read it. ^_^

 

I get your point, Raindance.