No bounce landing

[Heliian]

Facepalm.

Glad they all walked away, probably sore after that though.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/UdFGkp5CZLs[/youtube]

[C-GGGQ]

Ow....

[ahramin]

What was the emergency?

[photofly]

No pilot on board.

[PilotDAR]

What was the emergency?

I was going to make a witty remark, but Photofly's is better!

[Heliian]

What was the emergency?

Unsafe gear.

[photofly]

What was the emergency?

Unsafe gear.

*After* impact, sure.

The gear didn't look unsafe until it was forcibly removed by hitting the ground at about 800fpm prior to reaching the runway threshold.

Snapped elevator cable? I didn't see any attempt to flare going on.

[TG]

More like engines out kind of scenario...
Assuming the unsafe gear indication either he shut them off too early, trying to save some damage lol
Or tried to burn off (too much) fuel before his "emergency landing" looool

[photofly]

They were both turning, on approach. Aren't you supposed to feather at least one of them?

[JasonE]

Ouch. I'll give them 1 thing, at least they made the runway. I don't think there was any attempt to flare!

[Capt. Underpants]

There was no energy left for a flare on that landing. That was a light airplane version of the BA 777 crash landing at LHR.

[7ECA]

Couple of spray bombs and a little binder twine, and she'll clean up just right - for a flight school to buy her and ride her hard.

[AirFrame]

At the end of the video they pan around the front and it looks like the windshield is gone on the co-pilot's side of the airplane. Could the pilot have been sitting right seat, and been incapacitated by a bird strike or something?

In any case, the video shows airport fire rescue waiting at the side of the runway as it lands. I'd bet good money that it was a non-pilot being talked down, and they were either slow to react on the instruction to flare, or they were told to fly it on and then deal with stopping it.

[Heliian]

At the end of the video they pan around the front and it looks like the windshield is gone on the co-pilot's side of the airplane. Could the pilot have been sitting right seat, and been incapacitated by a bird strike or something?

In any case, the video shows airport fire rescue waiting at the side of the runway as it lands. I'd bet good money that it was a non-pilot being talked down, and they were either slow to react on the instruction to flare, or they were told to fly it on and then deal with stopping it.

Unsafe gear, which led to a botched landing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -Rica.html

[PilotDAR]

Chavarría, who has seven years of flight experience with commercial airlines, said he made several 360-degree flyovers to lighten the fuel load and lessen the impact.

Well then, it was just a really poor approach and landing! I was prepared to go along with the "pilot injured, untrained passenger talked down", but if a pilot landed this plane, that was just embarrassing. Thinking that the pilot is a seven year airline pilot is even more worrying! Unsafe gear? No reason for slamming it on. Tried to save the engines by gliding in? Well it did not work, and he wrecked two engines, all the landing gear, and the plane!

Basic flying rule: Chances of survival are inversely proportional to angle of arrival. Try to arrive nearly parallel to the landing surface! I'm delighted, though very surprised, that no one was injured in this crash. Probably, well designed seats absorbed vertical loads, which would have otherwise been very injurious.

[AirFrame]

Unsafe gear, which led to a botched landing.

Oh. Well, then that's just embarassing for whoever was at the controls.

Two pilots on board? I wonder if each thought the other would flare?

[Capt. Underpants]

The "landing" is not the problem. For whatever reason, that aircraft was clearly in a low energy state, combined with a high sink rate, the landing was destined to be much like it ended up.

[photofly]

I don’t agree. The aircraft pitch was pretty much level, which, combined with a reasonable flight path angle, gives a moderate (not high) angle of attack. They were in steady flight a long way from the stall- they had plenty of energy. There was simply no attempt to raise the nose.

Even if the aircraft was close to the stall the pilot had plenty of time on approach to add power and lower the nose, given that this was a gear problem and not an engine problem.

In the BA crash you referenced the pilots lowered the nose to maintain airspeed and entered ground effect prior to the threshold, which is not what happened here.

[digits_]

I don’t agree. The aircraft pitch was pretty much level, which, combined with a reasonable flight path angle, gives a moderate (not high) angle of attack. They were in steady flight a long way from the stall- they had plenty of energy. There was simply no attempt to raise the nose.

Even if the aircraft was close to the stall the pilot had plenty of time on approach to add power and lower the nose, given that this was a gear problem and not an engine problem.

In the BA crash you referenced the pilots lowered the nose to maintain airspeed and entered ground effect prior to the threshold, which is not what happened here.

I think the angle of attack was pretty high during the last part. His vertical speed increased in the last 20 ft, which probably significantly increased the AoA. The flight path angle was only reasonable before that point. All this guessed from the 5 second video of course.

[photofly]

Agreed it's very hard to tell for sure.

[rigpiggy]

Not sure I can see the nose gear. Maybe shutoff engines, and didn’t feather because props would “dig”. Also takes quite a while for some engines to feather to stop

[photofly]

So there’s no nose gear...

Then the pilot shuts off both engines (to avoid prop damage) but then decides NOT to feather them - so they keep turning and will inevitably be damaged, then fucks up the approach, impacts soft ground prior to the threshold with no flare, and rips off the main gear too.

I’m trying really hard to construct a narrative where a pilot flying regularly for an airline ends up reasonably or understandably with this result.

[PilotDAR]

Then the pilot shuts off both engines (to avoid prop damage) but then decides NOT to feather them

Or, maybe he tried, yet forgot the part of the flight manual on page 2-4 where it says:

"A feathering lock, operated by centrifugal force, prevents feathering during engine shutdown, making it impossible to feather any time the engine speed is less than 800 RPM. For this reason if the engine is being feathered to save it the pilot must be sure to move the control to the feather position before the engine speed drops below 800 RPM"

This is common to many Lycoming powered twins, you gotta know your systems! Feather it/them early on, and if the engine has stopped because of seizure, you're not going to get it feathered. I did the testing on the DA-42-L360.

If the pilot was staggering the plane down the approach at a silly slow speed, and shut down the engines in fine pitch, they probably slowed to less than 800 RPM right away, the he got the surprise of his life when they would not feather, and he could not figure out why - further adding drag to an already horrible approach. But.... I'm just speculating!

[Mick G]

It looks like a stall, way too slow and nose attitude, only my opinion.

[corethatthermal]

I don’t agree. The aircraft pitch was pretty much level, which, combined with a reasonable flight path angle, gives a moderate (not high) angle of attack.

Thats a total load of crap ! You are ignorantly looking at the A/C attitude relative to the runway plane ! The AOA is the approach path angle RELATIVE to the aircraft WIKI

the angle between the chord of an airfoil and the direction of the surrounding undisturbed flow of gas or liquid.

THAT angle in the video was high due to windmilling props, gear down etc. IF the pilot tried to flare , too high, the consequences may have been broken backs ! Its possible that the only right thing the pilot(s) did was to not flare lol