Page 1 of 1
Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 3:54 pm
by Colonel Sanders
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 4:24 pm
by Big Pistons Forever
The lesson this video teaches:
If you are going to do something really really really stupid, don't post it on Youtube

Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 5:40 pm
by habs.fan
Colonel Sanders wrote:
Of course I would have landed.
Just not necessarily there.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 5:46 pm
by Colonel Sanders
FWIW: if I was by myself in the airplane, and
over an unpopulated area on the approach, I
might have tried it.
With pax on board, no f_cking way.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:25 pm
by habs.fan
Colonel Sanders wrote:FWIW: if I was by myself in the airplane, and
over an unpopulated area on the approach, I
might have tried it.
With pax on board, no f_cking way.
Why though? With severe thunderstorms reported by the Airbus at the airport, it's probably not time to play around in any plane, even if you'd be flying alone. You're probably going to see severe turbulence, and could very easily plant your nose in the pavement because of wind shear near the ground. Not to mention that everything going on around you could be distracting.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:37 pm
by Big Pistons Forever
Colonel Sanders wrote:FWIW: if I was by myself in the airplane, and
over an unpopulated area on the approach, I
might have tried it.
With pax on board, no f_cking way.
It is not just the approach, what if you miss, you are going to be flying straight into a TS that is painting redder then your Pitts on the Radar........
I suppose the good news is that all those lightening bolts will help light up the runway

Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:40 pm
by 126.7_STFU
All I could think about ; what if they had to overshoot? Quite the rough ride indeed. I would say that this is one of those cases where they may get away with it once, twice, maybe 1000 times,
but eventually ....
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:44 pm
by Colonel Sanders
There is stuff which I will do solo - eg single engine
across the Gulf of Mexico - which I simply won't
do with anyone else on board, because of the
elevated level of risk.
Like this approach and landing under a Cb, which
I would have been very reluctant to overshoot
through.
There is an old USAF saying that in peacetime,
there is no good reason to fly through a thunderstorm.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 7:18 pm
by FlyGy
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:08 pm
by mcrit
......well at least they didn't hit the perimeter fence this time.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:00 am
by just curious
"So I may not have the advanced decision making experiences after 1000's hrs behind the wheel like many on this forum since I just came out of the "sheltered and very bubbled world" of flight training with just over 230 TT, so please don't bash my view on what I would do. My answer is no."
I do have the 1000's of hours. My vote would be no. My aircraft has high speed wipers, and handles windshear fairly well. So what? This sort of weather is the reason for contingency fuel. Wait or divert. Aluminum aircraft do not like lightening, hail, or being pushed violently into the ground. I'm not a big fan of it either.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:53 pm
by Elessar_44
No. Clearly the crew knows they shouldn't have landed there either or they wouldn't have recorded it and posted it on youtube to "show off".
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:04 am
by CpnCrunch
There's an interesting article in this month's AOPA Pilot. A Bonanza pilot totalled his plane by flying through a thunderstorm. Somehow he managed to survive, and he bought another Bonanza. Unfortunately he didn't learn his lesson - he flew through another thunderstorm, and his second plane had to have extensive repairs. Amazingly he STILL didn't learn his lesson, but the third time he didn't survive - he flew through a line of thunderstorms at 15000 feet, and his Bonanza was basically ripped to shreds and him with it.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:14 am
by pile_it
Off topic, but, it was my understanding that English is the national language of aviation. Why are they speaking to each other in Spanish?
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:51 pm
by North Shore
Probably a Spanish-speaking airline. They'd use their native tongue to communicate with each other in the plane.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:08 pm
by fanspeed
pile_it wrote:Off topic, but, it was my understanding that English is the national language of aviation. Why are they speaking to each other in Spanish?
You will find pilots speaking their own language over the entire face of the planet. And ATC. And cabbies.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:14 pm
by shamrock104
Low fuel, yes, overshot- no way.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:17 pm
by RenegadeAV8R
pile_it wrote:Off topic, but, it was my understanding that English is the national language of aviation...
I just love this subject that keeps coming up
Language Used in Aeronautical Radiocommunications
602.133 English and French are the languages of aeronautical radiocommunication in Canada.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... tm#602_132
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:24 pm
by shamrock104
Typical AVCANADA to get off topic. Who really cares, sign language en route, communications to ATC English.
Re: Would you have landed?
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:52 pm
by LAX
Would I have landed? Unless I was somehow about to run out of fuel, then no.
I really don't have an issue with burning 700L of someone else's fuel holding for Wx or diverting to another airport. Why would I? It's not my dime.
As far as the Spanish goes I myself was surprised to find that in a lot of countries I've flown into ATC and pilots talk on the radio in their native tongue most (not all) the time. It's quite common in fact.