Posted on 05/16/2019 5:58:11 AM PDT by DFG
Horrifying new footage of the jet disaster that killed 41 in Moscow has emerged amid claims pilots made basic errors during the emergency because they were incapable of landing without the assistance of autopilot.
The Aeroflot plane can be seen bouncing down the runway before bursting into a deadly fireball at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport on May 5.
The footage emerged as an expert claimed that the experienced captain Denis Evdokimov - hospitalised as a result of the crash - had never previously manually flown the Sukhoi Superjet 100 in so-called 'direct mode' before the crash.
A lightning strike soon after takeoff forced the pilots to make an emergency landing but this should not have led to the flames in which dozens were burned alive or killed by toxic fumes, say authoritative figures in Moscow.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Then you must have never landed a taildragger. The normal landing in a Taildragger is a Full Stall or Three Point landing. These terms are nearly interchangeable and are descriptive of the attitude of the airplane as it touches the runway.
The flight control operators (they certainly weren't pilots) flew the approach way too fast...resulting in a touchdown that's way too fast. They apparently pulled back on the yoke, trying to aerobrake. When the airplane got airborne, they pushed the yoke too far forward, porpoising the aircraft.
Why do you need ‘options’ a few feet off the ground? At that point you a flaring and trying to land so what options?
I have flown in several small types and have always had at least 10 knots over stall upon landing. When we get >70% weight on wheels, we cut the power and aerobrake but never landed near stall.
Boeing! Boeing! Boeing!
You have never flown in combat, have you? At Aviano, we had bad guys surveilling the runways 24-7 from a spot right along centerline just across the road. Folks like that know how to call in mortars. No aircraft recovers from a cratered runway. Next, combat flight schedules can often call for a rapid launch/recovery cycle and another aircraft might wander onto the active.
Both. Mostly jets but when I was doing planning for the Wing, I flew with a USAF LtCol in a piston.
No, all have been trikes.
If you are talking about the Ruskies, I completely agree. Neither of the people in the cockpit could be called pilots.
Ok, I do not stare at the air speed indicator once the flair is started but with full flaps extended I am sure my IAS is way above 40 knots!!! I try for around 55-60 IAS on final with full flaps and a tiny little bit of power.
Umm, if you are flairing a few feet off the ground your goal is landing. Period.
Then I would say you are doing it right. A 172 has an approach and landing speed of 60-70 knots while the stall is 40. That ain't landing at stall speed.
Ping
Of course our goal is landing, but with enough speed to regain controlled flight upon command.
Okay, then I say we are in “violent” agreement.
Land a good margin, as you say, with jet engines on board.
Land much closer to stall, perhaps a few knots over, for piston.
A piston you can recover a porpoising landing.
A jet you should do a bounce-n-go, and try again from scratch, due to spool-up latency.
It seems to me we are discussing the final approach speed as if that is the speed when the wheels touch the runway. Can we agree that they are quite different?
Absolutely, talking about the ruskies. There is no way I would ever call them pilots. They lacked basic airmanship skills.
I will agree that they are different for the 2 major divisions of aircraft (i.e. jets and pistons) but the difference is slim when comparing percentages.
Like a 12 yr old playing microsoft flight simulator...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.