Blueadventures Posted April 2 Posted April 2 This morning's news; an aircraft could not lower gear and fly around until rpt departures completed and burn off fuel then a wheels up landing. 3
onetrack Posted April 2 Posted April 2 (edited) A 6 seater Beech 58 Baron of Gold Coast Air. Just the two pilots on board. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/fiery-emergency-landing-on-the-gold-coast-got-into-a-lot-of-trouble/news-story/108b3e88d4386c454749ff726ad690bb Edited April 2 by onetrack fat fingers... 1
facthunter Posted April 2 Posted April 2 Long time to keep circling. Well, in a holding pattern. The intention would be to reduce the chance of fire. Landing aircraft have precedence. Nev 1
KRviator Posted April 2 Posted April 2 11 hours ago, BirdDog said: YDC is getting dizzy around the Gold Coast. 😞 Indeed it is strange. No human could fly a holding pattern so accurately! And more to the point, I want to know what STC is installed that gives this particular Baron the ability to dump fuel... Quote The pilots kept the plane in the air roughly an hour, circling the airport and dumping fuel, before eventually touching down without a landing gear. Bet the people of Currumbin Water's don't know they had an Avgas shower last night.😆 1 1
facthunter Posted April 2 Posted April 2 Dumping fuel would be burning off fuel. The gear can be extended by alternate method in "Normal" circumstances. . Maybe it'd just had the gear serviced but why have so much fuel onboard. You check the landing gear on "JACKS" when it's being serviced. Oh well No one was hurt in the Making of this drama. Nev 1
onetrack Posted April 2 Posted April 2 Well done to the blokes driving, they made a successful wheels up landing in the dark, and didn't blow up the airport, which is what the media rabble were hoping to see. 2 1
spacesailor Posted April 3 Posted April 3 I , have always been told A , " pan Pan " landing , takes priority over Any normal Activity. Clear the runway . spacesailor
KRviator Posted April 3 Posted April 3 1 hour ago, spacesailor said: I , have always been told A , " pan Pan " landing , takes priority over Any normal Activity. Clear the runway . spacesailor PAN = Possible Assistance Needed. Not "I need to get my asre on the ground right now!" In this case, there's no urgency to land, and it's prudent to reduce fuel and landing weight so much as possible while also giving the fitters as much time to come up with alternate means to get the wheels down. And anyway - you might as well log as much twin-time as you can before you bend the aeroplane... I've no doubt if they became an emergency, rather than just a non-normal, arrival, that Tower would've told everyone else to bugger off. 1
pmccarthy Posted April 3 Posted April 3 As with "mayday" (from venez m'aider, "come help me"), the urgency signal pan-pan derives from French. In French, a panne is a breakdown, such as a mechanical failure. A three-letter backronym, "possible assistance needed" or "pay attention now" derives from pan. Maritime and aeronautical radio communications courses use those as mnemonics to convey the important difference between mayday and pan-pan. 1
KRviator Posted April 3 Posted April 3 57 minutes ago, pmccarthy said: Maritime and aeronautical radio communications courses use those as mnemonics to convey the important difference between mayday and pan-pan. Then there's 'securite' used to denote an all-stations call to other vessels about a marine hazard or navigational warning but you yourself aren't in harms way. 1
spacesailor Posted April 3 Posted April 3 I've heard of " Priority Assistance Needed " . Not " possible " Assistance Needed ". From nautical H F radio licence course . Now to sit an aeronautical VHF radio licence course . Is there much difference. spacesailor
danny_galaga Posted April 3 Posted April 3 Does it really matter? It's not really the crux of the story...
Area-51 Posted April 3 Posted April 3 2 hours ago, danny_galaga said: Does it really matter? It's not really the crux of the story... True, but we are deep enough into the post now to allow for some expected divergence... The media are clearly at a total loss as to how this was all achievable without hitting any buildings. 1
BrendAn Posted April 3 Posted April 3 13 hours ago, onetrack said: Well done to the blokes driving, they made a successful wheels up landing in the dark, and didn't blow up the airport, which is what the media rabble were hoping to see. they are both instructors . 1
Blueadventures Posted April 3 Posted April 3 42 minutes ago, facthunter said: One has to be Master.. Nev Rock, paper, scissors to determine who's aircraft; maybe?? 1 1
facthunter Posted April 3 Posted April 3 They say there's nothing more dangerous than 2 check Captains flying together. Nev 2
spacesailor Posted April 3 Posted April 3 The one who says " your aircraft " is not the master in charge . So Says my instructor. spacesailor
facthunter Posted April 3 Posted April 3 There's two people and BOTH must KNOW and adhere to it at any given point. Ownership of the Plane should have nothing to do with it.. It's who will save the day if things go astray.. 'Normally' it will be the instructor training or testing but even then it may not be that simple. Often a very qualified Pilot may be given a BFR by someone much less capable on the Plane as they CAN be sort of routine. People who are smart enough to be Pilots should have little difficulty in sorting this out unless there's a couple of very overdeveloped egos in the equation.. (Not uncommon).. Nev 1 1
BrendAn Posted April 4 Posted April 4 3 hours ago, facthunter said: One has to be Master.. Nev when i worked on a charter boat i got a promotion. skipper said i was the masterbaiter. 5
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now