Back to Squawk list
  • 15

Plane Lands Hard in Colorado Carrying 12 No One Hurt

제출됨
 
A 10-passenger flight from Denver International Airport to Telluride lost use of its landing gear, tilted to the left and damaged a wing and propeller at Telluride Regional Airport on Sunday afternoon. Great Lakes Aviation spokeswoman Monica Taylor-Lee said none of the passengers or crew members aboard Flight 7150 was injured. She said the crew was able to deploy the gear manually in flight, but it did not hold as the plane was decelerating on the landing. (www.denverpost.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


billybob79424
Great job by the crew. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with on this one.
SootBox
SootBox 4
Telluride... Colorado's version of Lukla...
productionsklr
The pilot pulled off a remarkably good landing in very rough conditions. It was surprising that nobody was hurt.
eckstrombryan
i posted this story 5 hours before you did
eckstrombryan
http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/unset/user/36522/Great_Lakes_Airlines_Landing_Gear_Fails_KTEX
mfbutzin
mfbutzin 2
"Great Lakes Airlines Landing Gear Fails". I guess your headline and info was weak or everybody was out having a good time. I later saw that but sometimes if your headline does not spark interest people will not respond. I didn't mean to steal your thunder but a lot of people know the Telluride airport and if you ever seen it you would know why that is the lead in and not "Great Lakes"
mfbutzin
mfbutzin 1
Good Catch.....

[This poster has been suspended.]

billybob79424
Probably wasn't an operational option.

[This poster has been suspended.]

billybob79424
Unless I missed that part in the story, you are most likely wrong. Alternate would have been somewhere like Cortez. Plus alternate fuel burn plans go out the window when you have to fly a plane with the gear down.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
COS, GJT would have been better if they couldn't make it back to DEN.

[This poster has been suspended.]

billybob79424
I can promise you from personal experience at Lakes that is not the case. The filed alternate (if there was one) would have been Cortez or Alamosa. Most likely there would not have been enough fuel to make the normally 1hr 15min flight back to Denver with the gear down. I get that it would have been the preferred option. But I believe that option would likely have put the crew way too close to fuel exhaustion to be comfortable. Also, this is not a short flight for lakes. I'm not sure what a short flight is for your airline, but anything over an hour is actually pretty long in the 1900. Unless you have the flight plan or can prove my Telluride flying experience is invalid, or my flying experience in the 1900 is invalid I say again, respectfully, you are wrong in this situation.
RECOR10
RECOR10 3
Internet SMACK DOWN....well done my friend, well done.
spatr
spatr 4
I better tell the dispatch department at my airline that they're doing it wrong.
mfbutzin
mfbutzin 2
Is this the "Obvious Zone" or is this "Room for Improvement Zone"? LOL, I know it usually depends on who your speaking to. Usually the take it under advisement guy is waaay different from the blank stare guy..........
pfp217
pfp217 2
I can promise you , you are wrong! Where did you come up with that?
mwf117
Why alternate? There's nothing wrong with the airport, it's the plane..
preacher1
In spite of all of these other comments, right or wrong, this one hits the bottom line; An alternate airport generally applies for a diversion when you can't land at the destination airport, for whatever reason
spatr
spatr 0
Diverts are different from alternates. "Diverts" can be anywhere any time and are not filed nor is fuel added to get to them. An "alternate" is only required to be filed if the wx at destination precludes it (remember the 1/2/3 rule). If the wx is above needing an alternate, the fuel required is destination +45 mins on an IFR flight plan and no alternate needs to be filed. The alternate is generally for legality sake and fuel planning. You also don't have to land at your alternate if you can't get to the destination. You can land anywhere you want if its above mins and, in the case of an airline, your dispatch concurs.
Steve1822
Spatr......you are partially correct. An alternate is required, as you say, for weather conditions reported or forecast (or combination thereof) according to """the 1/2/3 rule"". However, most air carrier flight operating procedures require listing an alternate when flying to an airport with one runway no matter how good the weather will be at arrival. Examples would be clear weather but on arrival the cross wind component exceeds specs, or the airport becomes closed on arrival in the terminal area. There are many other prudent examples why alternate fuel planning plus reserves is good practice regardless of FAR weather requirements.
spatr
spatr 1
I wasn't going to go into all of the reasons for filing an alternate but yes that is one of them however, I do not know if this particular flight even had an alternate filed.
preacher1
Ya'll know all that and I know all that. I was just bringing it out for simplistic talking purpose in this conversation.LOL
billybob79424
Single runway alternate does not apply at lakes. Only applies when there is a forecast crosswind that exceeds the limits, or if you don't have two nav recievers. (i.e. an airport served only by an NDB and you only have one ADF) fwiw

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료