That particular aircraft was only rated for a 29kt crosswind landing capability. The actual crosswind that day was 45kts. Poor judgement by the pilots created this accident; they should have found a more favorable runway and made a nice headwind landing, but they chose not to. I'm not armchair quarterbacking, I'm explaining that the majority of good flying is judgement, not skill or luck.
I had read somewhere that the pilot wanted to divert but was told no. If that was true, the pilot should have disobeyed for the safety of the passengers and crew. Happens often in Reno where the pilots have to divert to Sacramento if they can't safely make the landing. A couple of weeks ago a pilot almost touched tarmac but pulled up sharply at the last minute and diverted to Sacramento. With another pilot the third attempt was the charm and they landed safely.
No excuse, the pilot is the sole authority in the safe flight of their aircraft. Descent rate was far too high, aircraft was crabbed too far that allowed the wing to strike the ground before the landing gear, and all of this could have been avoided by going around. The video of the incident was because other pilots knew the capabilities of the RJ, and was prepared for a show
That's why I said IF TRUE then the pilot should have said nope to protect the passengers. Also why I gave the example of the plane in Reno that almost made it but pulled up at the last minute and didn't try again. It's the pilot's duty to protect the passengers and crew (and their employer's property) No one on a Reno bound plane wants to go to California but the pilots have to protect lives. Some pilots didn't even attempt to land in Reno and just went straight to CA. Some tried and were successful and some tried but decided for safety's sake to go to CA.
Pilot didn't flare up just before touching which slows the descent. Maybe because of crosswinds in HER mind. If that was why, SHE should have diverted or gone around.
This is from my other post. Is this true? I'm in a heated discussion about the crew being all women. The guys at work are calling me a caveman from 1950s? I cannot find sauce for this. Please help. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but excuses are being made ( it was windy) FFS, if DEI is why equipment is wrecked and people are hurt. Stop covering for ineptitude. Fuck off. If a man screwed up he would be held accountable. REMEMBER THE ALL FEMALE FIRE FIGHTERS, YES, THREE MONTHS LATER WE FIND THEY BURNED DOWN A NATIONAL FOREST. STOP COVERING FOR INCOMPETENCE.
That particular aircraft was only rated for a 29kt crosswind landing capability. The actual crosswind that day was 45kts. Poor judgement by the pilots created this accident; they should have found a more favorable runway and made a nice headwind landing, but they chose not to. I'm not armchair quarterbacking, I'm explaining that the majority of good flying is judgement, not skill or luck.
I had read somewhere that the pilot wanted to divert but was told no. If that was true, the pilot should have disobeyed for the safety of the passengers and crew. Happens often in Reno where the pilots have to divert to Sacramento if they can't safely make the landing. A couple of weeks ago a pilot almost touched tarmac but pulled up sharply at the last minute and diverted to Sacramento. With another pilot the third attempt was the charm and they landed safely.
No excuse, the pilot is the sole authority in the safe flight of their aircraft. Descent rate was far too high, aircraft was crabbed too far that allowed the wing to strike the ground before the landing gear, and all of this could have been avoided by going around. The video of the incident was because other pilots knew the capabilities of the RJ, and was prepared for a show
That's why I said IF TRUE then the pilot should have said nope to protect the passengers. Also why I gave the example of the plane in Reno that almost made it but pulled up at the last minute and didn't try again. It's the pilot's duty to protect the passengers and crew (and their employer's property) No one on a Reno bound plane wants to go to California but the pilots have to protect lives. Some pilots didn't even attempt to land in Reno and just went straight to CA. Some tried and were successful and some tried but decided for safety's sake to go to CA.
The jokes write themselves. Thank God nobody was killed …This time.
As I have said ANY COMPANY that pushes DEI needs to be held accountable and responsible for ANYONE HARMED OR KILLED because of DEI policies.
kek
Double kek!
Pilot didn't flare up just before touching which slows the descent. Maybe because of crosswinds in HER mind. If that was why, SHE should have diverted or gone around.
Note to self: Don't fly Endeavor Air.
This is from my other post. Is this true? I'm in a heated discussion about the crew being all women. The guys at work are calling me a caveman from 1950s? I cannot find sauce for this. Please help. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but excuses are being made ( it was windy) FFS, if DEI is why equipment is wrecked and people are hurt. Stop covering for ineptitude. Fuck off. If a man screwed up he would be held accountable. REMEMBER THE ALL FEMALE FIRE FIGHTERS, YES, THREE MONTHS LATER WE FIND THEY BURNED DOWN A NATIONAL FOREST. STOP COVERING FOR INCOMPETENCE.