 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
Most planes and runways have a point of no return. Once you're past a certain speed, you have to commit to lifting off, as you won't stop in time. The fatal Concorde flight being a classic example.
What doesn't help here is runway of snow and it also slope downhill. Had this problem occurred on a tarmac or flat runway the pilot could have likely stopped it. One of the pres reports suggests it never got airborne, just kept on sliding down the mountain wit the pilot struggling to stop it. Hence, a barrier after the runway, a bit down the hill would have helped.
Many commercial airports have an EMAS system which is essentially a strip of runway at teh end which is designed to collapse under the weight of the aircraft so the wheels digs in and stop the plane. They used to use gravel traps but the stones flew up, ruptured wings and fuel tanks and caused fatal fires. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system |
Not quite sure how the barrier might work on a snow covered slope. Any physical barrier will just increase the likelihood of killing the people in the aircrew against the lesser risk of killing passing skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
We are in danger of mixing up differing types of aviation here. This was a single engine plane - the engine stopped and gravity took over - the pilot has few options - he could crash it in a heap still killing people or he can land it within the limited parameters available and still kill people or hopefully not.
There are a number of altiports around the Tarentaise - few provide facilities for fixed wing aircraft for people who can afford not to travel by road, Courchevel being a notable exception. There are lots of helicopter landing pads which provide this option - most of these helicopters have 2 engines giving the pilot some choice over his emergency landing site.
Effectively its all about personal freedom.
As for points of no return, in a commercial aircraft with fare paying passengers with 2 or more engines, if one of those engines fails during the take off the aircraft must be able to stop before the end of the runway or be able to take off and meet minimum rates of climb to ensure a safe departure. If the Captain of the Paris Concorde had realised the severity of the problem - arguably he would have been better rallying the aircraft through the fields than getting airborne with a fatally stricken aircraft but he didn't know this.
If you only have one engine then you do not have this option!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
[quote="Mjit"]
| Markymark29 wrote: |
| When you're in a lump of aluminium that's losing it's fight with gravity you don't have a lot of choice over where/when you land. In this case he was also at low altitude so had even less time to pick a landing point. Given 10s to decide do you fly in to the trees, probably killing you and your passengers or try to land on the piste hoping it's not too busy and people are able to get out you way? |
I know this only too well. A number of years ago as a relatively low hours PPL I was doing IMC training by flying from EDI to NCL. Somewhere over the border the engine of the PA28 began to run a bit rough. The usual magneto and carb icing checks revealed nothing. My instructor insisted I stay "under the hood" (a mask/hood that only allows you to see the instruments) and figure out where I was and what I would do if the donk did konk out. I was over the Kielder Forest and the only realistic option was ditching in Kielder reservoir. The rough running continued but we made the decision to continue to NCL and after a "Pan" call to ATC we were given a straight in approach.
My instructor kept me under the hood all the time until I was at decision height and we landed safely with fire engines either side of the runway. It was probably the most stressful experiences of my life. It would have been bad enough without a hood and flying visually but to do it under the hood made it more so. The instructor was absolutely right in making me do it as if I wanted to fly in IMC I may well experience it for real.
We had to hire a car and drive back to Edinburgh as ne engineers were available to look at it. The following day the CFI flew down in another aircraft and inspected it and deemed it fit for flight although they did fly back to EDI via the coast.
Two weeks later the CFI was doing NBD hold practice overhead Dundee airport with another IMC student when a piston forced its way through the engine block. He took over and dead-sticked it on to Dundee's runway. Talk about being in the right place at the right time! Even after that he still insisted that the rough running we had 2 weekd earlier was unconnected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Markymark29 wrote: |
@foxtrotzulu,
Your points..(1) no objection to folk flying in and out by helicopter, (or plane for that matter) so long as they aren't near pistes (2) I don't know what offpiste caused avalanches have got to do with an air collision but if you are referring to the fact that offpiste activities should be risk assessed then clearly yes they should by those involved, but IMO 2 completely differing considerations. The latter is common to all resorts to a greater or lesser degree, however planes landing in resort is specific to a few resorts only.
There was an incident a few years ago (in Italy I think) where a military jet fighter hit some cables and brought a ski lift down killing folks, which is different again (however outwith the control of the resort). On the occasion above it states that the plane passed UNDER a chairlift and narrowly missed people on the slopes, indicating that the result could have been much worse......and presumably if the plane was operating from the resort the resort has some responsibility? Anyway don't suppose much will change so wasting my (and your) time debating it!  |
We skied in Chiesa in Valmelenco that yr, the week before the tragic accident. It's a small resort about 120 miles from the crash site. We were buzzed by planes flying UNDER the gondola on more than one occasion. I've had a major fear of gondolas ever since. We tried t complain in resort, at our hotel etc but no one was concerned. It was a regular occurrence.
I hope they are able to save her arm. Sounds horrific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I used to fly paramotors which are notoriously unreliable - a massive power to weight ratio which always spells trouble in any sort of engine. I must have had about 10 engine outs in flight. With such unreliable engines you're always fly within glide of a landing site so never over forests or water.
I've read a few articles on this now and I don't think this plane got airborne. The engine certainly didn't die as some have suggested as the injury to the pooor ladt was a prop strike.
As for flying under gondolas etc. there are quite few pilots out there who like to show off. Having someone else in the plane or friends watching below often makes pilots do things they never would, if one their own.
There's an old saying in aviation. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots.
There are lots of airstrips in the Alps and very few incidents. In some ways helicopters have a more dangerous life in the mountains as they need a certain amount of forward momentum to glide down if the engine cuts out. The nature of the terrain and they work they do often means lots of static hovering at low altitude above the ground which is always dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
There's an old saying in aviation. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots.
|
Isn't Chuck Yeager still going strong in his 90's??? About the boldest pilot there is
Anyway, there are thousands of airstrips throughout the world close to housing and major roads that would cause carnage if there is an accident. For the extremely low volume of traffic that goes through Alpine airstrips I don't see them being such a particularly high risk to need to be banned, as unfortunate as the accident was last week. In fact it's rarity is probably what made it so newsworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitters wrote: |
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
There's an old saying in aviation. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots.
|
Isn't Chuck Yeager still going strong in his 90's??? About the boldest pilot there is
Anyway, there are thousands of airstrips throughout the world close to housing and major roads that would cause carnage if there is an accident. For the extremely low volume of traffic that goes through Alpine airstrips I don't see them being such a particularly high risk to need to be banned, as unfortunate as the accident was last week. In fact it's rarity is probably what made it so newsworthy. |
You can fly as boldly as you like. Just as long as it's not near the gondola I'm on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Omg I'm going there at easter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jamesHDsandy, don't worry. I was in the area yesterday, everything was open, business as usual
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
