A plane is about to crash land live on TV

[Chris_Doane]

...on CNN/MSNBC.

[Guest Josh]

I'm watching it. It will make a "hard landing" hardly a "crash on live TV." C'mon Chris....it's not THAT bad. I'm going back to watching hockey.

[Chris_Doane]

I'm watching it. It will make a "hard landing" hardly a "crash on live TV." C'mon Chris....it's not THAT bad.

I'm going back to watching hockey.

[post="18054"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

LoL...uhh yea the nose gear structure is going to break unless the wheel somehow rights itself. That's past a "hard" landing. Edited September 22, 2005 by CD/BP

[zoomtm]

i would be soo scared if i was on that plane...

[Nick]

From what I heard on the radio I think they are going to try and land it in Long Beach...

[Chris_Doane]

From what I heard on the radio I think they are going to try and land it in Long Beach...

[post="18065"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

LAX.

[Chris_Doane]

Well all be damned...the gear structure didnt collapse. Airbus makes a good plane. Quite a fireball from the wheels/tires though.

[Paolino]

It was kinda cool to watch, however, I can't imagine being on a plane that would make an emergency landing!

[Sixty8panther]

Whole lot of skill and a little bit of luck. Good to see everyone got ouyt of it alive.

[z28luvr01]

I saw it after-the-fact on newsday.com. A ton of credit goes to the pilots for not touching down on the nose gear until the last possible moment. That took skill and confidence. Luck does nothing when you're traveling at those speeds. One question though - why would they have to burn off the fuel before landing the plane? To make it lighter?

[Chris_Doane]

I saw it after-the-fact on newsday.com. A ton of credit goes to the pilots for not touching down on the nose gear until the last possible moment. That took skill and confidence. Luck does nothing when you're traveling at those speeds. One question though - why would they have to burn off the fuel before landing the plane? To make it lighter?

[post="18125"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

To reduce fire danger.

[Croc]

To reduce fire danger.

[post="18129"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

and to make it lighter so the nose could stay off longer

[Flybrian]

Mainly to reduce the risk of fire. Airbus. Meh.

[MGZ06]

WOW! I just watched it on CNN . . . . hats off to that pilot! that was a text book saftey landing.

[turbo200]

It was incredible, just glad to see everyone make it alive. I can only imagine what they were going through.

[Nick]

Mainly to reduce the risk of fire.

Airbus. Meh.

[post="18222"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

yea, but they store fuel in the nose, so it was important to get that out...They had no fuel in the nose at time of landing, and some fuel in the central and wing tanks...Jet Blue has done well and hasn't had a bad rep about anything yet, hopefully this won't change things too much.

[CSpec]

Apparently the passengers were watching themselves on TV because JetBlue has DirecTV in every seat. That must have been interesting......

[pow]

Now that's understeer...

[Nick]

Apparently the passengers were watching themselves on TV because JetBlue has DirecTV in every seat. That must have been interesting......

[post="18250"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That would be pretty crazy...atleast you know what's coming I guess...

[RichW5]

Airbus sucks! Remember they built the gear that locked in the wrong position. Airbus also built the A320 without a fuel dump valve, which would have saved hours of circling to burn off fuel. The real hero's are the pilots and crew. The crew kept the passengers calm and the pilot's landed the plane with such precision that most passengers said that it was the smoothest landing they've ever experienced. I flew to Vegas in an A320 about 2 weeks ago. It was a nice plane but it doesn't handle turbulence as well as a Boeing. Takeoff turbulence was pretty bumpy and lasted longer than I would have wanted.

[Drew Dowdell]

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

[Sixty8panther]

Now that's understeer...

[post="18251"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

LMAO!!! :lol:

They also mentioned the less fuel that they have sloshing around in the wing tanks the lbetter their chances of keeping the plane level and balanced.... adn therfore ON the runway.

I agree about the fuel dump valve and the retarded gear setup. Airbus makes a good solid frotn gear that fif not colapse at landing but the real issue is why did the problem occur and whyt the hell is the gear 90* to the direction of landing... ever?

[sciguy_0504]

I thought the plane was going up in flames once I saw them coming off the gear. They're lucky nothing flew off the landing gear and tore into the wings (aka. fuel tanks) ala Concorde.

[Flybrian]

Airbus also built the A320 without a fuel dump valve, which would have saved hours of circling to burn off fuel.

[post="18466"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My thoughts exactly.

Airbus builds a more airline-friendly jet while Boeing builds a pilot's jet plane.

Ask most pilots who've had experience in equipment from both companies and most will echo what Oldsmoboi said - If it Ain't Boeing, I Ain't Going.

[RichW5]

Apparently, the front landing gear on other A320's has been stuck the same way 7 or 8 other times. Wonder if they'll have a recall, or maybe they'll get an "unreliable" from CR. :lol: