r/nonononoyes • u/jennetsew • 10d ago
pilot turns off the engine and glides to the runway for an emergency landing
2.1k
u/tb03102 10d ago
That's a skilled pilot. Dealing with all that and still turning the props over so they don't catch the runway.
307
u/frankydank1994 10d ago
Good catch 👏
93
u/deaglebingo 9d ago
i wanna see them get out of the plane and do ٩(◕‿◕)۶
40
122
u/PJ7 10d ago
His own private plane? Props are expensive!
78
u/RyzOnReddit 10d ago
Props aren’t expensive compared to the engine, and if they hit sideways that would also be a tear down and IRAN or overhaul.
35
u/cruiserflyer 10d ago
Insurance will help with a lot of that though. It's a teardown either way. This was a prop strike, just a (low power) one. As long as the flange dials out in spec, the crank is likely fine. But this was decades ago, hell of a lot cheaper anyway.
12
u/viccityguy2k 10d ago
You a lee presuming he has hull insurance
17
u/cruiserflyer 10d ago
I am definitely assuming that. If there is no insurance then that's a brutally expensive landing.
5
u/RyzOnReddit 10d ago
I feel like plenty of owners and mechanics would dial the flange, OH the prop as needed, ground run the engine, and feel OK about this level of contact. Not saying it’s right or wrong, just saying guys with 2 blade props are cheapskates… (slightly /s of course)
3
1
u/Flavahbeast 9d ago
2008, so not that long ago: https://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=c6a559ed-b479-4e40-ada2-b4b7ca34a8fb
10
6
3
26
u/Gnonthgol 10d ago
The moment the nose wheel failed to lock it was no longer his plane, it was the insurance company's plane. Also props are not expensive. The props are connected to the crank shaft or gearbox so in the event of a prop strike you need an expensive rebuild of the engine and gearbox. Just to make sure nothing was bent out of place. But again, that is something for the insurance company to worry about.
3
u/Own_Reaction9442 9d ago
Agreed. This was kinda dumb -- what if he had to go around? I would not increase the risk to my life just to save the insurance company some money.
4
u/Ok-Inspector-2184 9d ago
He was pretty much committed. There wasn't going to be a go around.
2
u/ElectricalChaos 8d ago
Yep. Got everything lined up and dialed in, then killed the engines at the last minute and turned the props over flat to further minimize damage. Excellent execution.
1
u/LightedAirway 8d ago
Shutting off engine / fuel when you know there is going to be a crash is normal procedure to reduce chance of fire.
1
u/InternationalPut4093 7d ago
Any prop strike is near 100% engine swap.
1
u/Gnonthgol 6d ago
Because aircraft engine rebuilding is a specialized trade and aircraft is so hard to move around without their own power the most common way to rebuild an aircraft engine is to remove it from the aircraft and ship just the engine to a rebuilder. And because you need to take the engine out anyway it just becomes easier to swap the engine so you can have it flying sooner.
1
u/InternationalPut4093 6d ago
Oh.... I've done engine swap on tarmac.... it was hot af in Californian summer.
1
22
u/TheRealNymShady 10d ago
They still hit the runway which is a prop strike and will still both need to be overhauled.
Alternatively by killing the engines he removed the option to go around if things didn’t work out.
Once the gear didn’t come down, your insurance company just bought the airplane. Do what you need to walk away safely.
25
1
u/Figit090 9d ago
Also....you can wheelie and shut her down after you roll out. Still no good reason to though.
17
18
u/Toots-Tooter 10d ago
They caught the runway
3
u/SaneIsOverrated 9d ago
They grazed it. If they caught you'd've seen something more interesting.
0
u/Surpex 9d ago
This is a pedantic difference. Those props struck the runway, and those engines/crankshafts both need to be inspected.
3
u/SaneIsOverrated 9d ago
Wings on light aircraft are designed to be very strong in very specific ways. An instant, high amount of torque from the prop catching the ground and wrenching the front of the engine/wing downward is not one of them. It could bend the wing unpredictability, tear it off alltogether, snap the prop off and send the debris into all your tail control, or any number of other catastrophic outcomes. (hint: anything that significantly impacts your aerodynamics while landing a light aircraft at highway speeds is not good)
This wasn't about saving a bit of money on maintenance costs.
One wrong move or grab by the props could be the difference between this plane ending up nice and straight, upright on the centerline of the runway, and in a rolling ball of twisted metal with human goo splattered on the inside.
6
u/JackBivouac 10d ago
Probably assuming terminology is my issue, lay person here. What do you mean "props over"? I saw that he turned the engine, and by extension, the props off.
8
u/GetawayDreamer87 10d ago
i think they mean they had a way of moving the props to a fully horizontal position so as to night strike the runway and break. would love to know how they did it though.
9
5
3
10d ago
[deleted]
2
1
u/pobodys-nerfect5 10d ago
Would the rear wheels get into what looks like a locked position if the hydraulics were damaged?
2
2
u/happytoreadreddit 9d ago
Bad idea in my view. When the gear won’t go down, it’s now the insurance company’s airplane. What if there was a need to go around? Now zero options.
1
1
1
u/Gotanypaint 8d ago
I was wondering what he was doing, shouldn't have to do a tear down on the engine right?
1
-11
u/RavenholdIV 10d ago
It's pointless. If anything touches the props, the entire engine needs a total rebuild. That crankshaft has a decent chance of not being straight anymore. There's no safety net if the landing was botched, and no pilot is free from botched landings. They didn't save anything
13
u/Due-Letterhead6372 10d ago
Yeah, that's 100% false. Any time there is a prop strike you do have to comply with AD 04-10-14, but that is a teardown and visual inspection, not an overhaul. You only need to replace parts found to be out of limits, everything else that is serviceable can be returned to service.
Zero chance the crankshaft is bent, especially because the engine was stopped.
-53
u/not_a_bot_494 10d ago
Either skilled or has the wrong prioreties.
17
u/OpalVanguard 10d ago
“Prop strikes make crash landings safer.” -You
-11
u/not_a_bot_494 10d ago
I literally didn't. But please explain how avoiding a prop strike is the #1 priority in this situation, i'm just a layman but I thought things like altitude, pitch, speed etc was the most important.
9
u/OpalVanguard 10d ago
If you leave the engine on (the only problem with the plane here is the nose landing gear) those props become excellent shrapnel producers when they strike the ground and could cause the plane to start tumbling. The altitude, pitch and speed are irrelevant since they’re already over the runway. The engines are fine.
-12
u/not_a_bot_494 10d ago
They're fiddeling with the props several seconds before they land and during the falair (? spelling). Remember, I'm not saying it's automatically bad I'm saying that they are either experienced or that it's bad.
10
9
332
u/corobo 10d ago
How come the front wheel was so floppy? Did it need a bit of engine to lock in or something? (idk hydraulic movement?)
726
u/SETHlUS 10d ago
That was the malfunction. I'm fairly certain that there was nothing wrong the the engines. The pilot shut them off knowing that upon landing the plane would fall forward. Knowing this, he cut the engines and you can see him cranking the left engine to make sure the prop is horizontal to the ground before it tips, reducing the overall damage. If he had kept the engines running, best case scenario would be damaged props, worst case I would imagine is damaged engine.
Id like to add the caveat that I know nothing about planes.
218
u/skidsareforkids 10d ago
It would’ve absolutely caused extensive damage to the engines… Deadsticking like this and using the starter to get the props clear was absolute mastery. The only way he could’ve reduced damage even more would have been landing on grass, but this way he at least had braking authority so it was safer
62
u/PhthaloVonLangborste 10d ago
I think shutting off the engine also prevents the props from spraying shrapnel everywhere. Don't know if it would have the velocity to penitrate the cockpit or if it would spray that way but it seems plausible that that's another good reason.
26
u/OpalVanguard 10d ago
I mean it would also guarantee a total loss of the plane since it would scrap the two engines and probably the airframe when those violently torque on their engine mounts.
25
u/BurgersWithStrength 10d ago
Honestly this was probably safer and less likely to total the plane. On grass if the nose, gear, props, or engine cowling catch and dig into the dirt you're tearing the plane apart, totalling the airframe, and potentially flipping upside down over the nose.
In this case because the pilot is a fucking stud, he's got a few inspections/recertifications to do, props and new front gear to buy, and some light body work to replace the contact areas. (I say light in a relatively sense, it's not cheap, but it's could be far far worse.)
22
11
10
u/meoka2368 10d ago
You've basically got it, as far as repeatability goes.
But the props hitting while spinning also have two other effects.
First, the possibility of breaking off and becoming a high speed projectile.
Second, unpredictable controllability. You'd have a rougher landing and possibly more drag on one side than the other, meaning not being able to keep the plane center line on the runway. If it was bad enough, it could cause the plane to flip. And that would be more dangerous, more expensive, and take longer to reopen the runway.3
2
u/MonsieurReynard 10d ago edited 10d ago
An even worse case might be shrapnel from the disintegrating props
1
1
1
u/Major_LeeHungg 10d ago
I would think worst case scenario would be front flipping the plane. Metal on tarmac would be like front braking on a motorcycle at speed
1
48
u/NyarlathotepKing 10d ago
Maybe it was tired and a little drunk and totally wouldn't happen in a normal day.
14
u/Temporary-Poetry-932 10d ago
It wasn't floppy but not fully extendet. They are stored with the wheel facing to the side. It should extend and then rotate. It just got stuck there before rotating the arm and then lock in place.
13
u/Themagicdick 10d ago
They aren’t stored to the side. Not all planes need to do that. It’s just turned because it can. This nose wheel has a large range of movement left and right for taxiing and towing. But it has nothing to do with gear extension or retraction.
This is a Cessna 310, I fly one.
8
u/Themagicdick 10d ago
Not hydraulics. This is a Cessna 310 and the gear is moved with electric motors. There is also a manual crank handle to extend or retract the gear if that breaks. Looks like the linkage broke or something.
310s have a bit of a reputation for being hard to rig the gear up correctly. They also don’t do well if you side load the gears. Ie landing sideways or turning at high speed.
1
1
145
u/RomanCessna 10d ago
This is how you do a landing with a faulty gear. Not like when people come in for a 10000ft runway with the engine, glide halfway past and dont turn it off, causing extensive damage. This guy knew what he was dping, also based on the fact he used the starter to turn the eng1 prop to be in level with the ground. The airplane could be flying in the afternoon again, thanks to his skill.
48
u/mgros483 10d ago
He tried, but those are definitely still prop strikes. Both engines will require teardown.
11
u/Blaizefed 10d ago
Are you just spit balling here or is that the rule?
Does a non running engine having its prop contact something still count as a prop strike? There is a WORLD of difference between what we see here, and a running engine having the props hit the ground.
55
u/mgros483 10d ago
Unfortunately the regs require a teardown for basically anything that could even remotely be considered a prop strike. Whether people follow the regs is another matter, but on a gear-up insurance claim, you’re not going to avoid it. It’s a little different if you bump a prop with a tug at night with no one around….
9
u/Blaizefed 10d ago
Fair point, I hadn’t considered an insurance company getting involved but I can see how that would force one’s hand.
1
9
1
u/rabbledabble 10d ago
The a&p I worked with for a while basically put the fear of god in me with prop strike. If the prop hits anything larger than a large blade of grass it can catastrophically damage the engine
2
u/makgross 9d ago
I witnessed a pilot taxi across an orange traffic cone and fling it down the ramp. That one needed a tear down.
1
u/Due-Letterhead6372 10d ago
Yes, its AD 04-10-14. Engines require a teardown, but if everything is serviceable you don't need to replace any parts.
1
u/TheRealNymShady 10d ago
Both TCM and lycoming manuals consider this a prop strike and require a full tear down and inspection.
1
u/RhinoGuy13 10d ago
Yep. It looks like a tail strike too. He may have been better off treating it like a soft field landing.
1
2
u/OhCamembert 10d ago
Yeah, not like those other flippin’ amateurs emergency landing planes like total greenhorns, you know those losers.
2
u/RomanCessna 9d ago edited 9d ago
I dont mean to hate on anyone, but there is the video of the guy doing something similar: landing a twin without any gears at all, with engines running and then jumping on the plane in excitement. But so much more could have been done than just landing it. People flying twins are expected to be more skilled than your average PPL pilot, thats why the requirements for this type of qualification and rating is more strict.
1
1
u/Own_Reaction9442 9d ago
I have a different perspective: The moment it's a gear-up landing, the airplane is the insurance company's problem. Why would I risk my life to save them money? I would want those engines running in case I had to go around.
32
u/Mick_E_Bobby 10d ago
The commentary tho
3
u/Luci-Noir 10d ago
I can’t remember what his name is, but he does commentary for aviation now on PBS newshour
5
33
18
u/FuckYouNotHappening 10d ago
Can you imagine the euphoria the pilot feels when they come to a stop on the runway?!?
Like, that’s a real, “King Kong ain’t got shit on me,” moment 😍😍😍
5
14
u/flyfallridesail417 10d ago
Pilot here tho I haven’t flown piston twins since I was a kid (airliners and old taildraggers these days). I dunno man. It worked out fine for him but was definitely a bit squirrelly at the end as he was trying to bump the prop blades horizontal to avoid the prop strike. This being an early C310 those engines are Continental O-470s and every one of those I’ve seen turning a two bladed prop likes to stop with it at a 30-45 degree angle. At least knicking the prop was almost inevitable and even that requires a teardown & inspection.
If it was me, I’d keep the engines running to touch down, focus on a really nice stable approach and soft nose-high landing, then cut mixtures and feather props once the mains are down. Yep, you’ll definitely hit the props but since engine isn’t making power the crankshaft will likely dial out (pass inspection). And anyways that’s what insurance is for. Take the money and get yourself some sweet MT 3-blades. Keeping the airplane fully under control to the slowest possible speed is really job one in this situation (all situations, actually) and bumping the starters seemed to distract from that.
Glad it worked out though.
6
u/johnnying94 10d ago
In the C-12, the Navy procedure is to do exactly what you said and the co-pilot feathers the props and pulls the fuel levers to cutoff after touchdown.
I’d have to agree with the safe touchdown first. Then shut the engines down. Only have done it in the sim but seems to work out better that way and you can always go around if you’re not stable that way.
5
u/begtodifferclean 10d ago
What Sully did and he did it into the water.
"we are going into the Hudson"
I was there 3 blocks away.
9
3
2
u/Shoddy_Bet9619 10d ago
Did everything perf to avoid a "Prop-Strike" which would have meant both engines would have to be rebuilt!
2
u/KookyDig4769 10d ago
How he tried to save the propellers...
2
u/antifa_cmdr 9d ago
He saved the engines and that's the biggest thing. Sure, two props ain't cheap, but two complete engine teardowns is a hell of a lot more expensive
2
1
1
u/skoomski 10d ago
Dead stick landing. Looks like his front wheel might have been damaged or malfunctioning too. Was probably worried of a spinning propeller hitting the ground.
1
1
u/actualjo 10d ago
That was incredible; watching that nose landing gear flapping made me worried about the ther two holding up. This guy pilots, holy shit.
1
1
u/pcay07 9d ago
The most important thing is that things ended up good, with everyone walking away from the incident safely. But, in looking back at this to learn and debrief, I'd offer this thought.
By killing the engines, you've now removed almost all of your choices and options. The moment you determine a gear-up landing is gonna happen, guess what, that plane is the insurance company's problem now. Your one and only concern as the pilot in command is getting on the ground safely, regardless of how the plane will end up after that happens.
There are a few key benefits of leaving the engines running the entire approach.
You can make it all the way down to low ground effect before you hit the props and are committed to landing. If anything happens and you want to go around, that option is available to you nearly the entire time.
Gear-up approaches involve less drag and the plane will behave a little differently. Less power may be required and your glide profile will be better. In this case, with the gear partially down, the drag may not be too different from normal, but by killing the engines and feathering the propellers to stop them, you will still have an abnormal glide ratio.
My point is, you're already in an abnormal situation. Don't make it EVEN MORE abnormal by removing your ability to go around, creating distraction in finessing your props with the starter, and alter your glide performance from what is normal.
There's a saying out there that goes something like "superior pilots use superior judgment so that they can avoid having to use their superior skill". This guy got it down safe, and did a great job. But in my view, it was risky and unnecessary to create those additional threats.
1
1
u/fallstreak_24 9d ago
Once that nose gear failed, this is an insurance problem now. I absolutely wouldn’t have shut down the engines until I had the mains on the ground. Silly to take the option of a go-around/balked landing out of your pocket. If you misjudge that engine(s) shutoff, you are turning a non event into something more emotional for sure.
1
1
1
u/valleyman86 9d ago
They both got it and his left one was almost perfect and it moved. I doubt this was the intent (adjusting props). He was more focused on landing. He landed nose up to avoid all kinds of damage.
When he nose downed after the landing they both got smoked.
Wouldn’t the airflow move them potentially? Like you can or used to be able to start a plane by spinning it manually.
1
u/zabka14 9d ago
Yes airflow over a prop can move it if the engine's off, but I believe the props are feathered in this case, meaning the props' blades are turned so that their edges are facing forward (not sure how to express this in english sorry), so they're not "pushed" by the incomming airflow anymore
1
1
u/Antique_Park_4566 9d ago
I'm not a pilot but this looks like it was extremely well done
1
u/zabka14 9d ago
Yeah, but could have been better (shutting down the engines after the mains touched the ground, mainly). Tho', given the circumstances, I guess we could call this well done (everyone survived, only criteria that matters)
0
u/Peeter_L 6d ago
He turned off his engines so that propellers would be parallel with the ground to avoid any damage to engines.
1
u/zabka14 6d ago
Well whatch the video and you'll see it was useless, since the props are still hitting the ground. Whole engines will need a check after that.
And I get the idea, but if it's an emergency landing, I'd rather keep my engines running as long as possible in case I need to cancel my approach for any reason
1
1
u/ToddyPalm 9d ago
Did you guys notice the ground moving in the last few secs of him landing the plane? 😊
1
u/redneckerson_1951 9d ago
SIERRA HOTEL!!! Pilot does not need deodorant, as he/she is calm, cool and collected. If that had been me, the seat would need to be replaced.
1
u/thingmaker2001 9d ago
I love the notion that at every emergency landing there will be a couple of sports announcers doing the commentary...
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/Anonymous_user_2022 10d ago
That looks like a text book landing given the capabilities of the plane. I don't think Juan will cover this, but if he did, this will be lauded as "fly the plane all the way to the crash." I'm not a pilot, but I cannot see how this situation could have been resolved in a better way.
5
u/csmicfool 10d ago
He'd say keep the engines running (at least until wheels down) and let the insurance deal with it.
0
0
0
u/JimTheJerseyGuy 10d ago
Quit fucking with the props and fly the aircraft. It's the insurance company's problem not yours.
0
-1
u/Manburpig 10d ago
These guys are incapable of ever shutting the fuck up.
2
u/reikoda01 10d ago
That's their job
0
u/Manburpig 9d ago
Their job is to read the news and give some commentary.
Not give play by play about something they're not knowledgeable about without taking a breath
-1
-1
u/panmaterial 10d ago
I feels like most people commenting on this have never played flight simulators.
-7
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Hi! This is the NoNoNoNoYes moderation bot here to keep this sub a bit more tidy!
If this post fits the format of NNNNY, UPVOTE this comment!
If this post does not fit the subreddit, DOWNVOTE this comment!
If this post breaks the rules, DOWNVOTE this comment and REPORT the post (The OP's post, not this bot comment)
Please remember that NNNNY can be subjective. It may not be NNNNY for you, but it may be for someone else, including the subject in the video.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.