Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Daily Dose Of Internet"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WhatsY0UTUB3 that one appears to be less that they lost thrust and more that they lost use of some control surfaces and breaks. Still, no fatalities, few injuries, only a couple serious injuries, and the plane was able to be reused.
"Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. Any landing where you can also reuse the plane is a great landing."
Compare also Ural Flight 178, another airbus. Didn't loose power (just birdstikes to both engines): landed in a cornfield (rather than runway like 236) with zero serious injuries.
If it's just thrust gone, you're fine (especially if you still have one working engine). It's if the power goes out that you should start to worry. Commercial airliners have pretty low stall speeds, for fuel economy, to make landings softer, and to be able to land on less runway without the need for arrester cables or lots of heavy landing gear to apply more breaking force.
As long as there's hydrolics to the control surfaces and flat ground to land on within gliding distance, you're mostly just looking at possible scrapes and broken bones, but unless something else goes wrong, 0% fatalities is still by far the most likely outcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1