Talk:United Airlines flight makes emergency landing at Newark Airport

Review of revision 935302 [Passed]

Revision 935302 of this article has been reviewed by Cartman02au (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 935302 of this article has been reviewed by Cartman02au (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

"very rough"?

I have to question the notion that this was very rough, or vene rough at all, compared to a lot of similar incidents. (It is, in fact, possible to do a 'hard' landing - one that has the potential to damage the landing gear - without even noticing.) I wouldn't be surprised if indeed "It was unbelievably smooth." Incredible as it may seem, airliners are actually designed to do this and pilots trained likewise. The air industry is incredibly cautious about landing gear, and for good reason. It's always been well known that they can be (and are) a high-risk area taking large stresses, so B-plans are in place for landing with one, two or all the gear stuck up in the bay. It's a rarity and a newsworthy one, but this looks like a textbook example of a properly executed response. That is why the plane went along on the engine; it's been planned for on all jets with underslung powerplants that the weight will wind up on the nacelle and the pylon it attaches to, so they need to take the weight and skid controllably. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I second BRS' thoughts. I'm currently training for my PPL here in the UK and I can tell you that among pilots the media is renowned for grossly exaggerating almost all incidents to do with aviation. The ongoing joke is that it always is something like "the plane plummeted directly above a primary school" etc. etc. when in fact it should be "the plane went through some turbulence whilst overflying a city" which definitely wouldn't meet our newsworthiness criteria! This is an example of somewhere we can differentite ourselves from mainstream, crappy media and thinking about it, I might direct some to here, even if it is just to check from instances like this!    Tris   20:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Landing with the gear completely or partially up, although it isn't good for the aeroplane, isn't inherently fatal or even all that dangerous, and the media seem to always blow such things out of proportion. Maybe we should just drop "rough" from the title? Tempodivalse [talk] 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We appear to have pretty strong consensus. I'll go ahead. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was beaten to it :p Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He he, too slow BRS!! Also fixed a few spelling errors that should have been picked up in the review.    Tris   20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)