17 ms·
Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear
- devoutsalsa 3y agoThis isn't common, but it's pretty routine. Pilots are trained for this, and the aircraft are designed to handle the stress.
- InCityDreams 3y ago>the aircraft are designed to handle the stress. I was somewhat thinking of the passengers.
- sam_lowry_ 3y agoMechanical stress, they mean.
- Kye 3y agoPlanes have to be sturdy and flexible to handle the environment they spend most of their time cruising in. This is probably nothing next to the turbulence planes are expected to shrug off while maintaining a ground level environment eight miles up for decades of service life.
- madeofpalk 3y agoI was somewhat thinking of the mechanical stress of the passengers.
- cto_of_antifa 3y ago[dead]
- Kye 3y agoSeems like not much: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyYxWFFTpI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyYxWFFTpI I wonder if the passengers would even notice if they weren't warned to expect it. From what I understand, they don't let the front down until they're nearly stopped in these situations. You can tell when the nose drops, and it barely seems to register aside from the scraping noise and a little shaking.
- marcosdumay 3y agoPassengers happen to be surprisingly fragile.
- colejohnson66 3y agoWell, if the pilots are indeed trained on how to handle these situations, the passengers will be fine. Maybe a bit shaken up from having to evacuate on the tarmac (especially if they have a fear of flying), but they'll be fine.
- stef25 3y agoFlying for me ain't fun but as soon the bird is on the ground I'm all good!
- slumberlust 3y agoAye, but cross runway collisions are still a thing. I rest at the gate :D
- throwway120385 3y agoAny landing that you can walk away from is a good landing.
- throwawaymobule 3y agobased on the photos, they did pop the slides on this incident. but evacuations are often not called in these situations if there isn't a fire or something. there's a real risk of injury from evacuating, so it needs consideration by the pilot.
- Traubenfuchs 3y ago> I was somewhat thinking of the passengers. Everything that happened was well within the stress tolerance parameters of the majority of involved humans as well.
- jwestbury 3y agoThe prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder would disagree.
- tekla 3y agoPeople are free to not use airplanes if a designed for maneuver gives them PTSD.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago> People are free to not use airplanes if a designed for maneuver gives them PTSD. You know, that's insensitive in terms of minimizing the suffering endured by people with bona fide PTSD, as well as dismissive. Because what do you suggest as an alternative? Drive an automobile, with higher accident rates than air travel? Walk across the street in traffic? Life is dangerous, choose your poison. I personally appreciate aviators and all air crews for really going all-in to make flying safe and tolerable, if not enjoyable. When I think of some of the crazy train or bus rides I've had, air travel is pretty amazing in comparison, especially at a bargain price. And I do suffer from (complex) PTSD, but thankfully such an incident as in TFA would not particularly trigger an episode. Thanks for caring.
- piva00 3y agoHere you can see a YT Shorts that a passenger inside the flight shot, it's actually much less stressful than I imagined: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W12w7NkqGCM https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W12w7NkqGCM
- mindslight 3y agoWhat's the actual point of Youtube Sharts? It just seems like encouragement for people to film vertically and not frame the shot well. And on the watching side you're pushed into a needlessly unfriendly UI. Like I generally just use the YT web interface and don't go out of my way to routinely yt-dlp or Newpipe, but now I might have to change that.
- devoutsalsa 3y ago[flagged]
- 4ggr0 3y ago> What's the actual point of Youtube Shorts? To be an alternative to TikTok, or Instagram Reels, or other short-form video platforms.
- mindslight 3y agoSure, I meant for the people actually using it. Like if you want TikTok just continuing using TikTok, which you know is "mobile-first" and thus craptastic in a regular browser but presumably you don't care. But Google seems to have just blindly copied TikTok and enshittified their existing product to push it, when they could have integrated it into normal Youtube and made something better than both.
- 4ggr0 3y agoWell I can talk about myself :) I don't want TikTok. Mostly because I don't want to use yet another app or account. Then there's the thing about it being from China, but to be honest, as a European it doesn't reeeally matter to me if an app is from the US or China. I did actually try TikTok during the pandemic but became too addicted due to constant WFH and boredom. I have Instagram because I like to upload my favorite pictures. Then they started with Reels, I checked it out, liked it, so I now use it. When I feel like Reels bore me, or that the algo seems to currently push things I don't care about[0], I switch over to YT Shorts. There, the youtubers I'm already subscribed to upload shorter videos and I generally see different kinds of videos. Instagram mostly shows me memes and cat videos. YT shorts is more about stand-up comedy bits, science stuff etc. So my usage of these apps depends on how I currently feel like. [0] Both Insta and YT sometimes start to flood me with content about annoying Entrepreneur/Online Marketing bs, Andrew Tate or far(ish)-right-wing trash or half-naked women. No amount of "not interested" seems to help, so I either switch app or do something else.
- WJW 3y agoInteresting! Do you know if it can just survive it and then needs to be scrapped or is it possible to replace the damaged hull plate(s) and (after thorough inspection) put the plane back into service?
- bombcar 3y agoThey can fix and fly this almost certainly.
- devoutsalsa 3y agoThey can most certainly repair the plane. If you've never heard of the "Gimli Glider", check this out... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
- glomgril 3y agoThat's an insane story. As much as I hate flying, modern aviation infrastructure is one of mankind's most impressive feats.
- chrisldgk 3y agoAirplanes rarely get scrapped for parts because of incidents like this. They have pretty extensive maintenance and repair checklists, but afaik the rate of making vessels like this airworthy is pretty high.
- lr1970 3y ago> Airplanes rarely get scrapped for parts because of incidents like this. They have pretty extensive maintenance and repair checklists, ... And yet these "extensive maintenance checklists" did not prevent such a serious malfunction. They were lucky that the weather was cooperating. In bad weather and strong winds who knows what would have happened.
- mrmlz 3y agoNobody is assuming "extensive maintenance checklists" are _preventing_ serious malfunction. They do however reduce the risk for such events to occur to an acceptable level. The likelihood for a malfunction is never zero.
- bombcar 3y agohttps://www.youtube.com/@REALATCchannel/videos https://www.youtube.com/@REALATCchannel/videos made me realize just how many incidents happen and are resolved without issue.
- kube-system 3y agoAviation is not safe because of luck or because aerospace engineers build infallible machines. Aviation is safe because of a culture of safety that puts the right procedures in place to mitigate problems that will eventually happen.
- tialaramex 3y agoAnd when you say "Aviation is safe" you mean specifically Scheduled Aviation ie people buy tickets and go on a plane with some guys they've never met flying it. Scheduled Aviation is remarkably safe. GA (General aviation, people who own a little plane and maybe just fly it for fun, or it's a professional expense for say a plastic surgeon and allows them to fly 300 miles home on Thursday evening after working four days in the big city) is not safe. A few hundred of these people die, not just smash up their planes or get hurt, but die, sometimes with family or friends aboard, every year. It might make the local TV news, at most. Unless they were a celebrity it won't make national news. Commercial is more complicated because there are so many possibilities. Cargo is pretty safe, if your job is to move boxes of stuff from one big jet airport to another in a civilized country you'll likely die in bed of old age. But if you fly a police helicopter, or medevac, or you're a crop duster, or you fly custom pick up jobs, when the client wants and where they want - those jobs can go badly wrong much too easily, without you really understanding what you've got yourself into until it's too late. These people are (or at least should be) better trained than in GA, but they're also often flying more demanding missions. You may operate out of somewhere with not-so-great capabilities, on short notice, in poor weather and/or at night, and you may be expected to go places that you ordinarily wouldn't, close to buildings, close to other aircraft, even close to the ground - all of which narrows your options if things go wrong. Military is also pretty bad as I understand it. It needn't be, but there's some sense that the job is "supposed" to be dangerous, which maybe makes sense for front line infantry, but really not for the vast majority of military pilots - way too many of them die far from any enemy, as a result of somebody screwing up, just like in GA or commercial.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago> the aircraft are designed to handle the stress. I wonder how the runway fares after this.
- sowbug 3y agoNot answering your question, but a bit of interesting trivia for you. Large passenger airplanes routinely take off with too much fuel to land safely. If one took off, circled the airport once, and landed, then it might actually break apart on landing because of the mass of the fuel being sloshed around as the airplane touches down. That's why planes preferably dump or burn off excess fuel before an unscheduled early landing. There are also rules about exactly where a plane can touch down on the runway. Only some of a runway is engineered to be strong enough to bear the weight of a massive plane dropping onto the pavement. The rest is called a "displaced threshold" and is OK for parking, taxiing, and taking off.
- danpalmer 3y agoOooh, this is something I know a little about. At university we were tasked with building software for estimating the usable area of a runway given its configuration and obstacles. Runways have 3-4 different defined areas, each with different properties and usable in different ways. For example, the grass at the sides is important for safety, must be cleared a certain distance back, must not rise above a certain level above the tarmac, etc, and all those rules are distinct from the rules that apply to the concrete at the ends of the runway, distinct from the rules regarding surrounding buildings and trees, and so on. The area managed as a runway can extend kilometers out on every side. Now, if you have a plane break down at one end, or a support vehicle crash on the grass or something, you don't actually have to put the runway out of action, but you do have to re-declare the usable distance, and that's based on the location, size, and importantly height of the obstacle. You then need to plot the angle of landing/takeoff based on that height, accounting for the segment of the runway it's in, and the given runway's pre-approved angle (varies by city/terrain). It was a fascinating project and a good example of how problems are often so much more complex and nuanced than they initially appear.
- plegresl 3y ago
- interestica 3y agoIf you have the Flightradar24 app, you can get an alert any time an aircraft transponder squawks 7700 - Emergency. (While writing, a cesna over Oklahoma City just did)
- skykooler 3y ago@aircraft_alert@airwaves.social also posts on mastodon whenever an aircraft squawks 7700.
- walski 3y agoAviation Herald always has great coverage on incidents like these https://avherald.com/h?article=50b0742c&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=50b0742c&opt=0 . Glad nobody got hurt!
- Reason077 3y agoThat landing was so smooth it makes you wonder if front landing gear is even necessary at all!
- paulcole 3y ago[flagged]
- slumberlust 3y agoDaaaaadddd
- db48x 3y agoRepainting them between flights is a real pain.
- kylehotchkiss 3y agoThis wouldn't be a hull-loss or a major rebuild? I'd think the runway is keeping some of the aluminum from the nose for itself. Plus that's a lot of vibration near sensitive radome.
- jaywalk 3y agoNot even close to a hull loss. Delta's Tech Ops will have this plane back in service very quickly.
- neolefty 3y agoSo is this plane totalled? Or can it be repaired and returned to service?
- qingcharles 3y agoIt was already due for the knacker's yard as it is so old, so it definitely a write-off now.
- Tepix 3y agoDid they know in advance that they were having problems? Edit: Answer: Yes ... the crew initiated a go around due to a unsafe nose gear indication, climbed to 4000 feet and entered a hold to work the checklists. After working the checklists the crew declared emergency and requested emergency services on stand by. The aircraft performed a low approach to runway 36L, positioned for another approach to runway 36L and landed without nose gear extended at 08:54L (12:54Z) about 12 minutes after the second go around and about 30 minutes after the first go around.
- ipnon 3y agoThere is an algorithm for everything in aviation. If you suspect your landing gear is not functional, you typically fly by a tower and have them make visual confirmation. Then you have another algorithm (they call them procedures) for how to land without gear. The airport likewise has a checklist of everything to do in this case. All of these procedures are hard won, the NTSB uses every hull failure and fatal accident to analyze what went wrong and how to create a better procedure.
- lhamil64 3y ago> you typically fly by a tower and have them make visual confirmation I've been wondering for a while when I read stuff like this, why don't modern airplanes have exterior cameras that cover every surface? I watched a video recently about a flight where one of the engines literally detached and the pilots didn't know the extent of the damage until after. Why not just have cameras they can quickly pull up to check stuff like this?
- nkozyra 3y agoNot saying this should be an alternative, but having read a lot of transcripts and video of things like this, I wonder why there aren't outside cameras that would potentially give pilots a visual indication of plane conditions outside? Is it just the cost of supporting resilient cameras? A lot of incident reports have flight attendants or copilots leaving to try to make visual confirmation of things that it seems would be better suited if there were some actual visual feedback.
- contrarian1234 3y agowhy don't they land on the tail instead of the nose? Seems a lot less risky to drag the back than scrape the front - which can flip the plane Is it simply the center of gravity? (engines look like they're behind)
- bombcar 3y agoImagine how tipped the plane would be to land on the tail. They do align the plane as much as they can to keep the nose off the ground for as long as they can. But yes, it's the total center of gravity, it can't land on the tail. You could bring up ALL the gear but then you have no control and it will almost certainly veer off the runway and then it may break apart.
- FeepingCreature 3y agoSpeculating: the nose is gonna come down anyway (as sokoloff said, CoG is ahead of the main landing gear), so it's safer for the front to impact from as little height as possible. If you hit tail-first and keep the nose up you're setting yourself up for a hefty impact when the front crashes down. Better to scrape from the start.
- pc86 3y agoOnce the mains touch down you keep the nose off as long as possible for minimal energy at impact. It will float down naturally and you don't really have any control over the manner in which it makes contact as long as you have full back pressure on the yoke. There's not really any way to affecting the height at which it starts coming down.
- sokoloff 3y agoIf the center of gravity wasn’t between the front and rear gear, the planes would tip on the ground normally. In a gear abnormal, land on what you have and the outcome is almost always great for the occupants. Any injuries are likely to be from the evacuation after everything is stopped.
- californical 3y ago
- gmtplus8 3y agoNon-USA resident here. Can someone explain all the four-letter news station names to me? Why not brand them with something more memorable / locally nuanced?
- airza 3y agothey are using their radio call sign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_signs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_signs_in_the_United_State...
- bombcar 3y agoThey are from the radio call signs - K or W is the first for almost all of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_call_signs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_call_signs
- DonHopkins 3y agoThe other thing that might not be obvious to non-residents is that K is for West of the Mississippi, and W is for East. It must be weird to live near the Mississippi and get a mix of K and W station call signs!
- bombcar 3y agoW is for East. What a country!
- irrational 3y agoOriginally W was supposed to be for the West side, but there was a bureaucratic screw up and they were switched. As for why K and W, nobody is sure why those two letters, but it might be related to Morse code.
- polpo 3y agoIn St. Louis most stations are K but there are a few Ws.
- 3y ago
- h0nd 3y agoIs the video available without IP-restrictions?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jbverschoor 3y agoThey only circled around for a few minutes?
- pc86 3y agoAs opposed to?
- mannykannot 3y agoThere's no point in waiting once you have run through the checklist and put the crash trucks in position.
- tallanvor 3y agoUnless you want to burn fuel, but it sounds like that wasn't needed here.
- londons_explore 3y agoIf you suspect you're gonna turn into a hunk of bent metal sliding down the runway, I'd rather there only be a couple of gallons of fuel left, rather than a couple of hundred gallons.
- throwanem 3y agoIn the scale of amounts of fuel aircraft carry, 30 minutes of fuel is "a couple of gallons". You don't want enough to overstress the airframe or fuel a massive conflagration if the tanks are compromised, but you also don't want so little that you've got no buffer in case something else goes wrong, and 30 minutes at cruise (or at the near-idle power settings used on approach, it isn't clear here) is a lot less at takeoff/go-around power.
- jbverschoor 3y agoMaybe.. I’d wanna try a few more times
- noahmbarr 3y agoFirst, pilots should be commended. 101 (or 104) souls were saved. This is an almost 23 year old plane. Even with checks and maintenance, was age a factor?
- ominous_prime 3y agoThis is kind of patronizing to the pilots. There’s nothing particularly difficult about what they did, which has been practiced many times. They ran their checklists, and then landed the plane, and they did it well, just like any other qualified pilot should have. People need to stop conflating basic competence with heroics. Age is always a factor in mechanical failure, but I’m sure this failure will be inspected in detail to try and avoid it again in the future
- bostonsre 3y agoI would imagine simulator practice is a good amount different from executing the real thing when your adrenaline is kicking in and they have a full plane. They are professionals that executed a complex task gracefully to minimize the terror that their passengers experienced (they balanced on the back wheels for a long time to bleed off speed and the landing seemed more graceful than many with all landing gear that I've had). Why not give them some props instead of taking them for granted? Maybe the pilots weren't too worried, but I'm sure the passengers must have been pretty terrified.
- quest88 3y agoJust to nitpick, this landing technique is something every pilot has to demonstrate to an FAA designated examiner to get their first pilot certificate (or, the private pilot license). So it's kind of like saying "Wow, you did the thing every pilot has to do!". I get what you're saying though - there's an emotional difference between doing this when everything is fine and when you have a real emergency.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
- voxadam 3y ago> NTSB investigating the runway landing of a Boeing 712 without the nose gear extended at Charlotte/Douglas International airport in Charlotte, North Carolina. It's difficult to trust a news source that can't properly identify an airframe model in an article about an airplane crash. As far as I can as a tell, Boeing has never produced a model 712, it appears what the plane in question is some variant of the 717[1] but that's only a guess as I'm not an expert in the field. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717
- aoetalks 3y ago712 is another way to refer to a 717-200. Though it’s a bit odd they just didn’t say “717-200” in the article to reduce confusion. https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B712 https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B712
- voxadam 3y agoThank you for the clarification. I should have searched around a bit more for an explanation before complaining about it here. As soon as I have a little free time I'll do my best to update the relevant Wikipedia pages in hopes fewer people are confused by the nomenclature in the future.
- trillic 3y agoNice work by the pilots.
- justinclift 3y agoWhat's with them putting "a hold" on all of the passengers possessions? Like, that's leaving people without their wallets (aka id, money) and so on. Sounds like they may not get it back for an unknown period of time (weeks, months?) either.
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoI understand "don't take any bags as we deplane down the emergency slide", but the hold is weird. I'd probably get arrested in the process of being like "No the bag with my important possessions I keep next to me on purpose is coming with me" They were probably rushed off due to being unsure about fire hazards, and people digging through carryons for wallets and stuff would probably slow that down a lot, considering how long a normal deplaning takes.
- kylehotchkiss 3y agoThe right time to grab wallet was after the pilot explained the issue and next steps.
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoProbably didn't want everyone standing up in the aisle messing with the overheads all at once.
- chasd00 3y agoAs soon as they said something was wrong I’d be working to get any important work off my laptop and onto my phone or any other alternative storage I could think of. Also, wallet/passport/keys etc come out of my backpack and into my pockets.
- Symbiote 3y agoYou should do this before you leave for the airport. It's much more likely that your laptop is stolen or accidentally taken by another passenger.
- runeks 3y agoHow does a plane lose its front landing gear?
- stefncb 3y agoIt didn't literally lose the gear, there was a mechanical issue that prevented it from engaging.
- alistairSH 3y agoIt was there, it just wouldn't drop into place. I have seen (on one of the YouTube ATC channels) a comercial jet (747, IIRC) that DID lose one of its main landing gear on take-off. Another pilot (in another jet) saw the wheel bounce across the runway. That plane continued on its way and landed normally. It was just one wheel of a four-wheel truck/assembly (of which a 747 has 4 sets).
- kylehotchkiss 3y agoIt's cool how they wait as long as they can before gently placing the nose on the runway. So much smoother and quieter than I anticipated. Delta owes these pilots an off-duty drink!
- koolba 3y ago> Delta owes these pilots an off-duty drink! Fun fact: Pilots can have a non-zero BAC (I think .04). So they could have it while on duty too if it’s not a double!
- andrewmunsell 3y agoYou are technically correct about the BAC, but they definitely cannot have one while "on duty", there's an 8 hour limit between your last drink and flying and some airlines have longer time windows by policy https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.17 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.17
- eastbound 3y ago8 hour limit + 0.04 = They can drink a lot the day before, but they have to aim pretty well…
- intune 3y agoNot quite, there's also a rule that you can't operate an aircraft within 8 hours of consuming alcohol, aka. "8 hours bottle to throttle".
- poorman 3y agoCan you imagine how much better these videos would have looked on TV if all these people took recordings in portrait mode on their phones?
- kwhitefoot 3y agoDon't you mean landscape?
- simple10 3y agoWow! Phenomenal piloting skills. In the 2nd video on the page taken by a passenger during landing, you can hear the plane balanced on the rear wheels for 12 seconds before touching down the nose. Impressive!
- nilsbunger 3y agoThis is a pretty standard maneuver - it's similar to a "soft field landing" (eg grass runway). Assuming you have a long runway, you avoid braking since that would slam the nose down, and use more and more elevator to keep the nose up to as slow a speed as possible.
- zh3 3y agoHere's a Vulcan landing with unsafe nose gear; hold back on the stick to keep the nose up (but not so long it comes down with a bump). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxshOMFTZdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxshOMFTZdM
- gyani 3y agoIn 15-20 years we will have helper drone(s) incorporated in each aircraft that can fly off and provide an outside scan of the craft, perhaps even perform minor repairs.
- bronco21016 3y agoHave you dealt with the FAA before? It’s been a decade long battle to change certification standards for GA aircraft that contain multiple redundant solid state instruments over mechanically driven gyros. Maybe in 100 years.
- phpisthebest 3y ago>>He said they were told the Federal Aviation Administration has a hold on the plane so nothing can move on it or from it. And then they wonder why people try to take their bags during an emergency off boarding.... Because they know they will not see it for a long time if ever again. Stupid policy
- ethanbond 3y agoDefinitely an unfortunate policy but isn’t it possible (at least in some cases) that doing so would taint the evidence of a problem that put hundreds of people at risk?
- wkat4242 3y agoBut it doesn't really. The bags are nowhere near the gear
- ethanbond 3y agoIn this instance yes, but presumably the policy is a general one for all sorts of aviation incidents. You could argue “well they should rapidly diagnose and make a decision” and, sure, but that diagnosis is exactly the question isn’t it?
- systemvoltage 3y agoThan should be at the discretion of the investigators. Why have a blanket policy?
- tjohns 3y agoIt literally is at the discretion of the investigators. See 49 CFR 831.12(b): "§ 831.12 Access to and release of wreckage, records, mail, and cargo (a) Only persons authorized by the NTSB IIC may be permitted access to wreckage, records, mail, or cargo. (b) Wreckage, records, mail, and cargo in the NTSB's custody will be released when the NTSB determines it has no further need for such items. Recipients of released wreckage must sign an acknowledgement of release provided by the NTSB." So if the NTSB decides they don't need a piece of cargo, they have the option to release it from custody.
- ramesh31 3y agoThose Delta 717s (which are actually just rebadged MD-95s) are the oldest fleet of airframes in use today on US domestic routes, having been acquired from the AirTran bankruptcy nearly 20 years ago. I suspect this will be the beginning of the end for them, as they are out of production for years now. Edit: that is indeed the case https://simpleflying.com/delta-retirements-aircraft/ https://simpleflying.com/delta-retirements-aircraft/
- Jeff_Brown 3y agoDid the passengers know about the problem?
- jen729w 3y agoOne of the linked videos above shows them landing in the brace position so yes. All very calm to everyone’s credit.
- sacnoradhq 3y agoI wonder if it recently ran over a wheel chock, deforming the NLG spray deflector causing the nose wheel to refuse to deploy. A similar incident happened in 2001. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010809-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010809-... NTSB report (pdf): https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2001/20010809-0_B712_N2417F.pdf https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2001/20010809-0_B712_N24... Current incident: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/316147 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/316147 This plane's deets: Boeing 717-2BD (derived from MD-80) model year 2000 ser 55017 reg N955AT leaser Wells Fargo As an immediate stop gap, I think the FAA should issue an AD for the 717/MD-80 family that should rough front gear noises, underpowered response, or rolling sluggishness occur, ground crews should inspect the nose gear's NLG spray deflector for damage prior to any takeoff. For anyone unfamiliar, the deflector is thing that trails behind the nose wheel that limits FOD and water ingestion into MD-80's tail-mounted engines. Wing-mounted engines generally don't have this problem unless they're located near wing roots.
- diebeforei485 3y agoPlease give people their luggage back ASAP. Put it all through the scanner if you need to.