Back to Squawk list
  • 15

Plane Lands Hard in Colorado Carrying 12 No One Hurt

נשלח לפני
A 10-passenger flight from Denver International Airport to Telluride lost use of its landing gear, tilted to the left and damaged a wing and propeller at Telluride Regional Airport on Sunday afternoon. Great Lakes Aviation spokeswoman Monica Taylor-Lee said none of the passengers or crew members aboard Flight 7150 was injured. She said the crew was able to deploy the gear manually in flight, but it did not hold as the plane was decelerating on the landing. ( עוד...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

billybob79424 3
Great job by the crew. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with on this one.
SootBox 4
Telluride... Colorado's version of Lukla...
productionsklr 2
The pilot pulled off a remarkably good landing in very rough conditions. It was surprising that nobody was hurt.
Bryan Eckstrom 0
i posted this story 5 hours before you did
Bryan Eckstrom 3
mfbutzin 2
"Great Lakes Airlines Landing Gear Fails". I guess your headline and info was weak or everybody was out having a good time. I later saw that but sometimes if your headline does not spark interest people will not respond. I didn't mean to steal your thunder but a lot of people know the Telluride airport and if you ever seen it you would know why that is the lead in and not "Great Lakes"
mfbutzin 1
Good Catch.....

[This poster has been suspended.]

billybob79424 2
Probably wasn't an operational option.

[This poster has been suspended.]

billybob79424 2
Unless I missed that part in the story, you are most likely wrong. Alternate would have been somewhere like Cortez. Plus alternate fuel burn plans go out the window when you have to fly a plane with the gear down.
COS, GJT would have been better if they couldn't make it back to DEN.

[This poster has been suspended.]

billybob79424 5
I can promise you from personal experience at Lakes that is not the case. The filed alternate (if there was one) would have been Cortez or Alamosa. Most likely there would not have been enough fuel to make the normally 1hr 15min flight back to Denver with the gear down. I get that it would have been the preferred option. But I believe that option would likely have put the crew way too close to fuel exhaustion to be comfortable. Also, this is not a short flight for lakes. I'm not sure what a short flight is for your airline, but anything over an hour is actually pretty long in the 1900. Unless you have the flight plan or can prove my Telluride flying experience is invalid, or my flying experience in the 1900 is invalid I say again, respectfully, you are wrong in this situation.
Internet SMACK DOWN....well done my friend, well done.
spatr 4
I better tell the dispatch department at my airline that they're doing it wrong.
mfbutzin 2
Is this the "Obvious Zone" or is this "Room for Improvement Zone"? LOL, I know it usually depends on who your speaking to. Usually the take it under advisement guy is waaay different from the blank stare guy..........
pfp217 2
I can promise you , you are wrong! Where did you come up with that?
Christoff du plessis 2
Why alternate? There's nothing wrong with the airport, it's the plane..
preacher1 1
In spite of all of these other comments, right or wrong, this one hits the bottom line; An alternate airport generally applies for a diversion when you can't land at the destination airport, for whatever reason
spatr 0
Diverts are different from alternates. "Diverts" can be anywhere any time and are not filed nor is fuel added to get to them. An "alternate" is only required to be filed if the wx at destination precludes it (remember the 1/2/3 rule). If the wx is above needing an alternate, the fuel required is destination +45 mins on an IFR flight plan and no alternate needs to be filed. The alternate is generally for legality sake and fuel planning. You also don't have to land at your alternate if you can't get to the destination. You can land anywhere you want if its above mins and, in the case of an airline, your dispatch concurs.
Steve1822 1 are partially correct. An alternate is required, as you say, for weather conditions reported or forecast (or combination thereof) according to """the 1/2/3 rule"". However, most air carrier flight operating procedures require listing an alternate when flying to an airport with one runway no matter how good the weather will be at arrival. Examples would be clear weather but on arrival the cross wind component exceeds specs, or the airport becomes closed on arrival in the terminal area. There are many other prudent examples why alternate fuel planning plus reserves is good practice regardless of FAR weather requirements.
spatr 1
I wasn't going to go into all of the reasons for filing an alternate but yes that is one of them however, I do not know if this particular flight even had an alternate filed.
preacher1 2
Ya'll know all that and I know all that. I was just bringing it out for simplistic talking purpose in this conversation.LOL
billybob79424 1
Single runway alternate does not apply at lakes. Only applies when there is a forecast crosswind that exceeds the limits, or if you don't have two nav recievers. (i.e. an airport served only by an NDB and you only have one ADF) fwiw

כניסה לאתר

עדיין אין לך חשבון? הירשם כעת (ללא תשלום) כדי ליהנות מתכונות מותאמות-אישית, מהתראות טיסה ועוד!
אתר זה משתמש בקוקיות. המשך השימוש והניווט שלך באתר מביע את הסכמתך לכך.
האם ידעת שמעקב הטיסות של FlightAware נתמך על ידי פרסום?
תוכל לעזור לנו לוודא ש-FlightAware יישאר חינמי בכך שתאשר קבלת מודעות מ אנו מתאמצים מאוד להקפיד על כך שהמודעות שלנו יהיו רלוונטיות ולא מטרידות כדי ליצור עבורך חוויית משתמש מעולה. מהיר וקל לכלול את המודעות של FlightAware ברשימה הלבנה ואפשר גם לשקול את האפשרות ליצור חשבונות פרמיום.