BREAKING NEWS Another plane crash this one in Toronto, the NTSB to hire 3 million new investigators

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

A jet flips over, people are rushed to hospitals with critical injuries and you call it a miracle. Dude this is not a miracle, it's a ****up of the highest magnitude as taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Swan wrote:taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

A jet flips over, people are rushed to hospitals with critical injuries and you call it a miracle. Dude this is not a miracle, it's a ****up of the highest magnitude as taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Well everybody reading your comments knows you're a morbid a$$hole who wished they all died.

But I'm celebrating their survival, and rooting for a quick recovery for the injured.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

A jet flips over, people are rushed to hospitals with critical injuries and you call it a miracle. Dude this is not a miracle, it's a ****up of the highest magnitude as taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Well everybody reading your comments knows you're a morbid a$$hole who wished they all died.

But I'm celebrating their survival, and rooting for a quick recovery for the injured.

You are celebrating the morons who let this jet take off and land in a bomb cyclone. The fact is that the winds were too high for the jet to land at the airport but that there is no other airport not effected by the cyclone within the jets fuel supply so it landed in impossible conditions, and all scumbags like you can do is to run cover for the morons that allowed the jet to take off in the first place. For all we know a child has a broken neck and you are celebrating

You are a dickface

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

A jet flips over, people are rushed to hospitals with critical injuries and you call it a miracle. Dude this is not a miracle, it's a ****up of the highest magnitude as taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Well everybody reading your comments knows you're a morbid a$$hole who wished they all died.

But I'm celebrating their survival, and rooting for a quick recovery for the injured.

You are celebrating the morons who let this jet take off and land in a bomb cyclone. The fact is that the winds were too high for the jet to land at the airport but that there is no other airport not effected by the cyclone within the jets fuel supply so it landed in impossible conditions, and all scumbags like you can do is to run cover for the morons that allowed the jet to take off in the first place. For all we know a child has a broken neck and you are celebrating

You are a dickface

The injured child may still be in the hospital, reports are saying injuries are considered non life threatening.

I suppose all flights should be grounded if wind gusts are forecast above 25 mph on any given day?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

A jet flips over, people are rushed to hospitals with critical injuries and you call it a miracle. Dude this is not a miracle, it's a ****up of the highest magnitude as taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Well everybody reading your comments knows you're a morbid a$$hole who wished they all died.

But I'm celebrating their survival, and rooting for a quick recovery for the injured.

You are celebrating the morons who let this jet take off and land in a bomb cyclone. The fact is that the winds were too high for the jet to land at the airport but that there is no other airport not effected by the cyclone within the jets fuel supply so it landed in impossible conditions, and all scumbags like you can do is to run cover for the morons that allowed the jet to take off in the first place. For all we know a child has a broken neck and you are celebrating

You are a dickface

The injured child may still be in the hospital, reports are saying injuries are considered non life threatening.

I suppose all flights should be grounded if wind gusts are forecast above 25 mph on any given day?

The max wind speed for landing that can be handled by this jet is 35 to 40 mph, and this was predicted as part of every weather report. So yes this flight should have been grounded as the pilot could not even see the runway because of the bomb cyclones blowing snow. But the retards in charge let jets fly in cyclones. This should be a trillion dollar lawsuit against the airline and FAA that did not put regulations into effect and is letting UFO's fly over my home every single day.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

A jet flips over, people are rushed to hospitals with critical injuries and you call it a miracle. Dude this is not a miracle, it's a ****up of the highest magnitude as taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Well everybody reading your comments knows you're a morbid a$$hole who wished they all died.

But I'm celebrating their survival, and rooting for a quick recovery for the injured.

You are celebrating the morons who let this jet take off and land in a bomb cyclone. The fact is that the winds were too high for the jet to land at the airport but that there is no other airport not effected by the cyclone within the jets fuel supply so it landed in impossible conditions, and all scumbags like you can do is to run cover for the morons that allowed the jet to take off in the first place. For all we know a child has a broken neck and you are celebrating

You are a dickface

The injured child may still be in the hospital, reports are saying injuries are considered non life threatening.

I suppose all flights should be grounded if wind gusts are forecast above 25 mph on any given day?

The max wind speed for landing that can be handled by this jet is 35 to 40 mph, and this was predicted as part of every weather report. So yes this flight should have been grounded as the pilot could not even see the runway because of the bomb cyclones blowing snow. But the retards in charge let jets fly in cyclones. This should be a trillion dollar lawsuit against the airline and FAA that did not put regulations into effect and is letting UFO's fly over my home every single day.

Upon further review of the crash footage, it doesn't seem like wind was the cause of this accident.

The cause appears to be the plane's engine exploding when it landed.

https://youtu.be/-gYbfSVFGy8?si=6TphCXPm9nikfBAa

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

A jet flips over, people are rushed to hospitals with critical injuries and you call it a miracle. Dude this is not a miracle, it's a ****up of the highest magnitude as taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Well everybody reading your comments knows you're a morbid a$$hole who wished they all died.

But I'm celebrating their survival, and rooting for a quick recovery for the injured.

You are celebrating the morons who let this jet take off and land in a bomb cyclone. The fact is that the winds were too high for the jet to land at the airport but that there is no other airport not effected by the cyclone within the jets fuel supply so it landed in impossible conditions, and all scumbags like you can do is to run cover for the morons that allowed the jet to take off in the first place. For all we know a child has a broken neck and you are celebrating

You are a dickface

The injured child may still be in the hospital, reports are saying injuries are considered non life threatening.

I suppose all flights should be grounded if wind gusts are forecast above 25 mph on any given day?

The max wind speed for landing that can be handled by this jet is 35 to 40 mph, and this was predicted as part of every weather report. So yes this flight should have been grounded as the pilot could not even see the runway because of the bomb cyclones blowing snow. But the retards in charge let jets fly in cyclones. This should be a trillion dollar lawsuit against the airline and FAA that did not put regulations into effect and is letting UFO's fly over my home every single day.

Upon further review of the crash footage, it doesn't seem like wind was the cause of this accident.

The cause appears to be the plane's engine exploding when it landed.

https://youtu.be/-gYbfSVFGy8?si=6TphCXPm9nikfBAa

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Ask your mommy first next time doofy

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/1891580813038252440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I will post tomorrows crash as soon as it happens

In other news UFO's are still flying over my home

The NTSB just reported that the plane was 300 feet too low when it touched down at the airport. And everyone said, great now we have an answer

The crashed jet is the same model as the jet in DC that crashed, no Blackhawk was involved

Looks like all surviving. Miracle in TO.

A jet flips over, people are rushed to hospitals with critical injuries and you call it a miracle. Dude this is not a miracle, it's a ****up of the highest magnitude as taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Well everybody reading your comments knows you're a morbid a$$hole who wished they all died.

But I'm celebrating their survival, and rooting for a quick recovery for the injured.

You are celebrating the morons who let this jet take off and land in a bomb cyclone. The fact is that the winds were too high for the jet to land at the airport but that there is no other airport not effected by the cyclone within the jets fuel supply so it landed in impossible conditions, and all scumbags like you can do is to run cover for the morons that allowed the jet to take off in the first place. For all we know a child has a broken neck and you are celebrating

You are a dickface

The injured child may still be in the hospital, reports are saying injuries are considered non life threatening.

I suppose all flights should be grounded if wind gusts are forecast above 25 mph on any given day?

The max wind speed for landing that can be handled by this jet is 35 to 40 mph, and this was predicted as part of every weather report. So yes this flight should have been grounded as the pilot could not even see the runway because of the bomb cyclones blowing snow. But the retards in charge let jets fly in cyclones. This should be a trillion dollar lawsuit against the airline and FAA that did not put regulations into effect and is letting UFO's fly over my home every single day.

Upon further review of the crash footage, it doesn't seem like wind was the cause of this accident.

The cause appears to be the plane's engine exploding when it landed.

https://youtu.be/-gYbfSVFGy8?si=6TphCXPm9nikfBAa

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Ask your mommy first next time doofy

If you say so...

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Other internet know it alls are saying the angle the plane landed at was too flat.

Nose and rear wheels touched almost at the same time.

The wind caused that?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Other internet know it alls are saying the angle the plane landed at was too flat.

Nose and rear wheels touched almost at the same time.

The wind caused that?

The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Other internet know it alls are saying the angle the plane landed at was too flat.

Nose and rear wheels touched almost at the same time.

The wind caused that?

The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation

So what I'm hearing is the pilot was descending at twice the recommended rate, and couldn't angle the plane's front and back correctly.

Lets see how the pilot explains these errors...

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:taking off and landing in gale force winds is both wrong and illegal. But where does the jet land as the gale is everywhere? This is stupid

Toronto Airport Fire Chief Todd Aitken said the runway was dry and there were no crosswind conditions at the time of the crash.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/delta-plane-crash-investigators-piece-toronto-airport-incident/story?id=118916562

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Other internet know it alls are saying the angle the plane landed at was too flat.

Nose and rear wheels touched almost at the same time.

The wind caused that?

The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation

So what I'm hearing is the pilot was descending at twice the recommended rate, and couldn't angle the plane's front and back correctly.

Lets see how the pilot explains these errors...

Well there are the dumb Canadians that merely pushed the snow to the side of the runway allowing it to blow right back. This means there was no runway visible. The whole friking runway looks like a frozen lake

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Other internet know it alls are saying the angle the plane landed at was too flat.

Nose and rear wheels touched almost at the same time.

The wind caused that?

The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation

So what I'm hearing is the pilot was descending at twice the recommended rate, and couldn't angle the plane's front and back correctly.

Lets see how the pilot explains these errors...

Well there are the dumb Canadians that merely pushed the snow to the side of the runway allowing it to blow right back. This means there was no runway visible. The whole friking runway looks like a frozen lake

This expert pilot said the jet's rate of descent was within normal parameters.

https://youtu.be/Z1sHnkF-088?si=0Jtu4yVz1YQVq18W

But also sounds like the jet's front was supposed to tip up for landing, which helps slow the rate of descent, and that didn't happen. And also sounds like pilot's have to accelerate hard, to tip the front part upward, and on a jet that size it takes at least 5 seconds for acceleration to kick in. There was another comment about how to tilt the wing to fight the cross wind.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Other internet know it alls are saying the angle the plane landed at was too flat.

Nose and rear wheels touched almost at the same time.

The wind caused that?

The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation

So what I'm hearing is the pilot was descending at twice the recommended rate, and couldn't angle the plane's front and back correctly.

Lets see how the pilot explains these errors...

Well there are the dumb Canadians that merely pushed the snow to the side of the runway allowing it to blow right back. This means there was no runway visible. The whole friking runway looks like a frozen lake

This expert pilot said the jet's rate of descent was within normal parameters.

https://youtu.be/Z1sHnkF-088?si=0Jtu4yVz1YQVq18W

But also sounds like the jet's front was supposed to tip up for landing, which helps slow the rate of descent, and that didn't happen. And also sounds like pilot's have to accelerate hard, to tip the front part upward, and on a jet that size it takes at least 5 seconds for acceleration to kick in. There was another comment about how to tilt the wing to fight the cross wind.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Other internet know it alls are saying the angle the plane landed at was too flat.

Nose and rear wheels touched almost at the same time.

The wind caused that?

The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation

So what I'm hearing is the pilot was descending at twice the recommended rate, and couldn't angle the plane's front and back correctly.

Lets see how the pilot explains these errors...

Well there are the dumb Canadians that merely pushed the snow to the side of the runway allowing it to blow right back. This means there was no runway visible. The whole friking runway looks like a frozen lake

This expert pilot said the jet's rate of descent was within normal parameters.

https://youtu.be/Z1sHnkF-088?si=0Jtu4yVz1YQVq18W

But also sounds like the jet's front was supposed to tip up for landing, which helps slow the rate of descent, and that didn't happen. And also sounds like pilot's have to accelerate hard, to tip the front part upward, and on a jet that size it takes at least 5 seconds for acceleration to kick in. There was another comment about how to tilt the wing to fight the cross wind.

Only carrier pilots land with acceleration, runway pilots are decelerating and you can't tilt the wing after landing anyway

Sheesh

Im a BM wrote:

https://youtu.be/Z1sHnkF-088?si=0Jtu4yVz1YQVq18W

Anyone can watch the video and reach their own conclusion based on their own interpretation.

It won't advance any meaningful discussion about Earth's environmental crisis.

It looked to me like the right rear wheel hit first in a lopsided landing.

Instead of spreading initial impact over two wheels, one wheel took it all and buckled, bringing down the right engine which immediately ignited, and taking off the right wing, which only left one direction to roll.

the fun part is EVERYONE can be an expert, looking closely at the photos.

Did you see the flying saucer in the background?

Back to reality, I think it was GENESIS magazine that brought out a laymen who made fools of the "experts" in the JFK assassination.

Genesis was one of those rags with a centerfold of a naked woman with legs spread wide open.

Was it 1980? They put out an issue with a very flat vinyl recording that could be played on one of those rotating disc with a needle in the groove devices.

That recording was audio used by "experts" appointed by congress to investigate the JFK assassination. They concluded it proved there was more than one firearm being discharged.

So, a beaver fan took up the Genesis challenge and listened closely to the recording. What he figured out was later confirmed by qualified experts. The second gunman was the tailpipe of a police motorcycle.

It really CAN happen. Once in a while the average Joe notices something in the photos, recordings, etc., that baffled the experts, and figures it out.

Maybe you'll get to the bottom of these plane crashes.

The truth is out there!

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway because of the downshear created by the bomb cyclone.

Everyone sees it my way eventually. The sad thing is that there was no choice but to land the jet as all other runways in range had the same conditions. Worse yet the NTSB will never admit that the FAA regulations on this are the real issue, just as was the issue in DC by letting the Army play night vision around airports

Other internet know it alls are saying the angle the plane landed at was too flat.

Nose and rear wheels touched almost at the same time.

The wind caused that?

The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation

So what I'm hearing is the pilot was descending at twice the recommended rate, and couldn't angle the plane's front and back correctly.

Lets see how the pilot explains these errors...

Well there are the dumb Canadians that merely pushed the snow to the side of the runway allowing it to blow right back. This means there was no runway visible. The whole friking runway looks like a frozen lake

This expert pilot said the jet's rate of descent was within normal parameters.

https://youtu.be/Z1sHnkF-088?si=0Jtu4yVz1YQVq18W

But also sounds like the jet's front was supposed to tip up for landing, which helps slow the rate of descent, and that didn't happen. And also sounds like pilot's have to accelerate hard, to tip the front part upward, and on a jet that size it takes at least 5 seconds for acceleration to kick in. There was another comment about how to tilt the wing to fight the cross wind.

Only carrier pilots land with acceleration, runway pilots are decelerating and you can't tilt the wing after landing anyway

Sheesh

Ah ok, adjusting my A.I., adding pitch means pulling on the control yoke, to move the elevator on the tail of the aircraft up, which moves the nose up, which is deceleration. That's what didn't happen.

That adding throttle comment made by that expert was something to help battle gusty conditions.

Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway
The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation...

So what I'm hearing is the pilot was descending at twice the recommended rate, and couldn't angle the plane's front and back correctly.

Lets see how the pilot explains these errors...

Well there are the dumb Canadians that merely pushed the snow to the side of the runway allowing it to blow right back. This means there was no runway visible. The whole friking runway looks like a frozen lake...

This expert pilot said the jet's rate of descent was within normal parameters.

https://youtu.be/Z1sHnkF-088?si=0Jtu4yVz1YQVq18W

But also sounds like the jet's front was supposed to tip up for landing, which helps slow the rate of descent, and that didn't happen. And also sounds like pilot's have to accelerate hard, to tip the front part upward, and on a jet that size it takes at least 5 seconds for acceleration to kick in. There was another comment about how to tilt the wing to fight the cross wind....

Only carrier pilots land with acceleration, runway pilots are decelerating and you can't tilt the wing after landing anyway

Sheesh...

Ah ok, adjusting my A.I., adding pitch means pulling on the control yoke, to move the elevator on the tail of the aircraft up, which moves the nose up, which is deceleration. That's what didn't happen.

That adding throttle comment made by that expert was something to help battle gusty conditions...

Perhaps the landing gear just failed
Perhaps the landing was perfect, except for the bomb cyclone winds that made landing illegal for this jet. If this is the issue then the jet should never have taken off because there was no place for the jet to land within the legal wind parameters for this jet. You do not know what the pilot did as he might have positioned the nose perfectly but been thwarted by a cyclone.

PS. The pilot is responsible for knowing if there is a hurricane, a blizzard or a cyclone at his destination before he takes off. This weather system covered at least half of north America

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:

100% wrong, the pilot slammed the jet into the runway
The jet was descending at 1100 feet per minute which is twice the proper rate of descent which when added to a 40 to 50 mph wind shear from some direction is what blew out the landing gear on the right side causing the accident. So why did the idiot controller not order a go around. LOL and you can't blame Trump either because this was Canada.

PS. Besides runways are not supposed to be snow covered as this causes snow blindness and or disorientation...

So what I'm hearing is the pilot was descending at twice the recommended rate, and couldn't angle the plane's front and back correctly.

Lets see how the pilot explains these errors...

Well there are the dumb Canadians that merely pushed the snow to the side of the runway allowing it to blow right back. This means there was no runway visible. The whole friking runway looks like a frozen lake...

This expert pilot said the jet's rate of descent was within normal parameters.

https://youtu.be/Z1sHnkF-088?si=0Jtu4yVz1YQVq18W

But also sounds like the jet's front was supposed to tip up for landing, which helps slow the rate of descent, and that didn't happen. And also sounds like pilot's have to accelerate hard, to tip the front part upward, and on a jet that size it takes at least 5 seconds for acceleration to kick in. There was another comment about how to tilt the wing to fight the cross wind....

Only carrier pilots land with acceleration, runway pilots are decelerating and you can't tilt the wing after landing anyway

Sheesh...

Ah ok, adjusting my A.I., adding pitch means pulling on the control yoke, to move the elevator on the tail of the aircraft up, which moves the nose up, which is deceleration. That's what didn't happen.

That adding throttle comment made by that expert was something to help battle gusty conditions...

Perhaps the landing gear just failed
Perhaps the landing was perfect, except for the bomb cyclone winds that made landing illegal for this jet. If this is the issue then the jet should never have taken off because there was no place for the jet to land within the legal wind parameters for this jet. You do not know what the pilot did as he might have positioned the nose perfectly but been thwarted by a cyclone.

PS. The pilot is responsible for knowing if there is a hurricane, a blizzard or a cyclone at his destination before he takes off. This weather system covered at least half of north America

Perhaps the elevator on the tail of the aircraft failed.

Or perhaps the pilot was fighting the gusty conditions so intently he missed the timing of when to increase the pitch.

Just my opinion researching the experts online.

[b]Swan wrote:[/
No pilot can time wind gusts, nor can they be seen by either the pilot or the controllers, but what does one do if the winds are too strong and they are the same at the next airport and the next as well. The entire system is built around profits not safety, but the NTSB will never say so

Spongy Iris wrote:

[b]Swan wrote:[/
No pilot can time wind gusts, nor can they be seen by either the pilot or the controllers, but what does one do if the winds are too strong and they are the same at the next airport and the next as well. The entire system is built around profits not safety, but the NTSB will never say so

Prioritizing safety over profits might have meant grounding all flights in the northeastern part of North America, if wind gusts +25 mph are considered too risky to fly...

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

[b]Swan wrote:[/
No pilot can time wind gusts, nor can they be seen by either the pilot or the controllers, but what does one do if the winds are too strong and they are the same at the next airport and the next as well. The entire system is built around profits not safety, but the NTSB will never say so

Prioritizing safety over profits might have meant grounding all flights in the northeastern part of North America, if wind gusts +25 mph are considered too risky to fly...

Nope because larger heavier jets can withstand faster winds.

Physics works

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

[b]Swan wrote:[/
No pilot can time wind gusts, nor can they be seen by either the pilot or the controllers, but what does one do if the winds are too strong and they are the same at the next airport and the next as well. The entire system is built around profits not safety, but the NTSB will never say so

Prioritizing safety over profits might have meant grounding all flights in the northeastern part of North America, if wind gusts +25 mph are considered too risky to fly...

Nope because larger heavier jets can withstand faster winds.

Physics works

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

[b]Swan wrote:[/
No pilot can time wind gusts, nor can they be seen by either the pilot or the controllers, but what does one do if the winds are too strong and they are the same at the next airport and the next as well. The entire system is built around profits not safety, but the NTSB will never say so

Prioritizing safety over profits might have meant grounding all flights in the northeastern part of North America, if wind gusts +25 mph are considered too risky to fly...

Nope because larger heavier jets can withstand faster winds.

Physics works

This jet wasn't large enough? It held 80 people.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

[b]Swan wrote:[/
No pilot can time wind gusts, nor can they be seen by either the pilot or the controllers, but what does one do if the winds are too strong and they are the same at the next airport and the next as well. The entire system is built around profits not safety, but the NTSB will never say so

Prioritizing safety over profits might have meant grounding all flights in the northeastern part of North America, if wind gusts +25 mph are considered too risky to fly...

Nope because larger heavier jets can withstand faster winds.

Physics works

This jet wasn't large enough? It held 80 people.

The Airbus A380 holds over 800 people and weighs over 600 tons loaded.

And stop faking being dumb because no one is as dumb as you. Got that agent dumb

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

[b]Swan wrote:[/
No pilot can time wind gusts, nor can they be seen by either the pilot or the controllers, but what does one do if the winds are too strong and they are the same at the next airport and the next as well. The entire system is built around profits not safety, but the NTSB will never say so

Prioritizing safety over profits might have meant grounding all flights in the northeastern part of North America, if wind gusts +25 mph are considered too risky to fly...

Nope because larger heavier jets can withstand faster winds.

Physics works

This jet wasn't large enough? It held 80 people.

The Airbus A380 holds over 800 people and weighs over 600 tons loaded.

And stop faking being dumb because no one is as dumb as you. Got that agent dumb

Ok let me see if I got this straight, during a bomb cyclone, any plane weighing less than 600 tons must be grounded.

https://youtu.be/_v2exWrsGOc?si=Y7HTgr2nOIp7--2A

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

[b]Swan wrote:[/
No pilot can time wind gusts, nor can they be seen by either the pilot or the controllers, but what does one do if the winds are too strong and they are the same at the next airport and the next as well. The entire system is built around profits not safety, but the NTSB will never say so

Prioritizing safety over profits might have meant grounding all flights in the northeastern part of North America, if wind gusts +25 mph are considered too risky to fly...

Nope because larger heavier jets can withstand faster winds.

Physics works

This jet wasn't large enough? It held 80 people.

The Airbus A380 holds over 800 people and weighs over 600 tons loaded.

And stop faking being dumb because no one is as dumb as you. Got that agent dumb

Ok let me see if I got this straight, during a bomb cyclone, any plane weighing less than 600 tons must be grounded.

https://youtu.be/_v2exWrsGOc?si=Y7HTgr2nOIp7--2A