lincolnjkc

IIRC while the Captain has ultimate authority/responsibility safety-of-flight is jointly held by both the dispatcher responsible for flight following and the PIC. Culturally it is (or should be) an "everyone agrees to the safest course of action" -- plane doesn't take off unless everyone is "Go", plane doesn't continue to an adverse destination unless everyone agrees that's the safe route.

As a pilot friend once told me "Get-there-itis gets you dead"

I would be very surprised if the FAA doesn't at least investigstigate/issue a NOPCA to suspend both crew members ATPs for some period unless there are significant extenuating circumstances. Based on the NTSB ALJ decisions I've been reading I doubt revocation would come from it but it's not impossible

GFrye

Look at the hangars in the background to get an approximate scale of the track in the snow. The tracks in the snow sure don't look to be the width of the E-145 main gear. It looks to be much narrower.

I did a reverse image search, but can't find any results. If indeed was a photo of the UA 4933 landing path, I'd think that some news site(s) would have included it in one of their articles.

Perhaps the poster could tell us wherefrom he got the picture.

lincolnjkc

Look at the aircraft near the middle of the image (in the middle of the dug-out/flattened snow circle) for size comparison -- you can see the aft end of the tail and empennage mounted engines.

To my eye the path appears to be almost exactly the size of the fuselage "tube". And appears to be a trajectory that coincides with the final position of the aircraft. Not seeing any disturbed snow from the wings/MLG is the only thing that raises questions in my mind, but based on the image resolution can be explained as a loss in fidelity.

WIRunner

I can't stress enough on how much snow there's been in northern Maine. There are parts of the area there that still has 2-4 feet of snow today. That week they got about 18 inches, on top of probably 3-4 feet of snow. It is conceivable that the track you're seeing is from the fuselage and wing box. You can see the engines and if you take a piece of paper they line up pretty close to the snow marks.

The Bangor Daily News and other local sites have just shown ground shots. I don't know anyone that works there anymore.

GFrye

With that much snow, I'd expect the wings to plow through the snow and the track would be much wider. Yet there's barely a single mark outside the narrow track.

That track is approximately 880 feet long based on the picture and a satellite map of the airport.
Would an E-145 (MLW 44,000 pounds, landing speed ~120 knots) be able to stop in that distance with only the fuselage and wing box touching the snow? I'd think that such a short distance would only be feasible if the wings dug into the snow. Considering that the left main gear broke off, I have a hard time believing that the left wing wouldn't have plowed through the snow.

lincolnjkc

I'm guessing -- again operating with the theory that the "narrow track" is the width of the E145 fuselage -- which certainly isn't as wide as a 737 but not what I'd personally call narrow -- is the belly of the aircraft held the wings (bear in mind that the wing root of not at the extreme bottom of the aircraft.. so could easily ride a bit) above the snow pack.

DenverBrian

The only other thing I can think of is the right-side landing gear, which would imply the plane landed half on and half off the runway.

Edit: Here's a pic I haven't seen before...

You can see daylight between the fuselage and the snow here. So...maybe...BOTH MLG snapped off early (not showing in the pic from above the runway, as those tracks maybe occurred earlier?) and we're seeing only the furrow of the nose gear, while the rest of the plane kind of glided on top of the snow?

Maybe possible if the snow had a decent crust on it.

YadiMolina

More photos found on AV Herald. It seems the wheels were ripped off up the runway and the plane did belly flop. The runway image above is accurate in my opinion.

MSPeconomist

DenverBrian

Yep, both MLG came off, apparently:
So now that explains the pic taken from above the runway.

WIRunner

These pictures should clear any issues up.





The top one shows the bouncing that took place. The track that is there is definitely from the wingbox/fuselodge scraping the snow away.

Edit: The nose of the aircraft sits about 4 ft high, figure you lose about 18 inches from the nose to the wingbox. So there's still plenty of space to have just the wingbox plough through the snow. If a wingtip touched the snow it would be just like when a car's tire goes into snow, you get pulled sharply to the one side. If a wintip did this on an airplane you'd likely see what happened to that DC-10 in Sioux Falls in the 90s, it would have either pulled sharply, or would have cartwheeled.

WineCountryUA

The AV Herald states the touchdown was before the crossing runaway (10/28) and a set of wheels were found just after the the crossing runaway. Which suggest there was significant impact prior to the crossing runway.

However, the earlier photo showed not snow disturbance until well after the crossing runway.

Something does not jive, the two appear to be inconsistent or we need a more complex description of what happened.

onthesam

I get the sense they might have attempted to go around. Looking at the picture above it kind of seems like the aircraft may have been airborne for some distance between when the MLG snapped off at RWY 10/28 and when the nosewheel track (in the snow) starts well past the 10/28.

GFrye