Thankfully accidents like this do not happen often, but that kind of system failure could either be terrible maintenance or just the plane being to old it just so happens to start falling apart.
Had a friend take a trip on a airplane. The staff were 'monsters' as she put it but not in a bad way. The moment the time came for the safety demo to start, The staff in the most polite way told everyone to 'sit down and shut up, put away ALL electronics besides what you need to hear, see or use via medicine (the insulin pumps phones). Then did the demo only to start over again if someone made a noise that wasn't needed (a child talking so to speak or a baby like that didn't count) It took the staff 20 extra minutes before the plane took off do to the no nonsense of the staff. The thing is that has not been a single complaint about the staff for the way they did the demos. As they were only 'monsters' when doing the demo and the rest of the time were sweet.
Sure, send two paramedics into a burning plane to do the job of firefighters, that makes sense. Next your gonna tell me the pilots were two TSA agents who decided to “step up to the plate”
@@Zephyr_Phoenix76 My home station has either specifically trained firefighters, medics who went through fire training after finishing NREMT, or medics, so as far as I'm aware there is no vice versa, Void is correct So to the original comment, you wouldn't be seeing medics going into fires, it's only the firefighters, although most have medical training, however there was a little context missing, they sent in air medics, with proper protection, sent in for rescue, and usually from what I've heard from the other station guys, if they wouldn't be in immediate danger from the fire and can be protected, and there is a patient that needs immediate rescue, or locating they may send in a medic
In high shock impact its somewhat better to be limp and unprepared as the limp body rebounds a bit more against the shock but a tensed body creates a wall at 100 miles an hour meets a wall standing still
I think that these are clipped, so we probably didn't see that part, or they might have just not had that be part of the episode, because they wanted to focus more on the passengers and/or the pilots. Hollywood doesn't always keep the practical.
Commercial airliners have belly landed before. They don't crash the way this video showed. The only way a plane could crash land & break up is if they didn't land level, as was the case of United Flight 232 or Asiana Flight 214!
Well yeah but...there is the possibility that jet engines will explode also it did look like before the belly landed the engine was already of fire and burning so they probably forgot to dump fuel
@@Zephyr_Phoenix76 I think, judging by the start of the video, the engine was already on fire, which was part and parcel of the reason for the emergency landing. Also, it's possible that (given it's said that there was something wrong with the hydraulics for the landing gear) the landing gear may have been partially down, or that one or more might not have been dropping, so that might have caused it to not land level.
Alameda Air Field is pretty much unused and torn up but the runway could still be landed on in a situation, albeit very unsafely. Oakland airport is literally just at the end of Alameda, maybe 2 miles by the crow south. SFFD and SFPD would NOT be involved since the crash would be in a separate city and county and across 2 bridges over the bay to get there. The plane would also not likely be ripped apart from a belly landing even at the rough unused airfield. In regards to medical evac and air evac, hospitals in SF would be on alert and treating passengers and crew, as they have when Asiana crashed at SFO. We have the trauma centers, so it would be full at that point. But so would Oakland and San Jose.
About the plane being ripped appart, it kinda depends on how the pilots landed it. If it was a totally flat belly landing then yeah I'd agree with you, but in this case they landed heavy on the tail first before the rest of the plane came down, which could cause the tail to rip off, but i doubt it would have been as perfectly split and settled like it was in this video
I work as a patient roleplayer in the UK, sometimes running "disaster relief" scenarios exactly like this one, and honestly it's impressive how accurate this was. Better than some of the med students who've practiced triage on me in the past, haha.
Don't know why they didn't lower the landing gear. You can still lower them without hydraulics as gravity will pull them down. No guarantee they will lock into place but better than landing on the belly of the plane
Depending on HOW they failed, they might not have been able to. In most cases yes, just a generic failure gravity works. But in other cases, they might fail because of a different reason preventing them from lowering in general, though those cases usually only has one gear with the issue, not all.
Yeah, that was where the clip lost it for me. In most cases they would have done a gravity drop (as long as nothing prevented them from opening the doors for it.) and hoped they locked into place. But they were like "we don't have time to lower them manually" and I was like "what? is the co pilot going to crawl down into the cargo hold and flip a special switch or something?!?!"
I believe they said they didnt have time But i agree. Some reason they seem to love "3min isnt enough to activate the back up" is takes less than a min to deploy
@@sethcourtemanche5738 - Red for major and urgent injuries - Orange for major but and not urgent - Green for minor injuries but not majorly urgent - Black, well Deceased or not viable for care
This is the most unrealistic clip I've seen in a while. That's not how a belly landing would work. That's not how that aircraft would respond. That's not how fire fighters would respond. They would never establish triage so close to a vehicle that could explode if it was actually on fire and there was such a lack of response with foam trucks. Folks would be directed to get as far from the wreckage as possible as soon as they evacuated regardless of injuries. Its like this show had absolutely no budget to do research or consult anyone in the industry.
They made do with budget available to them. Filming a realistic belly-landing crash would have been far too costly for a tv series especially when the crash is only a portion of the episode.
Great segment, but it would take SFPD at least half an hour to get across the Bay Bridge to Alameda NAS. More likely Oakland and Alameda first responders would have gotten the call.
emergency landing without "brace for impact", a burning plane and everyone chills there ON THE LANE? Crowded everywhere instead of leaving a possible exposion zone?
Ok first of all, san Francisco would NOT respond to Alameda, even for mutual aid. And second, if they can't make Oakland international airport, what makes you think they can make Alameda field? They're right next to each other. I know this because I lived in the bay area half my life
I love how the firefighters are using just water for the fire on the plane XD I'm not an expert, but aren't you meant to use foam on a jet fuel fire? Water alone doesn't put fuel or oil fires out
I'm looking at thsi and I'm like... The crash sequence is horrifying but inaccurate as it appears 1) they were at 5,000ft one moment and 1,000ft the next so they could definitely have unlocked the gear and let gravity lock them into place, 2) they're using the wrong cockpit, and 3) they're heading down at -5,000ft a minute one moment and -200ft a minute the next
the pilots failed to lower the landing gear. They could have done a better job at landing unless something broke with the landing gear. Also gear up landings have been done before but in that case, that plane landed intact and didn't break up.
There's mention of the gear hydraulics being damaged, and the pilots say something about "not having enough time to lower manually," so it's possible that the gear was partially extended (due to gravity) but not locked, or that they couldn't retract it/lock them back once they'd made the initial attempt, thus possibly leaving them with some but not all gear down.
@@Mokiefraggle Okay thats good to have brought in the context so as why the landing gear couldn't be deployed. And i get the crash was all for drama but realistically, it is possible to land a plane without landing gear.
I know its a television drama series. I would have done a water landing (seeing that the landing gears were inoperable) On the other hand, the runway should have been foamed completely. (I have a background and experience in disaster management, logistics and preparation. I also do disaster exercises at our two airports on island) Dominica 🇩🇲
legitimate question, would landing in the water in an emergency landing be safer? Like would it soften the impact because the surface wouldn’t be soft rough concrete? Edit: I mean in this situation, would landing in the lake instead of the runway have been better in this situation
That much mass at that speed, hitting the water is no different than hitting concrete. Also, given where they were, they'd most likely be landing in the San Francisco Bay, and...we have _sharks._ Like, I don't recall hearing a lot of stories about shark attacks there, but we have a city called Tiburon for a reason. Also, you have to worry about how quickly it'd sink, and a whole host of other things...probably not that much safer.
While the idea of landing on water is a desirable, it's probably worse to do so. The reasons are that landing on water at that speed would cause the plane to break up. Aircraft are not water tight, so landing in water will create a different hazard for the passengers, instead of fire there is water. Generally it is better to land on a runway or plateau than it is to land on water. Specifically in this case, it was probably the best decision to land on the runway. It is safer for the passengers after landing due to the lack of water invading into the aircraft, the response time of emergency responders is practically instantaneous, and it provides an area for said responders to do their work.
The Sully incident was a rare lucky exception but far away from the norm. Usually water landings with jets will cause the plane to break apart immediately and/or flip over.
@@pythagorasaurusrex9853 Yeah, because in most cases, impacts with water at high speeds (or from a considerable elevation) are like plowing into concrete. Water can behave as a non-Newtonian fluid, and basically becomes harder to cut through the more impact force applied across a broader space. It's why leaping off a bridge and just slamming flat into the water below will likely kill you or break bones on impact, but you could potentially survive by landing with a narrow point first (diving, or landing feet-first). This means that the plane would basically be hitting something that despite being liquid, would essentially behave as a solid surface at the moment of impact.
How do the writers even keep their jobs? They would not keep passengers that close to a plane on fire and there were no airport emergency vehicles spraying foam. Poor writing and research.
Now this is what I don’t understand and I understand that this is a movie but still, how did everybody on that plane get injured or have like a mark on them but the baby didn’t get anything. And the baby wasn’t fastened in a seat. The mother was literally holding the car seat.
No. If there is no nearest suitable runway or at least open field to emergency land, water landing is the last resort. With or without landing gear, you can still land a plane on a runway or a suitable open field.
Why did the paramedic go in? That was silly! If it’s burning and someone is still in the priority is to get them OUT then revive! Doing too much for the scene! 😅😅😅
