No it’s not the one discussed here but there are similarities such as landing in a car park.🙂
Again, I will not call that a landing. The FI explanined that he actually aim for a block hole in the city to avoid damages to people on the ground, given the hour. And it’s a miracle if the right wing hit a building and made the plane turn backside before hitting a garage building, coming to a stop. If they ever hit that wall in the front, they would be all dead.
Yes, the pilot himself is quoted as saying “how lucky they were”.
Had they not struck the wing on.the building the aircraft would not have turned into a deserted area and there may well have been collateral damage.
To be precise, the pilot’s declaration was:
“J’avais repéré une plateforme. […] On s’est dirigé vers la plateforme”
“C’est là qu’on a eu un gros morceau de chance. L’aile droite, en arrivant sur la plateforme, a tapé dans un bord du bâtiment. Cela a fait pivoter l’avion, et l’avion s’est écrasé sur un petit muret et a absorbé toute l’énergie cinétique qui nous aurait tués si on avait tapé de face”
which translates to:
“I spotted a platform. […] We headed towards the platform”
“This is when we were extremely lucky. The right wing, when arriving on the platform, struck an edge of the building. This pivoted the aircraft, which crashed into a low wall and absorbed all the kinetic energy which would have killed us if we hit front-facing.”
Based on this, I don’t think the wing strike changed the overall aircraft’s trajectory, instead it simply rotated the plane horizontally (if my presumed approach direction is correct, they almost made a 180° between hitting the building and crashing, which is consistent with the pilot’s sayings – they went from facing the wall to landing with the tail over the wall, as per pictures). The rear fuselage (which was IN FRONT of them in the trajectory direction) hit the low wall and absorbed much of the energy. They would also have been stuck to their seats by the impact instead of propelled forward to the panel. This photo shows headrests which may also have played a big role in surviving (since they probably landed backwards).
maxbc wrote:
This is when we were extremely lucky
That’s the understatement of the year, if not the decade. These guys used up their entire lives’ allotment of luck that day. Amazing, to put it mildly.
Just shows how different media make small but significant changes to the quote.
The March Info-Pilote has a two page article, including interview with J-P Trimaille. It doesn’t add much to what maxbc has already said.
On a training flight, a real engine failure was barely more stressful than a simulated one. They tried turning on the fuel pump and changing tanks. The choice of landing site was deliberate: boulevard Maxime-Gorki was long with a clear approach, but busy with third parties. He took 70kts as a good margin above the stall, but it was still a very steep descent angle. The gap they aimed for turned out to be too small, but sacrificing the wings would absorb some kinetic energy. The first wing impact turned the aircraft and reduced the vertical speed. In all, 1m50s from engine failure to landing. His three recommendations: keep speed to avoid a stall; choose a site almost straight ahead; keep flying until the end, avoiding the largest obstacles.
Did they lose one engine or both? Of ‘only’ one, can the TwinCom not stay in the air on one?
Well, it can, until it reaches the crash site.
If he had had one good working engine he could easily have flown the procedure and landed at LFPN. What he might not have been able to do was climb quickly, but then he wouldn’t have had to do that.
