Sunday, March 29, 2015
A minor quibble in the larger scheme of things, but I found it offensive that Air Canada would try to "spin" the Halifax crash as merely a "hard landing".
The plane came in too low and slow, touched ground behind the runway, hit a landing guidance tower that sheered off the landing gear and the nose, bounced onto the runway, then skidded through the snow losing engines and breaking the wing. If it hadn't been for the snow, the plan might well have caught on fire.
And the RCMP apparently heard about it when one of the passengers called 911.
I think in any other universe that "hard landing" would be considered a crash. #Halifax #halifaxairport
— Peggy Blair (@peggy_blair) March 29, 2015
Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers | 4 comments
Coming down a thousand feet from the runway isn't a "hard landing." At best it's a crash landing. The photos show damage that suggests the Airbus is a write-off. At least no lives were lost.
I couldn't believe Air Canada was trying that at my local airport, especially when you also find out that plane in its "hard landing" managed to cut the power wires hooking said airport to the grid which we well away from an actual landing strip. Last time I looked, a "hard landing" means you hit the landing strip with more force than is appropriate, maybe you bounce off your landing wheels once or twice before settling, that sort of thing, it happened to me once a couple of decade ago now. This, this is clearly a crash landing. I'm guessing the sensitivity was because of that suicide crash in the French Alps having people on edge, but still...*sigh*. Reality is self explanatory people, not to mention freaking obvious in photos like the ones that came out on this one.
Well, when you live in another country such as Atlantic Canada (according to an Air Canada advert) then you have to understand that the lingo used is not the same as in Canada. S. McCabe, Truro, Nova Scotia (which is in Atlantic Canada)
By 10:00 pm, at
Hey, I've been to Truro! Great town.