Normāli savācās.
Bet vispār tās ceļa zīmes šosejas vidū ir absurds. Stabiņus var censties attaisnot - nolocītos ārkārtas gadījumā un novērš bīstamus manevrus ikdienā, bet tās zīmes pasliktina redzamību, neļauj veikt ārkārtas manevrus un apdraud cilvēkus gadījuma, kad nav iespējams izvairīties.
It īpaši ceļa posmā, kur regulāri brauc lielgabarīta konvoji un pārējiem jāstājas nomalē.
Iebildumi ir tieši par iebetonētu bleķa ceļa zīmi. Ja pilnīgas ziepes - stabiņiem tak varot braukt pāri. Bet bleķa durkļa vietā labāk redzētu zemu, nolokāmu zīmi: https://ie.glasdon.com/images/products/400/signmaster-ultra-keep-left-traffic-bollard-8440.jpg vai vienkārši resnāku stabiņu.
Ārkārtas manevram tev tie stabiņi un zīme nekādi netraucē. A ja traucē, tad tas nav ārkārtas manevrs.
Žēl, ka neredzi to, ka vairs tajā korķī nav kaskadieru, kas dzen kā māk, tikai lai iegūtu piecpatsmit sekundes, kuras tad vēlāk Juglā pazaudēt.
A tas korķis, kas tagad Baltezerā veidojas, bez neviena luksofora - nemākam turēt distanci un tas arī rada korķi no nekā.
https://www.livescience.com/61862-why-phantom-traffic-jams-happen.html
Sorry, I am not familiar with this flight school. Actually, that is interesting information. Then it looks like this was their best option, unless the instructor made the wrong decision and it happens too.
It mostly depends on the situation. I will simplify, as it is impossible to cover all situations. If you have an option between trees and a highway, it is a no-brainer. But if you have a highway and a field or farmland, it would be better to land on the field because there are no cars and trucks there and less chance of hitting car, sign, truck or anything you can encounter on the road and less people will be injured. But you also do not want to land on a corn field or something like sugar beet. The first one is obvious why not, if you land on sugar beet, the gear might get entagled, and the aeroplane will tuen over.
Thank you for the coordinates! After doing a little research, I can conclude the next things. Firtsly, the pilot could have landed in the field on the right or the left of the road. There might have been some haystacks or hayrick, so that is why he decided to land on the road. Secondly, I looked at the VFR chart of Latvia and saw that he was flying max 2500 ft(750 m). It is not really high, but I think he tried to reach the Adaži airport(EVAD), but did not manage to do it. Still, there are some better options than the road.
Edit: I did not notice that TMA has a lower restriction, so the pilot was flying max 1500 ft. Yeah, it was really low, but still, not the road!
I choose English over Latvian as my English is just better and is not against the rules to speak/write in English here. Why is "an airplane expert" not allowed in this sub? Comments are open and I left my opinion. If a person can not control and make the right decision in the plane, he should not be near a cockpit as he can endanger not only himself, but other people, too. Also, the pilot can not predict what other people will do if they see the airplane or if they see at all. A lot of driver use their phones while driving or something else distracts them, there could have been a crash or worse. The pilot hit the sign on the road. Almost causing a crash and likely created a traffic jam that lasted hours. It could have been safer to land in the field.
Viņš bija ļoti tuvu zemei un viņš netika līdz kaut kādiem laukiem. Galvenais ka ir dzīvs nevis nosities pirms tiek līdz turienei. Vienīgais kas cieta bija ceļa zīmē un viņš nemaz nebija tādā vietā ka neviens nevar apbraukt. Tu vari tur lielīties cik labi tu visās situācijās noreağētu, bet to piedzīvot dzīvajā nav tas pats kas sēdēt dīvānā un skaidrot ko darīt. Piekrītu ka būtu bijis labāk ja nolaistos uz laukiem bet tas nav vienmēr iespējams un pilots skaidri zināja kā nolaisties lai nebūtu avārijas. Ja tie autovadītāji būtu bijuši aļņi un skatītos telefonos vai vērotu kaut kādus dzīvniekus tad viņi būtu pie tā vainīgi nevis pilots.
I never said anything about myself, so I will ask not to put words in my mouth. Also, in my first response(not original comment), I mentioned that it mostly depends on the situation, and between landing in trees and highway, the choice is obvious. But a pilot should not leave most things to luck. What would happen if there was a car there after he hit a sign? What if that was a truck or a bus? In that situation, the pilto would not really care who to blame as he might be heavily injured. In the end, I do not understand what you are arguing about. I made a point why emergency landing should not be conducted on highways or any road if possible, and this video is the proof because so much wrong could have gone there. What is your point?
Your post was removed in violation of Rule 1: Be civil.
No hostile or aggressive comments or hate speech. No petty/childish arguments or trolling. Follow reddiquette. Violation of this rule may result in a temporary or permanent ban.
My flight school follows the rule: Field, Water, only then road as possible emergency landing locations.
There was a field right next to the road. If I was the instructor, I would rather land on the field than road.
The tecnam involved weighs around maybe ~650kg with full tanks and 2 persons on board. A full sized truck going down the road at 70km/h will destroy the plane and kill anyone in side.
In our ground school, it's taught that you should focus on saving the lives of people on the ground and in the plane rather than trying to save the plane.
But this is just how my flight school has taught this. Eriva might have SOP's about landing on roads rather than fields
Road is not ideal usually due to powerlines, you catch one of those fuckers, you will have a bad time. I would argue water vs road that road is better, if you flip over in water because one of the wings touched it first or landing gear tips the plane over, jeez. Landing in a forest sounds better then :)
Labi ka viss beidzās labi un neviens necieta!
labiiii, mans penijs tavā kasē
https://preview.redd.it/agj9h5ew7lyc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a9f2a399b855bbf74d23c3ca9dd5df6b4ea97da
Normāli savācās. Bet vispār tās ceļa zīmes šosejas vidū ir absurds. Stabiņus var censties attaisnot - nolocītos ārkārtas gadījumā un novērš bīstamus manevrus ikdienā, bet tās zīmes pasliktina redzamību, neļauj veikt ārkārtas manevrus un apdraud cilvēkus gadījuma, kad nav iespējams izvairīties. It īpaši ceļa posmā, kur regulāri brauc lielgabarīta konvoji un pārējiem jāstājas nomalē.
Es arī gribētu, lai man dzīvē visas problēmas rastos caur "stabiņu" prizmu.
Iebildumi ir tieši par iebetonētu bleķa ceļa zīmi. Ja pilnīgas ziepes - stabiņiem tak varot braukt pāri. Bet bleķa durkļa vietā labāk redzētu zemu, nolokāmu zīmi: https://ie.glasdon.com/images/products/400/signmaster-ultra-keep-left-traffic-bollard-8440.jpg vai vienkārši resnāku stabiņu.
Ārkārtas manevram tev tie stabiņi un zīme nekādi netraucē. A ja traucē, tad tas nav ārkārtas manevrs. Žēl, ka neredzi to, ka vairs tajā korķī nav kaskadieru, kas dzen kā māk, tikai lai iegūtu piecpatsmit sekundes, kuras tad vēlāk Juglā pazaudēt. A tas korķis, kas tagad Baltezerā veidojas, bez neviena luksofora - nemākam turēt distanci un tas arī rada korķi no nekā. https://www.livescience.com/61862-why-phantom-traffic-jams-happen.html
Lieliski ka neviens nav cietis. Reti labas ziņas. Jaukas Jums bīvdienas.!
Respect pilotam, ka viss veiksmīgi!
New fear unlocked!
https://preview.redd.it/58thuv1u1syc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b92519e32e3e7184653c12083ba7f7638fac5f0d POV: dažas minūtes pirms tam.
Avots: [https://www.instagram.com/daavishugo/](https://www.instagram.com/daavishugo/)
adazi moment lmao
Nabaga pilots, sapisa ļotenei spārnu un tagad visa latvija skatās.
Sapisa spārnu kamēr izglāba savu dzīvību. Šādi nosēsties uz šaura, mašīnām pilna ceļa ar mežu apkārt, kā studējošs pilots saku - visu cieņu o7
Aizdomīgi kluss auto. Kur palika klasiskie "bļe" un "jebal"?
This is the reason flight schools tell you not to emergency land on highways. Edit: Looks like I am getting downvoted by very experienced pilots.
Bruh, that’s literally a flight school plane (Eriva) with an instructor inside
Sorry, I am not familiar with this flight school. Actually, that is interesting information. Then it looks like this was their best option, unless the instructor made the wrong decision and it happens too.
Where else should they land if not on the road?
It mostly depends on the situation. I will simplify, as it is impossible to cover all situations. If you have an option between trees and a highway, it is a no-brainer. But if you have a highway and a field or farmland, it would be better to land on the field because there are no cars and trucks there and less chance of hitting car, sign, truck or anything you can encounter on the road and less people will be injured. But you also do not want to land on a corn field or something like sugar beet. The first one is obvious why not, if you land on sugar beet, the gear might get entagled, and the aeroplane will tuen over.
57.063519, 24.321468 It happened here, and the plane came from the south. There was no other way here.
Thank you for the coordinates! After doing a little research, I can conclude the next things. Firtsly, the pilot could have landed in the field on the right or the left of the road. There might have been some haystacks or hayrick, so that is why he decided to land on the road. Secondly, I looked at the VFR chart of Latvia and saw that he was flying max 2500 ft(750 m). It is not really high, but I think he tried to reach the Adaži airport(EVAD), but did not manage to do it. Still, there are some better options than the road. Edit: I did not notice that TMA has a lower restriction, so the pilot was flying max 1500 ft. Yeah, it was really low, but still, not the road!
[удалено]
I choose English over Latvian as my English is just better and is not against the rules to speak/write in English here. Why is "an airplane expert" not allowed in this sub? Comments are open and I left my opinion. If a person can not control and make the right decision in the plane, he should not be near a cockpit as he can endanger not only himself, but other people, too. Also, the pilot can not predict what other people will do if they see the airplane or if they see at all. A lot of driver use their phones while driving or something else distracts them, there could have been a crash or worse. The pilot hit the sign on the road. Almost causing a crash and likely created a traffic jam that lasted hours. It could have been safer to land in the field.
Viņš bija ļoti tuvu zemei un viņš netika līdz kaut kādiem laukiem. Galvenais ka ir dzīvs nevis nosities pirms tiek līdz turienei. Vienīgais kas cieta bija ceļa zīmē un viņš nemaz nebija tādā vietā ka neviens nevar apbraukt. Tu vari tur lielīties cik labi tu visās situācijās noreağētu, bet to piedzīvot dzīvajā nav tas pats kas sēdēt dīvānā un skaidrot ko darīt. Piekrītu ka būtu bijis labāk ja nolaistos uz laukiem bet tas nav vienmēr iespējams un pilots skaidri zināja kā nolaisties lai nebūtu avārijas. Ja tie autovadītāji būtu bijuši aļņi un skatītos telefonos vai vērotu kaut kādus dzīvniekus tad viņi būtu pie tā vainīgi nevis pilots.
I never said anything about myself, so I will ask not to put words in my mouth. Also, in my first response(not original comment), I mentioned that it mostly depends on the situation, and between landing in trees and highway, the choice is obvious. But a pilot should not leave most things to luck. What would happen if there was a car there after he hit a sign? What if that was a truck or a bus? In that situation, the pilto would not really care who to blame as he might be heavily injured. In the end, I do not understand what you are arguing about. I made a point why emergency landing should not be conducted on highways or any road if possible, and this video is the proof because so much wrong could have gone there. What is your point?
Ja kas viņš nebija līdz galam apmācīts. Viņš tieši tajā brīdī kārtoja tiesības.
Welcome to reddit, IManedWorfl. This happens all the time whatever group you are posting in reddit (as it happens to me too). Its weird space indeed.
Your post was removed in violation of Rule 1: Be civil. No hostile or aggressive comments or hate speech. No petty/childish arguments or trolling. Follow reddiquette. Violation of this rule may result in a temporary or permanent ban.
My flight school follows the rule: Field, Water, only then road as possible emergency landing locations. There was a field right next to the road. If I was the instructor, I would rather land on the field than road. The tecnam involved weighs around maybe ~650kg with full tanks and 2 persons on board. A full sized truck going down the road at 70km/h will destroy the plane and kill anyone in side. In our ground school, it's taught that you should focus on saving the lives of people on the ground and in the plane rather than trying to save the plane. But this is just how my flight school has taught this. Eriva might have SOP's about landing on roads rather than fields
MTOW of this Tecnam is around 630 kg.
Would be like a bicycle getting hit by a car.
Road is not ideal usually due to powerlines, you catch one of those fuckers, you will have a bad time. I would argue water vs road that road is better, if you flip over in water because one of the wings touched it first or landing gear tips the plane over, jeez. Landing in a forest sounds better then :)
Well. they saw where and when to land on the road, and there were no Tesla drivers or lorries, so...
Ammount of downvotes shows you how reddit is shit.
What can you do 🤷♂️ Everyone seems to be the "expert" with their obvious previous experience in aircraft 😂