Sorry guys. I tried my best!

At least this Mitchell report had a happy ending.

I'm trying to figure out which sounds more ridiculous: the notion that, upon discovering there was a problem with the landing equipment, they decided they'd better land right away, or the fact that, when they realized they needed to unload some fuel, they flew in a circle over the airport for almost two hours instead of just going ahead and flying to Arizona.

That is an extremely naive view on this. The landing gear probably failed to close properly so landing instead of a cross country trip is a good idea. Circling an airport burning fuel is a lot safer then saying "what the hell" and flying cross country to burn the fuel.

Why can't you fly if the landing gear door doesn't close?

Somehow I just assumed he traveled by going through portals in hell.

That is an extremely naive view on this.

I didn't say there wasn't some crazy airplane logic to it. I was pointing out how silly it sounds.

Why can't you fly if the landing gear door doesn't close?

IANAP, but I do play a little M$ Flight Simulator.

If the landing gear doesn't retract, you'll have additional drag on the aircraft and your max airspeed will be lower so you don't overstress the components of the unretracted gear.

The story says the plane was carrying "a great deal of fuel," but perhaps not enough to safely arrive if the plane is burning more fuel (because of the increased drag) and flying slower than what was expected in the flight plan.

At least, that's my guess.

This circling business drives me a little batty, too. In this sort of case, I'd think that they could fly at slower speed on a route that that would take them past a series of airports. When approaching each each airport, they choose to land or go on to the next one.

I remember the Jet Blue flight from SoCal (LAX?) a few years ago and had a nose wheel problem at takeoff. IIRC, they circled for hours and ultimately landed successfully with the nose gear scraping the ground. I figured, why not just fly to NY, their intended destination, and do the same thing there? If they landed OK (as they did) the passengers would be at their destination, rather than back in California and hours late.

I remember the Jet Blue flight from SoCal (LAX?) a few years ago and had a nose wheel problem at takeoff. IIRC, they circled for hours and ultimately landed successfully with the nose gear scraping the ground. I figured, why not just fly to NY, their intended destination, and do the same thing there? If they landed OK (as they did) the passengers would be at their destination, rather than back in California and hours late.

It's probably because, if something went wrong on route, the controller who cleared the flight would get torn a new one. Also, I'm not sure who has final authority over air traffic, but if I'm JFK, I sure as hell wouldn't want LAX knowingly sending me a potential emergency.

Airport Control Tower to Plane: "I picked a hell of a week to give up steroids."

Airport Control Tower to Plane: "I picked a hell of a week to give up steroids."

Doesn't the ESPN fantasy football guru look and sound EXACTLY like the wacky air traffic controller from Airplane!? I just can't take what he says seriously. I just giggle whenever he pops up on tv.

From my experience with MS Flight Simulator, not having the landing gear goes down results in a message that you crashed, with your entire plane sticking awkwardly into the ground in one piece at the point of contact.

I'm trying to figure out which sounds more ridiculous: the notion that, upon discovering there was a problem with the landing equipment, they decided they'd better land right away, or the fact that, when they realized they needed to unload some fuel, they flew in a circle over the airport for almost two hours instead of just going ahead and flying to Arizona.

Part of the problem with flying on to the destination airport is, what do you do if something else goes wrong? Making an emergency landing at an airport is a hell of a lot safer than trying to put down on a highway, a field, or some completely random stretch of ground.

Perhaps the maintenance crew who would have the knowledge, parts, and tools to repair the problem was at the airport where the plane departed from, rather than the airport to where it was flying?

In any case, it's much safer to keep an aircraft with a problem in sight rather than having it go galavanting around the country.

It's really not a good idea to go ahead with a potentially disastrous flight and figure that upon disaster, you'll just be able to clear an emergency landing at the nearest airport.

IANAP, but I do play a little M$ Flight Simulator.

If the landing gear doesn't retract, you'll have additional drag on the aircraft and your max airspeed will be lower so you don't overstress the components of the unretracted gear.

The story says the plane was carrying "a great deal of fuel," but perhaps not enough to safely arrive if the plane is burning more fuel (because of the increased drag) and flying slower than what was expected in the flight plan.

At least, that's my guess.

That would correct. The landing gear doors probably have an overspeed limit of around 250 knots or less*, while cruising speed is over twice that. Couple that with the additional drag and they would have been lucky to get as far as KC, and what good does that do you?

Plus, it is very poor practice to continue a flight with a known major malfunction.

*and that upper limit is usually for short duration. I would imagine they were circling the airport at below 200 knots with the flaps down to reduce any further potential damage.

well the landing gear would probly be torn apart from the drag on a cross country flight where as burning fuel at low speed near by is a lot safer. making belly landings is not something a pilot ever wants to do.

How about the owners of the aircraft have their hangar in Milwaukee so instead of flying a damaged plane to AZ and spending a fortune to house and repair it at another facility, keep it home. Of course, this reason in addition to the obvious safety issues and government regulation of aircraft.