[HN Gopher] Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landin...
___________________________________________________________________
Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear
Author : iamjfu
Score : 130 points
Date : 2023-06-29 11:31 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wbtv.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wbtv.com)
| h0nd wrote:
| Is the video available without IP-restrictions?
| [deleted]
| gyani wrote:
| In 15-20 years we will have helper drone(s) incorporated in each
| aircraft that can fly off and provide an outside scan of the
| craft, perhaps even perform minor repairs.
| bronco21016 wrote:
| Have you dealt with the FAA before? It's been a decade long
| battle to change certification standards for GA aircraft that
| contain multiple redundant solid state instruments over
| mechanically driven gyros. Maybe in 100 years.
| trillic wrote:
| Nice work by the pilots.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| It's cool how they wait as long as they can before gently placing
| the nose on the runway. So much smoother and quieter than I
| anticipated. Delta owes these pilots an off-duty drink!
| koolba wrote:
| > Delta owes these pilots an off-duty drink!
|
| Fun fact: Pilots can have a non-zero BAC (I think .04). So they
| could have it while on duty too if it's not a double!
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| You are technically correct about the BAC, but they
| definitely cannot have one while "on duty", there's an 8 hour
| limit between your last drink and flying and some airlines
| have longer time windows by policy
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.17
| eastbound wrote:
| 8 hour limit + 0.04 = They can drink a lot the day before,
| but they have to aim pretty well...
| intune wrote:
| Not quite, there's also a rule that you can't operate an
| aircraft within 8 hours of consuming alcohol, aka. "8 hours
| bottle to throttle".
| jbverschoor wrote:
| They only circled around for a few minutes?
| sidlls wrote:
| These planes all come with handbooks that the manufacturer
| provides for anomalous situations, like when some landing gear
| don't work. Once the flight crew run through the checklists in
| the handbooks for the problem, that's pretty much it. In
| certain cases and time permitting, the crew might also be in
| contact with their airline's maintenance/engineering staff in
| case there's something else that _might_ be done. But once
| those options are exhausted there 's no point in staying in the
| air, and these checklists can generally be done fairly quickly
| by a trained crew.
| flaminHotSpeedo wrote:
| I'm envious of the quality and coverage completeness of
| airline checklists, tech runbooks could take a page out of
| the airline book
| mannykannot wrote:
| There's no point in waiting once you have run through the
| checklist and put the crash trucks in position.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Maybe.. I'd wanna try a few more times
| pc86 wrote:
| Everything is done via checklists. You don't just "try a
| few more times" unless there's some indication that you
| should. They only had 30 minutes of fuel left, and if they
| had an unrelated go-around and ran out of fuel while
| setting up for another landing, everyone dies.
|
| Once you've run all the relevant checklists and ARFF is in
| position, you land the plane.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Well obviously if there's no fuel :)
| tallanvor wrote:
| Unless you want to burn fuel, but it sounds like that wasn't
| needed here.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If you suspect you're gonna turn into a hunk of bent metal
| sliding down the runway, I'd rather there only be a couple
| of gallons of fuel left, rather than a couple of hundred
| gallons.
| throwanem wrote:
| In the scale of amounts of fuel aircraft carry, 30
| minutes of fuel _is_ "a couple of gallons". You don't
| want enough to overstress the airframe or fuel a massive
| conflagration if the tanks are compromised, but you also
| don't want so little that you've got no buffer in case
| something else goes wrong, and 30 minutes at cruise (or
| at the near-idle power settings used on approach, it
| isn't clear here) is a lot less at takeoff/go-around
| power.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| They run their checklists and once all options have been
| exhausted to rectify the situation, what else should they do
| other than land? Also, they only had 30 minutes of fuel
| remaining.
| swores wrote:
| > _landed without nose gear extended at 08:54L (12:54Z) about
| 12 minutes after the second go around and about 30 minutes
| after the first go around._
|
| Via _Tepix_ 's comment
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36519150
|
| In combination with what _mannykannot_ replied to you, that
| doesn 't sound particularly rushed to me (not that I'm an
| expert, but it would be surprising if they'd needed an hour for
| such a relatively common type of incident).
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Mmm yeah I guess that should be enough
| pc86 wrote:
| As opposed to?
| runeks wrote:
| How does a plane lose its front landing gear?
| stefncb wrote:
| It didn't literally lose the gear, there was a mechanical issue
| that prevented it from engaging.
| alistairSH wrote:
| It was there, it just wouldn't drop into place.
|
| I have seen (on one of the YouTube ATC channels) a comercial
| jet (747, IIRC) that DID lose one of its main landing gear on
| take-off. Another pilot (in another jet) saw the wheel bounce
| across the runway.
|
| That plane continued on its way and landed normally. It was
| just one wheel of a four-wheel truck/assembly (of which a 747
| has 4 sets).
| noahmbarr wrote:
| First, pilots should be commended. 101 (or 104) souls were saved.
|
| This is an almost 23 year old plane. Even with checks and
| maintenance, was age a factor?
| ubermonkey wrote:
| The airframe was 23 years old, but odds are pretty much
| everything else on the plane had been replaced, probably
| multiple times, in that service life.
| ominous_prime wrote:
| This is kind of patronizing to the pilots. There's nothing
| particularly difficult about what they did, which has been
| practiced many times. They ran their checklists, and then
| landed the plane, and they did it well, just like any other
| qualified pilot should have. People need to stop conflating
| basic competence with heroics.
|
| Age is always a factor in mechanical failure, but I'm sure this
| failure will be inspected in detail to try and avoid it again
| in the future
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| They seemed to have timed placing the nose down better than I
| anticipated. It speaks to their experience how gently they
| were able to handle the situation.
| bostonsre wrote:
| I would imagine simulator practice is a good amount different
| from executing the real thing when your adrenaline is kicking
| in and they have a full plane. They are professionals that
| executed a complex task gracefully to minimize the terror
| that their passengers experienced (they balanced on the back
| wheels for a long time to bleed off speed and the landing
| seemed more graceful than many with all landing gear that
| I've had). Why not give them some props instead of taking
| them for granted? Maybe the pilots weren't too worried, but
| I'm sure the passengers must have been pretty terrified.
| quest88 wrote:
| Just to nitpick, this landing technique is something every
| pilot has to demonstrate to an FAA designated examiner to
| get their first pilot certificate (or, the private pilot
| license). So it's kind of like saying "Wow, you did the
| thing every pilot has to do!". I get what you're saying
| though - there's an emotional difference between doing this
| when everything is fine and when you have a real emergency.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I suspected it wasn't required for _every_ pilot since
| most initially licensed pilots will train on airplanes
| that don't have retractable landing gears in the first
| place.
|
| But I guess the technique isn't much different than if
| your nose tire blew, which might be included in all
| training?
|
| Looks like flying with a retractable landing gear is a
| separate "complex aircraft endorsement" that "has no
| corresponding check ride or minimum number of flight or
| ground hours that must be completed."
|
| (Though that's what the regs say, the schools that
| provide it do have those)
|
| https://www.flyingmag.com/guides/how-to-earn-a-complex-
| aircr...
| quest88 wrote:
| The technique is the soft-field landing technique,
| required for every pilot[1]. It's for landing on soft
| surfaces such as a grass strip. You must land with the
| mains first and keep the nose wheel held off of the
| ground for as long as possible, gently setting it down.
| You don't need a complex aircraft for this.
|
| This is the same technique the delta pilot used, and by
| other pilots that had an abnormal nose-wheel deployment.
|
| [1]The airmen certification standards: https://www.faa.go
| v/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/tes...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Gotcha, thanks!
| mrguyorama wrote:
| An expert successfully doing the thing they trained for can
| still be praiseworthy.
| throwaway295729 wrote:
| There's a difference between practicing for a situation and
| being able to perform under the pressure and stress of when
| it actually occurs and the consequences of failure are dire
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>He said they were told the Federal Aviation Administration has
| a hold on the plane so nothing can move on it or from it.
|
| And then they wonder why people try to take their bags during an
| emergency off boarding.... Because they know they will not see it
| for a long time if ever again.
|
| Stupid policy
| joshstrange wrote:
| Can you imagine leaving your laptop on a plane? In a situation
| like this I'd almost certainly grab that and try to take it
| with me. Airlines are already woefully incompetent in the best
| of times with your luggage, what's even the timeline for
| getting this stuff back? I don't buy the whole "we need it for
| the investigation", buddy if something in my carry-on stopped
| the front landing gear from opening you've got bigger issues.
| It's already absurd they still go on about "airplane mode" with
| phones/tablets. The airline industry is so horrible to deal
| with.
| vanattab wrote:
| The investigation is not the primary reason your told the
| leave your stuff its to avoid delays in an evacuation.
| Imagine that the plane was less lucky I fire had started in
| the front nose cone section. Then people trying to get there
| bags could jeopardize the safety of the passengers in the
| front of the plane.
| lxgr wrote:
| I hope I'm never on the same plane as somebody with that
| attitude in an emergency...
|
| Things can move from "ugh this is annoying, where is the
| truck with the stairs" to "the landing gear caught on fire
| after all" very quickly.
|
| https://www.insider.com/russian-plane-crash-aeroflot-
| passeng...
| ethanbond wrote:
| Definitely an unfortunate policy but isn't it possible (at
| least in some cases) that doing so would taint the evidence of
| a problem that put hundreds of people at risk?
| wkat4242 wrote:
| But it doesn't really. The bags are nowhere near the gear
| ethanbond wrote:
| In _this_ instance yes, but presumably the policy is a
| general one for all sorts of aviation incidents.
|
| You could argue "well they should rapidly diagnose and make
| a decision" and, sure, but that diagnosis is exactly the
| question isn't it?
| dheera wrote:
| Uh, no. My medications in my carry-on, without which I will
| have serious cardiac issues, are not related to the problem
| or "evidence".
|
| Agree it is a stupid policy. As long as there is no fire, at
| least let people grab their carry-ons.
| NamTaf wrote:
| The counter-argument is that in some circumstances, is no
| certainty that a fire will not break out at some arbitrary
| time after the plane has landed and come to a stop. And if
| one does break out, there is no certainty around how long
| there is between ignition and Shit Going Badly, so the
| prevailing result is to get the plane stationary, get
| everyone off as quickly as possible, and _then_ assess the
| situation.
|
| edit for clarity: I understand the issue you face regarding
| your medication being trapped on the plane and believe
| airlines should indeed have a duty of care to ensure you
| have rapid access to replacement medication at their
| expense, but I'm specifically addressing why they have the
| policy of telling people to not grab carry-on items during
| evacuation.
| ethanbond wrote:
| That's a good point! I'd be genuinely shocked if the policy
| didn't account for a way to solve that.
| dheera wrote:
| Yeah my point is, there are a whole lot of other things
| people tend to have in their carry-ons that are critical
| for their health. CPAP machines, CGMs, knee braces,
| allergy-specific emergency food, adult diapers, insulin,
| epi pens, the list goes on.
|
| If there is actually an imminent threat to life, such as
| a fire, of course all of these things should be left
| behind. But I'm of the opinion that in no event should
| anyone's _health_ be compromised in the name of a blanket
| policy to collect "evidence".
|
| In short:
|
| save lives >> protect health >> collect evidence
| ethanbond wrote:
| As a general heuristic, I've found that people who create
| policies in a specialized field of expertise tend to
| think through those policies a whole lot more than
| internet commentators like myself do.
|
| Especially when those policies will _obviously_ piss off
| a bunch of people, I can either assume those people who
| spend decades thinking about X don't know what they're
| doing, or I can say "hey, I probably know way less than
| they do." That doesn't mean I don't inquire /don't
| question, but I think jumping from an unattributed off-
| hand remark in a CBS article to "FAA is dumb and they'd
| have let me die on the tarmac" deserves some skepticism
| too.
|
| I am genuinely curious about what exactly this policy is,
| why it exists, and how they handle cases like yours. I
| don't think "assume the people who investigate aviation
| incidents aren't aware there might be medicine onboard"
| is a good starting point for that type of inquiry.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| > I've found that people who create policies in a
| specialized field of expertise tend to think through
| those policies a whole lot more than internet
| commentators like myself do.
|
| I've found the opposite, actually. Specialized fields of
| expertise are the less able to make policy because, in
| general, they fail to consider the big picture. It's all
| tradeoffs for everything and more than just one "expert"
| should have a say at any policy.
|
| It would be like letting somebody with a specialized
| expertise like corporate law design a product. They are
| an expert at not getting sued, so we should totally
| listen to only them, right? Could you imagine such a
| product? It would be nothing but legal disclaimers and
| would be so watered down that it is completely useless.
| getoj wrote:
| It's worth remembering that there is often a conflict of
| interest between the system and the individual.
|
| An example where I'm from is train station escalators.
| There is an unwritten social rule that you stand on the
| left, and let anyone who is in a hurry walk down on the
| right. This benefits the individuals because if you're in
| a hurry you can get through faster, and if you're not you
| don't care. But the rail company has constant
| announcements telling people _not_ to do this, and to
| stand on both sides of the escalator, because a full
| escalator clears the platform much faster.
|
| These announcements are largely ignored. No individual
| cares about clearing the platform, even though it is the
| best thing for the rail network as a whole (crowded
| platforms cause delays). I would also argue that the
| needs of the few people running to get to work are more
| important than improving network efficiency. But the job
| of the very intelligent, well informed boffins who make
| the announcements is to make the trains run on time, so
| the announcements continue.
|
| In this case too, I think the FAA have a different set of
| priorities to the passengers, and they really don't care
| about your medicine. Probably if there is an emergency
| they will send an employee back into the plane to grab
| your bag, as a one-off exception. If they're too slow and
| you die, too bad---should have had extra medicine in your
| shoe.
|
| Policy is created to achieve institutional goals;
| individual needs are an afterthought at best.
| xattt wrote:
| The remedy would be to have a rapid replacement of all your
| belongings.
| graypegg wrote:
| Why do you assume a low-margin high-risk industry implements
| "stupid policies" just to bother you and steal your laptop?
|
| The goal during an evacuation is to get every one off in
| 90seconds or less, since it's possible there's a fire, which
| has the potential to become extremely dangerous very quickly.
| Consider how long it takes to board a plane with luggage.
|
| We're all really quick to assume this is simply bureaucrats
| inventing rules to annoy us.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Those Delta 717s (which are actually just rebadged MD-95s) are
| the oldest fleet of airframes in use today on US domestic routes,
| having been acquired from the AirTran bankruptcy nearly 20 years
| ago. I suspect this will be the beginning of the end for them, as
| they are out of production for years now.
|
| Edit: that is indeed the case https://simpleflying.com/delta-
| retirements-aircraft/
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Did the passengers know about the problem?
| jen729w wrote:
| One of the linked videos above shows them landing in the brace
| position so yes.
|
| All very calm to everyone's credit.
| voxadam wrote:
| > NTSB investigating the runway landing of a Boeing 712 without
| the nose gear extended at Charlotte/Douglas International airport
| in Charlotte, North Carolina.
|
| It's difficult to trust a news source that can't properly
| identify an airframe model in an article about an airplane crash.
| As far as I can as a tell, Boeing has never produced a model 712,
| it appears what the plane in question is some variant of the
| 717[1] but that's only a guess as I'm not an expert in the field.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717
| aoetalks wrote:
| 712 is another way to refer to a 717-200. Though it's a bit odd
| they just didn't say "717-200" in the article to reduce
| confusion.
|
| https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B712
| voxadam wrote:
| Thank you for the clarification. I should have searched
| around a bit more for an explanation before complaining about
| it here.
|
| As soon as I have a little free time I'll do my best to
| update the relevant Wikipedia pages in hopes fewer people are
| confused by the nomenclature in the future.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| This isn't common, but it's pretty routine. Pilots are trained
| for this, and the aircraft are designed to handle the stress.
| interestica wrote:
| If you have the Flightradar24 app, you can get an alert any
| time an aircraft transponder squawks 7700 - Emergency. (While
| writing, a cesna over Oklahoma City just did)
| skykooler wrote:
| @aircraft_alert@airwaves.social also posts on mastodon
| whenever an aircraft squawks 7700.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >the aircraft are designed to handle the stress.
|
| I was somewhat thinking of the passengers.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| > I was somewhat thinking of the passengers.
|
| Everything that happened was well within the stress tolerance
| parameters of the majority of involved humans as well.
| jwestbury wrote:
| The prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder would
| disagree.
| tekla wrote:
| People are free to not use airplanes if a designed for
| maneuver gives them PTSD.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| > People are free to not use airplanes if a designed for
| maneuver gives them PTSD.
|
| You know, that's insensitive in terms of minimizing the
| suffering endured by people with _bona fide_ PTSD, as
| well as dismissive. Because what do you suggest as an
| alternative? Drive an automobile, with higher accident
| rates than air travel? Walk across the street in traffic?
| Life is dangerous, choose your poison.
|
| I personally appreciate aviators and all air crews for
| really going all-in to make flying safe and tolerable, if
| not enjoyable. When I think of some of the crazy train or
| bus rides I've had, air travel is pretty amazing in
| comparison, especially at a bargain price.
|
| And I do suffer from (complex) PTSD, but thankfully such
| an incident as in TFA would not particularly trigger an
| episode. Thanks for caring.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Mechanical stress, they mean.
| Kye wrote:
| Planes have to be sturdy _and_ flexible to handle the
| environment they spend most of their time cruising in. This
| is probably nothing next to the turbulence planes are
| expected to shrug off while maintaining a ground level
| environment eight miles up for decades of service life.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I was somewhat thinking of the mechanical stress of the
| passengers.
| Kye wrote:
| Seems like not much:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyYxWFFTpI
|
| I wonder if the passengers would even notice if they
| weren't warned to expect it. From what I understand, they
| don't let the front down until they're nearly stopped in
| these situations. You can tell when the nose drops, and
| it barely seems to register aside from the scraping noise
| and a little shaking.
| cto_of_antifa wrote:
| [dead]
| piva00 wrote:
| Here you can see a YT Shorts that a passenger inside the
| flight shot, it's actually much less stressful than I
| imagined: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W12w7NkqGCM
| mindslight wrote:
| What's the actual point of Youtube Sharts? It just seems
| like encouragement for people to film vertically and not
| frame the shot well.
|
| And on the watching side you're pushed into a needlessly
| unfriendly UI. Like I generally just use the YT web
| interface and don't go out of my way to routinely yt-dlp or
| Newpipe, but now I might have to change that.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| YouTube Sharts is a subscription only niche fetish
| service.
| piva00 wrote:
| I don't know, I hate them, it was just the only video I
| actually found when searching for the flight name on
| YouTube. Personally I actively avoid that feature,
| closing the "Shorts" shelf on YouTube at any opportunity
| I see.
|
| I really, really dislike short looping videos, when it
| starts looping I get irrationally angry and close the
| window. Instagram Reels is another feature I fucking
| detest.
|
| I might be showing my age, I don't understand the appeal
| of TikTok, it just makes me stressed, haha.
| mindslight wrote:
| I wasn't directing that at you, content is content (and
| FWIW that link works fine with yt-dlp). Rather I'm
| blaming Google for foisting this terrible UI on the world
| when they already had a decent one - from what I can tell
| there is no seeking, and scrolling up/down with arrow
| keys or mouse wheel _stops the video and moves to the
| next one_. (oof)
|
| I think the "appeal" is for people stuck in dopamine
| loops on their phone, where the continual stimulation of
| looping plus the quick-next functionality are "features".
| Of course being older and more deliberate about
| technology choices and use, these are actually grating
| anti-features.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| > What's the actual point of Youtube Shorts?
|
| To be an alternative to TikTok, or Instagram Reels, or
| other short-form video platforms.
| mindslight wrote:
| Sure, I meant for the people actually using it. Like if
| you want TikTok just continuing using TikTok, which you
| know is "mobile-first" and thus craptastic in a regular
| browser but presumably you don't care. But Google seems
| to have just blindly copied TikTok and enshittified their
| existing product to push it, when they could have
| integrated it into normal Youtube and made something
| better than both.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| Well I can talk about myself :)
|
| I don't want TikTok. Mostly because I don't want to use
| yet another app or account. Then there's the thing about
| it being from China, but to be honest, as a European it
| doesn't reeeally matter to me if an app is from the US or
| China. I did actually try TikTok during the pandemic but
| became too addicted due to constant WFH and boredom.
|
| I have Instagram because I like to upload my favorite
| pictures. Then they started with Reels, I checked it out,
| liked it, so I now use it.
|
| When I feel like Reels bore me, or that the algo seems to
| currently push things I don't care about[0], I switch
| over to YT Shorts.
|
| There, the youtubers I'm already subscribed to upload
| shorter videos and I generally see different kinds of
| videos.
|
| Instagram mostly shows me memes and cat videos. YT shorts
| is more about stand-up comedy bits, science stuff etc.
|
| So my usage of these apps depends on how I currently feel
| like.
|
| [0] Both Insta and YT sometimes start to flood me with
| content about annoying Entrepreneur/Online Marketing bs,
| Andrew Tate or far(ish)-right-wing trash or half-naked
| women. No amount of "not interested" seems to help, so I
| either switch app or do something else.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| you can right click a shorts video, copy the URL, and paste
| that to get the normal non-crippled YouTube player
|
| https://youtu.be/W12w7NkqGCM
| jen729w wrote:
| And you can install Vinegar and it'll remove YouTube's
| custom player, leaving you with the system's.
|
| https://apps.apple.com/au/app/vinegar-tube-
| cleaner/id1591303...
| brobinson wrote:
| You can also change /shorts/ to /v/ in the URL
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Well, if the pilots are indeed trained on how to handle these
| situations, the passengers will be fine. Maybe a bit shaken
| up from having to evacuate on the tarmac (especially if they
| have a fear of flying), but they'll be fine.
| stef25 wrote:
| Flying for me ain't fun but as soon the bird is on the
| ground I'm all good!
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Any landing that you can walk away from is a good
| landing.
| slumberlust wrote:
| Aye, but cross runway collisions are still a thing. I
| rest at the gate :D
| throwawaymobule wrote:
| based on the photos, they did pop the slides on this
| incident. but evacuations are often not called in these
| situations if there isn't a fire or something.
|
| there's a real risk of injury from evacuating, so it needs
| consideration by the pilot.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _the aircraft are designed to handle the stress._
|
| I wonder how the runway fares after this.
| sowbug wrote:
| Not answering your question, but a bit of interesting trivia
| for you. Large passenger airplanes routinely take off with
| too much fuel to land safely. If one took off, circled the
| airport once, and landed, then it might actually _break apart
| on landing_ because of the mass of the fuel being sloshed
| around as the airplane touches down. That 's why planes
| preferably dump or burn off excess fuel before an unscheduled
| early landing.
|
| There are also rules about exactly where a plane can touch
| down on the runway. Only some of a runway is engineered to be
| strong enough to bear the weight of a massive plane dropping
| onto the pavement. The rest is called a "displaced threshold"
| and is OK for parking, taxiing, and taking off.
| mulmen wrote:
| I don't think the airplane is going to break up, just that
| it would need inspection and perhaps repair if touching
| down over weight.
|
| Blancolirio covers this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D2Kj0t4t9s
| lambda wrote:
| Generally, the displaced threshold is not because of the
| load of touching down, but because of clearance of
| obstacles. When landing, where you are aiming to land, and
| a standard glideslope, puts you over obstacles at a certain
| height. In some cases if you landed on the very end of he
| the runway, that would cause you to collide with (or have
| too low a margin of safety) over obstacles before the
| runway. The displaced threshold moves the glideslope
| further forward, allowing for better clearance over
| obstacles.
|
| Source: Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B Airport Design,
| 3.5.3 (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_C
| ircular/...) When it is impractical to
| locate a threshold at the beginning of the runway, it may
| be necessary to apply a displaced threshold. A
| displaced threshold reduces runway length available
| for landings in one direction. The portion of the runway
| prior to the displaced threshold typically remains
| available for takeoffs. Depending on the circumstances
| surrounding the displacement, operations from the opposite
| runway end may or may not be affected. Refer to
| Appendix H for related information on declared distances.
| Generally, a runway threshold displacement provides:
| 1. A means for obtaining additional RSA prior to the
| threshold. 2. A means for obtaining additional ROFA
| prior to the threshold. 3. A means for locating the
| RPZ to mitigate incompatible land uses. 4. A means
| for obstacle clearance prior to the threshold. 5.
| Increased arrival capacity with certain parallel runway
| approach procedures. See FAA Order 7110.308,
| Simultaneous Dependent Approaches to Closely Spaced
| Parallel Runways
|
| Glossary: RSA: Runway Safety Area
| ROFA: Runway Object Free Area RPZ: Runway Protection
| Zone
|
| Note that all of the given reasons are for clearance of
| obstacles or various other mandatory safety areas based on
| clearance from taxiways or other runway traffic, not for
| durability of the runway.
| plegresl wrote:
| Overweight landings are a thing and it's very, very rare
| for the airplane to break apart or even be damaged when
| performing them: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromaga
| zine/articles/qtr_...
| danpalmer wrote:
| Oooh, this is something I know a little about. At
| university we were tasked with building software for
| estimating the usable area of a runway given its
| configuration and _obstacles_.
|
| Runways have 3-4 different defined areas, each with
| different properties and usable in different ways. For
| example, the grass at the sides is important for safety,
| must be cleared a certain distance back, must not rise
| above a certain level above the tarmac, etc, and all those
| rules are distinct from the rules that apply to the
| concrete at the ends of the runway, distinct from the rules
| regarding surrounding buildings and trees, and so on. The
| area managed as a runway can extend kilometers out on every
| side.
|
| Now, if you have a plane break down at one end, or a
| support vehicle crash on the grass or something, you don't
| actually have to put the runway out of action, but you do
| have to re-declare the usable distance, and that's based on
| the location, size, and importantly _height_ of the
| obstacle. You then need to plot the angle of landing
| /takeoff based on that height, accounting for the segment
| of the runway it's in, and the given runway's pre-approved
| angle (varies by city/terrain).
|
| It was a fascinating project and a good example of how
| problems are often so much more complex and nuanced than
| they initially appear.
| [deleted]
| notatoad wrote:
| From the timestamps on the tweets in the article, the
| incident happened around 8am and the runway was put back into
| service around 5pm after being inspected.
|
| So at least in this case, it doesn't seem to have had a
| serious impact on the runway
| WJW wrote:
| Interesting! Do you know if it can just survive it and then
| needs to be scrapped or is it possible to replace the damaged
| hull plate(s) and (after thorough inspection) put the plane
| back into service?
| rob74 wrote:
| They certainly _can_ repair it, but in this case, given that
| Delta is already in the process of retiring the Boeing 717
| (and replacing it with Airbus 220), they might just decide
| that it 's not economical to do it anymore...
| Maxion wrote:
| The specific plane (1), N955AT, is 22.6 years old. So not
| young, but not completely geriatric either. Delta seems to
| be the only major operator of the plane type, so don't
| think there'd be too many buyers. Delta also seems to have
| a fair few in storage(2) so a fair guess would be that
| they'd scrap it but keep the parts that they could still
| use on other planes as spares.
|
| 1) https://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b717-55017.htm
| 2) https://www.airfleets.net/listing/b717-1-statdesc.htm
| bbatsell wrote:
| Delta and Hawaiian are the two US operators. Hawaiian
| loves it, and is struggling to replace it. They use them
| for island-hopping. Modern airliners don't do well in
| this use case -- modern engines have been engineered to
| tight tolerances to extract fuel economy, and their
| thermal designs rely on the cold air at cruise altitude
| to keep them healthy. Island hops are too short and too
| low for that to hold. The engines on the 717 handle it
| just fine, but anything else on the market will require
| the planes to sit on the tarmac for a significant length
| of time between landing and takeoff for them to cool
| enough, and would destroy Hawaiian's current network
| design, which has lots of quick flights and tight turns.
|
| Delta announced retirement a long time ago, but has been
| not-so-secretly buying up as many as they can get, mostly
| as spares for parts to keep the fleet going because it's
| so useful for them. Also, the A220, its replacement, has
| a single engine, the Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbofan,
| which has had an incredibly rough entry into service --
| everyone was concerned that the gearbox would be an
| issue, but it has been mostly rock-solid, and it's the
| engine core that's had dozens of issues. An airline in
| India has over half of its fleet grounded and filed for
| bankruptcy last month because P&W can't repair their
| engines.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > The engines on the 717 handle it just fine, but
| anything else on the market will require the planes to
| sit on the tarmac for a significant length of time
| between landing and takeoff for them to cool enough
|
| Is it just a matter of the brakes and tires/wheels
| needing to cool down or other parts need the cooldown
| period as well?
| bbatsell wrote:
| No, it's entirely the engines -- there are a lot of
| moving pieces of metal that have to safely expand and
| contract in understood cycles. The brakes and wheels are
| fine with tight turns (assuming you don't have to use max
| braking). Southwest operates on a very similar timetable,
| and in fact flies a few of the more-trafficked Hawaii
| island hops. The difference is that Hawaiian's 717s
| _only_ fly island hops all day, every day. Southwest
| rotates its planes, so any given plane will do at max two
| island hops before it flies the 6 hours back to mainland
| and gets plenty of cooling time, e.g., LAX -> Honolulu ->
| Hilo -> Honolulu -> LAX.
| ghaff wrote:
| The Hawaiian Islands are sort of an interesting case.
| Island hopping is short for jets (and a lot of people
| don't really like flying small props). But they're really
| too far apart for a ferry service between the major
| islands; it was tried at one point but went out of
| business.
| nradov wrote:
| The Hawaii Superferry went bankrupt mostly due to
| political and environmental protests. Distance between
| the main populated islands isn't very far.
| tialaramex wrote:
| I think the aversion to props is a North American thing
| in particular. Which doesn't help Hawaiian but for
| Europeans it's completely normal for small hops to be in
| a mid-size turbo-prop (these are still jet engines,
| they're just spinning a propeller instead of shoving hot
| gas out of the back to go faster) aircraft. Sure, it's
| not necessarily as comfortable as an A380, but you're not
| stuck there for hours.
| ghaff wrote:
| >I think the aversion to props is a North American thing
| in particular.
|
| That may be. I actually flew a prop from Maui to Big
| Island last time I was in Hawaii. But when I was growing
| up they used to be super-common even on East Coast
| "commuter" flights especially from smaller airports.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| They can most certainly repair the plane. If you've never
| heard of the "Gimli Glider", check this out...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
| glomgril wrote:
| That's an insane story. As much as I hate flying, modern
| aviation infrastructure is one of mankind's most impressive
| feats.
| chrisldgk wrote:
| Airplanes rarely get scrapped for parts because of incidents
| like this. They have pretty extensive maintenance and repair
| checklists, but afaik the rate of making vessels like this
| airworthy is pretty high.
| jon-wood wrote:
| It really is amazing how resilient planes are, I'm pretty
| hooked on this YouTube series in which a guy gets given a
| plane that's been sitting in the open for 15 years or so on
| the condition he can make the thing run again. https://www.
| youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5IMg7-HLL1Y4K06HdsDB...
| lr1970 wrote:
| > Airplanes rarely get scrapped for parts because of
| incidents like this. They have pretty extensive maintenance
| and repair checklists, ...
|
| And yet these "extensive maintenance checklists" did not
| prevent such a serious malfunction. They were lucky that
| the weather was cooperating. In bad weather and strong
| winds who knows what would have happened.
| pc86 wrote:
| Tell me you don't know what you're talking about without
| telling me you don't know what you're talking about.
|
| These are machines. Machines break, no matter what the
| maintenance regime is. The number of cycles on these
| planes is awe inspiring, and while there are always
| squawks, the captain and FO always have the authority to
| ground a plane for any maintenance items they don't like.
|
| > _They were lucky that the weather was cooperating. In
| bad weather and strong winds who knows what would have
| happened._
|
| Exactly the same thing would have happened. Maybe if it
| was raining or very cold we wouldn't have quite as much
| passenger cell phone footage from the runway. But weather
| had nothing to do with this, _nice_ weather didn 't make
| the landing any easier, and bad weather wouldn't have
| made it any harder. Ridiculous.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| Weather had nothing to do with it. They had a warning
| light come on during landing that the nose gear had a
| safety issue, so they did another few passes, requested
| emergency services available at touchdown, and then did
| effectively a pretty normal landing (just holding the
| nose up a little longer than normal).
| mrmlz wrote:
| Nobody is assuming "extensive maintenance checklists" are
| _preventing_ serious malfunction. They do however reduce
| the risk for such events to occur to an acceptable level.
|
| The likelihood for a malfunction is never zero.
| some_random wrote:
| Wearing a seatbelt doesn't prevent you from dying in a
| car accident, guess we might as well stop that too,
| sounds useless to me.
| bombcar wrote:
| They can fix and fly this almost certainly.
| bombcar wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/@REALATCchannel/videos made me realize
| just how many incidents happen and are resolved without issue.
| kube-system wrote:
| Aviation is not safe because of luck or because aerospace
| engineers build infallible machines. Aviation is safe because
| of a culture of safety that puts the right procedures in
| place to mitigate problems that will eventually happen.
| tialaramex wrote:
| And when you say "Aviation is safe" you mean specifically
| Scheduled Aviation ie people buy tickets and go on a plane
| with some guys they've never met flying it. Scheduled
| Aviation is remarkably safe.
|
| GA (General aviation, people who own a little plane and
| maybe just fly it for fun, or it's a professional expense
| for say a plastic surgeon and allows them to fly 300 miles
| home on Thursday evening after working four days in the big
| city) is not safe. A few hundred of these people die, not
| just smash up their planes or get hurt, but die, sometimes
| with family or friends aboard, every year. It might make
| the local TV news, at most. Unless they were a celebrity it
| won't make national news.
|
| Commercial is more complicated because there are so many
| possibilities. Cargo is pretty safe, if your job is to move
| boxes of stuff from one big jet airport to another in a
| civilized country you'll likely die in bed of old age. But
| if you fly a police helicopter, or medevac, or you're a
| crop duster, or you fly custom pick up jobs, when the
| client wants and where they want - those jobs can go badly
| wrong much too easily, without you really understanding
| what you've got yourself into until it's too late. These
| people are (or at least should be) better trained than in
| GA, but they're also often flying more demanding missions.
| You may operate out of somewhere with not-so-great
| capabilities, on short notice, in poor weather and/or at
| night, and you may be expected to go places that you
| ordinarily wouldn't, close to buildings, close to other
| aircraft, even close to the ground - all of which narrows
| your options if things go wrong.
|
| Military is also pretty bad as I understand it. It needn't
| be, but there's some sense that the job is "supposed" to be
| dangerous, which maybe makes sense for front line infantry,
| but really not for the vast majority of military pilots -
| way too many of them die far from any enemy, as a result of
| somebody screwing up, just like in GA or commercial.
| justinclift wrote:
| What's with them putting "a hold" on all of the passengers
| possessions?
|
| Like, that's leaving people without their wallets (aka id, money)
| and so on. Sounds like they may not get it back for an unknown
| period of time (weeks, months?) either.
| xwdv wrote:
| You guys have wallets? Seems like the only possession you'd
| really need to do anything useful is your phone.
| alistairSH wrote:
| You don't? Where do you keep your driver's license, credit
| cards, etc? I don't have a full bifold/trifold, but do have a
| small card holder for IDs and CCs.
|
| And then there's the passport and any other important
| documentation. That stuff is pretty much always in either my
| carry-on or a jacket pocket (which is usually also in the
| overhead).
|
| Yeah, keeping my cell on my person probably avoids 80%-90% of
| the annoyance, but you aren't getting through customs or
| security without a physical ID in most places.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| Yes, I have a driver's license and bank card. Do you not have
| ANY form of identification? How do you do things that require
| it?
| telotortium wrote:
| > You guys have wallets? Seems like the only possession you'd
| really need to do anything useful is your phone.
|
| I wouldn't want to be stuck away from home on a flight
| without some physical ID. Also don't want to completely rely
| on Apple Pay to buy anything (not to mention that some stores
| still don't take Apple Pay).
| xwdv wrote:
| First of all, contrary to popular belief you don't need
| physical ID at airports, you can go through another process
| to have your identity verified, it takes longer but it's
| trivial.
|
| Second, any place that doesnt take Apple Pay is not a place
| you should do business at. Even lowly kiosks and vending
| machines accept Apple Pay now. The places that are NOT
| accepting Apple Pay are a red flag, they are doing
| something nefarious by holding onto the old system of
| credit card processing (there are benefits and incentives
| to use contact less payments and places that refuse are
| actively missing out for a reason, there is literally no
| good reason to not take Apple Pay).
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| The world is a big place.
| crazygringo wrote:
| You know Home Depot doesn't take Apple Pay?
| alistairSH wrote:
| I don't need physical ID to get into the UK or EU? That's
| news to me.
|
| And expecting ApplePay to be available everywhere? That's
| such a laughably US-centric (or maybe EU-centric)
| worldview.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| And how do i use Apple Pay when my phone is flat?
| justinclift wrote:
| > contrary to popular belief you don't need physical ID
| at airports
|
| Guessing that's a US specific thing?
|
| Unsure if that'd work for an Australian travelling around
| though, and I'd personally _really_ rather not risk it
| going wrong. :)
| jen729w wrote:
| You don't need ID to travel domestically in Australia.
|
| Or do you mean 'an Australian travelling around [in the
| USA]'?
| justinclift wrote:
| Meh, I barely use my phone. It's mainly used as a 2FA, and
| (rarely) for communication.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| I understand "don't take any bags as we deplane down the
| emergency slide", but the hold is weird. I'd probably get
| arrested in the process of being like "No the bag with my
| important possessions I keep next to me on purpose is coming
| with me"
|
| They were probably rushed off due to being unsure about fire
| hazards, and people digging through carryons for wallets and
| stuff would probably slow that down a lot, considering how long
| a normal deplaning takes.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| The right time to grab wallet was after the pilot explained
| the issue and next steps.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| Probably didn't want everyone standing up in the aisle
| messing with the overheads all at once.
| fredoralive wrote:
| They probably want to make sure the plane is undisturbed before
| it can be examined by crash investigators and so on?
|
| There's probably a bit of a safety and practicality aspect of
| accessing a plane with a collapsed gear.
| justinclift wrote:
| Sure, they can "want" whatever they err... want.
|
| Doesn't seem like they should get their way when it comes to
| people's id and other personal docs, _if_ that 's what's
| really going on.
|
| Potentially stranding international passengers without their
| passport (etc) is really not on.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Untold best practice: Keep your phone, passport, wallet etc on
| your body always while on a flight. Imagine being stuck in this
| situation in a foreign country where they'll keep you at the
| airport for days waiting to figure out how to get you back home
| without a passport. Your renters/homeowners insurance may cover
| anything left on the plane that is lost and not covered by the
| airline.
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| Eh, the chances of ever having this impact you are incredibly
| remote. And yes, the "cost" of following this guideline is
| low, until you consider that you could have similar rules for
| hundreds of other incredibly rare situations, none of which
| will ever happen to you. Seems exhausting for no benefit.
| I'll just continue to keep my stuff in my backpack under the
| seat, and I can grab it if needed. Or not, and I'm sure
| that'll be fine too.
|
| Also, there's no indication that anyone who left the plane
| without their ID or passport is just being left in the
| terminal for days, making this guideline even less valuable.
| justinclift wrote:
| > there's no indication that anyone who left the plane
| without their ID or passport is just being left in the
| terminal for days
|
| Because US Airlines have such a good reputation for taking
| care of their stranded passengers? /s
| walski wrote:
| Aviation Herald always has great coverage on incidents like these
| https://avherald.com/h?article=50b0742c&opt=0 . Glad nobody got
| hurt!
| Reason077 wrote:
| That landing was so smooth it makes you wonder if front landing
| gear is even necessary at all!
| paulcole wrote:
| There was a startup a few years back in an HN batch that tried
| to disrupt aviation by saving money through avoiding non-
| essentials like landing gear. The landings, as you said, were
| surprisingly smooth. But the takeoffs were much more difficult.
|
| The startup ended up pivoting and used the sound their planes
| made sliding across the tarmac as inspiration for their new
| name. That's how Grindr was born!
| slumberlust wrote:
| Daaaaadddd
| db48x wrote:
| Repainting them between flights is a real pain.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| This wouldn't be a hull-loss or a major rebuild? I'd think
| the runway is keeping some of the aluminum from the nose for
| itself. Plus that's a lot of vibration near sensitive radome.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Not even close to a hull loss. Delta's Tech Ops will have
| this plane back in service very quickly.
| neolefty wrote:
| So is this plane totalled? Or can it be repaired and returned
| to service?
| simple10 wrote:
| Wow! Phenomenal piloting skills. In the 2nd video on the page
| taken by a passenger during landing, you can hear the plane
| balanced on the rear wheels for 12 seconds before touching down
| the nose. Impressive!
| nilsbunger wrote:
| This is a pretty standard maneuver - it's similar to a "soft
| field landing" (eg grass runway). Assuming you have a long
| runway, you avoid braking since that would slam the nose down,
| and use more and more elevator to keep the nose up to as slow a
| speed as possible.
| zh3 wrote:
| Here's a Vulcan landing with unsafe nose gear; hold back on the
| stick to keep the nose up (but not so long it comes down with a
| bump).
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxshOMFTZdM
| poorman wrote:
| Can you imagine how much better these videos would have looked on
| TV if all these people took recordings in portrait mode on their
| phones?
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Don't you mean landscape?
| Tepix wrote:
| Did they know in advance that they were having problems?
|
| Edit:
|
| Answer: Yes
|
| _... the crew initiated a go around due to a unsafe nose gear
| indication, climbed to 4000 feet and entered a hold to work the
| checklists. After working the checklists the crew declared
| emergency and requested emergency services on stand by. The
| aircraft performed a low approach to runway 36L, positioned for
| another approach to runway 36L and landed without nose gear
| extended at 08:54L (12:54Z) about 12 minutes after the second go
| around and about 30 minutes after the first go around._
| ipnon wrote:
| There is an algorithm for everything in aviation. If you
| suspect your landing gear is not functional, you typically fly
| by a tower and have them make visual confirmation. Then you
| have another algorithm (they call them procedures) for how to
| land without gear. The airport likewise has a checklist of
| everything to do in this case. All of these procedures are hard
| won, the NTSB uses every hull failure and fatal accident to
| analyze what went wrong and how to create a better procedure.
| ryandrake wrote:
| And when there is not a tower nearby, you, uhh... find a way.
| My buddy was flying into one of the many uncontrolled
| airports in NorCal, and there was a guy in a single-engine
| retractable gear circling the airport. When Buddy made his
| downwind call, the Guy radioed "Hey I'm not getting any
| indication whether my gear is down or not, can you fly by me
| and tell me if it's down?" It was down, so Guy ended up
| attempting the landing with a bit more confidence than he
| started out with.
| duxup wrote:
| I recall a mid air collision that occurred that way once. I
| forget the exact crash name, but IIRC a civilian aircraft
| was trying to spot for damage on another aircraft and they
| got too close.
|
| Not that people shouldn't help but you gotta be careful
| with maneuvers you don't typically make, even if trying to
| be helpful / are a pilot.
| coldcode wrote:
| I was on a commercial plane where the pilots could not tell
| if the gear was completely down and locked and got someone
| on the ground to look as we flew by slowly at low altitude.
| It appeared to be down, but they still landed very
| gingerly. Thankfully it was fine.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Not saying this should be an _alternative_ , but having read
| a lot of transcripts and video of things like this, I wonder
| why there aren't outside cameras that would potentially give
| pilots a visual indication of plane conditions outside? Is it
| just the cost of supporting resilient cameras?
|
| A lot of incident reports have flight attendants or copilots
| leaving to try to make visual confirmation of things that it
| seems would be better suited if there were some actual visual
| feedback.
| nunuvit wrote:
| You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their
| eyeballs, and they don't require anything else like faster
| response or a different viewpoint. You'd lose in terms of
| putting another hole in the aircraft and maintaining
| another system, and you'd still need the manual procedure
| in case the camera didn't work.
| nkozyra wrote:
| > You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their
| eyeballs
|
| I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard
| in recordings as well.
|
| For something like this they'd gain something for sure -
| time and redundancy
| nunuvit wrote:
| Why is the current time and redundancy requirement
| insufficient? They had plenty of time and opportunities
| to look at it, and they succeeded with time to spare.
| What is the scenario where they would run out of time,
| and why couldn't they land assuming that the landing gear
| wasn't deployed?
|
| You'd need potentially an unrealistic number of cameras.
| Even if you decide on a case by case basis, you still
| have to weigh the risk that every component adds, and
| with a finite amount of money to spend on risk reduction
| you want to get the most bang for your buck.
| nkozyra wrote:
| > Why is the current time and redundancy requirement
| insufficient?
|
| I'm operating under the belief that more time to respond
| to issues is always a plus. Do you disagree?
| ghaff wrote:
| >and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the
| camera didn't work.
|
| And presumably if the camera doesn't work as part of the
| pre-flight checklist for whatever reason, you're not
| going anywhere until it's fixed/replaced.
| throwawaymobule wrote:
| camera would probably just get an INOP sticker put
| somewhere, a surprising number of things can be
| nonfunctional on an airplane before it's grounded.
|
| part of it is that there's a backup for most everything
| required.
| gambiting wrote:
| ....how can they see the area where the front gear is
| from within the plane?
| nunuvit wrote:
| The people in the airplane ask the people on the ground
| to look at it for them. "They" refers collectively to
| pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers.
| alistairSH wrote:
| The pilots "see" it with sensors.
|
| The tower sees it with a set of binoculars. Hopefully.
| [deleted]
| kayfox wrote:
| Newer aircraft have external cameras that can be pulled up
| on screens in the cockpit.
| wil421 wrote:
| A lot of aircraft could do this but the rules are most
| likely the same for the majority of air planes large and
| small.
| EMM_386 wrote:
| > There is an algorithm for everything in aviation
|
| This is how I got my commercial pilot's license, and I'm a
| senior software engineer.
|
| It just "clicked" with my brain to follow specific procedures
| ("algorithms") for absolutely everything. Checklists, strict
| rules, "flows", handling emergencies. It all felt natural to
| me.
|
| They will throw random stuff at you during checkrides. Pull
| the power back on one of the engines right after takeoff
| saying it failed, fail instruments that you were using to
| navigate, blindfold you ("foggles") and put you almost upside
| down and then say "recover!".
|
| But you have everything so ingrained in your mind by that
| point that it's almost robotic. You just look at the inputs
| (almost upside down, engine #2 is gone, no attitude
| indicator, whatever it is) and know what the output is
| supposed to be (roll to unload Gs, lower the nose, full
| power, check the standby AI, etc).
|
| I happen to work well when there are strict rules and
| procedures. If this, then that.
| vwcx wrote:
| I got my CPL the same year my first kid was born. The
| procedure/checklist culture transferred really well between
| baby tasking and training.
| peteradio wrote:
| When you are robotically rolling to unload Gs does it still
| make your heart go boom!?? I love the idea of flying. I see
| crop dusters and private planes flying in all the time and
| it makes me wonder if I ought to try it out.
| tverbeure wrote:
| I once loved the idea of flying as well, and I have a
| miserly 18 flight hours on my record, accumulated 23
| years ago.
|
| The immediate reason to stop was the fact that the more I
| did it, the more nauseous I got, but by then I had
| already decided that flying was not nearly as exciting as
| I expected it to be. Stopping was an easy decision to
| make.
|
| That said, I also have friends who still totally love it.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| My Private Pilot training was almost 30 years ago, but
| after a while it stops being exciting. And that was a big
| part of why I dropped out: it had become about as
| interesting as driving in rush hour traffic.
|
| Like the situation OP says: you scan instruments to
| analyze the situation, determine what to do to recover
| and apply that procedure. If it doesn't work, or
| something else goes wrong during that procedure, you
| adapt to another procedure. Remember, that during every
| flight with an instructor, you're being trained on one
| thing or another, so after a while all the "emergencies"
| seem routine. You'll be turning onto Final to land and
| suddenly your instructor will decide that your flaps
| failed so you have to land without them, or just as
| you're flaring for a landing he'll tell you to go around,
| etc.
|
| It certainly results in well-trained pilots, but it also
| gets very boring.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| That's why I like gliding more. It's really all seat of
| the pants. Not dominated by procedures and endless
| circuit practice.
| kube-system wrote:
| For context: passenger jets have a positive feedback system
| that indicates to the pilots whether or not the gear is in the
| correct position. When they operate the control to raise or
| lower the gear, there are corresponding indicator lights that
| confirm whether or not the gear has successfully moved to the
| commanded position. Part of standard procedure is to lower the
| gear, and then verify that all of the indicator lights confirm
| that the gear has successfully moved into the correct position.
| If they are not working properly, it is apparent from the
| indicator lights. They will then know that they will have to
| abort the approach and run troubleshooting checklists for that
| particular issue.
| zh3 wrote:
| On of the more evocative things (esp. for those in the UK) was
| a Spitfire helping out a Vulcan (XH558 no less) with nosegear
| issues in 2015.
|
| https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-a-wwii-spitfire-he...
| jerlam wrote:
| If you want to hear the conversion between the pilots and ATC
| during this time, the VASAviation channel has you covered:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7bWWVj91YA
| spookthesunset wrote:
| I find the YouTube ecosystem amazing. If there is a popular
| niche topic that has at least some amount of following,
| you'll find several "competitor" channels.
|
| VASAviation is one of the "air traffic control recording"
| YouTube channels but there are a few others that are equally
| as good.
|
| There are at least two YouTube channels[2] dedicated to
| recording the crazy boat ramps around Miami. Nothing is more
| entertaining than watching all the chaos around a boat ramp.
| Especially ones are busy as those around Miami.
|
| There are dozens of channels publishing multi-hour first
| person view trips from rail conductors traveling through
| various scenic rail lines[3]. Some get 100's of thousands of
| views per video! I wonder what fraction of that traffic
| watches the entire trip!
|
| Let's not forget Australian jetters [1]! You too can watch at
| least two channels worth of drain cleaning videos complete
| with all manner of foul disgusting water bubbling up out of
| random bits of pipe. Kids love this stuff!
|
| These channels publish frequently and get a reasonable amount
| of watches. It's nuts how a platform like YouTube can grow
| such strangely niche channels.
|
| 1: https://youtube.com/@DrainAddict
|
| 2: https://youtube.com/@MiamiBoatRamps
|
| 3: https://youtube.com/@RailCowGirl
| elygre wrote:
| For those interested: the video lacks a lot of audio, since
| not all frequencies are/were recorded. I think the most
| interesting stuff is missing.
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| why don't they land on the tail instead of the nose?
|
| Seems a lot less risky to drag the back than scrape the front -
| which can flip the plane
|
| Is it simply the center of gravity? (engines look like they're
| behind)
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Speculating: the nose is gonna come down anyway (as sokoloff
| said, CoG is ahead of the main landing gear), so it's safer for
| the front to impact from as little height as possible. If you
| hit tail-first and keep the nose up you're setting yourself up
| for a hefty impact when the front crashes down. Better to
| scrape from the start.
| pc86 wrote:
| Once the mains touch down you keep the nose off as long as
| possible for minimal energy at impact. It will float down
| naturally and you don't really have any control over the
| manner in which it makes contact as long as you have full
| back pressure on the yoke. There's not really any way to
| affecting the height at which it starts coming down.
| bombcar wrote:
| Imagine how tipped the plane would be to land on the tail.
|
| They do align the plane as much as they can to keep the nose
| off the ground for as long as they can.
|
| But yes, it's the total center of gravity, it can't land on the
| tail.
|
| You could bring up ALL the gear but then you have no control
| and it will almost certainly veer off the runway and then it
| may break apart.
| sokoloff wrote:
| If the center of gravity wasn't between the front and rear
| gear, the planes would tip on the ground normally.
|
| In a gear abnormal, land on what you have and the outcome is
| almost always great for the occupants.
|
| Any injuries are likely to be from the evacuation after
| everything is stopped.
| californical wrote:
| I would guess you can't land well with the wings pointed in the
| "going up" direction
| DonHopkins wrote:
| It would be less likely than throwing a Leaning Jowler in Pig
| Mania!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_Mania#Relative_frequencies
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| You'd be in a deep stall, which, as I understand it, is very
| much _not_ how you want to land.
| vulcan01 wrote:
| I don't know what model of plane this is, but I was watching a
| Real Engineering video on the Boeing 787. He said that some
| planes have a third engine for generating electricity (the APU)
| and the exhaust for that is at the tip of the tail.
|
| Maybe there are concerns about potentially damaging the APU?
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Most commercial planes have APUs (That's the loud sound you
| hear/exhaust you smell from the jet bridge) but a tail strike
| would hit closer to underneath the back seats of the plane
| than the middle of the tail like that. The only concern in
| emergency situations like this is getting every passenger
| safely on land. Not their bags, not every component of the
| airplane. Both of those are more easily resolvable via
| insurance than lost passenger lives.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| What makes you say they didn't land on the rear landing gear
| first? Part of the normal landing is -- AIUI, IANAPilot -- to
| flare, that is to increase the angle of attack of the aircraft
| (pull up the nose, increase drag) in order to reduce forward
| speed; this also puts the rear gear closest to the runway, the
| rear gear being bilateral means this spreads the load.
|
| In fact, I've just looked at a video on YouTube "AIRLIVE" [0]
| and you can see the shadow of the nose off the ground when the
| plane shakes (at 0:07s) indicating the rear gear has made
| contact. I think the nose contacts at 0:13, so gently it's
| amazing.
|
| [0] https://youtube.com/watch/I1dthJSuZLk
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I think the nose contacts at 0:13, so gently it's amazing.
|
| If you like that, check out JetBlue 292; landing's about half
| way through the video.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epKrA8KjYvg
| gmtplus8 wrote:
| Non-USA resident here. Can someone explain all the four-letter
| news station names to me? Why not brand them with something more
| memorable / locally nuanced?
| airza wrote:
| they are using their radio call sign
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_signs_in_the_United_State...
| bombcar wrote:
| They are from the radio call signs - K or W is the first for
| almost all of them.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_call_signs
| DonHopkins wrote:
| The other thing that might not be obvious to non-residents is
| that K is for West of the Mississippi, and W is for East.
|
| It must be weird to live near the Mississippi and get a mix
| of K and W station call signs!
| polpo wrote:
| In St. Louis most stations are K but there are a few Ws.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Can confirm in New Orleans WYLD has their transmitter in
| Algiers on the west side of the river and I'm sure that
| situation applies to other stations can't recall any Ks
| around here
| bombcar wrote:
| W is for East. What a country!
| irrational wrote:
| Originally W was supposed to be for the West side, but
| there was a bureaucratic screw up and they were switched.
|
| As for why K and W, nobody is sure why those two letters,
| but it might be related to Morse code.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I knew this was the general rule, but also knew about KDKA-
| Pittsburgh (a very old station, east of the Mississippi).
| In looking into why that one got a K, I found this that
| might be interesting to people reading this far down this
| subthread: https://archive.is/HpUc3
| sokoloff wrote:
| The FCC licenses are given with those station identifying
| letters and there's a requirement to broadcast the station ID
| periodically. Many stations have an additional brand (often
| <affiliate city> "Fox Boston"), but they still have to use the
| FCC ID as well.
|
| One of my favorite station IDs was an independent local analog
| UHF channel 56 with call letters WLVI. I heard those letters
| for years before I realized it was 56 in Roman numerals.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is why it became common; the FCC requires you say the
| station ID once every period of time (10? 30?) so people
| became very used to hearing it.
|
| You can think of it as the "smash like and subscribe" of the
| radio days!
| ghaff wrote:
| Fun fact. My college radio station had the station ID WTBS
| (technology broadcasting system or something like that).
| When Ted Turner was spearheading one of the fairly early
| major cable TV stations, he bought the ID for what I
| imagine was a lot of money for a college radio station for
| the Turner Broadcasting System or something similar.
| acheron wrote:
| Station ID is every hour. Also you have to say it in a very
| specific format: Call letters, city; or call letters,
| frequency, city. No additional words in between: "WKRP in
| Cincinnati" would be invalid.
|
| TV stations are allowed to do it visually. When I was young
| it was common to see it as a full screen ID in between
| shows (often with a quick weather report, "time and
| temperature"). Later most stations I saw quit that and just
| put it as a bug at the bottom of the screen over top of the
| show.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| I always wondered why they chose "WKRP" and whether it
| had to do with spelling "crap" in a censor-evading
| manner.
| rob74 wrote:
| Including your frequency is especially effective for
| customer retention - I still remember the MW frequency of
| one of my favorite radio stations from my youth because
| it was included in the name, even though I listened to it
| via satellite ("Virgin 1215" - apparently it's called
| Absolute Radio now, and medium wave transmissions were
| discontinued on 20 January 2023:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Radio).
| krger wrote:
| >One of my favorite station IDs was an independent local
| analog UHF channel 56 with call letters WLVI.
|
| Bangor, ME has an ABC affiliate WVII broadcasting on VHF
| channel 7.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Rochester NY has WXXI for a PBS station on channel 21. It
| is also curiously reused as the call sign on local AM and
| FM NPR radio stations. For whatever reason that is allowed.
| toast0 wrote:
| The FCC generally allows stations that share ownership to
| use the same callsign for TV, FM, and AM. Not always in
| the same area either; KCBS-AM is in San Francisco, while
| KCBS-FM and KCBS-TV are in Los Angeles. Additionally,
| stations are allowed to keep their call sign when
| ownership changes, so even though KCBS-FM and AM are no
| longer owned by the owners of KCBS-FM, they have chosen
| to keep the same call signs.
| keehun wrote:
| My absolute favorite is KNOW -- the news channel of the
| Minnesota Public Radio network. I think it's just about as
| perfect as you can get for a news channel.
| myself248 wrote:
| My favorite is WACO (Texas), the only radio station whose
| call letters are also its location.
| rsync wrote:
| Incorrect - there is also KCMO:
|
| "KCMO (710 kHz) is a commercial AM radio station licensed
| to Kansas City, Missouri ..."
| bin_bash wrote:
| Well they are memorable for the people that live in the area--
| at least that was the case when broadcast TV/radio was
| important. There really wasn't a need for them to be
| decipherable to outsiders since historically they would be
| outside of the broadcast range.
| [deleted]
| DonHopkins wrote:
| They all come with cute little jingles of people singing the
| letters!
|
| KOME:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rMhtoniG82o
|
| (I wish I could find a recording of the one that went;:
| "Don't touch that dial!!! You've got KOME on your radio." or
| "The KOME spot on your FM dial.")
|
| Vintage WWDC:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPybevwjinM
| wiredfool wrote:
| I still know wwdc is dc101. Impressionable youth and all
| that.
| bmitc wrote:
| The history of these channels is old, dating back to radio
| times before TV.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Other posts covered the details. Similar to the airport codes,
| just national instead of international...
|
| WRC-TV - NBC Washington
|
| similar to...
|
| KIAD - Dulles International
| cbhl wrote:
| This Wikipedia article provides a good overview:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_signs_in_the_United_State...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-29 23:01 UTC)