Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=96984
I am an airline pilot, who is based in Hong Kong, and who commands the B744 (that's shorthand for the Boeing B-747-400).
I have been living in Hong Kong for 18 years, and have been flying in and out of there for more years than that. I conducted operatiosn at the old Hong Kong airport for some twelve years, including stints with other airlines.
I remember this incident...a KAL landing at the old Kai Tak airport on Runway 13 (mag track: 135 degrees), made from the IGS appraoch. The final turn from the IGS to final involved a course change of 47 degrees.
The turn is particularly tricky during southerly and southwesterly wind conditions. Not as turbulent as approaches made when the wind is out of the east or east north east, but but the drift change during the turn from the IGS (088 magnetic) to final (135 mag) is often accompanied by a sharp drop in wind speed during the last few hundred feet (of altitude), resulting in either a sudden increase in the rate of descent, or a marked drop in IAS (Indicated Air Speed)...or both. Large handfuls of thrust are then needed to recover, which should lead to a go around and missed approach, if you have any sense or experience.
Why?
Because destabilised approaches at low altitude on short final are NOT a good idea in any aircraft, and are a leading cause of accidents. In a heavy, wide-bodied jet, like the B744, they are almost certain to result in damage to the aircraft and injury to those on board.
Was this a good approach?
No. The conditions on this particular day were as I have described above....wind out of the south to south west, and reducing shear on short final. But they were NOT extreme.
The pilot in this instance simply misjudged the turn from IGS to final, and instead of going around, and trying again (as he should have done), he pressed on to avoid 'losing face'.
I have sat in my own aircraft, holding short of Runway 13 at Kai Tak awaiting take-off, many a time in such conditions (of which wind conditions, pilots are fully warned, by the way), watching as other aircraft judge the wind wrong and 'go wide' on the turn from the IGS to final. And I sweated a lot, as I hoped they didn't compound misjudging the turn by landing on top of me!
Not only does this chap misjudge the turn, and then not make the correct decision to go around, he then compunds the error by landing short of the actual runway itself...the single white arrows demark that area of the runway which may be used for take-off, but NOT for touch down.
Having said all this, I will admit to having seen worse, including one aircraft (also a 747), which not only misjudged the turn, but landed long, and facing at approximately 45 degrees to the runway centreline.
Fortunately, Mr Boeing does build exceedingly strong aircraft, and not only did the aircraft in question survive landing effectively sideways, but the next departure by the same aircraft was made on time, about one hour later!
I too, have seen worse, especially at Kai Tak (there was one CAL B747 that actually touched down on RWY 13 at Kai Tak, whilst travelling sideways, the nose pointed out towards Victoria Harbour, at 45 degrees to the runway centreline!).
What happened in this instance (in the video) is that the pilot flying ("PF") failed to allow for the port drift caused by a starboard cross-wind during the turn. That's where he lost the plot, and he did not recognise his predicament, until he starts to roll the wings level, and finds himself well to the left of the centreline.
This sort of manoeuvring in any jet, but especially in a widebody, at such a low altitude is very bad practice, and would not be thought of as safe.
He made - in the end - what would have been felt as a fairly gentle touchdown (although the nose slews right after touchdown as the aircraft rolls out, 'weathervaning' into the cross wind) - to the passengers, it would have felt very unstable and worrying, especially just after touchdown.
The landing was technically illegal, as he lands short of the approved threshold. The touchdown zone (which is where the wheels are first supposed to touch the runway surface) is between 1000' and 1500' (300m to 500m) down the runway from the threshold. In this business, if you touchdown even at 900' on an Annual Line Check, you would be marked down, and debriefed post-flight at length about what you had done wrong!
The operational margins for pilots in the airline industry are very narrow and demanding, but it is one of the reasons which keeps air travel safe.
Basically, this pilot got away with this landing. But he escaped by the skin of his teeth. he should - by any measure - have missed the approach when he saw his predicament, gievn it away and gone around.
He was not on the centreline, he nearly scraped the left wing tip, he was destabilised (he didn't employ a normal rate of descent from decision height to touchdown either - another criteris that automatically demands an immediate missed approach), and he landed short of the touchdown surface....
If his skills were good, he wouldn't have gotten himself in this predicament in the first place!
A landing starts at the top of descent...the softnes of the touchdown is not the way we judge the quality of a landing, in this business. If you screw up the approach then - no matter how soft the touchdown - you have made a mes of the landing.
Because, by the philosophy prevailing in our business, if you screw up the approach then you only arrive at the flare by the Grace of God. Not by skill.
I agree with the quoted comments - he should have done a go-around. That was a sucky approach/touchdown. Anytime your low-level manuvering gets that extreme in any fixed-wing aircraft you are starting to wade in shit creek.Hawkwings wrote:so can any real pilots out ther tell us exactly how crazy that is?
Does this sort of shorthand crop up at your job on a regular basis?Howedar wrote:Shortening Boeing 7X7-Y to B7XY is fucking obnoxious, not to mention incorrect. Those who do so will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
FEAR THE A388.Howedar wrote:No, praise the Lord. We know what the airplanes are actually called, and we don't find an extra syllable or two to be the end of all that is good and holy in the world. Although I am mostly working on Airbus projects right now anyway *spits*.
So is it safe for me to fly on an Airbus or should I specifically request a Boeing?Howedar wrote:...Although I am mostly working on Airbus projects right now anyway *spits*.
That was quite cool, although it would've been better, IMO, without the comedy angle. Apart from anything else, that's some serious structural strength in that guy's carSpin Echo wrote: And for a more humourous landing, there is this video. I don't think it has been posted previously, but I find searching for videos can be very hit or miss.
That's actually a lot less dumb though, there is precident at Airbus to change the second and third digits to reflect size.phongn wrote:FEAR THE A388.Howedar wrote:No, praise the Lord. We know what the airplanes are actually called, and we don't find an extra syllable or two to be the end of all that is good and holy in the world. Although I am mostly working on Airbus projects right now anyway *spits*.
I try to fly Boeing for safety reasons, but not based on anything I've seen at work. There is a North American aerospace engineering way, and a European aerospace engineering way. Having been trained in North American conventions, I prefer them. They're not huge things, just different ways of solving some problems.J wrote:So is it safe for me to fly on an Airbus or should I specifically request a Boeing? Wink