|
Sagebrush posted:If you look around on Google maps, you'll see that most major airports and air force bases have one of those burnt-up planes somewhere on the edge of the field. The one at Manchester Airport is right across from the main terminal so if there was a training exercise going on you could watch a burning patchwork of a DC-10 and 747 while waiting for boarding. It was pretty cool.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Jesus that's close. 81 feet. 737 vertical stabilizer height: 36-41 feet. I have recreated the scene at an accurate scale (assuming the altitude is measured from the belly of the plane):  
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Man, even I can't get them that close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:81 feet. The planes the Air Canada A320 flew over were in this order: UAL-1 a 787-900, PAL115 an A340-300, UAL863 another 787-900, & UAL1118 in a wee 737-900. So those first three tails he went over were even taller, no? goddamn this was almost a nasty mess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:The planes the Air Canada A320 flew over were in this order: UAL-1 a 787-900, PAL115 an A340-300, UAL863 another 787-900, & UAL1118 in a wee 737-900. So those first three tails he went over were even taller, no? Yep, you are correct. A 787 and an A340 have almost the same tail height -- 56 feet above the ground (vs. 36 feet for the shorty 737s I used above).  jesus loving christ
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:The planes the Air Canada A320 flew over were in this order: UAL-1 a 787-900, PAL115 an A340-300, UAL863 another 787-900, & UAL1118 in a wee 737-900. So those first three tails he went over were even taller, no? On the plus side, there's now five planeloads of people who have a really annoying "we could've lost me this year" story to tell at Thanksgiving (American or Canadian version). Sort of like Seth MacFarlane loves to tell people he should've been on AA11 on 9/11. (oh god dammit Mark Wahlberg should've been on that flight as well) BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Out of curiosity is that an accurate angle of attack for the lowest altitude?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Yep, you are correct. A 787 and an A340 have almost the same tail height -- 56 feet above the ground (vs. 36 feet for the shorty 737s I used above). The article doesn't say they were directly over a plane while they were at 81ft, stop spreading FUD, they had at least a few more feet of clearance  Is there a pants-pooping smiley?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Out of curiosity is that an accurate angle of attack for the lowest altitude? I think you'd be about level attitude at that height. Yeah vvv plus the fact they were going up at that point
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Out of curiosity is that an accurate angle of attack for the lowest altitude? No -- the lowest altitude would have been shortly after they pulled up. Takes a second to stop the descent before it begins to climb. When they hit 81 feet they were probably more like 10-15 degrees nose-up, depending on how terrified the pilots were. It's a reasonable angle for the descent though iirc (I set it to 3 degrees) However, if I do set it to 10 degrees nose-up, the image becomes even more terrifying, because the static port (from where the altitude is measured, though I dunno if 737s have radar altimeters or whatever) is located just below the cockpit. Putting that at 81 feet with 10 degree alpha...  Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Yep, you are correct. A 787 and an A340 have almost the same tail height -- 56 feet above the ground (vs. 36 feet for the shorty 737s I used above). Now superimpose the glide slope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Now superimpose the glide slope. Given their lateral displacement I think it's included 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:No -- the lowest altitude would have been shortly after they pulled up. Takes a second to stop the descent before it begins to climb. When they hit 81 feet they were probably more like 10-15 degrees nose-up, depending on how terrified the pilots were. Pfft. Quit being so dramatic. The radar altimeter is just next to the HF antenna in the fin under business class, so they had at least an extra 4 feet of clearance!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Let's face it: lining up for a taxiway or even landing on it is something that's happened before and will probably happen again, even if it shouldn't. But to both do that, and then not notice there are several planes on your "runway" until you're 81' AGL, is really hosed up. If you're that close, and you even think you see something on the runway, it's missed approach time!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Let's face it: lining up for a taxiway or even landing on it is something that's happened before and will probably happen again, even if it shouldn't. But to both do that, and then not notice there are several planes on your "runway" until you're 81' AGL, is really hosed up. If you're that close, and you even think you see something on the runway, it's missed approach time! Like the Delta flight was much more understandable because they lined up on the brighter lights that had the PAPI on the left. This though... yes it was night but how do you not see all those aircraft's strobes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Are the FAA legally allowed to pull CVRs for an incident like this? I'm guessing something was going on, because it's a pretty massive fuckup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Everyone that even looked sideways at that plane in the last 6 months is buying clean urine from their sister-in-law just in case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Like the Delta flight was much more understandable because they lined up on the brighter lights that had the PAPI on the left. If the FAA can use commercial flight simulators to reenact accidents, so can I! I made the same approach in X-Plane, which is known to have accurate and high-quality night lighting. I also photoshopped out 28L to simulate the appearance of the airport that night, more or less -- the runway was under construction, so its lights were off. There was apparently also a large illuminated X on the runway but I don't know what that looked like so I ignored it. Anyway, yes the taxiway is parallel and everything, but it's still pretty unfathomable that they confused it with 28R: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:You know that AC flight that almost outdid Tenerife? Adding "not the taxi way" to my mantra of "not the seawall" when landing at SFO
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:However, if I do set it to 10 degrees nose-up, the image becomes even more terrifying, because the static port (from where the altitude is measured, though I dunno if 737s have radar altimeters or whatever) is located just below the cockpit. Putting that at 81 feet with 10 degree alpha... Captain Postal posted:Pfft. Quit being so dramatic. The radar altimeter is just next to the HF antenna in the fin under business class, so they had at least an extra 4 feet of clearance!   It was an A320, of course it has rad alts, the antennas are located near the tail, that is a VHF antenna on the 737!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
You all listened to the recordings of this by now, right? The Air Canada pilot TOTALLY sounded like the Smooth Talker from one of the Living The Dream videos. At least until he
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:If the FAA can use commercial flight simulators to reenact accidents, so can I! I made the same approach in X-Plane, which is known to have accurate and high-quality night lighting. I also photoshopped out 28L to simulate the appearance of the airport that night, more or less -- the runway was under construction, so its lights were off. There was apparently also a large illuminated X on the runway but I don't know what that looked like so I ignored it. Flight sims assume all the lights all the time though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are the FAA legally allowed to pull CVRs for an incident like this? I'm guessing something was going on, because it's a pretty massive fuckup. The FAA can't, but the NTSB sure as hell can, and probably already has. I guarantee the AirCan crew "forgot" to turn the CVR off after landing, though. (They're on a continuous loop recording, between a half hour and maybe a couple hours on the very newest solid-state models.) One of my old airline's flight crews had a runway overrun at JFK in 2003. They left the airplane powered up until the emergency crews were done securing the airplane. CVR had dick on it related to the incident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
The existence of events like this prove that it can be difficult to visually determine your alignment with a runway under certain conditions. The full investigation will probably discover some unique lighting configurations, view angles, ground clutter, atmospheric conditions, and flight crew distractions that all added up to creating this incident. It happens every few million aircraft operations, and it didn't result in a crash this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:No -- the lowest altitude would have been shortly after they pulled up. Takes a second to stop the descent before it begins to climb. When they hit 81 feet they were probably more like 10-15 degrees nose-up, depending on how terrified the pilots were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:The existence of events like this prove that it can be difficult to visually determine your alignment with a runway under certain conditions. Pilot error.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Yep. But normally a safety related agency won't just say "pilot error" and leave it at that. They will surely have some notes on contributing factors and suggestions for systemic changes. It's how things get better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Pfft. Quit being so dramatic. The radar altimeter is just next to the HF antenna in the fin under business class, so they had at least an extra 4 feet of clearance! The radar altimeter works vertically in respect to the fuselage. So if the plane is at a 15 deg angle, then so is the hypotenuse. which makes it 75' real altitude instead of 81. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:The radar altimeter works vertically in respect to the fuselage. So if the plane is at a 15 deg angle, then so is the hypotenuse. which makes it 75' real altitude instead of 81. Also it has computers that do math so you don't have to worry about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Look, guys, clearly the solution is replicating the situation to find out for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Look, guys, clearly the solution is replicating the situation to find out for sure. I feel there ought to be pyrotechnics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Look, guys, clearly the solution is replicating the situation to find out for sure. Like using a B-52 bomber to investigate structural failures in B-52s 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Like the Delta flight was much more understandable because they lined up on the brighter lights that had the PAPI on the left. At night, strobes are generally left off until taking the runway for departure, so all they would have seen would be beacons and taxi lights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:At night, strobes are generally left off until taking the runway for departure, so all they would have seen would be beacons and taxi lights. And nav lights, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:You all listened to the recordings of this by now, right? The Air Canada pilot TOTALLY sounded like the Smooth Talker from one of the Living The Dream videos. we were errr off centre.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
In case you haven't heard or seen the recreation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3jTE68jRuU WHERE IS THIS GUY GOIN' ??
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
slidebite posted:In case you haven't heard or seen the recreation The positions of the aircraft look completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
That's the worst piece of aviation incident recreation I've seen. It's like a Google Maps "auto generate planes on airports" plugin animated with inspiration from the Team America dangly puppets, programmed with the aviation knowledge of news journalists. I guess NBC made it themselves, wanting some juicy graphics before the competition. The "taxiway" is the actual runway it was supposed to land on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
I like this one because the beginning of it feels like an 80's made for tv movie INSPIRED BY REAL EVENTS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sEOwMfF7MA Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
Ola posted:That's the worst piece of aviation incident recreation I've seen. It's like a Google Maps "auto generate planes on airports" plugin animated with inspiration from the Team America dangly puppets, programmed with the aviation knowledge of news journalists. I guess NBC made it themselves, wanting some juicy graphics before the competition. The "taxiway" is the actual runway it was supposed to land on. Brian Williams’ career at Air Canada lookin’ good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:58
|
|