Plane landing at London Heathrow Airport yesterday

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

20 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

You can't "flutter all they want."

Thank you for this, sherpa.  I always appreciate when experienced people post to a thread.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Ridgewaycynic2013

[ExiledInIllinois]

53 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

You can't "flutter all they want."

Once the spoilers are deployed, which they are in that video, and the thrust levers are moved to idle, which they undoubtedly were, you can't get airborne again. They had one bounce, which is all you get. If it got airborne again they would have slammed down, as there would not have been enough airspeed to control it.

 

Kind of a famous landing there in the 90's when a 767 landed really hard there in very bad winds. 

Nobody in the cockpit said anything as they cleared the runway, but the cockpit phone rang, and when the extra guy picked it up a flight attendant mid cabin told them she could "see outside through the roof." 

 

Regarding Midway and the Southwest 737 overrun, there are so many components to that.

The accident itself was the result of landing there in a tailwind, but it goes so much further than that and gets into Chicago and FAA politics and the life of the 737. 

 

The FAA was intent on forcing all jet operators to go to ORD. The City of Chicago was not willing to part with the tax and associated other revenue derived from there, wo they worked out a deal for Southwest to operate there, The exact same thing happened in Dallas with Dallas Love vs. DFW.

That's why Southwest is there also, and nobody else is, and it's a huge financial advantage.

 

The 737 is notorious for overruns, even though it's a relatively small narrow body.

They have continuously updated and enlarged it, but it still has those tiny landing gear on all variants, and they simply don't have the capacity that other airplanes do to handle that kinetic energy. Simple physics.

It is slow in cruise, but has a relatively fast final approach speed because of it's expanded size and small wing. making it more difficult to stop. Faster approach speed than other similarly smaller airplanes, but not fast at altitude. 

Until the last two years, you could always count on at least two 737 overruns per year, somewhere.

Burbank, Kingston Jamaica, Sao Paulo Brazil are other examples just off the top of my head.

 

That gets us to the FAA, and leads to the 737 Max crashes.

The FAA requires "type" ratings to fly individual aircraft. When a single type undergoes many variations, there is pressure to require a different type rating if the differences are significant.

Southwest enjoys a tremendous training cost advantage because between them and Boeing, they have convinced the FAA to never require a different type rating for the 737 variants, which is the only airplane Southwest operates. Other airlines operate many different types of aircraft, and as pilots switch, the training costs are very significant.

This has been going on for years, and nearly got exposed with the 737 Max crashes, pointing out a significant change that was not required to be specifically trained on, but never was fully exposed.

 

Sorry for length, but there is a lot of layers to that Southwest Midway overrun.

 

Regarding MDW, there are many more difficult places to land, even in the US. It's just that the 737 is not an ideal airplane for that concrete.

Good stuff but not really my point. The fluttering comment was more about not giving a damn if they crash or how hard it is... They bought their ticket, I say let them crash. 😉 At least there's a buffer zone with the people on the ground (who didn't buy a ticket) at the bigger places.

 

Anyway, people shouldn't be living that close. They probably should have built the third airport here and got rid of MDW... But I don't want to get political. 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

41 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Thank you for this, sherpa.  I always appreciate when experienced people post to a thread.

That crack experience will be a drone in 20 years.  Just lower the price of my ticket please and don't take off or land in the damn city. We gotta huge lake out there to ditch in.  😆 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

35 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

That crack experience will be a drone in 20 years.  Just lower the price of my ticket please and don't take off or land in the damn city. We gotta huge lake out there to ditch in.  😆 

Back to your D-K curve, and shoehorning lake freighters to Europe. 🤨

[ExiledInIllinois]

13 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Back to your D-K curve, and shoehorning lake freighters to Europe. 🤨

I am never gonna live that one down!

 

Still computers make less mistakes than humans. That was a human messing w/the AiS.

 

Days are coming w/AI... It won't have that sense of humor. But, back on topic... I am probably one of the few that would trust a computer flying me from point A to point B over an arrogant human.  We can still have humans aboard, hire some clown in a cap with a .45 to keep the other passengers I am with calm and keep up appearances. 😆 

 

Honestly... We gonna trust AI to all kinds of *****.... Let's just jump right w/the crap that's flying over our head. 

 

Of course this above was said w/half sarcasm. The OP was never in doubt in 2023. Just looks scary as hell. 😉 

[ExiledInIllinois]

From 12 years ago. 

 

https://spectrum.ieee.org/when-will-we-have-unmanned-commercial-airliners

 

"...Given such advances, pilotless commercial flight is overdue, argues Cummings. Civilian UAVs could easily and profitably be deployed to survey infrastructure and carry cargo, she points out. And there's no reason why software, alone or perhaps in conjunction with a quickly mobilized ground controller, couldn't take over a piloted plane should something happen to both the pilot and the copilot. Already, she notes, an airliner's software typically takes over flight seconds after takeoff, handles the landing—and most of what happens in between. The pilot just “babysits,” she says.

Of course, software that can meet only "most" of aviation's challenges would hardly satisfy the afraid-of-flying landlubber. That's why the pilot is still there, babysitting, until all the remaining kinks have been worked out. None of the problems are so bad as to prevent civilian pilotless planes from ever happening, but they are real, and they will have to be solved.  ..."

 

The highlighted part is the stage we'll be in for a long time, especially when there's human passengers being flown around.  You would think this is easier to solve than say other modes of transportation like autonomous automobiles... 

[sherpa]

43 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

I am never gonna live that one down!

 

Still computers make less mistakes than humans. That was a human messing w/the AiS.

 

Days are coming w/AI... It won't have that sense of humor. But, back on topic... I am probably one of the few that would trust a computer flying me from point A to point B over an arrogant human.  

 

That discussion will be had over the years.

The freight companies are already moving the ball.

 

Anyway, to your point, I can point to many crashes with many fatalities that are the result of computer errors.

Ultimately, it gets blamed on the pilots, but it is computer errors that are the direct cause.

The 737 Max crashes, Air France 447 and a host of others come to mind.

 

Never mentioned are the hundreds of computer data errors that put the plane in jeopardy every year that are resolved and overcome resulting in a safe outcome every year. Many times per month in fact.

You can offer an opinion on the relative safety of humans vs computers. that is your right.

As for my view, the claim that arrogance has anything to do with it is not an issue, but I would never get on an airplane that didn't have a human able to overcome computer errors.

 

Day one of training, even as a private pilot. Controllers and computers will, one day, try to kill you.  

That was certainly my experience over 40 years of fighters and airliners at sea and all over the world.

Not often, but enough.

To each his own I 'spose. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

From the article.  Not sure if we will ever avoid this across all areas where it applies w/automation:

 

"...As significant as the technical hurdles are, however, by far the biggest impediment to pilotless flight lies in the mind. People who otherwise retain a friendly outlook toward futuristic technologies are quick to declare that they'd never board a plane run by software, which they know as the kludgy mess that makes their laptops freeze. But minds can be changed.  ..."

[Not at the table Karlos]

12 hours ago, Wacka said:

People may not know, but in the late 50s they had an accident at the Buffalo Airport.  The Blue Angels were doing an air  show there.One of the jets  landed and couldn't stop, It went right through the intersection of Dick Road and Genesee St. coming to a stop right next to the  gas pumps at a gas station that was located  there.  It was where the Kensington Expressway (Rte 33) now goes under the intersection. No one was hurt. They took out all those homes on the approach  years later when jets started  being used regularly in the 60s.

I knew about the crash in the falls in mid 80s. Saw the picture of the one you’re talking about but never knew where it was. That’s crazy they’ve crashed twice in the area.

[sherpa]

6 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

From 12 years ago. 

 

https://spectrum.ieee.org/when-will-we-have-unmanned-commercial-airliners

 

Already, she notes, an airliner's software typically takes over flight seconds after takeoff, handles the landing—and most of what happens in between. The pilot just “babysits,” she says.

 

Of course, software that can meet only "most" of aviation's challenges would hardly satisfy the afraid-of-flying landlubber. That's why the pilot is still there, babysitting, until all the remaining kinks have been worked out. None of the problems are so bad as to prevent civilian pilotless planes from ever happening, but they are real, and they will have to be solved.  ..."

 

 

 

Both paragraphs are utter, complete nonsense.

 

Check out the wind limits on auto landings vs. manual landings. Auto landings are much more limited than humans.

 

By the way, airports that have auto landing capability are extremely rare. Most airlines don't train to that, so are not qualified, nor are their airplanes capable.

It is a very expensive capability to achieve and maintain for both the airport and the crew.

 

[sherpa]

5 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

I knew about the crash in the falls in mid 80s. Saw the picture of the one you’re talking about but never knew where it was. That’s crazy they’ve crashed twice in the area.

 

You are referring, I believe to a different Blue Angel accident at Niagara Falls in July of 1985.

It was a midair killing LCDR Mike Gershon.

Mike was a friend of mine,

Sadly, his 13 year old son was killed in an ATV accident a year later.

[WhoTom]

4 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

That crack experience will be a drone in 20 years.  Just lower the price of my ticket please and don't take off or land in the damn city. We gotta huge lake out there to ditch in.  😆 

 

In a few years, autonomous cars and trucks will have the bugs worked out, and at that point, I'll trust them over a person behind the wheel. But if I'm in the air, I'd want a real pilot controlling the plane with the AI providing suggestions and able to take over if the pilot is incapacitated.

 

Why? Because just about any idiot can get a driver's license, but a pilot's license, especially a commercial pilot's license, is considerably more difficult to obtain. I'd say we're about five years away from a trustworthy autonomous car. I doubt that I'll trust an autonomous aircraft at any point in my lifetime. That day will get here, but it's a long way off.

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

10 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

In a few years, autonomous cars and trucks will have the bugs worked out, and at that point, I'll trust them over a person behind the wheel. But if I'm in the air, I'd want a real pilot controlling the plane with the AI providing suggestions and able to take over if the pilot is incapacitated.

 

Why? Because just about any idiot can get a driver's license, but a pilot's license, especially a commercial pilot's license, is considerably more difficult to obtain. I'd say we're about five years away from a trustworthy autonomous car. I doubt that I'll trust an autonomous aircraft at any point in my lifetime. That day will get here, but it's a long way off.

 

 

But... There's "de-skilling" as more and more tech are paired with humans and machines.

 

It might be all or nothing with machines.

 

Most of us will die in a few decades or more.  The younger ones will trust machines more.

 

We are already losing certain cognitive abilities because of machines.  The slow march to automation started with the invention of the compass when it comes to these thjngs...

 

AND if we don't have enough labor to fill these jobs???

Why should people risk their lives and safety when they can safely guide you via a joystick on the ground.  

 

Of course I am being sarcastic.  It's all in the article I linked. Will have to overcome the human mind element. 

[LeGOATski]

This whole discussion will be moot once the anti-gravity engine is unveiled.

[sherpa]

4 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

 

Why should people risk their lives and safety when they can safely guide you via a joystick on the ground.  

 

 

Primarily, because that capability and security does not exist, and is not close.

Secondarily, such views are evidence of a lack of understanding of how things work, as evidenced in the link which states that airplanes are flown from shortly after takeoff to and through landing.

That is grossly false.

 

Beyond that, the money paid to this occupation is not for physical manipulation of controls.

The safety, economy and success is based on understanding the system, fitting into it and using it to your advantage, better than the other guys. To do that successfully requires direct observation of the airborne situation. An airplane in flight is among very many, competing for altitudes, routes, speeds and a host of other things that make one flight far more efficient than one being run by some goof.

Even getting from the gate pushback to the takeoff position requires a host of decisions to push ATC along to your advantage.

 

In short, there's a ton more involved than just manipulating controls, and multiples more when things go wrong. 

[Wacka]

I have watched  a bunch of videos by a Dutch or   Scandinavian (?) pilot who explains a bunch of stuff about flying and analyzes plane crashes.  Learned a lot. of why things are  done the way they are.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

20 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

That plane @ LHR had plenty of room!

 

The differences between MDW, ORD, &

LHR are shocking.  Midway is a postage stamp. I might wanna think about continuing to fly outta here after seeing this! 😆 

 

Heathrow: They can flutter all they want

 

 

O'Hare:

 

 

Now the postage stamp, Midway, holy dear Lord! 😆 

 

 

No room for error. 10,000 people would get wiped out! No wonders they almost shut it down before rehabbing it.  It really does belong elsewhere!!!

 

Doesn't matter how long runway is if wing tip hits the ground.   So are all three of these pics taken at exact same distance?  If not the scale can make one look much bigger than the other.

 

I've landed in Vegas on a 95 degree day and updrafts had wing tip very close to hitting ground.  Maybe not a big deal if tips hit as you'd think they' make runways narrower and undercut the sides if it did matter more??

[sherpa]

6 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

I've landed in Vegas on a 95 degree day and updrafts had wing tip very close to hitting ground.  Maybe not a big deal if tips hit as you'd think they' make runways narrower and undercut the sides if it did matter more??

 

Scraping a wing tip is a very big deal.

One of the dangers in a screwed up landing, no matter runway length, is what happens if the airplane is not directionally aligned properly. If there is even a relatively minor angle between the fuselage and the runway, the tires will be misaligned and could separate from the gear. There are tremendous forces on the gear at touchdown. That's why crosswind landings are an art, and have wind limitations.

 

Regarding autolandings, landings done by the autopilot, the airplane has to have three separate and isolated autopilots and electrical systems, The internal operation of the autopilot and electrical systems separate at 1500' and go through a self test that enunciates when complete. Very few are so equipped.

The airport has to have very specific equipment which must be maintained and tested far more frequently, and even the taxi hold positions near the runway have to be expanded to prevent signal interference.

It is a very big and expensive deal, and if an airport has has the capability it will usually be on one runway only. 

The aircrew training to keep certification used to take us almost two hours of simulator time alone, and we only were scheduled for eight hours in there at every recurrent cycle.

 

That is why very few airlines have their airplanes equipped and their crews certified to do it.

US and international majors do it, like American, United and Delta, but most don't. Certainly not those that don't operate internationally, as it simply isn't worth it to them.

[Just Jack]

On 12/31/2023 at 5:13 AM, sherpa said:

The FAA was intent on forcing all jet operators to go to ORD. The City of Chicago was not willing to part with the tax and associated other revenue derived from there, wo they worked out a deal for Southwest to operate there, The exact same thing happened in Dallas with Dallas Love vs. DFW.

That's why Southwest is there also, and nobody else is, and it's a huge financial advantage.

 

Delta flies into Love Field now, I was on a flight to there just a couple months ago.  Not sure when they started back up.  The pilot did mention something like "they are the only other airline than the purple one to fly to Love Field".

[PromoTheRobot]

On 12/29/2023 at 5:29 AM, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

 

 

I had a flight like that into Syracuse a while back. The plane was pointing a bit sideways on the approach due to crosswinds.