Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Near wing strike, near wing strike, go around

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Near wing strike, near wing strike, go around

    Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.


    Suggestion, watch in HD and slow motion from 0:35.
    It is noticeable that there is an increase in engine thrust shortly after plane start to bank right and shortly before it starts to sink at increased rate. Likely the pilots initiated the go-around at that point but could not avoid the violent touchdown a couple of seconds later.
    The right bank happens without any significant aileron or rudder movement, and it is accompanied by a left yaw, which makes me thing of a strong gust from the left *which would cause both the right bank and the left yaw).

    Nice recovery by the pilots!!! (although there was a very natural and understandable over-control first).
    Also called my attention that, as far as the go around is captured in the video (surely after a stable positive rate of climb), the gear remained down. I wonder if they did that on purpose fearing that there could be any damage to the landing gear retraction/extension system.

    Finally, the second landing wasn't precisely greased either. But hey, what they say about any landing that you walk away from...

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  • #2
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...Finally, the second landing wasn't precisely greased either...]
    I seem to recall something from 172 lessons that perhaps during gusty crosswinds, it's best to not over do it on holding off and reducing speed (and energy) for a nice greaser...that conversely, a little more airspeed helped the aireo-dienamic controls deal with wind gusts, while a little extra weight on the wheels helped the car-mode controls with crosswinds (and gusts)...

    (Side note: Dang it was a tough situation when you had the typical overly-pronged nose gear that wobbled when bearing weight)

    ...and that maybe if a random, nasty-ass wind gust just almost caused some seriously high dollar scrapes on the paint job, we might want to plant it firmly. (Just outsider, ass-hat speculation).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      I seem to recall something from 172 lessons that perhaps during gusty crosswinds, it's best to not over do it on holding off and reducing speed (and energy) for a nice greaser...that conversely, a little more airspeed helped the aireo-dienamic controls deal with wind gusts, while a little extra weight on the wheels helped the car-mode controls with crosswinds (and gusts)...

      (Side note: Dang it was a tough situation when you had the typical overly-pronged nose gear that wobbled when bearing weight)

      ...and that maybe if a random, nasty-ass wind gust just almost caused some seriously high dollar scrapes on the paint job, we might want to plant it firmly. (Just outsider, ass-hat speculation).
      I agree. I didn't say that not greasing it was bad!

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        ***A Video***
        As I was considering Gabriel's video link, I was taken back to the thread of autopilot counts...



        ...and how Gabe and I just sort of ass-umed that flying down to the runway is a very critical affair, while pointing the nose kinda skyward and powering up has a lot more room for slop.

        ATL-Crew and Evan told us, no, one autopilot is fine for an ILS but you ABSOLUTELY 110% MUST HAVE two to go around (at least if you want to be safe, PLUS the damn system switches off in a what's-it-doing-now kind of way.)

        Explanations were offered, but there was always some hitch...The single autopilot still had full authority of all actuators...and I didn't think there was much difference in the pilots being able to over ride one vs two either.

        Evan said there were good reasons it was that way, but just never said what those reasons were.

        Maybe...maybe for the instant of initiating the go-around, if it is in a truly critical last second decision...maybe...maybe then it might be good to have double Otto's watching the farm.

        ...And, I do believe that ATL and Boeing Bobbie stated that they liked to hand fly go-arounds any way.

        Still this movie kind of makes a point...maybe you really do need two to go around while one is enough to fly towards a landing, but from the outside looking in, it still seems like those final 100 feet to the runway are pretty damn critical too and might require just as many auto pilots to pull off as going around would.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Evan said there were good reasons it was that way, but just never said what those reasons were.
          You mean never as in about eleven times?

          Any time you have a disruption from a stable flight path near the ground under autopilot, you must have fail-operational redundancy. Continuing an ILS approach to flare involves no disruptions from a stable flight path. But go-around does.

          it still seems like those final 100 feet to the runway are pretty damn critical too and might require just as many auto pilots to pull off as going around would.
          It does. If you are talking about flying on autopilot down to the runway, you are talking about autoland. You cannot (that is, you are not allowed to) autoland without fail-operational redundancy. A single autopilot only gives you fail-passive redundancy, thus you must disconnect it around 60' and hand fly to the runway.

          It's really really really simple 3WE, and pretty much black and white. What prevents you from understanding this?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            ...about eleven times...Any time you have a disruption from a stable flight path near the ground...

            It's...pretty much black and white. What prevents you from understanding this?
            Ok, so on Gabriel's video, there are no disruptions from a stable flight path. Only a go-around is a disruption from a stable flight path.

            Indeed, very black and white.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm guessing the pilot wasn't satisfied with the approach and touch and decided better.
              Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet air intakes. ~Anonymous

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                [...]

                [FONT="]Suggestion, watch in HD and slow motion from 0:35.[/FONT]
                [FONT="]It is noticeable that there is an increase in engine thrust shortly after plane start to bank right and shortly before it starts to sink at increased rate. Likely the pilots initiated the go-around at that point but could not avoid the violent touchdown a couple of seconds later.[/FONT]
                [FONT="]The right bank happens without any significant aileron or rudder movement, and it is accompanied by a left yaw, which makes me thing of a strong gust from the left *which would cause both the right bank and the left yaw).[/FONT]

                [FONT="]Nice recovery by the pilots!!! (although there was a very natural and understandable over-control first).[/FONT]
                [FONT="]Also called my attention that, as far as the go around is captured in the video (surely after a stable positive rate of climb), the gear remained down. I wonder if they did that on purpose fearing that there could be any damage to the landing gear retraction/extension system.[/FONT]

                [FONT="]Finally, the second landing wasn't precisely greased either. But hey, what they say about any landing that you walk away from...[/FONT]
                Oha. The men start to experiment with html. Gabriel, is it only on my screen, or on yours, too, these mysterious words in #2...
                'Side note: Dang, it was a tough situation when you had the typical overly-pronged nose gear that wobbled when bearing weight.'

                And probably he should translate the word ass-hat
                1) in Spanish
                2) in German.


                I should warn 3WE. My screen is not THAT bad.

                Gabriel, you recommended the first half of a minute in HD and slomo. I've watched the whole thing in full speed.
                360 @ 13.

                I mean, it is a good thing that they were successful on 2nd attempt. But if you asked Daryl Chapman or other Kai Tak 'seniors', they'd probably say,
                360 @ 13? Where the hell is the problem.

                Always given that we talk about CX 747 or similar aircraft. I think we also had such a topic... Joe Sutter did not invent my nickname for conditions that every reader here at JP manages within 1 second. I think, Joe Sutter invented the 747 for transpacific destinations, during night, during winter, during wind (with 747 limitations, that's right.).

                But the wind that is mentioned in the beginning of the video does not even destroy a cheap umbrella, if you are skilled.

                Nevertheless, Gabriel is going to recommend videos that go viral? I like it.
                The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
                The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Saavy View Post
                  I'm guessing the pilot wasn't satisfied with the approach and touch and decided better.
                  The decision and start of GA actions was done before touch.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    Ok, so on Gabriel's video, there are no disruptions from a stable flight path. Only a go-around is a disruption from a stable flight path.
                    There is no stable flight path here to begin with. The approach was unstable well before the video even begins. And, no, this is not an autoland continuing below 60'. And no, as I just said a flare is also a disruption from a stable flight path, which is why you can't do it automatically with a single autopilot.

                    Google 'fail operational' and 'fail passive'. Once you understand the difference, you might begin to understand the reasons why.

                    Indeed, very black and white.
                    Only if you keep seeing it that way.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                      Joe Sutter did not invent my nickname for conditions that every reader here at JP manages within 1 second. I think, Joe Sutter invented the 747 for transpacific destinations, during night, during winter, during wind
                      I give up!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        I give up!
                        Don't even try so you won't need to give up.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Google 'fail operational' and 'fail passive'. Once you understand the difference, you might begin to understand the reasons why.
                          It is simple enough that I can explain it here in non-gabrielian length.

                          Fail-operational: After the failure, the control system (AP) keep operating within its specification.
                          Fail-passive: After the failure, the control system (AP) doesn't operate anymore but the fail doesn't upset controlled system (plane).

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            Don't even try so you won't need to give up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              Only a go-around is a disruption from a stable flight path.
                              Also disruptive is a "goat around".

                              Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X