Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Hey, where'd the runway go?   (youtube.com) divider line 36
    More: Scary, Boeing Business Jet, MDA, camera angles  
•       •       •

7800 clicks; posted to Video » on 15 Jun 2013 at 4:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-15 02:23:13 PM  
i803.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-15 04:38:38 PM  
Hey, where'd the end of the video go?
 
2013-06-15 04:53:34 PM  
 
2013-06-15 05:18:44 PM  
Thought it'd be yet another video about clumsy models walking with the grace of three legged cows on ice, was pleasantly surprised.
 
2013-06-15 05:38:09 PM  

PacManDreaming: What are they complaining about? It could've been a lot worse.


wtf there is no ending!!!!  i watched 30 mins of a show with a 52 year old cliffhanger!!!
 
2013-06-15 05:52:24 PM  

ltdanman44: PacManDreaming: What are they complaining about? It could've been a lot worse.

wtf there is no ending!!!!  i watched 30 mins of a show with a 52 year old cliffhanger!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VErYSJStm3s
 
2013-06-15 05:53:17 PM  
oops there's 3 parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIgEJnddAk

these were right in the sidebar btw
 
2013-06-15 06:09:25 PM  
I'm only a thumb pilot. be it RC models, or MSFS4, but I am going to go ahead and say that sucked.

no , I am not instrument rated for MSFS4, leave me alone.
 
2013-06-15 09:43:22 PM  
instruments, how do they work?
 
2013-06-15 10:35:44 PM  

stonelotus: instruments, how do they work?


I don't think it's a question of altitude so much as it is a question of how much runway is left when you finally set down. Ya have to figure what's worse, a touch and go with an extra 15 minutes in the air, or crashing because you overshot the landing?
 
2013-06-15 10:42:34 PM  
I've got to concentrate... concentrate... concentrate...
Hello?... hello... hello... Echo!... echo... echo...
Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota... Mota... Mota
 
2013-06-16 01:00:39 AM  

lewismarktwo: oops there's 3 parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIgEJnddAk

these were right in the sidebar btw


Seriously they need to make things this good again
 
2013-06-16 01:53:41 AM  

Naxter: stonelotus: instruments, how do they work?

I don't think it's a question of altitude so much as it is a question of how much runway is left when you finally set down. Ya have to figure what's worse, a touch and go with an extra 15 minutes in the air, or crashing because you overshot the landing?


Landing an airliner in instrument conditions, still usually requires a human pilot that can see the runway, obstacles, and things that would provide altitude clues.  Basically even under instrument conditions, it is assumed the clouds don't go all the way to the ground. In the video visibility wasn't bad until close to the runway.

I don't know how many aircraft have CAT-III landing abilities to automatically land in zero visibility, but I am not surprised a Boeing Business Jet (ie private 737) does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#Decision_alti tu de.2Fheight

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.651

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-16 08:19:26 AM  
How the fark do those wipers work? Mine start lift of the windshield around 75.
 
2013-06-16 09:17:42 AM  
Been there, done that.
 
2013-06-16 09:18:37 AM  

abhorrent1: How the fark do those wipers work? Mine start lift of the windshield around 75.


I'd say that those work a bit better than the pair that you have on your beater Yugo there Sunshine
 
2013-06-16 09:33:49 AM  

medic2731: abhorrent1: How the fark do those wipers work? Mine start lift of the windshield around 75.

I'd say that those work a bit better than the pair that you have on your beater Yugo there Sunshine


Well now. Not everyone can afford a BMW. Shouldn't you be at the gym, Chipster?

/how many popped collars you rock'n?
 
2013-06-16 11:57:11 AM  

abhorrent1: How the fark do those wipers work? Mine start lift of the windshield around 75.


Lots of pressure pushing them against the windscreen. They still often suck.
 
2013-06-16 12:14:37 PM  
If you can afford to operate a BBJ, you can afford to install the EVS option which will let you descend past published minimums to 100ft DH.

Operator, I am disapoint.
 
2013-06-16 01:43:24 PM  

abhorrent1: How the fark do those wipers work? Mine start lift of the windshield around 75.


If you're driving 75+ MPH in the rain, your wipers lifting should be the least of your worries.
 
2013-06-16 06:08:49 PM  

Thurston Howell: If you can afford to operate a BBJ, you can afford to install the EVS option which will let you descend past published minimums to 100ft DH.

Operator, I am disapoint.


Maybe VES was installed, maybe it wasn't. The runway wasn't visible even at 0, so it's a goaround.

It looked to me like "minimums" was called at 100, not 200.
 
2013-06-16 06:21:18 PM  

abhorrent1: medic2731: abhorrent1: How the fark do those wipers work? Mine start lift of the windshield around 75.

I'd say that those work a bit better than the pair that you have on your beater Yugo there Sunshine

Well now. Not everyone can afford a BMW. Shouldn't you be at the gym, Chipster?

/how many popped collars you rock'n?


He's not making fun if you for driving a crap car, he's making fun of you for saying something stupid. And then you doubled down.
 
2013-06-16 06:57:49 PM  

lewismarktwo: ltdanman44: PacManDreaming: What are they complaining about? It could've been a lot worse.

wtf there is no ending!!!!  i watched 30 mins of a show with a 52 year old cliffhanger!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VErYSJStm3s


lewismarktwo: oops there's 3 parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIgEJnddAk

these were right in the sidebar btw


What leads you to believe he didn't see those?  He said he watched 30 minutes of a show with a 52 year old cliffhanger.  That episode was just under 30 minutes long and ends in a cliffhanger.
 
2013-06-16 07:01:36 PM  

knight_on_the_rail: He's not making fun if you for driving a crap car, he's making fun of you for saying something stupid. And then you doubled down.


Nice try but 0/10.
lrn2troll, loser.
 
2013-06-16 08:18:01 PM  
fatbear:Maybe VES was installed, maybe it wasn't. The runway wasn't visible even at 0, so it's a goaround.

It looked to me like "minimums" was called at 100, not 200


It says right in the description that the minimums call was at 200.  But then it also describes the go-around as a "touch and go" which it quite clearly is not.  So.... <shrug>
 
2013-06-16 08:34:39 PM  
If you wait too long to go around on a transport category aircraft, plain inertia dictates you're going to touch even if you've gone full throttle.   It takes time to accelerate you from going down to going up.

--Carlos V.
 
2013-06-16 09:05:09 PM  

unbelver: If you wait too long to go around on a transport category aircraft, plain inertia dictates you're going to touch even if you've gone full throttle.   It takes time to accelerate you from going down to going up.

--Carlos V.


Of course.  But only seven seconds elapsed from the go-around call (which was itself very close to the minimums) to positive rate, and I didn't see any indication that they actually made contact.
 
2013-06-16 09:21:54 PM  
If they touched, they accidentally landed far more gently than most intentional landings. But yeah, I don't think EVS was gonna help them, since they had visual reference until the DH, and then it went away.
 
2013-06-16 09:22:41 PM  

abhorrent1: knight_on_the_rail: He's not making fun if you for driving a crap car, he's making fun of you for saying something stupid. And then you doubled down.

Nice try but 0/10.
lrn2troll, loser.


0/10. Not for trolling, just for life in general.

And +1 to knight.
 
2013-06-16 09:25:35 PM  

Thurston Howell: fatbear:Maybe VES was installed, maybe it wasn't. The runway wasn't visible even at 0, so it's a goaround.

It looked to me like "minimums" was called at 100, not 200

It says right in the description that the minimums call was at 200.  But then it also describes the go-around as a "touch and go" which it quite clearly is not.  So.... <shrug>


Well, I get a 0 for reading comprehension. I missed the 200, but saw the TnG.
.
 
2013-06-16 09:40:27 PM  
I just don't think they actually touched down. Let's say they were normally configured for landing and were crossing DH at a speedy 750fpm (or 12.5 fps).

Seven seconds elapse from DH (@ 200ft AGL) to go-around, so the aircraft descends 87.5 feet to 112.5ft AGL, where the PF decides to abort.

From go-around to positive rate, 5 seconds elapse, so the aircraft loses another 62.5 feet of altitude before it begins to climb.  That would put him at exactly 50ft AGL before he began his climbout, thus no gear contact.

/I know he's supposed to be making 600fpm to avoid the need for hard landing inspections, but jus' sayin... they oversold the description.
 
2013-06-16 09:55:59 PM  
/And yeah, in light of the above, I concede EVS would not have altered the outcome.
 
2013-06-16 10:18:26 PM  
As a student pilot and MSFS expert (lewl sorry), really doubt they touched down as some are saying (the spoilers would be configured to deploy automatically, and screw going around once they were up)

Despite being able to touch down with 0 visibility, those approches take some Cat II and III approaches (3 with 0 vis), both of which take an autopilot or two to do (you can hear them disengage those at the start of the video) just saying. Even then you can be spoiled from approaches just because of company policies and not FAR, there's some fed-ex wind-shear go arounds in atc w/e dot com recordings that are out there just because, with the atc questioning why.
 
2013-06-16 10:22:34 PM  
From the video description:
The approach flown was a CAT I ILS

Although the BBJ in the video could probably do a CATIIIc autoland (depending on crew training), they briefed and flew a CATI approach, probably due to the fact that the weather (METAR) report on their descent from cruise altitude did not indicate any inclement weather or lack of visibility.

A CATI ILS approach basically has minimums of 200ft agl (above ground level), which means that by 200ft if they can see the runway they can land. If they can see the lead in lights for the runway at 200ft, they can continue the approach reduce these minimums to 100ft agl. But, they have to have the runway in sight by 100ft.

If this is the approach they briefed, then they can't just change their mind at the last minute and make it CATIII. By losing sight of the runway, due to the heavy rain, they had no choice but to call a go around.

/What you saw here was an excellent example of good airmanship and CRM
//This is the stuff that keeps you safe in the air
///The more you know
 
2013-06-17 12:21:39 AM  

ein125: From the video description:
The approach flown was a CAT I ILS

Although the BBJ in the video could probably do a CATIIIc autoland (depending on crew training), they briefed and flew a CATI approach, probably due to the fact that the weather (METAR) report on their descent from cruise altitude did not indicate any inclement weather or lack of visibility.


Think the odds are behind this simply being a cat 1 ils, as they're dramatically more common than cat 3. Nobody - anywhere - is actually able to do a cat 3c, because no airports in the world are approved for it. It's all well and good for the aircraft to land itself, but it can't taxi, and neither can you in those conditions.

3a and 3b approved airports are rare enough as well.

A CATI ILS approach basically has minimums of 200ft agl (above ground level), which means that by 200ft if they can see the runway they can land. If they can see the lead in lights for the runway at 200ft, they can continue the approach reduce these minimums to 100ft agl. But, they have to have the runway in sight by 100ft.

That 'descend to 100 agl' bit seems to be an American thing. Approach lighting systems are full members of the required visual reference club in Canada, at least. Though I can't say I've ever been unable to see the runway lighting system by 100 feet.
 
2013-06-17 04:53:47 AM  

costermonger: ein125: From the video description:
The approach flown was a CAT I ILS

Although the BBJ in the video could probably do a CATIIIc autoland (depending on crew training), they briefed and flew a CATI approach, probably due to the fact that the weather (METAR) report on their descent from cruise altitude did not indicate any inclement weather or lack of visibility.

Think the odds are behind this simply being a cat 1 ils, as they're dramatically more common than cat 3. Nobody - anywhere - is actually able to do a cat 3c, because no airports in the world are approved for it. It's all well and good for the aircraft to land itself, but it can't taxi, and neither can you in those conditions.

3a and 3b approved airports are rare enough as well.

A CATI ILS approach basically has minimums of 200ft agl (above ground level), which means that by 200ft if they can see the runway they can land. If they can see the lead in lights for the runway at 200ft, they can continue the approach reduce these minimums to 100ft agl. But, they have to have the runway in sight by 100ft.

That 'descend to 100 agl' bit seems to be an American thing. Approach lighting systems are full members of the required visual reference club in Canada, at least. Though I can't say I've ever been unable to see the runway lighting system by 100 feet.


Just in time for CATurday!!!!
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report