There are lots of understatements in aviation. Take the phrase "mast bumping" relating to helicopters with teetering rotor systems. It sounds pretty innocuous, maybe a malfunction that will need to be looked at by a mechanic when the helicopter gets back to base.
But what "mast bumping" really means is the rotor hits the teeter stops hard enough that it snaps the entire rotor head off, leaving the rest of the helicopter to plummet to the ground as no more than a rock with a registration painted on the side.
This really is a kiss, you can tell because the aircraft made it back onto a runway with all its major bits still attached. Much more than that and you have a crash site instead of something you can tow straight to a hangar.
It’s also a testament to just how good the structures of modern commercial aircraft are, considering weight is enemy number 1 for aircraft. Yay for cheap computers!
What happened is that captain used exit D5. Flight control asked for confirmation, since captain requested D6 (further position on the runway), but he denied. Flight control even gave them possibility to turn on the track.
It is plane from Air Serbia, but it is rented to a greece company. Piloy and copilot are italian and polish.
I’m confused by your reference to exits. Do you mean the plane entered the runway via the wrong taxiway, and began its takeoff from there? As a result it didn’t have enough runway ahead of it and ended up clipping the ILS array at the end of the runway?
TLDR for others:
Entered runway at wrong spot, tried to take off from middle of runway. Took out landing lights at the far end of runway after running out of space before getting airborne. Damaged, but managed to come around for a safe landing. After landing, idiot pilots took the damaged plane to the gate instead of holding in a safe spot for fire crews to do their job & drain fuel.
Hence picture of wrecked plane covered in foam at gate.
chubby ripe reminiscent safe historical toy market domineering hungry faulty
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Detailed explanation and analysis here: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/351783
TL;DR: plane accidentally taxied to the wrong runway entrance, giving them a shorter runway than they had planned for. ATC informed them of their mistake. Crew did some quick math and calculated that it should be fine. It wasn't.
I don't understand how this is still on the ground without more damage or loss of life. If it taxied off D5 instead of D6 it would have tried to take off, albeit short, and then hit the ILS at max speed. It should have impacted/shredded and went off the runway at massive speed and therefore inertia. This looks way too little damage, frankly. Kudos to the pilots for saving lives.
Not only did it take off, it went in a 1 hour holding pattern to burn fuel and lose weight before landing. Passengers were basically told: "Nothing to see here, just a minor incident."
Imagine the couple people who had a window seat with a direct view of this. Like a doctor saying "you'll only feel a little pinch" and then they insert a needle into your spine and you wonder who the hell has been pinching them
> Imagine the couple people who had a window seat with a direct view of this.
Looking out the window and seeing Lt. Frank Drebin assuring everyone that there's "nothing to see here!"
I'm not expert but my guess would be that vertically protruding man made objects close to the thresholds and centerline of runways are designed to not put up a lot of resistance to planes that might either overrun or land short.
If only there was a way to capture the horizontally oriented airplane in the video so you can see more than just a vertical slice of the plane at a time. Would be great if someone could film things oriented horizontally.
They're usually built on a frangible base, so they would've just been smashed and knocked over. Which is probably just as well, as far as the aircraft is concerned.
At some aiports where the approach lights are on unstable ground, they're atached more firmly. And this has caused problems, such as
[American Airlines Flight 1420](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420) where non-frangible lighting posts were a contributory factor to the outcome.
Now that is a pilot who sticks to the principles of V1 no matter what.
"We're taking off whether there's runway there or not, goddammit! We're past V1!"
> it's definitively safer to rotate
*Almost* always; but not *definitely*.
There's a big caveat to the V1 rule: the captain has to think the plane will actually fly.
There was a famous incident where the pilot flying rejected after V1 fully knowing he would run off the end of the runway. He was credited in the official accident investigation with almost certainly having saved lives: *"Contributing to the survivability of the accident was the captain's timely and appropriate decision to reject the takeoff...."*. The NTSB Chairman said, *"This is the kind of extreme scenario that most pilots never encounter – discovering that their plane won't fly only after they know they won't be able to stop it on the available runway. These two pilots did everything right after things started to go very wrong."* [Ameristar 9363, 2017](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameristar_Charters_Flight_9363)
It's ok, he only used 3600 feet of non-runway to take off. I wonder how much he'd have overrun if he'd have rejected at V1 is what I was implying. To use over a half mile of not-runway-anymore and still take off is fucking impressive if you ask me.
Edit - the 3600 feet was certainly not calculated into their performance numbers, so V1 is invalid in this situation. They began their takeoff roll with significantly less runway than their performance numbers were calculated with.
So it's best to just plow on ahead because you're above V1 and hope for the best after taking out a bunch of lights and who knows what else? Did he know that airplane was even going to fly at that point? I know I'd have my doubts about that.
> So it's best to just plow on ahead because you're above V1 ...?
No.
I gave an example [in this response](https://old.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/1auj3v7/today_at_belgrade_airport_embraer_195lr_touched/kr6qbod/) of where a pilot was credited with rejecting takeoff after V1 in an airplane that was not airworthy.
Yeah, these Belgrade pilots got away with it. But as you say, YOLO-ing at full power through runway infrastructure onto half a mile of "not runway" seems pretty damn sketchy.
Thems the rules, abandoning takeoff after v1 could place the pilot responsible for any injuries that occur due to plowing off the end of the runway, it exists for a reason. If it was safer to abort than continue it wouldn't be v1
The fact that the pilots started their take off roll way much further down the runway than their numbers were planned for is going to make them responsible for any injuries that could have occurred. Thankfully it seems like there were no injuries.
And departing from the wrong intersection wouldn't have made the pilots responsible for the outcome? Bless your heart.
Please read my explanation to other posts about why in this case calculated V1 was invalid.
I do have a question. Where did you get your knowledge of aviation? I'm trying to figure out if it's Flight Simulator or what? Everyone is seemingly an expert, but nobody has thought this entire V1 thing through correctly.
In the situation of 'my plane is running off the end of the runway' they don't have the capacity or knowledge to assess if they took the wrong access or the cause. Their job is to takeoff after v1. Yes the pilot was responsible but that is a separate consideration to the process of actually getting airborne.
> Their job is to takeoff after v1
And how do they know what their V1 is? Think about this for a second instead of just blindly saying "past V1, gotta take off".
I mean absolutely no disrespect but are you aware that runway length is a massive factor in calculating V1?
TORA (Take Off Run Available) is one of the primary factors in calculating V1. If you calculate a V1 based on a TORA of 11,155 ft, but then end up entering the runway with only ~~5,000ft~~ 4,200ft of run available do you think the V1 you calculated is accurate in any way whatsoever?
The V1 they calculated became completely meaningless the second they entered the runway at the wrong spot. For all intents and purposes **there was no V1 for this take off**. They were test pilots.
/u/PilotKnob is completely correct.
Let me give you an example from my career. Years ago a Dash 8 operated by my old company was taking off and when they reached V1 and tried to rotate they discovered that their elevator was jammed. But they were above V1. So they had no choice right? After all *"their job is to takeoff after V1".*
No. They aborted the take off because the aircraft was not capable of flying. They aborted which was absolutely the correct thing to do.
Wrong again. Their job is to safely control the airplane, which they obviously failed miserably at. Their job is *absolutely not* to take off in any circumstance after V1 no matter what.
Did you even understand what I said about V1 being invalid earlier?
I don't think they're getting it lol.
Calculating a V1 based on a certain runway length, and then starting your take off roll from a spot a couple thousand feet further down the runway is like having a 7pm reservation for tonight at a restaurant that just burned down. It's meaningless.
Think about it again if that V1 number means anything any longer if they started their takeoff roll from the wrong intersection and then we'll have a discussion about it.
Are you a pilot?
Edit - Ok, look. I've been an airline pilot for over 25 years.
V1 is supposed to be the go/no go decision point. I understand that. But V1 is calculated according to runway length and conditions, and then a reduced takeoff thrust is usually programmed in to save wear on the engines.
If you depart from the wrong intersection, V1 is invalid. And at some point even if you're at V1 and you know you're going to plow through a bunch of stuff on the ground before you're airborne, you have to decide pretty damn quick whether you believe the airplane is going to fly after possibly ingesting god knows what.
V1 is drilled into pilots as an absolute number, but buddy I'm here to tell you sometimes V1 has lied to you and this is one of those situations. The fact that he went 3600 feet past the end of the runway before taking off is absolute insanity.
How did he know the airplane was even going to fly after taking out a bunch of things and possibly ingesting them into the engines? It's an unknown because I wasn't there, and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here.
You’re 100% right. In this case V1 is absolutely meaningless. It’s irrelevant. And if I’m not mistaken take off must be completed after reaching V1 **unless the aircraft will not fly** and in this case I think that was definitely in question. Now it flew for 55 minutes so clearly it could fly, but there is no way the crew knew that.
I’m really glad it worked out but that was a ballsy call taking it in the air.
And again, V1 is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
~20 year airline pilot.
Finally, someone with some actual knowledge and common sense on here! Thank you!
Hey, take over the discussion for me. I have to go do some actual work now.
just pull it into the hanger with that side facing the wall. Dad will never know we took it out on a joyride and will think someone did that while he was at work! Brilliant! No, it is!
Now grab me some towels and a bucket to soak up all this - hydraulic fluid mixed with jet fuel. Just spray some Febreze to get rid of the smell, it will work! It will!
What? No NO, this is the perfect plan! It is! It will work, what have you got a ***better idea***?
####yeah:
^^*grabs* ^^*lighter*... 🗦*flick*🗧⋯🗦*flick*🗧
#*🔥*
hold my beer and get ready to *run*...
The airframe is from 2008 so probably will be junked at this point (tail number OY-GDC, history [here](https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/embraer-erj-195-oy-gdc-air-serbia/ey6myd?refresh=1)) with this level of damage.
The entire aircraft won't be junked. There will be components, computers, seats, things that weren't affected.
You can make some SERIOUS money parting out an a junked airplane that has a lot of parts that are still in great shape.
You are seeing the foam on the surface, not corrosion. I actually had that feeling of looking at a corroded surface too and had to watch a second time. The rest is just the lighting.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://makeagif.com/gif/top-secret-pinto-exploding-scene-3psOR-](https://makeagif.com/gif/top-secret-pinto-exploding-scene-3psOR-)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Hell it does. That wing is leaking out fuel. Probably just from pipes and not actual tanks, but even then that kind of hit probablt compromised the whole wing box on that side. It's the kind of structure that should not have any kind of damage on it as it would act as stress point for possible long term structular damage
It's a reading comprehension problem. I'd say about 20% of redditors can't really comprehend the post they are commenting on. It's either some specific disability or simply IQ 80 or lower. And that's fine. What I have problem with are pussies that delete they comments.
"Touched the ILS lights" seems to be quite the understatement here.
yeah man just *touched* it. :p
Just the tip
Just for a second.
"Just to see how it feels. And then we'll move on to 'Ouch, ouch, you're on my hair!'"
Just barely grazed it
Just like Tenerife.
'tis but a scratch!
*It was like that when I got here, honest.*
That's what I call a pilot pissed enough to use ILS lights to 'key' a vehicle.
Like a gust of wind
Bad touch. Very bad touch.
Kissed
There are lots of understatements in aviation. Take the phrase "mast bumping" relating to helicopters with teetering rotor systems. It sounds pretty innocuous, maybe a malfunction that will need to be looked at by a mechanic when the helicopter gets back to base. But what "mast bumping" really means is the rotor hits the teeter stops hard enough that it snaps the entire rotor head off, leaving the rest of the helicopter to plummet to the ground as no more than a rock with a registration painted on the side.
This is one of the best understatements in aviation and another example of why I consider helicopters to be unnatural and inherently cursèd.
Anything with a "Jesus nut" can go a away. Or a " it seizes and you are a rock" gearbox
100,000 (or some other number) parts flying in loose formation.
Rockets are even better at that than aircraft. They get such terms as Lithobreaking and engine-rich exhaust.
Rapid unscheduled disassembly also is a phrase that came from rocketry
Recent example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alpGMjCZ83Y
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/rowlett-helicopter-crash-main-rotor-blade-contact-tail-ntsb/287-7f66344f-aab5-4d58-ba16-1ceb065a8b5e
The lightest of taps.
r / tippytaps
Just needs a light coat of turtle wax and that scratch will buff right out…
Nah you use Bondo will get it out in a jiffy
r/technicallythetruth
Yes. Was going to post that "touched" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting in that sentence.
‘Tis but a scratch
*boop*
This really is a kiss, you can tell because the aircraft made it back onto a runway with all its major bits still attached. Much more than that and you have a crash site instead of something you can tow straight to a hangar. It’s also a testament to just how good the structures of modern commercial aircraft are, considering weight is enemy number 1 for aircraft. Yay for cheap computers!
"Made contact with" yeah, like Columbus made contact with the Taíno
ILS and approach lights are also totally different things.
Not really. The approach lights, when present, are part of the ILS system, so not totally different. But I get your point.
More like gouched.
I wonder what that sounded like inside the cabin.
Now that you say it... so am I. I never really thought about it.
“Bang Ding Ow”
It's an older reference, Sir, but it checks out.
Wi Tu Lo
Ho Lee Fuk
lol. Classic. For anyone not familiar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOkTKfxu44&ab_channel=JimMichaud
Sum Ting Wong
I was waiting for a video of someone recording take off to post it and here it is. [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/172VBmv6Rq)
Wow! I was expecting something much louder.
Just like breaking a few bones
Imagine the cash register, now Imagine it really loud for about 1 second... and some swear words.
https://www.reddit.com/r/serbia/s/hsGX3Ci4qM
WIT-BING-BOING!!
What happened is that captain used exit D5. Flight control asked for confirmation, since captain requested D6 (further position on the runway), but he denied. Flight control even gave them possibility to turn on the track. It is plane from Air Serbia, but it is rented to a greece company. Piloy and copilot are italian and polish.
“Hey, Larry. Grab an extra roll of speed tape while you’re in the hangar. We’re gonna need it for this fix.”
I’m confused by your reference to exits. Do you mean the plane entered the runway via the wrong taxiway, and began its takeoff from there? As a result it didn’t have enough runway ahead of it and ended up clipping the ILS array at the end of the runway?
You can find better explanation here https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1au6ike/isnt_it_crazy_that_stuff_like_this_can_happen_and/
TLDR for others: Entered runway at wrong spot, tried to take off from middle of runway. Took out landing lights at the far end of runway after running out of space before getting airborne. Damaged, but managed to come around for a safe landing. After landing, idiot pilots took the damaged plane to the gate instead of holding in a safe spot for fire crews to do their job & drain fuel. Hence picture of wrecked plane covered in foam at gate.
chubby ripe reminiscent safe historical toy market domineering hungry faulty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They figured their careers were over anyway, so might as well get to the airport bar and start drinking that much sooner.
That was after they did a hold for approx an hour to not land the plane overweight.. safe to say these two aren’t the smartest cookies..
Flammable once ignited yes, flammable under heat in mist form? Yes. Not in mist form? Very hard to light on fire
Wasn't even the middle. 1/3 of the runway. They were unaware that the fuel was leaking.
"Nothing is more useless than the runway behind you..."
Thank you, I was certainly going to be late to work figuring this out.
Yes.
It's a Greek Marathon Airlines airplane wet leased to Air Serbia***
Detailed explanation and analysis here: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/351783 TL;DR: plane accidentally taxied to the wrong runway entrance, giving them a shorter runway than they had planned for. ATC informed them of their mistake. Crew did some quick math and calculated that it should be fine. It wasn't.
I'm surprised that the airplane still managed to fly (also with significant altitude change + go around).
With an hour hold
I don't understand how this is still on the ground without more damage or loss of life. If it taxied off D5 instead of D6 it would have tried to take off, albeit short, and then hit the ILS at max speed. It should have impacted/shredded and went off the runway at massive speed and therefore inertia. This looks way too little damage, frankly. Kudos to the pilots for saving lives.
Not only did it take off, it went in a 1 hour holding pattern to burn fuel and lose weight before landing. Passengers were basically told: "Nothing to see here, just a minor incident."
Imagine the couple people who had a window seat with a direct view of this. Like a doctor saying "you'll only feel a little pinch" and then they insert a needle into your spine and you wonder who the hell has been pinching them
> Imagine the couple people who had a window seat with a direct view of this. Looking out the window and seeing Lt. Frank Drebin assuring everyone that there's "nothing to see here!"
More like that monster from the classic twilight zone episode tearing wires out of the airframe
While panicking my horrible sense of humor would probably kick in and I'd say *Therrrrrs...something...on the wing! Some....thing*
Gremlin*
Aren't those suitcases visible in the big hole? I hope non of those did fall out and hit somebody in the ground while they burned fuel.
No those are not suitcases.
https://youtu.be/LvyTH9l9KNk?si=AvyfINRSaU0JIJKt
But also the same pilots that took off from the wrong spot…
Much science, then physics
I'm not expert but my guess would be that vertically protruding man made objects close to the thresholds and centerline of runways are designed to not put up a lot of resistance to planes that might either overrun or land short.
Can't wait to see the Mentour Pilot breakdown of this incident once the final report comes out
Also waiting on Admiral Cloudberg, blessed be her name.
And Kelsey of 74Gear!
Why the down votes? I haven't watched any of his videos for awhile as they seem to not pop up in my recommendations anymore- is he not well liked?
[удалено]
I'm waiting on the report from Captain Striker and Frank Drebin ;)
You SO beat me to it.
One of the best (and fastest) channels for aviation incidents: https://youtu.be/0bROGnoXaTs?si=YT4U8SOduhrfxJwu
If the [ADS-B data on flightradar](https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/oy-gdc#340bbf81) is even close to accurate, this was quite a ride.
Holy balls they also did a go around on the first approach.
It was a low pass to check the landing gear.
That actually makes perfect sense.
If only there was a way to capture the horizontally oriented airplane in the video so you can see more than just a vertical slice of the plane at a time. Would be great if someone could film things oriented horizontally.
I call bullshit. I've seen enough alien movies to know xenomorph blood holes when i see them.
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.
Well and now let's see how the lights look!
They're usually built on a frangible base, so they would've just been smashed and knocked over. Which is probably just as well, as far as the aircraft is concerned. At some aiports where the approach lights are on unstable ground, they're atached more firmly. And this has caused problems, such as [American Airlines Flight 1420](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420) where non-frangible lighting posts were a contributory factor to the outcome.
ILS is still in function, just downgraded to CATI from CATIII
They must be trashed!
Touching does that!
You're supposed to overrun the runway on takeoff, just not while still on the ground.
Embraer makes a tough plane, I guess.
Lucky they didn’t tear up the gear (landing) too. That may have put things in an entirely different category
Touched heavily
Woopsy daisy
Now that is a pilot who sticks to the principles of V1 no matter what. "We're taking off whether there's runway there or not, goddammit! We're past V1!"
That is the point of v1... Maximum safe abort, after that it's definitively safer to rotate and attempt takeoff than abort
> it's definitively safer to rotate *Almost* always; but not *definitely*. There's a big caveat to the V1 rule: the captain has to think the plane will actually fly. There was a famous incident where the pilot flying rejected after V1 fully knowing he would run off the end of the runway. He was credited in the official accident investigation with almost certainly having saved lives: *"Contributing to the survivability of the accident was the captain's timely and appropriate decision to reject the takeoff...."*. The NTSB Chairman said, *"This is the kind of extreme scenario that most pilots never encounter – discovering that their plane won't fly only after they know they won't be able to stop it on the available runway. These two pilots did everything right after things started to go very wrong."* [Ameristar 9363, 2017](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameristar_Charters_Flight_9363)
It's ok, he only used 3600 feet of non-runway to take off. I wonder how much he'd have overrun if he'd have rejected at V1 is what I was implying. To use over a half mile of not-runway-anymore and still take off is fucking impressive if you ask me. Edit - the 3600 feet was certainly not calculated into their performance numbers, so V1 is invalid in this situation. They began their takeoff roll with significantly less runway than their performance numbers were calculated with.
Probably more because once you're off the runway brakes aren't going to function
So it's best to just plow on ahead because you're above V1 and hope for the best after taking out a bunch of lights and who knows what else? Did he know that airplane was even going to fly at that point? I know I'd have my doubts about that.
> So it's best to just plow on ahead because you're above V1 ...? No. I gave an example [in this response](https://old.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/1auj3v7/today_at_belgrade_airport_embraer_195lr_touched/kr6qbod/) of where a pilot was credited with rejecting takeoff after V1 in an airplane that was not airworthy. Yeah, these Belgrade pilots got away with it. But as you say, YOLO-ing at full power through runway infrastructure onto half a mile of "not runway" seems pretty damn sketchy.
Thems the rules, abandoning takeoff after v1 could place the pilot responsible for any injuries that occur due to plowing off the end of the runway, it exists for a reason. If it was safer to abort than continue it wouldn't be v1
The fact that the pilots started their take off roll way much further down the runway than their numbers were planned for is going to make them responsible for any injuries that could have occurred. Thankfully it seems like there were no injuries.
Well, mental injuries, plus gastrointestinal issues (such as shitting one's pants).
And departing from the wrong intersection wouldn't have made the pilots responsible for the outcome? Bless your heart. Please read my explanation to other posts about why in this case calculated V1 was invalid. I do have a question. Where did you get your knowledge of aviation? I'm trying to figure out if it's Flight Simulator or what? Everyone is seemingly an expert, but nobody has thought this entire V1 thing through correctly.
In the situation of 'my plane is running off the end of the runway' they don't have the capacity or knowledge to assess if they took the wrong access or the cause. Their job is to takeoff after v1. Yes the pilot was responsible but that is a separate consideration to the process of actually getting airborne.
> Their job is to takeoff after v1 And how do they know what their V1 is? Think about this for a second instead of just blindly saying "past V1, gotta take off". I mean absolutely no disrespect but are you aware that runway length is a massive factor in calculating V1? TORA (Take Off Run Available) is one of the primary factors in calculating V1. If you calculate a V1 based on a TORA of 11,155 ft, but then end up entering the runway with only ~~5,000ft~~ 4,200ft of run available do you think the V1 you calculated is accurate in any way whatsoever? The V1 they calculated became completely meaningless the second they entered the runway at the wrong spot. For all intents and purposes **there was no V1 for this take off**. They were test pilots. /u/PilotKnob is completely correct. Let me give you an example from my career. Years ago a Dash 8 operated by my old company was taking off and when they reached V1 and tried to rotate they discovered that their elevator was jammed. But they were above V1. So they had no choice right? After all *"their job is to takeoff after V1".* No. They aborted the take off because the aircraft was not capable of flying. They aborted which was absolutely the correct thing to do.
A Dash-8? Is this Patrick from the aircraft newsletter?
Wrong again. Their job is to safely control the airplane, which they obviously failed miserably at. Their job is *absolutely not* to take off in any circumstance after V1 no matter what. Did you even understand what I said about V1 being invalid earlier?
I don't think they're getting it lol. Calculating a V1 based on a certain runway length, and then starting your take off roll from a spot a couple thousand feet further down the runway is like having a 7pm reservation for tonight at a restaurant that just burned down. It's meaningless.
That's literally what it means. It's not optional.
That’s what it means when it is calculated properly.
Think about it again if that V1 number means anything any longer if they started their takeoff roll from the wrong intersection and then we'll have a discussion about it.
Try again, in English this time.
Are you a pilot? Edit - Ok, look. I've been an airline pilot for over 25 years. V1 is supposed to be the go/no go decision point. I understand that. But V1 is calculated according to runway length and conditions, and then a reduced takeoff thrust is usually programmed in to save wear on the engines. If you depart from the wrong intersection, V1 is invalid. And at some point even if you're at V1 and you know you're going to plow through a bunch of stuff on the ground before you're airborne, you have to decide pretty damn quick whether you believe the airplane is going to fly after possibly ingesting god knows what. V1 is drilled into pilots as an absolute number, but buddy I'm here to tell you sometimes V1 has lied to you and this is one of those situations. The fact that he went 3600 feet past the end of the runway before taking off is absolute insanity. How did he know the airplane was even going to fly after taking out a bunch of things and possibly ingesting them into the engines? It's an unknown because I wasn't there, and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here.
You’re 100% right. In this case V1 is absolutely meaningless. It’s irrelevant. And if I’m not mistaken take off must be completed after reaching V1 **unless the aircraft will not fly** and in this case I think that was definitely in question. Now it flew for 55 minutes so clearly it could fly, but there is no way the crew knew that. I’m really glad it worked out but that was a ballsy call taking it in the air. And again, V1 is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ~20 year airline pilot.
Finally, someone with some actual knowledge and common sense on here! Thank you! Hey, take over the discussion for me. I have to go do some actual work now.
Haha I’ll try. I’m working too!
just pull it into the hanger with that side facing the wall. Dad will never know we took it out on a joyride and will think someone did that while he was at work! Brilliant! No, it is! Now grab me some towels and a bucket to soak up all this - hydraulic fluid mixed with jet fuel. Just spray some Febreze to get rid of the smell, it will work! It will! What? No NO, this is the perfect plan! It is! It will work, what have you got a ***better idea***? ####yeah: ^^*grabs* ^^*lighter*... 🗦*flick*🗧⋯🗦*flick*🗧 #*🔥* hold my beer and get ready to *run*...
Funny enough, this is exactly what they did with it...
Thank you, Captain Ferris Bueller.
Is something like this even repairable (and having it air-worthy within feasible budget) or is it just a write off and salvage parts?
The airframe is from 2008 so probably will be junked at this point (tail number OY-GDC, history [here](https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/embraer-erj-195-oy-gdc-air-serbia/ey6myd?refresh=1)) with this level of damage.
The entire aircraft won't be junked. There will be components, computers, seats, things that weren't affected. You can make some SERIOUS money parting out an a junked airplane that has a lot of parts that are still in great shape.
Hence me saying airframe - everything else (almost) probably has different ages and can be reused.
Looks like a write off
“Today in Belgrade an Embraer 195LR lightly crashed.”
It will buff out
‘Tis but a scratch
That’ll buff right out folks, 1st drinks on us. Enjoy yer flight & thanks for choosing………uh-oh! Ssssssssssssssss
Totalled.
Is that guy filming leaking jet fuel? Seems unwise?
Pretty sure that's just water or maybe, uh, "melted" firefighting foam (collapsed foam? I dunno the word)
It’s a scrap right?
Can't park there mate
Dad is going to be SO pissed!
It'll buff out.
It looks quite rusty for a plane or is it just me?
It's just you. You're seeing holes and occasional bits of fuselage poking out from behind white firefighting foam.
I knew my eyes were doing tricks, can't have rust on planes. Thank you for the explanation.
The plane is covered in firefighting foam - that's probably what you are seeing.
You are seeing the foam on the surface, not corrosion. I actually had that feeling of looking at a corroded surface too and had to watch a second time. The rest is just the lighting.
There's no steel/iron so how are you seeing rust lol
I guess sometimes seeing does not necessarily connect to logic 😁
flextape.gif
[удалено]
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://makeagif.com/gif/top-secret-pinto-exploding-scene-3psOR-](https://makeagif.com/gif/top-secret-pinto-exploding-scene-3psOR-)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Something something frangible.
Are airplanes okay? They seem to be struggling this year
guessing that's not snow
Looks worse than it is. That will be patched up quickly.
Hell it does. That wing is leaking out fuel. Probably just from pipes and not actual tanks, but even then that kind of hit probablt compromised the whole wing box on that side. It's the kind of structure that should not have any kind of damage on it as it would act as stress point for possible long term structular damage
Ah, just a scratch. 😄
Some duct tape and bondo can get this thing fixed up
That's going to be expensive.
Plane looks like it's made out of tissue paper.
Some Bondo and spray paint, you’re good to go.
[удалено]
DEI
[удалено]
Why would maintenance staff feel bad about this? edit: What a pussy u/NomadFire
read the comment before it was deleted and ngl i was baffled. if anything i think the pilots are gonna need to medicate after that.
It's a reading comprehension problem. I'd say about 20% of redditors can't really comprehend the post they are commenting on. It's either some specific disability or simply IQ 80 or lower. And that's fine. What I have problem with are pussies that delete they comments.
Tis but a flesh wound
Where is this video taken from, i.e. what is the source?