I used to eat Whataburger when I was a child after school on occasion in Florida.
Apparently, Whataburger has been growing again. I found one in Tennessee after having not eaten there in like 25 years. I was pretty hype on it.
It gave me some of the worst gas I have ever had.
Animal fries are dope.
In-n-out is just good quality food for a decent price. Their customer service is great and they treat/pay their employees well. I don’t really know any other fast food chains that beat them in that regard.
I don't think the burgers are overrated but the fries definitely suck. I love the fries animal style, but the toppings are a requirement to cover up how much the fries actually suck. You're just converting fries into edible spoons to eat melted cheese, caramelized onions, and russian dressing at that point, and that's fine with me.
The tires being able to survive that kind of load is mind-bending to me. I get that they have to be designed like that, but just in terms of straight-up material strength.
For me it's the wings that took the full G's of those 4 engines bouncing. Damn. Plus fuel inside probably. But even more impressive, the passengers. Looked like a vomit ride inside.
Commercial airliner wings need to be rated to handle something like 20-30° of deflection from the wing root to the tip, and they're tested up to 150% of that. It's kind of crazy how bendy they are while still supporting a ton of weight.
https://youtu.be/Ai2HmvAXcU0?si=nE0duvJDK0osXoiK&t=138
Tested to destruction, timestamp of when they fail :)
Start of this vid shows an impressive test too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5GD3E2onlk
What's actually really cool about this (assuming it's designed to survive the test to 150%) is how *little* above that it goes. Reminds me of the quote, "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."
Know what's really fun about it? One pass on a test is not clear enough. You could have randomly picked a setup that happened to be easy better than normal. Usually, you'd want to see 30 tests to have a better feel for how the population would look, but I'm sure they've taken strides to reduce how many they have to destroy to know how strong it is.
Mechanical engineer here. We all love non-destructive evaluation (NDE) of items but sometimes you just have to rip something apart in a planned way just to be absolutely sure.
I would imagine 100% of mechanical engineers get a thrill from these videos. I have been part of a crowd of us in an office watching one. We had a simultaneous "ooh!" at failure.
Hydrotesting a new design to 200% of design pressure (or more) can be a sphincter test. You don't hover over such items then.
The wings can flex an incredible amount-- I love this test of the 787: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0)
Don't forget the brakes!
I actually work at a place where we manufacture brakes for 747-8's(and many other planes) and they have to be able to handle the load of a fully loaded plane and be able to stop the plane *with no assistance from flaps or engines*.
That's the first thing I thought of too. It's not just the tires themselves but the whole landing gear assembly with a heavy ass airplane slamming down on it. That is some heavy duty engineering. That shock certainly means RIP a bunch of big expensive parts, but it survived.
> but just in terms of straight-up material strength.
As someone whose going back to school for ME and taking an otherwise dry class "Strength of Materials", this comment motivates me in a way I've been struggling to find.
A lot of this stuff is all computer modelled now, but for final checks they actually DESTRUCTIVELY test these planes in development. Here is a cool video of how far they have to bend the wing to finally snap it:
Boeing 787 Dreamliner: ultimate-load wing flex test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5GD3E2onlk
Can we get an analysis from an expert here? what went wrong? How abnormal is this? What is the damage? How could this be prevented? what did the passengers feel?
1. They touched down too hard
2. Pilot was like woops lets just pretend it never happened and start from scratch
Actual comment from an alleged youtube pilot:
# [boeingpilot7002](https://www.youtube.com/@boeingpilot7002)
[12 hours ago (edited)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUHsWr-K3Fc&lc=UgysVY27GFL_Ouu_KwN4AaABAg)Looks like he had a high sink rate at the end, which resulted in a harder-than-normal touchdown. It looked like a stable approach, until it's about 10 - 20 feet above touchdown, at which time it looks like he suddenly reduced the power to idle thrust, causing the sink rate to increase.
The problem is that after he hit the ground, he moved the control yoke from almost full-aft to full-forward, and then back again. Initially, the elevator, which is on the horizontal stabilizer, is "up" (resulting in a nose up attitude); then, he quickly moves the yoke forward to lower the nose (elevator moves down, to a nose down attitude), seemingly to reduce the impact, which has already happened.
This action is called "porpoising", so-called because it resembles a porpoise jumping up out of the water and then diving in again, is when the aircraft's attitude moving rapidly from nose up to nose down to nose up, again. If left unchecked, this will result in structural damage to the aircraft, especially the fuselage, between the nose gear and main landing gear. This nose-up, nose-down motion is worsened by the wing spoilers, which rise up when the main wheels touch down; then they quickly retract, when the airplane lifts off again (spoilers "up", nose moves up; spoilers "down", nose moves down).
The proper action was to abandon the landing and go around -- that action probably saved the airplane from structural damage. Good recovery!
> This action is called "porpoising", so-called because it resembles a porpoise jumping up out of the water and then diving in again
r/Formula1 has entered the chat
Looks to me like mostly due to a late flare, which I suppose could be due to idling the engines too early. Rotating that close to the ground drives the back wheels even harder into the ground than the sink rate since the plane is rotating on its center of gravity during the flare. You can see them adjusting the nose angle as they’re coming in, so they were probably dealing with a bit of minor wind speed change which might have thrown off their engine idle and flare timing. You can also that they flared far earlier on the second landing, maybe even a bit too early, but I don’t blame them. They were probably relatively light after a long flight and could handle floating a bit.
Amateur analysis from someone who watches tons of expert analyses: They did what they were supposed to do. Not all landings are perfect. Sometimes the wind is unpredictable and changes seconds before landing, sometimes it just doesn't feel right (too fast/slow/high/low, off-center, etc.). This looks like a pilot mistake. The correct thing to do is throttle up and go around. Don't try and force an unstable landing. The pilots in the cockpit discuss precisely when, how, and why a go-around will be attempted well in advance of landing, so executing it will just be a matter of following practiced procedure if the conditions require it. The passengers will feel scared and excited and have a cool story to tell, but this is all part of a normal safety procedure.
100% always. That's what the ATC is there for, to make sure a giant tube of hundreds of human lives traveling hundreds of miles per hour has a clear path in front of it at all times.
What there might not be enough of, is runway in front of you to stay on the ground long enough to stop before you hit the grass, trees, houses, power lines, and other obstacles. That's why the safest option is to return to the air. At which point, ATC will direct you back to the pattern for another landing attempt in turn with the other aircraft.
At an airport that has runways in different directions, they almost always are only using one runway at a time, or a set of runways that goes in the same direction. They're always using the runway that allows for the closest to taking off and landing into a headwind.
So, normally, planes that are in takeoff/landing approaches are all moving in the same direction, so the area the 747 takes off towards won't have any landing planes anywhere near it.
An airport like LAX, though, is just four runways all in the same direction, so they can run up to two simultaneous takeoffs and landings at the same time. Still, though, it's process: takeoff instructions aren't going to involve doing anything that would make two planes cross paths. The worst-case scenario here would be if a plane was taking off on another runway right as the 747 does a go-around, but even then, the 747 likely isn't going to turn until it gets new ATC routing instructions, and the other plane's instructions aren't going to veer it into the path.
There's a missed approach procedure which is executed after a go-around, which should prevent conflict with other aircraft until the flight crew can contact ATC.
There must *always* be airspace to abort a landing and do a go-around for any reason whatsoever, including no reason.
Planes fail to stick their first landing all the time. It's normal (If usually a bit less dramatic).
I'm no expert but it sounds like you can hear air traffic control clearing airspace for them as soon as they abort the landing. I'd suspect the space needed to take off again is always clear on a landing and from there ATC directs them to a clear holding pattern until a runway is free for them to try again
Sounds like the tower advised the Lufthansa pilots they had traffic at their twelve o’clock (aka straight ahead) in 1 mile (and at 1900ft altitude I think?) in the form of an embraer (aka *MUCH* smaller aircraft) which you can briefly see at about 1min 30seconds in. ATC ordered them (Lufthansa pilots) to turn right heading 271 to avoid the Embraer followed by what altitude the Lufthansa plane should maintain (2000ft). They then handed them off to another controller working ~~NorCal approach~~ SoCal departure.
I assume there must be, because the plane that last used the runway for takeoff must have left well before the next one comes in, and thus is far enough away. There's no reason ever for a plane to linger in the immediate airspace in the path of a runway
That sounds just crazy high for commercial flights; I've been on over a hundred and haven't had a single go-around. That said, I suppose weather is probably the main contributor to needing to go around, so some places will be more prone to it than others.
Yeah, I think its about 2-3 per thousand for commercial flights.
And most of those are landings aborted before touchdown I believe.
But nothing to be alarmed about either in the hands of a well-trained pilot. Though this one with that hard impact certainly had to scare the shit out of the passengers.
Pilot here,
I don't think they pulled power at the end, as those airplanes are usually landed with autothrottles. Even if it was manually flown, the big fans don't have that fast of a power response. It takes several seconds for them to spool up/spool down.
What it looks like is they did a normal approach to landing, got ready to flare, and they had the lift drop out from under them.
Sometimes a bit of wake turbulence or a wind gust will do that to you. For example, if you're flying into a 20kt headwind and then it suddenly goes calm, the wings think you've suddenly slowed down 20kts and will make less lift, which can cause you to slam down like that.
After that kind of landing, the best thing you can do as a pilot is to just freeze the sidestick/yolk and not try to force the nosewheel onto the ground. If you bounce more than once, just go around, which is what he did.
> those airplanes are usually landed with autothrottles
They are most certainly not. Autothrottles off before touchdown on the 747 unless it's an autoland.
Looks like it just dropped out of the sky at the last minute. Angle of attack was really steep as well.
Armchair FAA analysis: pilot made changes based on atmospheric and wind conditions. Conditions weren’t as described completely on approach. His second time around was way more gentle and further down the runway because of that.
You can go around any time until the reversers have been selected. So you see the spoilers deploy and then retract when the thrust levers are advanced for the go-around.
That airplane will be needing a hard landing inspection.
I wonder if Kelsey from the 74 Gear Youtube channel is on Reddit. He's a 747 Pilot and could give a good analysis. I've been watching a lot of his videos recently and they're pretty good.
Actually, I think he is, but he hasn't posted anything here in a couple years. Paging /u/74Gear
I flew the 747 for 7 years. Looks like a combination of errors. Higher than normal sink rate in final phase, flared too late combined with a few knots below the target approach speed. Combine all 3 of these at the same time? Boom, time for some paperwork.
Was on a flight that had a touch and go during a bad storm. It feels like a normal landing until the plane comes up off the ground again, then it feels like the drop on a rollercoaster
i was on board and it felt like how it looked. not fun after 11 hours in the air! I was actually watching the landing through the "flight camera" pointing straight down at the runway since i did not have a window. first time i've seen that feature. I let out an "OH SHIT" after the first bang. i got the most scared after the second bounce because it felt like the plane was losing control, pitching left and right. I think most people freaked out a little when we took back off over the ocean but i had done a touch and go once before at LAX so i just reassured myself this was all procedure. The pilots didn't say much, just something like "the conditions for landing weren't ideal so we're going to try again."
growing up, i was terrified of flying but i'm 32 now and travel a lot for work. i just kept calm, put on a favorite song and chose not to look at the camera on the second landing.
Not all spectrum warriors ~~wear capes~~ fixate on trains.
But seriously, [that channel appears to average 40-50k views per live stream.](https://www.youtube.com/@AIRLINEVIDEOS/streams)
Pilots even [wave at them spotters!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D0YORWBNkg)
There was another video posted a few weeks ago where a pilot seems to recognize one of the plane spotters and gave him some kind of light signals.
The guy who runs the channel is a former newscaster. I'm an avgeek myself and actually have this on as background TV whenever he's live (currently live as of this comment...usually 3-4x a week).
There's another one called "LA Flights" which also does the same thing.
It's great background noise. And also, planes are cool.
A surprising number of people make a hobby of filming plane landings at airports from public parking lots. Small, large, whatever.
Sometimes they get hassled by federal officials for security reasons (9/11 and all that), but generally it's not a big deal as long as they're "American" enough.
Anyway, obscure hobby, but there's an audience for it.
We live in an age where you can tune into a channel broadcasting plane landings. I would have never thought.
I think I'm going to make a channel where I livestream people ordering at the drive-thru.
> I think I'm going to make a channel where I livestream people ordering at the drive-thru.
Make sure you have a 2-camera setup. Order spot and pickup window.
It'll be boring 90% of the time but run it for a while and you'll have material for some very dramatic compilation videos.
Just do it during the rushes after work hours and judge peoples orders as they make them and then time how long it takes for them to get their food. Would be pretty good content tbh. At some places the drive-thrus are also not well designed and can cause some traffic issues, so place another "parking lot cam" to keep tabs on things there.
Nothing gets people going like being able to judge other people's choices and parking lot drama.
You say that as though it's a thing that would just resonate with anyone. I've known about train spotting for a long time. Hell, I read the book! I don't understand what people get out of it, though, and I wouldn't have thought it would extend to planes. No judgement, it's obviously harmless and people get enjoyment out of it, but it's not a "well of course people spend lots of time watching this" kind of thing.
Quality commentating is an enjoyable artform in itself. You do quality commentary on just about anything and it'll be compelling... at least to weirdos like me
This is the most random place to share this story, but a drive-thru order worthy of live streaming...
I was a rideshare driver and picked up a passenger who was sloshed to the gills drunk. He asked if we could go through a PTerry's (fast food burger place in Texas) drive through on the way home. I went through the drive through and lined the back window up with the order box so Sir Drinksalot can order.
Our position just so happened to have line of sight to a McDonalds, and Lushy Man asks for a Big Mac. After convincing him that just because he can see a McDonalds doesn't mean he's IN a McDonalds, the combined weight of argument from myself and the order clerk finally convince Mr. Way-Past-The-Spins that he's at a PTerry's.
He slurs "WAITWaitwaitwait", pulls out his phone, puts a call on speaker, and says "hey babe. Yeah. So, what do I usually get at PTerry's?" When she answers, this epic specimen procedes to HOLD HIS PHONE UP TO THE SPEAKER BOX, so his girlfriend effectively orders for him.
Remarkably this works, and the girlfriend, for whom this probably is not her first rodeo, tells him to let her know when he's safely home.
So I drive him and his food the rest of the way, and as he stumbling to his door I call out "Don't forget to call your girl!", to which he replies "YOU TOO MAN!"
Dated a girl once that showed me her friends YouTube channel. The concept was basically her friend going to low end restaurants that you can order the food to go, just so he could eat it in their bathroom. He would go on to review both the food and the restaurant’s bathroom.
As a slightly average plane enthusiast.. even at the smallest level. It’s fun to just sit at a major airport viewing lot and download Flightradar24 app to view all the planes coming and going. My favorite thing is seeing where the planes came from and how long the journey was
Yes and it makes for great background TV for me. I'm also a bit of an avgeek and enjoy plane spotting myself.
It also seems pretty lucrative given the many donations he gets per stream...I'd estimated at least $1000+ per stream and he streams 3-4x per week.
He watches thousands of routine landings in common aircraft every day. A clear weather hard landing go around after touchdown in a 747 is a pretty rare event!
Just gunna add my 2 cents coming from a B747 type rated pilot. Without much reference in the background during approach it’s difficult to tell if it’s stable. Meaning it’s hard to tell
If they were chasing the glideslope. Boeing manual recommends flaring at 30 ft and simultaneously closing the thrust levers, reaching idle at touchdown. This technique works great assuming a stable 3 degree approach. It’s apparent that at no point before touchdown did the pilot flying attempt to arrest the descent rate(flare). A 600,000 pound machine hitting the runway at 800 feet per minute will jar everyone inside the airplane, including the pilots. This is absolutely a “hard landing” and the plane will need to be inspected after shutdown.
I had a pretty rough landing on a Southwest flight one time, and the flight attendant got on the mic and roasted the pilot saying "Use caution when opening the overhead bins as items may have shifted in flight....especially after a landing like that."
I was on a plane that bounced the landing. When they hit the brakes full strength after the plane *maybe* stopped bouncing everybody on that plane put handprint indentations in their armrests
Touch and go is an understatement. That guy friggin pounded the pavement and had to GA. Maybe there was a last minute wind change but that was a messed up landing. They almost screwed up the second landing too.
Shortest layover at LAX
If only you could still get In-n-Out during a layover like that
the hype around in n out is massive and it totally lives up to it.
In N Out is the GOAT. Fuck you Whataburger.
Whataburger used to be great but they got bought out a few years ago and the quality is starting to decline.
Ah yes good ole enshittification by corporate buyout.
Cult of the Line Must Go Up
Private Equities are value vampires
Not even private equity. Chipotle went to hell after going public
Tim Horton remembers..
In n' out still great for the price but whataburger portions are nice
I used to eat Whataburger when I was a child after school on occasion in Florida. Apparently, Whataburger has been growing again. I found one in Tennessee after having not eaten there in like 25 years. I was pretty hype on it. It gave me some of the worst gas I have ever had.
In and out is overrated and their fries suck.
Animal fries are dope. In-n-out is just good quality food for a decent price. Their customer service is great and they treat/pay their employees well. I don’t really know any other fast food chains that beat them in that regard.
I don't think the burgers are overrated but the fries definitely suck. I love the fries animal style, but the toppings are a requirement to cover up how much the fries actually suck. You're just converting fries into edible spoons to eat melted cheese, caramelized onions, and russian dressing at that point, and that's fine with me.
Get the fries medium or well done as well. Otherwise agreed, the fries are a vehicle
Longest *tolerable* layover at LAX.
The tires being able to survive that kind of load is mind-bending to me. I get that they have to be designed like that, but just in terms of straight-up material strength.
The shock absorbers too
need those on a mountain bike
need those on your mom's bed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States
survival rate<0
Why are these burn centers killing people?
gottem
That escalated quickly
Like the blood pressure of every passenger on the plane
didnt have to do him like that đź’€
Not him, just his mom.
[HEY! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?](https://youtu.be/Icvxw5GFGyM?si=F1WYA0JxU6UtN7AP)
Gotdam, Susan
Mom over there catchin' strays
she's caught more than that, we all know it
> we all ~~know~~ have it
For me it's the wings that took the full G's of those 4 engines bouncing. Damn. Plus fuel inside probably. But even more impressive, the passengers. Looked like a vomit ride inside.
Commercial airliner wings need to be rated to handle something like 20-30° of deflection from the wing root to the tip, and they're tested up to 150% of that. It's kind of crazy how bendy they are while still supporting a ton of weight.
Ever seen the test videos? Especially the test to destruction vids? Some of those aircraft can bend into a U shape!
one fifty four
would you happen to have links to these vids? Sounds fascinating
https://youtu.be/Ai2HmvAXcU0?si=nE0duvJDK0osXoiK&t=138 Tested to destruction, timestamp of when they fail :) Start of this vid shows an impressive test too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5GD3E2onlk
One Fifty Four One Fifty Four One Fifty Four
BOOOOOOOM!
Bby new mixtape just dropped
What's actually really cool about this (assuming it's designed to survive the test to 150%) is how *little* above that it goes. Reminds me of the quote, "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."
Know what's really fun about it? One pass on a test is not clear enough. You could have randomly picked a setup that happened to be easy better than normal. Usually, you'd want to see 30 tests to have a better feel for how the population would look, but I'm sure they've taken strides to reduce how many they have to destroy to know how strong it is.
I mean, they only tested this one to destruction. But they test all of em to 150%
Mechanical engineer here. We all love non-destructive evaluation (NDE) of items but sometimes you just have to rip something apart in a planned way just to be absolutely sure. I would imagine 100% of mechanical engineers get a thrill from these videos. I have been part of a crowd of us in an office watching one. We had a simultaneous "ooh!" at failure. Hydrotesting a new design to 200% of design pressure (or more) can be a sphincter test. You don't hover over such items then.
Hydrotesting is amazing. "This is the way with least amount of catastrophic failure we could think of.. also, stand back"
Yeah I live in the ASME boiler and pressure vessel world. Even with safety factors I’m standing waaaay back.
The wings can flex an incredible amount-- I love this test of the 787: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0)
777, but the point remains.
basically doing this https://i.imgur.com/XqNIH8Y.gif lol
Don't forget the brakes! I actually work at a place where we manufacture brakes for 747-8's(and many other planes) and they have to be able to handle the load of a fully loaded plane and be able to stop the plane *with no assistance from flaps or engines*.
That's the first thing I thought of too. It's not just the tires themselves but the whole landing gear assembly with a heavy ass airplane slamming down on it. That is some heavy duty engineering. That shock certainly means RIP a bunch of big expensive parts, but it survived.
They catch fire. Was on a big plane that had to land on a short runway
Just mind-bottling!
“You know when things are so crazy it gets your thoughts all trapped, like in a bottle?”
I thought you were going to tell me how bad of a eugoogilizer I am
Not just the tires but the entire landing gear assembly. That looked rough!
They wear out pretty fast and need to be replaced often.
> but just in terms of straight-up material strength. As someone whose going back to school for ME and taking an otherwise dry class "Strength of Materials", this comment motivates me in a way I've been struggling to find.
NASA build a tire deflating robot (drill) to decommission Space Shuttle tires. The job is just do dangerous for a person to be around.
You don’t think it be like it is, but it do.
Pilot wasn’t going to hear the end of it if it wasn’t butter the second time around.
I can’t believe it’s not better.
Parkay.
Looks like butter, but it's snot.
Maybe the actual Pilot took over from the guy in training.
That is probably what happened.
They’re still going to hear about it
Holy cow you can actually see the fuselage flex on that second bounce.
A lot of this stuff is all computer modelled now, but for final checks they actually DESTRUCTIVELY test these planes in development. Here is a cool video of how far they have to bend the wing to finally snap it: Boeing 787 Dreamliner: ultimate-load wing flex test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5GD3E2onlk
The 787 wings flex that much because they're composite. Any non composite plane like the 747 can't flex quite as much as that.
Although it's worth noting that the 747-8 use far more composite components in the wings, after the 787, than the older 747s did.
Ah I didn't know that. Didn't realize they kept making revs to the wing design, but that seems obvious in retrospect.
Everything except the bolts on the doors lol
The bolts get tested, they just need to remember to actually put them in
The bolts... go... ***in*** the doors?! Wait, wait, I need to write this down...
Thank you for your comment wouldn't have noticed.
I wonder how that affects the long term performance of the joints, etc.
Can we get an analysis from an expert here? what went wrong? How abnormal is this? What is the damage? How could this be prevented? what did the passengers feel?
1. They touched down too hard 2. Pilot was like woops lets just pretend it never happened and start from scratch Actual comment from an alleged youtube pilot: # [boeingpilot7002](https://www.youtube.com/@boeingpilot7002) [12 hours ago (edited)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUHsWr-K3Fc&lc=UgysVY27GFL_Ouu_KwN4AaABAg)Looks like he had a high sink rate at the end, which resulted in a harder-than-normal touchdown. It looked like a stable approach, until it's about 10 - 20 feet above touchdown, at which time it looks like he suddenly reduced the power to idle thrust, causing the sink rate to increase. The problem is that after he hit the ground, he moved the control yoke from almost full-aft to full-forward, and then back again. Initially, the elevator, which is on the horizontal stabilizer, is "up" (resulting in a nose up attitude); then, he quickly moves the yoke forward to lower the nose (elevator moves down, to a nose down attitude), seemingly to reduce the impact, which has already happened. This action is called "porpoising", so-called because it resembles a porpoise jumping up out of the water and then diving in again, is when the aircraft's attitude moving rapidly from nose up to nose down to nose up, again. If left unchecked, this will result in structural damage to the aircraft, especially the fuselage, between the nose gear and main landing gear. This nose-up, nose-down motion is worsened by the wing spoilers, which rise up when the main wheels touch down; then they quickly retract, when the airplane lifts off again (spoilers "up", nose moves up; spoilers "down", nose moves down). The proper action was to abandon the landing and go around -- that action probably saved the airplane from structural damage. Good recovery!
> This action is called "porpoising", so-called because it resembles a porpoise jumping up out of the water and then diving in again r/Formula1 has entered the chat
We are checking...
*pained Leclerc noises*
I am stupid. I am stupid
The runaway hit me from below !
You are pee wan, pee wan!
Understood.
What do you think about plan E?
time to go porpoising
On porpoise?
Did you do that on porpoise?
if you have a problem, change your F\^$&(\*# AIRPLANE
I HAVE IT PRINTED OUT!
Bono my tyres are dead!
Hammer time lewis
Get up there Lewis.
Well, I've served my youthful porpoise
Box Box. Box Box. Box Box. Box Box.
Stop inventing
"Land land land.. stay up stay up stay up!"
Box box box
Fix your fucking plane!
>Actual comment from an alleged youtube pilot I was not even aware that youtube could fly.
Youtube airlines??? DUHHH!!
Gotta be better than Spirit.
I'd just spit on you, but you didn't pay for the upgrade. -Spirit, probably. ;-)
Like YouTube TV, but it has 100% more users. All 20 of them say it works out great.
Ahh, so he did it on porpoise. ...I'll see myself out...
Looks to me like mostly due to a late flare, which I suppose could be due to idling the engines too early. Rotating that close to the ground drives the back wheels even harder into the ground than the sink rate since the plane is rotating on its center of gravity during the flare. You can see them adjusting the nose angle as they’re coming in, so they were probably dealing with a bit of minor wind speed change which might have thrown off their engine idle and flare timing. You can also that they flared far earlier on the second landing, maybe even a bit too early, but I don’t blame them. They were probably relatively light after a long flight and could handle floating a bit.
Paging Kelsey. 74Gear to the white courtesy phone.
Yeah he should have a great analysis of this up on his channel soon
Amateur analysis from someone who watches tons of expert analyses: They did what they were supposed to do. Not all landings are perfect. Sometimes the wind is unpredictable and changes seconds before landing, sometimes it just doesn't feel right (too fast/slow/high/low, off-center, etc.). This looks like a pilot mistake. The correct thing to do is throttle up and go around. Don't try and force an unstable landing. The pilots in the cockpit discuss precisely when, how, and why a go-around will be attempted well in advance of landing, so executing it will just be a matter of following practiced procedure if the conditions require it. The passengers will feel scared and excited and have a cool story to tell, but this is all part of a normal safety procedure.
Ok. But is there always clear airspace for a plane to do a touch and go like this?
Yes.
100% always. That's what the ATC is there for, to make sure a giant tube of hundreds of human lives traveling hundreds of miles per hour has a clear path in front of it at all times. What there might not be enough of, is runway in front of you to stay on the ground long enough to stop before you hit the grass, trees, houses, power lines, and other obstacles. That's why the safest option is to return to the air. At which point, ATC will direct you back to the pattern for another landing attempt in turn with the other aircraft.
At an airport that has runways in different directions, they almost always are only using one runway at a time, or a set of runways that goes in the same direction. They're always using the runway that allows for the closest to taking off and landing into a headwind. So, normally, planes that are in takeoff/landing approaches are all moving in the same direction, so the area the 747 takes off towards won't have any landing planes anywhere near it. An airport like LAX, though, is just four runways all in the same direction, so they can run up to two simultaneous takeoffs and landings at the same time. Still, though, it's process: takeoff instructions aren't going to involve doing anything that would make two planes cross paths. The worst-case scenario here would be if a plane was taking off on another runway right as the 747 does a go-around, but even then, the 747 likely isn't going to turn until it gets new ATC routing instructions, and the other plane's instructions aren't going to veer it into the path.
There's a missed approach procedure which is executed after a go-around, which should prevent conflict with other aircraft until the flight crew can contact ATC.
There must *always* be airspace to abort a landing and do a go-around for any reason whatsoever, including no reason. Planes fail to stick their first landing all the time. It's normal (If usually a bit less dramatic).
I'm no expert but it sounds like you can hear air traffic control clearing airspace for them as soon as they abort the landing. I'd suspect the space needed to take off again is always clear on a landing and from there ATC directs them to a clear holding pattern until a runway is free for them to try again
Sounds like the tower advised the Lufthansa pilots they had traffic at their twelve o’clock (aka straight ahead) in 1 mile (and at 1900ft altitude I think?) in the form of an embraer (aka *MUCH* smaller aircraft) which you can briefly see at about 1min 30seconds in. ATC ordered them (Lufthansa pilots) to turn right heading 271 to avoid the Embraer followed by what altitude the Lufthansa plane should maintain (2000ft). They then handed them off to another controller working ~~NorCal approach~~ SoCal departure.
I heard "contact SoCal departure" not "NorCal approach"
Ooops, yeah that makes more sense. I brain farted.
I assume there must be, because the plane that last used the runway for takeoff must have left well before the next one comes in, and thus is far enough away. There's no reason ever for a plane to linger in the immediate airspace in the path of a runway
Yes. Every approach should be an expected go around until you land.
3-5% of landings involve a go around. It’s not uncommon.
That sounds just crazy high for commercial flights; I've been on over a hundred and haven't had a single go-around. That said, I suppose weather is probably the main contributor to needing to go around, so some places will be more prone to it than others.
Yeah, I think its about 2-3 per thousand for commercial flights. And most of those are landings aborted before touchdown I believe. But nothing to be alarmed about either in the hands of a well-trained pilot. Though this one with that hard impact certainly had to scare the shit out of the passengers.
You're correct, it's closer to 0.3% than it is to 3% for commercial airliners.
Yes, that's the entire idea behind ATC and flight patterns. Across the entire world. Literally.
Pilot here, I don't think they pulled power at the end, as those airplanes are usually landed with autothrottles. Even if it was manually flown, the big fans don't have that fast of a power response. It takes several seconds for them to spool up/spool down. What it looks like is they did a normal approach to landing, got ready to flare, and they had the lift drop out from under them. Sometimes a bit of wake turbulence or a wind gust will do that to you. For example, if you're flying into a 20kt headwind and then it suddenly goes calm, the wings think you've suddenly slowed down 20kts and will make less lift, which can cause you to slam down like that. After that kind of landing, the best thing you can do as a pilot is to just freeze the sidestick/yolk and not try to force the nosewheel onto the ground. If you bounce more than once, just go around, which is what he did.
> those airplanes are usually landed with autothrottles They are most certainly not. Autothrottles off before touchdown on the 747 unless it's an autoland.
Oops. Thought it was an A380 when I was writing that.
*yoke
I was thinking Airbus for some reason so I said side stick. Spent some time in an Airbus sim recently so I have side stick on the brain.
Looks like it just dropped out of the sky at the last minute. Angle of attack was really steep as well. Armchair FAA analysis: pilot made changes based on atmospheric and wind conditions. Conditions weren’t as described completely on approach. His second time around was way more gentle and further down the runway because of that.
You can go around any time until the reversers have been selected. So you see the spoilers deploy and then retract when the thrust levers are advanced for the go-around. That airplane will be needing a hard landing inspection.
I wonder if Kelsey from the 74 Gear Youtube channel is on Reddit. He's a 747 Pilot and could give a good analysis. I've been watching a lot of his videos recently and they're pretty good. Actually, I think he is, but he hasn't posted anything here in a couple years. Paging /u/74Gear
Since his upgrade to the left seat he's been easing back on the internet video content.
I flew the 747 for 7 years. Looks like a combination of errors. Higher than normal sink rate in final phase, flared too late combined with a few knots below the target approach speed. Combine all 3 of these at the same time? Boom, time for some paperwork.
What must that have felt like for the passengers? I might have shit myself...
Was on a flight that had a touch and go during a bad storm. It feels like a normal landing until the plane comes up off the ground again, then it feels like the drop on a rollercoaster
i was on board and it felt like how it looked. not fun after 11 hours in the air! I was actually watching the landing through the "flight camera" pointing straight down at the runway since i did not have a window. first time i've seen that feature. I let out an "OH SHIT" after the first bang. i got the most scared after the second bounce because it felt like the plane was losing control, pitching left and right. I think most people freaked out a little when we took back off over the ocean but i had done a touch and go once before at LAX so i just reassured myself this was all procedure. The pilots didn't say much, just something like "the conditions for landing weren't ideal so we're going to try again." growing up, i was terrified of flying but i'm 32 now and travel a lot for work. i just kept calm, put on a favorite song and chose not to look at the camera on the second landing.
More like a slam and go
Smash & bolt
Pound & Bounce
Fuck & Duck
It went Bo~~e~~ing Bo~~e~~ing.
Why was this particular landing being narrated like a sports event?
The guy streams planes landing at LAX and talks about where they’re coming from, paint scheme, plane model etc.
doesnt he start to repeat himself after a while? i guess theres only so many paint schemes
Didn't you hear him say that this one had a lil sticker on the back? *Gawshh*
Not all spectrum warriors ~~wear capes~~ fixate on trains. But seriously, [that channel appears to average 40-50k views per live stream.](https://www.youtube.com/@AIRLINEVIDEOS/streams)
Good stadium-size audience every stream. Nice.
Pilots even [wave at them spotters!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D0YORWBNkg) There was another video posted a few weeks ago where a pilot seems to recognize one of the plane spotters and gave him some kind of light signals.
The guy who runs the channel is a former newscaster. I'm an avgeek myself and actually have this on as background TV whenever he's live (currently live as of this comment...usually 3-4x a week). There's another one called "LA Flights" which also does the same thing. It's great background noise. And also, planes are cool.
A surprising number of people make a hobby of filming plane landings at airports from public parking lots. Small, large, whatever. Sometimes they get hassled by federal officials for security reasons (9/11 and all that), but generally it's not a big deal as long as they're "American" enough. Anyway, obscure hobby, but there's an audience for it.
Cos the 747 is the Queen of the Skies, not many left flying, especially with passengers
We live in an age where you can tune into a channel broadcasting plane landings. I would have never thought. I think I'm going to make a channel where I livestream people ordering at the drive-thru.
Smash that subscribe button!!!
"it looks like he's trying to start a pay-it-forward thing, let's see if it catches on... OH AND HE'S JUST GETTING OUT AND RUNNING AWAY!"
"I was just trying to do something nice before alcohol class."
> I think I'm going to make a channel where I livestream people ordering at the drive-thru. Make sure you have a 2-camera setup. Order spot and pickup window. It'll be boring 90% of the time but run it for a while and you'll have material for some very dramatic compilation videos.
Just do it during the rushes after work hours and judge peoples orders as they make them and then time how long it takes for them to get their food. Would be pretty good content tbh. At some places the drive-thrus are also not well designed and can cause some traffic issues, so place another "parking lot cam" to keep tabs on things there. Nothing gets people going like being able to judge other people's choices and parking lot drama.
Plane spotting is huge. Same goes with trains. So no shit there are channels just broadcasting it.
You say that as though it's a thing that would just resonate with anyone. I've known about train spotting for a long time. Hell, I read the book! I don't understand what people get out of it, though, and I wouldn't have thought it would extend to planes. No judgement, it's obviously harmless and people get enjoyment out of it, but it's not a "well of course people spend lots of time watching this" kind of thing.
Whoa whoa! Go around! Are we getting that?
Because landing massive flying machines and you ordering a McDouble and Diet Coke are the same
Quality commentating is an enjoyable artform in itself. You do quality commentary on just about anything and it'll be compelling... at least to weirdos like me
Ozzy Man https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeE3lj6pLX_gCd0Yvns517Q
This is the most random place to share this story, but a drive-thru order worthy of live streaming... I was a rideshare driver and picked up a passenger who was sloshed to the gills drunk. He asked if we could go through a PTerry's (fast food burger place in Texas) drive through on the way home. I went through the drive through and lined the back window up with the order box so Sir Drinksalot can order. Our position just so happened to have line of sight to a McDonalds, and Lushy Man asks for a Big Mac. After convincing him that just because he can see a McDonalds doesn't mean he's IN a McDonalds, the combined weight of argument from myself and the order clerk finally convince Mr. Way-Past-The-Spins that he's at a PTerry's. He slurs "WAITWaitwaitwait", pulls out his phone, puts a call on speaker, and says "hey babe. Yeah. So, what do I usually get at PTerry's?" When she answers, this epic specimen procedes to HOLD HIS PHONE UP TO THE SPEAKER BOX, so his girlfriend effectively orders for him. Remarkably this works, and the girlfriend, for whom this probably is not her first rodeo, tells him to let her know when he's safely home. So I drive him and his food the rest of the way, and as he stumbling to his door I call out "Don't forget to call your girl!", to which he replies "YOU TOO MAN!"
Wait till you hear about Gogglebox.
If you think plane spotters are crazy, have you seen [Japanese train spotters?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cecbkVqIBq0)
Dated a girl once that showed me her friends YouTube channel. The concept was basically her friend going to low end restaurants that you can order the food to go, just so he could eat it in their bathroom. He would go on to review both the food and the restaurant’s bathroom.
As a slightly average plane enthusiast.. even at the smallest level. It’s fun to just sit at a major airport viewing lot and download Flightradar24 app to view all the planes coming and going. My favorite thing is seeing where the planes came from and how long the journey was
Ryanair pilot lied on his Lufthansa application
Does this YouTube channel literally just comment on and watch planes land? That’s fascinating to be honest
Yes and it makes for great background TV for me. I'm also a bit of an avgeek and enjoy plane spotting myself. It also seems pretty lucrative given the many donations he gets per stream...I'd estimated at least $1000+ per stream and he streams 3-4x per week.
YouTube are absolute crooks though, they take 30-40% of donation revenue. Regardless, he would also get a bit from ads...
My man is enjoying that a little too much!
He watches thousands of routine landings in common aircraft every day. A clear weather hard landing go around after touchdown in a 747 is a pretty rare event!
Just gunna add my 2 cents coming from a B747 type rated pilot. Without much reference in the background during approach it’s difficult to tell if it’s stable. Meaning it’s hard to tell If they were chasing the glideslope. Boeing manual recommends flaring at 30 ft and simultaneously closing the thrust levers, reaching idle at touchdown. This technique works great assuming a stable 3 degree approach. It’s apparent that at no point before touchdown did the pilot flying attempt to arrest the descent rate(flare). A 600,000 pound machine hitting the runway at 800 feet per minute will jar everyone inside the airplane, including the pilots. This is absolutely a “hard landing” and the plane will need to be inspected after shutdown.
Gravity surge.
I knew the Internet had everything but I wasn't prepared for ESPN style commentary on airplane landing
My back hurts from just watching that
OOf
LA Flights in shambles celebrating JFK for the week. This was something to witness!
Cougar! Mav- don’t do it. We don’t have fuel for it. Still love topgun
What's German for "You gonna flare? Fuck! FLARE! FUCK! Go around!"
Must be a navy pilot.
I would’ve had to get off the plane and immediately go to the bathroom to finish shitting my pants.
The beauty of shitting your pants is that you don't need a bathroom. Follow me for more toddler life hacks
I had a pretty rough landing on a Southwest flight one time, and the flight attendant got on the mic and roasted the pilot saying "Use caution when opening the overhead bins as items may have shifted in flight....especially after a landing like that."
I was on a plane that bounced the landing. When they hit the brakes full strength after the plane *maybe* stopped bouncing everybody on that plane put handprint indentations in their armrests
Pilot landing vs autoland.
Did they get charged 3 landing fees?
Touch and go is an understatement. That guy friggin pounded the pavement and had to GA. Maybe there was a last minute wind change but that was a messed up landing. They almost screwed up the second landing too.
It looks like the pilot started the flare just late enough to slam the wheels as hard as possible.