Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CNN is now a spotter network.

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

  • CNN is now a spotter network.

    Hard up for non-papal related news, CNN is using spotter footage to SHOCK us with this SHOCKING, routine crosswind landing. Perhaps they are now spotter-savvy enough to recognize the dramatic effect of the Very Long Lens.

    Still, quite awesome to behold an A380 doing a crosswing landing, and the reverse thrust is epic:

    http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/...nes-near-miss/

  • #2
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Hard up for non-papal related news, CNN is using spotter footage to SHOCK us with this SHOCKING, routine crosswind landing.
    CNN is out of place calling this a "scary sideways landing".

    Here is another example of another media reporting the same landing:

    Video: Airbus A380's Picture-Perfect Crosswind Landing

    It's hard to deny that we love watching pilots battle the elements and nail (or not) a particularly challenging crosswind landing — whether it's in a light single or an airliner. But how about the world's largest passenger airliner — an Airbus A380?

    One YouTuber managed to catch the massive wide-body jetliner arriving at Düsseldorf recently during a nasty storm. Watching this Emirates A380 fight the wind and make its descent onto the wet runway is a sight to see, that's for sure.
    That would be almost acceptable, if it wasn't a specialized aviation magazine reporting what's just a very average crosswind landing.

    Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/p...IiGidQoQBKz.99

    A fair report would be something like: "A massive Airbus A-380 made an uneventful crosswind landing, and it was captured in this beautiful video"

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      CNN is out of place calling this a "scary sideways landing".
      I don't object to the use of the word scary. It LOOKS scary to the average Joe. The shitty journalism is doing NOTHING to find a knowledgeable discussion forum expert to add exactly one sentence to explain that the landing, albeit spectacular, is fairly routine.

      "Spotter captures scary LOOKING landing".
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        If you were sitting in seat 79K, it was probably a heartstopping moment right there when everything shifted left and the window hit you in the face.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          If you were sitting in seat 79K, it was probably a heartstopping moment right there when everything shifted left and the window hit you in the face.
          In a rare, serious moment for me, I think even this is an exaggeration. No doubt there's a lurch and tangible lateral acceleration when you touch down, but remember, this is "just a good ole fashioned, healthy-but-routine crosswind", the airport stays open and plane after plane "lands sideways" and there's near zero bloody noses and bent eyeglass frames that make the news.

          I'm sure, the standard aviation discussion forumite might be mesmerized and drooling 1/4" away ...that person might get kind of intimate with the window (and intimate with their smart phone as it's recording the landing).

          Maybe Gabe can give us a few-thousand-word post of what sorts of accelerations we might encounter as the plane starts to follow it's wheels instead of it's wings while the pilots also promptly turn from a crab to tracking the center line.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Maybe Gabe can give us a few-thousand-word post of what sorts of accelerations we might encounter as the plane starts to follow it's wheels instead of it's wings while the pilots also promptly turn from a crab to tracking the center line.
            Mild at most.

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

            Comment


            • #7
              Better than this:

              http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/16/travel...ollision-ntsb/


              descended 600 feet in 60 seconds.
              The passenger who wrote the blog post, Kevin Townsend, described feeling weightless as the United plane suddenly plunged.

              "I felt my body float upwards and strain against my seatbelt," Townsend wrote. "Passengers around me screamed. There was a loud crash in the back -- a coffeepot clattering to the floor and tumbling down the aisle. Our tray tables began rattling in unison as the 757 strained through the kind of maneuver meant more for a fighter jet."
              The terrifying 600fpm descent...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by hongmng View Post
                ...Better than this...The terrifying 600fpm descent...
                ...as reported by FlightAware....oooo, they did extra research on this!

                Indeed.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNC4FHR4XLA
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hongmng View Post
                  Better than this:

                  http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/16/travel...ollision-ntsb/


                  descended 600 feet in 60 seconds.


                  The terrifying 600fpm descent...
                  The problem is not the vertical speed but the vertical acceleration. You can transition from 0fpm to -600fpm with negative Gs.

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hongmng View Post
                    I especially like their video showing both planes meeting dead-on with one plane descending only when they are about 200 ft apart. Because that's how TCAS works.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      The problem is not the vertical speed but the vertical acceleration. You can transition from 0fpm to -600fpm with negative Gs.
                      Or with +0.99Gs (as Gabriel might say)

                      I'm thinking that many of us have experienced 3000 FPM descents.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Or with +0.99Gs (as Gabriel might say)

                        I'm thinking that many of us have experienced 3000 FPM descents.
                        No matter the vertical speed, be it 600 or 6000 fpm, if the transition from straight and level to descent had been done at a normal acceleration (>+0.9 Gs) this news would not exist because nobody would have noted a thing.

                        While the guy might be exaggerating, I am quite sure that this event was very well out of the ordinary.

                        Also, that a track site records a descent of 600 ft in 60 seconds doesn't mean that the descent was done at 600 fpm. The data is not continuous. If the airplane was at 33000ft oe minute an 32400ft the next minute, for all we know it could have descended the 600ft in 6 seconds.

                        Quiz: If you are going step down 600 ft in 60 seconds, what is the smoothest that it can be done? (meaning minimum acceleration in any direction, assume wings remain level).

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Quiz: If you are going step down 600 ft in 60 seconds, what is the smoothest that it can be done? (meaning minimum acceleration in any direction, assume wings remain level).
                          I'll give two answers:
                          1) The ISGPOTM does not fly according to numbers, nor does he explain his methods. He uses his God-given talent at aviation to provide a superior experience to his pax at all times.

                          2) This will probably make it obvious I'm not a mathematician, but I'll take a crack at it...

                          To go down 600 ft. in 60 seconds, obviously you need to average 10 ft/sec during the descent. To get the smoothest descent, you will want to increase descent rate steadily during the first 30 seconds, then decrease it steadily during the following 30 seconds. And I think if you do that, the average descent rate will be half of the peak rate achieved at the 30-second point. Therefore the peak must be double the needed average, or 20 FPS (well technically -20 FPS).

                          Following the steady increase/decrease formula, that means you need a downward acceleration of (20 FPS / 30 seconds) or 0.6667 Ft/Sec^2 during the first 30 seconds, then an upward acceleration of the same magnitude during the second 30 seconds. Both of those numbers get added to the 1G gravitational force experienced by the aircraft during straight & level flight.

                          0.6667 Ft/Sec^2 equates to about 0.0207 G. Factoring in the normal effect of gravity, that means that the aircraft (and of course the pax) would experience a vertical acceleration of (1 - 0.0207) = 0.9793 G during the first 30 seconds, and (1 + 0.0207) = 1.0207 G during the second 30 seconds.
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by elaw View Post
                            I'll give two answers:
                            1) The ISGPOTM does not fly according to numbers, nor does he explain his methods. He uses his God-given talent at aviation to provide a superior experience to his boxes at all times.
                            Fixed.

                            I'm sure his transponder-monitoring FO appreciates the smoothness, though.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              No matter the vertical speed, be it 600 or 6000 fpm, if the transition from straight and level to descent had been done at a normal acceleration (>+0.9 Gs) this news would not exist because nobody would have noted a thing.

                              While the guy might be exaggerating, I am quite sure that this event was very well out of the ordinary.
                              I would hope so, but...

                              If, upon resolution advisory, the standard 1,500fpm descent rate is used, the initial force would be around a gentle .25G. The proper procedure is to react to the RA within five seconds and to follow the RA instrument display for vertical speed guidance (I think the 757 even has a separate TCAS instrument).

                              However, as 3WE can attest, procedure isn't always followed by gung ho stick-and rudder pilots. The attachment is from a real-life case in which the 757 pilot reacted to the RA by pushing down relentlessly at first, reaching -12,100 before bringing it back to -1350.

                              The excessive reaction to the “Descend” RA caused the B757 to descend over 2000 ft in just 17 seconds, its airspeed increased by 30 kts and its pitch angle changed from 4.4degrees nose up to 17.8 degrees nose down in just 7 seconds. When the pilot pulled back to arrest the excessive descent rate the acceleration changed from –1.06g to +2.48g (in 4 seconds) The resulting G-forces caused injuries to 21 occupants (4 seriously) and damage to the interior of the aircraft. The aircraft had to divert to a nearby airport to seek medical assistance for the injured.
                              But to hell with procedures, eh...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X