Flying is hard

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 08/19/2019 at 10:27 • Filed to: Planelopnik

0

38

Especially when you miscalculate your takeoff weight by 15 tons. The 737-800 , flown by Russian carrier S7, did manage to get into the air, but it took out some lights at the end of the runway.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

facw > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:30

3

I feel like multiple bad decisions had to have been involved there.

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:34

2

Draggin its ass like a dog on a carpet.

ttyymmnn > facw 08/19/2019 at 10:37

1

Well, it started with the incorrect weight, which then got them into trouble on takeoff speed. The runway could have been twice as long, too.

Ash78, voting early and often > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:41

3

You load 15 tons, what do you get? An extra-long takeoff and controllers saying NYET!

ttyymmnn > Ash78, voting early and often 08/19/2019 at 10:46

1

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:46

2

OPPOsaurus WRX > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:47

1

they were lucky they could land without a big problem

ttyymmnn > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/19/2019 at 10:53

3

ttyymmnn > OPPOsaurus WRX 08/19/2019 at 10:54

1

It wasn’t that the plane was overloaded, it was that they hadn’t figured the weight properly for takeoff. Landing would have been normal, and lighter with less fuel after flying. 

Nibby > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:55

1

somewhat related but did/do you ever play microsoft flight simulators?

OPPOsaurus WRX > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:55

2

yea but what if they left a landing gear or two back in a light fixture....

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:55

4

The two Rescuers films were staples of my early childhood. Classic, criminally underrated.

ttyymmnn > Nibby 08/19/2019 at 10:56

0

I have not. 

facw > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 10:56

3

But shards of glass in the landing gear and three damaged tires...

ttyymmnn > OPPOsaurus WRX 08/19/2019 at 10:57

0

Ah, I see what you mean. It was just the tail that struck the lights. They landed safely.

ttyymmnn > OPPOsaurus WRX 08/19/2019 at 10:58

0

See facw ’s comment. Apparently there was more damage than I thought.  

Future next gen S2000 owner > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 11:07

0

Even if you underestimate your weight, don’t they just go full throttle until the climb out of the airport?

I’ve always assumed the engines were maxed on takeoff.

Nibby > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 11:10

0

same, was thinking though you might’ve since you’re really into planes

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 11:14

3

People not calculating weight distribution is one of my biggest pet peeves?

“But the cargo is atypical and I don’t want to do math!”

Dying sucks more than math, btw.

ttyymmnn > Future next gen S2000 owner 08/19/2019 at 11:19

1

Sure, if the runway is long enough. Otherwise, the takeoff speed is a calculation of weight, runway length , wind speed, and probably some other factors as well. These guys thought they were good to go, and they were probably well down the runway before they realized something wasn’t right. 

ttyymmnn > Nibby 08/19/2019 at 11:22

1

No, I’ve never been all that into video games, at least not after the 80s. If I did play sims, I would want to be this guy. He’s my hero.

Chinny Raccoon > Future next gen S2000 owner 08/19/2019 at 11:28

3

It’s usual to use less than the max thrust at  take off to extend engine life, if conditions allow. 

For Sweden > For Sweden 08/19/2019 at 11:40

0

The question mark is a typo btw

benn454 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/19/2019 at 11:55

1

They fall in that period between Disney’s Golden Age and Renaissance, so they don’t often get the credit they deserve.

I probably watched Down Under as many or more times as  I watched Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast when I was a kid. (Aladdin and Lion King trumped all.)

TheRealBicycleBuck > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 11:55

1

Flying is hard, especially when weights, balance, and weather conditions all come into play. Any plane can go down if you get any of these things wrong. For example, a Cirrus SR20 crashed on takeoff a couple of months ago.

He was trying to take off from Buverde Airpark, just north of San Antonio.

The runway is 2,800 feet long. The SR20 has a takeoff roll of 1,400 feet, but needs 2,200 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle. That’s cutting it somewhat close under normal conditions, but the weather was fairly hot that day. While the airport altitude is just over 1,000 feet, hot weather makes the air less dense, so the flight conditions that day were closer to 5,000 feet in altitude. Planes come with handy little tables and charts for looking up performance values.

This table takes into account the temperature (but not the humidity) for calculating the takeoff distance. Note the area circled in red. This fellow needed 1,900 feet to get off the ground and another 700 feet to safely clear the trees.

He didn’t make it.

Why? Well, he probably didn’t understand the performance envelope of his plane. He’d only owned it a couple of weeks. I’m guessing that he flew his previous plane to this airport many times without incident, so he assumed his new, faster, higher-performing plane would do the same. He didn’t recognize he wasn’t going to make it and, like the commercial pilots above, didn’t abort the takeoff.

Private pilots are taught the 50/70 rule. If you aren’t at 70% of your takeoff speed by the mid-point of the runway, you should abort the takeoff. Commercial pilots have a different reference, but the idea is the same.

Even if the calculations were wrong, the pilots were responsible for recognizing there was a problem and aborting the takeoff. I’m glad they made it, but I’m sure there’s going to be hell to pay.

ttyymmnn > TheRealBicycleBuck 08/19/2019 at 12:00

2

And this is why we’ll never have flying cars. It’s hard enough for some people to drive to the corner store, let alone do calculations like this. 

Spanfeller is a twat > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 12:15

0

could be worse ...

ttyymmnn > Spanfeller is a twat 08/19/2019 at 12:34

0

Oops. 

Spanfeller is a twat > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 12:49

0

I feel sadder for the poor A320 caught in the crossfire 

ttyymmnn > Spanfeller is a twat 08/19/2019 at 12:57

1

Eh, it’s just an Airbus.

It’s getting harder to stay a Boeing fan, though.

Spanfeller is a twat > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 13:08

2

It has no soul

Being fan of a corporation becomes harder over time... :/ 

Dakotahound > Spanfeller is a twat 08/19/2019 at 14:17

1

Most (maybe all) large commercial aircraft have tail strike sensors. It is my understanding that any time a tail strike occurs, the aircraft must immediately return to the airport. The tail section must be inspected before the plane can be flown. It is st range that this aircraft continued climbing until the cabin pressure dropped

facw > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 14:18

1

If we have flying cars, they are going to take care of all this themselves. We’re never going to have a world where everyone is a licensed pilot. I don’t think flying cars will happen, but mainly because it’s too expensive for the masses as personal transport and it will take a lot of advances to fix that.

facw > Chinny Raccoon 08/19/2019 at 14:20

0

I was taught to always use full throttle on takeoff even though my little Cessna only needed a small fraction of the runway to get up to speed. Maybe it’s different for commercial pilots or more expensive planes, but the safety advantage seems worth a little extra wear.

facw > Nibby 08/19/2019 at 14:23

1

I am... eager:

Spanfeller is a twat > Dakotahound 08/19/2019 at 14:40

0

Tis but a scratch!

In all seriousness, even if Aeromexico has a great safety record, the last  two times the airline was investigated some deeply troubling practices surfaced. Specifically the Embraer crash last year and the Madrid tailstrike

Chinny Raccoon > facw 08/19/2019 at 15:18

1

It is different- I should have said that this is (as I understand it) only the case with jet engined aircraft.

ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com > ttyymmnn 08/19/2019 at 15:58

1

Ground effect can be a bitch.