need help..my girlfriend thinks i'm a nut case..

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Looks OK to me. Not all takeoffs are conducted as if trying to send a rocket to the moon.By taking off like that you can use ground effect to help reduce drag and accelerate better.Best regards,Robin.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

So for those of you who want to argue that it's not CGI, find me an airport in the United States, with at least 11 gates, capable of servicing a 737, where there's no parallel taxiway...Look closely at where the plane takes off. It's the first strip of pavement right off of the ramp, which is where a parallel taxiway would go. Either that airport has no parallel taxiway and the ramp dumps right onto the runway (rare in the States, and rarer still at airports with more than a couple gates), or it's CGI and they had it take off on the taxiway because it was cheap, easy, fit, and few people would notice.Furthermore, fill in the blank:"Positive rate, ____ __"How many departures have you watched where they wait that long to even begin to raise the gear? If you want to debate that, come out to Gravelly Point at DCA and we'll have a watch.

Edited January 3, 2012 by scandinavian13

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Furthermore, fill in the blank:"Positive rate, ____ __"

High EGT?? Engine failure? Bird strike?Why does everyone assume that all airliners takeoff like rockets, and have the gear pre-selected UP? *sigh*Best regards,Robin.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

High EGT?? Engine failure? Bird strike?Why does everyone assume that all airliners takeoff like rockets, and have the gear pre-selected UP? *sigh*Best regards,Robin.

I wasn't."Positive rate, gear up" perhaps? That's a pretty standard call, really. That's also not mentioning the whole paragraph below it where I was talking about gear retraction. Nowhere in that whole post did I address the rate of climb.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

I was making a point. ;)My Father and many of his colleagues wait until all the runway has passed below before raising the gear. The only exception was a certain aircraft type that was FATAL to leave the gear down longer than necessary, as it didn't have the performance to fly single engine with it extended. On that they sometimes really did pre-select it up. Most times the PNF had his hand on the lever waiting for the positive rate call, and cross-check. On jets like the 737, A320, etc. it isn't necessary to do.Windshear is another consideration. Sudden loss of airspeed requires excess speed to be carried to allow for it. Only a fool flies the limits in such a situation. Takeoff is no time to be waiting to deal with it. I certainly wouldn't want to be flying at V2 knowing that was waiting to bite my arse when I'm heavy, low, and slow.Best regards,Robin.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I was making a point. ;)My Father and many of his colleagues wait until all the runway has passed below before raising the gear. The only exception was a certain aircraft type that was FATAL to leave the gear down longer than necessary, as it didn't have the performance to fly single engine with it extended. On that they sometimes really did pre-select it up. Most itmes the PNF had his hand on the lever waiting for the positive rate call, and cross-check. On jets like the 737, A320, etc. it isn't necessary to do.

What do your father and his colleagues fly, out of curiousity? In anything larger than GA, or smaller regionals at a large airport, there's no point to leave the gear down until the end of the runway. Why? We already determined that after V1 we wouldn't have enough room to stop on the runway should we need to, and at V2 we're at a safe single-engine climbout speed anyway, so why risk running off the runway into buildings or trees, when I can get up and out on one engine (an FAA requirement, by the way), run the pattern and land relatively normally with plenty of runway in front of me. Maintaining a speed above V2 is only helped by not hanging a giant amount of drag beneath you, as well, so...gear up!In GA, it's mostly an issue because a good amount of the flying done is single engine. That engine goes and there's no engine out speed to help you up and out, so it makes sense to leave the gear down as long as you have a spot to set down on. Furthermore, GA aircraft normally need only a small amount of the runway available, and can stop in a short distance. So, given a 182RG, and an average-sized runway, it makes sense to leave it down.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

when I can get up and out on one engine (an FAA requirement, by the way)

You assume the remaining engine is fully operational. Leaving the gear down was a safety decision in the event they ended up going in after takeoff. Let the gear take the initial impact.It seems that most pilots only assume one problem will occur, not the worst-nightmare scenario of multiple major failures. "Assume the worst, hope for the best" should be the mentality.In 1992 a SAS MD-82 lost BOTH engines shortly after takeoff due to clear ice on the wings. Only thanks to the quick thinking of the pilots did everyone survive. The whole event lasted 73 seconds from the start to going in. They didn't run a single checklist. Everyone survived. Only 2 serious causalities. They put the aircraft in a clearing of a forest. Both engines were damaged by ice, and were surging heavily. Neither pilot was aware, and had not received training about, the ATR function (Auto Thrust Restoration). As they reduced power to try and stop the surging, the ATR opened another fuel valve to the engine, restoring power. The surging destroyed both engines and they went down. The purpose of ATR was to restore thrust in the event of a power loss. It is NOT the same as the ART (Auto Reserve Thrust) function armed at takeoff, that automatically increases the remaining engine thrust to EPR LIM in the event of loss of thrust on the other engine.A case of dealing with the worst, instead of assuming.If you go in with the mentality that only event will occur in an orderly fashion, you will die because of it. You know test pilots know their emergency procedures as well as they know their normal checklists? No time to dig out the book when you've got a problem. Most commercial pilots encounter the abnormals only during training, recurrent training and during an actual emergency. Read those abnormal and emergency checklists and know those better than the normals. Study WHY you do something. Doing it "just because the checklist says so" isn't enough. Errors exist in them (A330 Fuel Imbalance, Air Transat Flight 236). Others are just too damn long (MD-11 smoke checklist, Swissair Flight 111).Heindsight is 20/20, but in the event of smoke, forget checklists and rip that aircraft apart. Find the source of the smoke/fire and fight it, whilst finding somewhere to put the aircraft down. You haven't got time for anything else. In the case of Swissair Flight 111, even if they started an immediate emergency descent with the airport at an ideal position ahead of the aircraft, they still would not have made it down in time. :( I still wonder if they could have made it, had they pulled the aircraft apart instead of running air conditioning smoke checklists to the last. Sometimes you have to throw the book out the window, especially when it is life/death. Nothing is more serious than fire on an aircraft.Best regards,Robin.

[factory15 0]

ok i did some research and it looks like they filmed this at the Ontario, CA airport. The plane is taking off from 26R and she's looking out from the end of Terminal 2. I did a screengrab from netflix. You see on the Gmaps where the markings match.Not totally convinced on the CGI...I think they chartered a plane and told the pilot to take off low and slow. He probably turned right around to land. In the end maybe I am crazy. :(

[scandinavian13 5,192]

You assume the remaining engine is fully operational. Leaving the gear down was a safety decision in the event they ended up going in after takeoff. Let the gear take the initial impact.It seems that most pilots only assume one problem will occur, not the worst-nightmare scenario of multiple major failures. "Assume the worst, hope for the best" should be the mentality.In 1992 a SAS MD-82 lost BOTH engines shortly after takeoff due to clear ice on the wings. Only thanks to the quick thinking of the pilots did everyone survive. The whole event lasted 73 seconds from the start to going in. They didn't run a single checklist. Everyone survived. Only 2 serious causalities. They put the aircraft in a clearing of a forest. Bot engines were damaged by ice, and were surging heavily. Neither pilot was aware, and had not received training about, the ATR function (Auto THrust REstoration). As they reduced power to try and stop the surging, the ATR opened another fuel valve to the engine, restoring power. The surging destroyed both engines and they went down.

I'm familiar with this accident, but I'm going to tell you that the gear had very little to do with their survival in this case. I can guarantee you that. In fact, in the Sioux City incident with the United Airlines DC-10, the gear was partially the reason the aircraft flipped on touch down, as a higher than normal descent rate punched the gear into the ground, which created a pivoting force, tumbling the aircraft. Would gear up have helped more in this case? Who knows, but your story has more to do with pilot familiarity and luckily not coming to a sudden stop, than the merits of leaving the gear down (which, they did actually raise the gear after takeoff - as for re-selecting the down position, I'm unsure, though photos of the crash site and wreckage indicate that it was left up).In a jet, running off the runway, you're almost better off without the gear. Against trees, your gear doesn't matter. I don't care how many engines are still operating or not operating. Edited January 3, 2012 by scandinavian13

[scandinavian13 5,192]

ok i did some research and it looks like they filmed this at the Ontario, CA airport. The plane is taking off from 26R and she's looking out from the end of Terminal 2. I did a screengrab from netflix. You see on the Gmaps where the markings match.

Look closer. I'd agree with you that it's KONT, but I don't agree that it's coming off of 26R. It's taking off of the closest strip to the ramp, which is the taxiway - both in the video and on google maps.

Not totally convinced on the CGI...I think they chartered a plane and told the pilot to take off low and slow. He probably turned right around to land. In the end maybe I am crazy. :(

No offense, but you have to be. It's a TV show, not a movie, and even in the movie, they never charter planes for passes. Ever wonder why they'll show an MD-8O taking off and then cut to the "interior" and it's a 747? There's no way they wrote off the fuel and pilot time for a lap around the pattern in a 737. Edited January 3, 2012 by scandinavian13

[downscc 1,327]

My vote is for CGI, same as the nutty 727 with a broken nose gear landing in the back of a small Nissan pickup. Right!Best CGI aviation I've seen is in movie "Fly Boys" about WWI, some real aircraft but where CGI was necessary they started by instrumenting a real airplane and sending it through the loops then using CGI to replace the real thing with a CGI model that behaved very realistic. Great move, got a standing ovation at it's first showing at Oshkosh a couple years ago. Pilots standing up and applauding. Wow.

[factory15 0]

No offense, but you have to be.

lol ok buddy gonna get myself checked out right away

[3-2-1-Now 126]

I'm familiar with this accident, but I'm going to tell you that the gear had very little to do with their survival in this case.

It was an example of expecting the unexpected, not a discussion of the protection afforded by the gear.If we are talking gear, what about the 777 at Heathrow. Do you think the gear being down helped in that instance? It is well established that maximizing energy absorption in a crash helps the outcome, hence crumple zones in cars. Had the gear been up, the fuselage would have taken more of a beating than the gear/wings, and consequently, the passengers would have experienced a greater vertical impact load.Are you familiar with the L-1011 that landed back on the runway after takeoff due to a stall warning in 1992? From what you're saying, you'd already have selected gear up. :SBest regards,Robin.

[Fabo 213]

Robin,no offense,but I am not sure I would like your father to be at the controls of an airplane I am sitting in. Somehow it seems to me he (and his colleagues) just think they know better. I believe that to be a very dangerous thing.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Uhmm.... they work for a major global airline. They didn't just make it up....and yes you would want him at the controls. He has refused many aircraft others would have taken, on grounds of airworthiness (or rather lack thereof). One aircraft he flew nearly ended up on the front page of the next days papers along with another, but he averted disaster because he had visual with the aircraft TCAS was screaming at him about. Had he followed TCAS he'd be dead. He saw the jet turn first. No advisory, just instant resolution, but he was already climbing to avoid. The other jet passed underneath by about 70 ft. The other jet mis-heard "turn 005" as "050", and turned into them. If anyone off those flights are reading, they will know what I'm talking about. We are supposed to sign our full real names here, Peter ??????.Best regards,Robin.