正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Seconds from catastrophe. This arriving aircraft touched down while the departing aircraft was still on the runway finishing its takeoff roll. A few seconds either way, and this could have become one of aviation’s darkest accidents. ✈️ Put yourself in the cockpit: If you’re the arriving pilot and you...

103,404 次观看 • 3 天前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

The MD-11 has always had a critical design flaw. It was manageable until someone screwed up. To improve fuel efficiency and range, its horizontal stabilizer was made smaller than those of earlier DC-10 variants. While the design delivered performance benefits, it also reduced the aircraft's natural pitch stability, particularly at slower speeds during approach and landing. To help compensate, the MD-11 relied heavily on computerized stability augmentation systems. Many crews also preferred flying slightly faster approaches, which improved pitch stability but could make the aircraft more challenging to manage during touchdown due to its weight and sensitivity in roll and yaw. These characteristics became evident in several high-profile accidents. In 1997, a FedEx MD-11 arriving at Newark was reportedly operating under the belief that runway length was limited, prompting the crew to aim for an immediate touchdown. The aircraft landed hard, bounced, and became unstable. Instead of executing a go-around, attempts to salvage the landing resulted in another severe impact, collapsing the landing gear and destroying the aircraft in a post-crash fire. All five crew members survived. The accident highlighted a key lesson: when an MD-11 bounced significantly after touchdown, a go-around was often the safest option. That lesson resurfaced in tragic fashion in 2009 at Narita, Japan. During strong and gusty crosswinds, a FedEx MD-11 touched down hard and bounced. Believing the aircraft could still be recovered onto the runway, the crew attempted to continue the landing. The resulting control inputs led to an even harder impact, loss of control, and a crash that destroyed the aircraft and claimed the lives of both pilots. 📹: buybygb

Turbine Traveller

206,274 次观看 • 1 个月前

Another ill-fated take-off over V1 (in this case, V2!) June 13 1996: Garuda Indonesia Flight 865, a DC-10, crashes in Fukuoka (Japan) 3 of 275 aboard die. On take-off, the jet had just left the ground when one of the engines failed. Crew opted to reject the maneuver; the aircraft was unable to stop safely and left the runway: landing gear collapsed, and the airplane caught fire. Inquiry noted pilot actions by aborting takeoff above V1, where SOP dictated pilots should have continued takeoff and deal with the engine later. More info below from Aviation Safety Network – Aftermath video is from Aircrashdaily (go give them a follow on YouTube) “The DC-10 accelerated for takeoff. The nose was raised, and at a speed of 158 kts, the first officer called "Rotate". It was 12:07:40. Three seconds later, at a radio altitude of 9 feet, a fan blade of the 1st stage HP turbine from the no. 3 engine separated. The N1 dropped to 23,7% within a few seconds. At 12:07:45, the flight engineer called "Engine failure number one." Takeoff was aborted at about the V2 speed, and the airplane contacted the runway one second later at a vertical acceleration force of 2.1 Gs. The thrust reversers were deployed and ground spoilers were extended. The DC-10 skidded off the runway through a ditch, fence and a road, before coming to a halt 620 m past the runway threshold. Investigation revealed that the turbine blade that failed, had operated for 30913 hours and 6182 cycles. General Electric had advised customers to discard blades after about 6000 cycles. Accident cause Although the Aircraft was well in excess of V1 and the aircraft had already lifted off from the runway, the takeoff was aborted. Consequently, the aircraft departed the end of the runway, came to rest and caught fire. It is estimated that contributing to the rejection of the takeoff under this circumstance was the fact that the CAP's judgement in the event of the engine failure was inadequate."

Francisco Cunha

157,114 次观看 • 1 个月前

K1 De Ultimate -Valuejet You all should watch these 2 videos with close attention Frame 1: You can see there are a lot of ground handling operators and aircraft security on ground with K1, definitely talking to him and begging him . Note all passengers have boarded and the door closed, Pilot just needs to communicate with the ATC and push forward to enter the runway for takeoff Watch closely the Aircraft moved forward a little and you can see K1 trying to stopped it , definitely he didn't want them to go because he wasn't allowed to board the plane Frame 2 : You would see that the numbers of people around the aircraft has reduced and K1 was still there with few ground operators still trying to let him know he needs to leave that vicinity, but no he didn't. In aviation, the Pilot have the right to disembark a passenger Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) – mandates the *pilot-in-command* has the authority to refuse a passenger or request their removal if safety is at risk. Listen to the voice in frame 2 when the aircraft moved forward: the person said wait now, wait now, shebi you dey block the plane (refering to K1) Definitely they have been dragging the matter and begging him for long which he declined and not letting the pilot to move further. 2 things: 1. They captains might not know they were still there if you compare the numbers of people you see in video 1 and 2 because captains hardly see people they are close to the aircraft nose 2. Out of frustration the captain might decide to move forward to position himself for takeoff Aviation are guided by law and proper investigation needs to be carried out

Hon.Ab Faj (FlyingAeroBoy)

161,556 次观看 • 11 个月前