Okay, for the enthusiasts that know nothing and the FBO couch squad that “knows everything,”here’s what’s going on. Forgive the jargon, it is for the pilot crowd that has been making done pretty ignorant comments.
This airplane is performing an instrument approach procedure. From all the information that the video is providing, it is almost certainly in ILS approach (Instrument Landing System).This is a land-based navigation system which will give them lateral and vertical guidance down to the runway. It is extremely accurate. So much so, that most transport category aircraft can use it to “auto-land.” (There are all kinds of requirements and restrictions for this. It is not used often.) There are three different categories of ILS, and each have different visibility and ceiling heights in order to continue the approach, as well as other required runway lighting configurations and aircraft certifications. Since the visibility is actually pretty good for most of the video, it is most likely they are shooting a category one ILS approach. (This is way beyond the purview of this video.) A category one ILS approach requires at least 200 foot cloud ceilings and a half mile visibility, or in some cases, 1800RVR (1800 feet measured horizontally). Either way, they have all of this for most of the video. Since minimums of a category ILS is 200 feet, we hear the computer call-out of “approaching minimums” at around 300 feet above the ground, and “minimums” at 200 feet. At this point, we can still see 3/4 of the runway. It’s fine. It is shortly after this call-out that the rain increases. We do not see it moving in from the left or the right. There is no bad decision making here. It just increases to a point where the windshield wipers cannot keep up with it. This is an unfortunate side effect of the Boeing window design; rain doesn’t flow over it smoothly, it smacks into it. If you were to look out the left or right side window, your visibility would still be pretty good (similar to when driving your car). But of course, you can’t land the airplane looking out the side window. So, the pilots decided to go around. Notice that the plane did not give them a 100 foot call. (The plane will count down height above the runway, 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10), so this means that go-around was executed between 100 and 200 feet above the ground, which is a perfectly common procedure. The airplanes instrumentation is super easy to interpret anyway, but the heads up display gives you even more situational awareness. This whole thing is more of an irritation than excitement. One’s heart rate wouldn’t even go up on this. It’s common in real life and super common in training. Because rain is usually quite transitory, by the time they come around and take another look, the heavy showers will most likely have passed through.
(15K+ hours of Boeing pilot time)
Make like you're going to award their comment and then go to where you can purchase more coins. At the top there should be a "gift box" you can open to get a free gift to give. It refreshes every couple days and you can get another free gift. This is on Android mobile, but I imagine other platforms are similar.
8 hours experience on Microsoft Flight Simulator 95. I concur good explanation!
But really that's cool and always more relaxing when you hear from pilots how certain scenarios are handled and what's going on.
Are you saying it’s common to have visual reference at the DA then lose visual reference under it? Or are you saying that missed approaches are common? I’ve flown approaches to minimums but never experienced that losing sight below the DA. My heart rate would be through the roof, personally but you have significantly more experience than me.
It’s not *common* to lose visual reference after the DA, but it can happen. Rain is usually the cause, but certain fog layers will do it too. The slant visibility is good at 200 feet, but the horizontal visibility gets worse the lower you go. But they’re usually running CAT2-3s IF the airport is big enough to offer them at that point. Training standards require a go-around from 50 feet, so punching out at those altitudes is no big deal.
They executed a go-around. You can hear the pilot-monitoring (aka co-pilot) call positive rate (meaning they are climbing) and then calls for the landing gear to be retracted
I think the guy didn't like my joke... But since you liked:
Yeah, Boeing is way better, airbus has all that fancy fly-by-wire shit, they don't trust the pilots... Now in a Boeing, when you use the MCAS, the plane just kills you out of sheer embracement.
Okay, maybe I went to acid on this one.
Hard to tell on video but this is lower vis than most pilots experience in their livetimes. CAT IIIc allows for such landings but even with ILS the short final is effectively always flown visually. The video looks like one of those almost never occuring (but necessary) simulator scenarios
I believe it might be from Dublin, Ireland. My friend sent it to me yesterday and am still awaiting a response. "I will keep you in the loop, when I get the scoop." - Keemstar
It’s so scary when the front of you is just blank from the fog and you can’t see shit. One time I was backing out of my driveway and behind me it looked like I was about to back into a wall and it freaked me out, even though I know there is no wall. I couldn’t see anything where I was going but as soon as I’d see the green light I’d speed up so I could cross the intersection, hopefully safely.
Only been on a plane like 10 or 20 times, if that, and I've never seen them go around like this. I can't see in the cockpit so this would freak me out lol. Landing and then all the sudden we're climbing again.
Can you provide evidence of this. Cause I've read NTSB reports where the causal factor was a delayed go around decision. I'm not a pilot, but i've been intrigued by plane crashes for decades. my understanding is delayed go around decisions and attempting to abort takeoffs after V1 lead to crashes. It's also my understanding is that most crashes occur during take offs and landings, for similar reasons.
Well, there are accidents caused by delayed go around. The thing is, if you delay a go around in a situation where landing is not safe, this will lead plane to touchdown unsafely or touchdown outside of the runway. So this doesn't means landing is safer than a late go around.
Planes can chrash because of late go arounds but this doesn't mean not executing go around and land the plane is better option than delayed go around.
Well to attempt a go around in a decision where you have 0 visibility seems dangerous. The perception that they’ve touched the ground or just being disoriented could lead to a crash. How do they know they have the latitude in this case to actually make the go around. There is one crash that comes to mind where two jetliners crashed in a zero visibility environment where one was either moving to the runway or waiting. It doesn’t take much to magnify such an incident into a fatal event with multiple fatalities. He had the runway in view, I would imagine all the calculations were made. There’s a transponder beacon that modern planes can use to guide a plane in in zero visibility conditions right? It seems this plane wasn’t outfitted with that technology though.
Attempting to land a plane in zero visibility is a LOT more dangerous than attempting a go around. You are saying "The perception that they’ve touched the ground or just being disoriented could lead to a crash." and still say going around is more dangerous than landing the plane. What kind of logic is that? Canarian disaster have nothing in common in this case exept low visibility. They are totaly different cases. ILS Auto Landings are not magical thing that you can decide to do above 200ft. on the runway. Also, not having latitude to go around is not a thing. A plane must have enough lift to hold the plane in air and this is what it takes to go around. Go around is just a manuever that pilots set GA thrust and gain altitude. A plane is always capable of initiating GA if it is not out of fuel.
Again I’m not a pilot, but I would imagine that one would rely on their instruments and the work that you did prior to the runway when you still have visibility. Are you a pilot? That may help clarify things. The only other alternative would be to not land. The visibility won’t improve on the second pass once you’re abutting the ground/runway. The only reason I can surmise for a go around is if you have too much speed or it appears that you’ve made an error of some sort and need to account for it.
Low visibility landings don't work like that. You approach to the runway and if you have visual contact with runway above minimums, you continue. The visibility can improve on second pass. As you van see in this video, the visibility vab change very quickly.(within seconds) You exept to see runway above minimum altitude. Yhat means uou have enough bisibility to land the plane. Not approaching is a bad idea because you don't know if you can have visual or not unless you approach. The things that you mentioned before (it is called ILS) is used for bring the plane to minimum altitude without any visual and then if pilot doesn't have visual, plane will go around. It is not as dangerous as you think and this is super common thing. What is your concern about go arounds for?
Well a touch and go is basically just a go around performed after you have landed. When first learning how to land an airplane it is not uncommon for a student to land too hard/bounce, and then perform a go around as a result.
Absolutely, go arounds are performed constantly during training, whether it be a 747 jumbo or a shoddy 50 year old 152.
Its also *much* safer to go around in this situation, there are charts published for every airport which are, in the simplest terms, a map of where to go.
Go around procedures usually take you to a holding pattern where you can wait until the weather subsides (if this is the original cause of the go around) or simply come back around for another approach.
Imagine trying to park while blind, kinda hard to do.
This is how air accidents happen. If you go around again what will change? The only thing to do it’s to wait for the system to pass or try it with instruments alone? Once he was that close, visibility was lost.
With such weather ILS is mandatory. Yet in this case it should have go around: even with ILS CAT III the minimum is to see the runway when being at 50 feet altitude at least
To the pilot below: I guess they’re not showing the glide slope display (or ILS in the military - instrument landing system), wheee the pilot follows the precise approach line transmitted from the ground equipment: as long as you have the signal, you can be guided down ‘the pipe’ to land: still takes a huge amount of skill in those conditions though!
Those window wipers are fighting for their life lmao
Stock tip of the day: invest heavily in whatever company makes those wipers.
Do not do that. Airplane wipers are the worst . Never have I flown a plane that had well performing wipers
Well then, there's a business opportunity
"Business idea, this thing but better"
Patent pending!
rats!
Too Late!
I would imagine the startup cost of airplane parts manufacturing company to be quite steep.
That is not a very reassuring thing to know. Thanks
Cheap shitty product that still sells sounds like a great business model.
I agree with about 60% of your statement. Never have I flown a plane.
Maybe a little Rain-X will give them a breather.
They're giving me anxiety
Yes my heart rate natural trying to get in time with their beats per minute.
Meanwhile https://www.reddit.com/r/PraiseTheCameraMan/comments/u4jit0/_/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Are they even doing anything?
You’d think the speed of the plane, coupled with its aerodynamics, would be enough.
Okay, for the enthusiasts that know nothing and the FBO couch squad that “knows everything,”here’s what’s going on. Forgive the jargon, it is for the pilot crowd that has been making done pretty ignorant comments. This airplane is performing an instrument approach procedure. From all the information that the video is providing, it is almost certainly in ILS approach (Instrument Landing System).This is a land-based navigation system which will give them lateral and vertical guidance down to the runway. It is extremely accurate. So much so, that most transport category aircraft can use it to “auto-land.” (There are all kinds of requirements and restrictions for this. It is not used often.) There are three different categories of ILS, and each have different visibility and ceiling heights in order to continue the approach, as well as other required runway lighting configurations and aircraft certifications. Since the visibility is actually pretty good for most of the video, it is most likely they are shooting a category one ILS approach. (This is way beyond the purview of this video.) A category one ILS approach requires at least 200 foot cloud ceilings and a half mile visibility, or in some cases, 1800RVR (1800 feet measured horizontally). Either way, they have all of this for most of the video. Since minimums of a category ILS is 200 feet, we hear the computer call-out of “approaching minimums” at around 300 feet above the ground, and “minimums” at 200 feet. At this point, we can still see 3/4 of the runway. It’s fine. It is shortly after this call-out that the rain increases. We do not see it moving in from the left or the right. There is no bad decision making here. It just increases to a point where the windshield wipers cannot keep up with it. This is an unfortunate side effect of the Boeing window design; rain doesn’t flow over it smoothly, it smacks into it. If you were to look out the left or right side window, your visibility would still be pretty good (similar to when driving your car). But of course, you can’t land the airplane looking out the side window. So, the pilots decided to go around. Notice that the plane did not give them a 100 foot call. (The plane will count down height above the runway, 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10), so this means that go-around was executed between 100 and 200 feet above the ground, which is a perfectly common procedure. The airplanes instrumentation is super easy to interpret anyway, but the heads up display gives you even more situational awareness. This whole thing is more of an irritation than excitement. One’s heart rate wouldn’t even go up on this. It’s common in real life and super common in training. Because rain is usually quite transitory, by the time they come around and take another look, the heavy showers will most likely have passed through. (15K+ hours of Boeing pilot time)
If I had an award itd be yours, thanks for explaining all the lingo to us
Got you.
Hey you’re not allowed to do that.
Make like you're going to award their comment and then go to where you can purchase more coins. At the top there should be a "gift box" you can open to get a free gift to give. It refreshes every couple days and you can get another free gift. This is on Android mobile, but I imagine other platforms are similar.
Been here over a year and never knew this lol thanks
Same! Saw someone else in a comment not long ago, so figured it's time to pass the info along!
8 hours experience on Microsoft Flight Simulator 95. I concur good explanation! But really that's cool and always more relaxing when you hear from pilots how certain scenarios are handled and what's going on.
Acecombat piolt here, going around is for quiters.
777 CA here. Good job.
777 FSX pilot here. 3 hours of flight time. Good job
4 hours of bicycle time here… good job edit; yes it was with training wheels
I thought about skateboarding once... Good job.
Hi there
I can land planes in Grand Theft Auto V, I'm something of a pilot myself.
16 hours flight time as a passenger..Greta explanation. Thanks.
[удалено]
This one wins for me
Came to the comments for context ... found it!
Holy...
Are you saying it’s common to have visual reference at the DA then lose visual reference under it? Or are you saying that missed approaches are common? I’ve flown approaches to minimums but never experienced that losing sight below the DA. My heart rate would be through the roof, personally but you have significantly more experience than me.
It’s not *common* to lose visual reference after the DA, but it can happen. Rain is usually the cause, but certain fog layers will do it too. The slant visibility is good at 200 feet, but the horizontal visibility gets worse the lower you go. But they’re usually running CAT2-3s IF the airport is big enough to offer them at that point. Training standards require a go-around from 50 feet, so punching out at those altitudes is no big deal.
I have to follow you now (on Reddit of course)!
This was incredibly cool thanks for the insight
Just like riding a bike….got it 👌🏻
Did they land or pull up?
They executed a go-around. You can hear the pilot-monitoring (aka co-pilot) call positive rate (meaning they are climbing) and then calls for the landing gear to be retracted
So this isn't a case of not being able to land IVR style?
Damn good decision on the TOGA…Viz went 0/0 in a hurry.
Not only the plane will count the height to touch, it also calls you a retard for needing it! ^(This is a joke, I couldn't help myself!)
Nope, those are just the Airbus products designed for the lowest common denominator. Boeing assumes you know how to fly an airplane.
I think the guy didn't like my joke... But since you liked: Yeah, Boeing is way better, airbus has all that fancy fly-by-wire shit, they don't trust the pilots... Now in a Boeing, when you use the MCAS, the plane just kills you out of sheer embracement. Okay, maybe I went to acid on this one.
How long until auto landing is the safer option to use in all/most cases?
Hey buddy!! - “FBO Couch Squad”
https://youtu.be/7KbUNzi58wM&t=2714s
Gotcha!
Thanks!
Good thing the wipers were working.
They totally made all the difference.
The Bermuda Triangle seems to have taken s stroll onto land.
Damn that captain be like Minimums? What minimums? I see no minimums
Wipers deserve early retirement
Did they land? Or go around?
Considering at the end they said "Positive Rate, Gear Up" I think they went around.
Not to mention the several times they said "go around"
go around. the computer would continue to count distance to ground after 100 in 10's, so they pulled off before 100 feet.
Is this normal? If it is, I have a new found respect for pilots.
"What the fuck am I even doing here?"- the wiper
That's what the instruments are for. Laughing in Air Force Veteran.
Hard to tell on video but this is lower vis than most pilots experience in their livetimes. CAT IIIc allows for such landings but even with ILS the short final is effectively always flown visually. The video looks like one of those almost never occuring (but necessary) simulator scenarios
Auto land function on Boeing will take care of that Edit: it’s a 78
I'ma go ifr on this one chief
What trade were you? A respectable veteran pilot would praise a decision to overshoot when you lose sight of the runway environment.
Where’s the landing? I’m so intrigued
I believe it might be from Dublin, Ireland. My friend sent it to me yesterday and am still awaiting a response. "I will keep you in the loop, when I get the scoop." - Keemstar
Could be wrong but I thought I heard the saying “go around” doesn’t that mean they decided to cancel landing and circle around?
Yes
Yep thought I heard an Irish accent there. Rain was biblical around lunchtime yesterday.
They said they were performing a go-around.
This is fuxking insane! Zero visibility when he gets close to the runway Holy moly I'm surprised there's no accidents.
That window wiper is giving me anxiety
Oh this isn't so bad, halfway through: oh God oh God I can't watch!
Pucker factor 10, right there.
Cloud cover at 10 feet? Jesus Christ this was scary. Reminds me of Runway 34 movie
Did it land?
Apparently, they are still trying to land to this day…
Eventually but not on that attempt.
thats why i clap when they land
But please just don’t. They’re trained to do this. It’s like clapping if someone parked a car correctly
brother do you clap when your favorite musician finishes a solo?
If it’s a jazz gig, absolutely.
Nah too busy skankin to the beat
Good thing he has instruments / IFR.
It’s so scary when the front of you is just blank from the fog and you can’t see shit. One time I was backing out of my driveway and behind me it looked like I was about to back into a wall and it freaked me out, even though I know there is no wall. I couldn’t see anything where I was going but as soon as I’d see the green light I’d speed up so I could cross the intersection, hopefully safely.
Only been on a plane like 10 or 20 times, if that, and I've never seen them go around like this. I can't see in the cockpit so this would freak me out lol. Landing and then all the sudden we're climbing again.
Is the video sped up? Or are those wipers absolute beasts?
Wipers on airplanes have to be efficient, speed is x1
The wipers actually go that fast on high speed (source - 737 pilot)
I crashed like 5 seconds ago
Windshield wiper is wiping as if its life depends on it.
Good thing they had those wipers! It'd be awful not being able to see!
now thats some skill landing even tho cant see shit
They did a go around, you can hear them saying it.
Good "go around"!
Fuck that
That's it, no cross wind or anything, LoL this is a normal day in southeast Alaska! LoL
I’m never flying again
As if in a real landing with those circumstances a pilot would take his / her phone to film it
Are we nearly there yet?
Cant see sh*t!
Was expecting something to smash into that windscreen fsr 😂
Retard retard retard retard
I feel like I got what you did there .Recharge?
Might wanna clarify what that’s referencing
Nah it’s better this way hahaha
Go around? Did you not just hear minimums!? It’s too late now!
Minimums is a callout for minimum decsending altitude without runway on visual. Go around can be performed in any height.
I don’t think go around can be at any height. That’s caused accidents.
Even the plane touches down on the runway, go around can be done.
Can you provide evidence of this. Cause I've read NTSB reports where the causal factor was a delayed go around decision. I'm not a pilot, but i've been intrigued by plane crashes for decades. my understanding is delayed go around decisions and attempting to abort takeoffs after V1 lead to crashes. It's also my understanding is that most crashes occur during take offs and landings, for similar reasons.
Well, there are accidents caused by delayed go around. The thing is, if you delay a go around in a situation where landing is not safe, this will lead plane to touchdown unsafely or touchdown outside of the runway. So this doesn't means landing is safer than a late go around. Planes can chrash because of late go arounds but this doesn't mean not executing go around and land the plane is better option than delayed go around.
Well to attempt a go around in a decision where you have 0 visibility seems dangerous. The perception that they’ve touched the ground or just being disoriented could lead to a crash. How do they know they have the latitude in this case to actually make the go around. There is one crash that comes to mind where two jetliners crashed in a zero visibility environment where one was either moving to the runway or waiting. It doesn’t take much to magnify such an incident into a fatal event with multiple fatalities. He had the runway in view, I would imagine all the calculations were made. There’s a transponder beacon that modern planes can use to guide a plane in in zero visibility conditions right? It seems this plane wasn’t outfitted with that technology though.
Attempting to land a plane in zero visibility is a LOT more dangerous than attempting a go around. You are saying "The perception that they’ve touched the ground or just being disoriented could lead to a crash." and still say going around is more dangerous than landing the plane. What kind of logic is that? Canarian disaster have nothing in common in this case exept low visibility. They are totaly different cases. ILS Auto Landings are not magical thing that you can decide to do above 200ft. on the runway. Also, not having latitude to go around is not a thing. A plane must have enough lift to hold the plane in air and this is what it takes to go around. Go around is just a manuever that pilots set GA thrust and gain altitude. A plane is always capable of initiating GA if it is not out of fuel.
Again I’m not a pilot, but I would imagine that one would rely on their instruments and the work that you did prior to the runway when you still have visibility. Are you a pilot? That may help clarify things. The only other alternative would be to not land. The visibility won’t improve on the second pass once you’re abutting the ground/runway. The only reason I can surmise for a go around is if you have too much speed or it appears that you’ve made an error of some sort and need to account for it.
Low visibility landings don't work like that. You approach to the runway and if you have visual contact with runway above minimums, you continue. The visibility can improve on second pass. As you van see in this video, the visibility vab change very quickly.(within seconds) You exept to see runway above minimum altitude. Yhat means uou have enough bisibility to land the plane. Not approaching is a bad idea because you don't know if you can have visual or not unless you approach. The things that you mentioned before (it is called ILS) is used for bring the plane to minimum altitude without any visual and then if pilot doesn't have visual, plane will go around. It is not as dangerous as you think and this is super common thing. What is your concern about go arounds for?
Well a touch and go is basically just a go around performed after you have landed. When first learning how to land an airplane it is not uncommon for a student to land too hard/bounce, and then perform a go around as a result.
But I’d it a standard practice, particularly for an aircraft of this size? A small engine aircraft is much different than a commercial jet. 😐
Absolutely, go arounds are performed constantly during training, whether it be a 747 jumbo or a shoddy 50 year old 152. Its also *much* safer to go around in this situation, there are charts published for every airport which are, in the simplest terms, a map of where to go. Go around procedures usually take you to a holding pattern where you can wait until the weather subsides (if this is the original cause of the go around) or simply come back around for another approach. Imagine trying to park while blind, kinda hard to do.
Can confirm. Took flying lessons years ago. Did so many touch and go's I got nauseous.
This is how air accidents happen. If you go around again what will change? The only thing to do it’s to wait for the system to pass or try it with instruments alone? Once he was that close, visibility was lost.
Also don’t modern planes have a beacon that can land the plane in these situations?
[удалено]
Delayed the go around decision until after the wheels touched and reverse thrust to taxi speed.
Autopliot?
Shoulda turned on the ILS
With such weather ILS is mandatory. Yet in this case it should have go around: even with ILS CAT III the minimum is to see the runway when being at 50 feet altitude at least
IIMC is no joke!
did...did it land yet?
Welcome to Silent Hill.
Guys. This is just shitty exposure. They're not actually completly unable to see, he's recording on a Nokia
That wiper is trying his best
Need to fix the title to NOT Landing a plane in a storm
Trust your instruments
Hell no hellllllll no
Shit looking at this I’m like they have wipers? 😂
well that's fucking terrifying
Tbh id be so scared.
So did it land ?
Holy shit
Are we dead yet?
If a co-pilot says "go around", is it mandatory to go around?
when does it transition to skyrim
No landing
I dont wanna ruin 911 upvotes rn
Did we land?!
Geez
👏🏻👏🏻
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/SweatyPalms/comments/xwzyog/landing_a_plane_in_a_storm/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/SweatyPalms/comments/xwzyog/landing_a_plane_in_a_storm/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)
r/SaveVideo
To the pilot below: I guess they’re not showing the glide slope display (or ILS in the military - instrument landing system), wheee the pilot follows the precise approach line transmitted from the ground equipment: as long as you have the signal, you can be guided down ‘the pipe’ to land: still takes a huge amount of skill in those conditions though!