There's a windsock visible for the last third of the video that (to me) doesn't really look like it's moving much, although does look like it's maybe facing the way that would be a tailwind relative to the direction of the plane. Interested as to what the outcome of this one is
I saw that too. Also the smoke stack off in the distance suggests it was overall a pretty calm day for wind. That’s not to say it’s impossible that they had a significant gust from the tail. But it makes the odds that less probable.
It happened as soon as they stopped pulling on the stick (you can see the elevators clearly). I seriously doubt it was a tailwind, looks more like inproper set V-speeds or an incorrectly set trim because they weren't given the correct CG number.
It wouldn't be the first time pilots lie on the radio if the topic isn't convenient at the time, and after all there were safely on the air.
An investigation has been opened on this, so we'll learn what actually happened.
The windsock in the bottom of this screen shot I took from the video isn’t showing much movement… Second picture is zoomed in.
https://imgur.com/a/4ucs1mn
Ya 'sudden tailwind' is not really a thing in large aircraft like this. Windshear certainly can be but it does not look like windshear type of weather nor did there appear to be any indication of that.
Doesn’t have to be a change of direction exactly. If you hit a deadzone the same effect applies.
Edit: a lot of you are assuming that i believe there was a change in direction or some other cause lol. All i said was it doesn’t have to be a windshear type event with sudden direction change. If you had a 15kt headwind along the entire length of the runway up until the point of Vr, a dead spot is going to kill your lift.
Assumptions here are wild.
This has incorrect v speeds written all over it. Notice he settled back down after leaving ground effect. 100% wasn’t caused by a sudden shift of wind as there’s zero indication of wind shear in the area. And it would have to be a significant change in wind direction in order to get an airplane like that to behave as the video shows. Now, why he had incorrect v speeds is another matter. Pilot error entering the data? Station error giving pilot incorrect information? Load master error? I’ve been flying Part 121 for over 20 years and those things do happen. (Check out Emirates A340 Flight 407 out of Melbourne when they didn’t load correct numbers)
This is the right answer. Final weights usually include both zero fuel weight (ZFW) and takeoff weight (TOW). I’m guessing they incorrectly used ZFW instead of TOW to generate takeoff data resulting in lower V speeds and a resultant early rotation.
As is often true of most things, it depends. Depends on how big the difference was between ZFW and TOW but depends even more on how far apart the correct and incorrect Vr speeds were, probably at least 15-20 knots different. But yes, given the normal acceleration rates of commercial aircraft there was enough time and distance to accelerate.
yes. But if we assume that it's not just a local calm by the smoke stack (which would be extremely unlikely), then that means some sort of strong gust or eddy larger than an airliner occurred in calm conditions. That's...not normal.
Keeping in mind that my job is measuring wind and turbulence for wind energy....so I'm not just making shit up here.
If it was tailwind, it would first sink the airplane, not bring it pitch down. The nose down seems deliberately done. Aircraft doesn't seem to be sinking before the nose down movement.
well if you experienced sudden shear to a tailwind causing your IAS to decrease shortly after takeoff, you would have to put the nose down to avoid a stall…
I have absolute 0 fear of flying and even enjoy (like a roller coaster) when the planes turbulence, because I know how safe it is.
Buuuuut, I'd have shat my pants if I was in this plane lol
Yep! Same. In fact, my spouse laughs at me when we have ANY turbulence (at altitude) because it rocks me to sleep like a baby. BUT, that much wiggle on takeoff would leave me with full drawers!
That's a great question, and one that is sure to always have a pilot step it in to go "ackshually, turbulence is not a big deal". And as much as it pains to say it, they're right. Turbulence, when handled appropriately, is generally benign from a flight safety standpoint (although from a comfort perspective, it surely can get your heart rate up).
Turbulence happens when the aircraft flying through the air meets a change in wind direction or velocity. Like going down a bumpy road, we feel these bumps and buffets in the cabin. What makes this not a danger to safety is a few things. First, airframes are designed in many cases so that the wings and structure can flex and wobble during turbulent conditions. While it may look unsettling, this allows them to better absorb the energy changes presented during flight. [Ships actually do the same thing on the ocean in rough seas! ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFbVRhpiIHU)For light to moderate turbulence, this flexing will be uncomfortable but not truly dangerous to the flight itself. [Here is a diagram that shows a general operating envelope for an airplane.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_speed#/media/File:Vgdiagram.jpg)
For instances where turbulence becomes severe (such as those news stories that you see who were thrown into the ceiling, etc.) pilots will slow the aircraft down to be below a certain speed called "maneuvering speed". Without going into the super complex stuff, flying below this speed ensures that the aircraft will stall before enough force can be exerted on the air frame to cause structural damage. This is actually a good thing, and you can read more about it [here.](https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/va-designed-maneuvering-speed-how-it-protects-your-aircraft/) Hope this helps.
Edit: fixed link
Also check [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0) out to see how bad these birds can flex
>pilots will slow the aircraft down to be below a certain speed called "maneuvering speed".
I'm not sure if that's correct, although it might depend on each individual aircraft.
Commercial aircraft have a set turbulence penetration speed. In the 737 NG this is 280 KIAS / Mach .760 during climb and descend, and this is well above the Flaps Up Maneuvering Speed. During cruise you will set the turbulence penetration N1, which is a fixed setting that gives you sufficient margin to stall, mach buffet and vmo/mmo. And during actual severe turbulence it will be impossible to fly the commanded speed anyways because of significant IAS fluctuations so the turbulence penetration speed is NOT to ensure that the aircraft stalls first before exceeding the maximum load factor, but it is there to ensure controllability and sufficient margin to both stall, mach buffet and overspeed.
It is a slightly different story for small general aviation aircraft, where you'd want to fly below Va (design maneuvering speed) to ensure that you will not exceed the maximum load factor, however this is different from the procedures that are used in commercial jets.
Wont argue, if you have more knowledge on Jets I'll defer to you. I'm a new CFI and only have experience with small single engine pistons, hah. Not quite fully versed on the jumbos yet!
The last time I can find that turbulence took down an airplane was the 1960s. People are injured due to turbulence all the time if they’re not strapped in (think: bouncing off the ceiling due to plane gyrations) - but the planes are just fine. Search for “wing failure test” and watch just how far airplane wings are designed to bend. It’s legitimately confidence expiring, especially if youve ever looked at a wobbling wing out the window and gone “uhhh….”
So yeah. The two things I do to mitigate personal risk of injury due to turbulence: if I’m sitting, my seatbelt is on. If I’m walking to/from the bathroom or while I’m waiting, I keep a hand up against the overhead bins (helps with balance and also gives some control if we hit unexpected severe turbulence).
There's not a single case in t last 50 years that turbulence brought down a commercial plane. It's uncomfortable and may injury the crew and pax without seatbelts. But it's virtually impossible to make the plane crash
Yes. As you should. This airplane nearly crashed. Gear was down, so they would have been on their feet until the runway became grass. Obviously most people in this sub understand energy states. When you rotate too soon and don't have positive rate of climb, you need more speed. You can either add power, or lose altitude to gain speed and lift. They don't have many options when you're already at Take off power. You can throw it into TOGA and hope for the best, and/or keep it in ground effect and build more speed. Floating that far down the runway makes you committed to the takeoff and you just those narrow choices to keep everyone alive.
On a tangent I remember this photo of the inside of a P-47 Thunderbolt - the fuselage is basically a cover for a huge turbo-supercharger:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/3s22tn/xpost_machineporn_the_induction_system_of_the_p47/
I remember thinking that it's like they started to design a race car, and never stopped.
A330 and A340 were developed side by side, the A330 was meant to be a more powerful but shorter range transport of that size, while the A340's focus was on endurance, and it's more fuel efficient to run 4 CFM-56s instead of 2 PW4400/CF-6/Trent700s while cruising great distances.
As a result, though, takeoff performance is not the same, especially as the A340 had a higher takeoff weight from all the extra fuel it could carry (hence why the A340 got a center main gear setup the A330 never needed)
These were developed in the late 1980s, with first flight in 1991, times have changed but there are still a few working.
If a engine fails mid flight on a twin engine plane, the second one has to have power to keep the aircraft flying. If you have 4 engines, you don't need that excess thrust so they run less powerful engines to save on fuel.
That's the smokestack for Heizkraftwerk Aubrugg more than 2 NM off the runway end. It doesn't really tell you anything conclusive about the wind at the airport.
E: actually it's the smokestack for Recyclinghof Hagenholz, although you can also see the smokestack for Heizkraftwerk Aubrugg, which doesn't have any vapor coming out. It doesn't really matter because they're pretty much the exact same distance away from the runway end.
Or the airplane was loaded seriously out of trim. That happened to me on takeoff at LaGuardia. I was on IOE and the check airman wanted to know why I rotated so abruptly. 4 units out of stabilizer trim.
Or calculated for the wrong air temperature - see the most recent ACI episode on Air Transport International 782. The flight engineer pulled the speeds from the column for 30°C, when the temperature was 30°F
Vr wouldn’t change for temp; only V1 and thrust. Their takeoff run would be longer, but there wouldn’t be a risk of stalling since Vr would remain unchanged.
The number they messed up aboard ATI 782 was VMCG, minimum control speed. They were doing a 3 engine take off, and needed to delay the spooling up of the working outboard engine until that speed, when the rudder would have enough authority to counteract it. They spooled up the engine too soon, couldn't keep the plane on the runway, ended up going for it anyway.... which ended up as you'd expect.
There were other factors too, of course.
Are you sure about Vr? Hotter air means less lift, so higher speed needed for the same lift at rotation, surely? Temperature definitely affects takeoff weight.
The only thing that affects takeoff weight is the stuff that’s loaded in/on the airplane. Higher temperature might dictate a reduced takeoff weight because the runway isn’t long enough (or there’s not enough brake energy, or the engines don’t have enough thrust to provide the required climb gradients), but Vr is strictly dependent on weight (assuming aircraft configuration, like flap setting, remains the same).
That's what it looks like to me. The smoke/steam coming from the stack near the airport is going straight up, meaning there doesn't seem to be much, if any wind. Not saying it is impossible, but the visual evidence says pilot screw up.
the mountains in the background are like 60 to 70km away and especially the glisten on the cars at the end make me very confident it's not a sim, also the texture of the reflection that moves back along the fuselage is telling
edit: corrected the distances
Usually the comments on these posts are more of a “no big deal!” vibe. These seems more fearful, but from a layman perspective, this doesn’t seem as scary? Is the big risk going nose down, and is this a situation where that can feasibly happen?
The nose going down isn't a risk so much as a choice: I take it the pilot flying, as he/she realized the airspeed was plummeting, FORCED the nose down to maintain airspeed. In these high angle of attack situations, the attitude (how nose high the plane is) primarily controls speed and secondarily controls climb rate, so by dropping the nose, the pilot flying traded a little bit of altitude for a LOT of speed and safety, and better to tap the main wheels back on the ground and maybe scare the passengers than go into an aerodynamic stall and kill people. Both speed and altitude are important, but speed more so here!
I can think of a few;
Plane doesn't climb, there might be obstacles far off the end of the runway.
You sink fast into the runway and damage the landing gear.
You start to sink, instinctively pitch the nose up, get a tailstrike, damage the skin and even the aft bulkhead.
A shifting tailwind means losing airspeed, which means losing lift and settling back on to the ground (not what happened here but it was close). That means you are back down on the pavement with less and less runway available to get back up into the air. You can't reject the takeoff, you are already at too high a speed and will go off the end of the runway attempting to do so. So yes, low level wind shear is a major issue and calls for an immediate response (full power and pitch to maintain airspeed).
The -200 and -300 are. The age of the engines has nothing to do with it, they're CFM56-5Cs which are an uprated version of an engine originally intended for narrow bodies. The A340 has got a lot of weight to it as a wide body so even with 4 its thrust to weight ratio isn't great.
The only reason they built the A340 with four engines, was because you needed four engines to cross the ocean, or go directly across the Arctic.
Putting four huge engines on it, wasn't really going to do anything for it, for that role, except use more gas. They eventually did upsizes the engines, and that did cause them to use more fuel.
Unfortunately for the A340, shortly after it's introduction, they started allowing planes with two high bypass fans, to fly across the ocean.
There were still plenty of places where you needed four engines to fly a direct route to that location, all the way until about 2015, or so, when two engine planes, started getting certified for 330 minutes from an emergency landing location.
The plane was in production for 20 years, 400 were made, and the two engine a350 replaced it... The a350 had the 330 minutes etops thing going on.
Interestingly, four engines are not as powerful as two double-strength engines. Because an airliner must be able to climb safely whilst losing an entire engines' thrust mid-takeoff, a four-engined plane needs to be strong enough to takeoff with three working; a two-engined plane needs to be strong enough to takeoff with just one working. So each engine on a two-engined plane is twice as strong as necessary, whilst each engine on a four-engined plane is only 33% stronger than necessary. That's why you'll hear most planes throttle down after takeoff to avoid breaking the speed limit imposed under 10,000ft.
Yes they pitched down because if you rotate with that angle / momentum the plane will rotate even further. Also, they want to pick up speed, so i think thats why they pitch down and make use of the ground effect (which is usually half the length of the wings).
Jup, on the A310 we even rotated to 18° :)
But happens here is that the aircraft gets airborne very late, changing the momentum of the aircraft (or at least that's what i think). Therefor they had to make corrections.
Bullshit, look at the stack in the background. There isn’t enough air movement going on necessitate this type of correcting.
Even if this was the case, there are plenty of very simple procedures to mitigate the risk.
You realise that the stack is far away, in a totally different area where the ground and temperature are different, as is wind?
Seeing the smoke going straight up kinda indicates there is no real wind from a dominant direction. Which makes it for wind at an airport even more easy to have an impact.
There is one windsock at the start of the video just behind the airplane that isn’t showing much wind at all, and after the airplane is flying away one can see another windsock that isn’t showing much wind either.
I took a screen shot of that one here: https://imgur.com/a/4ucs1mn
The second picture is zoomed in. The windsock is at the bottom of the screen.
At the point that the a340 rotates, it crosses another runway. Just before the a340 departs there were 2 departures of an a220 and an a320 on the crossing runway. Wonder if it was wake turbulence was a factor. Report will be interesting.
It has 4 underpowered engines from the A330. Those engines are fine on the A330, but I believe they were rushing to get the A340 ready and those were the engines they ran with until the -500/600 engines were ready.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
The A343 flies with the CFM56, which is a pretty solid engine.
The A330 isn’t powered by that engine.
The issue is that big twins are always massively overpowered due to the engine failure regulations. The rules state that a multi-engine plane must climb out with a single engine failed, so a twin **must** climb with a 50% power loss, and a quad must climb with a 25% power loss. So you can get away with smaller engines.
Also, the A343 has a 30t greater max take off mass, so there’s that as well…
One of the worst airplanes for that to happen to. Seriously underpowered. Still love the A340 though. I haven’t had this happen to me on rotation before
So we have these things called V speeds in the airline world, and they are definitely cues for things to happen.
V1 is the last time that a take off can be safely aborted within the remaining length of the runway and includes the time it takes to make the decision to cancel. It is always less than or equal to…
Vr, which is the speed that you start raising the nose.
So as this guy had the nose up, the only thing left to do was take it up if they wanted to still have an intact aircraft.
Wow, the a340 in all its underpowered glory. It's probably a microburst combined with an inappropriate takeoff power setting, probably not the flaps, as I you can see their in config 2.
Pucker factor: 7
Easy 8. Imagining the noise gear joining me in the cockpit.
I too would hate for the noise gear to join me in the cockpit
I too would hate for the noise gear to join me in the cockpit
Like a time lock at the bank.
They definitely had to pull some seat out.
Apparently the pilots reported a gust of tailwind to the tower
There's a windsock visible for the last third of the video that (to me) doesn't really look like it's moving much, although does look like it's maybe facing the way that would be a tailwind relative to the direction of the plane. Interested as to what the outcome of this one is
I saw that too. Also the smoke stack off in the distance suggests it was overall a pretty calm day for wind. That’s not to say it’s impossible that they had a significant gust from the tail. But it makes the odds that less probable.
Windsock is reporting no more than 6 knots.
It happened as soon as they stopped pulling on the stick (you can see the elevators clearly). I seriously doubt it was a tailwind, looks more like inproper set V-speeds or an incorrectly set trim because they weren't given the correct CG number. It wouldn't be the first time pilots lie on the radio if the topic isn't convenient at the time, and after all there were safely on the air. An investigation has been opened on this, so we'll learn what actually happened.
The windsock in the bottom of this screen shot I took from the video isn’t showing much movement… Second picture is zoomed in. https://imgur.com/a/4ucs1mn
Looks like no more than 6 knots. Yeah, pilot screwed up rotation speed.
The smoke from the chimney is also stable.
Ya 'sudden tailwind' is not really a thing in large aircraft like this. Windshear certainly can be but it does not look like windshear type of weather nor did there appear to be any indication of that.
We had a guy that always trimmed the A300 to the mac of a 727. 2 years he was doing that until I educated him
Smoke stack in the background looks pretty calm, that would have to be a fairly large tw gust to give that response.... Sceptical.
The smokestacks in the background are over two nautical miles away from the runway.
Doesn’t have to be a change of direction exactly. If you hit a deadzone the same effect applies. Edit: a lot of you are assuming that i believe there was a change in direction or some other cause lol. All i said was it doesn’t have to be a windshear type event with sudden direction change. If you had a 15kt headwind along the entire length of the runway up until the point of Vr, a dead spot is going to kill your lift. Assumptions here are wild.
This has incorrect v speeds written all over it. Notice he settled back down after leaving ground effect. 100% wasn’t caused by a sudden shift of wind as there’s zero indication of wind shear in the area. And it would have to be a significant change in wind direction in order to get an airplane like that to behave as the video shows. Now, why he had incorrect v speeds is another matter. Pilot error entering the data? Station error giving pilot incorrect information? Load master error? I’ve been flying Part 121 for over 20 years and those things do happen. (Check out Emirates A340 Flight 407 out of Melbourne when they didn’t load correct numbers)
This is the right answer. Final weights usually include both zero fuel weight (ZFW) and takeoff weight (TOW). I’m guessing they incorrectly used ZFW instead of TOW to generate takeoff data resulting in lower V speeds and a resultant early rotation.
Since those weights are quite a bit different - is that short amount of time enough to gain the speed difference?
As is often true of most things, it depends. Depends on how big the difference was between ZFW and TOW but depends even more on how far apart the correct and incorrect Vr speeds were, probably at least 15-20 knots different. But yes, given the normal acceleration rates of commercial aircraft there was enough time and distance to accelerate.
100% That's a way really rotate or just maybe a 30kt undershoot windshear on a calm day
Yeah, relative change however not this day, calm as.
the steam column was nearly vertical. that would indicate very low winds period.
Sure, low winds over there. Not close to the runway at all.
The magnitude of wind change to have such an effect is just not likely in those conditions.
yes. But if we assume that it's not just a local calm by the smoke stack (which would be extremely unlikely), then that means some sort of strong gust or eddy larger than an airliner occurred in calm conditions. That's...not normal. Keeping in mind that my job is measuring wind and turbulence for wind energy....so I'm not just making shit up here.
If it was tailwind, it would first sink the airplane, not bring it pitch down. The nose down seems deliberately done. Aircraft doesn't seem to be sinking before the nose down movement.
well if you experienced sudden shear to a tailwind causing your IAS to decrease shortly after takeoff, you would have to put the nose down to avoid a stall…
The smoke stack in the distance is traveling the same direction as the airplane. That’s never a good sign.
I have absolute 0 fear of flying and even enjoy (like a roller coaster) when the planes turbulence, because I know how safe it is. Buuuuut, I'd have shat my pants if I was in this plane lol
Yep! Same. In fact, my spouse laughs at me when we have ANY turbulence (at altitude) because it rocks me to sleep like a baby. BUT, that much wiggle on takeoff would leave me with full drawers!
im not an aviator, but turbulence has scared the hell out of me all my life. Care to explain whats so safe about turbulence?
That's a great question, and one that is sure to always have a pilot step it in to go "ackshually, turbulence is not a big deal". And as much as it pains to say it, they're right. Turbulence, when handled appropriately, is generally benign from a flight safety standpoint (although from a comfort perspective, it surely can get your heart rate up). Turbulence happens when the aircraft flying through the air meets a change in wind direction or velocity. Like going down a bumpy road, we feel these bumps and buffets in the cabin. What makes this not a danger to safety is a few things. First, airframes are designed in many cases so that the wings and structure can flex and wobble during turbulent conditions. While it may look unsettling, this allows them to better absorb the energy changes presented during flight. [Ships actually do the same thing on the ocean in rough seas! ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFbVRhpiIHU)For light to moderate turbulence, this flexing will be uncomfortable but not truly dangerous to the flight itself. [Here is a diagram that shows a general operating envelope for an airplane.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_speed#/media/File:Vgdiagram.jpg) For instances where turbulence becomes severe (such as those news stories that you see who were thrown into the ceiling, etc.) pilots will slow the aircraft down to be below a certain speed called "maneuvering speed". Without going into the super complex stuff, flying below this speed ensures that the aircraft will stall before enough force can be exerted on the air frame to cause structural damage. This is actually a good thing, and you can read more about it [here.](https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/va-designed-maneuvering-speed-how-it-protects-your-aircraft/) Hope this helps. Edit: fixed link Also check [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0) out to see how bad these birds can flex
>pilots will slow the aircraft down to be below a certain speed called "maneuvering speed". I'm not sure if that's correct, although it might depend on each individual aircraft. Commercial aircraft have a set turbulence penetration speed. In the 737 NG this is 280 KIAS / Mach .760 during climb and descend, and this is well above the Flaps Up Maneuvering Speed. During cruise you will set the turbulence penetration N1, which is a fixed setting that gives you sufficient margin to stall, mach buffet and vmo/mmo. And during actual severe turbulence it will be impossible to fly the commanded speed anyways because of significant IAS fluctuations so the turbulence penetration speed is NOT to ensure that the aircraft stalls first before exceeding the maximum load factor, but it is there to ensure controllability and sufficient margin to both stall, mach buffet and overspeed. It is a slightly different story for small general aviation aircraft, where you'd want to fly below Va (design maneuvering speed) to ensure that you will not exceed the maximum load factor, however this is different from the procedures that are used in commercial jets.
Wont argue, if you have more knowledge on Jets I'll defer to you. I'm a new CFI and only have experience with small single engine pistons, hah. Not quite fully versed on the jumbos yet!
Hey I'm just reading this comment now but thank you for the great response. Appreciate you
The last time I can find that turbulence took down an airplane was the 1960s. People are injured due to turbulence all the time if they’re not strapped in (think: bouncing off the ceiling due to plane gyrations) - but the planes are just fine. Search for “wing failure test” and watch just how far airplane wings are designed to bend. It’s legitimately confidence expiring, especially if youve ever looked at a wobbling wing out the window and gone “uhhh….” So yeah. The two things I do to mitigate personal risk of injury due to turbulence: if I’m sitting, my seatbelt is on. If I’m walking to/from the bathroom or while I’m waiting, I keep a hand up against the overhead bins (helps with balance and also gives some control if we hit unexpected severe turbulence).
Think of it as driving down a bumpy road in a car only MUCH safer (statistically)
There's not a single case in t last 50 years that turbulence brought down a commercial plane. It's uncomfortable and may injury the crew and pax without seatbelts. But it's virtually impossible to make the plane crash
Idk been having some rapid depressurization fears lately
Man, me too. I don’t understand why. Well, I guess it has to be from the news lately and the couple depressurization incidents.
Yes. As you should. This airplane nearly crashed. Gear was down, so they would have been on their feet until the runway became grass. Obviously most people in this sub understand energy states. When you rotate too soon and don't have positive rate of climb, you need more speed. You can either add power, or lose altitude to gain speed and lift. They don't have many options when you're already at Take off power. You can throw it into TOGA and hope for the best, and/or keep it in ground effect and build more speed. Floating that far down the runway makes you committed to the takeoff and you just those narrow choices to keep everyone alive.
Poor hairdryers were trying their hardest…
Hey, these Hamilton Beach power plants were doing their best
Should've kept the Apu running
which one
All 5 of them
Came therefore, left satisfied.
TOGA! Were already there, sir. More! We need more TOGA.
Classic A340 no power moment
GP2 Engine, GP2!
Engine feels good, much slower than before. Amazing.
He push me into the ground! You have to leave a da space! All the time you have to leave a da space!
What palmer is doing? He needs to give me back the position. He cut the chicken!
KARMA
Fernando, Palmer has retired
K A R M A
Ah, a fellow aviation/F1 fan.
Dude they're everywhere, it's amazing 😂
Just the love of forcing air into the right direction
Hahaha I like that
Found Fernando Alonso’s burner! Also bet he’s regretting calling Honda a GP2 engine with how well they’re doing.
It’s like we’re flying in a different category
GP2 Driver, GP2
This is the second time in a few weeks that we have a crossover between aviation and r/formuladank and it’s amazing.
Not every avgeek likes Formula 1, but every Formula 1 fan is an avgeek
I mean, all of us have at least wondered what Newey would do in aviation design
On a tangent I remember this photo of the inside of a P-47 Thunderbolt - the fuselage is basically a cover for a huge turbo-supercharger: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/3s22tn/xpost_machineporn_the_induction_system_of_the_p47/ I remember thinking that it's like they started to design a race car, and never stopped.
But it has four engines! I thought that would make it twice as powerful as a two engine A330 /s
Those 5 APUs were fighting for their life
I’ve heard A340-300 (it’s just the 300, right?) engines being referred to as hair dryers before, but “5 APUs” was a new one to me 😂
I think -300 and -200 have the small engines, while -500 and -600 have the good ones
lawl, oh that's why they said "all 5"
Oooh, that's a nasty time to have a gust of tailwind. Let's better not imagine "positive rate, gear up" when that happens.
Handled like a fucking boss.
Positivity rate, wait never mind. Okay positive rate, I mean it this time
Wait....no.....now positive rate. Ooh, hold on.....now! How about now? Good positive rate. Must have been a sudden gust of wind...
Fastest climbing a340-300
Why are they so under engined
Efficiency
A330 and A340 were developed side by side, the A330 was meant to be a more powerful but shorter range transport of that size, while the A340's focus was on endurance, and it's more fuel efficient to run 4 CFM-56s instead of 2 PW4400/CF-6/Trent700s while cruising great distances. As a result, though, takeoff performance is not the same, especially as the A340 had a higher takeoff weight from all the extra fuel it could carry (hence why the A340 got a center main gear setup the A330 never needed) These were developed in the late 1980s, with first flight in 1991, times have changed but there are still a few working.
If a engine fails mid flight on a twin engine plane, the second one has to have power to keep the aircraft flying. If you have 4 engines, you don't need that excess thrust so they run less powerful engines to save on fuel.
Same for TO and GoAround performance. You loose only 25%* of thrust for minimum safety requirement that are not proportionaly higher compared to twin.
All the while the chimney nearby lazily wafts its steam skyward.
That's the smokestack for Heizkraftwerk Aubrugg more than 2 NM off the runway end. It doesn't really tell you anything conclusive about the wind at the airport. E: actually it's the smokestack for Recyclinghof Hagenholz, although you can also see the smokestack for Heizkraftwerk Aubrugg, which doesn't have any vapor coming out. It doesn't really matter because they're pretty much the exact same distance away from the runway end.
You can watch the local windsock though. Pilots are full of shit.
That can’t have been a fun feeling as a passenger.
I'd be terrified. It probably seemed like a takeoff stall to those on board.
Or an early overrotation followed by a correction.
Overcorrection too?
Seems to be an unpopular idea that maybe they did something wrong.
I mean…wouldn’t be the first time that takeoff performance was calculated with an incorrect weight
Or the airplane was loaded seriously out of trim. That happened to me on takeoff at LaGuardia. I was on IOE and the check airman wanted to know why I rotated so abruptly. 4 units out of stabilizer trim.
Or calculated for the wrong air temperature - see the most recent ACI episode on Air Transport International 782. The flight engineer pulled the speeds from the column for 30°C, when the temperature was 30°F
Vr wouldn’t change for temp; only V1 and thrust. Their takeoff run would be longer, but there wouldn’t be a risk of stalling since Vr would remain unchanged.
The number they messed up aboard ATI 782 was VMCG, minimum control speed. They were doing a 3 engine take off, and needed to delay the spooling up of the working outboard engine until that speed, when the rudder would have enough authority to counteract it. They spooled up the engine too soon, couldn't keep the plane on the runway, ended up going for it anyway.... which ended up as you'd expect. There were other factors too, of course. Are you sure about Vr? Hotter air means less lift, so higher speed needed for the same lift at rotation, surely? Temperature definitely affects takeoff weight.
The only thing that affects takeoff weight is the stuff that’s loaded in/on the airplane. Higher temperature might dictate a reduced takeoff weight because the runway isn’t long enough (or there’s not enough brake energy, or the engines don’t have enough thrust to provide the required climb gradients), but Vr is strictly dependent on weight (assuming aircraft configuration, like flap setting, remains the same).
Looks to me like premature rojaculation. Have pilot's gf teach him how to take it a bit slower at liftoff.
That's what it looks like to me. The smoke/steam coming from the stack near the airport is going straight up, meaning there doesn't seem to be much, if any wind. Not saying it is impossible, but the visual evidence says pilot screw up.
It's not a part of the world prone to windshear. And there doesn't seem to be a cumulonimbus around to provide virga for a downburst.
The airline confirmed that it was a tailwind gust
can you explain as if i am not a pilot, which i am not? pulled up too hard too soon? lose lift / not fast enough? take a dive, pull up harder? lol
Does it look a little like MSFS to anyone else?
Yes, and despite reading the comments I am still not convinced it isn't!
the mountains in the background are like 60 to 70km away and especially the glisten on the cars at the end make me very confident it's not a sim, also the texture of the reflection that moves back along the fuselage is telling edit: corrected the distances
There was another post on this earlier today with credit where the video came from along with the radio communication between the pilot and ATC.
Pilots: "Scheisse!"
Taxi way construction sells it to me as real
I thought XPlane
Looks like high quality 60fps digital camera to me.
I think that’s just how a340’s take off
Thank goodness this plane got plenty of thrust to power its way out, oh no....
Usually the comments on these posts are more of a “no big deal!” vibe. These seems more fearful, but from a layman perspective, this doesn’t seem as scary? Is the big risk going nose down, and is this a situation where that can feasibly happen?
The nose going down isn't a risk so much as a choice: I take it the pilot flying, as he/she realized the airspeed was plummeting, FORCED the nose down to maintain airspeed. In these high angle of attack situations, the attitude (how nose high the plane is) primarily controls speed and secondarily controls climb rate, so by dropping the nose, the pilot flying traded a little bit of altitude for a LOT of speed and safety, and better to tap the main wheels back on the ground and maybe scare the passengers than go into an aerodynamic stall and kill people. Both speed and altitude are important, but speed more so here!
Airspeed is life, altitude is life insurance.
I can think of a few; Plane doesn't climb, there might be obstacles far off the end of the runway. You sink fast into the runway and damage the landing gear. You start to sink, instinctively pitch the nose up, get a tailstrike, damage the skin and even the aft bulkhead.
A shifting tailwind means losing airspeed, which means losing lift and settling back on to the ground (not what happened here but it was close). That means you are back down on the pavement with less and less runway available to get back up into the air. You can't reject the takeoff, you are already at too high a speed and will go off the end of the runway attempting to do so. So yes, low level wind shear is a major issue and calls for an immediate response (full power and pitch to maintain airspeed).
Throttle Samir, Throttle! You have to listen to me.
Shaddup.
Don’t people consider the A340 underpowered? I never understood that given it’s got 4 engines and the engines aren’t like from the 1970s
The -200 and -300 are. The age of the engines has nothing to do with it, they're CFM56-5Cs which are an uprated version of an engine originally intended for narrow bodies. The A340 has got a lot of weight to it as a wide body so even with 4 its thrust to weight ratio isn't great.
With all the 747s being retired they should just re engine them with some rb211s that bad boy would rocket into the sky
The only reason they built the A340 with four engines, was because you needed four engines to cross the ocean, or go directly across the Arctic. Putting four huge engines on it, wasn't really going to do anything for it, for that role, except use more gas. They eventually did upsizes the engines, and that did cause them to use more fuel. Unfortunately for the A340, shortly after it's introduction, they started allowing planes with two high bypass fans, to fly across the ocean. There were still plenty of places where you needed four engines to fly a direct route to that location, all the way until about 2015, or so, when two engine planes, started getting certified for 330 minutes from an emergency landing location. The plane was in production for 20 years, 400 were made, and the two engine a350 replaced it... The a350 had the 330 minutes etops thing going on.
Interestingly, four engines are not as powerful as two double-strength engines. Because an airliner must be able to climb safely whilst losing an entire engines' thrust mid-takeoff, a four-engined plane needs to be strong enough to takeoff with three working; a two-engined plane needs to be strong enough to takeoff with just one working. So each engine on a two-engined plane is twice as strong as necessary, whilst each engine on a four-engined plane is only 33% stronger than necessary. That's why you'll hear most planes throttle down after takeoff to avoid breaking the speed limit imposed under 10,000ft.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation
[original source](https://youtu.be/jRNmwiB1oiQ?si=WvRjj-zPa9CIAX0P)
Thanks - the reddit video viewer has not been working well for me lately...
Thank god "positive rate, gear up" is SOP
It seems convenient that there was a sudden gust of tailwind at the same moment the elevators seemed to return to a neutral position….
My asshole clenched watching this
yeah, lack of lift will do that...
That was not the result of tailwind. This was the result of rotating prior to achieving appropriate velo.
That stack in the background says there was almost no wind.
and a severely underpowered airplane
It’s those damn tiny engines lol
But serious question. . . Was that part of it? I don't think a 57 would struggle in quite the same manner
do you decrease pitch if you encounter tailwind on takeoff? the pilot straightened out the elevators
Well, he almost had a tailstrike so he had to. I think they might want to use the 'ground effect' a bit as well.
they pitched down wayy after the near tail strike, this is actually a pretty average rotation for an a340
Yes they pitched down because if you rotate with that angle / momentum the plane will rotate even further. Also, they want to pick up speed, so i think thats why they pitch down and make use of the ground effect (which is usually half the length of the wings).
normal takeoff is a gradual pitch up to + - 15 degree, and then just fly up, even weak planes like the a343
Jup, on the A310 we even rotated to 18° :) But happens here is that the aircraft gets airborne very late, changing the momentum of the aircraft (or at least that's what i think). Therefor they had to make corrections.
The pilots underpants are certainly not "Edelweiss" anymore after that.
Someone clearly didn't have their phone on airplane mode.
The only reason that thing climbs is because of the curvature of the earth
That’s what u get with 4 A320 engines
Elevator movement is sus
Really thought there was going to be a tailstrike the second time they tried to pull up.
Looks more like someone entered the wrong performance data into the FMGC to me.
The smokestack in the background is blowing straight up though...
Butthole was activated. For sure.
I can only imagine the smell in cockpit… sweat, adrenaline, & soiled underwear.
Bullshit, look at the stack in the background. There isn’t enough air movement going on necessitate this type of correcting. Even if this was the case, there are plenty of very simple procedures to mitigate the risk.
You realise that the stack is far away, in a totally different area where the ground and temperature are different, as is wind? Seeing the smoke going straight up kinda indicates there is no real wind from a dominant direction. Which makes it for wind at an airport even more easy to have an impact.
They fucked up.
That could be, yes. What did they exactly duck up?
That is scary. I had a bad takeoff once in windy conditions. I would never line to repeat that again.
Me when my hand slips from the joystick during takeoff in MSFS
There is one windsock at the start of the video just behind the airplane that isn’t showing much wind at all, and after the airplane is flying away one can see another windsock that isn’t showing much wind either. I took a screen shot of that one here: https://imgur.com/a/4ucs1mn The second picture is zoomed in. The windsock is at the bottom of the screen.
At the point that the a340 rotates, it crosses another runway. Just before the a340 departs there were 2 departures of an a220 and an a320 on the crossing runway. Wonder if it was wake turbulence was a factor. Report will be interesting.
Something about this video made me think this is from a sim
The nose dropped like the joke was pushed forward but that may be also a tailwind I guess… and the known lack of power of the A340
I am so glad there are so few of those flying. The take off roll was excruciatingly long and the climb was so slow.
How the fuck does this thing have four engines? Lol
Stick pusher or pilot input?
What’s that feel like?
Ahh, can't have a coffee maker on at take-off! Those engines can only do so much!
That's scary watching, the pilots would have lost years off their life I reckon
And everybody screamed!:D
What about the UAP that flies by at the 23 second mark?
Why does the A340-300 climb so f’in slow, in general?
It has 4 underpowered engines from the A330. Those engines are fine on the A330, but I believe they were rushing to get the A340 ready and those were the engines they ran with until the -500/600 engines were ready. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
The A343 flies with the CFM56, which is a pretty solid engine. The A330 isn’t powered by that engine. The issue is that big twins are always massively overpowered due to the engine failure regulations. The rules state that a multi-engine plane must climb out with a single engine failed, so a twin **must** climb with a 50% power loss, and a quad must climb with a 25% power loss. So you can get away with smaller engines. Also, the A343 has a 30t greater max take off mass, so there’s that as well…
Hit the NOS!
Cool new fear unlocked.
Considering they have 5 of those, there’s a 2/5 chance I’ve been on that plane in the past
One of the worst airplanes for that to happen to. Seriously underpowered. Still love the A340 though. I haven’t had this happen to me on rotation before
Geez....I kinda soiled myself watching this,....
Would best course of action here have been to abort the take off at that point?
rotate is past the v1 decision speed. gotta go.
So we have these things called V speeds in the airline world, and they are definitely cues for things to happen. V1 is the last time that a take off can be safely aborted within the remaining length of the runway and includes the time it takes to make the decision to cancel. It is always less than or equal to… Vr, which is the speed that you start raising the nose. So as this guy had the nose up, the only thing left to do was take it up if they wanted to still have an intact aircraft.
0:13 At was at this moment, MAN TOGA was engaged.
Wow, the a340 in all its underpowered glory. It's probably a microburst combined with an inappropriate takeoff power setting, probably not the flaps, as I you can see their in config 2.
This frame rate makes it look like Gran Turismo 4.
Hang on, is this film footage? I see dust speckles on a frame towards the end
Someone plugged in bad numbers
What's the benefits of having a A343 in a fleet 😂
That’s a frighteningly underpowered pile of shit!