It is the Cathay 777. I filmed this undercarriage take off shot leaving Hong Kong airport earlier this year.

Run that through some stabilizing software. Got airsick watching it!

Stablewhatzer?

I'm just glad I was able to load it on youtube. lol.

You have to admit the first minute or so is cool.

A Case Where Pilot Intuition (and Flying Skill) Saved The Day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikq0iP4F_vE

W0X0F:

This was a close call that turned out well thanks to a cool pilot who [probably] devised a novel "emergency procedure" on the fly. (The key moment occurs around the 15:30 mark of the video when Captain Waters has an apparent epiphany that winds up saving the day.)

I suspect fuel contamination is not a normal occurrence on 99.999999 percent of flights - maybe even more rare than that. I have two questions. First, is this the first known case of fuel contamination leading to an in-flight loss of engine thrust? Second, was Captain Waters key insight, (i.e. to very slowly "tap" the throttle control back up to 74 percent), an act of desperation - or the kind of thing most pilots would intuitively know to try?

Let me put this another way ... Given the exact same situation with you in the captain's seat, do you believe you would have diagnosed the problem (and responded) in the same manner as Captain Waters?

Whatever the case, this is why I have no problem with pilots being paid the big bucks. This is a clear case where good old "human intuition" trumped a million lines of computer software code.

I'll watch the video later, when I've got an hour. I started it up and saw that it's one of those TV produced "Air Disaster" shows. The opening scene already got my antenna up when the narrator talks about the plane "free falling toward disaster." One of the biggest misconceptions that the non-flying public has about planes is that, if the engines quit, the plane assumes the flight characteristics of a free falling safe. As I mentioned before itt, I once glided a 757 ninety miles to a safe landing at SFO with both engines shut down. It was in a simulator, of course, but the actual plane would perform identically.

I've watched these videos before and I find the stories interesting, but the presentation can be tedious: a segment with a teaser, a commercial break, recap the teaser, a little more info, another teaser, etc, etc. I haven't watched this one yet, but I'll predict that the entire 44 minute video could be shortened to 15 minutes with no loss of relevant information. But air disasters make good TV, especially when you can milk the human emotion aspect of it.

I'll post later with my answer to your questions.

I'm a huge fan of these shows, but definitely agree that there's about 15-20 minutes of interesting content wrapped by emotional silliness / repetitiveness. I just personally find the 15-20 minutes really interesting - in particular, I think they do a good job (at least for a mass produced tv show) of trying to showcase the "team sport" element of flying and the thoroughness/approach of investigators to dig into the real root causes and not just the superficial explanation of what happened. And, of course, there have been a ton of really interesting flights that I'd never know about without a show like this.

I finally watched the video and perhaps I should check my cynicism at the door. This one did not have the constant teasers that I alluded to, that stretch the presentation unnecessarily. Still, there were several things that I question. I jotted some notes as I watched and here are my comments. Some are nits, but I’ll include every reaction I had.

Early on, the Captain mentions feeling fear. Bravo to him for not acting like he was Superman. Fear is natural when faced with such a dire circumstance, especially when it’s outside the range of things you’re experienced with or trained for. In my complete engine failure in a single engine prop plane (related early itt), I certainly felt fear too. But there was no time for that emotion and I had to deal with what I had. I don’t think I ever said “dammit” as the Captain in the video did three times. I’m assuming that was for dramatic effect; I doubt the Captain did that irl.

During the initial descent, before the engine problems, the FO says “290 knots. Rate of descent 750 feet per minute. Looking good.” Why would he say that? If my FO said that, he’d get an eye roll at minimum and I’d probably respond with “Thanks Captain Obvious.”

When the first engine has a problem, the Master Warning alarm goes off and it’s quite a while before they press the switch to silence it. That would be the first step. Get rid of the distractor and deal with the problem.

They plan a single engine landing and the Captain takes over. This is fine, but both pilots are trained to the same standards and capable of handling a single engine landing. Unless I have some reason to be concerned about the FO’s ability (perhaps he is new to the plane), I’d probable have him continue flying while I manage the situation. There are things that need to be done, such as briefing the FAs about the situation.

When the second engine has a problem, they show black smoke from the engine. This was for dramatic effect. There was no engine problem. It was a lack of fuel.

As they descend for ditching, there is no mention of letting the cabin crew know. Also a PA should be made now, not when impact is just a few minutes away. There is prep the FAs need to do. And if they did have to ditch, this scenario had none of the advantages of Sully’s situation. Sully had a long, wide, protected (calm) body of water with rescue boats minutes away. Here, they would have had ocean swells to contend with and rescue might not be in time to save anyone. (btw, if faced with a ditching, we’re supposed to land parallel to the swells on the downwind side. Good luck with that...especially for a night ditching.)

They mention attempting to restart the engines. But the engines never quit. So unless they shut them down and then attempted a relight, this makes no sense.

Nit: When they mention Sully, a picture of Sully and Skiles in a cockpit is shown. Not sure what kind of plane that is, but definitely not an Airbus. Looks vintage, like maybe a 707 or DC-8 cockpit.

The Captain eases the #1 throttle forward to get some power, which I think would be tried at some point by any pilot. No mention was made of trying that with #2, but I’ll bet they did.

Approaching the airport with the #1 engine at 74% and the #2 engine at idle, I wondered why they never consider shutting it down. Perhaps in real life they discussed it and decided against it, or perhaps the same fuel control problem that made the throttles ineffectual also rendered the fuel shutoff switch useless. But a go around is out of the question and when they mentioned being at 240 knots at 800’, they’ve got plenty of energy to land without power and shutting then engine down eliminates the problem of thrust working against braking after landing. This part puzzled me more than anything in this video. (By the way, the Vfe overspeed indication, shown on the EICAS, refers to maximum speed for the flap setting. The “fe” stands for “flaps extension.” 240 knots must be higher than the flaps 1 speed.)

It was mentioned that they were landing with an excess 100 knots. The concern here is (#1) being able to stop on the available runway, (#2) tire/gear failure (tires have a maximum speed rating and no tire is rated for 220 knots that I’m aware of), and (#3) overheating brakes, which can result in a post-landing fire.

There was a picture of the actual plane on the runway and you can see that the tires are flat. I’m sure several, if not all of them, blew during initial braking. Here again, I thought “why not brief the FO to cutoff the fuel after landing,” and perhaps they did.

I’m sure all of my questions and nits could be answered if I could talk to the crew. I’m going to guess that the TV production introduces some of these things either in the interest of a more compelling presentation, or just a lack of running it all by the crew.

My hat’s off to this crew and I wish I could actually talk to them to get the ungarbled word on the whole story.

I had a nice 5 day trip over Thanksgiving.

Tuesday JFK-SFO
Strong winds. Flight time was 6:15. I landed on 19L for the first time ever (28R is normal). Very bumpy ride throughout the approach. Winds gusting to 30 knots in heavy rain. Three aircraft ahead of us went around. I was planning to divert into San Jose if we missed.

Wednesday SFO-DTW-ATL-FLL
Nice tailwinds. 3:45 flight time. Even stronger winds on approach into DTW. 40+ knots and gain/loss of 10-15 knots on final. Very close to calling a go around for windshear, but the FO was doing a great job with it.

Got into FLL at 11:30 pm. 30 hour layover, so I rented a car, slept until 5 am and then drove 100 miles to spend Thanksgiving with my brother and his wife and daughter in Ft. Myers. Played golf at 8:30 and then went to the beach in Naples where we had lunch. Back to FLL that evening for our 4:30 am showtime on Friday. (Getting a round of golf in while on a trip really feels like getting one back at The Man.)

Friday FLL-ATL-SAN
52 degrees in San Diego when we landed at 10:45 am...coldest I’ve ever seen it there.

Saturday SAN-JFK
Strong tailwinds. Flight time 4:20. We had a groundspeed of 590 knot (677 mph) for much of the flight.

We have a small airport 15 minutes from our house that has two outbound flights a day. One in the morning to DEN and one in the evening to LAX. This works well for my wife's international travel, since once you get to those two you can get anywhere easily. The plane for each flight is a CRJ-200.

On Friday after Thanksgiving, she was booked for the morning flight to DEN traveling to NRT and then on to BKK. We had some worries about making her connections because of the snow storm that was predicted for the morning in our area. While we had about 5 inches on the ground when we woke up, the flight was listed as on time. We were worried the small airport wouldn't have enough snow removal equipment, but, it seemed she was good to go.

Surprisingly, the problem was in DEN. Her flight was scheduled to leave at 8:00. Shortly before they were to board, DEN put a hold on departures for incoming flights. I understand the hold was caused by fog. Throughout the day, several times they started preparing to leave - once even boarding the plane - and then DEN put the hold back on.

But it seems the hold wasn't for all planes. Looking at FlightAware, there were many planes coming and going. In fact, her flight to NRT left Denver on time, as well as one they rebooked her on to FRA (opposite direction but when you're going half-way around the world it doesn't matter). Eventually, they put her on the evening flight to LAX to pick up a flight to HND. The problem here was the plane that was supposed to go to LAX was stuck on the ground in DEN. The airline flew in an empty plane from somewhere else to accommodate this flight.

Finally, to my question. DEN was obviously not shut down completely because of the fog. It was my impression that all of the flights going in and out were larger planes (I only sampled a few, but that agrees with the info my wife was given) and all the smaller planes were held. What is it that allowed the larger planes to land/take off in the fog that the smaller ones lacked? Is it equipment? Size? How new the plane was? How dense the fog was? Were they just managing traffic?

It’s a matter of how dense the fog is, specifically the horizon visibility as measured by transmissometers located near the runway. At U.S. airports having airline service, runways will have zero to four transmissometers located along their length. These measure horizontal visibility, known as RVR (Runway Visual Range), and the Tower reports the readings in feet to landing aircraft.

For aircraft and crews certified for Category 1 ILS approaches, the minimum visibility required to initiate the approach is typically 1800 RVR. This value can be higher for a particular runway due to terrain in the area. Some runways have multiple transmissometers which allow certain aircraft and crews to shoot Category II or Category III approaches. Thus, the Tower might report RVR for the “Landing”, “Midfield” and “Rollout” portions of the runway and for a few very long runways in the country there might also be a “Far End” reading.

To shoot a CAT II approach, typical RVR would be a minimum of 1000’. This could vary for particular runways but will be lower than CAT I. A CAT III approach will typically be in the 600’ range but on our 737 fleet we can go down to 300’ because the plane is equipped with a HUD.

Most small regional type planes are only authorized to shoot CAT I approaches and if the visibility is below CAT I minimums, they must hold until visibility improves or divert to an airport with better weather.

Under identical meteorological conditions, will the RVR at night be greater than, equal to, or less than it would be at midday? My gut feeling is that runway lightning would be easier to see in the darkness.

Do the regional planes just lack the needed systems to land below CAT I minimums?

That's an interesting question, and you're absolutely right about the lights being more discernible at night. But I honestly don't know if the actual horizontal visibility, as measured by a transmissometer, is different during daylight vs. night conditions.

That's typically the case for the small version of the CRJ, which is the 50-seat 200 model. The larger versions (the 700 and 900 models) may or may not have CAT II capability. Some airlines forego the extra expense. To have the aircraft certified for CAT II or III requires additional equipment for the plane ($$$).

The Embraer 170 and 190, which has become a workhorse of many regional airlines, are often CAT II capable. But I don't think I've ever heard of one that has CAT III capability. It might be that it's simply beyond the aircraft design. I'm not an authority on what is needed for CAT III certification, but I'm pretty sure that one requirement is to have multiple autopilot systems.

It comes down to benefit/cost. In all my years of flying, I can count on one hand (maybe two) the number of times I've had to shoot an approach in visibility lower than CAT I. We train for it all the time in the sim, but it just doesn't come up that often in real life. Having said that, I'm sure there are pilots who have lots of CAT II and III approaches under their belt because of specific destinations they frequent which routinely experience low visibility.

Oddly enough, I just had an instance of visibility being too low to shoot an approach. I flew JFK-SFO two days before Thanksgiving and they were using runway 19L due to strong southerly winds. The RVR went down to 2200' in heavy rain and the minimum for 19L is 4000'. You might wonder why it wasn't the 1800' that I said was typical for CAT I. That's probably due to rapidly rising terrain right off the departure end of the runway, necessitating an almost immediate left turn in the event of a missed approach. But that's only my guess.

Three aircraft ahead of us had to execute a missed approach. We took some delaying vectors, due to these aircraft having to be sequenced back into the airspace for another attempt, and by the time it was our turn, the heavy rain had moved off the field and the RVR was reported as 6000'.

We were very busy during this vectoring, considering our divert options and calculating our fuel state and how many approaches we could safely attempt and still maintain ample fuel for the divert and approach at another airport. This is the stuff we do up front that no one in back is aware of. These are the times we earn our paycheck (vs. all the time at altitude, just taking in the view).

Runway 19L does not have any CAT II or III visibility minimums published; only CAT I is available. In contrast, runway 28R, which is the most commonly used runway for landing at SFO, has the following published minima:

CAT I - 1800' RVR
CAT II - 1200' RVR
CAT III - 600' RVR

Thanks for the answer. I have another question.

The two flights into and out of our small airport started about 15 months ago shortly after we moved here. These flights are supported through the Essential Air Service program. It is my understanding, that previously several small regional carriers tried and failed, even with the subsidy. However, the new service is by United through one of their regional partners and has been very successful. There are very few open seats. It has been so successful, that in addition to the morning flight to DEN and the evening flight to LAX, in the new year they are adding an early afternoon flight to DEN.

The new flight comes with a caveat. Once they start, it will continue through mid-May, take the summer off, and resume in October. The reason given for this is a combination of heat - our summer highs are always in the upper 90s, altitude - the airport is at about 5,000 ft, and runway length - the current runway is about 7,500 ft. There are plans to extend the runway to 10,000 ft and at that point the plan is to run the flight year round (depending on demand, of course).

I have heard of airports shutting down smaller planes in extreme heat, like in Phoenix when it gets over 120*. This makes sense because the air is thinner at those temperatures and there's not as much lift and the smaller engines don't create as much thrust. It also follows that at a higher elevation the temperature cutoff would be lower because the air is thinner to begin with. But where does runway length come into this equation?




*I am sure the planes could actually take off, but that the regulations leave a significant safety gap between what is possible and what is allowed.

OK, now you're just making words up.

If I'm understanding, various aircraft have differing levels of equipment which allow them to try landings in the different categories, CAT III being the 'toughest'.

Does the pilot's experience/skill enter into it? In other words, could the aircraft be allowed to try a CAT III landing, but a particular pilot not be rated that high?

I had to look that one up because it just had to be a typo. I should have known that W0X0F would not make such a mistake.

According to Wikipedia, transmissometers are being phased out:

Today most airports use instrumented runway visual range (IRVR), which is measured by devices called scatterometers which provide simplified installation as they are integrated units and can be installed as single unit(s) at a critical location along the runway or transmissometers which are installed at one side of a runway relatively close to its edge. Normally three transmissometers are provided, one at each end of the runway and one at the midpoint. In the US, Forward Scatter RVRs are replacing transmissometers at most airports. According to the US Federal Aviation Administration: "There are approximately 279 RVR systems in the NAS, of which 242 are forward scatter NG RVR Systems and 34 are older Transmissometer Systems."

Scatter-o-meter cannot be a real thing.

Pronounce it "rom" instead of "o" and it will feel less made up.

You mean it's not like pop-o-matic?

Runway length is a significant variable in takeoff performance calculations. I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you that a 767 couldn't take off from a 2000' runway; it would obviously need more distance to accelerate to takeoff speed. So how much does it need? Could it take off from a 5000' runway? The answer is yes, IF all the other variables are favorable.

Let's look at the variables. Weight of the plane is one of them. A fully loaded 767-ER, weighing in at 412,000 lbs would need much more runway than an empty 767 with minimum fuel. That's why I can takeoff out of Cleveland Lakefront airport (runway length about 7000') when I've only got the Boston Red Sox on board and the fuel needed to fly to Boston, whereas I need almost 10,000' of runway when taking off from Seattle to Paris with every seat filled and 100,000 lbs more fuel.

If you put a 40 kt wind right down the runway, the takeoff run is shortened significantly. After all, the plane has 40 kts of airspeed before you even start the takeoff roll.

Then there are the variables you alluded to which affect the density altitude. High, hot and humid increase density altitude (i.e. make the air less dense) and this means reduced performance. So, all other things being equal, we will use more runway to takeoff at Denver than at JFK just because of the elevation. Temperature is a big factor and is what used to dictate takeoffs from Cairo after 11 pm, when the temperature is more moderate. Humidity, while a factor, is negligible and is not even referenced in our takeoff data.

In the case you mentioned (120 degrees in PHX), some planes can't takeoff only because the performance data they have tops out at that temperature. That is, it's more of a clerical thing than anything else. Could the airplane safely takeoff at 122 degrees? Well sure, if all the other variables are favorable (wind, elevation and runway length). But they literally don't have data which says so and thus they are grounded.

There are some other potential issues too, for example the maximum tire speed. On the CRJ, I believe the maximum rated speed for the tires was 160 kts. Above that, you might have tire failure. So you could have a situation in a plane where the required airspeed for takeoff results in a ground speed in excess of this limitation. That's a no-go.

As a rule of thumb, ground speed increases about 2% per thousand feet, iirc. Thus, in calm winds at sea level, a takeoff speed of 140 kts corresponds to a 140 kt ground speed. But, it you're at Denver (a mile high), that same 140 kt takeoff speed (remember, that's airspeed) results in about a 154 kt ground speed.

This is usually the case. The reason for the "what is allowed" limitation has to do with the worst case scenario: engine failure right at rotation. This is worst case because the plane is heavy and slow (not to mention near the ground).

If you fly a lot, you may have encountered flights that are weight limited, where they actually can't fill all the seats. This usually creates concern among passengers who are wondering if they want to take a chance on a flight that is so near its limit. Big airplanes hit this limitation too. In fact, our Cairo flight was "cargo optimized" (a term used my marketing, I believe). They would load up cargo, which was very lucrative, and then have to reduce the number of passengers they could take. But that limit is based on single-engine performance. If everything works as normal, the plane could successfully takeoff thousands of pounds over that limit.

It's only a matter of training and currency. We always use autoland for CAT III approaches. I'm not aware of any regional airline aircraft which has autoland capability and that might be why none of them are certified for CAT III.

If I haven't logged an autoland within a certain time period (can't remember if it's 90 or 180 days), I will get a pop-up reminder when I log in for my trip in the crew room. If I don't remain current, I will be restricted from using this in the real world and I'd have to divert to better weather if I encountered very low visibility. Obviously, this would have a huge financial impact and, thus, maintaining currency is important.

This practice can be done in good weather and keeps my currency for autoland. Alternatively, it can be accomplished in the simulator and we always do a few during recurrent training. The plane also has to be kept current and every once in a while my flight plan will have a Dispatcher Remark requesting an autoland. If it works successfully (we're always ready to take over), we log it for both the plane and the pilots, maintaining currency for both.

The only plane I've flown where I can legally hand fly a CAT III is the 737 and that's because it has a HUD, which is absolutely wonderful to fly with. In my first sim session during 737 transition training, the instructor had me hand fly an approach down to 300' RVR. Using the HUD, it was easy to fly within 1 kt of airspeed and a couple of feet of centerline. It also has cues on the HUD to guide the pilot through the landing flare and power reduction for a nice landing.

I think the Horizon Qs are CAT III certified. At my company we are certified for CAT II on the ERJ.

Thinking about the CAT III landing allowance of 600' visiblity. A 767 is ~200 feet long according to google.

So, roughly three vehicle lengths.

To put a different spin on it. Seems similar to taking your car from highway speed to residential street speed in 60 feet.

In bad weather.

Now do that in three dimensions.

Go.

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying some, but that seems really tough. Nice work, W0X0F.