I've certainly never heard of any runway in the UK being known by anything other than its heading and position relative to any parallel runway (eg 05L) as in the US.

Thanks for the reply. The plane that passed over definitely did not catch the top of the trees, it still had at least a couple of hundred feet clearance at that point (amateur estimation) before descending to touch down on the runway. The area I highlighted in the pic is publicly accessible but there are a number of guiding lights in place there which were lit up at the time.

I should've explained it's often called runway one locally, Manchester didn't open it's second runway until 2001 (05R) despite being a busy airport due to several years of legal wrangles and it was a big story in the city. I think it's just a Manchester thing to call it that.

I love the fact it's possible to get so close to the action at this airport (there's always a few enthusiasts listening to the tower radio etc. hanging around) but this was a weird incident that set off the danger alarm in my brain.

Ultimately no visible harm was done, I'm just frustrated that my rabid curiousity wasn't satisified The other strange thing was it was only one tree in amongst many in the wooded area that moved, also apart from the other 3 people in my group no one else nearby seemed to even react to what happened. I hate unsolved mysteries!

Thanks again anyway, this is an epic thread.

I'm with you on this one. The "plane clipping the treetop" theory was pretty far-fetched and almost unheard of for an airliner (though it probably happens with GA planes a handful of times a year). I would love to know what caused what you heard and saw too. Just another one for my "cold case" files.

Have you ever seen or heard any stories about St. Elmos Fire? If so do the static impulses have any affect over your planes radio communications? How rare of an occurrence is it?

I know its been said 2.2 billion times in this thread but thanks so much for the wealth of info. This has genuinely been one of the best things I have ever read on the internet and have been glued to the entire thread.

I've seen St. Elmo's fire many times, probably at least once a year. It seemed to be much more common in the turboprops, but that may just be because we spent more time in the weather down low (in the 16000-20000' range). Flying through snow showers seems to be good conditions for this phenomenon.

In the prop planes, you could sometimes see the entire circumference of the props glowing a purplish-blue color. The most common display of St. Elmo's Fire is an appearance of spider-web blue streaks coursing up the windshields. It looks very much like those novelty devices you may have seen where you can touch a 10 inch diameter (approx.) glass globe and watch the blue "lightening" attracted to your touch. (Is this description making sense to anyone?)

St. Elmo's Fire is harmless and usually doesn't affect radio communications. But I have had a few instances (again when flying through snow), where a static build-up on the plane started causing static over the radios.

In one of the most dramatic instances I recall, I was in an MD-88 on downwind to Runway 01 at DCA, flying through snow. The radio static got so bad we couldn't communicate at all (no St. Elmo's fire during this time) and finally there was a bright (very bright) discharge just forward and left of the nose with a loud (very loud) bang. The radios were then crystal clear and we proceeded to land without incident. This was such an abnormal occurrence, however, that we checked with the FAs and were told that they had observed the bright flash and heard the bang. So, I made a PA to the passengers (even though we were down low...we don't normally make PAs below 10,000') to reassure them.

A static build-up like this is unusual because all large planes have static discharge wicks on the trailing edges of the wings. Take a look sometime at the back edge of the ailerons and wing-tips and you'll see metallic wicks about 6-12" long. Their sole purpose is to dissipate the static build-up which naturally occurs from the friction of air passing over the wing.

W0X0F,

Best glide speed and best angle of climb speed seem to be very close in most planes I've seen both numbers on. Is this necessarily so? Is it just because the angle of attack at X knots is the one that produces the best lift over the shortest distance, regardless of thrust?

OK W0X0F, I've thought of a Q. for you.

Earlier this year I was flying on CX back to New Zealand when I experienced something unusual (for me at least).

We were on final approach (B 747) and had been gliding in for a while. Suddenly the engines powered up and I was pressed into the seat for what seemed like around 10 seconds, it felt like we were climbing rapidly. After that the engines powered down to a normal level and we continued with a standard descent and landing. It wasn't a go-around because we stayed in a straight line the whole time.

Any ideas? Too close to stall speed perhaps?

The obvious logical conclusion for me is they were a bit off of what they were supposed to be at for the descent path. I've had similar things happen to planes that I'm in.

What airport were you flying into?

Tonight before sundown I watched a general aviation pilot in what I think was a Cirrus SR-20 make tight circles to descend to landing pattern from about ~4k feet above field level. Wx was clear. I have no idea why he did that.

Thoughts?

maybe practicing an emergency descent/landing?

Auckland - AKL

I found this approach plate for AKL. At the bottom you can see that the plane descends, then maintains 2100ft for 6 miles, then descends again. What you felt could have been the plane increasing throttle to maintain 2100, though it should have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds to go the 6 miles. Maybe one of the other approach plates has something.

That sounds like a good theory, but I don't know the answer. You've piqued my curiosity and I'll see if I can find out.

There are many possibilities, but being too close to stall speed is one of the least likely. The scenario where it might have been a slow speed could be something like this: the auto-throttles are not doing a very good job and the flying pilot turns them off. At the end of a long descent, the plane levels off and normally the auto-throttles would increase power to maintain speed. But if the A/Ts were turned off, the pilot would need to do this. But when you've gotten very used to A/Ts, it's easy to forget about the power. Of course it's very obvious that something's wrong as the speed bleeds off and the pilot just pushes the throttles up, or turns the A/Ts back on. It would take a significant power increase to get the airplane back on speed and your senses might be fooled into perceiving this as a climb.

Or maybe it was actually a climb with inceased power. The scenario here could be a missed altitude. Perhaps there was an intermediate level-off point in the approach that the pilot missed and then corrected back to this altitude before continuing with the descent profile.

Tyler's guess sounds likely to me too. Power-off spiral descents are something you'd do in a private pilot curriculum, though not usually over an airport (it's a training maneuver and we recover from the descent at least 1000' above the ground). But if the airport wasn't busy, he might have just been putting the maneuver to practical use.

Or maybe he just did it for fun. That's what I enjoy about GA flying...you can do things just for the heck of it. I remember climbing up to 10,500' in the Leesburg area many years ago just to get the view from that high (in my Piper Cherokee). Once I had enough of the view, I spiraled down to a lower altitude.

I was linked to this thread by a friend this past weekend. I just signed up on here so I could thank OP and say that this is hands down one of the best threads I have ever read. I am at about post 1000 and am going to read the whole thing, I'm glued to it.

Really, thank you so much for for doing this, W0X0F! I know it's been said so many times already, but I just HAVE TO reiterate it - truly fascinating, very informative and engaging.

My question is - How anyone can read this and not want to fly a plane?

PS: The beer's on me in the Frankfurt or Amsterdam area!
PPS: Please don't let this thread die. Ever.

Hey OP,

Flying Delta from Hartford to Minnesota this weekend. Any chance you might be on the plane or are you flying international flights now? I can't remember..

Anyways, thanks again for the thread as it definitely eases my concerns about flying.

I wonder how many new 2p2ers don't bother to change posts per page to 100. Reading this whole thread 10 at a time would be so painful.

Pretty sure he flies a 767 out of JFK. Can't imagine anything bigger than a 737 at the biggest (more likely a RJ) for Hartford to Minneapolis. Plus that sounds like an old NWA route, not sure if they've mixed that stuff up yet.

It is not a busy airport and there isn't much traffic that late so you are probably right. I saw the same plane doing s turns over a road in the usual manuvering area in 20+ crosswinds so maybe there is a new instructor or someone bought a new toy. I'll head over to the field and ask the FBO.

That's some good beer too! As it happens, I'll arrive in Frankfurt on Saturday, Oct. 30 and leave the next day. We stay in Mainz, so I don't know if that'll work for you. I also have a 24 hour Amsterdam layover, arriving the morning of the 17th.

I fly mostly international, but I've had to include some domestic flying this year just because that's the way our lines have been going (some of our destinations are now covered by the 747, Airbus 330, or the 767-400). So far I've been able to get a fair number of Las Vegas layovers for my domestic flying. I haven't been to Hartford in over 3 years, when I was flying the MD-88 and I haven't been to Minnesota since my days on the 727.

Just got in from São Paulo this morning and the rest of the month I have Copenhagen, Las Vegas (twice), Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

probably gonna have to take a turboprop in the Caribbean in the next couple of months. any good reason i shouldn't be completely terrified?

This thread..

+1