That was a close one...

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

lowoleo22
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:24 pm

That was a close one...

Post by lowoleo22 »

---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
EPR
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Re: That was a close one...

Post by EPR »

:shock: Wow...wtf!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Keep the dirty side down.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: That was a close one...

Post by rookiepilot »

Holy cow.
---------- ADS -----------
 
YC87DRVR
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:21 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by YC87DRVR »

That has to be fake… right?
---------- ADS -----------
 
2112
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: That was a close one...

Post by 2112 »

I shit my pants just watching that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DanWEC
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: 404

Re: That was a close one...

Post by DanWEC »

Man, landing 23 at 310 10g20 doesn't sound like that much of a handful for a 777, but I wasn’t there. If this is real, it really got away from them. Lucky.
---------- ADS -----------
 
New Antique Pilot
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:13 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by New Antique Pilot »

DanWEC wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 9:16 pm Man, landing 23 at 310 10g20 doesn't sound like that much of a handful for a 777, but I wasn’t there. If this is real, it really got away from them. Lucky.
Friend told me x-wind limit for 777 is 38 knots.

NAP
---------- ADS -----------
 
lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by lownslow »

If only they had an into-wind runway to land on…
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Pratt X 3
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:19 pm

Re: That was a close one...

Post by Pratt X 3 »

DanWEC wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 9:16 pm Man, landing 23 at 310 10g20 doesn't sound like that much of a handful for a 777, but I wasn’t there. If this is real, it really got away from them. Lucky.
That was landing on runway 24L. The terminals always seem to kick up some good turbulence when the wind is out of the north-west like that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Have Pratts - Will Travel
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6767
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by digits_ »

I am wondering if the camera angle might have dramatized things a bit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
DanWEC
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: 404

Re: That was a close one...

Post by DanWEC »

lownslow wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:00 pm If only they had an into-wind runway to land on…
Problem is the training for controllers to work the 33s is very specialized....

"Cleared to descend fl180, maintain max forward speed"
"Reduce to 120kt"
"Turn right 20 degrees"
"Turn left 30 degrees"
"Increase to 180 knots "
"Cleared to 12000"
"For spacing turn right 60 degrees (garbled) speed"
"Recleared 14000, why are you doing 180 I said minimum speed"
"Increase to max forward speed"
"Intercept the localizer 23"
"Yes that's correct change of runway, Cleared ils 23"
"BTW.......

...
..

120 to omtok" <click>
---------- ADS -----------
 
lowoleo22
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:24 pm

Re: That was a close one...

Post by lowoleo22 »

DanWEC wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:16 pm
lownslow wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:00 pm If only they had an into-wind runway to land on…
Problem is the training for controllers to work the 33s is very specialized....

"Cleared to descend fl180, maintain max forward speed"
"Reduce to 120kt"
"Turn right 20 degrees"
"Turn left 30 degrees"
"Increase to 180 knots "
"Cleared to 12000"
"For spacing turn right 60 degrees (garbled) speed"
"Recleared 14000, why are you doing 180 I said minimum speed"
"Increase to max forward speed"
"Intercept the localizer 23"
"Yes that's correct change of runway, Cleared ils 23"
"BTW.......

...
..

120 to omtok" <click>
This sounds like a normal day going in to YUL :rolleyes: . My understanding is they don't like to use the 33's because it cuts the arrival rate nearly in half. Can't do simultaneous parallel approaches because the rwys are too close together. Have to stagger them. Although if SFO can do it...
---------- ADS -----------
 
goleafsgo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:13 pm

Re: That was a close one...

Post by goleafsgo »

lowoleo22 wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2023 10:12 am
DanWEC wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:16 pm
lownslow wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:00 pm If only they had an into-wind runway to land on…
Problem is the training for controllers to work the 33s is very specialized....

"Cleared to descend fl180, maintain max forward speed"
"Reduce to 120kt"
"Turn right 20 degrees"
"Turn left 30 degrees"
"Increase to 180 knots "
"Cleared to 12000"
"For spacing turn right 60 degrees (garbled) speed"
"Recleared 14000, why are you doing 180 I said minimum speed"
"Increase to max forward speed"
"Intercept the localizer 23"
"Yes that's correct change of runway, Cleared ils 23"
"BTW.......

...
..

120 to omtok" <click>
This sounds like a normal day going in to YUL :rolleyes: . My understanding is they don't like to use the 33's because it cuts the arrival rate nearly in half. Can't do simultaneous parallel approaches because the rwys are too close together. Have to stagger them. Although if SFO can do it...
It’s not like they maximize the RWY usage anymore anyways. Before covid they would depart 24R, land 24L and use 23 for landing and departures. Now they really only have 1 departure RWY and 1 arrival RWY with the occasional arrival on the departure RWY.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
EPR
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Re: That was a close one...

Post by EPR »

Terminal Control in Canada has always been too "conservative" compared to the U S, (PHX, SFO, LAX..etc) And now, with the inexperienced in the cockpit, it's getting worse! It's bullshit to be "slowing down" below 200kts until 10 final! #KeepTheSpeed-Up!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Keep the dirty side down.
lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by lownslow »

EPR wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2023 12:46 am Terminal Control in Canada has always been too "conservative" compared to the U S
Conservative or just uncoordinated? Fly into LAX and your arrival is so well coordinated between controllers that it feels like you’re the only one on frequency. Fly to YVR and I’m not sure terminal even tells the neighbouring sectors what runway is active.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Chaxterium
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:28 pm

Re: That was a close one...

Post by Chaxterium »

lownslow wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2023 3:17 amFly to YVR and I’m not sure terminal even tells the neighbouring sectors what runway is active.
Ha! A few months back I was going into YVR.

I was switched to approach about 20 miles out.

"MAL7079 turn left 200 expect ILS26R".

"Left 200. Expect 26R. We were told to expect 26L and we're a little tight to switch runways now".

"Who told you to expect 26L"

"Uhh......the previous controller.....who else?"
---------- ADS -----------
 
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2949
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: That was a close one...

Post by rigpiggy »

Something like 90% of the complaints in yyz are from 6 phone #s......most are on the approach for 15/33. If the airport authorities were smart they would track them down get a real estate professional to offer them 10% over appraisal, but then put a restrictive covenant preventing complaints as they were advised they were on an approach to Canada's busiest airport.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6767
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by digits_ »

rigpiggy wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2023 9:58 am Something like 90% of the complaints in yyz are from 6 phone #s......most are on the approach for 15/33. If the airport authorities were smart they would track them down get a real estate professional to offer them 10% over appraisal, but then put a restrictive covenant preventing complaints as they were advised they were on an approach to Canada's busiest airport.
Once people would find out about that, I have a feeling all of Toronto would suddenly start complaining about aircraft noise :wink:
Even people in Vancouver would start complaining about Toronto aircraft noise!
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Inverted2
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:46 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by Inverted2 »

I’ve had some pretty wild approaches on the 24s in YYZ but wow that thing was rocking. Never seen a wide body rock and roll like that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DEI = Didn’t Earn It
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4726
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: That was a close one...

Post by co-joe »

That crosswind is getting to be a bit high for the side slip method they seem to have attempted. To me that's asking for problems, a decrab on landing or land crabbed would be far far safer. I'm sure a valuable lesson was learned.
---------- ADS -----------
 
8895
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:32 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by 8895 »

The “NHL of airlines” ladies and gentleman :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Army of one
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2023 10:02 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by Army of one »

8895 wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2023 8:57 am The “NHL of airlines” ladies and gentleman :rolleyes:
In fairness to you, maybe I missed something? Care to elaborate?

What does your post even mean?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Liftdump
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Earth

Re: That was a close one...

Post by Liftdump »

8895 you are 100% correct
---------- ADS -----------
 
Army of one
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2023 10:02 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by Army of one »

co-joe wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2023 7:23 pm That crosswind is getting to be a bit high for the side slip method they seem to have attempted. To me that's asking for problems, a decrab on landing or land crabbed would be far far safer. I'm sure a valuable lesson was learned.
I have nearly 2000 hours on 777 alone, most in the left seat.

Looked to me as though they flew textbook for the reported wind. The approach was smooth and stable right up and into the very latter stages of the flare. (its impossible to know from the video if they were aligned with centreline, but I'll assume they were).

Ive landed on that runway many times, in those conditions. They are hazardous. The video appears to confirm something happened very late in that flare.

I wasn't there. Other than the above, I have no real comment except to say whatever happened, happened very very quickly. Kudos to the crew for a safe, albeit exciting landing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
daedalusx
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:51 am

Re: That was a close one...

Post by daedalusx »

Textbook ladies and gentlemen. Textbook.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Complex systems won’t survive the competence crisis
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”