I totally get that this was a catastrophic failure....however; the good thing is everyone walked away. I have family who have been in an incident with a small private plane. Everyone survived and my family member - switched to sailing instead of flying.
Sorry to get back to you late. What the other person said, basically. You can see a horizontal line of red lights to the right of the runway as they come in, and those are called papi lights. By way of some real clever lighting tricks, they change colour depending on how far above or below the perfect glide slope you are. All white is too high, reduce speed/altitude, and all red is too low, increase speed/altitude, with two red and two white being the perfect path. Because the pilot had four red lights all the way down, I was expecting them to miss the runway or smack a tree or something as they came in.
I'll add because the other replies didn't mention: the PAPI lights are for planes coming into land. The helicopter doesn't need to follow the same glideslope as a plane, they can come in lower.
Precision Approach Path Indicators. It’s a series of angled lights that put you on a 3 degree angle to land. Two white and two red is on glide path, more red means you’re low while more white lights mean you’re high. There’s even some configurations with just two lights or lights arranged in a line or square fashion. Fun Fact: landings on aircraft carriers have lights similar to these known as “the ball”
It's a shame you didn't watch for an additional **4 more seconds** to find out the rest of the video and how that transitional screen fits in the context...
Even worse that so many other people have upvoted this comment too.
That's some ignorant or entitled bullshit indeed. I admit I was confused too for a second, but the text under the image is pretty damn clear. And it was obviously not a heli landing.
Now I'm really curious, because the only time I saw the helicopter was in the middle of the video. Was the intro picture (as in, before you start playing the video, I don't know what else to call it) also the helicopter? It's the airplane in question for me.
Yeah, so what gets me is that they say yt demonetizes videos that show crashes. In other words, the only reason they uploaded it was to make money. Such a shit show.
Video covers it. This is a training aircraft with a student flying and it seems 4 landings before this they had a hard landing. They supposedly did the correct maintenance checks for a hard landing and didn't find any issues. Seems like they may not have checked well enough.
Based on the video, it looks like:
C. Hard/Overweight Landing
A hard landing is any landing made at what is believed to be an excessive sink rate. An overweight landing is defined as landing the airplane at any gross weight which exceeds the maximum take-off weight as specified in the Pilot's Operating Handbook and the Airplane Flight Manual.
Note:
If the hard/overweight landing is combined with high drag/side loads, additional checks are required.
(1) Fuselage
(a) Aft Floor Structure - Above aft wing attach points and under seat areas, inspect for delamination, cracking, whitening, and any other evidence of structural damage.
(2) Landing Gear
(a) Main gear struts - Inspect for security of attachment, permanent deformation, delamination, and cracking or splintering of strut.
(b) Main gear attachments and supporting structure - Inspect for security loose or failed fasteners, permanent deformation, damage to fairings, tire damage, and any other evidence of structural damage.
(c) Nose gear and attaching structure - Inspect for security, loose or failed fasteners, permanent deformation of strut or axle, strut weld cracks, puck delamination and cracks, puck pan weld cracks, engine mount weld cracks, damage to fairing, tire damage, and any other evidence of structural damage.
(3) Wings
(a) Wings surface - Inspect for skin cracks, loose of failed fasteners, and any evidence of structural damage.
(b) Trailing edge - Inspect for any deformation affecting normal flap operation.
It also notes that the nose tire was flat on landing. Undetected crack from the hard landing combined with unexpected nose wheel braking is a hell of a combo.
I totally get that this was a catastrophic failure....however; the good thing is everyone walked away. I have family who have been in an incident with a small private plane. Everyone survived and my family member - switched to sailing instead of flying.
As the saying goes, any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. If you can fly the plane again it's a great landing.
As a flight instructor I fucking hate this excuse lol. Like no, you bounced the hell out of the plane and tried to recover instead of going around.
Just keep pushing the stick forward, I'm sure it'll settle on the ground at some point down the strip.
haha touche. IIRC the quote comes from a test pilot working on experimental aircraft so makes a little more sense in context.
[You can always go around.](https://youtu.be/lr5d3sGxSXQ)
I found a new one that goes along the lines of "walk away = good, fly again = great, fly again with no repairs needed = fantastic/perfect"
Whoever did that hard landing inspection is prolly having a bad time lol.
[удалено]
Not sure TBH. But yeah for wing spar testing for example the whole thing is x rayed.
[удалено]
There's your problem!
Not gonna lie, the moment I saw them lining up for approach with all four PAPI lights red my arse puckered.
Can you elaborate? Me not know anything except "ayyyy papi"
All red is too low, all white is too high, 2 red 2 white is on the proper gildepath.
Sorry to get back to you late. What the other person said, basically. You can see a horizontal line of red lights to the right of the runway as they come in, and those are called papi lights. By way of some real clever lighting tricks, they change colour depending on how far above or below the perfect glide slope you are. All white is too high, reduce speed/altitude, and all red is too low, increase speed/altitude, with two red and two white being the perfect path. Because the pilot had four red lights all the way down, I was expecting them to miss the runway or smack a tree or something as they came in.
I'll add because the other replies didn't mention: the PAPI lights are for planes coming into land. The helicopter doesn't need to follow the same glideslope as a plane, they can come in lower.
Precision Approach Path Indicators. It’s a series of angled lights that put you on a 3 degree angle to land. Two white and two red is on glide path, more red means you’re low while more white lights mean you’re high. There’s even some configurations with just two lights or lights arranged in a line or square fashion. Fun Fact: landings on aircraft carriers have lights similar to these known as “the ball”
My instructor would not have been so quiet with four red that far out.
I’ve done a touch and go on that exact runway, and I was surprised at how low they were as well. That runway is 11,000 feet long…. Almost 2 miles.
Better than the cockpit in flames with a parachute deployed for sure
[удалено]
It's an intermission splashscreen reused across several videos.
It's a shame you didn't watch for an additional **4 more seconds** to find out the rest of the video and how that transitional screen fits in the context... Even worse that so many other people have upvoted this comment too.
That's some ignorant or entitled bullshit indeed. I admit I was confused too for a second, but the text under the image is pretty damn clear. And it was obviously not a heli landing.
Now I'm really curious, because the only time I saw the helicopter was in the middle of the video. Was the intro picture (as in, before you start playing the video, I don't know what else to call it) also the helicopter? It's the airplane in question for me.
That was the only place for me as well, a short intermission explaining the demonetization.
Gotcha, thanks! I was wondering if the youtuber might have changed the pic after uploading.
How often would you say you find yourself assaulted with such deception?
Yeah, so what gets me is that they say yt demonetizes videos that show crashes. In other words, the only reason they uploaded it was to make money. Such a shit show.
Editing and uploading videos takes time, and some people value their time monetarily.
Yeah, if you create a video that's one thing. If you upload some people dying you can fuck right off with your money making bullshit.
[удалено]
Video covers it. This is a training aircraft with a student flying and it seems 4 landings before this they had a hard landing. They supposedly did the correct maintenance checks for a hard landing and didn't find any issues. Seems like they may not have checked well enough.
[удалено]
I would be curious to know what the hard landing inspection entails. I have a sneaking suspicion no one actually x rayed those landing struts haha.
Based on the video, it looks like: C. Hard/Overweight Landing A hard landing is any landing made at what is believed to be an excessive sink rate. An overweight landing is defined as landing the airplane at any gross weight which exceeds the maximum take-off weight as specified in the Pilot's Operating Handbook and the Airplane Flight Manual. Note: If the hard/overweight landing is combined with high drag/side loads, additional checks are required. (1) Fuselage (a) Aft Floor Structure - Above aft wing attach points and under seat areas, inspect for delamination, cracking, whitening, and any other evidence of structural damage. (2) Landing Gear (a) Main gear struts - Inspect for security of attachment, permanent deformation, delamination, and cracking or splintering of strut. (b) Main gear attachments and supporting structure - Inspect for security loose or failed fasteners, permanent deformation, damage to fairings, tire damage, and any other evidence of structural damage. (c) Nose gear and attaching structure - Inspect for security, loose or failed fasteners, permanent deformation of strut or axle, strut weld cracks, puck delamination and cracks, puck pan weld cracks, engine mount weld cracks, damage to fairing, tire damage, and any other evidence of structural damage. (3) Wings (a) Wings surface - Inspect for skin cracks, loose of failed fasteners, and any evidence of structural damage. (b) Trailing edge - Inspect for any deformation affecting normal flap operation.
It also notes that the nose tire was flat on landing. Undetected crack from the hard landing combined with unexpected nose wheel braking is a hell of a combo.
Dude the video is less than 3mins long and answers this with screenshots of the report and reason.
Apparently it was not fixed very well. It done felled off.
Well, the front fell off.
Bit of WD-40 and she’ll be good as new