Actually, it's the way the tail swayed to and fro before touchdown that impressed me the most...

Even the tail swaying is exaggerated by the telephoto lens.

Crosswind landings are one of the most challenging aspects of flying. Here where I live on an airport community, the single 30ft wide runway is aligned perfectly E-W. All spring, for four months of the year, we have strong, daily winds from the SW, about 45degree crosswind to the runway. Every time I land or take off, I get additional crosswind practice... It is especially challenging in the tail-dragger in my Avatar.

 

The state of the pilot's inebriation doesn't affect aerodynamics.

Tell that to the pilot...

 

The state of the pilot's inebriation doesn't affect aerodynamics.

Tell that to the passengers!

 

A few beers definitely seems to have an effect on the "sloppiness" of my rack-and-pinion.

 

Tell that to the passengers!

Tell that to the pilot...

And while you're at it... tell it to the guys at the control tower too ...

 

When I was a small child we lived in a flat rural part of eastern England.
I used to walk to school along a lane with hedges 2 - 3 times as high as I was and one of these included the perimeter fence to an RAF station that flew Hunters when we moved in and Lightnings later.
These could barely clear the hedge at the end of the old WWII airfield and I remember my first encounter, this enormous noise, followed by this 'thing' that rushed overhead (just overhead it seemed to me).
It was pretty frightening, but I got used to them by the end of the first term.

 

There were heavy cross-winds when landing a KC-135 at Shemya back in 1974. I was a passenger where we were rising and falling about four or so feet along the side of the fuselage. According to the ground crew, they thought the wing tips were very close to the ground. We had two attempts at landing before we actually touched down. There were three crews aboard and two Coasties.

Let's say there was an exciting time from embarking and disembarking two times at our departure in Fairbanks AK and finally two ol' master sgts went out and fixed the aircraft on the runway before we took on the third day. Then the roller coaster ride attempting to land, and finally landing at Shemya AK later that day.

I was told the cross winds gusted to 40 or so knots. I had no sense of reference other than the up and down movement as we waddled down the runway.

The other Coastie and I were heading back to Attu Island, returning from environmental leave.

 

This is unheard of in the flying community: http://abcnews.go.com/US/selfies-caused-colorado-plane-crash-ntsb/story?id=28688703

 

Selfies will be the downfall of our civilization...

 

Back in the early 90's I was driving out on east Long Island to go night fishing when I spotted a pair of dull red orbs on the near end of the runway at Calverton Airport. At the time Calverton was a private airfield of the Grumman Corporation and they were using it to base F-14 Tomcats in for rebuild or repair.

I locked up the brakes (after checking six) and stopped on the road side. Shortly the dull red orbs went bright red, scooted down the runway and I swear did indeed go straight up and out of sight.

You never forget your first full military power take off.

When I was working F-15s they would do true unlimited takeoffs when doing a functional check flight (FCF). At that time (1986) an unlimited takeoff meant you taxied into position on the runway, brought the engines to full military power, released the brakes, engaged full afterburners (not counting the Vmax ring), accelerated to a speed where you could pop just into the air at which point you retracted the gear and settled into ground effect about three to six feet off the ground and accelerated to about mid field at which point you pulled an 8g pull into the vertical and the accelerated to 30+ thousand feet before nosing over.

Truly an impressive sight. Today they are limited to 70 degrees in the pullout.

I had seen many unlimited takeoffs and would always stop to watch whenever I heard the burners light. But I never new it was related to an FCF until one morning I heard the burners pop off and as the aircraft passed me and started its pull I recognized the tail number as the bird me and a crew of guys had spent all night working on completely replacing one of the main fuel cells and associated plumbing because of a persistent fuel leak that was about to require that the bird be sent back to depot if it couldn't be fixed that day.

Up to that point I had always assumed that an aircraft just out of major maintenance would be given a gentle first flight to check it out. So after seeing this I went and asked one of the pilots about it and he explained that whenever an aircraft is returned to the line after major maintenance the very first flight starts with a balls-to-the-wall takeoff right in front of everyone as a show of faith in the maintenance teams. Basically, the pilot is saying, "You told me that this aircraft is mission-capable in all respects and that's good enough for me to be willing to push it to the limits without question or hesitation."

Sounds crazy -- but then we ARE talking about fighter pilots.

Shortly after I got out of the service I was at an airshow and a B-52 did two simulated bombing runs, complete with flash pots on the ground to simulate the explosions. The first run was ho-hum. They guy was reasonably low and he pulled up at something like a 45 degree angle. The fact that he didn't open the bomb bays and clearly wasn't carrying external stores trashed the illusion. So he went around for his second run and I was expecting the same, but this time he was noticeably lower and faster. After the flash pots went off he pulled into vertical and climbed for what seemed like forever before nosing over. I was staring at this with my mouth open and said, "Okay, NOW I'm impressed," and the guy standing next to me just said, "Me, too."

 

This is unheard of in the flying community: http://abcnews.go.com/US/selfies-caused-colorado-plane-crash-ntsb/story?id=28688703

I haven't read the NTSB report itself, but this article seems to indicate that they have no evidence that pictures were even being taken on this particular flight, but rather just on prior flights.

That abcnews feed had the video of the Cirrus crash near Hawaii that was the subject of a recent thread and I am always amazed at how clueless the news media always is. They acted like a parachute on a plane is some miraculous new invention. I remember seeing Cessna 152s outfitted with them 30 years ago when I started my pilot's training.

I always recall a big news report about fast food places now taking credit cards, even at the drive-thru. That was in 1995 (it was a few months after I moved to Colorado Springs). It was presented as something brand new and never heard of. Yet I remember when the local Wendy's started taking credit cards, including at the drive-thru, even before I got my bachelor's in 1991.

 

I've read the NTSB summary report and they found no evidence that any such photos had actually been taken during the accident flight and based their conclusion of the "likely" cause of the accident more on the fact that they found no evidence of anything mechanically wrong with the plane.

The flight was in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions) at night and the evidence, including how the crash developed, are consistent with the pilot losing spatial orientation and going into the classic graveyard spiral that developed into a full spin.

It's interesting to note that just prior to the accident flight they pilot took off, did one circuit around the pattern, and landed (and the GoPro WAS used on that flight, which certainly indicates that the pilot was willing to use it under very questionable circumstances). But pilots have been performing graveyard spirals in IMC LONG before selfies where around.

I think that a more telling factor was that the pilot's logbook did not show that he was recent to fly in IMC, with or without passengers, or to carry passengers at night under any conditions. Given that the recency requirements for both are pretty tame, I think it is highly likely that the lack of recent flight experience in relevant conditions was the primary factor and that the evidence of doing selfies on the prior flight are more indicative of a general lack of the proper attitude toward his responsibilities as pilot-in-command than they are to a direct causal relationship to the crash.

 

I've read the NTSB summary report and they found no evidence that any such photos had actually been taken during the accident flight and based their conclusion of the "likely" cause of the accident more on the fact that they found no evidence of anything mechanically wrong with the plane.

The flight was in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions) at night and the evidence, including how the crash developed, are consistent with the pilot losing spatial orientation and going into the classic graveyard spiral that developed into a full spin.

It's interesting to note that just prior to the accident flight they pilot took off, did one circuit around the pattern, and landed (and the GoPro WAS used on that flight, which certainly indicates that the pilot was willing to use it under very questionable circumstances). But pilots have been performing graveyard spirals in IMC LONG before selfies where around.

I think that a more telling factor was that the pilot's logbook did not show that he was recent to fly in IMC, with or without passengers, or to carry passengers at night under any conditions. Given that the recency requirements for both are pretty tame, I think it is highly likely that the lack of recent flight experience in relevant conditions was the primary factor and that the evidence of doing selfies on the prior flight are more indicative of a general lack of the proper attitude toward his responsibilities as pilot-in-command than they are to a direct causal relationship to the crash.

In other words, this is the media trying to sell its more exciting version of the story?

 

Based on WBahns comments, the, "news" story is entirely fiction.

 

Based on WBahns comments, the, "news" story is entirely fiction.

Or entirely unfounded... which would amount to the same thing, I guess.

 

I don't think I'd go that far (despite my antipathy towards the media in general). The NTSB report DID say that that was the likely cause of the crash. What the media missed (or, given the fact that they've been reporting NTSB findings for decades chose to ignore) is that the NTSB reports use a certain phraseology to convey what they know and what they think. The NTSB often can't find a smoking gun (just look at the pictures of that wreck and you can imagine how hard it might be to find a mechanical cause OR determine that there definitively wasn't one). So they don't say that there was no mechanical failure, only that, "A postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation."

They still like to put forth a likely cause when they can, even if they are just speculating, and so they phrase it in such a way that they can't be pinned down as having stated that such-and-such was the cause of the crash. They will instead say something like, "it is likely that the pilot experienced spatial disorientation and lost control of the airplane. The evidence is consistent with an aerodynamic stall and subsequent spin into terrain." They tend to put weaker likelihoods later into the report, implying that those likelihoods are often dependent on the earlier likelihoods being true to begin with. So later in the report, they say, "Based on the evidence of cell phone use during low-altitude maneuvering, including the flight immediately before the accident flight, it is likely that cell phone use during the accident flight distracted the pilot and contributed to the development of spatial disorientation and subsequent loss of control."

Records reviews generally come last because they are essentially facts for consideration but seldom establish anything causative. In this case, the last sentence of the summary is, "A review of the pilot’s logbooks did not show that he met the currency requirements for flight in instrument meteorological conditions or night flight with passengers."

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&key=1

With the ceiling at takeoff only being 300 ft AGL, that is pretty severe instrument conditions for a pilot that is not recent in IMC.

At the very bottom is their very short summary which does state: "The pilot’s loss of control and subsequent aerodynamic stall due to spatial disorientation in night instrument meteorological conditions. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s distraction due to his cell phone use while maneuvering at low-altitude. "

So it's hard to really fault the media for the way they reported this one.

Here is the full report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&ntsbno=CEN14FA265&akey=1

 

I don't think I'd go that far (despite my antipathy towards the media in general). The NTSB report DID say that that was the likely cause of the crash. What the media missed (or, given the fact that they've been reporting NTSB findings for decades chose to ignore) is that the NTSB reports use a certain phraseology to convey what they know and what they think. The NTSB often can't find a smoking gun (just look at the pictures of that wreck and you can imagine how hard it might be to find a mechanical cause OR determine that there definitively wasn't one). So they don't say that there was no mechanical failure, only that, "A postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation."

They still like to put forth a likely cause when they can, even if they are just speculating, and so they phrase it in such a way that they can't be pinned down as having stated that such-and-such was the cause of the crash. They will instead say something like, "it is likely that the pilot experienced spatial disorientation and lost control of the airplane. The evidence is consistent with an aerodynamic stall and subsequent spin into terrain." They tend to put weaker likelihoods later into the report, implying that those likelihoods are often dependent on the earlier likelihoods being true to begin with. So later in the report, they say, "Based on the evidence of cell phone use during low-altitude maneuvering, including the flight immediately before the accident flight, it is likely that cell phone use during the accident flight distracted the pilot and contributed to the development of spatial disorientation and subsequent loss of control."

Records reviews generally come last because they are essentially facts for consideration but seldom establish anything causative. In this case, the last sentence of the summary is, "A review of the pilot’s logbooks did not show that he met the currency requirements for flight in instrument meteorological conditions or night flight with passengers."

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&key=1

With the ceiling at takeoff only being 300 ft AGL, that is pretty severe instrument conditions for a pilot that is not recent in IMC.

At the very bottom is their very short summary which does state: "The pilot’s loss of control and subsequent aerodynamic stall due to spatial disorientation in night instrument meteorological conditions. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s distraction due to his cell phone use while maneuvering at low-altitude. "

So it's hard to really fault the media for the way they reported this one.

Here is the full report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&ntsbno=CEN14FA265&akey=1

From my point of view, all that you've said so far sounds fair and balanced... except for one thing, and that is the title of the news report. The media loves to choose the most attention-grabbing wording they can use to attract readers. Can't say I blame them for that after all. Except for a few, most of them sell excitement and not journalism...

 

Here's another scary crash:

(Story: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/04/taiwan-plane-crash/ )

Not much video or other information at this time, so any comments about the cause are just guesses. My guess is that it may be a stall from too steep a climb or an engine loss at the worst time. Saw an MU-2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_MU-2) do the latter many years ago, and I would lean toward that cause.

John

 

Here's another scary crash:

(Story: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/04/taiwan-plane-crash/ )

Not much video or other information at this time, so any comments about the cause are just guesses. My guess is that it may be a stall from too steep a climb or an engine loss at the worst time. Saw an MU-2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_MU-2) do the latter many years ago, and I would lean toward that cause.

John

Yeah... just read it this morning... what a horrible incident

 

Hello,

Here are two videos with cockpit view:
KLM B747-400ERF Beautiful Landing at AMS
THE BLUE ANGELS: Live Cockpit Footage

Bertus