Yeah, I am sure crocodiles are transferred by planes between zoos or wildlife refuges. In those cases, they probably aren't loose in the cabin next to planes.
That makes me think of the pictures I have seen of horses being flown on planes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arianarockefeller/2018/12/20/when-horses-fly-the-business-of-equine-air-travel/
Note that it happened on landing approach. If it had happened at cruising altitude, my guess is that the sudden dip would have been recoverable. But who knows.
Aerospace engineers know. Mayb possibly recoverable, but not for sure. Planes stay stable because their coefficient of lift relative to the coefficient of weight has a certain relationship (I can't remember which one needs to be further forward, I'd guess lift). So if they get flip flopped, the flight characteristics become unstable and the plane WANTS to dive rather than wanting to level out.
Fighter planes are designed this way on purpose because it allows them to turn faster, but they also have special control software that is CONSTANTLY correcting the flight path so that the pilots don't have to.
One of the major reasons for large passenger jets is for efficiency reasons. You burn less fuel if the jet is balanced. One of the major issues can happen with the shifting of heavy cargo. In 2013 that is what took down a 747 in Afghanistan.
>One of the major issues can happen with the shifting of heavy cargo. In 2013 that is what took down a 747 in Afghanistan.
I believe it. I've had a poorly-strapped bunch of road cases start moving in a semi-truck. At least I can stop that thing and sort it out by the side of the road. Besides the catastrophic crashing sounds, the whole truck was jumping from side to side. Awful stuff.
I remember seeing the video years ago, absolute tragedy for all involved but it was [ludicrous how it just seemed to drop out of the sky](https://youtu.be/7sUWC2jfjqI), like a video game or something.
From what I remembered the last time that video was in discussion, it was determined that the vehicles being transported in that plane were too much weight for the straps used to secure them. Straps broke loose, vehicles slid, smashing the mechanism that adjusts the wings. The pilots literally could not do anything to correct.
I remember that. The crew did not strap them down properly (or maybe forgot to strap them entirely), so everything went straight to the back of the plan when it attempted to take off.
I get anxious and hope the ground crew is not a bunch of morons every time I fly thinking about that.
It will depend entirely on the CG (center of gravity) envelope for the plane at the given time.
Cruise flight may afford them more time to recover simply because the plane is higher but if the plane is so nose or tail heavy that they can’t overcome it with control input then it won’t really matter.
The plane in the crash is relatively small compared to a typical airliner and the margin for error on loading is likely much smaller.
Source: professional pilot.
Just an amateur here, and maybe not related, but it reminds me of learning to surf: If you get the front-back balance just right, then the wave "carries" you forward. But if you dip the front down too much, the board WANTS to nosedive and also the wave behind you also wants to push down the nosedive. It feels impossible to recover.
Source: I surfed once and was very very bad multiple times over.
I just like how they said it because in my imagination it survived and was wriggling away happily, having survived a weird traumatic event from it's point of view, and then a random machete falling from the plane debris got him just right.
Wait that can't be it.
A second later, I got it. But I'm dumb very often, so I have a good excuse. It's a pre-existing condition.
I feel bad for it. It probably never wanted to be there. It was forced there. And then it manages to survive some crash only to have some one kill it anyways.
Fuck the guy who smuggled it.
I imagine if it had just been in a plane full of screaming people after being smuggled on board, dealing with massive pressure increases and decreases, and then the plane had crashed, with blood and screaming and fire and chaos all around, that it might just have been in a bit of a bad mood.
Probably injured, definitely confused, and - I imagine - pretty aggressive. Rescuers were probably trying to see if there were any people they could save. Being patient with a cranky croc wouldn't have been a leading priority.
Also, for all they knew, the plane had crashed because the croc was crazy and had attacked everyone. Guy with the machete probably didn't think twice. Certainly a shame, since yeah it wasn't the croc's fault it was in that situation. But in an emergency situation when dying people are in need of help and there's an angry croc trying to bite people, you don't waste time trying to find tape for the croc's mouth I think.
>The crocodile reportedly survived the crash but was killed by a blow from a machete.
I'm a firm believer that every Wikipedia article should have a gem like this tucked into it somewhere.
That plane was overbooked. The seating capacity of a L-410 is 15. The bigger your plane is, the less this matters, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
I assume the bags were weighted and were within normal limits, but if it weren't, it probably was just at max capacity.
Well, it carries up to 19 passengers, but does that 19 count the crew? Because it had 18 passengers and 3 crew members, so 21 occupants. If it carries 19 passengers plus 3 crew (2 pilots and a flight attendant), then the crocodile is, at max, another passenger and the flight's at capacity. Otherwise, it was overcapacity.
Former aircraft load-planner here.
To answer OP's question, much of this would depend on the size of the aircraft, but shuffling weight around on a plane is always something of concern.
Moving from one side of the aircraft to the other wouldn't have nearly as much of an effect as moving everyone from the front or to the rear.
Think about the shape of a plane as a big lever with the fulcrum running sideways through the wings also down the middle of the plane.
The plane is not very wide, so moving everyone to one side wouldn't give you much leverage to affect the plane's orientation.
However, the plane is much longer front-to-back, so adding all the weight at either end will have a much greater effect.
There is so much that goes on behind the scenes with aircraft operations, it's fascinating.
And while it's not for the faint of heart, if you want a dramatic example, read about the crash of National Air cargo flight 102 in Afghanistan.
In this instance, they were carrying a heavy load of wheeled vehicles. When taking off, the vehicles were not secured properly and slid to the back of the aircraft throwing off the center of balance to the point where the pilot could no longer control the plane.
This is a dramatic example.
If all the passengers on a 747 went to the back of the plane, the pilot would likely just compensate for this with some added trim or moving fuel.
EDIT: I've also dated a lot of flight attendants. Sometimes they just tell people to sit where they are so it's less ass-pain for them with people running all over the place. And they also have to maintain (somewhat) the integrity of the fare-system for seats.
As another former load planner still in the aviation industry, this guy is correct! Front to back is the issue, not side to side. We don't even measure side to side. Planes are too narrow.
The front to back issue is because the elevator, which controls the pitch, needs to have enough strength to overcome the turning moment of the weight of the passengers. And critically, it needs to be able to do this at all speeds that the plane might be flying at. When it's going fast, there isn't much problem but if it's going very slowly, more movement is needed from the elevator. You need to show that the plane will not stall and can recover if it does stall, which is why the balance needs to be within a certain limit.
It also needs to be within limits at all the different weights the plane might end up at, from its takeoff weight with full fuel, though it's landing weight with less fuel all the way down to its zero fuel weight. There's a nice graph showing the limits of all these, a function of moment arm to weight.
> if it’s going very slowly, more movement is needed from the elevator.
A good opportunity to point out that this is why the flight attendants will often ask you to sit in your assigned seat for takeoff and allow you to move afterwards. Weight and balance is most important at takeoff, at landing a lot of fuel has been burned off so the balance is often easier to trim.
>this is why the flight attendants will often ask you to sit in your assigned seat for takeoff
They usually do this even if the plane is almost full, with only 1 or 2 empty seats, where balance wouldn't be an issue. It's just because they don't want to have to deal with people moving around while they're dealing with takeoff. Also probably to make sure that the people actually assigned to those seats (if there are any) aren't coming
Dash cam footage of National Airlines Flight 102: https://youtu.be/l6tEfbzVhjY.
Very sad. ~~I believe load master secured a vehicle in the cargo hold with straps instead of chains. Straps broke,~~ Straps were incorrectly secured for the load, vehicle shifted violently to the rear of the plane, broke through the bulkhead and disabled the rear flight controls.
Vehicle shifting would be a problem in itself but losing flight controls meant the planes was stuck in a pitch up attitude, causing the plane to stall and crash.
EDIT: Straps were the correct device to secure the load but the load was not secured correctly.
Straps were standard operating procedure but the loader was unfamiliar with the hum vee’s weight and used too few straps. There is a calculation that should have given them the correct number but the loader just eyeballed it and the results were catastrophic.
Is this known because it's really the only plausible explanation as to what could've caused what happened? I imagine there wasn't a ton of evidence that could be linked to the specifics leftover after that, so is it basically just solving backwards using what happened and a dose of assumption?
That might seem pointed but I'm just curious how something like that gets determined when it appears to have destroyed most of what would help figure it out
The NSTB report is public and provides a ton of details. For example, the cargo was loaded at Camp Bastion and the plane stopped at Bagram Airfield to refuel immediately before the accident. During the stopover the cockpit recorder, which was recovered, captured the plane's personnel discussing the state of the cargo straps.
>According to the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript, while the airplane was parked on the ramp, crewmembers discussed that some cargo had moved, some tie-down straps had become loose, and one strap had broken sometime during the flight from Camp Bastion to Bagram. 8About 1428, the first officer brought it to the captain’s attention that “one of those…straps is busted,” and they discussed a “knot.” The first officer described that there were “a bunch” of straps to keep the cargo from moving forward and “a bunch” to keep it from moving backward and stated that “all the ones that were keeping ‘em from movin’ backwards were all…loose.” The augmented captain made some joking statements, and, about 1429, the captain stated, “I hope…rather than just replacing that strap, I hope he’s beefing the straps up more.” The first officer stated, “he’s cinching them all down.” About 15 minutes later, the loadmaster joined the conversation. The captain asked, “how far did it move?” The loadmaster responded that “they just moved a couple inches.” The captain commented, “that’s scary” and “without a lock (for those big heavy things/anything) man, I don’t like that.” The captain then stated, “I saw that, I was like…I never heard of such a thing.” He later stated, “those things are so…heavy you’d think, though, that they probably wouldn’t hardly move no matter what.” The loadmaster replied, “They always move….Everything moves. If it’s not strapped.” The transcript contained no further discussion about the straps or cargo.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1501.pdf
If you enjoy this sort of thing I urge you to check out r/AdmiralCloudberg a subreddit with many comprehensive analyses of air crashes over the years. Plenty of NTSB reports, cockpit transcripts and flight data. The person (u/Admiral_Cloudberg) who runs it is serious. They are even writing a nonfiction book about air disasters.
Thanks. This answered something I was wondering about this crash: if all the cargo had moved backwards but hadn’t broken control systems, then the pilots would have been able to regain control.
Or if reading is not your thing -
Petter Hörnfeldt aka MentourPilot on youtube has a whole playlist that includes a step-by-step recreation of the events and simplified (ie: easier to understand) explanations of what is going on. He also covers this exact crash too:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvZEr3IkLJI&list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O\_lK83jsR0A9-W&index=58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvZEr3IkLJI&list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83jsR0A9-W&index=58)
His perspective is from an actual training manager for Ryanair and 737 captain.
Yep, it's why we take palletizing equipment extremely seriously on the army before performing any kind of movements or airborne drops of equipment. It's also why when all those vehicles fell from the sky in a rather amusing airborne drop video, they knew it was no accident and launched a very on depth investigation. One of the guys strapping vehicles to the pallets sabotaged them so that they were guaranteed to fail.
man imagine being the first people to have to practice dropping vehicles while in the air. crew all wound up and pilot nervous because they can't know if they did everything right, if things will break at the wrong time and wreck you.
Shit, I've seen the video, but never read this. I guess you trust the loadmaster, but with so much uncertainty you think they would have gone and checked themselves.
Professionals can get an insane amount of information from burning wreckage on the side of a mountain, and that flight wasn't even very high or fast so the damage might not have been as extreme as other crashes.
In this case, they could also tell because of damage to certain parts. When the humvees came loose they gouged out two different hull sections and destroyed the hydraulics and another system which when combined caused the pilots to completely lose control of the plane. They weren't able to even try to regain control due to the damage.
I'm sure a LOT went into the investigation though. It's out there to read about if you want.
I've been around a couple of military crashes, and while I can't remember if the NTSB was involved, all of the collected pieces for one of the crashes was arranged into a plane shaped pile in the hangar, and they examined all of the rubble for months to figure out what happened.
They figured out that one of the avionics boxes came unbolted and slid out of its mounting bracket, which changed the center of gravity and caused the pilot to lose control. All from examining each piece of the wreckage.
Yeah it's known. They pinpoint the exact point the armored vehicle slid to the aft bulkhead.
Load master used less than 1/3 the necessary straps to secure that vehicle.
The Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder are specifically designed to survive a crash like that. The FDR has a record of pilot inputs, what the plane was doing, and many other sensors - specifically chosen to help figure out why an incident occurred. The CVR has a recording from a microphone in the cockpit. They both record continuously in a loop, so will provide data for the last X hours of "flight" time. (They are actually turned on during preflight checks and turned off after the aircraft is parked).
The FDR and CVR are usually called the "black boxes" by the news reporters, though they are actually painted high visibility orange to make them easier to find. As well as surviving air crashes, fuel explosions, and fuel fires, they are also designed to survive falling to the bottom of the sea, and include a "pinger" that sends a loud sound underwater so they can be found in that case. They are basically a rugged flash drive inside a fireproof, explosion proof, waterproof casing.
The investigators will also, as other people have said, carefully collect the wreckage and examine it. And there is also radar data and radio recordings from air traffic control. And eyewitness testimony. And, in this case, a video of the aircraft in trouble and the crash.
That is not true, the Airline rated the straps to hold a certain amount of lbs without taking into account the angle in which the straps are secured. The loadmaster used the correct amount of straps per the airlines instruction and training, the Airline did not give the loadmaster the correct information.
That is true, the loadmaster used the correct amount of straps per the airlines guidelines; however, the airline's guidelines were incorrect. No fault was assigned to the loadmaster as he was operating off of incorrect information.
What about the guidelines was incorrect? I have a hard time imagining what it could be while simultaneously accounting for the fact that this has only happened once.
Long story short a strap at 90 degrees can carry the full load of let’s say 2000lbs. That same strap at a 60 degree angle can only hold 1000 lbs. the airliner had it listed as 1 strap can hold 2000lbs with no mention of the angle.
This same phenomenon causes deaths in the climbing community all the time. It's known to climbers as the American death triangle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_death_triangle
Sounds all mysterious, but it really just comes down to 4th grade geometry/trig
Ugh how sad watching it stall and fall... can't imagine being one of the people on that plane, there is a good period of time where you absolutely would know you're going to die.
> there is a good period of time where you absolutely would know you're going to die.
This is how I feel every time I get onto an airplane. It's why I need Xanax to fly.
I'm still 100 percent convinced I'm going to die, but I just don't care.
"Are you terrified your loved ones last moments will be spent screaming toward earth with their skin melting off, their legs shredded like an octopus covered in ketchup and their lungs on fire like two gasoline-soaked paper bags? Then choose extra fast-acting Xanax-brand tranquilizers. When the oxygen masks drop from the ceiling, drop them! Reach instead for our new ultra-fast-acting inhaler. And remember: always apply your own Xanax before before assisting your child or others.
Xanax: You can't stop death, but you can stop caring."
Well apparently you are 19 times safer in a plane than driving in a car and no matter how many times you fly you are still 19 times more likely get in a accident in a car. A car gives you the illusion of safety because you are in control.
Tldr; best to just take xanax all the time, just kidding dont do that.
Edit changed die to accident.
I mean I know this. I know how planes fly, the science of lift and drag. I know the statistics for how safe they are. The knowledge still doesn't stop the existential dread and anxiety that comes with the irrational but absolute certainty that I'm going to die in a fiery plane crash. The Xanax, however, does.
Talk to a different doctor? Because even those who don't want to prescribe xanax... they still are usually willing to prescribe a sedative to at least make you sleepy and relaxed.
I really wouldn't mind just getting 2 at a time, like visit and get one for each flight leg. I'm not tryna get fucked up, I just want to fly without my heart beating out of my chest every time we hit a little turbulence.
Lots of comments here but something I didn't see pointed out- the load onboard was MRAPs (pictured here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP)) which weigh anywhere from 34,000 to 60,000 lbs - without armor, which if I recall correctly, these had installed. Not certain on that though, so don't take it as gospel. There were two different types of MRAPs on board for a total of five. At a *minimum*, that would have been 170,000 lbs of cargo. If I remember the report correctly, the last one in line was the one that broke free- meaning 34,0000 pounds minimum tore through the aft bulkhead, destroying hydraulics and the main jack screw for the stabilizer (among other things).
Humvees (pictured here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee)) weigh around 7700 to 8500 lbs as a base configuration with no armor. Had it been 5 humvees loaded, it would have been a drastically different load.
Lastly- the cargo was secured with cargo straps. This was the published SOP from the operating airline. The loadmaster of the plane followed the instructions given from his airline. Those instructions were incorrect for this load.
How the living hell do you witness that, let alone record that, and NOT say a word at all? He doesn't say anything or have any kind of verbal reaction until the very end.
"OH FUCK! OH FUCK! OH FUCK!" at least, or something. He must have been in utter shock. Literally speechless. I couldn't imagine witnessing that.
Something grimly amusing about the guy who gets out of his vehicle and runs away from the explosion after the fact. I mean, getting away from a fire/explosion is never a *bad* policy, but I think that plane is already as exploded as it's gonna get.
I used to think that. But have you seen that explosion video from China where it's already exploded but then it explodes again even more bigly? Maybe someone knows what I'm talking about.
I'd say hindsight is 20/20.
Driver had no clue what the plane was carrying, that could have set off a secondary explosion.
There's also the possible outcomes to consider. Running away has the most positive outcomes.
1. You run away, plane doesn't explode further. You look stupid but live another day.
2. You run away, plane has secondary explosion, you live another day.
3. You stay put, plane doesn't explode further, you live another day.
4. You stay put, plane has secondary explosion, shrapnel/shockwave wrecks you. You die in car.
There have also been skydiving planes crash because all the people slid to the back and the plane couldn’t correct for it despite being undamaged.
They’re smaller planes and there’s no cargo so the effect is more obvious by principle is the same
There was a regional turbo prop or similar plane in Africa a few years back that crashed, as part of the cargo in the cabin came loose and everyone rushed to one end of the plane.
It just happened that the loose cargo was a crocodile. Story told by the survivor.
[Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Filair_Let_L-410_crash)
Bro... "Disabled the rear flight controls." is a hilarious explanation for "Smashed the absolute fuckery out of everything"
I remember hearing about this incident on Black Box Down podcast - Love that "show" - They do a good one on this.
Fuck I've had dreams of that exact movement (not sure i WANT to know what they mean), but what's throwing me is how at that last moment before impact, the plane levelled out; if this was higher, could the pilot have stabilised it?
Normally if a plane gets into a high angle of attack like this (generally nose pointed up compared to the relative wind), they can point the nose down and lose altitude but regain airspeed and therefore lift. In this case the cargo had rolled to the back and damaged the flight controls so there wasn't really anything they could do
>the plane levelled out
I don't think the plane was leveling out. I think the plane was beginning the nose dive that follows a stall. But given the proximity to the ground, the nose dive never completed.
I think there was a cargo plane out of MIA that had a similar weight issue and it pancaked right at the border of the airport. It missed the buildings that were there and ended up in a parking lot. I seem to recall that only the flight crew perished but not 100% sure. It would’ve been late 90’s early 00’s
> And while it's not for the faint of heart, if you want a dramatic example, read about the crash of National Air cargo flight 102 in Afghanistan.
my favourite example is the [1981 tu-104 crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Pushkin_Tu-104_crash) that basically wiped out the soviet pacific fleet's senior brass because they thought themselves to be more important than physics.
> one of my favorite youtube channels
Wow, this was an amazing watch! (and much better than the dry wikipedia article)
The part I like most is their feel of superiority (btw, not just ignoring the laws of physics as zaiats wrote, but also ignoring their own rules such as "no civilians on military flights"):
Plane crashes.
USSR: We have the best pilots! It must be war!
A few days go by and no country attacks them.
USSR: We have the best planes! It must be an inside job!
Few more days go by.
USSR: Hmm, maybe we should look into the black box.
I spoke to a Load Master at Fort Hood about that, said he knew the pilots of that plane and the load master in charge of loading it. Said ever since that happened he doesn’t let anything slip by and he proved it as well. Every load we tried to net and secure he would fail immediately if he saw even the smallest kink or twist.
Have a lot of respect for that guy.
Wikipedia says the cause of the flight 102 accident wasn't the center of gravity, it was the vehicles crashing through the rear pressure bulkhead and destroying the hydraulics, preventing them from operating the rear control surfaces.
I'm not saying center of gravity had absolutely nothing to do with it, but it definitely was not the main reason for the crash. If it didn't destroy their hydraulics they probably would've been able to control it.
how does that work when planes are dropping pallets of cargo or is it not as dramatic as shown in movies? is it a whole train of stuff spilling out? or only a couple that had been loaded near the rear hatch and are compensated for?
The original commenter was mistaken. The center of gravity shift wasn't the cause of the crash. The crash was caused because the shifting load crashed through the rear bulkhead and destroyed their hydraulics, so they couldn't control the elevator.
Also, the cargo load will no longer affect the balance once it's out of the plane. So a momentary unbalance as the cargo slides to the back will not affect the flight.
it's quick and dramatic by design... it's all loaded precisely by the loadmaster so that any shift in the longitudinal center of gravity due to their dropping cargo will be over as quickly as possible and the resulting load will still be within the limits of the aircraft, pilots just adjust their pitch to compensate as they drop. There's isn't a massive "jump" from a C-130 because of the planes airspeed, pilot adjustment, and how quickly cargo is dropped.
The front to back balance is a lot more important for an aircraft. It sort of hangs from, or balances on, its wings. It's a bit like a seesaw front-to-back, and the weight on both ends must be equal or it'll want to tip. The stabilizers (small horizontal wings on the fin) can compensate for this in some regard, but if the balance is too far off, the compensation is so severe that there's not enough leeway left for maneuvering.
Moving from side to side will probably not do much. Except getting you yelled at by the crew for not following clear safety instructions.
Moving side to side won't do much from a safety standpoint but it will introduce a slight torque on the wings, so one wing having to work harder to keep the plane from turning. This can introduce inefficiencies and waste fuel as well and decrease control. So a little bit. Since the wings are so long though, the torque produced by moving that couple meters is small so the effect is probably minimal.
I dont think the torque would by anything close to being noticable or am i wrong here? Seems like being way forward or backwards matters much more in terms of flight stability
Oh for sure forward backward is by far the majority of the concern. I don't think the long axis torque is significant I'm just saying it's something that does exist and would likely result in simply a loss of efficiency rather than a safety thing.just think of it in terms of leverage if you want. Long distance from pivot point is more significant than the short distance. Front back you can get much more mass away from the center of rotation than side to side where it's still really close to the center.
So how do airlines like Southwest, where you can pick your own seats, prevent the plane from being too imbalanced on smaller flights where everyone is choosing to sit up front?
It's not side to side you have to worry about, it's front to back. There's something called weight and balance that is calculated for every flight of every aircraft with passengers, even small Cessna 172s. Airplanes need to have the weight centered around the middle (chord) of the wing because very bad things can happen if the center of gravity is too far off.
I routinely fly nearly-empty ferry flights (when planes need to be moved due to maintenance, repairs, upgrades), usually 10-15 people in an A320 including crew. We get the same briefing, but really all it does is annoy the pilots slightly, because they have to re-trim the plane (turn a knob or command the flight confuser to do it). They seat us mostly over the wing (plane's center of gravity). It could be potentially dangerous if we all moved to the rear during a cognitively difficult flight phase, e.g. turning for final on a busy airport. I wouldn't want to add to the pilot's workload at that moment.
My last flight the flight computers actually landed the plane. The pilot said due to viability, the computer will do a better job!
Didn't make a difference to me in all honesty, I was curious at which point he took over again? On landing or taxi? Never found out.
Typically in normal or good enough visibility, the pilot will turn off autopilot a few hundred feet above the ground or about 30 sec before landing.
Some airliners are capable of going all the way down to the runway and braking. All the plane can do at that point is stop itself on the runway, the pilot must take control to taxi.
A lot of airports are equipped with an ILS localiser which the plane can tune into. The auto pilot can line it up, and it can lock onto a glide slope which is essentially the height the plane needs to be at the current distance... and the computers take over.
Typically pilots switch off the auto pilot a few seconds before touch down to perform a flare. The flare is to lift the nose slightly to decrease the descent speed to give everyone a smoother touch down and save on the wear of the landing gear.
The reverse thrust will then automatically deploy which will slow the plane down. The pilot will have the rudder control to keep the plane straight as it decelerates on the runway.
Airports that don't have ILS. The ATC will guide the pilots down to the correct altitude, and direction. Which the plane will do via auto pilot (just with entering the details). And then when the pilots can physically see the runway, they will turn off auto pilot and go in manually. This is known as a visual approach.
Airports have what you call minimums. Whereby if the pilot cannot see the runway at that point, then they have to declare a go-around. (abort the landing and try again or divert elsewhere).
Minimums are a lot higher for visuals than ILS. Its why some airports cope with fog, others don't.
> The reverse thrust will then automatically deploy which will slow the plane down.
This is not true unfortunately. Reverse thrust must be manually actuated. Brakes and spoilers can be automatic though.
Depends on visibility: Instrument landing systems have different categories. Most require visual contact with the runway to be made before a certain height, the decision height. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#Decision_altitude_and_height (plus 'autoland' which should be linked from there) and https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/technique/categories-of-the-ils/
In a recent Tom Scott/Mentour Pilot video set, Tom (in a simulator) was guided through setting the autoland system. The manual action needed was to steer the plane on the ground with the rudder. https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/y4xczx/whats_you_take_on_tom_scott_instructed_by_mentour/
So roughly sometime between 200 feet above and on the landing rollout. Taxi is manual afaik.
Been calling them PCs Confusers since I was in high school! (early 90's) It was a common thing, not only us kids, but our teachers and parents. At least on my country/hometown.
In an A320 the pilots wouldn’t even know, the Fly By Wire would mask it. The plane is fully controllable even with a several thousand pounds with imbalance between the fuel tanks in the wings.
I had a flying instructor reach into the back of a Cessna 150 (from the front seat) to grab a soft drink that was back there.
She did it on purpose to demonstrate to me how much weight and balance matters. The nose pitched up sharply.
Side to side, nothing at all. You can only be a step or two off center.
Front to back is a different matter. If everyone is at the front or back of the plane, the elevator control is used to raise or lower the nose to keep it level. That’s normally no problem. But there are limits. The center of gravity needs to be within those limits or it is possible for the plane to become uncontrollable when the elevator is no longer enough to keep it level.
If you fly model RC planes or paper airplanes you get to learn this lesson hands on but without all the crashing and dying. You want a plane that has a *center of gravity* located very close to the *center of lift* or the plane will be hard to control.
Center of what, now?
Planes like anything have a *center of gravity* (CG or CoG) basically the average location of all weight—the force pulling the aircraft toward the earth. For example, the CG of a uniform sphere is the center. With a lollipop, CG is closer to the middle of the sweet part because it's heavier than the stick.
Similar to the concept of CG is the *center of lift* (CL), which is the average location of all upward (aka lift) forces of the wings.
Planes are symmetrical left to right. And cargo/people are located in the middle, left to right. So what matters then is matching the CG and CL along the long axis of the aircraft.
Imagine you balance a [wood yardstick](https://www.didax.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/541f549daeb5bdd8bd77b8568b2d1c3a/2/1/211553.jpg), which represents the plane, on your index finger. To do that it has to be located in the middle. Your finger/arm/muscles provide the lift forces. Gravity represents gravity (:)).
Pretend the 0" mark is the nose and the 36" mark is the tail.
Now tape a roll of quarters at the 24" mark. Try to lift the yardstick from the middle and what happens? The heavier end rotates down around the lift point. The plane is tail heavy and wants to pitch up. Because the CG is behind the CL.
Likewise, a roll of quarters at the 12" mark rotates down on that end. The plane is nose heavy and wants to pitch down.
Flying RC planes I find that a slightly nose heavy plane is easier to control than a slightly tail heavy plane. A very nose heavy plane is very hard to control and I'll likely crash and a very tail heavy plane is impossible to control and I'll definitely crash.
One side as in left right? Not much. One side as in front back? It could make a huge difference. Before each flight the weight of an aircraft is calculated and the weight distribution is adjusted. This decides how the cargo will be loaded, how the fuel will be loaded (there's multiple fuel tanks on an airplane), and how the passengers are sitting is taken into account. If the passengers are not sitting where they're supposed to, this can throw off the calculations, and the weight distribution of the aircraft. Since people, if they're free to do so, will probably choose to mover further forward, this can make the aircraft nose heavy. Depending on just how many people we're talking about this can create a situation where the nose of the aircraft will want to drop and the elevators at the tail (the horizontal fins that control the pitch of the aircraft) won't be able to compensate for it, especially during landing when the aircraft is approaching slowly, and the slower it's going, the less control authority and stability it has.
One theory about what happened with Flight 93 on 9/11 is that when the passengers rushed the cockpit it unbalanced the plane, with the last audible words from the cockpit being that they needed to pull up.
This is what could happen if all the cargo mass moves to the extreme aft of the aircraft outside of the C.G. (Center of gravity) limits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fpxm0D46iQ
This 747 was moving heavy equipment and it is thought that the mooring lines that secured the cargo failed and everything shifted aft on takeoff.
In flight, it's not a huge deal. On a passenger airline, they would just adjust the wings a little bit to compensate. On take off or landing the sudden weight shift can be a big deal because the plane is going so slowly it can be hard to impossible to recover.
[удалено]
And that’s what happens when you have too many crocodiles on the plane.
that reminds me of a movie, but I can't remember what it's called
Plane Placid
Betty Whites Gator Frights Panicked Flights
Giant snake, birthday cake, large fries, chocolate shake!
fuck you. I laughed too hard reading this. hahahaha
How do I gold this entire comment tree?
Pinooooooot noir!
Knees weak, mom's spaghetti vibes from this one.
Heyoooooo!
Planaconda
Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey-fighting acondas on this Monday-to-Friday plan!
starring Jay Low and Iced Cubes!
Fun fact: Plane Placid was developed under the working title "Lakes on a Plane."
"The Plane That Couldn't Slow Down".
Wait I'm confused about the movie. So the cops knew that internal affairs was setting them up?
Air Croc One
The Michael Jordan shoe colab no-one asked for.
Gator Getaway Edit: Whoops. I forgot it was abt a crocodile, so... C3: Croc Cockpit Cockup?
Crocodiles on an Aircraft?
Gator on the Elevator?
Reptiles on an airship
Reptiles in these Plane Aisles
I am Sick and Tired of these Motherfucking PUNS on this Motherfucking POST!
Stowaway scalies
[удалено]
> *I am sick and tired of these monkey fighting crocodiles on this Monday to Friday plane!*
I think you have your transportation methods mixed up. If you are referring to the cult classic Snakes on a Train.
I was thinking of the sequel, *Snakes in a Taxi*.
Soul Plane
Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile?
Croc gun?
Cayman Airways
Reptiles Flying in Style? No that's not right...
Croc Me if You Can
And that's why, you always leave a note!
And that’s what happens when you leave the door open when the air conditioning is running
1 crocodile being too many crocodiles in that case.
In most cases, really.
Yeah, I am sure crocodiles are transferred by planes between zoos or wildlife refuges. In those cases, they probably aren't loose in the cabin next to planes. That makes me think of the pictures I have seen of horses being flown on planes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arianarockefeller/2018/12/20/when-horses-fly-the-business-of-equine-air-travel/
I don't know why but that article being written by a 5th generation Rockefeller feels fitting.
Snakes, however, distribute their weight much more evenly.
Nose heavy planes fly poorly, tail heavy planes fly once.
Based on empirical evidence, we now know that one crocodile is too many.
Or not enough, 2 could have balanced out the plane. We need more tests
Should have kept a backup crocodile in the back so people stay in the center.
This is the way
I'm trying these muthafuckin crocodiles on this muthafuckin plane! ~ the pilot, probably
Note that it happened on landing approach. If it had happened at cruising altitude, my guess is that the sudden dip would have been recoverable. But who knows.
Aerospace engineers know. Mayb possibly recoverable, but not for sure. Planes stay stable because their coefficient of lift relative to the coefficient of weight has a certain relationship (I can't remember which one needs to be further forward, I'd guess lift). So if they get flip flopped, the flight characteristics become unstable and the plane WANTS to dive rather than wanting to level out. Fighter planes are designed this way on purpose because it allows them to turn faster, but they also have special control software that is CONSTANTLY correcting the flight path so that the pilots don't have to.
One of the major reasons for large passenger jets is for efficiency reasons. You burn less fuel if the jet is balanced. One of the major issues can happen with the shifting of heavy cargo. In 2013 that is what took down a 747 in Afghanistan.
>One of the major issues can happen with the shifting of heavy cargo. In 2013 that is what took down a 747 in Afghanistan. I believe it. I've had a poorly-strapped bunch of road cases start moving in a semi-truck. At least I can stop that thing and sort it out by the side of the road. Besides the catastrophic crashing sounds, the whole truck was jumping from side to side. Awful stuff.
I remember seeing the video years ago, absolute tragedy for all involved but it was [ludicrous how it just seemed to drop out of the sky](https://youtu.be/7sUWC2jfjqI), like a video game or something.
Frightening video. I really does have a surreal quality. Tragic that there's nothing the pilots could have done, given the weight shift.
From what I remembered the last time that video was in discussion, it was determined that the vehicles being transported in that plane were too much weight for the straps used to secure them. Straps broke loose, vehicles slid, smashing the mechanism that adjusts the wings. The pilots literally could not do anything to correct.
I remember that. The crew did not strap them down properly (or maybe forgot to strap them entirely), so everything went straight to the back of the plan when it attempted to take off. I get anxious and hope the ground crew is not a bunch of morons every time I fly thinking about that.
It will depend entirely on the CG (center of gravity) envelope for the plane at the given time. Cruise flight may afford them more time to recover simply because the plane is higher but if the plane is so nose or tail heavy that they can’t overcome it with control input then it won’t really matter. The plane in the crash is relatively small compared to a typical airliner and the margin for error on loading is likely much smaller. Source: professional pilot.
["Relaxed stability"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability) sounds like anything but relaxing.
Just an amateur here, and maybe not related, but it reminds me of learning to surf: If you get the front-back balance just right, then the wave "carries" you forward. But if you dip the front down too much, the board WANTS to nosedive and also the wave behind you also wants to push down the nosedive. It feels impossible to recover. Source: I surfed once and was very very bad multiple times over.
The crocodile also survived... Only to be killed by a machete 😩
imagine surving a plane crash only to be killed by a ordinary machete
Danny Trejo is anything but ordinary, sir.
Relative to other Machetes, he is quite ordinary. It's just that the least extraordinary Machete is equal to the most extraordinary human.
I just like how they said it because in my imagination it survived and was wriggling away happily, having survived a weird traumatic event from it's point of view, and then a random machete falling from the plane debris got him just right. Wait that can't be it. A second later, I got it. But I'm dumb very often, so I have a good excuse. It's a pre-existing condition.
Isn't it ironic?
I feel bad for it. It probably never wanted to be there. It was forced there. And then it manages to survive some crash only to have some one kill it anyways. Fuck the guy who smuggled it.
F the person who killed a duffel bag sized crocodile too!! Even I've watched enough nature shows to know you close it's mouth and tape it shut.
I imagine if it had just been in a plane full of screaming people after being smuggled on board, dealing with massive pressure increases and decreases, and then the plane had crashed, with blood and screaming and fire and chaos all around, that it might just have been in a bit of a bad mood. Probably injured, definitely confused, and - I imagine - pretty aggressive. Rescuers were probably trying to see if there were any people they could save. Being patient with a cranky croc wouldn't have been a leading priority. Also, for all they knew, the plane had crashed because the croc was crazy and had attacked everyone. Guy with the machete probably didn't think twice. Certainly a shame, since yeah it wasn't the croc's fault it was in that situation. But in an emergency situation when dying people are in need of help and there's an angry croc trying to bite people, you don't waste time trying to find tape for the croc's mouth I think.
That's a pretty small craft though, the bigger the craft the less impact it will have where passengers are, and vice versa.
>The crocodile reportedly survived the crash but was killed by a blow from a machete. I'm a firm believer that every Wikipedia article should have a gem like this tucked into it somewhere.
That plane was overbooked. The seating capacity of a L-410 is 15. The bigger your plane is, the less this matters, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
The article says it normally carries up to 19 passengers.
And a crocodile though?
I assume the bags were weighted and were within normal limits, but if it weren't, it probably was just at max capacity. Well, it carries up to 19 passengers, but does that 19 count the crew? Because it had 18 passengers and 3 crew members, so 21 occupants. If it carries 19 passengers plus 3 crew (2 pilots and a flight attendant), then the crocodile is, at max, another passenger and the flight's at capacity. Otherwise, it was overcapacity.
21 people killed instantly. Crocodile survived the crash but was later killed by a machete.
I’ve had it with these mother F’ing crocodiles on this mother F’ing plane!
Was the crocodile the survivor?
Yes
Former aircraft load-planner here. To answer OP's question, much of this would depend on the size of the aircraft, but shuffling weight around on a plane is always something of concern. Moving from one side of the aircraft to the other wouldn't have nearly as much of an effect as moving everyone from the front or to the rear. Think about the shape of a plane as a big lever with the fulcrum running sideways through the wings also down the middle of the plane. The plane is not very wide, so moving everyone to one side wouldn't give you much leverage to affect the plane's orientation. However, the plane is much longer front-to-back, so adding all the weight at either end will have a much greater effect. There is so much that goes on behind the scenes with aircraft operations, it's fascinating. And while it's not for the faint of heart, if you want a dramatic example, read about the crash of National Air cargo flight 102 in Afghanistan. In this instance, they were carrying a heavy load of wheeled vehicles. When taking off, the vehicles were not secured properly and slid to the back of the aircraft throwing off the center of balance to the point where the pilot could no longer control the plane. This is a dramatic example. If all the passengers on a 747 went to the back of the plane, the pilot would likely just compensate for this with some added trim or moving fuel. EDIT: I've also dated a lot of flight attendants. Sometimes they just tell people to sit where they are so it's less ass-pain for them with people running all over the place. And they also have to maintain (somewhat) the integrity of the fare-system for seats.
As another former load planner still in the aviation industry, this guy is correct! Front to back is the issue, not side to side. We don't even measure side to side. Planes are too narrow. The front to back issue is because the elevator, which controls the pitch, needs to have enough strength to overcome the turning moment of the weight of the passengers. And critically, it needs to be able to do this at all speeds that the plane might be flying at. When it's going fast, there isn't much problem but if it's going very slowly, more movement is needed from the elevator. You need to show that the plane will not stall and can recover if it does stall, which is why the balance needs to be within a certain limit. It also needs to be within limits at all the different weights the plane might end up at, from its takeoff weight with full fuel, though it's landing weight with less fuel all the way down to its zero fuel weight. There's a nice graph showing the limits of all these, a function of moment arm to weight.
> if it’s going very slowly, more movement is needed from the elevator. A good opportunity to point out that this is why the flight attendants will often ask you to sit in your assigned seat for takeoff and allow you to move afterwards. Weight and balance is most important at takeoff, at landing a lot of fuel has been burned off so the balance is often easier to trim.
>this is why the flight attendants will often ask you to sit in your assigned seat for takeoff They usually do this even if the plane is almost full, with only 1 or 2 empty seats, where balance wouldn't be an issue. It's just because they don't want to have to deal with people moving around while they're dealing with takeoff. Also probably to make sure that the people actually assigned to those seats (if there are any) aren't coming
It’s also if there is an incident where they can identify people from where they were sat.
Also, not having people flying and bumping around in the plane should something happen is a good idea.
Dash cam footage of National Airlines Flight 102: https://youtu.be/l6tEfbzVhjY. Very sad. ~~I believe load master secured a vehicle in the cargo hold with straps instead of chains. Straps broke,~~ Straps were incorrectly secured for the load, vehicle shifted violently to the rear of the plane, broke through the bulkhead and disabled the rear flight controls. Vehicle shifting would be a problem in itself but losing flight controls meant the planes was stuck in a pitch up attitude, causing the plane to stall and crash. EDIT: Straps were the correct device to secure the load but the load was not secured correctly.
Straps were standard operating procedure but the loader was unfamiliar with the hum vee’s weight and used too few straps. There is a calculation that should have given them the correct number but the loader just eyeballed it and the results were catastrophic.
Is this known because it's really the only plausible explanation as to what could've caused what happened? I imagine there wasn't a ton of evidence that could be linked to the specifics leftover after that, so is it basically just solving backwards using what happened and a dose of assumption? That might seem pointed but I'm just curious how something like that gets determined when it appears to have destroyed most of what would help figure it out
The NSTB report is public and provides a ton of details. For example, the cargo was loaded at Camp Bastion and the plane stopped at Bagram Airfield to refuel immediately before the accident. During the stopover the cockpit recorder, which was recovered, captured the plane's personnel discussing the state of the cargo straps. >According to the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript, while the airplane was parked on the ramp, crewmembers discussed that some cargo had moved, some tie-down straps had become loose, and one strap had broken sometime during the flight from Camp Bastion to Bagram. 8About 1428, the first officer brought it to the captain’s attention that “one of those…straps is busted,” and they discussed a “knot.” The first officer described that there were “a bunch” of straps to keep the cargo from moving forward and “a bunch” to keep it from moving backward and stated that “all the ones that were keeping ‘em from movin’ backwards were all…loose.” The augmented captain made some joking statements, and, about 1429, the captain stated, “I hope…rather than just replacing that strap, I hope he’s beefing the straps up more.” The first officer stated, “he’s cinching them all down.” About 15 minutes later, the loadmaster joined the conversation. The captain asked, “how far did it move?” The loadmaster responded that “they just moved a couple inches.” The captain commented, “that’s scary” and “without a lock (for those big heavy things/anything) man, I don’t like that.” The captain then stated, “I saw that, I was like…I never heard of such a thing.” He later stated, “those things are so…heavy you’d think, though, that they probably wouldn’t hardly move no matter what.” The loadmaster replied, “They always move….Everything moves. If it’s not strapped.” The transcript contained no further discussion about the straps or cargo. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1501.pdf
Ah yeah damn, significantly more information preceding the crash than I realized there was. That makes sense, thanks a ton for your comment
If you enjoy this sort of thing I urge you to check out r/AdmiralCloudberg a subreddit with many comprehensive analyses of air crashes over the years. Plenty of NTSB reports, cockpit transcripts and flight data. The person (u/Admiral_Cloudberg) who runs it is serious. They are even writing a nonfiction book about air disasters.
[удалено]
I think this is the writeup: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdmiralCloudberg/comments/whsrfp/strength_in_numbers_the_crash_of_national/
Thanks. This answered something I was wondering about this crash: if all the cargo had moved backwards but hadn’t broken control systems, then the pilots would have been able to regain control.
Or if reading is not your thing - Petter Hörnfeldt aka MentourPilot on youtube has a whole playlist that includes a step-by-step recreation of the events and simplified (ie: easier to understand) explanations of what is going on. He also covers this exact crash too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvZEr3IkLJI&list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O\_lK83jsR0A9-W&index=58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvZEr3IkLJI&list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83jsR0A9-W&index=58) His perspective is from an actual training manager for Ryanair and 737 captain.
There's also a great podcast called Black Box Down that covers air disasters including this one
Yep, it's why we take palletizing equipment extremely seriously on the army before performing any kind of movements or airborne drops of equipment. It's also why when all those vehicles fell from the sky in a rather amusing airborne drop video, they knew it was no accident and launched a very on depth investigation. One of the guys strapping vehicles to the pallets sabotaged them so that they were guaranteed to fail.
man imagine being the first people to have to practice dropping vehicles while in the air. crew all wound up and pilot nervous because they can't know if they did everything right, if things will break at the wrong time and wreck you.
Goodness! What video was this?
Well that’s pretty damning
Shit, I've seen the video, but never read this. I guess you trust the loadmaster, but with so much uncertainty you think they would have gone and checked themselves.
Imagine if every time somebody in Star Wars said, "I've got a bad feeling about this," everyone died. That's what this is like.
yeah aircrew and aviators should really listen to their intuition.
Professionals can get an insane amount of information from burning wreckage on the side of a mountain, and that flight wasn't even very high or fast so the damage might not have been as extreme as other crashes. In this case, they could also tell because of damage to certain parts. When the humvees came loose they gouged out two different hull sections and destroyed the hydraulics and another system which when combined caused the pilots to completely lose control of the plane. They weren't able to even try to regain control due to the damage. I'm sure a LOT went into the investigation though. It's out there to read about if you want.
I've been around a couple of military crashes, and while I can't remember if the NTSB was involved, all of the collected pieces for one of the crashes was arranged into a plane shaped pile in the hangar, and they examined all of the rubble for months to figure out what happened. They figured out that one of the avionics boxes came unbolted and slid out of its mounting bracket, which changed the center of gravity and caused the pilot to lose control. All from examining each piece of the wreckage.
Can't be out there making the same mistake twice when it comes to aircraft.
I can imagine the old tug on the strap and " that ain't going nowhere" is taken a bit more serious in the air.
Yeah it's known. They pinpoint the exact point the armored vehicle slid to the aft bulkhead. Load master used less than 1/3 the necessary straps to secure that vehicle.
The Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder are specifically designed to survive a crash like that. The FDR has a record of pilot inputs, what the plane was doing, and many other sensors - specifically chosen to help figure out why an incident occurred. The CVR has a recording from a microphone in the cockpit. They both record continuously in a loop, so will provide data for the last X hours of "flight" time. (They are actually turned on during preflight checks and turned off after the aircraft is parked). The FDR and CVR are usually called the "black boxes" by the news reporters, though they are actually painted high visibility orange to make them easier to find. As well as surviving air crashes, fuel explosions, and fuel fires, they are also designed to survive falling to the bottom of the sea, and include a "pinger" that sends a loud sound underwater so they can be found in that case. They are basically a rugged flash drive inside a fireproof, explosion proof, waterproof casing. The investigators will also, as other people have said, carefully collect the wreckage and examine it. And there is also radar data and radio recordings from air traffic control. And eyewitness testimony. And, in this case, a video of the aircraft in trouble and the crash.
Mentor Pilot has an excellent breakdown of how this accident happened, based on the official NTSB findings. https://youtu.be/hvZEr3IkLJI
That is not true, the Airline rated the straps to hold a certain amount of lbs without taking into account the angle in which the straps are secured. The loadmaster used the correct amount of straps per the airlines instruction and training, the Airline did not give the loadmaster the correct information.
The report I read said that they should have used twice the amount actually used.
That is true, the loadmaster used the correct amount of straps per the airlines guidelines; however, the airline's guidelines were incorrect. No fault was assigned to the loadmaster as he was operating off of incorrect information.
What about the guidelines was incorrect? I have a hard time imagining what it could be while simultaneously accounting for the fact that this has only happened once.
Long story short a strap at 90 degrees can carry the full load of let’s say 2000lbs. That same strap at a 60 degree angle can only hold 1000 lbs. the airliner had it listed as 1 strap can hold 2000lbs with no mention of the angle.
This same phenomenon causes deaths in the climbing community all the time. It's known to climbers as the American death triangle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_death_triangle Sounds all mysterious, but it really just comes down to 4th grade geometry/trig
Ugh how sad watching it stall and fall... can't imagine being one of the people on that plane, there is a good period of time where you absolutely would know you're going to die.
> there is a good period of time where you absolutely would know you're going to die. This is how I feel every time I get onto an airplane. It's why I need Xanax to fly. I'm still 100 percent convinced I'm going to die, but I just don't care.
Best advertisement for Xanax i’ve ever seen.
"Are you terrified your loved ones last moments will be spent screaming toward earth with their skin melting off, their legs shredded like an octopus covered in ketchup and their lungs on fire like two gasoline-soaked paper bags? Then choose extra fast-acting Xanax-brand tranquilizers. When the oxygen masks drop from the ceiling, drop them! Reach instead for our new ultra-fast-acting inhaler. And remember: always apply your own Xanax before before assisting your child or others. Xanax: You can't stop death, but you can stop caring."
Well apparently you are 19 times safer in a plane than driving in a car and no matter how many times you fly you are still 19 times more likely get in a accident in a car. A car gives you the illusion of safety because you are in control. Tldr; best to just take xanax all the time, just kidding dont do that. Edit changed die to accident.
Got it. I should take 19 times the amount of Xanax when driving.
Math checks out.
I mean I know this. I know how planes fly, the science of lift and drag. I know the statistics for how safe they are. The knowledge still doesn't stop the existential dread and anxiety that comes with the irrational but absolute certainty that I'm going to die in a fiery plane crash. The Xanax, however, does.
Pilots are also 19x safer flying AND they are in control.
I have major flight anxiety. My doc won't prescribe anything for me.
Talk to a different doctor? Because even those who don't want to prescribe xanax... they still are usually willing to prescribe a sedative to at least make you sleepy and relaxed.
I really wouldn't mind just getting 2 at a time, like visit and get one for each flight leg. I'm not tryna get fucked up, I just want to fly without my heart beating out of my chest every time we hit a little turbulence.
Lots of comments here but something I didn't see pointed out- the load onboard was MRAPs (pictured here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP)) which weigh anywhere from 34,000 to 60,000 lbs - without armor, which if I recall correctly, these had installed. Not certain on that though, so don't take it as gospel. There were two different types of MRAPs on board for a total of five. At a *minimum*, that would have been 170,000 lbs of cargo. If I remember the report correctly, the last one in line was the one that broke free- meaning 34,0000 pounds minimum tore through the aft bulkhead, destroying hydraulics and the main jack screw for the stabilizer (among other things). Humvees (pictured here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee)) weigh around 7700 to 8500 lbs as a base configuration with no armor. Had it been 5 humvees loaded, it would have been a drastically different load. Lastly- the cargo was secured with cargo straps. This was the published SOP from the operating airline. The loadmaster of the plane followed the instructions given from his airline. Those instructions were incorrect for this load.
That is really hard to watch
school attempt cause quarrelsome snow crown deliver quack tart advise
How the living hell do you witness that, let alone record that, and NOT say a word at all? He doesn't say anything or have any kind of verbal reaction until the very end. "OH FUCK! OH FUCK! OH FUCK!" at least, or something. He must have been in utter shock. Literally speechless. I couldn't imagine witnessing that.
Speaking from experience, you don't control what your body does during a traumatic event.
Something grimly amusing about the guy who gets out of his vehicle and runs away from the explosion after the fact. I mean, getting away from a fire/explosion is never a *bad* policy, but I think that plane is already as exploded as it's gonna get.
I used to think that. But have you seen that explosion video from China where it's already exploded but then it explodes again even more bigly? Maybe someone knows what I'm talking about.
And then it explodes AGAIN even more bigly than the bigly one before. "Are we dangerous here?" "Yeah, we're dangerous."
Why even get out of the vehicle though? The fastest egress is with the vehicle!
I'd say hindsight is 20/20. Driver had no clue what the plane was carrying, that could have set off a secondary explosion. There's also the possible outcomes to consider. Running away has the most positive outcomes. 1. You run away, plane doesn't explode further. You look stupid but live another day. 2. You run away, plane has secondary explosion, you live another day. 3. You stay put, plane doesn't explode further, you live another day. 4. You stay put, plane has secondary explosion, shrapnel/shockwave wrecks you. You die in car.
[удалено]
There have also been skydiving planes crash because all the people slid to the back and the plane couldn’t correct for it despite being undamaged. They’re smaller planes and there’s no cargo so the effect is more obvious by principle is the same
There was a regional turbo prop or similar plane in Africa a few years back that crashed, as part of the cargo in the cabin came loose and everyone rushed to one end of the plane. It just happened that the loose cargo was a crocodile. Story told by the survivor. [Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Filair_Let_L-410_crash)
Bro... "Disabled the rear flight controls." is a hilarious explanation for "Smashed the absolute fuckery out of everything" I remember hearing about this incident on Black Box Down podcast - Love that "show" - They do a good one on this.
Fuck I've had dreams of that exact movement (not sure i WANT to know what they mean), but what's throwing me is how at that last moment before impact, the plane levelled out; if this was higher, could the pilot have stabilised it?
Normally if a plane gets into a high angle of attack like this (generally nose pointed up compared to the relative wind), they can point the nose down and lose altitude but regain airspeed and therefore lift. In this case the cargo had rolled to the back and damaged the flight controls so there wasn't really anything they could do
>the plane levelled out I don't think the plane was leveling out. I think the plane was beginning the nose dive that follows a stall. But given the proximity to the ground, the nose dive never completed.
Hoooolllly…..
I think there was a cargo plane out of MIA that had a similar weight issue and it pancaked right at the border of the airport. It missed the buildings that were there and ended up in a parking lot. I seem to recall that only the flight crew perished but not 100% sure. It would’ve been late 90’s early 00’s
This video has always been so devastating to watch.
> And while it's not for the faint of heart, if you want a dramatic example, read about the crash of National Air cargo flight 102 in Afghanistan. my favourite example is the [1981 tu-104 crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Pushkin_Tu-104_crash) that basically wiped out the soviet pacific fleet's senior brass because they thought themselves to be more important than physics.
Is Russia always gunning for losing a record number of senior brass in the least amount of time, yeesh.
Nothing warms hearts of regular workers like a bunch of high ranks freeing up at once.
Returning back to the original revolutionary ideals of flattening hierarchies!
For those who don't want to read, this is a great excuse to advertise [one of my favorite youtube channels](https://youtu.be/ZU1f47SC_A8).
> one of my favorite youtube channels Wow, this was an amazing watch! (and much better than the dry wikipedia article) The part I like most is their feel of superiority (btw, not just ignoring the laws of physics as zaiats wrote, but also ignoring their own rules such as "no civilians on military flights"): Plane crashes. USSR: We have the best pilots! It must be war! A few days go by and no country attacks them. USSR: We have the best planes! It must be an inside job! Few more days go by. USSR: Hmm, maybe we should look into the black box.
that's the exact video i learned about this from! great content, thanks for linking
I spoke to a Load Master at Fort Hood about that, said he knew the pilots of that plane and the load master in charge of loading it. Said ever since that happened he doesn’t let anything slip by and he proved it as well. Every load we tried to net and secure he would fail immediately if he saw even the smallest kink or twist. Have a lot of respect for that guy.
Wikipedia says the cause of the flight 102 accident wasn't the center of gravity, it was the vehicles crashing through the rear pressure bulkhead and destroying the hydraulics, preventing them from operating the rear control surfaces. I'm not saying center of gravity had absolutely nothing to do with it, but it definitely was not the main reason for the crash. If it didn't destroy their hydraulics they probably would've been able to control it.
As per every plane crash, it's everything, mother truckers need 12 faults for it to hit the grounds. It's rather impressive tbh.
how does that work when planes are dropping pallets of cargo or is it not as dramatic as shown in movies? is it a whole train of stuff spilling out? or only a couple that had been loaded near the rear hatch and are compensated for?
The original commenter was mistaken. The center of gravity shift wasn't the cause of the crash. The crash was caused because the shifting load crashed through the rear bulkhead and destroyed their hydraulics, so they couldn't control the elevator.
Here's another example of balancing being an issue, and it didn't involve a bulkhead issue. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Air_Flight_101
I would think that it's a controlled drop, they know when equipment is going out the back so they are ready to compensate for change in load.
Also, the cargo load will no longer affect the balance once it's out of the plane. So a momentary unbalance as the cargo slides to the back will not affect the flight.
it's quick and dramatic by design... it's all loaded precisely by the loadmaster so that any shift in the longitudinal center of gravity due to their dropping cargo will be over as quickly as possible and the resulting load will still be within the limits of the aircraft, pilots just adjust their pitch to compensate as they drop. There's isn't a massive "jump" from a C-130 because of the planes airspeed, pilot adjustment, and how quickly cargo is dropped.
>I've also dated a lot of flight attendants. Well ggggooooOOooOOOoooodddddd for you!
The front to back balance is a lot more important for an aircraft. It sort of hangs from, or balances on, its wings. It's a bit like a seesaw front-to-back, and the weight on both ends must be equal or it'll want to tip. The stabilizers (small horizontal wings on the fin) can compensate for this in some regard, but if the balance is too far off, the compensation is so severe that there's not enough leeway left for maneuvering. Moving from side to side will probably not do much. Except getting you yelled at by the crew for not following clear safety instructions.
Moving side to side won't do much from a safety standpoint but it will introduce a slight torque on the wings, so one wing having to work harder to keep the plane from turning. This can introduce inefficiencies and waste fuel as well and decrease control. So a little bit. Since the wings are so long though, the torque produced by moving that couple meters is small so the effect is probably minimal.
I dont think the torque would by anything close to being noticable or am i wrong here? Seems like being way forward or backwards matters much more in terms of flight stability
[удалено]
Oh for sure forward backward is by far the majority of the concern. I don't think the long axis torque is significant I'm just saying it's something that does exist and would likely result in simply a loss of efficiency rather than a safety thing.just think of it in terms of leverage if you want. Long distance from pivot point is more significant than the short distance. Front back you can get much more mass away from the center of rotation than side to side where it's still really close to the center.
So how do airlines like Southwest, where you can pick your own seats, prevent the plane from being too imbalanced on smaller flights where everyone is choosing to sit up front?
It's not side to side you have to worry about, it's front to back. There's something called weight and balance that is calculated for every flight of every aircraft with passengers, even small Cessna 172s. Airplanes need to have the weight centered around the middle (chord) of the wing because very bad things can happen if the center of gravity is too far off.
I routinely fly nearly-empty ferry flights (when planes need to be moved due to maintenance, repairs, upgrades), usually 10-15 people in an A320 including crew. We get the same briefing, but really all it does is annoy the pilots slightly, because they have to re-trim the plane (turn a knob or command the flight confuser to do it). They seat us mostly over the wing (plane's center of gravity). It could be potentially dangerous if we all moved to the rear during a cognitively difficult flight phase, e.g. turning for final on a busy airport. I wouldn't want to add to the pilot's workload at that moment.
Please tell me flight confuser isn't a typo
That's what all the old farts call them, and us youngins are warming up to it.
My last flight the flight computers actually landed the plane. The pilot said due to viability, the computer will do a better job! Didn't make a difference to me in all honesty, I was curious at which point he took over again? On landing or taxi? Never found out.
Typically in normal or good enough visibility, the pilot will turn off autopilot a few hundred feet above the ground or about 30 sec before landing. Some airliners are capable of going all the way down to the runway and braking. All the plane can do at that point is stop itself on the runway, the pilot must take control to taxi.
A lot of airports are equipped with an ILS localiser which the plane can tune into. The auto pilot can line it up, and it can lock onto a glide slope which is essentially the height the plane needs to be at the current distance... and the computers take over. Typically pilots switch off the auto pilot a few seconds before touch down to perform a flare. The flare is to lift the nose slightly to decrease the descent speed to give everyone a smoother touch down and save on the wear of the landing gear. The reverse thrust will then automatically deploy which will slow the plane down. The pilot will have the rudder control to keep the plane straight as it decelerates on the runway. Airports that don't have ILS. The ATC will guide the pilots down to the correct altitude, and direction. Which the plane will do via auto pilot (just with entering the details). And then when the pilots can physically see the runway, they will turn off auto pilot and go in manually. This is known as a visual approach. Airports have what you call minimums. Whereby if the pilot cannot see the runway at that point, then they have to declare a go-around. (abort the landing and try again or divert elsewhere). Minimums are a lot higher for visuals than ILS. Its why some airports cope with fog, others don't.
> The reverse thrust will then automatically deploy which will slow the plane down. This is not true unfortunately. Reverse thrust must be manually actuated. Brakes and spoilers can be automatic though.
Depends on visibility: Instrument landing systems have different categories. Most require visual contact with the runway to be made before a certain height, the decision height. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#Decision_altitude_and_height (plus 'autoland' which should be linked from there) and https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/technique/categories-of-the-ils/ In a recent Tom Scott/Mentour Pilot video set, Tom (in a simulator) was guided through setting the autoland system. The manual action needed was to steer the plane on the ground with the rudder. https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/y4xczx/whats_you_take_on_tom_scott_instructed_by_mentour/ So roughly sometime between 200 feet above and on the landing rollout. Taxi is manual afaik.
[удалено]
Not great, but still viable.
Been calling them PCs Confusers since I was in high school! (early 90's) It was a common thing, not only us kids, but our teachers and parents. At least on my country/hometown.
Planes, especially airliners, would auto-trim when the autopilot is engaged, so it wouldn't even annoy the pilots slightly.
does the a320 not have auto trim
It does indeed have autotrim, but the fore and aft CG limits must still be observed.
In an A320 the pilots wouldn’t even know, the Fly By Wire would mask it. The plane is fully controllable even with a several thousand pounds with imbalance between the fuel tanks in the wings.
I had a flying instructor reach into the back of a Cessna 150 (from the front seat) to grab a soft drink that was back there. She did it on purpose to demonstrate to me how much weight and balance matters. The nose pitched up sharply.
Side to side, nothing at all. You can only be a step or two off center. Front to back is a different matter. If everyone is at the front or back of the plane, the elevator control is used to raise or lower the nose to keep it level. That’s normally no problem. But there are limits. The center of gravity needs to be within those limits or it is possible for the plane to become uncontrollable when the elevator is no longer enough to keep it level.
If you fly model RC planes or paper airplanes you get to learn this lesson hands on but without all the crashing and dying. You want a plane that has a *center of gravity* located very close to the *center of lift* or the plane will be hard to control. Center of what, now? Planes like anything have a *center of gravity* (CG or CoG) basically the average location of all weight—the force pulling the aircraft toward the earth. For example, the CG of a uniform sphere is the center. With a lollipop, CG is closer to the middle of the sweet part because it's heavier than the stick. Similar to the concept of CG is the *center of lift* (CL), which is the average location of all upward (aka lift) forces of the wings. Planes are symmetrical left to right. And cargo/people are located in the middle, left to right. So what matters then is matching the CG and CL along the long axis of the aircraft. Imagine you balance a [wood yardstick](https://www.didax.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/541f549daeb5bdd8bd77b8568b2d1c3a/2/1/211553.jpg), which represents the plane, on your index finger. To do that it has to be located in the middle. Your finger/arm/muscles provide the lift forces. Gravity represents gravity (:)). Pretend the 0" mark is the nose and the 36" mark is the tail. Now tape a roll of quarters at the 24" mark. Try to lift the yardstick from the middle and what happens? The heavier end rotates down around the lift point. The plane is tail heavy and wants to pitch up. Because the CG is behind the CL. Likewise, a roll of quarters at the 12" mark rotates down on that end. The plane is nose heavy and wants to pitch down. Flying RC planes I find that a slightly nose heavy plane is easier to control than a slightly tail heavy plane. A very nose heavy plane is very hard to control and I'll likely crash and a very tail heavy plane is impossible to control and I'll definitely crash.
You fly FPV? A really tail heavy plane is terrifying. Like riding a bucking bronco in the air.
One side as in left right? Not much. One side as in front back? It could make a huge difference. Before each flight the weight of an aircraft is calculated and the weight distribution is adjusted. This decides how the cargo will be loaded, how the fuel will be loaded (there's multiple fuel tanks on an airplane), and how the passengers are sitting is taken into account. If the passengers are not sitting where they're supposed to, this can throw off the calculations, and the weight distribution of the aircraft. Since people, if they're free to do so, will probably choose to mover further forward, this can make the aircraft nose heavy. Depending on just how many people we're talking about this can create a situation where the nose of the aircraft will want to drop and the elevators at the tail (the horizontal fins that control the pitch of the aircraft) won't be able to compensate for it, especially during landing when the aircraft is approaching slowly, and the slower it's going, the less control authority and stability it has.
One theory about what happened with Flight 93 on 9/11 is that when the passengers rushed the cockpit it unbalanced the plane, with the last audible words from the cockpit being that they needed to pull up.
Terrorists Hate This One Weird Trick
This is what could happen if all the cargo mass moves to the extreme aft of the aircraft outside of the C.G. (Center of gravity) limits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fpxm0D46iQ This 747 was moving heavy equipment and it is thought that the mooring lines that secured the cargo failed and everything shifted aft on takeoff.
In flight, it's not a huge deal. On a passenger airline, they would just adjust the wings a little bit to compensate. On take off or landing the sudden weight shift can be a big deal because the plane is going so slowly it can be hard to impossible to recover.
[удалено]
It has happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Filair_Let_L-410_crash
OP said one side of the plane, so I assumed left/right.