@@Miku-uw2sl Only you know the truth of that. They say the camera never lies but there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no......(we that are still flying know the rest)
A four dollar windshield wiper on an airplane??? On what planet. The windshield wiper alone costs about 50-80 bucks, all day long. Great landing though:-)))
A pathetic piece of equipment in a prominent place on the plane. Will obviously been seen by pilots and the general public. If the manufacturer is going cheap here, where else are they cutting corners?
I am not a pilot but I have done some intermediate ramp operations and I find this landing is one of the challenging one. Tell me one thing in detail that was it dangerous or not ? and wasn't that a luck to land the aircraft at this edge ??? Or was that his own manual control ???
Some analysis: 1:55 - Autopilot ‘Minimums’ call. This is Decision Altitude (or Height) - (DA or DH). In order to continue the approach from this point, the pilot MUST be able to see either: the approach lighting system (at least 2 bars of the Centreline and 5-Bar (CL-5B) Calvert system), or the PAPIs, or the runway threshold. None of these appear to be in sight from the camera view. 2:04 - Autopilot disengaged tone. Pilot now has manual control. This, therefore, cannot be an Autoland; it is a manual landing from this point, requiring visual cues. (You can continue an approach on autopilot on a CAT I ILS (if the signal quality is good enough), below DA, provided that the pilot has achieved the required minimum visual references at or before DA.) 2:04 to 2:17 - No Approach lights in sight from this camera view. If the runway was CAT II or CAT III capable, there should be Approach and Supplementary Approach lights visible at some point during this period to enable the approach to be continued below DA. Moreover, it si likely that ‘Minimums’ would be much lower and the autopilot would still be engaged. 2:17 - PAPIs just becoming visible on the left-hand side, and a very ‘loomy’ view of the runway threshold can be discerned. No Approach or Supplementary Approach lights are visible; at this stage however, they may be under and behind the aeroplane and not visible to the camera. However, Runway Centreline or Touchdown Zone (TDZ) lights are NOT visible. This, therefore, is NOT a CAT II or CAT III equipped runway; it is at best a CAT I ILS equipped runway, the approach limits of which are listed elsewhere on here, but basically would have a DA no lower than 200ft above threshold elevation; it might be higher due to obstacles in the Final Approach Segment. 2:25 - Aeroplane passes abeam the PAPIs - ie the Touchdown zone and from where the glidepath originates. Assuming an average final approach speed of 120 kts (2 nm a minute to make the maths easier!) the aircraft has travelled 1 nm from 1:55 to 2:25. Also Assuming the runway has the normal 3° ILS Glidepath angle the aircraft would have been at around 300ft (3° = 318ft per nm) above the threshold at the time the autopilot ‘Minimums’ call was heard; this slightly ‘high’ figure may be due to the presence of previously mentioned obstacles in the final approach segment adding a safety factor to the minimum allowable CAT I approach minima or, (more likely, due to need to allow for the potential adverse wind effects during the squall) a higher approach speed than the assumed 120 kts. Whatever the reason, it would appear - from the evidence from this camera angle - that the approach was continued below minimums as no Approach lights were visible between 1:55 to 2:04. Indeed, no Approach lights are seen at all during the procedure; is this runway so equipped? Mitigating factors: We cannot know what the Pilot In Control was seeing through his windscreen, we only have the ‘evidence’ from a low quality camera in a less than optimal location. The ambient light conditions and the camera sensitivity results in the runway sidelights not showing up well during touchdown and roll-out; this might also apply to any approach lights.
Also: the minimums might not have been set correctly. In an ATR, that callout is based on the radio altimeter, which can be inaccurate because of variable terrain geometry below the plane. I personally never set it for Cat 1 approaches for that reason, and relied on the altimeter for the minimums.
Evan Scott Well actually you can rely on the RA because when you shoot a CAT II it is part of the certification too so it is there for a reason and the 200 ft RAD ALT is sometimes varying on the approach charts...anyway as a standard yes QNH altimeter is used for the minimum but in our SOPs we do use and check the RA...
@@_Tommmmmm_ For Cat II/III operations to be legally undertaken the following 3 fundamental criteria must be met: 1. The aircraft must be suitably equipped and certificated for such operations. 2. The aircrew must be suitably trained and in current practise (“recency” or “currency”) for such operations. 3. The airport and runway infrastructure must be suitably equipped, and - among many other things - the necessary Low Visibility Procedures must be available and in place for such operations. Among the airport infrastructure requirements is the provision of the requisite standard of runway hi-intensity approach*, supplementary approach*, PAPI, threshold, touchdown zone*, centreline*, side, stop-end and taxiway lighting, the * bits of which are not visible on this recording. Consequently, this approach cannot be a CAT II (or III) Autoland, as also evidenced by the autopilot disengaging at 2:04. See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UV_vWtAJIow.html for an example of the much enhanced standard of approach and runway lighting required for Cat II/III operations.
Woody 5326 even with ILS regulations require visual contact on minimums. Captain can’t go against them so Im sure it is just the cameras vs human eye thing here - pilots saw the runway
One of the most dangerous landings I've ever seen!! Flying through a microburst then descending past a minimums call while not visual. Do that on a Sunday afternoon by yourself but not with innocent fare paying pax on board please!! Wot a tit!
@@peterd4316 remember these idiots could'nt tell the difference between you pissing on them and a microburst .. you can clearly see the outflow front and the starting of a horizon vortex.
What a tit indeed. Got to think about this too... coming out of a microburst you’re sure to have increasing tailwind... that combined with heavy rain that, let’s be honest, looking at the state of their airmanship here probably wasn’t accounted for. This could have even led to a runway excursion. At least it was cool to show their friends on RU-vid ... I mean priorities right ?
How on earth do these incredibly skilled people manage to land such huge machines when they can not only not see where they’re meant to be putting it down, but probably haven’t been able to see the ground or anything for ages. Very impressed every time I see a tricky landing.
When it says “minimums”, you’re supposed to look up from the instrument panel, and if you can’t see the runway environment which CAN be just the approach LIGHTS, your supposed to execute a missed approach procedure, go around, and try again. In this video, when minimums were reached, I couldn’t see the runway… could you? Maybe he could… I hope so, because sniffing around below minimums when you can’t see the ground while making an ILS (instrument landing system) approach is what will get everybody killed probably more often than anything. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know, but that’s what this looks like. I hope I’m wrong.
Never certain when or how fasrt a cell will move...or be followed by another cell. That approach was low...probably violative...but not rocked by a strong cell.
@@warrenharris1171 What you have to do first is use "Soft Scrub" on the glass to remove all contamination from grease, bugs, etc. It's like Comet but will not scratch the glass. Then wash that off real good (eg. residue) then apply Rain X.
That was an unnecessary risk. DAL 191 did the same thing, was knocked down by a microburst and ended up with many more fatalities than survivors. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Rob I have no experience but love estvhjngall the flying landing videos ...just wondering if u have experience? Doesnt matter really either way but as I learn I wanna learn from experienced fliers not wannabes like myself.so wish I had the money for real lessons!!😟🥺😭
Dana14me Hettinger I took my first solo flight in 1999 which was 21 years ago. Yes I have experience. I can’t see the radar signature but it definitely looks like it would be lit up in red from the amount of rain coming down. He could have been flying into a microburst which can be deadly. In the video you hear his instruments calling out “minimums-minimums” that’s the critical decision height to either commit to the landing or execute a missed approach. If you don’t have visual of the airfield at the minimums you execute the missed approach. He didn’t have visual of the runway till he was about 100ft above the ground. He should have executed the missed approach, climbed to the assigned altitude and stayed in the holding pattern until it was either safe to land or divert to another airport.
20k hours experienced pilot here who successfully landed a crop duster mid-air inside a cargo plane full of hostile, merryweather mercenaries once, I think this move was completely avoidable.
How many who use percentage figures get their numbers from A. Swipe' Johnson? Just asking this question for edo u cational porp us us. Is there a point on an ILS approach where it is no longer legal to continue the approach or is the term missed approach merely a foolhardy old fashioned practice? Let me cut to the chase. If I had my way this pilot would never fly another airplane. If I had been a passenger on that airplane and saw this video there would be a law suit.
I really can’t believe that they didn’t abort the approach and go around. I couldn’t help thinking of the Delta 191 accident at DFW when they went through a storm and lost control due to wind shear. True, it appeared to be just heavy rain. I heard no thunder but anything could have suddenly developed and the winds suddenly changed. It was like they were in a car wash and with bad wipers too!
You got to minimums with no runway in sight...guess you don't know what that means. One day you will pay dearly for not following the standard missed approach.
They were NOT flying below minimums, you can see on the auto pilot early in the video indicate they were doing a CAT II approach with a DA of 100 feet AGL. I saw at least one, if not two of the required markings of FAR 91.175 (C) (3), before that decision altitude. They were legal.
@@jordantyler3013 depends on what landing minimums they where using, and as well as what the plane was set up for. ILS CAT 1 or 2 or 3? "Minimums" was clear. The question is, did they have the required visual ques to continue? Cant really tell, as the video was recorded on a potato. If not, you don't ask the weather to stop, you go around.
You guys either watching another video and commenting here, don’t understand spanish, and read too much with very little actual time. most comments sound childish.
If it were me flying the plane they were all.dead.i was in my mind aiming for the orange lights at the left of the run way.i see now why my truck is in bits.
Thank the folks up front next time. It's obvious many here simply don't have a clue. You could not do it but they did and do so every day. All in a days work. Over and over.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Regardless of what systems they had, planes still can and do crash when unnecessarily flying through bad weather. Why risk it?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!! YOU MEAN THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS CLEARED THIS AIRCRAFT TO LAND??!! IN THIS WEATHER??!! WERE THEY CONTROLLERS FROM THE MOVIE, "AIRPLANE"??!!!
Brave to fly right through that column of rain. Could be a microburst that first gives you lift--then slams you into the ground. Nevertheless, great IFR landing!
They continued past minimums without the runway in sight and you think it's a great landing? It's a lucky landing at best. Very bad reckless flying on display here. Also they touch down steep, way down the runway and off centerline. All in all a horrible landing.
This is El Caraño airport (UIB) serving the city of Quibdo, Colombia, in tropical jungles of Colombia's Pacific coast. Quibdo is the world's rainiest city with whooping 7.3 meters or 289 inches/year. www.tripsavvy.com/the-worlds-rainiest-cities-4091755
I’ve been in the jump-seat of a B757 landing at Logan. We didn’t see the runway till 50ft Above it. It was far worse than this. CAT 3 landing.They do it all the time.
But to be perfectly honest Rain X does more than wipers anyway never mind you can see squat anyway .... so I think the wiper deal is more subconscious than it is actually beneficial .. in fact I think wiper's on Turbo prop and jet aircraft is akin to having a Corvette with cup holder's ...
I don't think so. Really bad pilot judgment. He should wait a few minutes for the storm to pass and then do the approach. Bad decision with a possibility of bad outcome.
D. Mark Detrixhe . Thanks for the replay. However, base on my experience flying fighter and now commercial airplanes for a big company, I think that is a better way to deal with that. I done that to in regional airplanes as a captain, and then I kicked my self in the ground asking why I did it. So now that I have been in this rodeo more than 25 years, I think there is better way or maybe when not carry passages.
