Pilot Applies Full Nose Down Inputs 

Interesting

I have trespassed in there 3 times....

Looks perfect for illegal drag racing 😄

cool fact, thanks :)

Streets were Playa del Rey where I lived in early '53 before LAX became a jet port.

Average approach at Funchal be like:

AKA, unstable. 😉👍

the aspect ratio on that particular clip has been raised which makes vertical distances and movement appear much more dramatic

Awww hell nawwwww💀

First clip is how to avoid incoming artillery fire.

plenty of those videos here on YT.

Worth looking for other vids. Always cool seeing things that most of us don’t get to experience very often (or at all)

Actually, there were three jets, the camera was in the third.

They're drag racing!

it was the right decision for the pilot to return to base since it was so close to departure rather than risking everyone's lives with a lightning strike like that

Actually, that approach at the top of the video would get you bumped back to training, if not fired in the US. You are NEVER supposed to point the nose of an aircraft down like that, especially that close to the ground. It kills more student pilots than anything else. What happened is he came in with too much speed, and instead of pulling back power, or just going around and coming back in (he was probably high too) which is what they should have done, they tried to save the approach by pointing the nose down. If wind was a factor (like if it was gusting), all that wind had to do was drop, and the pilot could have lost a hundred feet before they knew it, crashed the plane into the ground nose first. I've never personally see it happen, but I saw a plane come in on the back of a truck after someone did it.

Shouldnt he have gone around for another approach? Good skill but could have ended bad

@@alliedmastercomputer5407 Must have had a table booked!

He wasn’t earning a damn thing, he put ur family at risk for blowing a challenging approach… should have gone around a tried again….

@@alliedmastercomputer5407 It was a relatively normal approach for that airport. To the left there's a hill and crosswinds roll down its face and that tends to create air cushions during the approach, which push the aircraft upwards. Hence, what seems to be "exaggerated" inputs. The angle from which the camera guy is filming this probably gives an optical illusion of something which was not as daring as it first looks.

@@purplehaze8557was going to say the same. That camera angle exaggerates the plane’s appearance a bit.

Lucky the wing with all that fuel didn't explode

@@clightning300mistill a drama queen. What is your obsession with exploding fuel? Its not gonna happen.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183🚁💥😂

@@clightning300mi Fuel doesn't explode, that only happens in Hollywood movies.

@@sheerluckholmes5468 in the website 1001 plane crashes I found a couple burnt wings.

Flames under the wing with all that fuel is going to explode a plane someday

@@clightning300midon’t be a drama queen.

@@clightning300midon’t ruin a funny comment with ignorant fear lol.

@@clightning300mi Could have been oil that was burning.

Look for the bullseye on the hill and mind the apartment buildings lol.

Remember them well, when flying to HK. Hats off to the pilots.

My thought too. But still looked badass.

As great as that clip was. Those aircraft are 2,000 ft apart from each other vertically, say these ones are on even flight levels (32,000 34,000 and 36,000 ft), the interesting part is aircraft on an opposite heading will be on odd flight levels can be at 31,000, 33,000, 35,000, 37,000 etc, and can fly between these ones with 1,000 ft vertical separation, that would have been an excellent clip.

We don’t use starboard and port in aviation. It’s either left or right. Or 1 and 2.

It is Madeira, the person filming is on a hill overlooking the airport and using a powerful telephoto lens, hence the exaggerated perspective. The runway looks like it is going up a steep hill and the aircraft looks like it is pointing down. In fact, as any propeller aircraft does, the nose is indeed down for an approach. Jet aircraft don't have the drag of the propellers so they use the "back end" of the drag curve, i.e. nose up and power to compensate.

⁠@@karhukiviwhat? No. There is no difference between props or jets. They all fly their approach speed at 1.3 times above stall speed. Jets don’t fly on the “back end” of the drag curve.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 If you have to add more power to reduce speed, then you are on the back end of the drag curve - according to Derek Davies "Handling the Big Jets". He was a test pilot, so perhaps he was wrong? Vimd can be above Vs x 1.3 for some models he mentions.

@@karhukivi you don’t add power to reduce speed. You are talking about a test pilot. He probably performed these type maneuvers for testing. But it’s not normal operation. In the early jet age, some navy pilots lost their lives by flying behind the power curve. Engines weren’t powerful enough back then so when they found themselves too slow, they couldn’t accelerate even at full power and flew into the back of aircraft carriers. Civilian airplanes use 1.3 as their approach speed. Doesn’t matter if it’s prop or jet. However, prop planes do tend to fly faster during the approach to keep up with jets and not disrupt air traffic. They can do this, because the can easily slow down due to the drag of the props. That’s when it looks like they are pitched down more.

@@karhukivithat was not a turbo prop. What are u on about? The a321 is a jet.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Of course you are right, my mistake! Was looking at another video and forgot which one I was answering.

i pray this video does not get back to DHL or his direct supers. Will be an absolute ear full of the violations displayed here.

@@CapStar362 Id take violations over a broken spine for life, though I was fire guarding, as per the regs. But, I was off to the side and in front. I didnt get hit by turbine shrapnel. I did have flashbacks though watching that vid lol.

@@RipRoaringGarage no i agree, he is lucky, but if word gets back to his supers or his flight safety team, he might not be having that chance anymore.

Interesting. Thanks for the added perspective and knowledge from your experience. Glad you survived! I grew up around aircraft and saw a lot of people get lucky doing stupid things (and some not so lucky). And that was just GA with light aircraft. The biggest turbines I dealt with were tiny.

@@CapStar362hey buddy. I’m not sure, but the way the camera moves, it could be a drone. It sorta “floats” a bit.

He had to force it back down to the flat earth.

@@GeneralChangOfDanang or he might have thought the runway was flat, but the curvature meant he had to take a dive to reach it. We'll never know the answer for sure...

@@fluchterschoenactually, rumor has it that the tower left the ground effect switch on “high”. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@@GeneralChangOfDanang No ...just appalling airmanship.

It’s very interesting to note that the condensation is happening only inboard of the ailerons. (Google “washout” if this is unobvious). ((of course, airliner aerodynamics may be a lot more subtle and this is not really what’s happening)). And agree with the other posters on air pressure.

yeah i was puzzled by that too. condensation in a thermodynamic equilibirum occurs when ambient pressure increases above vapor pressure, not decreases

@@armuk Surely this is as far away from a thermodynamic equilibrium as you can get? It's a thoroughly dynamic, not-in-equilibrium event??? Not only is there a pressure differential between the top and bottom surfaces of the airfoil; a temperature differential is also created? The low pressure airflow on the top of the airfoil also experiences a temperature drop. The colder, lower pressure airflow cannot incorporate water vapour to the same extent as the environmental/ambient air, therefore whatever vapour is in the ambient air tends to condense (fall out of suspension) when it experiences lower pressure and temperature.

@@fluchterschoen "low pressure airflow on the top of the airfoil also experiences a temperature drop" -> why? p.s. an equilibrium can be dynamic. regarding atmospheric water - at a given temperature, a dynamic equilibrium is present whereby the free energy per mole of molecules in the liquid and vapor phase is equal

@@armuk I suspect you're correct here and I am wrong. I was assuming a drop in gas pressure equates to a drop in temperature. However, in aerodynamics I think I understand that this doesn't hold true? Although the pressure above the airfoil is lower, the gas particles are accelerated - so the gas's density is lower but the particles are more energetic. So I was probably incorrect to say the temperature would be reduced. In a static body of gas, lower pressure would mean lower temperature - that's true, right? Also, I now understand slightly better what you mean about dynamic equilibrium. Empirically we can see that vapor condenses on the top surface of the airfoil, where we know the pressure is lower. What is the scientific explanation for that? In simple terms is it that the gas (air) is less dense and therefore less able to maintain water molecules in suspension?

I do hope he did. If I'd been on that flight and had not been informed of those dips beforehand, I'd have thought that this was going to be the end. (Not that it would have mattered any more 😂 two minutes later but still...)

Yes, you know every passenger on that TAP plane was sure they were going to die.

I doubt that more than a few noticed anything unusual. The vertical movements are exaggerated massively due to the extreme foreshortening of the shot.

Matches the old school airmanship. ..pathetic technique.

Because if you go around in that situation you will never land in Madeira. It was stable enough

Because it was a visual approach and stabilisation requirements are much less strict.

It’s not that common.

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Common in certain parts of the world and times of the year.

@@darkwood777 really not that common. I don’t know what to tell you. I flew out of south east Asia for 8 years and never got hit by lighting. And not just me. One of our airplanes got hit once, while sitting on the ground.