Pilot Attempts Takeoff With Only One Engine 

Yes, but it probably was not a ton overloaded like the average Aerosugar.

Aerosucre: "That one hurt. We have feelings, you know."

Ahaha so true

That A350 wasn’t anywhere close to MTOW.

@@georgeconway4360How do you know?

he had reversers still open at like 5 knots

@@someone.7303 exactly, and given those clouds of (probably?) dust rising right to the front of the engines, these must have been so happy to breathe that

But it didn't stop just before the runway end. The fixed distant markers painted on the runway where just starting just past that taxiway. There must have been at least 1000 ft to the right of that taxiway.

@@someone.7303 I totally missed the reversers... thought he forgot lol

@@adb012 I guess he REALLY wanted to make that taxiway!

It is normal to roll up to several hundred meters on the runway while performing a CAT 2 or especially CAT 3 ILS approach go-around. Especially in a wide body.

Key words there being “on the runway”

The amount of times i screamed go around, go around!!!

@@peterdieleman303 Exactly … ON the RWY 🤣

Ya... I thought they were going around and then bam right into the ground

I don't think they do that with passengers on board ...

@@russcrawford3310 ya think?

Yup, sharply reminds about B-52 crash at Fairchild base in 1994.

Looks like a 777 thats trying to be a fighter jet.

I watched that display in person. It was very impressive, and the engines were nearly silent throughout, which was even more impressive and eerie. The wing isn’t under much load in that turn, though - they weren’t pulling on the elevators and you see the nose yaw towards the ground fairly swiftly in the few seconds it is heavily banked. It is actually part of the manoeuvre to recover from very high nose attitude in “upset recoveries”.

Yes!!!

No, the reason they fantastic is because it is short. Quality over quantity

I'm with ya

nah.. 3 minutes is perpect

3 mins sound cool

Not impressed with that A350's single engine go around. They must have less than 70% thrust on that engine intentionally to check the limit of bare minimum climb rate.

@@phantomf41 I was also thinking that. That climb was soooo slow. Even on one engine the climb rate should be a lot quicker than that plus the nose up attitude for a one engine take-off seemed excessive

@@phantomf41 that was a takeoff

@@santiagokiwi3187 this was a test, they were clearly not using the maximum performance of the aircraft in single engine seeing that even the gears were not up

@@santiagokiwi3187 With Airbus, for maximum climb, you just pull the stick all the way back and allow the computers to calculate the maximum AoA. So it's not exsessive, it's just right.

They copied nature. God created these maneuvers

You should watch that clip of a 707 doing a barrel roll then :)

Yeah...I think they need to stop showing off like this in airshows. Too dangerous.

That sound is from the engines and it's completely normal. Happens when the engine resonates at a specific frequency during landing.

@@SpaceBird-Founder Ah, didn't know that, thanks.

It was the sound of the pilot going "Uuurgghh - oh no, not again!".

I think they hung around down low far too long. Question 1, why didn’t they hit TOGA power and gain altitude as soon as the saw they were off target? Question 2, why were they below safe minimums without the runway in sight?

@@buffalomerkis7603 most probably your q2 is an anwer to q1. I guess that they were too low and noticed the situation too late.

you can almost hear the alarm going off "BANK ANGLE! BANK ANGLE!"

True😧

B52 is muuuch harder to control

Hi David, that was exactly what I was thinking. It was eerie and induced a certain sick feeling.

Have you heard of the Boeing 707 barrel roll at the 1955 Seattle Sea Fair?

That was just the ghost of Bob Hoover serving coffee to the passengers.

Multiple rotors and disks are within each brake unit. Each brake unit has its own thermocouple for temperature readings for the flight deck and weigh roughly 50kgs

That's the breaks!

Sounded like a tire blew just before they powered back and taxied off the runway

Except the one engine takeoff; that was barely uplifting.

Very,...-uhm, tongue-in-cheek. -and. heart-in-throat! -Wow...

All commercial jets can do this. Its a requirement.

@@AMCustomCoasters Indeed, though I'm surprised to see it being done in Toulouse rather than an isolated area like Istres.

They can, but they still need two engines to get to takeoff speed, or close to it. Of course there is V1 speed, there takeoff can still be rejected, in case of technical failure, so if the plane does not have two engines at V1, they can still stop in time and after V1 they can take off with only one engine.

@@lautoka63Airbus do a considerable amount of testing in Toulouse. The first flight of any type always has to be done from there. Don’t forget, these are not so much tests as confirmations that the calculations and simulator models are correct.

@@Trevor_Austin True. I was lucky enough to be there for the first flight of the 380, watching from the roof of the Air Business Academy.

All airliners can do this. Not just the big ones.

@@troybaxter2916 Yes, but from an engineering standpoint it's far more impressive for a "heavy" to do this.

I went to the comments section to find this comment

And the rudder! Who said turns must be coordinated.

It looked for me like "We're going to use JUST last inch of it!" :-D

Do you fly for Aerosucre by chance?

That's my favorite thing to do in Flight Sims too - push the limits; try to take off on the super short runways with huge planes and stuff like that. Flight simulators exist so that there is no actual risk whatsoever in trying anything. Doing normal non risky things in them to me feels a lot less interesting.

You could NEVER take off a four engine airplane with two engines, no payload, and a very light load of fuel. The only airplane that could be ferried with one engine inoperative under the U.K. rules was the VC10. I know because I did one once Frankfurt to London, no passengers. In the U.S.A. the FAA is more liberal permitting engine out ferry flights. Major airlines usually use specially qualified crews. Some of the Supplemental Airlines permitted regular line pilots to do the job which was reckless. Under the FAA rules it is not required to account for the possibility of the loss of a second engine on takeoff as the U.K. required. Although the risk of losing a second engine is slight the airplane will not fly before being cleaned up with two engines inoperative.

When I tried it with a 747 it has the power to climb out on two engines, but it doesn’t have enough rudder authority to keep straight if the two engines are on the same side.

@@bjoe385 What Simulator, where? If you don’t have rudder authority you can’t fly.

That looked dangerous

It's true bro I was the fog.......

@@sujoy9220 I was the grass it landed on

Waah Modi Waah. . Next time.. Pack yourselves off in a big trunk and ride in the cargohold of Air India Express, Go Air, Spicejet, Aerosucre

was the banging toward the end of the GoAir clip a compressor stall? Sounded like it

How do you know they were below minimums ? If it was a CATIII approach, depending on airline SOP, minimums can be 0/0.

​@@n666eo Had it been a CATIII Approach the aircraft wouldn't have been off the runway centerline as it would have been an autoland. It's likely that they were visual at mimimums, but then lost sight due to a low level cloud.

@@ogaibo1316 or they tried to continue without being visual with the runway as I've heard some stories where some pilots descend below minimums trying to get visual breaking so many rules. Yes, it could be as you said like cat3 approach on autoland, anyway I think they should've gone around immediately after noticing that brown dirt patch, I mean what were they thinking? Only will be found if they launch an investigation internally or by the DGCA.

Pilot flying: "It was my intention to perform actually that go-around in that manner exactly for purposes of maintaining my skill at all times." Other pilot [frowning]: "You are indebted definitely to me for a new pair of trousers. Prior to my son's wedding."

the runway at sao paulo is 1.8 km long. the a330s minimum landing length is 1.73km, the margins are really close

@@xioana The video indicates that this occurred at Sāo Carlos? Is that not correct?

the clapping is never warranted

@@bearcubdaycare sao carlos runway is 1.6 km long i realised

@Rafa Towers gracias

What happens if the weather at the airport you took off from is below landing minimums?

Well actually loosing one engine did cause crashes in the past

@@MrSchwabentier Mention one.

@@georgeconway4360 for example on a test flight just like this. 1994 Airbus A330 in Toulouse. And a lot of crashes indirectly caused by engine failure (uncontained failure damaging the aircraft, wrong reaction of crews etc.)

@@MrSchwabentier It appears you can’t mention one caused by engine failure.

If done intentionally it’s a non-event.

Looks like testing. It had some sort of skid to protect against a tail strike.

Nice one Ji. Thanks for the local info.

Your comment on the A350 take off is ill informed and misleading. The aircraft is involved in testing the flight envelope of the type. You have no idea of the parameters of that take off, in terms of load, power settings, performance restriction, let alone the purpose of the test. The aircraft hardly a struggled.

@@philblinkhorn8304 I didn’t ask, I just said it was cool.

Flew on one of these a few months ago and it was an incredibly smooth ride. At various points of the flight, it was so smooth that it didn't even feel like the plane was moving...like it was parked on the ground.

@@MrR2185 exactly my memory of that well designed passenger plane