Planes landing backwards at CNX

[BlindMagician]

No need Rob, just use titles that at least make some sense and reflect the real situation. Not asking too much, is it?

[connda]

We had large thunder storms down here in Lamphun this afternoon. Perhaps they were avoid thunder-heads? I use to fly general aviation so just my educated guess.

[connda]

You know, the 737 I fly is certificated for 15 knot tailwind takeoff/landing as long as certain conditions are complied with. Then we routinely climb up to altitude and sometimes enjoy tailwinds of 80, 100, 200+ knots, you name it

So why do we not "flip over", experience "instability", or stall?

Yes, a tailwind increases takeoff or landing distance required (ceteris paribus) but "Air flowing accross the wings" has nothing to with groundspeed and tailwind operations are not germane to a discussion of aerodynamic stability or stalling at all.

I understand why people might think such things, but they never read it in any flight manual or heard it from somebody who knows what they are talking about so it is baffling to me why people continue to post such rubbish, even on an internet forum. Then again so-called professional journalists publish sensational inane things all the time whenever there is a major accident/incident. Based solely on speculation and with poor understanding of basic aeronautic principles and flight operations standards and procedures.

CNN "B777 will struggle hold altitude with empty fuel tanks!"

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1464764133.001215.jpg

You know, the 737 I fly.......

I am sooooo jealous.

[biplanebluey]

Wind direction. Planes preferably land against the wind to have more air flow over the wings, maintaining stability, less chance of a stall.

Um. No. They land against the wind to decrease landing roll. If you land down wind the roll out is greatly increased which could put one off the end of the runway.

They take off into the wind to decrease the amount of runway required for takeoff.

The power of the engines can easily provide the necessary wind across the wings.

[ozyjon]

Yes, but look at the wind.

''oh no i think it's looking back at me''

a crosswind of more than 20 knots might cause a plane

to ''crab'' until the last moment before landing.

[JaseTheBass]

A couple of planes from BKK were circling for a while waiting for yesterday's storm to pass.

[harrry]

You know, the 737 I fly is certificated for 15 knot tailwind takeoff/landing as long as certain conditions are complied with. Then we routinely climb up to altitude and sometimes enjoy tailwinds of 80, 100, 200+ knots, you name it

So why do we not "flip over", experience "instability", or stall?

Yes, a tailwind increases takeoff or landing distance required (ceteris paribus) but "Air flowing accross the wings" has nothing to with groundspeed and tailwind operations are not germane to a discussion of aerodynamic stability or stalling at all.

I understand why people might think such things, but they never read it in any flight manual or heard it from somebody who knows what they are talking about so it is baffling to me why people continue to post such rubbish, even on an internet forum. Then again so-called professional journalists publish sensational inane things all the time whenever there is a major accident/incident. Based solely on speculation and with poor understanding of basic aeronautic principles and flight operations standards and procedures.

CNN "B777 will struggle hold altitude with empty fuel tanks!"

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1464764133.001215.jpg

I agree with most of what you said however I do think you ma need to think about the sentance about takeoff distance.

A plane takes off at the airspeed calculated to enable it to climb. (simpification agreed)....If this speed is 145 knots this speed will be reached at a groundspeed of 0 knots if the headwind is 145 knots. If there is a tailwind of 145 knots it would need to be doing a groundspeed of 290 knots. It takes distance to get the airpeed from negative 145 knots to 0 knots and then the aircraft has to add another 145 knots airspeed to lift off.

This lift is produced by the air flowing across the wings....and thus has a lot to do with groundspeed and tailwind ops......not however with aerodynamic stability.

Edited June 1, 2016 by harrry

[arunsakda]

You know, the 737 I fly is certificated for 15 knot tailwind takeoff/landing as long as certain conditions are complied with. Then we routinely climb up to altitude and sometimes enjoy tailwinds of 80, 100, 200+ knots, you name it

So why do we not "flip over", experience "instability", or stall?

Yes, a tailwind increases takeoff or landing distance required (ceteris paribus) but "Air flowing accross the wings" has nothing to with groundspeed and tailwind operations are not germane to a discussion of aerodynamic stability or stalling at all.

I understand why people might think such things, but they never read it in any flight manual or heard it from somebody who knows what they are talking about so it is baffling to me why people continue to post such rubbish, even on an internet forum. Then again so-called professional journalists publish sensational inane things all the time whenever there is a major accident/incident. Based solely on speculation and with poor understanding of basic aeronautic principles and flight operations standards and procedures.

CNN "B777 will struggle hold altitude with empty fuel tanks!"

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1464764133.001215.jpg

You know, the 737 I fly.......

I am sooooo jealous.

Sorry we conda can't all be Space Shuttle mission Commanders and 747 Captains .

You know, the 737 I fly is certificated for 15 knot tailwind takeoff/landing as long as certain conditions are complied with. Then we routinely climb up to altitude and sometimes enjoy tailwinds of 80, 100, 200+ knots, you name it

So why do we not "flip over", experience "instability", or stall?

Yes, a tailwind increases takeoff or landing distance required (ceteris paribus) but "Air flowing accross the wings" has nothing to with groundspeed and tailwind operations are not germane to a discussion of aerodynamic stability or stalling at all.

I understand why people might think such things, but they never read it in any flight manual or heard it from somebody who knows what they are talking about so it is baffling to me why people continue to post such rubbish, even on an internet forum. Then again so-called professional journalists publish sensational inane things all the time whenever there is a major accident/incident. Based solely on speculation and with poor understanding of basic aeronautic principles and flight operations standards and procedures.

CNN "B777 will struggle hold altitude with empty fuel tanks!"

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1464764133.001215.jpg

I agree with most of what you said however I do think you ma need to think about the sentance about takeoff distance.

A plane takes off at the airspeed calculated to enable it to climb. (simpification agreed)....If this speed is 145 knots this speed will be reached at a groundspeed of 0 knots if the headwind is 145 knots. If there is a tailwind of 145 knots it would need to be doing a groundspeed of 290 knots. It takes distance to get the airpeed from negative 145 knots to 0 knots and then the aircraft has to add another 145 knots airspeed to lift off.

This lift is produced by the air flowing across the wings....and thus has a lot to do with groundspeed and tailwind ops......not however with aerodynamic stability.

Of course speed/direction of wind, is a factor in takeoff and landing performance calculations, as I wrote in my post.

In your extreme example of the plane taking off in 145 know headwind it is not becoming airborne because of groundspeed reached but lift developed (simplification agreed). We have all see Helicopters and aerobatic aircraft perform flawlessly with zero groundspeed. A wing or other airfoil does not give a monkey's about the direction or strength of the prevailing wind. Clearly you know what you are talking about but there is lot of confusion here. Explained quite clearly in Langewiesche's book.

Parked planes in trouble..

Edited June 1, 2016 by arunsakda

[arunsakda]

As for backwards landings one of these guys eventually will time it just perfectly and demonstrate it for us, probably on a steep hill.

[arunsakda]

[Rob13]

deleted

Edited June 2, 2016 by Rob13

[cmth]

Extremely simple version, airspeed makes a fixed wing aircraft produce lift and fly. Ground speed is only important for when the plane is taking off or landing. Taking off or landing into the wind will lower the ground speed based on the wind speed. Tailwind ,headwind, and cross wind are always considered when taking off or landing but doesn't mean much when the wheels are off the ground.

[harrry]

Hard to call that an airliner in the second video when the engines have allready fallen off:)))

nice vids

[Mudcrab]

Sorry we conda can't all be Space Shuttle mission Commanders and 747 Captains .

You know, the 737 I fly is certificated for 15 knot tailwind takeoff/landing as long as certain conditions are complied with. Then we routinely climb up to altitude and sometimes enjoy tailwinds of 80, 100, 200+ knots, you name it

So why do we not "flip over", experience "instability", or stall?

Yes, a tailwind increases takeoff or landing distance required (ceteris paribus) but "Air flowing accross the wings" has nothing to with groundspeed and tailwind operations are not germane to a discussion of aerodynamic stability or stalling at all.

I understand why people might think such things, but they never read it in any flight manual or heard it from somebody who knows what they are talking about so it is baffling to me why people continue to post such rubbish, even on an internet forum. Then again so-called professional journalists publish sensational inane things all the time whenever there is a major accident/incident. Based solely on speculation and with poor understanding of basic aeronautic principles and flight operations standards and procedures.

CNN "B777 will struggle hold altitude with empty fuel tanks!"

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1464764133.001215.jpg

I agree with most of what you said however I do think you ma need to think about the sentance about takeoff distance.

A plane takes off at the airspeed calculated to enable it to climb. (simpification agreed)....If this speed is 145 knots this speed will be reached at a groundspeed of 0 knots if the headwind is 145 knots. If there is a tailwind of 145 knots it would need to be doing a groundspeed of 290 knots. It takes distance to get the airpeed from negative 145 knots to 0 knots and then the aircraft has to add another 145 knots airspeed to lift off.

This lift is produced by the air flowing across the wings....and thus has a lot to do with groundspeed and tailwind ops......not however with aerodynamic stability.

Of course speed/direction of wind, is a factor in takeoff and landing performance calculations, as I wrote in my post.

In your extreme example of the plane taking off in 145 know headwind it is not becoming airborne because of groundspeed reached but lift developed (simplification agreed). We have all see Helicopters and aerobatic aircraft perform flawlessly with zero groundspeed. A wing or other airfoil does not give a monkey's about the direction or strength of the prevailing wind. Clearly you know what you are talking about but there is lot of confusion here. Explained quite clearly in Langewiesche's book.

Parked planes in trouble..

Being a space shuttle commander has a certain allure to it.....but really a 747 'captain' and I use that term loosely (captains command ships) is not much more than a bus driver.....even less so with the more modern aircraft that a kid with some video game skills could operate.I asked a work colleague what her husband did for work - apparently he is a 'coach captain'.

[cmth]

Being a space shuttle commander has a certain allure to it.....but really a 747 'captain' and I use that term loosely (captains command ships) is not much more than a bus driver.....even less so with the more modern aircraft that a kid with some video game skills could operate.I asked a work colleague what her husband did for work - apparently he is a 'coach captain'.

You have no clue what you are talking about. First off, the experienced Pilot in Command is referred to as the Captain. They have flown many hours and deserve the title and respect. A less experienced pilot will be the First Officer and will advance to Senior First Officer before taking the Command Course after which they can become a Captain. If you really think a kid with some video game skills can operate any aircraft, much less a 747, you are either daft, delusional or both. I have been a private pilot for 30 years and have 4,000 hours flying light fixed wing aircraft. Could I fly and land a 747? Possibly, but it would take every ounce of skill I have, good instructions from the ground, and some luck. I'm pretty sure the landing would be terrible but maybe I could keep from tearing up the aircraft too bad. I would love to see the "expert pilot kids" you refer to in a real simulator and see how long they last.

Edited June 5, 2016 by cmth

[arunsakda]

double post

Edited June 5, 2016 by arunsakda

[arunsakda]

"Being a space shuttle commander has a certain allure to it.....but really a 747 'captain' and I use that term loosely (captains command ships) is not much more than a bus driver.....even less so with the more modern aircraft that a kid with some video game skills could operate.I asked a work colleague what her husband did for work - apparently he is a 'coach captain'. "

Uttertosh.

Overestimating the capabilities of modern aircraft automation is a fundamental and ignorant misunderstanding suffered by many. It is only is a tool that enhances safety. It can never replace decision making ability or crew resource management skills. Automation can not replace basic flying skills.
(Google Asiana SFO crash) The various airlines could save a lot of dosh replacing pilots with video gamers to fly aiplanes (flying is the easy part) but they cannot as professional crews will always be required to manage various continencies and make critical decisions, independently, and with little time to spare, relying on their judgement and experience.

The next time a 777 engine suddenly starts burning prior to takeoff passengers will again be glad the situation is not manged by teenagers.

Good job by the Koreans on this one.

Edited June 5, 2016 by arunsakda

[Konini]

Wind direction. Planes preferably land against the wind to have more air flow over the wings, maintaining stability, less chance of a stall.

I had no idea planes could stall. Logical I suppose, it's just something I've never thought of - or cared to think of. Of course I'm now unable to unthink it. I'm imagining that if a plane stalled on landing it wouldn't be able to do the reverse thrust thing and would stop somewhere in the middle of Homepro if landing from the north, or is there some other system that kicks in? Not like being in a car where you can cruise without the engine and still use the brakes.

Today I have learned something that I'm not ever going to be able to unlearn

[garryjohns]

Wind direction. Planes preferably land against the wind to have more air flow over the wings, maintaining stability, less chance of a stall.

I had no idea planes could stall. Logical I suppose, it's just something I've never thought of - or cared to think of. Of course I'm now unable to unthink it. I'm imagining that if a plane stalled on landing it wouldn't be able to do the reverse thrust thing and would stop somewhere in the middle of Homepro if landing from the north, or is there some other system that kicks in? Not like being in a car where you can cruise without the engine and still use the brakes.

Today I have learned something that I'm not ever going to be able to unlearn

Today I have learned something that I'm not ever going to be able to unlearn

Bad news for you ..you have not learned something...you have simpley made an incorrect assumption [tho' is common enough]

Now you must unlearn it.

I m sure that a poster with more time to spare will put you right.

[Aussie69]

I had no idea planes could stall. Logical I suppose, it's just something I've never thought of - or cared to think of. Of course I'm now unable to unthink it. I'm imagining that if a plane stalled on landing it wouldn't be able to do the reverse thrust thing and would stop somewhere in the middle of Homepro

Stall is loss of lift produced by wing (I think you are relating it to engine?). A stall can result from a variety of factors, airspeed/attitude/Air density/icing/wing configuration, etc.

Although to be accurate (in terms of language) a piston powered light aircraft engine can stall. There is also compressor stall in jet aircraft but a very rare occurance in commercial aircraft, possible in fighters because they can enter extreme profiles of flight.

In terms of being able to stop upon landing, the majority of deceleration is achieved through the brakes. Yes aerodynamic braking from thrust reversers & spoilers play a role, but rest at ease that B777-300 loaded with Chinese tourists can safely stop even without reversers.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Aussie69

[mamborobert]

Wind direction. Planes preferably land against the wind to have more air flow over the wings, maintaining stability, less chance of a stall.

I had no idea planes could stall. Logical I suppose, it's just something I've never thought of - or cared to think of. Of course I'm now unable to unthink it. I'm imagining that if a plane stalled on landing it wouldn't be able to do the reverse thrust thing and would stop somewhere in the middle of Homepro if landing from the north, or is there some other system that kicks in? Not like being in a car where you can cruise without the engine and still use the brakes.

Today I have learned something that I'm not ever going to be able to unlearn

There are basically two types of stalls, an engine stall and an aerodynamic stall. Engine stall the only system that kicks in is gravity. Pilots practice for aerodynamic stalls a lot. There are a few signs before it is expected to happen so pilots can take action to avoid, or recover quickly. At high altitude with an aerodynamic stall a pilot usually operates the tail to drop the nose and gain speed/uplift. At low altitude that gravity thing becomes more prominent. Engine stalls do not happen that much (hence the importance of aircraft maintenance and preventative maintenance). Weather is a bit harder to control.

Personally I like flying here as there seems to be less weather turbulence, sudden updrafts, cross winds etc. Haze has been used as a reason for some cancellation of Nok Air flights as recent April as I recall, bur for bad rain/thunder they usually delay the flight...so weather forecasting is important as avoidance to. Never worked out why people complain about delayed flights due to bad weather. Worse flight for me was hitting air pockets over the North Sea in winter on a small charter flight full of drunken Irishmen going home for Christmas. Used to do that route a lot.....that last flight became a never again flight.

When I was a lot younger I was scared shitless (its a medical term) of flying. It's the lack of control, your faith in their hands type thing. Not like you driving a car yourself. That was until my grandfather pointed out that there was a distinct chance that the pilot was probably capable of doing a better job of flying the plane that I could do.

Flying is still far far safer than driving in CM at Songkran

[JimGant]

Maybe they decided to try to have all planes landing and taking of in the same direction. easier to handle with heavier traffic.

Good observation. Fifteen years ago, CNX was a backwater. Kinda quaint, with the flying barndoors (OV-10's), mixing with domestic Airbuses, no one waiting in a queue for takeoff, and most (maybe all) taking off south, and landing north. Since even the 'heavy' birds, being domestic, were light on fuel (thus takeoff weight), tailwinds were, for most days, not a factor. Keeping the traffic over the less populated part of town made sense. And taking off over a plain, not mountains, gives a lot of added safety options.

Today, with much more traffic, fuel laden international takeoffs -- but still a single runway -- the option to flip flop active runway, even with a gentle tail component, is limited. And I guess many more flights, at least of late, are taking off north -- and that's why, even way out here in Doi Saket, I hear the sound of jets (albeit several thousand feet high) heading primarily northeast over Laos, then China (a southern takeoff would take them further south of Doi Saket on their way to air route interception). Ten years ago -- only the sound of the ultra light's lawnmower engine. I guess that's progress.....

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ 15+ years ago planes also landed North->South on occasion. I remember watching them from a condo balcony on Nimman.

Anyway, I landed 'backwards' today.. It's nice, actually! Get more of a feel of the city on one side and the mountain on the other.

[No1]

Wind directions have been from S and SW in the last days and tomorrow gusting up to 25 kts. It does make sense to redirect traffic and give other approaches. Not all of us fly a 747-heavy.

See http://aviationweather.gov/adds/metars/index?submit=1&station_ids=VTCC&chk_metars=on&hoursStr=2&std_trans=translated&chk_tafs=on

Edited June 7, 2016 by No1

[opalred]

this is los came out of a service

put propellers on backwards

i wonder if turn seats otherway

[Rob13]

I see the planes are still flying backwards.

[Jdiddy]

Maybe next week they will land inverted and sideways

Edited June 8, 2016 by Jdiddy

[Rob13]

I look forward to seeing that.

[pgrahmm]

Areodynamically impossible....

[opalred]

they are buying planes from china

the plans and writting are back to front