How they do it in Mogadishu

Man is that some rolling coal smoke from the 727. Such cool planes.
 
A little turns around a point practice.
 
Starting a 360 after the 100' callout. It was efficient, gotta give them that!
 
Sua Sponte.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Starting a 360 after the 100' callout. It was efficient, gotta give them that!
Click to expand...

It should have been "Flaps 15, Go Around Thrust, positive rate, gear up" and climb up to pattern altitude. Dragging gear and flaps 30 in a 360 level altitude banking was burning fuel at a enormous rate. He was also right up near max landing weight. Had he popped an engine in that turn it would have gotten real exciting.
 
Doc Holliday said:
It should have been "Flaps 15, Go Around Thrust, positive rate, gear up" and climb up to pattern altitude. Dragging gear and flaps 30 in a 360 level altitude banking was burning fuel at a enormous rate. He was also right up near max landing weight. Had he popped an engine in that turn it would have gotten real exciting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but, how else are you going to be a Youtube star?
 
Doc Holliday said:
It should have been "Flaps 15, Go Around Thrust, positive rate, gear up" and climb up to pattern altitude. Dragging gear and flaps 30 in a 360 level altitude banking was burning fuel at a enormous rate. He was also right up near max landing weight. Had he popped an engine in that turn it would have gotten real exciting.
Click to expand...
Old white haired dudes rule. Go big or go home, amiright?
 
If this happened at a US airport I guess there would have been a different discussion after landing.
 
bUt aLL tHeY dO iS pUSh bUttOnS!
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
It should have been "Flaps 15, Go Around Thrust, positive rate, gear up" and climb up to pattern altitude. Dragging gear and flaps 30 in a 360 level altitude banking was burning fuel at a enormous rate. He was also right up near max landing weight. Had he popped an engine in that turn it would have gotten real exciting.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the procedures are now, but back in the day, it wasn't advisable to go missed over the city. Staying over the water was your best best for not landing with bullet holes in your airplane. I've done plenty of configured 360s for spacing in heavy jets. I probably would have climbed a couple hundred feet in the turn, though.
 
Hawker800 said:
Cockpit view:
Ground view:
Click to expand...

Looks like he was doing a 360 at 100 ft AGL. That's a scary maneuver in a Cessna 172. Why not just climb on runway heading, and do a normal traffic pattern?
 
sarangan said:
Looks like he was doing a 360 at 100 ft AGL. That's a scary maneuver in a Cessna 172. Why not just climb on runway heading, and do a normal traffic pattern?
Click to expand...


Because he has the skills to do a 360 in a 727 at a 100 feet.?? :lol::lol:

I thought it was phenomenal to do that 360 and showed excellent aircraft control to hold altitude and airspeed, and to finish up by making a normal landing.
 
Jerry could not hold altitude and airspeed like this guy.
 
I don't know who Jerry is, but this was an unnecessary risk to be doing 360 at such low altitudes. There was no emergency. Normal procedure should have been to go around.
As they say, a superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill.
 
sarangan said:
Normal procedure should have been to go around.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's the reason they turned out to sea so early in the approach, but Sluggo63 mentioned that runway heading takes you over the city, where's there's a history of people shooting at airliners.

upload_2019-12-8_1-41-14.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-12-8_1-39-47.png
    upload_2019-12-8_1-39-47.png
    498.5 KB · Views: 8
NoHeat said:
Not sure if it's the reason they turned out to sea so early in the approach, but Sluggo63 mentioned that runway heading takes you over the city, where's there's a history of people shooting at airliners.

View attachment 80600
Click to expand...

Yeah. Third world country procedures are not necessarily the same as what we would use here in the states.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah. Third world country procedures are not necessarily the same as what we would use here in the states.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of cowboy flying in the third world. Also, there are lots of accidents there as well. This video shows lake of procedures and a "yeehaa!!" type of flying. It worked out for him, this time. Next time? Who knows.

As far as saying they could have been shot at flying over the city, all he would have to done is "Flaps 15, Set Go Around Thrust" and turned right to climb back to altitude and set up for another approach, and would have been stabilized.

BTW, I've flown in and out of war zone airports and we had standardized procedures to keep from being shot as well as keeping the airplane stabilized. It's not difficult.
 
NoHeat said:
Not sure if it's the reason they turned out to sea so early in the approach, but Sluggo63 mentioned that runway heading takes you over the city, where's there's a history of people shooting at airliners.

View attachment 80600
Click to expand...

So what do they do when the wind is favoring the opposite runway?
 
Because I had watched the OP videos, YouTube "recommended" another B-727 cockpit video:


I'm ignorant about big jets -- I've never flown any transport category aircraft other than a DC-3 -- but I was surprised at all the jockeying of the controls in this video. Looks like this guy learned to fly by watching Leonardo diCaprio in The Aviator. :rolleyes: I sent this video to a couple of airline pilot friends, and here are their responses:

(A320 captain, who started out as a B-727 F/O): "‘Ratcheting’ of the controls. Yep, just like GA there’s airline drivers that do the same thing- very unprofessional, and annoying. Hand-flying the marvelous 3-holer was a satisfying smooth waltz, not an off-road dune buggy fling."

(B-777 F/O): "Made me a little nauseous to watch him yank it around."
 
You have to consider the fact that we know nothing about the winds and turbulence in that video.
 
The guy was in complete control and stayed well ahead of the airplane.. we need rules, and standards, but those are also written for the lowest common denominator. Personally I'm impressed with what this guy pulled off and would feel safe flying with them
 
Tantalum said:
The guy was in complete control and stayed well ahead of the airplane.. we need rules, and standards, but those are also written for the lowest common denominator. Personally I'm impressed with what this guy pulled off and would feel safe flying with them
Click to expand...

Stupidity doesn't impress me.

Standards are written to promote safety with regards to ADM and RM, and operating the aircraft per the AFM.

The AFM does not state anywhere, for a go around below 1000', to remain configured at flaps 30 and gear down and maintain altitude. What the AFM does state, is to increase pitch, call "Flaps 15, Go around Thrust" followed by "positive rate, gear up". Then climb the aircraft above 1000' AFE.

Standards are why the US has one of the safest air carrier systems in the world. I've had enough experience with third world carriers to know I wouldn't get on that airplane for a million bucks.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Standards are why the US has one of the safest air carrier systems in the world. I've had enough experience with third world carriers to know I wouldn't get on that airplane for a million bucks.
Click to expand...
Probably wouldn't be a comfortable ride anyway, considering it's configured for cargo.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Stupidity doesn't impress me.

Standards are written to promote safety with regards to ADM and RM, and operating the aircraft per the AFM.

The AFM does not state anywhere, for a go around below 1000', to remain configured at flaps 30 and gear down and maintain altitude. What the AFM does state, is to increase pitch, call "Flaps 15, Go around Thrust" followed by "positive rate, gear up". Then climb the aircraft above 1000' AFE.

Standards are why the US has one of the safest air carrier systems in the world. I've had enough experience with third world carriers to know I wouldn't get on that airplane for a million bucks.
Click to expand...
I mean, that's fair. When I have friends who are traveling domestically or internationally ask me "what's a safe airline to fly on" the answer is easy.. any US carrier or European carrier is safe.. "should we take Delta or Lufthansa" <- whatever has better flights / pricing / whatever

But.. to get philosophical for a minute.. not everyone's skill-set / talent / proficiency is the same.. standardization works to level set that as well as it can, but it's no guarantee.. as a thought exercise if we assume "skill" is a standard distribution curve then the tighter you make the rules and standards the more of the population you capture and the less likely the less skilled are to have accidents. Maybe the "below 1K do X" rule works as well as it does because in captures a big portion of that skill set distribution.. but that doesn't mean that people never fumble a procedural go around and bend metal, nor does it automatically mean that someone who can safely do it at 100' is stupid or will crash. You could make the rule "below 50' do X" and maybe 90% of pilots would end up dead but I'm sure there are people who could do it safely as well

If I did that maneuver ten times I'd likely break something on one of the attempts.. but maybe this guy can do it 1,000 times (and maybe not)

To me it's sort of like saying we should only allow people to ski down GREEN (easy) trails skiing, because it's the "safest" - there are those who can ski blues and blacks all day without issue. Standardizing all skiers to a green doesn't mean the guy who goes down a blue or black is stupid

PS - do we know this was at 100'? Given a fuselage length of 130-150 feet (-100 vs -200) looking at the outside video I'm guessing he was not quite as low as 100'
PPS - I don't trust most people to have any kind of logic or skills, and education today is basically all wrote memorization because there are very few actually intelligent people out there, so I have ZERO issues with our standardization.. but I do believe it caters to a (very) low skill level.. to basically guarantee that even a complete idiot won't end up dead
 
Hard to imagine why the accident rates in those countries are what they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top