Awesome stuff you see on the internet
-
I want one , even less chance of visitors dropping by
-
@Donsteppa said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
@Snowy said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
@Donsteppa said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
the story of Cathay Pacific flight 780
An awful lot more to that story. It wasn't a double engine failure for starters. One failed and the other was "stuck" at a middle range power setting that the pilots couldn't change, hence the high speed landing.
I know both of the pilots and they did an amazing job.
I have had a go in a sim myself and got it to a stop safely as well but fucking scary.
I hoped you'd find that post eventually - almost tagged you in it
I like the Air Crash Investigations stories where the crew and passengers are alive to retell the story!
Yeah, it's one of my fave shows as well. I think it's because almost all air crashes get huge coverage, and you always wonder what happened.
I saw the CX 780 one last night too. Amazing story, full credit to the pilots and the investigators. Who would think "maybe if I nudge the throttle very very slowly that might work".
Pilots are epic. Except for @Snowy ... whose just epically tall.
-
@MajorRage said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
Yeah, it's one of my fave shows as well. I think it's because almost all air crashes get huge coverage, and you always wonder what happened.
Bloody heightist, I am slightly undershort that's all.
Air Crash is generally pretty accurate too. I read the accident / incident reports in a "fuck I hope that doesn't happen to me" way, and they are a dry read usually. Air Crash Investigations usually gives you the gist of what happened and how they got out of it (if they did) without the really tech / mechanical stuff that is what the pilots really need to know to avoid a repeat. They generally avoid the old "pilot error" blame as well. Nearly all accidents fall into the "swiss cheese" model or Reason model (no not him - James Reason) where a series of events line up to lead to the end result. With CX780 the pilots were the last line of defence and the last hole didn't line up - tragedy averted.
Any major incident is usually incorporated into pilot's 6 monthly sim sessions, so have had a go at most of the Nat Geo incidents, survived them all, but that is with the benefit of knowing what happened. Very different when in the air and it is real!
And yes @Donsteppa I far prefer the ones where everyone lives as well!
-
There are toys of Japanese monsters giving press conferences to apologize for destroying cities. Peak Japan
-
-
@MajorRage said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
@Snowy did you try the “Sully” incident?
If so, did you get to teteborough and realize he cost them millions?
Yep, tried it. Wouldn't have made Teteborough although it isn't far away. Didn't hear of anyone who succeeded in the sim. The NTSB also said "The Board rejected the notion that the pilot could have avoided ditching by returning to LaGuardia or diverting to nearby Teterboro Airport." So he saved them millions and all of the lives.
One of the things that got mentioned in the movie was that he should have turned back - first thing you are taught for engine failure (single engine) after take of is "don't turn back" the physics of making a turn (and using your lift to do so) mean that is nigh on impossible. The same applies to multi engine failure.
One of the few things that he got wrong was to not push the ditching push button which closes up the pack outflow valves, etc. Basically means that there are no holes open in the bottom of the aeroplane and it will float for longer. Not a huge error under the circumstances.
-
@Snowy said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
@MajorRage said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
@Snowy did you try the “Sully” incident?
If so, did you get to teteborough and realize he cost them millions?
Yep, tried it. Wouldn't have made Teteborough although it isn't far away. Didn't hear of anyone who succeeded in the sim. The NTSB also said "The Board rejected the notion that the pilot could have avoided ditching by returning to LaGuardia or diverting to nearby Teterboro Airport." So he saved them millions and all of the lives.
One of the things that got mentioned in the movie was that he should have turned back - first thing you are taught for engine failure (single engine) after take of is "don't turn back" the physics of making a turn (and using your lift to do so) mean that is nigh on impossible. The same applies to multi engine failure.
One of the few things that he got wrong was to not push the ditching push button which closes up the pack outflow valves, etc. Basically means that there are no holes open in the bottom of the aeroplane and it will float for longer. Not a huge error under the circumstances.
i feel like this is the most interesting post i have ever read on here.
-
@mariner4life What, even counting @Kirwan ‘s foreskin post?
-
@JC said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
@mariner4life What, even counting @Kirwan ‘s foreskin post?
hilarious does not equal interesting
-
@mariner4life said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
@JC said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
@mariner4life What, even counting @Kirwan ‘s foreskin post?
hilarious does not equal interesting
In your book.
-
Terminator 2. Low-budget trailer.
5.3M views · 23K reactions | The attention to detail in recreating...
The attention to detail in recreating the shots is incredible. This is art. Please support the creator of this amazing video at https://www.instagram.com/studio_188_/ and YouTube channel...
-
@mikedogz said in Awesome stuff you see on the internet:
Terminator 2. Low-budget trailer.
The attention to detail in recreating the shots is incredible. This is art. Please support the creator of this amazing video at https://www.instagram.com/studio_188_/ and YouTube channel...
So low budget it doesn't work.
-
-
-
