Some analysis: 1:55 - Autopilot ‘Minimums’ call. This is Decision Altitude (or Height) - (DA or DH). In order to continue the approach from this point, the pilot MUST be able to see either: the approach lighting system (at least 2 bars of the Centreline and 5-Bar (CL-5B) Calvert system), or the PAPIs, or the runway threshold. None of these appear to be in sight from the camera view. 2:04 - Autopilot disengaged tone. Pilot now has manual control. This, therefore, cannot be an Autoland; it is a manual landing from this point, requiring visual cues. (You can continue an approach on autopilot on a CAT I ILS (if the signal quality is good enough), below DA, provided that the pilot has achieved the required minimum visual references at or before DA.) 2:04 to 2:17 - No Approach lights in sight from this camera view. If the runway was CAT II or CAT III capable, there should be Approach and Supplementary Approach lights visible at some point during this period to enable the approach to be continued below DA. Moreover, it si likely that ‘Minimums’ would be much lower and the autopilot would still be engaged. 2:17 - PAPIs just becoming visible on the left-hand side, and a very ‘loomy’ view of the runway threshold can be discerned. No Approach or Supplementary Approach lights are visible; at this stage however, they may be under and behind the aeroplane and not visible to the camera. However, Runway Centreline or Touchdown Zone (TDZ) lights are NOT visible. This, therefore, is NOT a CAT II or CAT III equipped runway; it is at best a CAT I ILS equipped runway, the approach limits of which are listed elsewhere on here, but basically would have a DA no lower than 200ft above threshold elevation; it might be higher due to obstacles in the Final Approach Segment.
2:25 - Aeroplane passes abeam the PAPIs - ie the Touchdown zone and from where the glidepath originates. Assuming an average final approach speed of 120 kts (2 nm a minute to make the maths easier!) the aircraft has travelled 1 nm from 1:55 to 2:25. Also Assuming the runway has the normal 3° ILS Glidepath angle the aircraft would have been at around 300ft (3° = 318ft per nm) above the threshold at the time the autopilot ‘Minimums’ call was heard; this slightly ‘high’ figure may be due to the presence of previously mentioned obstacles in the final approach segment adding a safety factor to the minimum allowable CAT I approach minima or, (more likely, due to need to allow for the potential adverse wind effects during the squall) a higher approach speed than the assumed 120 kts. Whatever the reason, it would appear - from the evidence from this camera angle - that the approach was continued below minimums as no Approach lights were visible between 1:55 to 2:04. Indeed, no Approach lights are seen at all during the procedure; is this runway so equipped? Mitigating factors: We cannot know what the Pilot In Control was seeing through his windscreen, we only have the ‘evidence’ from a low quality camera in a less than optimal location. The ambient light conditions and the camera sensitivity results in the runway sidelights not showing up well during touchdown and roll-out; this might also apply to any approach lights.
Also: the minimums might not have been set correctly. In an ATR, that callout is based on the radio altimeter, which can be inaccurate because of variable terrain geometry below the plane. I personally never set it for Cat 1 approaches for that reason, and relied on the altimeter for the minimums.
Evan Scott Well actually you can rely on the RA because when you shoot a CAT II it is part of the certification too so it is there for a reason and the 200 ft RAD ALT is sometimes varying on the approach charts...anyway as a standard yes QNH altimeter is used for the minimum but in our SOPs we do use and check the RA...
@@_Tommmmmm_ For Cat II/III operations to be legally undertaken the following 3 fundamental criteria must be met: 1. The aircraft must be suitably equipped and certificated for such operations. 2. The aircrew must be suitably trained and in current practise (“recency” or “currency”) for such operations. 3. The airport and runway infrastructure must be suitably equipped, and - among many other things - the necessary Low Visibility Procedures must be available and in place for such operations. Among the airport infrastructure requirements is the provision of the requisite standard of runway hi-intensity approach*, supplementary approach*, PAPI, threshold, touchdown zone*, centreline*, side, stop-end and taxiway lighting, the * bits of which are not visible on this recording. Consequently, this approach cannot be a CAT II (or III) Autoland, as also evidenced by the autopilot disengaging at 2:04. See th-cam.com/video/UV_vWtAJIow/w-d-xo.html for an example of the much enhanced standard of approach and runway lighting required for Cat II/III operations.
@@Miku-uw2sl Only you know the truth of that. They say the camera never lies but there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no......(we that are still flying know the rest)
A four dollar windshield wiper on an airplane??? On what planet. The windshield wiper alone costs about 50-80 bucks, all day long. Great landing though:-)))
Woody 5326 even with ILS regulations require visual contact on minimums. Captain can’t go against them so Im sure it is just the cameras vs human eye thing here - pilots saw the runway
How on earth do these incredibly skilled people manage to land such huge machines when they can not only not see where they’re meant to be putting it down, but probably haven’t been able to see the ground or anything for ages. Very impressed every time I see a tricky landing.
When it says “minimums”, you’re supposed to look up from the instrument panel, and if you can’t see the runway environment which CAN be just the approach LIGHTS, your supposed to execute a missed approach procedure, go around, and try again. In this video, when minimums were reached, I couldn’t see the runway… could you? Maybe he could… I hope so, because sniffing around below minimums when you can’t see the ground while making an ILS (instrument landing system) approach is what will get everybody killed probably more often than anything. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know, but that’s what this looks like. I hope I’m wrong.
Never certain when or how fasrt a cell will move...or be followed by another cell. That approach was low...probably violative...but not rocked by a strong cell.
A pathetic piece of equipment in a prominent place on the plane. Will obviously been seen by pilots and the general public. If the manufacturer is going cheap here, where else are they cutting corners?
One of the most dangerous landings I've ever seen!! Flying through a microburst then descending past a minimums call while not visual. Do that on a Sunday afternoon by yourself but not with innocent fare paying pax on board please!! Wot a tit!
@@peterd4316 remember these idiots could'nt tell the difference between you pissing on them and a microburst .. you can clearly see the outflow front and the starting of a horizon vortex.
What a tit indeed. Got to think about this too... coming out of a microburst you’re sure to have increasing tailwind... that combined with heavy rain that, let’s be honest, looking at the state of their airmanship here probably wasn’t accounted for. This could have even led to a runway excursion. At least it was cool to show their friends on TH-cam ... I mean priorities right ?
20k hours experienced pilot here who successfully landed a crop duster mid-air inside a cargo plane full of hostile, merryweather mercenaries once, I think this move was completely avoidable.
I’ve been in the jump-seat of a B757 landing at Logan. We didn’t see the runway till 50ft Above it. It was far worse than this. CAT 3 landing.They do it all the time.
That was an unnecessary risk. DAL 191 did the same thing, was knocked down by a microburst and ended up with many more fatalities than survivors. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
@@warrenharris1171 What you have to do first is use "Soft Scrub" on the glass to remove all contamination from grease, bugs, etc. It's like Comet but will not scratch the glass. Then wash that off real good (eg. residue) then apply Rain X.
Just because you can’t see the runway from a camera doesn’t mean they couldn’t see it from the correct seating position. You can see the ground before minimums so I’m sure they had 3 lights in sight
@@jordantyler3013 depends on what landing minimums they where using, and as well as what the plane was set up for. ILS CAT 1 or 2 or 3? "Minimums" was clear. The question is, did they have the required visual ques to continue? Cant really tell, as the video was recorded on a potato. If not, you don't ask the weather to stop, you go around.
I really can’t believe that they didn’t abort the approach and go around. I couldn’t help thinking of the Delta 191 accident at DFW when they went through a storm and lost control due to wind shear. True, it appeared to be just heavy rain. I heard no thunder but anything could have suddenly developed and the winds suddenly changed. It was like they were in a car wash and with bad wipers too!
How many who use percentage figures get their numbers from A. Swipe' Johnson? Just asking this question for edo u cational porp us us. Is there a point on an ILS approach where it is no longer legal to continue the approach or is the term missed approach merely a foolhardy old fashioned practice? Let me cut to the chase. If I had my way this pilot would never fly another airplane. If I had been a passenger on that airplane and saw this video there would be a law suit.
Rob I have no experience but love estvhjngall the flying landing videos ...just wondering if u have experience? Doesnt matter really either way but as I learn I wanna learn from experienced fliers not wannabes like myself.so wish I had the money for real lessons!!😟🥺😭
Dana14me Hettinger I took my first solo flight in 1999 which was 21 years ago. Yes I have experience. I can’t see the radar signature but it definitely looks like it would be lit up in red from the amount of rain coming down. He could have been flying into a microburst which can be deadly. In the video you hear his instruments calling out “minimums-minimums” that’s the critical decision height to either commit to the landing or execute a missed approach. If you don’t have visual of the airfield at the minimums you execute the missed approach. He didn’t have visual of the runway till he was about 100ft above the ground. He should have executed the missed approach, climbed to the assigned altitude and stayed in the holding pattern until it was either safe to land or divert to another airport.
I think there are very few airline pilots, if any, making comments in this chat. At minimums you do not have to see the runway if you have the approach lights, lead in lights, etc in sight. At 100' they would have to have the runway environment in sight...unless they had the runway environment in sight. Also, if they had auto land capabilities, and that runway was certified for cat III landings, then that changes everything. This video did not allow us to see what the pilots actually saw.
Very very dangerous ..when do you descend below the published mda without the vasi insignt, especially flying into a downburst on finals, complete idiot pilot! 8o
Brave to fly right through that column of rain. Could be a microburst that first gives you lift--then slams you into the ground. Nevertheless, great IFR landing!
They continued past minimums without the runway in sight and you think it's a great landing? It's a lucky landing at best. Very bad reckless flying on display here. Also they touch down steep, way down the runway and off centerline. All in all a horrible landing.
I don't think so. Really bad pilot judgment. He should wait a few minutes for the storm to pass and then do the approach. Bad decision with a possibility of bad outcome.
D. Mark Detrixhe . Thanks for the replay. However, base on my experience flying fighter and now commercial airplanes for a big company, I think that is a better way to deal with that. I done that to in regional airplanes as a captain, and then I kicked my self in the ground asking why I did it. So now that I have been in this rodeo more than 25 years, I think there is better way or maybe when not carry passages.
Geez,kudoos to pilots around the world that land in storms such as this.I suppose you're trained in instrument landings but it still take balls of steel to do something like that.And even worse in heavy fog.A great big thank you to all of our pilots around the world for knowing how to do their job and keeping passengers safe.
I don't know what their fuel state was, but continuing that approach seemed foolish. Strong focused rain showers almost always contain downdrafts. They usually move away or dissipate before long. All pilots need to gain experience but not at the expense of the PAX.
steven yau that's the way works. Many "experts" posting here would shit thier pants on something really tight and bumpy. Try blizzard conditions. This is as smooth and normal as it gets.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Regardless of what systems they had, planes still can and do crash when unnecessarily flying through bad weather. Why risk it?
Looks kinda dangerous flying into a heavy shaft of rain on approach. A down burst could have easily shoved them into the ground on approach. I'm not a pilot but personally I would have gone around.
mark kaupas the only fact you stated was, "I'm not a pilot" Leave it to ones who are. It's not easy to reach this point but what you watch here are normal daily ops by professionals. Listen or not, I really don't care, but I've done this for years. Try adding strong cross winds at night in a blizzard. This is easy.
Remember one time we were on final and could see the runway just fine when approach informed us they had reports of heavy downpour just short of the runway and suggested we select another runway. We declined and continued our approach. Well when we got to a point just short of the runway all heck broke loose. It was like we were flying under Niagara Falls. I don’t think we could even see our engine cowling . We continued our approach but were about to do a missed approach when the downpour was behind us and everything was clear. That happened about forty years ago but I still remember it.
You guys either watching another video and commenting here, don’t understand spanish, and read too much with very little actual time. most comments sound childish.
When I heard the "minimums" callout I actually caught myself shouting Go Around! >.< That was an unnecessary risk. (Oh and, I went first solo 24th August 2006 :-) )
Mr DDD3az Looks like a fat ass in mom basement. Microburst! What the hell! The video is the prove what you need. Fucking youtubers engineers, pilots, mechanics...
They were NOT flying below minimums, you can see on the auto pilot early in the video indicate they were doing a CAT II approach with a DA of 100 feet AGL. I saw at least one, if not two of the required markings of FAR 91.175 (C) (3), before that decision altitude. They were legal.
MarinsBest VideoProductions i would have to actually have been in the seat to see the actual conditions, but when i heard minimums and could not see the runway, i probably would have called a go around, gear up, flaps extended, full thrust
Microburst is a consideration.. but with radar to stay in line with the run way, and confidence, the pilot was not wrong to attempt the landing.. the turbulance was not severe so flying low visibility that well is a testimony of instrument flying.. great work captain
![Most Dangerous Landing in Colombia - Cockpit View [HD 1080p]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MXECFuWzokQ/mqdefault.jpg)
wish the w wipers on my car were as fast as these
Felicity Pettit 😂
Forget the speed - I'm surprised they didn't drop off.
They look frantic!
You will need to add two jet engines to your car to power those wiper motors.
Made no diff
Some analysis:
1:55 - Autopilot ‘Minimums’ call. This is Decision Altitude (or Height) - (DA or DH). In order to continue the approach from this point, the pilot MUST be able to see either: the approach lighting system (at least 2 bars of the Centreline and 5-Bar (CL-5B) Calvert system), or the PAPIs, or the runway threshold. None of these appear to be in sight from the camera view.
2:04 - Autopilot disengaged tone. Pilot now has manual control. This, therefore, cannot be an Autoland; it is a manual landing from this point, requiring visual cues. (You can continue an approach on autopilot on a CAT I ILS (if the signal quality is good enough), below DA, provided that the pilot has achieved the required minimum visual references at or before DA.)
2:04 to 2:17 - No Approach lights in sight from this camera view. If the runway was CAT II or CAT III capable, there should be Approach and Supplementary Approach lights visible at some point during this period to enable the approach to be continued below DA. Moreover, it si likely that ‘Minimums’ would be much lower and the autopilot would still be engaged.
2:17 - PAPIs just becoming visible on the left-hand side, and a very ‘loomy’ view of the runway threshold can be discerned. No Approach or Supplementary Approach lights are visible; at this stage however, they may be under and behind the aeroplane and not visible to the camera. However, Runway Centreline or Touchdown Zone (TDZ) lights are NOT visible. This, therefore, is NOT a CAT II or CAT III equipped runway; it is at best a CAT I ILS equipped runway, the approach limits of which are listed elsewhere on here, but basically would have a DA no lower than 200ft above threshold elevation; it might be higher due to obstacles in the Final Approach Segment.
2:25 - Aeroplane passes abeam the PAPIs - ie the Touchdown zone and from where the glidepath originates.
Assuming an average final approach speed of 120 kts (2 nm a minute to make the maths easier!) the aircraft has travelled 1 nm from 1:55 to 2:25. Also Assuming the runway has the normal 3° ILS Glidepath angle the aircraft would have been at around 300ft (3° = 318ft per nm) above the threshold at the time the autopilot ‘Minimums’ call was heard; this slightly ‘high’ figure may be due to the presence of previously mentioned obstacles in the final approach segment adding a safety factor to the minimum allowable CAT I approach minima or, (more likely, due to need to allow for the potential adverse wind effects during the squall) a higher approach speed than the assumed 120 kts.
Whatever the reason, it would appear - from the evidence from this camera angle - that the approach was continued below minimums as no Approach lights were visible between 1:55 to 2:04. Indeed, no Approach lights are seen at all during the procedure; is this runway so equipped?
Mitigating factors:
We cannot know what the Pilot In Control was seeing through his windscreen, we only have the ‘evidence’ from a low quality camera in a less than optimal location.
The ambient light conditions and the camera sensitivity results in the runway sidelights not showing up well during touchdown and roll-out; this might also apply to any approach lights.
Wow I am impressed by the precision being an ATPL my self too I was too lazy to explain all that you said and I am glad you did ! 👍🏼
Also: the minimums might not have been set correctly. In an ATR, that callout is based on the radio altimeter, which can be inaccurate because of variable terrain geometry below the plane. I personally never set it for Cat 1 approaches for that reason, and relied on the altimeter for the minimums.
Evan Scott Well actually you can rely on the RA because when you shoot a CAT II it is part of the certification too so it is there for a reason and the 200 ft RAD ALT is sometimes varying on the approach charts...anyway as a standard yes QNH altimeter is used for the minimum but in our SOPs we do use and check the RA...
Looks like they were doing a Cat 2. I thought I could read it out on the panel.
@@_Tommmmmm_ For Cat II/III operations to be legally undertaken the following 3 fundamental criteria must be met:
1. The aircraft must be suitably equipped and certificated for such operations.
2. The aircrew must be suitably trained and in current practise (“recency” or “currency”) for such operations.
3. The airport and runway infrastructure must be suitably equipped, and - among many other things - the necessary Low Visibility Procedures must be available and in place for such operations.
Among the airport infrastructure requirements is the provision of the requisite standard of runway hi-intensity approach*, supplementary approach*, PAPI, threshold, touchdown zone*, centreline*, side, stop-end and taxiway lighting, the * bits of which are not visible on this recording. Consequently, this approach cannot be a CAT II (or III) Autoland, as also evidenced by the autopilot disengaging at 2:04. See th-cam.com/video/UV_vWtAJIow/w-d-xo.html for an example of the much enhanced standard of approach and runway lighting required for Cat II/III operations.
The plane survived because of those desperate flapping wipers ! I have imense respect for wipers from now on !
Made my day
Thank God for saving
Exactly.😂😂😂😂
That’s funny as fuck.
@@fanatamon I have to reiterate what you said, that was fucking funny.
As a professional GTA pilot with 370K hours of streaming on Twitch, I feel entitled to say a go around was supposed to be done
Lmao
You are not a pilot. You are a kid playing on a toy.
@@randomnav thanks for the input, boomer
Bob C It’s call sarcasm, Bob.
@@bullrdr6274 I hope you know he was joking. You just embarrassed yourself if you didnt.
MINIMUMS!!! And NO SIGHT of the runway, makes my heart skip a beat
Julius Gitau It was a bit hard to see through the camera but the Runway Lead in Lights were visible at Minimums
@@Miku-uw2sl Only you know the truth of that. They say the camera never lies but there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no......(we that are still flying know the rest)
It's called instrument flying for a reason, buddy
@@christopherkoch4128 You still need to see to land, buddy.
@@lbowsk No you don't. Except for the last few 10s of meters.
30 million dollar plane....4 dollar windshield wiper🤦♂️
Priceless
I hope you’re being sarcastic.
400milmions*
Yep government contracts........that builds all the airlines......that’s you guys are ripping on..........lol
A four dollar windshield wiper on an airplane??? On what planet. The windshield wiper alone costs about 50-80 bucks, all day long. Great landing though:-)))
I do not see the sense in having expensive engines when wipers like that could, with slight modification, propell the plane.
Garth Richert the engines power the wipers
@@blumac9801 Ha, yes. Too true. Scrap that idea then.
Wrong
@@dinorosga9147 It was a joke. Go well.
@@garthrichert5256 oh hahahahhahahahahahaja
"Minimums " "Minimums" + No visibility at all = continue landing...
Correct - Call "minimums" and no sight on the RWY = GO AROUND!! This is irresponsible!
This is just really dangerous, there is zero visibility and even at landing there is still barely visibility. They should track down these pilots..
911gp Sometimes there is no sight through the video but in real life you can see through rain a lot better
@@tomo0086 I'm just asking, but is the weather to bad for even for ILS? I would assume that is what these pilots were using?
Woody 5326 even with ILS regulations require visual contact on minimums. Captain can’t go against them so Im sure it is just the cameras vs human eye thing here - pilots saw the runway
How on earth do these incredibly skilled people manage to land such huge machines when they can not only not see where they’re meant to be putting it down, but probably haven’t been able to see the ground or anything for ages. Very impressed every time I see a tricky landing.
ils..
When it says “minimums”, you’re supposed to look up from the instrument panel, and if you can’t see the runway environment which CAN be just the approach LIGHTS, your supposed to execute a missed approach procedure, go around, and try again. In this video, when minimums were reached, I couldn’t see the runway… could you? Maybe he could… I hope so, because sniffing around below minimums when you can’t see the ground while making an ILS (instrument landing system) approach is what will get everybody killed probably more often than anything. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know, but that’s what this looks like. I hope I’m wrong.
Instruments tell them
Windshield wipers off of a 1987 Pontiac Grand AM
So shit they can't even move a cloud.
Thats a bit harsh....probably mid 90's
'87 Olds Cutlass.
Lol
B-Man 123
Now that’s freaking hilarious 😆
That cocaine delivery must have been important to go to that much trouble.
@@acbulgin2 No. He's just an idiot.
You as an important client, you deserve it, always to serve... "el pase" 😪
@@acbulgin2 just look at her ? tell me what you think.
@Eduardo Trautman funny you say that, I've never met a straigh Eduardo
Haha silly you
Pilot: "Man, sure am glad we've got these wipers... otherwise we wouldn't be able to see a thing! "
who said
Says the guy who knows nothing about flying a plan.
a little rainx would be helpful
Brian Saben Dont try to be cocky Brian, I bet you’d be nervous spincer pucker trying to land in a storm, I’m just sayin !
Leopoldo Chatz Mata I would be so what’s your point?
Copilot: hey let's consider all the lives on board and delay landing for 5 minutes so that downpour can pass.
Captain: fuuuuuuuuuuck naw!
rreidnauer 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I guess if there had been a micro burst hidden within that rain shaft, they might have, at least, recovered this video from the crash site.
Screw minimums. Continue. The runway’s there somewhere, just sayin’.
I'm thinking I would have been a sissy and gone around.
Phil Gray I was being facetious. That was reckless as all get out!
acbulgin2 Good point and thanks for the video,
I'm always amazed at how jet engines keep running in such heavy rain
Look into the way jet engines operate
And then it will come as no surprise
exactly
Some engines actually have water injection so they can run cooler and more powerful
Rolls Royce pegasus was one of them
I don't know crap about flying but, it would seem to make sense to circle for ten minutes until the storm moved.
James Purcell sometimes you don’t have a choice. I did not hear him say fuel issue please give a direct vectoring
Never certain when or how fasrt a cell will move...or be followed by another cell. That approach was low...probably violative...but not rocked by a strong cell.
Pilots are under a lot of pressure to 1): Arrive on time 2): Avoid burning fuel unnecessarily.
They are equipped with computers and landing assistance beacons etc, visibility isn’t that important as demonstrated.
Naa this is why they use ILS (instrument landing system). Commercial pilots do this all the time.
Please tell me this polite was sacked. Those poor flapping wipers were screaming "No! No! No! No!"
Yeah, I'll bet they were!
A pathetic piece of equipment in a prominent place on the plane. Will obviously been seen by pilots and the general public. If the manufacturer is going cheap here, where else are they cutting corners?
@@withamarshview1436 why do you think they were cheap?
@@withamarshview1436 or or or maybe they are just extremely flexible so they don't fly off during flight.
Nope🤗
Airplane: Minimums
Copilot: go around
Captain: continue
Copilot: and the runway?
Captain: wait for it
Airplane: forty
Captain: there it is...told ya
airplane, minimums
1o, i see nada
capitan: wait for it
airplane: 40
runway: ta-daaaa glitters and sprinkles.
One of the most dangerous landings I've ever seen!! Flying through a microburst then descending past a minimums call while not visual.
Do that on a Sunday afternoon by yourself but not with innocent fare paying pax on board please!!
Wot a tit!
Not a micro bust. It was only a squall, a cloud burst. Your statement is ignorant.
@@f000ghk its a frigging microburst you pillock. Classic!
Hell ... cowboy crap.
777 capt for 20 yrs !
@@peterd4316 remember these idiots could'nt tell the difference between you pissing on them and a microburst .. you can clearly see the outflow front and the starting of a horizon vortex.
@Randomly In accuratePotato, potahto, either way, it was alot of rain in a short amount of time.
What a tit indeed. Got to think about this too... coming out of a microburst you’re sure to have increasing tailwind... that combined with heavy rain that, let’s be honest, looking at the state of their airmanship here probably wasn’t accounted for. This could have even led to a runway excursion. At least it was cool to show their friends on TH-cam ... I mean priorities right ?
I think we should fly right through the tornado.
Co-pilot: This is impossible.
Pilot: No, it's necessary. ~turns on windshield wipers~
Dognado
Which airline is this? So that I don't ever fly them.
Aeromexico
Idk man, that was pretty cool.
Air india
@@Softbusiness1980 Air India, really? 😂😂😂. They were speaking in Spanish.
@@Softbusiness1980 lol no
"I'm tellin ya Margaret, every time I wash the plane, it rains..."
That is funny😆
applejacks971
That’s hilarious 😂
Who's Margaret?
Um, it’s Greta! Hello!
20k hours experienced pilot here who successfully landed a crop duster mid-air inside a cargo plane full of hostile, merryweather mercenaries once, I think this move was completely avoidable.
200K Hours = 8333 days = 23 years full flight time, did you have time to go toilet for example ?
@@kamele.belkacem4514 My bad. It's supposed to be 20k hours.
@@zeroimpetuous I know it was a typo, unless you are 90 years old fully dedicated to flying
Wow owsm very well bro 🥰😍😘😗😙
I’ve been in the jump-seat of a B757 landing at Logan. We didn’t see the runway till 50ft Above it. It was far worse than this. CAT 3 landing.They do it all the time.
I think the wipers are cute :3
Clint Thompson cute? What are you 7
Dude chill out
what are you, 70?
Cute?
Sexy
Fuck it then
At least they got a free jet wash
lol !
😅
hahahaha..!!
Lol😂😂😂😅
That was an unnecessary risk. DAL 191 did the same thing, was knocked down by a microburst and ended up with many more fatalities than survivors. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
We know a lot more about microbursts now after, and because of, that accident.
Hey , mira , the latino pilots are muy machos ! Nothing can stop them.
Congratulations to the Pilot! Very dangerous Landing! Thanks GOD, everything was good!
What a brilliant pilot ever they forcibly landed so safely through a heavy rain 🌧 salute to the captain 👨🏿✈️ incharge of cockpit
Wow...it was a really difficult landing. Congratulations to the pilots.
Não foi bada difícil. Isso se chama pouso por instrumentos.
I'm no pilot but it seems like this was a textbook brilliantly executed landing 👏👏👏
Need some "RAIN-X" on that windshield. Never will need your wipers again
You will also never get your window grease free after that. Streaked glass forever afterwards. But it does repel rain on glass.
@@warrenharris1171 What you have to do first is use "Soft Scrub" on the glass to remove all contamination from grease, bugs, etc. It's like Comet but will not scratch the glass. Then wash that off real good (eg. residue) then apply Rain X.
My hat is off to these highly skilled pilots. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!!!!!
Actually they are idiots who are lucky to be alive
Just because you can’t see the runway from a camera doesn’t mean they couldn’t see it from the correct seating position. You can see the ground before minimums so I’m sure they had 3 lights in sight
Pilot: “but did you die?”
Just why I don't fly if I can't drive there I'm not going
Warning to students and new pilots:
THIS IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE, ever...
Amazing these two guys survived this long.
@@jordantyler3013 depends on what landing minimums they where using, and as well as what the plane was set up for. ILS CAT 1 or 2 or 3?
"Minimums" was clear. The question is, did they have the required visual ques to continue? Cant really tell, as the video was recorded on a potato.
If not, you don't ask the weather to stop, you go around.
@@jordantyler3013 Perhaps a go around or alternate might have been in order?
@@michaelreeves8164 , no , porque the pilots are muy machos.
I guess this flight crew never heard of the Delta crash at DFW. Same scenario!
“I’d keep going....I don’t think the heavy stuff is going to come down for a while!!”
Classic!
I really can’t believe that they didn’t abort the approach and go around. I couldn’t help thinking of the Delta 191 accident at DFW when they went through a storm and lost control due to wind shear. True, it appeared to be just heavy rain. I heard no thunder but anything could have suddenly developed and the winds suddenly changed. It was like they were in a car wash and with bad wipers too!
80% of commenters think that if they write in capital letters , they are right
The other 20 don't know what proper punctuation is.
What do the ones think who use no capital letters and have missing punctuation?
NO THEY DON'T
AM I NOT?
How many who use percentage figures get their numbers from A. Swipe' Johnson? Just asking this question for edo u cational porp us us. Is there a point on an ILS approach where it is no longer legal to continue the approach or is the term missed approach merely a foolhardy old fashioned practice? Let me cut to the chase. If I had my way this pilot would never fly another airplane. If I had been a passenger on that airplane and saw this video there would be a law suit.
Looks kinda like a tornado ahead... Let's fly directly through it.
They couldn’t see it either
When your boss is too cheap to buy new wiper blades or wash the aircraft.
Hold my beer, one clean plane coming down.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND A BIG HEART TO LANDING THIS LITTLE MONSTER 🛫🛫👍👏
Epic soundtrack. Thanks for keeping it. Really added a certain, ‘je ne sais quoi’.
“Runway appears on final”, i believe they normally do
This one was a little more normal.
I have flown a kite professionally for years, and I don't agree with this pilot's judgement.
Pure stupidity. It would take too long to explain everything that could have gone wrong here.
Go around, divert and live to see another day.
No, this was fine...?
Rob I have no experience but love estvhjngall the flying landing videos ...just wondering if u have experience? Doesnt matter really either way but as I learn I wanna learn from experienced fliers not wannabes like myself.so wish I had the money for real lessons!!😟🥺😭
Oops..that was " love WATCHING all the flying and landing videos"...
Dana14me Hettinger I took my first solo flight in 1999 which was 21 years ago. Yes I have experience. I can’t see the radar signature but it definitely looks like it would be lit up in red from the amount of rain coming down. He could have been flying into a microburst which can be deadly.
In the video you hear his instruments calling out “minimums-minimums” that’s the critical decision height to either commit to the landing or execute a missed approach. If you don’t have visual of the airfield at the minimums you execute the missed approach.
He didn’t have visual of the runway till he was about 100ft above the ground. He should have executed the missed approach, climbed to the assigned altitude and stayed in the holding pattern until it was either safe to land or divert to another airport.
They did live to see another day.
Rain-x should be standard on all cockpit windows, no?
I think there are very few airline pilots, if any, making comments in this chat. At minimums you do not have to see the runway if you have the approach lights, lead in lights, etc in sight. At 100' they would have to have the runway environment in sight...unless they had the runway environment in sight. Also, if they had auto land capabilities, and that runway was certified for cat III landings, then that changes everything.
This video did not allow us to see what the pilots actually saw.
Looks like landing in Costa Rica SJO. That is precisely what it looks like 80-90 Days a year.
Um. I have absolutely no flying experience at all but I wouldn’t have flown right through that.
Do you wanna fly cool or safe? :D
Der Calvin hmmm. Safe.
Based on what i could see, the runway environment was not visual by minimums, they continued the approach anyhow.
Wowwww super sir, good job.... Well done. ☺️
Good God. Did that really happen ? Pilots are incredible. That was unbelievable. The storm was right in their path.
A go-around was a no-brainer. Extremely dangerous pilot.
Very very dangerous ..when do you descend below the published mda without the vasi insignt, especially flying into a downburst on finals, complete idiot pilot! 8o
I watched thinking NO WAY he's going to fly through that.
And did ! Just stupid, dangerous and mind-blowing.
Awww man he's flying into the thing 😶 I would of jumped out
Brave to fly right through that column of rain. Could be a microburst that first gives you lift--then slams you into the ground. Nevertheless, great IFR landing!
Delta flight 191
They continued past minimums without the runway in sight and you think it's a great landing? It's a lucky landing at best. Very bad reckless flying on display here. Also they touch down steep, way down the runway and off centerline. All in all a horrible landing.
I was concerned about that column as well, tough day at the office for sure.
How low was the ceiling at that airport? 100 feet or less?
It’s incredible what aircraft and pilots are capable of
I don't think so. Really bad pilot judgment. He should wait a few minutes for the storm to pass and then do the approach. Bad decision with a possibility of bad outcome.
Ikr
Cristian Rodriguez no Dumbass
D. Mark Detrixhe . Thanks for the replay. However, base on my experience flying fighter and now commercial airplanes for a big company, I think that is a better way to deal with that. I done that to in regional airplanes as a captain, and then I kicked my self in the ground asking why I did it.
So now that I have been in this rodeo more than 25 years, I think there is better way or maybe when not carry passages.
why do you have to call everybody a DUMB ASS
Cameron Washington I think he does because he is the real dumb ass with no experience behind.
Geez,kudoos to pilots around the world that land in storms such as this.I suppose you're trained in instrument landings but it still take balls of steel to do something like that.And even worse in heavy fog.A great big thank you to all of our pilots around the world for knowing how to do their job and keeping passengers safe.
Not a pilot, have never flown a simulator...just wanted to add..that I am glad I save a ton of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico!
jimmymac63
😂😂😂
I take my hat off to these Pilots, totally unbelievably SKILLED...
i haven't seen a landing like this before.
very skilful pilot, well equipped plane and airport.
superb, brave and lucky.
It was a unnecessary risk to take
Man flight simulator pilots everywhere, I like planes but I guarantee 99.9% of commenters are flight simulator pros.
Delta flight 191
I don't know what their fuel state was, but continuing that approach seemed foolish. Strong focused rain showers almost always contain downdrafts. They usually move away or dissipate before long. All pilots need to gain experience but not at the expense of the PAX.
Which airline do you fly for?
Delta.
+JERRYinCHS I second that!
steven yau that's the way works. Many "experts" posting here would shit thier pants on something really tight and bumpy. Try blizzard conditions. This is as smooth and normal as it gets.
foxtrot789 you just got dominated man.
I see a lot of fsx pilots in this thread
So. They can learn how it's done in the real world and compare.
Daniel Morén I see a lot of dumbasses here
Danielle Morén XP pilots wya
Cool video, does anyone know which airport this was?
All I can say is WIPERS are my new favorite invention. Oh and the Pilots of this plane were cool too.
Have they ever heard the words go around?
Why would they go around?
Ananias Andrada you're not up to speed by any means. Let the pros take care of you. Perfectly normal day. Actually a lot better than snow at night.
ShikataGaNai100 How very insightful. We could actually converse if you kids would stop showing off your . .. Yeah.
So.... Fly into the storm twice?
only pussies go around
Such negative comments! It's only a downpour, no wind, no hail.
I'd fly with them. They know what they are doing.
Boy, you know nothing about weather!
Why would you fly into what looks like a micro burst?
Beautiful approach and touch down
Omg. Perfect pilot!!!! 😍😍😍😍😍😍
Those wipers suck...
the rolling shutter of the camera
pesto12601 they're not made to completely dry the window... because the engines need as much power as possible
yes they do
Cameron Washington Dumbass, what does wiper speeds have to do with engine power in any possible way?
you dumbass i'm only nine years old and for you information so he could see how to land duuuuuuuuuh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hats of to all pilots who always keep their lives on risk..
😘😘
And passengers?
I'm guessing the pilot had landed here hundred or thousands of times in the same model of plane. Either that or he was crazy!
He was crazy.
ILS & Glide Scope were spot on , good job men
The planes getting extra lift from those wipers. Flaps check. Full flaps check, Wipers! Check!
See that microburst? Hold my beer
These aircrafts are fitted with CAT III Lumding systems. Can land even in zero visibility.
Is the airport installed CAT III landing system? It wont work if only the acft equipped with it.
Definitely wasn't an autoland, the autopilot was turned off a few moments after minimums.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Regardless of what systems they had, planes still can and do crash when unnecessarily flying through bad weather. Why risk it?
Looks kinda dangerous flying into a heavy shaft of rain on approach. A down burst could have easily shoved them into the ground on approach. I'm not a pilot but personally I would have gone around.
mark kaupas the only fact you stated was, "I'm not a pilot" Leave it to ones who are. It's not easy to reach this point but what you watch here are normal daily ops by professionals.
Listen or not, I really don't care, but I've done this for years. Try adding strong cross winds at night in a blizzard. This is easy.
WoW these guys and Girls are so much appreciate with my family 👍👍👍👍
Remember one time we were on final and could see the runway just fine when approach informed us they had reports of heavy downpour just short of the runway and suggested we select another runway. We declined and continued our approach. Well when we got to a point just short of the runway all heck broke loose. It was like we were flying under Niagara Falls. I don’t think we could even see our engine cowling . We continued our approach but were about to do a missed approach when the downpour was behind us and everything was clear. That happened about forty years ago but I still remember it.
You guys either watching another video and commenting here, don’t understand spanish, and read too much with very little actual time. most comments sound childish.
0:20 plane: “no way!”
Love it.
Gotta love ILS
Have these guys heard of microburst ? Wow!
Excelente piloto, parabéns 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Cant believe you flew right into that downburst, and landed while in it.
Mr DDD3az Belive. Stevie Wonder FSX pilot.
Sorry pal, I do not fly FSX, and I did my first solo on my 16th birthday in 1971.......
Correct, Bill...and it was unwise to fly into that shit.
When I heard the "minimums" callout I actually caught myself shouting Go Around! >.< That was an unnecessary risk. (Oh and, I went first solo 24th August 2006 :-) )
Mr DDD3az Looks like a fat ass in mom basement. Microburst! What the hell! The video is the prove what you need. Fucking youtubers engineers, pilots, mechanics...
must be a private liner having strict instructions of fuel saving ..... on cost of risking passengers life
Really? That is your comment? You have a very negative view if the world!
Definitely an airbus so not a personal plane its a big airliner
The fact we didn't see the runway at minimums doesn't mean they didn't. Hard to judge.
Consider that ATR can be very tricky to land, so great job on the handling.
Who makes the wipers blades, If your at will to say, Autozone should have them right?
Some people just shouldn’t be pilots...
Lol he had the papi before minimums
Flying below minimums... wonderful. Old, bold pilots Not.
They were NOT flying below minimums, you can see on the auto pilot early in the video indicate they were doing a CAT II approach with a DA of 100 feet AGL.
I saw at least one, if not two of the required markings of FAR 91.175 (C) (3), before that decision altitude.
They were legal.
Pucker factor of 9 out of 10, i hate hearing minimums when i cannot see the runway
no shit
You could not hammer a nail up my hind end with a 3 pound sledge hammer under those conditions, may be time for some new wiper blades also
MarinsBest VideoProductions i would have to actually have been in the seat to see the actual conditions, but when i heard minimums and could not see the runway, i probably would have called a go around, gear up, flaps extended, full thrust
Was is it a CAT 3B Landing??
Microburst is a consideration.. but with radar to stay in line with the run way, and confidence, the pilot was not wrong to attempt the landing.. the turbulance was not severe so flying low visibility that well is a testimony of instrument flying.. great work captain