I think it’s Birmingham Airport, which, I’ve just been told, has an undulating runway built at right angles to the prevailing wind direction.
Not really. The runway is 15/33 (33 if departing or approaching to the north, 15 to the south), so the runway runs nearly north to south (150°-330°).
The videos were made during Storm Doris which had gusts >73mph, and the prevailing winds during the storm were generally west-east over England.
As far as the undulation goes, the highest point is at the runway 33 threshold at 328 feet, generally downward a total of 25 feet toward the runway 15 threshold, The total length of the runway is 10,000+ feet.
25 feet over 10,000 doesn't allow for much undulation, but the foreshortening of a long focal length lens does.
The least I could do to make up for my Four Scolds of last week.
Besides, if you acquired a Birminghamophobia, you might miss out on travelling to Birmingham, Alabama, where you can marvel at the moonrise at the statue of Vulcan.
I love these bumpy take-off and landing videos,especially with the extreme foreshortening that makes the planes look like they are wobbling in place and make the runways look as undulating as a strip fried bacon.
This stuff looks scary as hell, but it doesn’t worry me. Professional pilots have to master cross-wind landing, and they have the option to go around when it’s too dicey.
This is why my mother was happy when my father retired.
Also: Dad once owned a Cessna 195, which is a large taildragger with a 7 cylinder radial engine. This plane has "crosswind" landing gear, which means that the mains can caster right or left, so you can actually have as much as 20 degrees difference between your taxi heading and course. Great for landing in crosswinds, since you don't have to kick the plane to align with the runway at touchdown. Also great for puzzling ground control, who'd occasionally call us while we were taxiing "sideways" to ask if we had a problem.
The B-52 bomber also has crosswind gear, but that's a whole different can of avgas.
Also: in the 60s, Dad spent a couple years helping test anti-hydroplaning systems for airplanes and runways. This included testing various tire tread patterns and runway grooving patterns. His responsibility was to fly the actual full-scale tests onto flooded or snowy runways. Somewhere I have a video of the CV-990 tests (CV-990 is about the same as a Boeing 707). A NASA facility on the US east coast has a raised rim around it so it can be flooded with an inch of water. The videos show this large jet approaching smoothly, then at touchdown everything aft of the nose disappears in a huge cloud of spray, while the fuselage wanders and dances side-to-side. I thought these videos were vastly amusing, but Mom did not, for some reason.
Lachlan is right about options, of course. Regular passenger operations have to be able to attempt and miss an approach, fly to a pre-planned alternate airport, and still have (I don't remember how much) extra gas. I'm sure the numbers are in FAR Part 121 somewhere, for the US anyway.
But if there's an enormous area-wide storm, the landings in the videos might be the best option. Or maybe they were just out of gas.
Options: My father once circled over Bodo, Norway, for about an hour, while the slushy runway froze solid. Rough ice gives better braking action than slush. But that was not a passenger flight.
I for one appreciate Farnsworth M Muldoon explaining the apparent undulations at Birmingham. Unfortunately feminists don't appreciate his mansplaining:
For those of you who think flying airliners is nothing more than knowing which buttons to push, when, autoland would have been worse than useless in those conditions.
A wing and a prayer!
Posted by: Mike | July 08, 2017 at 16:54
I was also surprised by the undulation of the runway.
Still, one problem at a time.
Posted by: David | July 08, 2017 at 16:55
Holy crap. Where was this filmed?
Posted by: sH2 | July 08, 2017 at 17:17
Where was this filmed?
I think it’s Birmingham Airport, which, I’ve just been told, has an undulating runway
built at right angles to the prevailing wind direction.Posted by: David | July 08, 2017 at 17:20
BHX is Birmingham, UK.
Posted by: Franklin | July 08, 2017 at 17:20
Thanks.
*note to self: avoid Birmingham airport*
Posted by: sH2 | July 08, 2017 at 17:27
It looks worse than it is because of the extreme foreshortening caused by what must be an enormous zoom lens
Posted by: Jugra | July 08, 2017 at 17:48
I think it’s Birmingham Airport, which, I’ve just been told, has an undulating runway built at right angles to the prevailing wind direction.
Not really. The runway is 15/33 (33 if departing or approaching to the north, 15 to the south), so the runway runs nearly north to south (150°-330°).
The videos were made during Storm Doris which had gusts >73mph, and the prevailing winds during the storm were generally west-east over England.
As far as the undulation goes, the highest point is at the runway 33 threshold at 328 feet, generally downward a total of 25 feet toward the runway 15 threshold, The total length of the runway is 10,000+ feet.
25 feet over 10,000 doesn't allow for much undulation, but the foreshortening of a long focal length lens does.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | July 08, 2017 at 18:14
Whatever those pilots get paid, they deserve a raise.
Posted by: Patrick Brown | July 08, 2017 at 18:15
Not really
Ah, thanks.
Posted by: David | July 08, 2017 at 18:17
Shame we can't see what's going on inside.
Posted by: Clam | July 08, 2017 at 18:28
Shame we can't see what's going on inside.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | July 08, 2017 at 18:33
Ah, thanks.
The least I could do to make up for my Four Scolds of last week.
Besides, if you acquired a Birminghamophobia, you might miss out on travelling to Birmingham, Alabama, where you can marvel at the moonrise at the statue of Vulcan.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | July 08, 2017 at 18:43
We who are about to fly salute you.
Posted by: Pogonip | July 08, 2017 at 18:46
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/star-wars-star-trek-argument-ends-assault-arrest/story?id=48501161&cid=clicksource_4380645_7_hero_headlines_headlines_hed
Posted by: Pogonip | July 08, 2017 at 19:47
Meanwhile, in Hamburg, an outbreak of socialism.
Posted by: David | July 08, 2017 at 20:03
I love these bumpy take-off and landing videos,especially with the extreme foreshortening that makes the planes look like they are wobbling in place and make the runways look as undulating as a strip fried bacon.
Posted by: RTW | July 08, 2017 at 20:11
Shame we can't see what's going on inside.
On the bright side, nor can we smell what's going on inside.
Posted by: Trevor | July 08, 2017 at 20:55
This stuff looks scary as hell, but it doesn’t worry me. Professional pilots have to master cross-wind landing, and they have the option to go around when it’s too dicey.
What really scares me is pilots who have spent their entire careers relying on automation finding themselves in an in unfamiliar situation, see: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash
Posted by: Lachlan | July 08, 2017 at 20:55
This is why my mother was happy when my father retired.
Also: Dad once owned a Cessna 195, which is a large taildragger with a 7 cylinder radial engine. This plane has "crosswind" landing gear, which means that the mains can caster right or left, so you can actually have as much as 20 degrees difference between your taxi heading and course. Great for landing in crosswinds, since you don't have to kick the plane to align with the runway at touchdown. Also great for puzzling ground control, who'd occasionally call us while we were taxiing "sideways" to ask if we had a problem.
The B-52 bomber also has crosswind gear, but that's a whole different can of avgas.
Also: in the 60s, Dad spent a couple years helping test anti-hydroplaning systems for airplanes and runways. This included testing various tire tread patterns and runway grooving patterns. His responsibility was to fly the actual full-scale tests onto flooded or snowy runways. Somewhere I have a video of the CV-990 tests (CV-990 is about the same as a Boeing 707). A NASA facility on the US east coast has a raised rim around it so it can be flooded with an inch of water. The videos show this large jet approaching smoothly, then at touchdown everything aft of the nose disappears in a huge cloud of spray, while the fuselage wanders and dances side-to-side. I thought these videos were vastly amusing, but Mom did not, for some reason.
Posted by: Fred the Fourth | July 08, 2017 at 22:11
Lachlan is right about options, of course. Regular passenger operations have to be able to attempt and miss an approach, fly to a pre-planned alternate airport, and still have (I don't remember how much) extra gas. I'm sure the numbers are in FAR Part 121 somewhere, for the US anyway.
But if there's an enormous area-wide storm, the landings in the videos might be the best option. Or maybe they were just out of gas.
Options: My father once circled over Bodo, Norway, for about an hour, while the slushy runway froze solid. Rough ice gives better braking action than slush. But that was not a passenger flight.
Posted by: Fred the Fourth | July 08, 2017 at 22:19
I don't see the problem. The UK's new "Wriggly Wrunway" program makes things more fun!
Posted by: Hippogryph | July 09, 2017 at 04:24
All you cishets bigots assuming all runways are straight and flat! Celebrate runway diversity!
Posted by: Zionist Overlord #73 | July 09, 2017 at 08:19
Hey, I'm cishet, and I LIKE curves. And bumps.
Posted by: Fred the Fourth | July 09, 2017 at 08:57
I always found getting caught in turbulance the most interesting part of a plane journey!
Posted by: JuliaM | July 09, 2017 at 12:39
[ Sets blog to juddering mode. ]
That’s better.
Posted by: David | July 09, 2017 at 12:53
We have a similar problem here in the US&A with low level turbulence.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | July 09, 2017 at 13:48
Not to mention crosswind parking.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | July 09, 2017 at 13:55
Meanwhile, in Hamburg, an outbreak of socialism.
Ah, but it's not real socialism, is it?
Posted by: ftumch | July 09, 2017 at 14:40
I took the time to figure out how to embed images here. I am now going to spend the rest of the day acting all snooty.
Posted by: ftumch | July 09, 2017 at 14:45
I took the time to figure out how to embed images here.
Personal growth.
Posted by: David | July 09, 2017 at 15:32
Personal growth.
Before:
After:
Posted by: ftumch | July 09, 2017 at 17:01
He’s drunk with power. Fetch the sedatives.
Posted by: David | July 09, 2017 at 17:10
I for one appreciate Farnsworth M Muldoon explaining the apparent undulations at Birmingham. Unfortunately feminists don't appreciate his mansplaining:
Posted by: ftumch | July 09, 2017 at 17:33
Real men don't go around.
Posted by: Monty James | July 10, 2017 at 01:05
He’s drunk with power. Fetch the sedatives.
Here y'are: Just watch the shiny pill, ftumch, watch it very closely . . . .
Posted by: Hal | July 10, 2017 at 05:11
Unfortunately feminists don't appreciate his mansplaining
It's not much of a genocidio if we can still hear them bitching.
Posted by: Daniel Ream | July 10, 2017 at 08:40
Real men don't go around.
OTOH, they and their passengers have some fine memorial ceremonies.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | July 10, 2017 at 12:52
For those of you who think flying airliners is nothing more than knowing which buttons to push, when, autoland would have been worse than useless in those conditions.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn | July 10, 2017 at 21:02