Somebody forgot to arm the spoilers on the A321. That's a standard landing checklist procedure on all modern airliners. The moment the wheels touch the runway the spoilers are supposed to deploy but they didn't.
@@ronhaworth5808 Aircraft sometime have a slight WoW delay, 1-2 seconds, for just this situation. Given how quickly the nose pitched up, TOGA looks to have been activated extremely quickly after touching, if not earlier.
That was Wellington Airport, and the wind can be Hurricane force sometimes. The aircraft can float, just like a balloon sometimes. Believe me, I live there and have had a few white knuckle landings.
Stop with the sensational headlines; "Hard landing", "No flare"... I used to enjoy your little snippets but please keep it factual instead of exaggerating.
Boss; “why are you late to this meeting, you should’ve landed four hours ago!” Employee: “the tug that was taking us to the runway *spontaneously combusted”*
@@힐만94yeah I’m also surprised why they didn’t evacuate, maybe there’s no passengers? Pilot pov would just be smoke everywhere in front and passenger windows also see lots of smoke coming from in front and below which is very scary
@@Jwellsuhhuh I think there probably weren't passengers. I don't even think this was a pushback. There may not even have been any pilots. It's not near a terminal or parking space and the engines aren't running (they'd usually be started up during pushback). It was probably just being towed to a new spot.
Because thats what an airplane's descent path looks like. The slower speed forces the plane to be in a nose-up position to prevent losing altitude too quickly. A flare is when at about 20 feet or so the pilots pull the nose up even a little further to create a smoother landing. As you can see in the video, the plane stayed at the exact same nose-up angle the whole time.
@@Androm3da787 It clearly flares at 2:28. The plane came in pretty flat as it was fighting gusting winds (assuming the caption is accurate), flares and then pushes the nose back down a bit before touching down.
@@Androm3da787 The obvious flare at 2:28 is why the main gears touched 1/2 second before the nose gear. Before 2:28, the airplane was in level flight, which is the appropriate attitude for the final approach. Without the flare, all 3 landing gears will hit the runway simultaneously or worse.
1:15 if you actually want to see something cool: look at the end of the right flap. Underneath you can see the air distorting due to the turbulance coming of of it. Its not just wing tip turbulance, it also happens at every drastic change in the wing profile (or rather the bound circulation).
01:27 that would have been pilot approach and go around training with no plan to land at all. Norwich runway 27 is nowhere near long enough for a 747. Largest aircraft to fly there i believe was an a330 or possible a Britannia 767.
Came here to wonder about that. Thanks for giving it a name. Didn't know it was a thing. Diesel engine runaway is an occurrence in diesel engines, in which the engine draws extra fuel from an unintended source and overspeeds at higher and higher RPM, producing up to ten times the engine's rated output until destroyed by mechanical failure or bearing seizure due to a lack of lubrication.[1] Hot-bulb engines and jet engines can also run away via the same process.
The engines on that first 787-9 look huge, is that normal? The last plane is also a 787-9 and its engines seem a little smaller.. is it just perspective or are they different?
1:05 Ah, Wellington... any landing there that you walk away from is a good one. Looks like the (notoriously gusty) wind made the plane float down the runway past the landing zone so the pilot had to go-around.
thrust reversers aren't powerful enough to push back a fully loaded plane that is on it's MTOW, might've been possible if this was after landing (burning up alot of fuel and much lower weight) also it's likely that the engine weren't even started cause usually they are started during the pushback, even if everything was in place it still wouldn't be wise to use reverse thrust, maybe the tow truck got scared and ran out of his truck, he would've been sucked into the engine or any debris nearby. either way the engine was off and this was the best possible way to handle the situation.
I assume the three people in orange vests watching the tug burn are trying to work out who's going to report that to the ground operations manager. That's not going to be an easy or comfortable conversation 😭
Flare means bringing the nose up about 5⁰ before touchdown and a no-flare input means that the aircraft landed with all the gears touching the ground at the same time.
I wonder how much "fertilizer" was dropped the minute the passengers saw the smoke. Kudos to the fire brigade for swift response and handling of the situation.
That's diesel runaway. That's not a fire. By flooding it with water the engine is now written off, which could have been saved if it had the inlet pipe blocked. I totally get why they doused it with water, I think it was the best thing to do to remove any doubt
@@nspro931 ARFF trucks have pump and roll capability son. They should've had water flowing before the truck stopped. I only have 40+ plus years on the job...
@@ffjsb I'm interested in the answer to the 2 questions about your resume. I'm also not clear if your comment means they were "slow to respond" or "slow getting out of the truck"? They taught us at Biscailuz that every vehicle fire means the vehicle is a loss. The evolution went - Rescue, if applicable, then protect the exposures. No need to hurry and risk injury or overlooking something to put out a burning total loss. I doubt that the minimal body/chassis of an airport tug would be any different. What's the evolution at your department? I've never seen an experienced fire fighter comment "The crew was slow". Perhaps the challenge was issued because that commenter is used to eleven gazillion children-experts explaining what the firemen should have done. Perhaps he wasn't expecting your 40+ years of experience. Please also consider this airport is not in America. Perhaps the crews there at East Somewheria aren't as well trained as crews here in the US. Educate us, experienced one. What should those ARFF guys be doing?
@@DrLumpyDMus As I said, ARFF trucks have pump and roll capability, so they should've had foam flowing as they pulled up. The tug is possibly salvageable at that point, but the important thing is the multi-million dollar aircraft it's attached to. You hit it with the turret to knock down any fire, and to protect the aircraft. Then you can have your firefighters get out with a line to finish the job. It's impossible to establish the response time from this video, but it's clear they were slow to act when they arrived. You don't have to be in the US to train well. What they needed to do is BASIC ARFF skills. This wasn't a compilcated fire needing rescue. Stop me if I'm lying...
@@ffjsb Yup. You don't need a visible flame to damage the airframe. Just the heat alone can ruin the temper on heat treated metal parts, drastically reducing its strength. For carbon fiber like the 787, the full name is carbon fiber reinforced polymer. i.e. Carbon strands embedded in plastic resin. The plastic doesn't hold up well when heated. Fire crew should've done everything they could to cool it off immediately.
The tug could have been disconnected and moved away from the plane before it got worse. Save your own skin, forget the lives on board, much less the value of the plane.
Engines take time to spool up. The decision to go around was made prior to the touchdown. The landing was likely firm as a result of that decision, since they didn’t bother with landing the airplane anymore. They probably didn’t even expect a touchdown.
It wasn't even a hard landing. Every time a landing on here is firm, the channel operator calls it a hard landing. A hard landing looks very different.
Thanks for the replies. I've seen plenty of videos where a go-around happens after a hard landing and kept thinking about Air Canada 621 back in '70. I also since read it's often used after a hard landing to avoid a porpoising. Again, thanks!
@@richardnixon8795 only a small airplane, this could be the case. A small plane tends to bounce back up, nose drops, nose gear hits first, then main and you start porpoising. On big jets, that’s simply not the case and a hard landing would stick.
I work for a company that does pushback and... that's what we call it. Tugs are the trucks that bring the dollies with the cans in and out of the warehouse.
That poor F/A-8 was practically stalling to stay with the photographer's plane .... The first clip - it seems to me that they could have unhitched the tow bar and hooked a chain (or 3) to the tug and pull it away from the plane. I understand it's not a good idea to get in the thing right then, but COME ON .....
I understand a go-around if you are not on the ground, too fast, too far down the runway etc.. but why is there need for a go around from a hard landing?
maybe the tug caught fire as a tribute to the 787....or perhaps mocking it....just pleased the 787 didn't feel offended and join the tug in the barbeque..."Oi! Catching fire is MY specialty!"
:30 Unfortunately, this is more common than has been reported. I worked on the ramp in Chicago and due to many of these vehicles being no longer gas or diesel now they have become electric. I shouldn’t say now they became electric. They’ve been electric for many many years but the concern of course is when something electric is burning because of the lithium ion batteries.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
01:05 dramatic go around? Hard Landing? Aww come on...
It looks like the plane landed too late and didn't have enough runway left
@@tytlyf But it was neither a hard landing nor a "dramatic" go around...
Give him a break, for once the title wasn't a lie
@@KeesAlderliesten Welllllll except that 787 wasn't being pushed back, that's a tow tug.
@@rfrags2a tow truck performs push backs.
In this case, likely not a push back, looking at the surroundings, but still the same.
1:08 That's not a hard landing, appears they ran out of runway landing too late.
Somebody forgot to arm the spoilers on the A321. That's a standard landing checklist procedure on all modern airliners. The moment the wheels touch the runway the spoilers are supposed to deploy but they didn't.
@@ronhaworth5808 unless toga power was applied before they touched down
Yes, that was kind of odd - the landing looked fine. But those may be end-of-runway markers not far down from where they touched down.
@@ronhaworth5808 Aircraft sometime have a slight WoW delay, 1-2 seconds, for just this situation. Given how quickly the nose pitched up, TOGA looks to have been activated extremely quickly after touching, if not earlier.
Absolutely. The engines were already spooling up for the go around before the wheels touched the ground.
The problem with that NZ A321 was not a hard landing - it wasn't hard at all - but where it landed, long , very deep into the runway
But that "go-around" was dramatic. DRAMATIC I say! 🤣
Exactly.
That was Wellington Airport, and the wind can be Hurricane force sometimes.
The aircraft can float, just like a balloon sometimes.
Believe me, I live there and have had a few white knuckle landings.
Something I really appreciate is that plane-watching transcends all barriers be they language, culture, or nationality.
But I still bet that 95% of us are male
Shut up.
@@aleratzbut only 10% of us, doesn’t live in mom’s basement.
...or an airport fence.
Same for porn
Whoever is firing that machine gun at the F-18 couldn't hit the broadside of a barn! 😆
It sounded like one of my old pinball machines with a stuck bumper.
I pity the poor photo editor who has to go through that lot. Modern photography = spray and pray
@@ashleyhoff7561 But on the plus side when you scroll through them in the preview pane you get to watch a video.
@@GarrettWorcester👍🤣😂
Stop with the sensational headlines; "Hard landing", "No flare"...
I used to enjoy your little snippets but please keep it factual instead of exaggerating.
Yeah, pretty difficult to land the rear wheels first if there's no flare.
pilot- "That's not the airplane burning, folks. Just the pushback truck." Me- "let me off anyway."
it’s called a tug. And the plane didn’t have passengers on it.
@@justing42 lol- ok, if you say so
@@BaikalTii They don't tow planes around the airport when they have passengers onboard. That was clearly a repositioning tow far from the terminal.
@@BaikalTiithey were taking it to americans maintenance hangar
@@thedumbaviator5536 I guess they'll be taking the tug there too now as that clearly needs some attention as well. 😂
Boss; “why are you late to this meeting, you should’ve landed four hours ago!”
Employee: “the tug that was taking us to the runway *spontaneously combusted”*
1:04 Neither was it a hard landing Nore a dramatic go around!!!
They usually don't touch down for a go-around.
Imagine the pilots view of the fire and water 😂
Yeah that wouldn’t a fun situation.
pilots: should we evacuate? no? so why the firetruck is not coming? why everybody looks slow and relax?
@@힐만94yeah I’m also surprised why they didn’t evacuate, maybe there’s no passengers? Pilot pov would just be smoke everywhere in front and passenger windows also see lots of smoke coming from in front and below which is very scary
@@Jwellsuhhuh I think there probably weren't passengers. I don't even think this was a pushback. There may not even have been any pilots. It's not near a terminal or parking space and the engines aren't running (they'd usually be started up during pushback). It was probably just being towed to a new spot.
The 321 did a go-around because the touch down zone had been passed. Not a hard landing, not dramatic...just professional.
Yep, you can see all the small planes parked & that is about halfway down the runway.
"This Turkish Airlines B787 lands with no flare input"
I watched the video multiple times and i m still unable to spot the yoke
No need to when you can clearly see the elevators.
@@ArthurTanner-d7s I think you didn't get the yoke...
@@Obeythebeard Oh I did but it was so pathetic I automatically ignored it.
Nice video
That pushback tug couldnt take it anymore😅
It's not a truck, it's called a tug.
@@lastmanstanding9389 The fun at parties, right there
@@lastmanstanding9389 you realise that 'tug' is the opposite of 'push'?
@@KeesAlderliesten Ok i will edit it
@@KeesAlderliestenyup, but the tug still performs pushbacks. Just like a tugboat, usually pushes as well.
1:28 how old is the Virgin Atlantic video? As Virgin got rid of their last Boeing 747 back in 2020..
Does it matter?
Yeah, my first thought.
@@bentones1701
No it doesn't matter cranky pants but it's still a valid question
@@gazratjackson clearly the OP who’s having a dig, not me.
I'm trying to figure how the main gears touched the runway before the nose gear without "flare input"
Because thats what an airplane's descent path looks like. The slower speed forces the plane to be in a nose-up position to prevent losing altitude too quickly. A flare is when at about 20 feet or so the pilots pull the nose up even a little further to create a smoother landing. As you can see in the video, the plane stayed at the exact same nose-up angle the whole time.
@@Androm3da787 It clearly flares at 2:28. The plane came in pretty flat as it was fighting gusting winds (assuming the caption is accurate), flares and then pushes the nose back down a bit before touching down.
@@Androm3da787 The obvious flare at 2:28 is why the main gears touched 1/2 second before the nose gear. Before 2:28, the airplane was in level flight, which is the appropriate attitude for the final approach. Without the flare, all 3 landing gears will hit the runway simultaneously or worse.
main GEAR not gears
787 is just like "bruh" 😂 0:40
That was sharp. Looked like that 787 was burning up! Very very nice.
I ain't no pilot but I saw some flare input.
2:46 That camera over the Alps sounds strangely like a machine gun…
'Now you tell us. We were pushing the wrong button.'
You must be American.
The flight crew probably had to do everything in their power to keep the passengers from bailing on that first one lol
There were no passengers.
You owe us 12 seconds of aviation
How could they
That is exactly the amount of seconds it take Aerosucre to clear the fence at the end of the runway after rotation.
🤣🤣🤣
🙄every video someone has this same comment,soo lame....I mean they dont owe you anything....are you paying to watch it?No😂😂😂
You can rewind if it's so important to you. Solve your own problems instead of whining
1:15 if you actually want to see something cool: look at the end of the right flap. Underneath you can see the air distorting due to the turbulance coming of of it. Its not just wing tip turbulance, it also happens at every drastic change in the wing profile (or rather the bound circulation).
I watched that a few times. Amazing distortion.
Pilot: "I can't do this, I can't! There's no more runway! We're going around, I'm not landing. OK here we go let's try again. Landing is HARD!"
0:18 $30,000 pickup, $100,000 tractor, $10,000,000 plane.
And he's worried about the pickup. 🤣
01:27 that would have been pilot approach and go around training with no plan to land at all. Norwich runway 27 is nowhere near long enough for a 747. Largest aircraft to fly there i believe was an a330 or possible a Britannia 767.
Wait wait wait Virgin Atlantic still has 747-400 and I didn’t know
Maintenance flight...did they resurrect one? Must be an old clip!
@@mileshigh1321 probably is an old clip but would be cool if it weren’t
Used to I guess
@@virginatlanticunoffifial yeah
no flare but the mains touched down first 🤔
The fire in the pushback tractor looks like it could be a diesel runaway.
Came here to say this
Yup
Came here to wonder about that. Thanks for giving it a name. Didn't know it was a thing.
Diesel engine runaway is an occurrence in diesel engines, in which the engine draws extra fuel from an unintended source and overspeeds at higher and higher RPM, producing up to ten times the engine's rated output until destroyed by mechanical failure or bearing seizure due to a lack of lubrication.[1] Hot-bulb engines and jet engines can also run away via the same process.
i wonder why such machines dont have a regular way of shutting down the air input.. thats an old known problem
Only if those tugs are turbocharged. They typically are not, are they?
What is that dome just forward of the tail fin on the second video?
Satellite comms antenna.
@@andyowens5494 thank you for that information 👍🏻, never noticed it before 🤔
Dreamliner ey? Well here's some water to wake you up from your nightmare 😅😂
The engines on that first 787-9 look huge, is that normal? The last plane is also a 787-9 and its engines seem a little smaller.. is it just perspective or are they different?
How far was that pushback? Was he pushing it all the way to the threshhold?
The Last Plane You could see the Wings Flexing. Must've been a Heavy Headwind do you call it ?
The first one was a diesel runaway. That's why the fire brigade wasn't in too much of a hurry
1:05 Ah, Wellington... any landing there that you walk away from is a good one. Looks like the (notoriously gusty) wind made the plane float down the runway past the landing zone so the pilot had to go-around.
Question: could this plane not have put the reversers on with brakes and slowed to a stop? Thanks
thrust reversers aren't powerful enough to push back a fully loaded plane that is on it's MTOW, might've been possible if this was after landing (burning up alot of fuel and much lower weight) also it's likely that the engine weren't even started cause usually they are started during the pushback, even if everything was in place it still wouldn't be wise to use reverse thrust, maybe the tow truck got scared and ran out of his truck, he would've been sucked into the engine or any debris nearby. either way the engine was off and this was the best possible way to handle the situation.
My first thought when I saw that gray smoke was "PLEASE don't tell me that is a battery powered truck!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
1:57 When the heck did Switzerland own an Air Force? 😂
How far was that pushback? They look like they are on the apron.
What, is Aerosucre operating tugs now?
Thought the yellow ute was going to immediately tow the burning tug clear of a plane full of people, ah nope !
Great video!
Pushback truck also made by Boeing?
No. Get real.
No, they just license it.
hahahha thats funny..
@@pilot3016 whoosh. get a sense of humor bud
@@armuk I will try. Just sold all my Boeing stock and lost it.
👌🏼✈️🙏 awesome !!!
If that was Ryanair in the second clip they would have stayed put!😂😂
Kiwis and Aussies have a hard time landing cuz they're upside down!
Your parents are siblings, aren’t they?
I assume the three people in orange vests watching the tug burn are trying to work out who's going to report that to the ground operations manager. That's not going to be an easy or comfortable conversation 😭
The air-to-air shoot of the F18 was not what I expected
2:20 What does that mean no flare input?
Flare means bringing the nose up about 5⁰ before touchdown and a no-flare input means that the aircraft landed with all the gears touching the ground at the same time.
Did it overshoot the taxiway?
I wonder how much "fertilizer" was dropped the minute the passengers saw the smoke. Kudos to the fire brigade for swift response and handling of the situation.
Seems that the Japanese guy never shuts up. Love that 😂
At least he doesn't SCREAM and SHOUT like the guy at Heathrow.
professor of yappology
So was that an electric tow tug?
Remind me to never fly to or from Wellington, it has had dodgy weather/wind conditions since opening
Great how the pop up bubble ad blocks the video👎
That's diesel runaway. That's not a fire.
By flooding it with water the engine is now written off, which could have been saved if it had the inlet pipe blocked.
I totally get why they doused it with water, I think it was the best thing to do to remove any doubt
i wonder why diesel engines dont have a simple device for covering the air inlet..
With all that smoke the first one looks so much like Air Israel, from ''Airplane!'' lol
That fire crew was pretty slow.
What airport do you work the fire brigade at? What kind of times have you achieved?
@@nspro931 ARFF trucks have pump and roll capability son. They should've had water flowing before the truck stopped. I only have 40+ plus years on the job...
@@ffjsb I'm interested in the answer to the 2 questions about your resume.
I'm also not clear if your comment means they were "slow to respond" or "slow getting out of the truck"?
They taught us at Biscailuz that every vehicle fire means the vehicle is a loss. The evolution went - Rescue, if applicable, then protect the exposures. No need to hurry and risk injury or overlooking something to put out a burning total loss. I doubt that the minimal body/chassis of an airport tug would be any different.
What's the evolution at your department?
I've never seen an experienced fire fighter comment "The crew was slow". Perhaps the challenge was issued because that commenter is used to eleven gazillion children-experts explaining what the firemen should have done. Perhaps he wasn't expecting your 40+ years of experience.
Please also consider this airport is not in America. Perhaps the crews there at East Somewheria aren't as well trained as crews here in the US.
Educate us, experienced one. What should those ARFF guys be doing?
@@DrLumpyDMus As I said, ARFF trucks have pump and roll capability, so they should've had foam flowing as they pulled up. The tug is possibly salvageable at that point, but the important thing is the multi-million dollar aircraft it's attached to. You hit it with the turret to knock down any fire, and to protect the aircraft. Then you can have your firefighters get out with a line to finish the job. It's impossible to establish the response time from this video, but it's clear they were slow to act when they arrived. You don't have to be in the US to train well. What they needed to do is BASIC ARFF skills. This wasn't a compilcated fire needing rescue.
Stop me if I'm lying...
@@ffjsb Yup. You don't need a visible flame to damage the airframe. Just the heat alone can ruin the temper on heat treated metal parts, drastically reducing its strength. For carbon fiber like the 787, the full name is carbon fiber reinforced polymer. i.e. Carbon strands embedded in plastic resin. The plastic doesn't hold up well when heated. Fire crew should've done everything they could to cool it off immediately.
The tug could have been disconnected and moved away from the plane before it got worse. Save your own skin, forget the lives on board, much less the value of the plane.
There were no passengers.
The aircraft and tow bar were downwind of the burning tug, nobody is going near that without protection.
Just curious, but why is it standard procedure (or it seems that way) for a plane to go around after a hard landing?
Engines take time to spool up. The decision to go around was made prior to the touchdown. The landing was likely firm as a result of that decision, since they didn’t bother with landing the airplane anymore. They probably didn’t even expect a touchdown.
It wasn't even a hard landing. Every time a landing on here is firm, the channel operator calls it a hard landing. A hard landing looks very different.
That plane didn’t go around because of a hard landing, it went around because it had already passed the point where it should’ve touched down
Thanks for the replies. I've seen plenty of videos where a go-around happens after a hard landing and kept thinking about Air Canada 621 back in '70. I also since read it's often used after a hard landing to avoid a porpoising.
Again, thanks!
@@richardnixon8795 only a small airplane, this could be the case. A small plane tends to bounce back up, nose drops, nose gear hits first, then main and you start porpoising.
On big jets, that’s simply not the case and a hard landing would stick.
most of these terms are barely more familiar than wingdings but i love these videos nonetheless
“Push back truck” or what the rest of us call a tug
Or in the military, we called the a Uke. I think that was the name of one of the original manufacturers of tow vehicles.
I work for a company that does pushback and... that's what we call it. Tugs are the trucks that bring the dollies with the cans in and out of the warehouse.
@@Corsair114 Let’s put it another way.
Professionals in aviation don’t call it a push back truck, they call it a tug.
There is a lot of elevator movement for no flare input
That poor F/A-8 was practically stalling to stay with the photographer's plane ....
The first clip - it seems to me that they could have unhitched the tow bar and hooked a chain (or 3) to the tug and pull it away from the plane. I understand it's not a good idea to get in the thing right then, but COME ON .....
It might have been, you know... hot near the front of that tug!
Do the fire fighting from upwind.
The cab would have shielded the aft-mounted engine.
It's not a hard landing in Wellington unless you're performing an excavation on flight NZ284 to get the pax out.
Thanks for using new Zealand we don't get it on American channels thank you I live in Wellington and I recorded that
It took the fire service a while to get there.
Could have been a catastrophe.
I understand a go-around if you are not on the ground, too fast, too far down the runway etc.. but why is there need for a go around from a hard landing?
There isn’t. There wasn’t. You got it right with “….too far down the runway…”.
Engines don't spool up that quickly, so the ANZ Airbus must have already started its go-around before the wheels touched.
The pilot: is this my retirement?
I guess there wasn't time to decouple the tug from the plane?
I didn’t see any tracers during that shoot though?
That kind of wing flexing would freak me out
A flight on a large airliner with non-flexing wings would freak you out a lot more!
Narita windshears are terrible!
How old are these, Virgin 747's have been retired years!
You owe 12 seconds of aviation
The F18 disappears in just a few seconds. Crazy.
Was not expecting Japanese play by play for a Turkish Airplane landing!
Is that aEV tractor 😂
Unlikely. Battery fires are almost impossible to douse.
Tá pegando fogo bicho!!!
Now imagine that tow vehicle was an EV fire 😂
Wellington NZ - most landings are difficult. So?
Imagine being the pilots on that plane!
Lithium batteries got to love 'em
@1:05 Touch and go? More like stomp and go...
maybe the tug caught fire as a tribute to the 787....or perhaps mocking it....just pleased the 787 didn't feel offended and join the tug in the barbeque..."Oi! Catching fire is MY specialty!"
catching fire isnt 787 speciality.
They kept shooting, yet the F-18 was able to keep its nose up and look cool doing it.
Aviation 💕💕
The NZ hard landing was missing a Brit shouting “EASY! EASY!”
That was close.
Imagine losing a whole jetliner due to a stupid push truck fire.
Are they shooting with cameras or guns......
The tug got a water cannon salute
*That's what a 'truck hernia' looks like from pushing too hard and heavy.*
Irony is the tug catching fire when it is towing a plane across the airport for maintenance.
Newsflash to the pushback tug driver: Never cough into a bong.
😆
But the Turkish one at the end DID flare!
1:44 Rip to the. 747
:30
Unfortunately, this is more common than has been reported.
I worked on the ramp in Chicago and due to many of these vehicles being no longer gas or diesel now they have become electric. I shouldn’t say now they became electric. They’ve been electric for many many years but the concern of course is when something electric is burning because of the lithium ion batteries.
lipo even worse!
Air New Zealand hit that vertical