While the nose gear is lifting up, you’ll notice that the main gear in the back of the frame is quite firmly planted. What more than likely happened was that there was enough down force on the tail to lift the nose. It’s simply not possible for a natural weather event to create enough wind to actually pick up a parked…

The nose gear of most planes, particularly when empty, is usually quite unloaded. I doubt it would have moved anywhere had there been full fuel in that thing.

I might be wrong, but isn’t rotation caused by the horizontal stabilizer? I think the center of gravity of a 747 is forward of the center of lift...so the wind is actually creating a downward force on the tail, forcing the nose off the ground.

mary bruce, GPS doesn’t play a big role in landing planes. pilots land planes blind or almost blind all the time. and that’s not a 747 mary bruce.

From the audio, it sounds like the crew used the A320’s CAT III auto-land system to bring it down safely. They alerted ATC they’d likely stop on the runway because they couldn’t see to taxi though.

You’re aware that pilots fly in non-VFR conditions all the time, right? Even without GPS you can still perform a landing without visuals, so long as your ILS receivers are still functional. Hell, GPS isn’t accurate in a lot of situation. How else do you think planes flew before the advent of the GPS network?

And, as…

Party supp... ..evidence. Yes, Evidence...

“if the rumor that the F-35 is below expectations in the 1v1 arena“

Smart bombs work fine on enemy infantry, especially ragheads that cluster up in defensive positions.

This is a repost since it got completely buried in the earlier F-35 thread...but I’m curious how Tyler would rebut it (Note: this is significantly plagerized):

I agree 100%.

If your plane had more than one engine, it didn’t “fall out of the sky.” But, drama!

The goal is to have lower advertised ticket prices. If a whole bunch of stuff is going to be included in the fare automatically it spreads the cost of services over everyone regardless if they make use of them or not. It also encourages people to use them when they otherwise wouldn’t. Oh I can bring a suitcase full of…

Fucking this. The whole article was based on *revenue*...not profit. The airlines are still not exactly turning a huge profit. They charge these fees because they’d go out of business otherwise.

I wouldn’t call it a “shakedown” though. Airfares are the cheapest they have ever been. Airlines charge more money for extras, and if you don’t need them, your flight is cheaper. If you do need to, say, check a bag, then pay the extra fee, become a frequent flyer with that airline, or get their free bag credit card.

I’m not sure that I agree with the tone of the article. It seems like you’re outraged that airlines are turning to other revenue streams to line their coffers. The reality is that the airline business has always been a volatile one, with fuel costs being both the largest line item and the most volatile cost.

We’re too stuck in this mindset that we should fly to where ever we want round-trip for $100, travel with 50 billion pieces of luggage for free, get fed a 5 course gourmet meal in-flight, get access to entertainment and connectivity for free, etc.

I’m sorry, but your argument is wrong from start to finish. First, there is a manned aircraft that can clearly outmatch an F16 and F16 — the F22. Air combat performance isn’t just about how much G an aircraft can pull. It is also about how much energy it loses in a turn, how quickly it can accelerate at what altitude,…

Congratulations, anti-vaxxers. You did it! You saved her from autism!

Built on huge concrete pillars* What’s so treacherous about this exactly?