787-9 takeoff, doesn't retract landing gear

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

787 pilot here. I had an MEL not too long ago where it required us to leave the gear out for 10 minutes after departure I will try and find the MEL number if I don't forget.

[-]

DogsOutTheWindow@reddit

I spent a decade on 787 program. Would love to hear your thoughts on flying it.

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

My background is about 11 years on the 737-800 and last few years on the max. I made the switch to 787 in July. So I have been operating for about 8 months on type.

I quite love flying the plane. It handles nicely overall. It followS most of the Boeing logic that I got used to from my 737 days it's just a lot smarter and helps you out a lot more. Doesn't make a fuss out of crosswinds.

Few things that I don't like. The flight deck gets hot without the packs on. The onboard EFB is quite rubbish and slow. A performance calculation might take minutes to produce a result. iPad does it a lot quicker Very slippery aircraft. If you hit mountain waves and aren't ready, it's easy to go into overspeed. Similarly, it doesn't want to slow down for the approach at all.

Anything specific you were curious to know about?

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

I worked 787 environmental control, specifically air distribution. It’s no surprise to me that the 787 cockpit gets hot with the packs off. Do other models manage to stay cool without pack air?

I worked on a bunch of the MEL scenarios. I remember one thing that bothered the pilots was when we’d keep 1 of the 2 lower recirculation fans going, even if the pilots commanded both off. It was needed to assure there was adequate airflow across the top of the wing box to cool the power feeders.

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Well, 737 depending on the type of ground air you received and how hot it was outside you could be reasonably comfortable. Worst case scenario you opened your window for a bit of fresh air. Something you can't do on a 787.

Yeah the recirc fans get quite loud. We often switch off the lower recirc fans on the ground to do our briefing. Personally it doesn't bother me, but some captains get annoyed.

It's cool you worked on those MEL's next time I am looking one up I will think of you!

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

LOL you just reminded me of an early argument we had with the airlines over ground cooling. Boeing said 1 ground cart port was enough, while the airlines were saying that Everett engineers had no concept of what a hot & humid summer day in the SE is like. One of the airlines had our service engineering folks come down on a summer day and fool around cooling a 767 with some different size ground carts. They became believers, but I don’t think Everett engineering management were swayed.

[-]

Different-Safe-7190@reddit

Boeing management is garbage. My dad works in Everett and is a quality control inspector which is an FAA mandated position and management purposely makes his life a living hell because my dad will call everything out that’s wrong even just a tiny thing and that slows down production and all the management wants is to push planes out the door as fast as possible so they get money money money. Boeing is a great company ONLY because of the hourly workers. Boeing management is shit and the reason Boeing gets a bad rep. My grandpa also works for bowing doing flight test. He’s done flight test for every Boeing aircraft that has came out in the last 40 years and he loves it. I have many exclusive flights test patches from some of the programs he worked on.

[-]

These_Molasses_8044@reddit

It’s funny, because they make the damn things in South Carolina. You’d think they’d know

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

No, they were originally designed & built in Everett WA. It was only later that Boeing built a new factory in South Carolina.

[-]

bencit28@reddit

No, the design was spread out to many partners around the world and final assembly and delivery started in Everett.

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

I was part of boeing staffing up the 787 program because the partners were falling behind, and the first sections were arriving at the factory in various stages of incompletion. The air distribution system was designed, analyzed, and tested by Everett engineers. We hand built most of the ducting and air vents/nozzles for the ECS flight test airplane (hull 3). The partners eventually got their acts together, but those first few flight test airplanes were a nightmare.

The air cycle machinery was designed by the very capable people at Hamilton Sundstrand back east.

[-]

bencit28@reddit

Small world I remember those days. I was a mechanic on the 2 test and planes 1-5 before moving into supply chain.

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

I hope you weren’t one of the mechanics stuffing blue gloves and empty coffee cups into the ducting. It took us forever to balance the system because of that. 🤬

[-]

bencit28@reddit

I was structures only bud.

[-]

DogsOutTheWindow@reddit

I was in engineering in midbody cell 10 around 2013-2015. Which group were you in?

[-]

bencit28@reddit

I worked 1209 and 873 back in 2007-2008

[-]

DogsOutTheWindow@reddit

Awesome man!! Were you uppers or lowers?

[-]

bencit28@reddit

Mostly upper.

[-]

SteveD88@reddit

You might know the answer to a question that has always bugged me; the air intake for the ECS has this small bulge on the outer casing that wasn't there in the earlier variants; was there something wrong with the initial intake design?

[-]

AshtonTS@reddit

I work at Hamilton Sundstrand (now Collins Aerospace) in the plant where the packs are made. I have worked on the 787 packs and other air cycle machinery. I do ECLSS for Space applications these days, but the packs were really cool. Especially the electric architecture of 787.

[-]

These_Molasses_8044@reddit

It’s a yoke

[-]

ajm895@reddit

I knew an engineer who worked for GE Aviation in Ohio and said he worked on a the 777x program. After that he came up to Detroit and worked automotive for awhile. He was so shocked when he saw how much we travelled, Europe, Asia, Australia, etc. I was surprised he never visited Boeing or even GE plants somewhere. He said it would have been helpful for his job but the traveling was never allowed due to budget.

[-]

gehzumteufel@reddit

All engineers should have to work 6 months being on the floor/field/whatever the fuck it is doing the work for the field they're going into. Every engineer's tune would change greatly in many respects and would create a more harmonious relationship with their fellow non-engineer coworkers.

[-]

laselma@reddit

Are you allowed to write as a Boeing employee here?

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

*former employee. The 787 development was a long time ago.

[-]

-Ernie@reddit

I worked 787 environmental control

Here’s a random question for you, I used to work for a company that built equipment for human comfort testing, this was like like 20 years ago but we talked to Boeing about providing devices that would simulate the heat load coming from a plane full of passengers.

The project never went forward but I recall that they were looking to replace their existing system which consisted of a coffee can with a 100 watt light bulb in it sitting on each seat.

I’m just curious if they ever moved to a more high-tech solution?

[-]

AngrySquid270@reddit

I work on getting the Boeing flight test aircraft into their test configs.

I'm not familiar with this lightbulb/can device, nor this specific validation test.

But I'd imagine this sort of heat load testing could be achieved using the water barrel load banks. Or on a full interior test aircraft just recruit volunteers.

[-]

-Ernie@reddit

I remember them saying that test flight volunteers had to be Boeing employees because of insurance and it was hard to fill a plane because the novelty wears off after a couple test flights, lol.

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

Yeah, we did a 6+ hour flight test over to the Great Lakes & back with the back of the plane loaded with over 100 volunteers. They were sitting in crappy old seats without an entertainment system. We encouraged them to bring iPads or books to entertain themselves. They had to stay in their seats, while flight test people were able to stand or walk around. They were pretty jealous of us.

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

For the 787-8 flight testing we started with the light bulb in a coffee can, then moved to electric blankets. I know a guy working on the 777-X, so I’ll have to ask him what they’re using these days.

[-]

-Ernie@reddit

Thanks, I always forget because the 787 seems like a “new” design but it’s been in service ~15 years now.

[-]

More_Than_I_Can_Chew@reddit

The cockpit gets hot without packs on is an actual complaint?

You're sitting inside of a computer that is consuming likely thousands of watts to run things. If course it's going to get hot without conditioning.

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Well, yes, it is a complaint as normally when packs are off on the ground, you often get ground air connected that is supposed to cool down the whole airplane. It's never strong enough. So we end up starting the APU early and get the airconditioning going. Which costs fuel and obviously costs money.

[-]

More_Than_I_Can_Chew@reddit

So, the cockpit is cool enough on pack air but not cool enough on ground air?

[-]

Code_Operator@reddit

I agree on the need for better ground air. When we were designing the air distribution system there was a big push for the airlines not to run their APUs at the gate, nor the older internal combustion engine powered cooling carts. They were planning to install big electric air conditioning units at the gates, and plug in a duct to a dedicated port on the airplane. Everyone tends to underestimate how much cooling it really takes on a hot humid day, and how hard it is to supply that air through a single inlet port. The onboard air conditioning packs are very effective in comparison.

[-]

DogsOutTheWindow@reddit

Very cool man, great to get your perspective. The last 4 years on that program I worked on the service engineering side and loved working alongside airline engineering, one of the best jobs I’ve had. Thanks for the great write up!

[-]

FORKNIFE_CATTLEBROIL@reddit

Is it the Astronautics EFB?

[-]

REDDITKeeli@reddit

That's interesting. About the approach speed, does the autopilot work well managing the speed or do the pilots have to help/take over and use some air brakes/spoilers or other methods?

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Autopilot works a charm, but when you are aerodynamically clean it will see the speed creep up when the autopilot is trying to keep a descent profile rather than a speed. I find myself using the Speedbrake quite a lot more than I was used to on my previous type. Once the gear is out it has enough drag you don't need to intervene anymore.

[-]

Bravo__Whisky@reddit

I usually set the FMS (VNAV DESC page) to assume engine anti-ice on from the final cruise level. It recalculates a shallower descent profile and is much more speed stable; rarely need to use the speedbrake to maintain speed unless a big change in IAS/RoD is required.

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Do you find the thrust lever stay at idle that way throughout descent? Rather take some speedbrake than burning extra fuel.

[-]

Bravo__Whisky@reddit

Yeah, it stays at idle and I've not noticed a difference in arrival fuel. It saves the FMS asking for speedbrake the whole time and is a smoother flight for the passengers. There might be a theoretical fuel penalty but I'm not clever enough to work it out - I'll record some numbers and report back.

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Would be appreciated! And yeah, you need to be very gentle with the speedbrakes or the pax' stomachs are in their mouth.

[-]

EmergencyO2@reddit

That seems like a cool problem to have tbh. “Yeah the plane is a bit too slippery, but we deal ya know 😏”

[-]

_johnfromtheblock_@reddit

“It’s an honest days work”

[-]

CavalrySavagery@reddit

I hate using speedbrakes, I feel you. 320 flap operator here...

[-]

Bernardus01@reddit

Do you only use the onboard EFB or do you use one on the iPad as well (and if so, which one 🙂)?

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

We use both, but the complaints about the onboard EFB are quite loud so we may end up switching to the portable EFB (iPad)

[-]

Bernardus01@reddit

And which portable EFB are you using if I may ask?

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

iPad

[-]

Bernardus01@reddit

I meant the software on the iPad (aviatar, ifs, AvioBook, …)

[-]

Fresh-Word2379@reddit

Once in a while I just need to fan-post to a pilot. It’s like MLB players - I’m still just. Huge fan at 56 years old. So badass.

[-]

Kseries2497@reddit

I'm surprised to hear that about the speed. I work approach control and 787s aren't really on our watch list for planes that won't slow down - the primary offenders there are larger 737s, especially if they're a MAX.

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Long haul pilots tend to be more cautious as we don't fly as often so we try to be less "slick" with the aircraft. I used to do 20 flights every 9 days and now I do 8 flights per month and most of them I am not the pilot flying.

[-]

spaceship-earth@reddit

What engines have you flown? GEnx or Trent? Thoughts on the performance? Ever have engine issues?

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Rolls and yes, issues on the whole 78 fleet. It's the main reason we may not have a single Boeing in the future. But we will have to see.

[-]

michuneo@reddit

Rollers definitely have some issues…

[-]

Beginning_Beach_2054@reddit

Hopefully this question isnt out of line and no worries if you dont want to answer but is here a significant pay bump going from 737 to 787? (obviously flying longer routes im guessing would play a part?)

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Funnily enough due to a strong GBP lately I have around the same if not more compared to my previous salary.

[-]

Then_Hearing_7652@reddit

787 pilot here for United. Generally, yes. The trips are more lucrative overall. But to over simplify in the States seniority is everything. Being top seniority for a 737 beats low rung 787 first officer. If you’re a captain on the 787 with say 5-10 years under your belt on the type it’s paying you more than the same time as a 737 captain.

[-]

okaywhattho@reddit

It handles nicely overall is such a funny thing to say about a massive aircraft.

[-]

Then_Hearing_7652@reddit

You can definitely tell and notice handling differences. This is why the 757 will always be the most fun for me to have flown, like a Ferrari of the sky.

[-]

SuperOriginalName23@reddit

We fly both the 777 and the 787 combined, sorry to say everyone prefers the 777 😬

[-]

DogsOutTheWindow@reddit

No problem at all, the 777 is an incredible airplane! Has to be an awesome job piloting wide bodies.

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

Haven't had the pleasure yet of flying the 777. Crew rest looks fabulous though.

[-]

montagious@reddit

I flew it as an FO for about 8.5 years. LOVED it. The automation, and especially the reminders page is so helpful when you're halfway around the world on the back side of the clock. Love the HUD. Airplane flies so nice, and always under burns.

Everyone's favorite part of the airplane though, has to be the bunk (crew rest)

Never really saw anything serious mechanically, but it is a newer fleet. I always joke that mechanics bring a laptop to the airplane instead of a screwdriver, which is actually true.

Now I'm on the 757/767 in the left seat, and have to say its my favorite, because its older technology. Its just more fun to hand fly.

[-]

Appropriate-Count-64@reddit

Also could be brake failed so they have to let it sit to spin down.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

So, what is the purpose of leaving the gear out in this/your instance? As a layperson/non-pilot, it's confusing to see your comment and comprehend it. Lol

[-]

BlaxeTe@reddit

Due to some MELs that disturb airflow in the gear bay the smoke sensors cannot reliably guarantee to detect any fire. To prevent any chance of that occurring you leave the gear down for 10 minutes to cool the brakes and wheel assembly. Performance penalty is an increased fuel consumption due to the increased drag, in this case the gear. Leaving the gear down for 10 minutes after takeoff has a 1200kg fuel penalty.

[-]

Capnmarvel76@reddit

More than an imperial ton of extra fuel for 10 minutes of compromised aerodynamics. Dang!

[-]

BlaxeTe@reddit

Well, the gear is the least aerodynamic piece of an aircraft by a mile. Everything else is designed around aerodynamics, except that. There’s a reason we jokingly call it „the anchor“. It’s also insanely noisy. Usually the gear is dropped or stowed with speed less than 200kts. The limit is 270kts on the 787, while airspace limit below 10000ft is 250kts. To get out of the way of other aircrafts we try our best to be as fast as possible. It’s so incredibly noisy at 250kts that when raising the gear after the 10 minutes you feel like you’re under water because it’s suddenly so quiet.

[-]

thankyouspider@reddit

Why are brakes and wheels hot on a take-off run?

[-]

crabcord@reddit

Do the brakes get hot during takeoff?

[-]

BlaxeTe@reddit

No. But they may still have had some temperature from the landing before if it was close to the next departure as well as brake applications during the taxi out. They’re usually far far from anything that could cause a fire but in aviation everything is about reducing chances. Also, maybe you have a stuck brake that heats up during the take off roll and you won’t know about it.

[-]

nkempt@reddit

Man, the depth of the failure modes and effects analysis to get that single line on the MEL is wild. Months and months and months of work and testing.

[-]

DouchecraftCarrier@reddit

Leaving the gear down for 10 minutes after takeoff has a 1200kg fuel penalty.

This is wild to me. I mean, I know airliners are huge and gobble up fuel in quantities that are hard to imagine, but just leaving the gear down on a B788 for 10 minutes uses more Jet-A than my car does gasoline in a whole year.

[-]

BlaxeTe@reddit

There was a time we had 2 787 with this issue and it was ongoing for weeks. Around 3 flights a day each adds up to more than 5t a day extra because of this issue. So all in all probably more than 100t extra fuel burn just for those 2 aircrafts alone!

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

Holy shit, thanks for the very concise and clear explanation! So, essentially the brakes get hot and the extra time is to ensure the brakes aren't still hot while stowed potentially causing a fire?

I can't believe how much I'm learning on this one thread.

What does MEL mean?

[-]

nobody65535@reddit

Minimum Equipment List -- what can be broken/out of service and still fly

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

Thank you for educating me. I appreciate you.

[-]

elkab0ng@reddit

I love this reddit. The most random observation gets a back-and-forth from someone on the 787 design team, two airline mechanics, and a 787 pilot or two, and a couple engine specialists to round the discussion out. It’s like watching the most interesting coffee shop around some days.

[-]

fresh_like_Oprah@reddit

and CDL, what aerodynamic stuff can be missing

[-]

mycatslaps@reddit

Good sir, I do not think these pilots posses a CDL s/

[-]

digitallyresonant@reddit

Minimum Equipment List

[-]

nosecohn@reddit

1200kg fuel penalty for 10 minutes with the gear down?! Wow.

[-]

Chicago_Blackhawks@reddit

Fascinating, so the airline would rather take that penalty and pay more for fuel than repair it same day and risk delaying or cancelling flights. Cool stuff

[-]

MeccIt@reddit

rather take that penalty

I mean, what could it cost? $10?

1.2 tons of fuel is currently ~US$800 which seems much cheaper than delaying or cancelling a flight.

[-]

Melech333@reddit

Well the risk of a landing gear fire is potentially catastrophic. Far higher risk than a minor repair and flight delay.

Here's an example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria_Airways_Flight_2120

[-]

biggsteve81@reddit

Here's another example

[-]

play_hard_outside@reddit

No, $10 is what a banana costs! Right?

[-]

chemtrailer21@reddit

Even further, each specific MEL has a specific number od flight days before repair becomes required.

It allows for airlines to safely operate the aircrafts sched flying and do repair overnight/at a hub etc. Parts are often flown in meet the aircraft.

[-]

stevecostello@reddit

Might not be able to repair it at many given fields. I’m not familiar with gear door seal installs on the 787, but you obviously would need the parts, and there might be survival tooling involved, not to mention time.

[-]

markpb@reddit

I’m guessing it facilitates a situation where the aircraft is at an airport where either parts or engineers are not available to fix the problem or, as you say, the problem cannot be rectified without impacting the schedule. This is probably especially true in jurisdictions where there are stiffer penalties for delays attributable to the airline.

[-]

LoneGhostOne@reddit

Thanks for the answer! I was trying to figure out what a seal had to do with leaving the gear down!

[-]

IdeaEmbarrassed7552@reddit

I will be honest and tell you I don't quite know. An engineer would be better suited to answer this. A performance penalty in this case is for example to add 2900 pounds (1315kg) of fuel for landing gear extended for 10 minutes. So on top of your normal fuel you add this. There were some other penalties but this was the easiest one.

[-]

Killentyme55@reddit

What I don't understand about the video is how the inboard MLG doors opened almost immediately after the wheels left the runway, stayed open for a few seconds then closed with the gear still extended. My initial thought was a problem with the sequencing switches that prevented the gear from cycling, but your idea makes more sense.

Still curious about those doors though...

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

So a performance penalty is literally that, something that penalizes standard performance, i.e. adding more fuel than usual standard, causing other precautions or actions to be taken?

My dumbass thought it was something regarding a performance review for pilots, haha

[-]

culprit020893@reddit

Thanks for asking cuz I was in the same boat

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

You're welcome!

[-]

notthisonefornow@reddit

Noob here, what does MEL mean?

[-]

thunder6776@reddit

Minimum equipment list! Basically stuff that may be broken but not necessary for flight is mentioned in that documentation.

[-]

culprit020893@reddit

Is this akin to how the plan can still fly even though something, efficient, but not critical is missing such as a winglet

[-]

aceyt12@reddit

Yeah, very similar. A winglet would come under the CDL (Configuration Deviation List). MEL tends to cover internal equipment, sensors etc whereas the CDL covers things like winglets, flap track fairings, flap seals and the like.

[-]

culprit020893@reddit

Awesome, thanks for the knowledge

[-]

DouchecraftCarrier@reddit

Exactly. It's something that can be broken but the aircraft is still authorized to perform a revenue flight. And for things like a missing winglet they'll even have a setting they can punch in that will automatically account for the reduced aerodynamics and adjust fuel burn projections, speeds, etc.

[-]

culprit020893@reddit

Thanks!

[-]

notthisonefornow@reddit

Ah clear! Cool! Thank u!

[-]

prplx@reddit

Can I ask you something not at all related since you are a pilot? A few years ago I was taking off on a small propeller airplane I think it was a Dash something. When we took off in could see sparks on the wheel (I was sitting at the window). As the gear retraced I could still see a few sparkles as it rotated as it went in the wing. It was late I was tired and wanted to get home so I said nothing (but kept an eye on the wheel). Should I have said something ?

[-]

Killentyme55@reddit

Sparks aren't normal during the takeoff roll, it was likely a dragging brake or something similar. It wouldn't have hurt to alert the aircrew as that does entail a fire hazard, but likely someone else also saw it and said something.

[-]

prplx@reddit

It was a practically empty flight pretty sure I was the only one who saw it.

[-]

soulscratch@reddit

Probably should've said something, though there is fire detection in the wheel well of the Dash.

[-]

Original_Read_4426@reddit

Can I ask what a MEL is?

[-]

Aurora8305@reddit

Minimum equipment list. In a nutshell, a document that lays out required equipment and what/how/duration things can be deferred for.

[-]

Original_Read_4426@reddit

Thank you

[-]

malcolmmonkey@reddit

I fucking love aviation. All this shit is so smart and so safe. Aviation people should run everything. ♥️

[-]

Secondarymins@reddit

Would be great if we weren't all autistic as hell

[-]

SiteRelEnby@reddit

IMHO autistic people should be running everything. World would be a much fairer and more functional place.

[-]

Danitoba94@reddit

I disagree. Wouldn't be half as much care, passion, attention to detail and obsession with propriety, if we all were wired like normal people.

That might sound a bit self-indulgent. But i firmly believe it regardless. :P

[-]

Secondarymins@reddit

Sorry I forgot egotistical 😂 (Kidding... kidding...)

[-]

Stoweboard3r@reddit

Ya big time

[-]

Crazy__Donkey@reddit

What's MEL?

[-]

SiteRelEnby@reddit

Minimum Equipment List. Whether a plane is allowed to fly with certain things inoperative, and any operational restrictions that are applied as a result.

[-]

Hypnoti_q@reddit

Saw the same thing happened to a avianca 78 out of miami the other day

[-]

RobertWilliamBarker@reddit

Yep. Was talking to a British Airways pilot on guard flying around with his gear out. He explained this exact same thing.

[-]

youraveragep3rson@reddit

I could be there was a long taxi distance so they had to cool off gears it's a method to not overheat the gears

[-]

Seetherrrr@reddit

Actual crew of this flight in comments guys. Brake inop and per MEL mist cool a few mins before retraction. Happy flying/spotting.

[-]

tferguson15@reddit

If this was last week, on Apr 13, that was me! We had one brake that was inop, the MEL called for leaving the gear down for 2 minutes after takeoff for cooling. That sure looks like our flight, it's pretty rare we depart off of 24R

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

Yes! April 13th AC826 to Brussels

Here is a roughly edited still I extracted from the video: https://imgur.com/a/TuvscEa

[-]

tferguson15@reddit

Yep, that was us! Thanks for the pic, I'll forward it to the rest of the crew

[-]

Seetherrrr@reddit

This is what the internet was made for. Love it. See you all up there!

[-]

tferguson15@reddit

Yep, that was us! Thanks for the pic, I'll forward it to the rest of the crew

[-]

LeaderPast1569@reddit

the new flight simulator by microsoft

where most of the people can't tell sim by real world

[-]

Firm_Swing@reddit

Blown away by how many people respond like this video’s real…of course they might be sims too

[-]

LeaderPast1569@reddit

It takes a good eye and some knowledge tho, they LOOK REAL my friend!!!

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

It's not a video game, but tell me why you think that, I'm curious

[-]

LeaderPast1569@reddit

It definitely is my friend, the lighting, the dynamics, the only pov, the "temporary window" from when you have a replay, the little spirals in the engines, the way the ground vehicles move..... I can't explain it really well, but having been around planes and airports a lot, and around flight sims even more, I am 99.999999999999999999999% positive it's either MSFS or P3D

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

I am 99.999999999999999999999% positive

You are wrong.

I can't explain it really well

I wonder why??????

The lighting is good, the sun was setting so no harsh shadows, one engine has some light enter into it, but not the other, the fuselage is blocking it.

Dynamics? There is strong stabilization applied + dynamic reframing.

Temporary Window is my youtube channel's name. It my watermark.

Spiral on the engine come from me shooting at 1/250hz or 1/500hz shutter, not enough motion blur for it to become a "white blob"

The ground vehicles are moving normally on the ground? What are you even talking about lol.

Also, if I could make an aviation video that everyone except you believes is real... I would be the CEO of Disney instead of posting on reddit.

here is unprocessed clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2wi9gdlrNA&themeRefresh=1

[-]

madfunk@reddit

I love when people bring receipts.

[-]

mikecngan@reddit

This is so strange. The explanation is this is a noob playing a video game…

[-]

Dave_DBA@reddit

Brake cooling, likely.

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

Maybe, but it wasn't hot and the plane was on the ground for like three hours, short taxi as well, might have been INOP temperature sensors or fire warning system in the landing gear.

[-]

MyWholeTeamsDead@reddit

3h might not be enough to cool brakes if the arrival really stamped on it

[-]

flightist@reddit

I doubt you’d be pushing off the gate with hot brakes from the arrival because a rejected takeoff will dump more energy into the brakes than any other situation. Any cooling req’s on takeoff will be to handle whatever heat might’ve built up during the taxi, and sometimes (as is the case on my airplane) you’ll have an MEL telling you to leave the gear out for a couple minutes simply to make sure the wheels stop spinning before the retract cycle.

[-]

MyWholeTeamsDead@reddit

Good point!

[-]

flightist@reddit

In fairness, I hedged the comment because I fly a plane without brake temp sensors, so if we manage to do something that really gets them hot (basically, abuse the shit out of them with auto brakes max we just tell somebody what happened and wait for instructions. I’ve done that, but never in a situation where the plane was going to go right back out again.

I’m assuming they wouldn’t let us push with hot brakes, but I don’t know that for sure. Maybe there’s some obscure procedure. I feel like I remember that but it could be stuff for a different airplane floating around in there.

[-]

MyWholeTeamsDead@reddit

That's kinda what I was drawing on in my memory, but I don't have a fix on what it was. It might have been a 320 Sim Pilot video when he swapped the 320 for the 787 and was explaining the differences.

[-]

contrail_25@reddit

Why would the main inboard doors move then?

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

On the 787, the plane detects that its lifting and opens the main gear door automatically 1 second after it lifts. It's done so that when pilots retract landing gear, it happens faster as it doesn't have to wait for the MLG doors to open.

[-]

contrail_25@reddit

TIL….

[-]

GoldenWillie@reddit

Why are brakes hot after takeoff?

[-]

Diver_ABC@reddit

Because of the taxying into take-off position.

[-]

SnowConvertible@reddit

They attempted to retract though. The main gear doors opened; just the NLG doors failed to open for some reason.

[-]

am_111@reddit

I think this is actually a feature of the 787. I can’t remember the name or the exact parameters because I’m away from my manual at the moment. But essentially the aircraft pre-empts retracting the gears by automatically opening the doors in anticipation after lift off. They then close again if the gear aren’t retracted after a certain time.

Again, off the top of my head, I believe this saves a little bit of fuel burn because it allows the gear to be raised a fraction quicker on a normal take off.

There are a couple of MEL items that require the gear to remain down for a few minutes. An inoperative brake temp sensor is one off the top of my head.

[-]

SnowConvertible@reddit

Some aircraft have interesting systems. Like the 777 auto starting its APU if all power failed and the aircraft is in air. That one took a view of our mechanics by surprise the first time they jacked one up.

But would the system you mentioned not open all gear doors?

[-]

ChartreuseBison@reddit

The mechanics were near the APU while the plane was in the air?

[-]

DouchecraftCarrier@reddit

Aircraft - even airliners - are sometimes put on jacks to test the landing gear. In this case the APU is probably attached to a squat switch in the gear - if it detects that there's no weight on the wheels and no electricity, it fires up the APU. The mechanics wouldn't even have to be near it, in a hangar it would be deafening. The APU is a turbine, essentially a small jet engine.

[-]

ChartreuseBison@reddit

I figured, I just thought it was funny phrasing.

Although you think there's lot of other sensors it could check besides/in addition to weight on the gear

[-]

TampaPowers@reddit

How'd that even happen. The APU autostart is tied to the transfer bus logic. Moment one of those is lost and no other alternative power available it will start. Just unloading the gear in a powered up state wouldn't trigger that unless they also then decided to disconnect the ground power. Bigger question is why it was being jacked up in a powered up state enough to trigger this in the first place. Tried changing a tire last minute or?

[-]

SnowConvertible@reddit

You wouldn't lift the whole aircraft for a tire change. As far as I remember they had external power connected but the cord was too short and the plug got pulled during lifting. I don't know if that is procedure in any way as I don't work on these aircraft personally.

[-]

TheDevilHimself499@reddit

Surely there's a jacking procedure that has breakers pulled for that exact reason right?

[-]

SnowConvertible@reddit

As far as I remember the external power cord wasn't long enough and got pulled out during the lifting. I don't know if this is procedure though.

[-]

railker@reddit

That one took a few of our mechanics by surprise the first time they jacked one up.

Holy shit, I bet 😂

[-]

Darksirius@reddit

God, that would be like me at work (body shop) and putting the car on a lift and having it just randomly start lol.

[-]

katyvo@reddit

My car has remote start and will give me a notification if the doors/hood/trunk are open. I could do the funniest thing the next time it goes in for service

[-]

Bushelsoflaughs@reddit

My car won’t remote start if the fuel is below ? threshold. It just honks in protest.

[-]

mr_bots@reddit

FYI most cars won’t remote start if the hood is open.

[-]

Redebo@reddit

Does that APU supply power to cockpit recovery systems/lighting/pressure control or anything like that?

Like I could see having a backup of in air and all shit hits the fan to have any hope of a RTN however unlikely that may be.

[-]

fresh_like_Oprah@reddit

APU provides AC volts and pressurized air

[-]

packtloss@reddit

That seems like the kind of thing you’d be aware of, if you were in the position of being the people doing the jacking, no?

[-]

am_111@reddit

Just looked it up and it is only the main doors that open automatically. I guess the main gear are the draggiest so getting them away quicker will make the most difference.

[-]

fly_awayyy@reddit

It’s more for climb performance vs fuel burn. Yes it reduces drag leading to a fuel savings since that’s the added benefit.

[-]

am_111@reddit

I knew I wasn’t remembering it exactly right. I did end up digging out the FCOM and looking it up and you’re right, it’s to ‘improve performance’ in our manuals which is sufficiently vague.

[-]

spike808@reddit

My guess is it's there specifically to improve single engine takeoff performance in a V1 cut scenario.

[-]

Ancient-Way-6520@reddit

Why do the doors opening right after liftoff improve climb performance? In my mind, the plane would be aerodynamically cleaner if the doors stayed closed until just before the gear was actually retracted.

[-]

fly_awayyy@reddit

All detailed and mentioned here by Airbus and their graphs. Faster and immediate gear retraction leads to improved climb performance. The system is anticipating the crew to command gear up anyways so that’s speeds it up. Airbus reduced gear retraction speeds on the A330NEO and A350 with faster pumps for increased payload along with other improvements.

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2024-02-airbus-to-introduce-a330neo-takeoff-performance-enhancements#:~:text=Faster%20and%20earlier%20landing%20gear%20%26%20door%20retraction%20sequencing&text=This%20reduction%20is%20targeted%20through,time%20by%20around%200.2%20seconds.

[-]

outoftape@reddit

Very impressive that just by speeding up gear retraction by a few seconds, they increase the usable takeoff weight by 2-4 tonnes.

[-]

fly_awayyy@reddit

Couldn’t believe it my self but great way to squeeze out extra performance.

[-]

Ancient-Way-6520@reddit

Ah thank you that makes sense, allows the gear to retract sooner as it doesn't need to wait for the doors to open before retracting.

[-]

confusedguy1212@reddit

I vaguely remember something about improved performance having to do with V2 on engine failure in the 787. I might be wrong though.

[-]

SoothedSnakePlant@reddit

I've always wondered why no one has ever just... put cameras on planes?

Would a small camera in the gear bay really add so much weight that the fuel savings aren't worth it? Or one facing the engines so pilots can visually inspect the condition of the wing and engine if needed? I mean hell, you could mount that one on a passenger window.

[-]

rxbuzzz@reddit

777-200 does have a camera. To make certain rampers are clear from the pushback before moving

[-]

triggerfish1@reddit

It's probably to improve the performance calculations (especially for the OEI climb case) I assume?

[-]

am_111@reddit

All my FCOM says is that it improves performance. I’m sure I could find a better answer if I dug deeper. But it basically reduces the retract time, which means less drag, and that’s always handy whether you’ve broken an engine or not.

[-]

fly_awayyy@reddit

Any FCOM will be vague lol. Here more science behind it published by Airbus on their A330NEO with improved gear retraction speeds and the subsequent benefits.

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2024-02-airbus-to-introduce-a330neo-takeoff-performance-enhancements#:~:text=Faster%20and%20earlier%20landing%20gear%20%26%20door%20retraction%20sequencing&text=This%20reduction%20is%20targeted%20through,time%20by%20around%200.2%20seconds.

[-]

plhought@reddit

It's only a feature on the 787-9 and -10.

Isn't on the -8.

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

The MLG doors open automatically after liftoff, NLG only opens when the pilots retract the gear.

[-]

SnowConvertible@reddit

I see. So not a bug, but a feature. I question the necessity of such a system but it's still interesting.

[-]

fly_awayyy@reddit

Improved OEI climb and climb in general leading to better climb performance thus payload capability.

[-]

Murpet@reddit

Improve net OEI climb performance.

[-]

Ergotron_2000@reddit

Wait so the brakes were to hot to raised into the fuselage but not to hot to preform a rejected takeoff? Am struggling to see that design point

[-]

Strict_Lettuce3233@reddit

It’s a drone

[-]

Richinwalla@reddit

Checklist? Qu' est-ce que?

[-]

RemotePoet9397@reddit

Brake hot..let the gear down for few minutes ( depends on MEL).

[-]

yochimo@reddit

Probably hot break due to a short turnaround

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

If the brakes are hot, we don't depart until they've cooled. We cannot complete a takeoff if the brakes are too hot.

[-]

yochimo@reddit

I happened to me a couple times, mostly on 330s with a short turnaround time

We Had the wheels out of a good 5-10 minutes because the breaks were too hot to be pull back in.

I asked the cmdt about it and he explained to me that he had to let the wheels out because the computer wouldn't let them back in due to hot temps

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

See that just doesn't make sense to me. Before we takeoff we have to know that there is enough energy left in the brakes to bring the aircraft to a stop in the event of an aborted takeoff.

If the brakes are too hot, then we don't know that we have enough energy in the brakes for an RTO. I find it hard to envision a scenario where the brakes are so hot that we need to leave them extended to cool them off, but they are cool enough to bring us to a stop in the event of an RTO. But with that said, I could be wrong.

I've had to leave gear down after takeoff a couple times but each time it was because the system that senses the brake temperature was deferred. It wasn't because the brakes were too hot.

Based on what you mentioned, I would think that's what happened to you as well. But again, I could be wrong.

[-]

SiteRelEnby@reddit

Maybe depends on runway length, if reverse thrust is available, etc?

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

It definitely depends on runway length but we don’t ever use reverse thrust when calculating our accelerate-stop distance. The reason being, what if losing an engine is the reason we’re aborting the takeoff?

[-]

SiteRelEnby@reddit

Makes sense.

[-]

finsfanscott@reddit

Not a pilot (so happy to defer) but am a mechanical engineer. My understanding is the brakes can be "too hot" to sit inside the enclosed space when retracted - meaning the brakes will heat up everything around them- but still have enough thermal ability to stop the plane on a rejected takeoff.

[-]

yochimo@reddit

It could be wrong, but this is what I understood when he explained it to me

[-]

Financial-Sea-1064@reddit

Air Canada livery currently unmatched in my book

[-]

SchrodingersGoodBar@reddit

Still a shitty airline though.

“Air Canada, we’re not happy till you’re not happy”

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

except the eyeliner, its almost completely matched by delta

[-]

grey_crawfish@reddit

I will never see an Air Canada jet without admiring the eyeliner

[-]

Financial-Sea-1064@reddit

Only on the new airbuses that come with it from factory. It’s not part of the Delta livery

[-]

scotsman3288@reddit

Weirdly, only AC and Delta have the racoon mask for their A220s. I have yet to see it on any others, and I've seen at least 4 other airlines.

[-]

The-Lifeguard@reddit

Really? Just black and white? I found it so boring. When you stood next to the old blue, it had a really nice Sparkle to it.

[-]

thesuperunknown@reddit

The old blue “toothpaste” livery was just awful. I mean, it was pretty unique, but it looked so bad.

[-]

The-Lifeguard@reddit

It did tend to crack pretty bad at the end of it's lifespan but when it was fresh, up close it was great.

[-]

Financial-Sea-1064@reddit

I just think it looks super clean and I love the eyeliner

[-]

Zenyatta_2011@reddit

Boeing is also implementing the whore eyeliner? I thought it was only airbus who was in the redlight district

[-]

imnotabotareyou@reddit

Maybe the G key was broken

[-]

OnTheBreeze@reddit

Airbus pilot here, how do you eat your lunch?

[-]

birddog172@reddit

We all know you don’t have time to eat your lunch…too busy working out your top of descent point!

[-]

OnTheBreeze@reddit

🤣🤣

[-]

wllperegoy@reddit

Wait I thought only Airbus did the slutty eyeliner?

[-]

BrewYork@reddit

I laughed really hard at "slutty eyeliner." Then I showed my girlfriend, who is not as plane-crazy (or train-crazy) as me, and she also laughed her ass off. Thank you.

[-]

wllperegoy@reddit

Can't take credit for it, got it from another post on this sub. But you're welcome for the laughs!

[-]

Serious_Goose5368@reddit

My first thought was "Is this really a 787? It looks like a newer Airbus"

[-]

BubblyAvocado9@reddit

LOL please educate this ignorant person... what is the slutty eyeliner? I must know 😂

[-]

CorrosiveMoon@reddit

The racoon eyes for the windshield. Seen on all the airbus NEOs and the 350. Air Canada livery uses the racoon eyes for its livery regardless of plane type.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

So it's just a tinted windscreen? Why wouldn't all windscreens be tinted?

[-]

thesuperunknown@reddit

No, it’s black paint around the windshield. The windshield itself is not tinted.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

OOOOHHHHHH I SEE IT! I thought the windscreen looked huge, but I'm not planeologist.

Thanks for the explanation, I actually like the way it looks.

[-]

testthrowawayzz@reddit

And then someone made a post about it asking “what’s with the slutty eyeliner” (paraphrasing) and the nickname stuck

[-]

Hugo_5t1gl1tz@reddit

This is an Air Canada thing

[-]

wllperegoy@reddit

Ahh gotcha

[-]

johanndacosta@reddit

quality cameraman

[-]

oschusler@reddit

One pilot to the other: "I have the strangest feeling I'm forgetting someting important"

[-]

Signal-Session-6637@reddit

Surely you can’t be serious.

[-]

Top_Carpenter9541@reddit

I am serious and don’t call me Shirley 🥁

[-]

joesnopes@reddit

We're pretty informal around here. Just call me Captain or Sir.

[-]

Diedsen@reddit

787/777 (mixed fleet) pilot here; Could be a deactivated brake, normally the brakes are applied when the gear is selected up to stop the wheels. But if a brake is deactivated you’ll need to give it time to spool down and come to a stop.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

Holy shit, i never thought about having to apply breaks during takeoff because of the tires still moving after leaving the tarmac, I assume the wind also moves them?

That's brilliant, TIL! Thanks!

[-]

thesuperunknown@reddit

This is pretty common on retractable gear GA aircraft: positive rate, tap brakes, gear up.

Most modern airliners automatically apply brakes when gear retraction is commanded, no need to do it manually.

[-]

joesnopes@reddit

Another reason for braking the main gear is that most main gears retract sideways. If the wheels were still spinning it would impose a gyroscopic precession force - twisting - to the beam, scissor links and oleo.

[-]

Existing-Today-410@reddit

Brakes.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

Autocorrect.

[-]

BlaxeTe@reddit

As far as I remember that’s only 2 minutes after takeoff for a deactivated brake to slow down. 10 minutes is usually due to some missing fairing doors which prevent the smoke and fire detection system to work properly

[-]

joesnopes@reddit

Others may have noticed this but the gear lever is moved to UP shortly after liftoff. This is when the main gear doors (hinged on the centreline) can be seen to open. They stay open until just before the end of the video when they close.

Seems to me that the gear failed to retract for some reason after UP was selected. Then they just followed the alternate (?) procedure in the manual.

[-]

cheesecake3813@reddit

I saw this happen once

[-]

Daniel272@reddit

Nice catch! I love this spot at YYZ

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

Thanks, Sony 200-600, its internal zoom so it's nice for video but it's stabilization is poor compared to 100-400

[-]

Daniel272@reddit

Nice. I use a Lumix 200mm with 2x teleconverter. Nothing crazy but it's all I got for now.

[-]

Option_Witty@reddit

The clip looks like it was recorded from flight simulator 😂

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

probably because I stabilized it a lot

I would not need to cut in the middle if it was a sim tho lol

[-]

Katana_DV20@reddit

So I've read the comments including one from a 787 pilot. Just curious to know more about the system.

So if in a case like this the pilots selected gear up as normal what happens?

The screens flash a warning about brake temps along with an alert sound? The lever will move up but the system won't actually retract it?

[-]

RandomChiquita@reddit

Yes there's a MEL for the one of the gear doors that requires the gear to be down for a certain time before retraction. 787 driver here. The gear doors auto open in anticipation for retraction but closes if they arent retracted.

[-]

thack1_mcl@reddit

I’ve done it a few times… “why is my climb rate so shitty”…. Oh..oops

[-]

Furthur@reddit

was like... wait?! I figured they'd be paragon aligned?!!?

[-]

sootzoo@reddit

“Positive rate.”

“Ok”

[-]

Isolde5@reddit

"Positive rate check"

[-]

Sowhataboutthisthing@reddit

Ha ha “sounds good”

[-]

kevina2@reddit

Could be MEL directed procedure. Up to two minutes if I recall.

[-]

Im_a_pilot78@reddit

I had an MEL that directed to 10 on a 777.

[-]

BrockTheTrainer@reddit

Gawd damn it's beautiful

[-]

SnowConvertible@reddit

Nose gear doors didn't open. Don't know about the 87 specifically but all airliners I know so far do not retract any gear when not all gear doors are open.

[-]

am_111@reddit

The main gear doors open automatically on lift off and then close again if the lever isn’t raised. Aircraft is probably carrying an MEL that requires the gear to remain down for a couple of minutes after take off.

[-]

sandpatch@reddit

Is that ok in the case of a windshear alert?

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

What's an MEL? For uneducated lay peoples like myself.

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

Minimum Equipment List.

It's not uncommon for systems on board the plane to break or not function correctly. In order to allow for time for these systems to get fixed we are allowed to refer to the MEL. The MEL will tell us which systems are allowed to be inoperative, how long they are allowed to be inoperative for, and procedures to use to mitigate any risks.

So for example one of the engine-driven generators is allowed to be inoperative. But it can only be inoperative for 3 days, and the flight is only allowed to be conducted if the APU is on for the entire flight and the APU generator is used in place of the engine-driven generator. This maintains the safety of the system even with one generator not working.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

So, essentially, what you're saying is there's a shit load of things that could potentially go wrong, but ultimately a backup for each sort of thing, to an extent. I understand that obviously things like both engines failing is critical, but most systems are redundant in nature and there's different protocols for each? So, say for example you have the Left land gear inoperable after takeoff, but rear and right stow, would you be able to continue flying since it's down, assuming fuel is adequate to compensate for drag while flying?

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

So, essentially, what you're saying is there's a shit load of things that could potentially go wrong, but ultimately a backup for each sort of thing, to an extent.

Kind of. The MEL is only used when we are on the ground. If we're in the middle of getting the plane ready for a flight and we find that a system isn't working properly then we will contact maintenance. Depending on the system, the issue it's encountering, and the conditions of the flight, we may be allowed to continue without fixing that system provided certain procedures are followed. This is all spelled out in the MEL.

So, say for example you have the Left land gear inoperable after takeoff, but rear and right stow, would you be able to continue flying since it's down, assuming fuel is adequate to compensate for drag while flying?

Just to clarify, this is not what the MEL is for. The MEL is for items are not functioning before the flight departs. The MEL is not used when a system fails IN-FLIGHT. In that case we use the QRH which is the Quick Reference Handbook.

In the scenario you've described, where the left main gear remains extended, the plane would fly just fine. The decision as to whether we would continue to our destination depends on a number of factors. Firstly, how far away is the destination? Do we have the fuel for it? What's the weather? What the approach? Do we have maintenance there? Etc.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

You're awesome for your detailed responses and a reason I love this community! Thank you so much, from an aviation fan.

I appreciate the clarification of WHEN MELs are utilized. I've never even heard of it before today and have learned so much from this thread between you and others.

Aviation is so fascinating to me. Do you think it'd be hard for a 40 y.o. to become a pilot of any sort? Am I "past my prime?"

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

Do you think it'd be hard for a 40 y.o. to become a pilot of any sort? Am I "past my prime?"

Hell no! It won't be easy, but it's certainly doable. The hardest barrier to entry in this field is money. If you can overcome that, then being 40 is just a bump in the road. You may not make it to the left seat of a legacy carrier flying a widebody across the ocean, but there's absolutely no reason you couldn't have a very fulfilling career as a pilot even starting at 40.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

I'm a veteran and I think they have flight schools they pay for. Honestly, im at a really shitty point in life and am waiting for the right moment to do it, but I believe veterans have some sweet deals. Are there flight restrictions for eyesight now days? I've already had cataract surgery in one eye...

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

Unfortunately I'm not the person to ask. That said, it's my understanding that as long as your vision can be corrected to 20/20 you are good to go. But again don't take my word for it.

Best thing to do is to talk to an aviation doctor. And I would do that first before anything else. There's no sense spending any money on training if you won't be able to get the medical.

[-]

Grumpy_Old_Mans@reddit

Thank you. I really appreciate your conversation and knowledge!

[-]

SnidelyWhoopas@reddit

To add to this, it's only the -9 and -10 that have this feature.

[-]

ywgflyer@reddit

As others have said, brake MEL. Actually not a totally uncommon thing on the 787, the guys that fly it have often talked about the brakes being a common deferral on that type.

The -9 (and I presume the -10?) has a thing where the gear doors open by themselves on rotation in anticipation of retracting the gear, to help with the single-engine performance (gets the gear up faster), this helped Boeing not have to have less of a derate on the engines. Or so I have been told.

[-]

CarbonKevinYWG@reddit

Date of the video would help a lot, we could look up the flight to see if anything out of the ordinary happened or if this was just a delayed gear retract.

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

It's just delayed I'm sure... April 13th AC826

[-]

wheelman111@reddit

this is Microsoft flight simulator quit your karma farming with this video lol

[-]

Bayaco_Tooch@reddit

Wheel brake MEL requiring wheels to spin down before retraction. Hot brakes possibly.

[-]

Fliegendes_Fleisch@reddit

That’s an Airbus A350.

[-]

Fliegendes_Fleisch@reddit

Holy shit…. It was a joke….

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

Air Canada doesn't operate A350s so I don't know what to tell you other than nope, it's not an A350.

[-]

OceanRadioGuy@reddit

No it’s not.

[-]

AirAlmond@reddit (OP)

you can pause the video at 18 seconds before the cut, it reads "787-9 dreamliner"

[-]

juusohd@reddit

Definetly isn't. You can tell by the angle of the gear bogies, wingtips and the automatically opening main gear doors among other things.

[-]

withintentplus@reddit

You can tell by the way it is and also because Air Canada doesn't operate any a350s.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

To reduce political fighting this post or comment has been filtered for approval.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

lothcent@reddit

some people just love to let it all hang out and catch the wind

[-]

balsadust@reddit

Cooling the breaks maybe. I do that when we do touch n goes in our jet when I give check rides

[-]

ChucklesNutts@reddit

i hope that is ALL that goes wrong with that flight. also better to get stuck down than up

[-]

in-den-wolken@reddit

Flying with landing gear down is like swimming with a drag suit - gives the plane an extra workout.

[-]

llynglas@reddit

Totally ignorant here. Why aren't the doors open when the gear is down? I guess I grew up on models of WW2 bombers and did not realize it was so different

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

On many commercial airliners, the doors that cover the gear when they are retracted actually close when the gear's extended. So they open up, the gear is lowered, and then they close again.

The same thing happens during retraction. The doors open, the gear comes up, and then they close again.

The 787 though has a system that automaticall opens the gear doors after the plane is airborne. I didn't know this. But it happens without the pilots doing anything. The doors open in anticipation of the gear being raised. In this case the gear wasn't raised so after a certain amount of time the gear doors closed.

[-]

Ordinary-Patient-610@reddit

Are they planning for stall test ?

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

What? Why would they be doing a stall test? And why would leaving the gear down have anything to do with that?

[-]

Ordinary-Patient-610@reddit

Just kidding, this's normal flight.. Stall tests are basically done to make sure a plane doesn't act crazy when it starts losing lift they push it to the limit on purpose to see how it handles, so pilots know what to expect and how to get out of it. It’s all about safety and making sure the plane follows the rules before it’s allowed to fly people around... And they keep the landing gear down during stall tests to make the plane more stable and draggy, so it’s easier to control and recover if things get sketchy. It also simulates landing conditions, which is one of the riskiest times for a stall and also the rules say they gotta test it that way...

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

I know why stall tests are done. But they are typically done in the certification phase of a new type by the manufacturer's test pilots.

The MUCH more likely scenario here is that the BTMS was MEL'd.

[-]

nobody65535@reddit

But what's the Temporary Window?

[-]

qtpss@reddit

Drag racing..

[-]

kiwiinNY@reddit

Did that make you sad?

[-]

Axe_Care_By_Eugene@reddit

Showing off its undercarriage with no shame

[-]

fuggerdug@reddit

Slutty eyeliner and huge .... Engines.

[-]

KeithGauthier@reddit

There is probably a disabled main landing gear brake. Have to leave the gear down for 2 minutes to let the wheel spool down then retract. On the -9 variant the doors automatically open on take off to reduce the time to retract in case of an engine failure. The -8 variant doesn’t open the doors automatically because it has a better power/weight ratio so it can handle a couple extra seconds before retracting in case of engine failure.

[-]

liamowi@reddit

Not to worry, this is the fixed gear varient of the 787 /s

[-]

Tad_LOL@reddit

That was a Charleston plane so I can't say I put the gear in that one but line 696 was during my time.

[-]

demroidsbeitchn@reddit

Some years ago, I was driving south on I-5 just south of KSEA. Off to my right was a beautiful departing 747 at an unusually low altitude (1500'?) for that position, which was about 5 miles south of rwy 16/34. The engines were definitely spooled up (you know the sound) and she was just slogging through the air with all the landing gear hanging, barely gaining altitude, if at all. It was alarming for a split second but I figured she was just heavy and was waiting for a little more airspeed. Never seen anything like it before or since.

[-]