@@jmax8692 he gave fast simple answers to simple questions. People won't stay there to listen for advanced theory, they just wanna know a simple answer
Yeah I’m sure he cares about his students 😂😂 Dude shows no passion or enthusiasm. A pilot could have done a better job tbh. -ADAS engineer -Research Diver -Commercial pilot
@@jmax8692 That must be why he's highly rated as a professor by students that actually took his class contrary to what some random scrub in youtube comments says
@@jmax8692 1. Professors are not babysitters - they're researchers, teachers, and educators. Possibly he's more research oriented than teaching oriented, and that's why there are dedicated teaching staff in addition to research staff. It's much harder to find a good researcher than it is to find a good teacher. 2. He explains everything clearly, with poise and intelligence. Just because you lack the intelligence to understand the topics he discusses, or because he moves too fast for your brain to comprehend, doesn't mean he's a bad teacher.
@@jmax8692He’s actually one of the better profs at purdue! Teaches a lot of seminar classes, really cool aero systems/MDO classes, and was (is?) head of the aero department. He’s involved in a lot of student affairs and it shows - super cool guy!
13:48 Air Traffic Control is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. You need to perform amazing under pressure, need an impeccable memory and are put in charge of thousands of lives any given minute. The responsibility is something else. The vast majority of those trying to join quit due to burnout or other stress related complications
Not to mention that, nowadays, any slight screw up you make as ATC is published here and everyone will judge your lifetime competence based on that few seconds/minutes of your life. Much worse if you're a woman or minority - without even knowing the details, someone will be quick to bring up how this is a "DEI problem".
Hey, former ATC here. I had one pilot - American guy, won't say which airline - who would often say "I love Australian air traffic control. You guys get us to the crash site faster'n anybody else."
Fun fact: Aircraft engines were so unreliable in the past, that pilots in the 1950s and 1960s called the 4 engine Lockheed Super Constellation the best 3 engine aircraft ever built.
The B-36 Peacemaker bomber had six propeller and four jet engines, "six turning and four burning". Reliability turned that into "Two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for."
Dr. Crossley isn’t just a great engineer, he’s also a super down to earth and friendly guy too. He’s been the dean of AAE at Purdue all 4 years I’ve been in the major here. Crazy seeing him on Wired!
He's still a bird brain who thinks telling me "oh flying is safer because there are fewer accidents" is gonna make me feel safe. It doesn't address the fact that if there Is an accident it's more likely to be fatal than a car crash.
@@TheGreatDanish ironically, that's the reason flying is safer. The consequences of failure in flight are a lot higher than that of cars due to altitude and speed, so alllll the redundant systems and training and licences and security that go into aviation make it the safest mode of transport by miles. Something going wrong in a car that causes an accident comparably in aircraft would be a mild inconvenience :D it's excellent
This man is really well spoken, straight to the point and professional. I like how he describes things with both scientist’s and passenger’s interest in mind. Sometimes flying makes me nervous. Hearing him describe the strength of design on commercial airplanes and general airplane safety really helped ease my anxiety about flying!
Mentour Pilot will do more :) Honestly though, if a plane crashes, it's usually bad maintenance policy, or miscommunication/misunderstanding by the crew (getting confused by a faulty warning, bad ATC accents, etc). Occasionally weather or true design flaws (Boeing MCAS) are the culprit. Most modern big airlines are exceptionally safe though, and have had few if any crashes. Cheers!
Remember, anybody can build. It takes a real engineer to build something with as low a safety factor that it doesn't fail while still being cost-efficient.
@@MrNicoJac Yes, MCAS was badly designed, but you can even argue that MCAS incidents could've been stopped if the pilots were educated how this new system works.
He totally did not. Left out crucial parts to multiple questions. And the idea of only having one pilot.... I'd question whether you think CRM saves lives, or is just window dressing BS 🤨
3:50 Regarding commercial aviation improvements, one underrated improvement is cabin pressure. Newer airplanes are pressurised to better match the air pressure on the ground - which is why our ears don't "pop" on flights nearly as much as they used to.
@@bbgun061 Thanks. Thinking about it more, I realized that most of my experience was with military 4-engines. We typically cruised at 42k. I don't know if that had anything to do with pressurization.
The 717 was the internal designation for the military KC-135 refueling airplane. Boeing initially skipped that number to avoid confusion. Eventually, 717 was reused for the MD-95 after acquiring McDonnell Douglas The 757 was a twin engine replacement for the 3 engine 727.
Assuming an airplane is made of the material that black box is made of, even if it could survive a crash, passengers still won't. During a crash, something somehow needs to absorb up all the kinetic energy for humans to survive and there is just too much of it for anything to absorb it all. Plus rigid material is not that good at absorbing kinetic energy, they transfer the energy instead.
Exactly, it's not just the material but also the shape. A round ball made of glass is extremely strong, while an intricate glass artwork is extremely fragile. This is such a simple concept it's hard to fathom how some people don't understand it.
If planes were made of black boxes (and somehow magically not prohibitively heavy), then if they crashed, they'd hit almost like a meteorite and bury themselves deep into the ground 😂😂😂 And if we dug down a couple of hundred feet to get them out, all those squishy meat sack humans would be one massive smoothie on the cockpit wall.... 🤢
4:35 that part is so painfully true... So many little issues that compound to a quite a miserable experience for someone who travels 11h trips twice a year.
To add to the fact that airplanes are statistically safer than cars, think about the fact that about 2.9 million people fly EVERY DAY, yet airplane crashes are rare.
Yeah but when they do crash, it's very unlikely that you're going to survive 😅 most car crashes are not severe, I think it's a control issue with most people, in a plane you have no control over what happens, you can quite literally just drop out of the sky, it may not be common, but that is the fear
@@aaronbarrett5061 No, no. More people are _killed_ in car crashes than in airplane crashes since they are so rare. Yes, if you compare the average crash of a car and the average crash of an airplane you are less likely to survive the airplane crash, but that is a different statistic.
@JustWasted3HoursHere, the guy basically said it was a different statistic. He wasn't arguing that car travel is safer. He was pointing out that people are more afraid of airliner crashes because of their survivability. I'm more afraid if I'm attacked by a shark than a cow. Even though more people are killed by cows.
@@aaronbarrett5061not necessarily. Most car crashes occur at very low speed compared to plane crashes. You're much more likely to survive a plane crash than a comparable car crash. Also, _every_ plane accident or incident is _*thoroughly* investigated _ to find the causes of it and determine how best to avoid similar accidents or incidents in the future. Sometimes it does take more than one accident or incident to determine the exact cause or convince involved parties to take action, but the goal is for every accident and incident to make aviation safer as a result.
Put as many planes in service as cars in service then let's see if that stat holds up. All I'm saying is let's do the math not just look at a statistic.
Regarding aircraft with more than two engines, e.g. the 747, we (I am a 747 captain) actually train to fly and land with two of the four engines inoperative. There is a defined procedure in the manuals for a two engine inoperative approach, landing, and go-around. Of course in training, this is always done with both engines on one side failed, which makes it even more challenging. But yes, a four engine 747 can fly, and even climb (very slowly), with two of the four engines failed.
it is POSSIBLE to fly a modern passenger jet with only one pilot, but the presence of copilot allows the pilot to share his workload with the copilot. in essence, during the complicated parts of the trip; specifically takeoff and landing, the pilot flying does all the things directly related to controlling the airplane, and the pilot monitoring does everything else, like talking on the radio. (and for those who don't watch aviation youtube, the common terms for what used to be pilot and copilot are pilot flying and pilot monitoring - and the two or three pilots on a plane, depending on the length of the trip, will trade roles during stops on a series of short trips, or at specific points during a long trip)
Exactly, and under normal circumstances. I was looking for a comment on that gross overstatement in the video. When something unexpected happens it’s definitely a more than one persons’ workload
It's not about ability to share workload. The aircraft are flown by crews, not by the pilots. Also, pilot and copilot does not turn to be PF and PM, regardless of who is being PF, the copilot is still copilot and commander is still commander. PF does not do everything directly related to controlling the airplane. It is technically possible to fly also 50 year old passenger jet with only one pilot. The plane does not know, how many pilots there are touching controls.
@@KoiranenAerospace thank you for making what I originally said less clear. and by the way, in most airlines, it is captain and first officer. not commander and copilot.
@@kenbrown2808, I don't know what source you use for statistics, as I have never seen such statistical data. In EU area, it's pilot in command or commander as described in ORO.FC.105 and CAT.GEN.MPA.105, while "a captain" is just duty rank but it doesn't have anything to do with current role in flight deck, as two captains can fly together but only one can be PIC or commander at a time, and the other captain has some other duty (of course there is qualification requirement to operate either pilot's seat, compared to normally being trained only to left or right seat).
I'm not really that into aerospace engineering, but I would attend his classes just because he's so good at explaining stuff and it's such a treat to listen to him. Thank you!
Professors like this are amazing I remember in my engineering design class learning about fatigue stress with cracks and learning how the blades of a jet engine are made of a single crystal to prevent impurities and cracks. Its amazing the knowledge these people have
Dr. Crossley FTW! Great professor with the best big picture view of aerospace systems. Down to earth demeanor and super approachable. His knowledge level in classes is inspiring. BoilerUp!
I'd like to know exactly what the "How come commercial aviation hasn't gotten better in 50 years" person is getting at, because that's probably the most insane thing I've ever read
@@JohnSmith-me4ik the customer experience has gotten significantly better if you’re willing to spend the inflation adjusted amount of money you would have been spending 50 years ago
Yeah, governments used to set ticket prices and routes, and the prices were set very high. Mandatory business class (or at least premium economy) level fares meant lots of room. The airlines couldn't squeeze in more seats, because you could fly on a competitor for the same price. The rest of us just didn't fly. And the rise of uncomfortable but very cheap flights indicates that's what most people want. But yeah, now flying is quieter, safer, doesn't smell like smoke, has screens and wi-fi. And if you're paying the equivalent price as 1974 long distance, you also get a bed.
10:26 Ramps like some carriers: you wanna start your plane into the wind, so ramp into the wind. The aircraft carrier can turn itself into the wind, so the ramp can always be pointed into the right direction. An airport runway cannot. So it's useful that the runway can be used in both directions, depending on the wind direction. The ramp would ruin that.
Also space is super important on a carrier but not really a scarce resource at a major airport. If you can’t take off in 7000 feet you probably have a bigger issue that a ramp isn’t gonna help with
@@ghostrunner2138 I was bought up (UK) near an ex WWII RAF airfield. After WWII the air field was used by Rolls Royce for engine testing. They developed the Flying bedstead there and also the engine that powered Concorde. They tested the Concorde engine using a modified Vulcan bomber. The runway had a ramp at one end and the Vulcan always took off using the ramp whatever the wind.
@@johnp139 "V1 represents the point of no return, beyond which it becomes unsafe to stop the aircraft on the remaining runway." Thus, by defintion, V1 ia always reached before the end of the run way
A ramp on a runway would never be used, because airplanes are always airborne before they reach the end. (Unless someone screwed up their calculations.)
@7:00 On Boeing airplanes is called FQIS - Fuel Quantity Indication System. There are sensors on each individual tank that monitors fuel, which also is used to move fuel around from one compartment to the other if necessary. Efficiency of mileage per fuel is dependent on several variables: weather conditions, cargo (weight), fly altitude ,etc.
Is flying safer than driving your car… 1. There’s a lot of redundancy in aircraft. If one component fails there’s at least one other backup. Critical components like the flying control computers and wiring will be quadruplex (4 backups that cross check each other). The aircraft I worked on had at least 5 ways of generating electricity (an AC generator per engine, a DC gen per engine, transformer rectifiers to make DC into AC, electrical buses that can be connected to power another, Ram Air Turbine) 2. The standards of aircraft maintenance is on a whole different level. Everything is checked, tested, inspected and certified by Supervisors and Inspectors. Tool control and documentation is very strict. It’s easy to lose your job if you make errors. There’s no cowboys unlike car mechanics.
It's more of a perception and media spotlight issue. Car crush ( unless someone famous/important died, or crush is particulary spectacular/tragic ) usually will be just a footnote in news reel. If plane crushes, it will be on the news for whole day if not several.
Not to mention there's no air traffic control for cars. You may trust yourself to drive safely, but there's always a pretty decent chance of some idiot slamming into you, which you have no control over.
@@ComissarYarrick This. 5 or 7 people die every day in the UK, in road collisions. Every single day. The reason why it doesn’t make headline news is because it’s such a regular occurrence.
3. Commercial aircraft (which are the safe ones) are flown by professional pilots. They have health checks, resting requirements etc. Cars on the other hand...
There’s a big difference in safety between large commercial airliners and other flying machines. Helicopters, general aviation planes, experimental planes, all have different safety records. There are small plane crashes several times a week in the U.S.
@@JoshuaTootell Still, I believe we should compare private cars to private airplanes and big airliners to buses and trains. When you compare commercial mass transport to individual transport, the individual transport will always have more accidents.
True, but someone who is not convinced that aircraft are statistically safer is definitely talking about commercial aviation. They definitely don’t know enough to distinguish between GA and commercial.
There are over 100 fatal car crashes every day in the US. So I'm not sure what point you're making, because flying in a rickety bush plane with a geriatric alcoholic pilot is still safer than driving a car lmao
12:30 That area the professor was talking about is called "Equipment Restraint Area" or shortly termed the "ERA line". You're not permitted to cross the line until the engines are turned off and the ACB (Anti Collision Beacon) on the belly of the fuselage stops blinking.
14:20 Reminds me of the industry joke: Pretty soon, autopilot will be so good we'll only need a trained dog and one guy to operate an aircraft. You mean one pilot and a dog trained to fly? No just any guy to feed the dog, which is trained to bite the guy if he tries to touch any of the controls..
2:18 “if one system fails another one backs that up” I guess boeing wasn’t aware of this concept when incorporating one sensor for the 737 MAX’s MCAS system…
It's a bit ironic because the MCAS was the only system, but it wasn't there to be backed up or to back up anything. However, hydraulics, electrical, pressurization, and most other systems have triple redundancies. In most jet airliners, you have three overlapping hydraulic systems and even if all three go (somehow), there's probably one more system plus manual backups that allow operation of the aircraft.
Two autopilot systems, 2 flight computers, big planes have 3 radios, even a Cessna has 2. Instruments all have backups and in IFR training you're taught how to substitute an instrument by cross referencing others. The requirement is for a plane to be able to hold altitude with half it's engines. Almost all commercial planes exceed this and can actually climb with half it's engines.
Actually, Boeing did put in two sensors. To get the 2nd sensor *enabled* the airline had to purchase the premium package. I seriously wish I could say that was a joke.
On "why co-pilots exist" - redundancy is one. Emergencies is the other. During an emergency, one pilot will spend basically 100% of their effort just flying the plane. The other pilot will do troubleshooting, communication, research options, etc. Both engines go out? One pilot will be telling air traffic control, scouting for alternate runways, trying engine restart procedures, etc; while the "pilot in control" will have hands-on-controls to maximize the performance of the airplane to get it to glide as far as possible to hopefully make it to a runway.
I’m a (contracted) Navy researcher and we do a decent amount of research involving air traffic controllers. It’s one of the most stressful and cognitively demanding and exhausting jobs. It has a high dropout and fail rate during training. And, despite paying well for an enlisted position, it also has a high burnout/attrition rate once people are actually on the job. Consider too that there are relatively few jobs like it in which a simple and otherwise minor mental mistake can cause so much damage both monetarily and in terms of loss of human life.
3:52, this buddy has never been in flights when they had smoking sections. That was 1995 when they banned smoking and up until 2000's still saw Ashtrays on the armrests.
Another thing to know regarding the need for two pilots is that on take-off and landing, the two pilots will usually split duties, with one responsible for flying the plane and the other responsible for monitoring the flight data and communicating with ATC. It also makes it easier and more efficient to deal with emergency situations.
Minor caveat about the Boeing plane numbering - they _DID_ have a 717. It was essentially a modified 707 for military use, which was called the Boeing C-135 Stratolifter by the military. They never sold a civilian version, so the 717 same wasn't used for airliners. Until… Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas, and renamed the MD-95 into the 717. (The only McDonnell-Douglas airliner design they continued to develop and sell after the purchase. They did keep manufacturing the MD-11 and MD-90 to fulfill already-committed contracts after the purchase, but discontinued any new development or sales after the purchase.)
There is is a very very very very subtle piece of humor in this at 10:21; it's either the editor the professor. The Navy pilots comment made myself and my friend (former Air Force) do a literal lol
Note that several small planes now have "autoland" in case of pilot incapacitation. Single engine planes don't need to operate with one engine out. I've found that looking for a landing spot is a good thing when your one-and-only falters.
The main reason that we're unlikely to see planes without pilots carrying passengers is that few people in their right mind would be willing to ride in a plane where there isn't a pilot.
The reason for the ramp is mostly because carriers don't have anywhere near enough space for regular takeoffs. The US and France opted for a catapult that has an extremely powerful engine, which slings the plane very hard to its intended takeoff speed. The main problem with this design is that it's expensive to buy and maintain, hence the ramp. There's only one problem: countries that use the ramp often tend to use short takeoff jets like the harrier and the F-35B, that vector the engine's thrust to lower takeoff speeds even further. And those that don't have to suffer the absolute horror story that is the admiral kuznetsov, the MiG-29K and the Su-33 (hint: they crashed a lot). The ramp is useless for commercial aviation, where you do have enough space to reach proper takeoff speeds
@13:55 - Ronald Regan is why there's an ATC shortage. He broke the ATC union and as a result their jobs became worse and worse to the point where most people don't want the stress.
Commercial air flight has improved in all ways, including the passenger experience. Passenger volume has increased five times over, and flying, even long distance is more accessible than ever. Some things like leg room may have gotten worse, but I would trade that for being able to afford to fly at all, and being much more likely to survive when I do.
Why would Wired include irrelevant questions like "Can I ask a flight attendant to change to an empty seat" 5:16 to an aerospace engineer. Save those for a flight attendant for example, not an engineer.
Regarding the request to change seats mid flight, I think it’s less to do with the weight distribution but more with cabin management. Imagine how much time and effort flight attendants would have to devote to accommodating every passengers requests once an exception is made, let alone the potential tension among passengers who are eyeing on the same seats to switch to.
The aim of takeoff is to generate enough speed so that the wings produce lift. A ramp doesn't help here and it's potentially throwing you into the air before the plane is producing enough lift. In normal takeoff you don't even lift up, you just accelerate and when the plane is ready it naturally takes off.
Yeah, it's a shame he didn't really answer the question thoroughly or maybe it was edited to fit the format. Going uphill on a ramp would also decrease your acceleration/speed, so your airspeed would be lower at the end of the ramp compared to a flat surface.
Wonderful, knowledgeable post, and nice presentation! Thank you. How come the B-757 is skipped over? Many folks are fans of the 757, especially pilots. Nice presentation, though! Also, thinking about Pilot Flying vs. Pilot Monitoring roles, contact me if you'd like. Thank you again.
How privileged we are! I travel 2-3 times a year, and I’m always mesmerized by airplanes and the incredible engineering behind them. I’ve had many questions, some dating back 25 years, but with the internet and AI tools, it’s now so much easier to get precise answers to even the most complex questions. My gratitude goes out to the professors and everyone striving to make the world a better place.
I grew up out in the country during the 90s and can affirm that the high-bypass turbofans being used today are so much more quiet than the oldies. I still see aircraft passing overhead and can only hear them on a very quiet day. I also see contrails that are smaller and go away faster too. When I hear that old roaring sound in the sky 9/10 chance it's military.
Military Aircraft including jet fighters are even quieter than civilian aircraft. What you are hearing is the afterburners. But Fighter Jets can literally sneak up on you when they want to. Problem is, when they are operating locally, its for training so theyre always going to be loud lol
@@mxviiiWhich fighter aircraft are quieter than civilian aircraft? Before or after the sonic boom? Sorry Cuz, I haven't been anywhere near a military plane casually passing overhead where I could hear the person in front of me.
@@aland7236 that’s because it’s casually flying overhead. Got to any airshow and one of the things they like to show off is how they can sneak up on you. But to answer your question: F-15s F-16s F-18s and F-22s.
what an incredible human being! I listen to this video during working, and it was pretty enjoyable. Right to he point, very profesional with a passion and understanding of what kind of listener is on the other side of this video. NICE! Thanks professor!
You realize how safe aviation is when you think about how dangerous driving 1000 miles is rather than flying it! Sure, it's safer PER TRIP, but it's even safer per mile.
Not a relevant point statistically, given that the average airline trip is much greater than the average car journey - 20X? So, multiply the risk by the relevant factor. That's why comparing fatalities per passenger journeys is the more intelligent metric.
I loved his simple explanation of lift: changing momentum - the wings push the air down, which pushes the wings, and therefore the airplane, up. No Bernoulli, no splitting and recombining airstreams nonsense, simple change of momentum. That's it.
9:00 Finally I understand now why we can go faster than the speed of sound. The air pushed in-front of the air craft isn't attached to other air and slips by. 😱
Boeing is still successfully taking off and landing there planes at a 99.999999999999999% (or whatever it is) success rate. You’re just filling your mind with the isolated incidences through a wonderful online algorithm 😊
@@xino951 The MCAS disaster resulted in...two accidents, *total*. Feel free to look up how many flights are performed with the 737 MAX family per *hour*, to talk of per day or week or month.
@@fractalmuse yeah two crashes and a total of *346* deaths, not casualties!! Plus if I remember correctly Boeing didn't even provide proper information to FAA. As far as I know they are not using MCAS on commercial airplanes anymore? And about the 737 MAX yeah I know it's still operating but I don't think it has the MCAS system implemented, I don't know.
Some rural airports, especially in mountain areas do have ramps. Mountain Empire Airport - MKJ in Rural Retreat, Virginia is right next to I-81 and you can see the ramp on the runway as you drive by on I-81
Finally someone that says that its not just the shape of the foil that causes lift. Its a multitude of things like he said its the shape and angle of attack, directing the airflow downward, pushing the plane upward
This guy knows his information so well, he answers every question like he's on autopilot.
Dadum tsss
Bad joke, and he didn’t appropriately respond to at least 4 of the questions 😂😂 shows what you know
@@jmax8692 he gave fast simple answers to simple questions. People won't stay there to listen for advanced theory, they just wanna know a simple answer
Plus editing
Except he called captain Sully "Sullivan"
Dr. Crossley was my professor at Purdue - great instructor and engineer.
Boiler up
@@abarthcorsa3493 hammer down baby
He seems like a really good instructor - calm and easy to listen to and knows his stuff! Lucky you!
What subject was he teaching?
@@MyFrofileForPiano He is best known for his class in Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO)
I found this dude online, hes a professor at purdue university which is top 3 for aerospace engineering in the US. Impressive stuff.
Yeah I’m sure he cares about his students 😂😂
Dude shows no passion or enthusiasm.
A pilot could have done a better job tbh.
-ADAS engineer
-Research Diver
-Commercial pilot
Yet he still forgot the 757!
@@jmax8692 That must be why he's highly rated as a professor by students that actually took his class contrary to what some random scrub in youtube comments says
@@jmax8692 1. Professors are not babysitters - they're researchers, teachers, and educators. Possibly he's more research oriented than teaching oriented, and that's why there are dedicated teaching staff in addition to research staff. It's much harder to find a good researcher than it is to find a good teacher. 2. He explains everything clearly, with poise and intelligence. Just because you lack the intelligence to understand the topics he discusses, or because he moves too fast for your brain to comprehend, doesn't mean he's a bad teacher.
@@jmax8692He’s actually one of the better profs at purdue! Teaches a lot of seminar classes, really cool aero systems/MDO classes, and was (is?) head of the aero department. He’s involved in a lot of student affairs and it shows - super cool guy!
13:48 Air Traffic Control is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. You need to perform amazing under pressure, need an impeccable memory and are put in charge of thousands of lives any given minute. The responsibility is something else. The vast majority of those trying to join quit due to burnout or other stress related complications
I have ADD and I can’t even phantom how people do that
Quitted it for exactly that and have never been happier before. 😊
@@QuintonDeLauda I'm a plumber but even I know that this job is just as stressful as a job that regularly puts your life at risk
Not to mention that, nowadays, any slight screw up you make as ATC is published here and everyone will judge your lifetime competence based on that few seconds/minutes of your life. Much worse if you're a woman or minority - without even knowing the details, someone will be quick to bring up how this is a "DEI problem".
Michelle Khare did an amazing video on this
There used to be a joke that if you lost an engine (on twin engine aircraft) it would leave you just enough power to fly to the crash site.
The running gag for ETOPS (Extended range Twin engine Operation Performance Standards) is "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim".
Reminds me of that Ron White joke. His plane story was hysterical 😂
Hey, former ATC here. I had one pilot - American guy, won't say which airline - who would often say "I love Australian air traffic control. You guys get us to the crash site faster'n anybody else."
Fun fact: Aircraft engines were so unreliable in the past, that pilots in the 1950s and 1960s called the 4 engine Lockheed Super Constellation the best 3 engine aircraft ever built.
I love that, that’s hilarious 😂😂😂
The B-36 Peacemaker bomber had six propeller and four jet engines, "six turning and four burning". Reliability turned that into "Two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for."
the newest generation of engines have issues too... e.g. Pratt & Whitney engines caused hundreds of Airbus to be grounded.
@@borismatesin 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
EXACTLY what I was thinking 🤣
Dr. Crossley isn’t just a great engineer, he’s also a super down to earth and friendly guy too. He’s been the dean of AAE at Purdue all 4 years I’ve been in the major here. Crazy seeing him on Wired!
If he's so great why is he only choosing the extremely soft questions? He should be choosing all the hard questions instead.
@@jonslg240 It would take way longer to explain harder questions and a large portion of RUclips watchers have poor attention spans.
He's still a bird brain who thinks telling me "oh flying is safer because there are fewer accidents" is gonna make me feel safe. It doesn't address the fact that if there Is an accident it's more likely to be fatal than a car crash.
Which uni?
@@TheGreatDanish ironically, that's the reason flying is safer. The consequences of failure in flight are a lot higher than that of cars due to altitude and speed, so alllll the redundant systems and training and licences and security that go into aviation make it the safest mode of transport by miles. Something going wrong in a car that causes an accident comparably in aircraft would be a mild inconvenience :D it's excellent
This man is really well spoken, straight to the point and professional. I like how he describes things with both scientist’s and passenger’s interest in mind.
Sometimes flying makes me nervous. Hearing him describe the strength of design on commercial airplanes and general airplane safety really helped ease my anxiety about flying!
Mentour Pilot will do more :)
Honestly though, if a plane crashes, it's usually bad maintenance policy, or miscommunication/misunderstanding by the crew (getting confused by a faulty warning, bad ATC accents, etc).
Occasionally weather or true design flaws (Boeing MCAS) are the culprit.
Most modern big airlines are exceptionally safe though, and have had few if any crashes.
Cheers!
Remember, anybody can build. It takes a real engineer to build something with as low a safety factor that it doesn't fail while still being cost-efficient.
@@MrNicoJac Yes, MCAS was badly designed, but you can even argue that MCAS incidents could've been stopped if the pilots were educated how this new system works.
Too fast for my brain to keep up 😅
he seems like a very smart person all his sentences felt super intentional and directed
15:11 bro knew exactly what he was saying.
Aerospace engineers are very smart 😭😭😭😭😭
your mom is a jet engine
Engineers love to use low level words to describe complex processes lol
Gave me flashbacks to the early days of Martincitopants' My Summer Car streams
No, he made many mistakes.
Professor Crossley taught my senior design class back when I was a student at Purdue! He’s an absolutely fantastic professor! Boiler Up!
Same! Boiler Up!
I've been flying for over 10 years now. This guy completely nailed every question. Super simple, easy to understand answers. Awesome video.
To be fair, a lot of the questions were simple.
nah he forgot the 757
@@DavidKen878Glad to know you’ll be the next expert on WIRED if they dont need this dumb guy anymore😂
Your arms must be tired.
He totally did not.
Left out crucial parts to multiple questions.
And the idea of only having one pilot....
I'd question whether you think CRM saves lives, or is just window dressing BS 🤨
You can instantly see that he is very comfortable with this material which means he knows it very well. A pleasure to watch.
3:50 Regarding commercial aviation improvements, one underrated improvement is cabin pressure. Newer airplanes are pressurised to better match the air pressure on the ground - which is why our ears don't "pop" on flights nearly as much as they used to.
The standard used to be 8000 ft. What is it now?
@@mkvv5687 The 787 for example has a cabin altitude around 5000 while in cruise.
@@bbgun061 Thanks. Thinking about it more, I realized that most of my experience was with military 4-engines. We typically cruised at 42k. I don't know if that had anything to do with pressurization.
Now that you mention it, it does seem like my ears don't pop nearly as much as they did when I was a kid (unfortunately a while back lol).
0:51 what about the 757?
Or the 717!
The 717 was the internal designation for the military KC-135 refueling airplane.
Boeing initially skipped that number to avoid confusion.
Eventually, 717 was reused for the MD-95 after acquiring McDonnell Douglas
The 757 was a twin engine replacement for the 3 engine 727.
Flying pencil
@@danielbjohnson That was the Do-17! 😆
@@aaronbredon2948 717 is a plane, i flew on it about 2 years ago with qantas
Prof. Crossley is an amazing researcher and a teacher. His optimization course is one of the best at Purdue University
Assuming an airplane is made of the material that black box is made of, even if it could survive a crash, passengers still won't. During a crash, something somehow needs to absorb up all the kinetic energy for humans to survive and there is just too much of it for anything to absorb it all. Plus rigid material is not that good at absorbing kinetic energy, they transfer the energy instead.
Easy, just make the passengers out of that material too
It's not a special material it's just a dense structure
If the airplane was made out of the black box material, it would be too heavy to fly. Might as well propose making an airplane out of solid concrete.
Exactly, it's not just the material but also the shape. A round ball made of glass is extremely strong, while an intricate glass artwork is extremely fragile. This is such a simple concept it's hard to fathom how some people don't understand it.
If planes were made of black boxes (and somehow magically not prohibitively heavy), then if they crashed, they'd hit almost like a meteorite and bury themselves deep into the ground 😂😂😂
And if we dug down a couple of hundred feet to get them out, all those squishy meat sack humans would be one massive smoothie on the cockpit wall.... 🤢
Best one yet. Guy knows his stuff and gets to the answer quick.
4:35 that part is so painfully true... So many little issues that compound to a quite a miserable experience for someone who travels 11h trips twice a year.
To add to the fact that airplanes are statistically safer than cars, think about the fact that about 2.9 million people fly EVERY DAY, yet airplane crashes are rare.
Yeah but when they do crash, it's very unlikely that you're going to survive 😅 most car crashes are not severe, I think it's a control issue with most people, in a plane you have no control over what happens, you can quite literally just drop out of the sky, it may not be common, but that is the fear
@@aaronbarrett5061 No, no. More people are _killed_ in car crashes than in airplane crashes since they are so rare. Yes, if you compare the average crash of a car and the average crash of an airplane you are less likely to survive the airplane crash, but that is a different statistic.
@JustWasted3HoursHere, the guy basically said it was a different statistic. He wasn't arguing that car travel is safer. He was pointing out that people are more afraid of airliner crashes because of their survivability. I'm more afraid if I'm attacked by a shark than a cow. Even though more people are killed by cows.
@@aaronbarrett5061not necessarily. Most car crashes occur at very low speed compared to plane crashes. You're much more likely to survive a plane crash than a comparable car crash. Also, _every_ plane accident or incident is _*thoroughly* investigated _ to find the causes of it and determine how best to avoid similar accidents or incidents in the future. Sometimes it does take more than one accident or incident to determine the exact cause or convince involved parties to take action, but the goal is for every accident and incident to make aviation safer as a result.
Put as many planes in service as cars in service then let's see if that stat holds up. All I'm saying is let's do the math not just look at a statistic.
Yay, Prof. Crossley!!! I'm lucky to have had the opportunity to take a class taught by him
Regarding aircraft with more than two engines, e.g. the 747, we (I am a 747 captain) actually train to fly and land with two of the four engines inoperative. There is a defined procedure in the manuals for a two engine inoperative approach, landing, and go-around. Of course in training, this is always done with both engines on one side failed, which makes it even more challenging. But yes, a four engine 747 can fly, and even climb (very slowly), with two of the four engines failed.
What happens if engines 1 - 3 fail? 😅 Can you maintain speed and/or altitude?
@@Aphova you can trade altitude for speed--but that may put you on a suboptimal course.
I'm glad someone mentioned this
QF32 landed basically with only *one*. 2 was gone and 1 and 4 were practically at idle.
@@Aphova Well... you can still land without any engines at all
it is POSSIBLE to fly a modern passenger jet with only one pilot, but the presence of copilot allows the pilot to share his workload with the copilot. in essence, during the complicated parts of the trip; specifically takeoff and landing, the pilot flying does all the things directly related to controlling the airplane, and the pilot monitoring does everything else, like talking on the radio. (and for those who don't watch aviation youtube, the common terms for what used to be pilot and copilot are pilot flying and pilot monitoring - and the two or three pilots on a plane, depending on the length of the trip, will trade roles during stops on a series of short trips, or at specific points during a long trip)
Exactly, and under normal circumstances. I was looking for a comment on that gross overstatement in the video. When something unexpected happens it’s definitely a more than one persons’ workload
It's not about ability to share workload. The aircraft are flown by crews, not by the pilots. Also, pilot and copilot does not turn to be PF and PM, regardless of who is being PF, the copilot is still copilot and commander is still commander.
PF does not do everything directly related to controlling the airplane.
It is technically possible to fly also 50 year old passenger jet with only one pilot. The plane does not know, how many pilots there are touching controls.
@@KoiranenAerospace thank you for making what I originally said less clear. and by the way, in most airlines, it is captain and first officer. not commander and copilot.
@@kenbrown2808, I don't know what source you use for statistics, as I have never seen such statistical data. In EU area, it's pilot in command or commander as described in ORO.FC.105 and CAT.GEN.MPA.105, while "a captain" is just duty rank but it doesn't have anything to do with current role in flight deck, as two captains can fly together but only one can be PIC or commander at a time, and the other captain has some other duty (of course there is qualification requirement to operate either pilot's seat, compared to normally being trained only to left or right seat).
@@KoiranenAerospace Mentour pilot would be the relevant reference in this case.
I'm not really that into aerospace engineering, but I would attend his classes just because he's so good at explaining stuff and it's such a treat to listen to him. Thank you!
Professors like this are amazing I remember in my engineering design class learning about fatigue stress with cracks and learning how the blades of a jet engine are made of a single crystal to prevent impurities and cracks. Its amazing the knowledge these people have
People mentioned the missing 757 in the comments, but WIRED put a photo of a 787 and called it the 777 0:48
wired issue
and the 100 or 200 717s as well
A 777 is the missing aircraft.
Yeowch 😂
Shame
Dr. Crossley FTW! Great professor with the best big picture view of aerospace systems. Down to earth demeanor and super approachable. His knowledge level in classes is inspiring. BoilerUp!
I had professor Crossley in class at Purdue, great speaker. Boiler Up!
I just applied to Purdue's mechanical master program.. Hope I can meet him
I love how this dude is straight to the point and isn’t too bothered if someone has an opposed opinion or not very knowledgeable.
Prof Crossley was my graduate advisor at Purdue. Amazing person.
lol this is incredible, I have Dr. Crossley for AAE 550 right now
Same lol
15:10 I had no idea I had anything in common with a jet engine!
LOL
I was waiting for this
I'd like to know exactly what the "How come commercial aviation hasn't gotten better in 50 years" person is getting at, because that's probably the most insane thing I've ever read
He probably means the customer experience
@@JohnSmith-me4ik the customer experience has gotten significantly better if you’re willing to spend the inflation adjusted amount of money you would have been spending 50 years ago
People forget that flying was a luxury 50 years ago @@rpnye23
But also, the Cessna 172 hasn't really changed in 50 years either 😂
Yeah, governments used to set ticket prices and routes, and the prices were set very high. Mandatory business class (or at least premium economy) level fares meant lots of room.
The airlines couldn't squeeze in more seats, because you could fly on a competitor for the same price.
The rest of us just didn't fly. And the rise of uncomfortable but very cheap flights indicates that's what most people want.
But yeah, now flying is quieter, safer, doesn't smell like smoke, has screens and wi-fi. And if you're paying the equivalent price as 1974 long distance, you also get a bed.
I assume he means speed. NY to LA or London (or wherever, those are just classic examples) take the same amount of time they did 40+ years ago.
at 2:00 I could feel Boeing hovering off camera NOT holding a gun to his head.
4:13 Did this guy just go "arf"?
I think his mic cut and he was saying "our fuel impact"
LMFOAOO
10:26 Ramps like some carriers: you wanna start your plane into the wind, so ramp into the wind. The aircraft carrier can turn itself into the wind, so the ramp can always be pointed into the right direction. An airport runway cannot. So it's useful that the runway can be used in both directions, depending on the wind direction. The ramp would ruin that.
Also space is super important on a carrier but not really a scarce resource at a major airport. If you can’t take off in 7000 feet you probably have a bigger issue that a ramp isn’t gonna help with
@@ghostrunner2138 I was bought up (UK) near an ex WWII RAF airfield. After WWII the air field was used by Rolls Royce for engine testing. They developed the Flying bedstead there and also the engine that powered Concorde. They tested the Concorde engine using a modified Vulcan bomber. The runway had a ramp at one end and the Vulcan always took off using the ramp whatever the wind.
You should be reaching V1 well before the end of the runway.
@@johnp139 "V1 represents the point of no return, beyond which it becomes unsafe to stop the aircraft on the remaining runway." Thus, by defintion, V1 ia always reached before the end of the run way
A ramp on a runway would never be used, because airplanes are always airborne before they reach the end. (Unless someone screwed up their calculations.)
@7:00 On Boeing airplanes is called FQIS - Fuel Quantity Indication System. There are sensors on each individual tank that monitors fuel, which also is used to move fuel around from one compartment to the other if necessary. Efficiency of mileage per fuel is dependent on several variables: weather conditions, cargo (weight), fly altitude ,etc.
It's now pronounced 'BOING!'
Is flying safer than driving your car…
1. There’s a lot of redundancy in aircraft. If one component fails there’s at least one other backup. Critical components like the flying control computers and wiring will be quadruplex (4 backups that cross check each other). The aircraft I worked on had at least 5 ways of generating electricity (an AC generator per engine, a DC gen per engine, transformer rectifiers to make DC into AC, electrical buses that can be connected to power another, Ram Air Turbine)
2. The standards of aircraft maintenance is on a whole different level. Everything is checked, tested, inspected and certified by Supervisors and Inspectors. Tool control and documentation is very strict. It’s easy to lose your job if you make errors. There’s no cowboys unlike car mechanics.
It's more of a perception and media spotlight issue. Car crush ( unless someone famous/important died, or crush is particulary spectacular/tragic ) usually will be just a footnote in news reel. If plane crushes, it will be on the news for whole day if not several.
Not to mention there's no air traffic control for cars. You may trust yourself to drive safely, but there's always a pretty decent chance of some idiot slamming into you, which you have no control over.
@@ComissarYarrick This. 5 or 7 people die every day in the UK, in road collisions. Every single day. The reason why it doesn’t make headline news is because it’s such a regular occurrence.
3. Commercial aircraft (which are the safe ones) are flown by professional pilots. They have health checks, resting requirements etc. Cars on the other hand...
@notmenotme614 well it doesn't make headlines because 150 people didn't die, unlike plane crashes
12:00 That is a really nice way of saying a missle lol
There’s a big difference in safety between large commercial airliners and other flying machines. Helicopters, general aviation planes, experimental planes, all have different safety records. There are small plane crashes several times a week in the U.S.
Yes. But generally the pilot crashes the plane without the plane having anything wrong with it.
Don't fly with doctors!
@@JoshuaTootell Still, I believe we should compare private cars to private airplanes and big airliners to buses and trains.
When you compare commercial mass transport to individual transport, the individual transport will always have more accidents.
True, but someone who is not convinced that aircraft are statistically safer is definitely talking about commercial aviation. They definitely don’t know enough to distinguish between GA and commercial.
There are over 100 fatal car crashes every day in the US. So I'm not sure what point you're making, because flying in a rickety bush plane with a geriatric alcoholic pilot is still safer than driving a car lmao
@@jessicastjames6202There are way, way more people driving cars than flying planes every day.
Boiler up! Prof. Crossley on one of my favourite shows! This is so cool.
12:30 That area the professor was talking about is called "Equipment Restraint Area" or shortly termed the "ERA line". You're not permitted to cross the line until the engines are turned off and the ACB (Anti Collision Beacon) on the belly of the fuselage stops blinking.
14:20 Reminds me of the industry joke: Pretty soon, autopilot will be so good we'll only need a trained dog and one guy to operate an aircraft. You mean one pilot and a dog trained to fly? No just any guy to feed the dog, which is trained to bite the guy if he tries to touch any of the controls..
You just know a knowledgable person when you see one. Really impressive how this man can answer each and every question with ease.
Loved the comparison between jet, turbofan and propeller. Great stuff.
This man turned a joke into a series with hope, despair, loss and hype. He deserves every bit of recognition he has and even beyond that
2:18 “if one system fails another one backs that up” I guess boeing wasn’t aware of this concept when incorporating one sensor for the 737 MAX’s MCAS system…
It's a bit ironic because the MCAS was the only system, but it wasn't there to be backed up or to back up anything. However, hydraulics, electrical, pressurization, and most other systems have triple redundancies. In most jet airliners, you have three overlapping hydraulic systems and even if all three go (somehow), there's probably one more system plus manual backups that allow operation of the aircraft.
Two autopilot systems, 2 flight computers, big planes have 3 radios, even a Cessna has 2. Instruments all have backups and in IFR training you're taught how to substitute an instrument by cross referencing others.
The requirement is for a plane to be able to hold altitude with half it's engines. Almost all commercial planes exceed this and can actually climb with half it's engines.
Actually, Boeing did put in two sensors. To get the 2nd sensor *enabled* the airline had to purchase the premium package.
I seriously wish I could say that was a joke.
Thing is, there was a backup procedure - but the pilots would need to be aware of it, which they weren't
@@Aviator27J "the MCAS was the only system, but it wasn't there to be backed up…"
Huh?! What is that supposed to mean?
Excellent communicator. No overcomplication, but without dumbing it down.
Hats off.
This Wired series is a true gem, to know things is to be free and happy
Awesome to see someone with this level of knowledge and such an easy way with his answers.
On "why co-pilots exist" - redundancy is one. Emergencies is the other. During an emergency, one pilot will spend basically 100% of their effort just flying the plane. The other pilot will do troubleshooting, communication, research options, etc.
Both engines go out? One pilot will be telling air traffic control, scouting for alternate runways, trying engine restart procedures, etc; while the "pilot in control" will have hands-on-controls to maximize the performance of the airplane to get it to glide as far as possible to hopefully make it to a runway.
Right, this guy has NO human factors or aviation background!!!
I’m a (contracted) Navy researcher and we do a decent amount of research involving air traffic controllers. It’s one of the most stressful and cognitively demanding and exhausting jobs. It has a high dropout and fail rate during training. And, despite paying well for an enlisted position, it also has a high burnout/attrition rate once people are actually on the job. Consider too that there are relatively few jobs like it in which a simple and otherwise minor mental mistake can cause so much damage both monetarily and in terms of loss of human life.
I had this professor at purdue back in undergrad. Great guy. Amazing professor and yes back then also he talked this fast
You can tell this guy is a great teacher every answer was concise and simple enough for us laymen to understand.
I’d be answering most of these in a real condescending manner.
@@johnp139 And that's why you aren't a professor.
2:21 The airplane knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn.t.
Mh370 says hi
Great reference
But how does it know that?
Professor crossley an absolute Purdue icon!!!
3:52, this buddy has never been in flights when they had smoking sections. That was 1995 when they banned smoking and up until 2000's still saw Ashtrays on the armrests.
Another thing to know regarding the need for two pilots is that on take-off and landing, the two pilots will usually split duties, with one responsible for flying the plane and the other responsible for monitoring the flight data and communicating with ATC. It also makes it easier and more efficient to deal with emergency situations.
Minor caveat about the Boeing plane numbering - they _DID_ have a 717. It was essentially a modified 707 for military use, which was called the Boeing C-135 Stratolifter by the military. They never sold a civilian version, so the 717 same wasn't used for airliners.
Until…
Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas, and renamed the MD-95 into the 717. (The only McDonnell-Douglas airliner design they continued to develop and sell after the purchase. They did keep manufacturing the MD-11 and MD-90 to fulfill already-committed contracts after the purchase, but discontinued any new development or sales after the purchase.)
There is is a very very very very subtle piece of humor in this at 10:21; it's either the editor the professor. The Navy pilots comment made myself and my friend (former Air Force) do a literal lol
Note that several small planes now have "autoland" in case of pilot incapacitation.
Single engine planes don't need to operate with one engine out. I've found that looking for a landing spot is a good thing when your one-and-only falters.
The main reason that we're unlikely to see planes without pilots carrying passengers is that few people in their right mind would be willing to ride in a plane where there isn't a pilot.
10:24 Ramp question.
Right, how stupid. The V1 should occur WELL BEFORE the end of the runway, and if it doesn’t, no ramp will matter.
The reason for the ramp is mostly because carriers don't have anywhere near enough space for regular takeoffs. The US and France opted for a catapult that has an extremely powerful engine, which slings the plane very hard to its intended takeoff speed. The main problem with this design is that it's expensive to buy and maintain, hence the ramp. There's only one problem: countries that use the ramp often tend to use short takeoff jets like the harrier and the F-35B, that vector the engine's thrust to lower takeoff speeds even further. And those that don't have to suffer the absolute horror story that is the admiral kuznetsov, the MiG-29K and the Su-33 (hint: they crashed a lot). The ramp is useless for commercial aviation, where you do have enough space to reach proper takeoff speeds
@13:55 - Ronald Regan is why there's an ATC shortage. He broke the ATC union and as a result their jobs became worse and worse to the point where most people don't want the stress.
Commercial air flight has improved in all ways, including the passenger experience.
Passenger volume has increased five times over, and flying, even long distance is more accessible than ever.
Some things like leg room may have gotten worse, but I would trade that for being able to afford to fly at all, and being much more likely to survive when I do.
Why would Wired include irrelevant questions like "Can I ask a flight attendant to change to an empty seat" 5:16 to an aerospace engineer. Save those for a flight attendant for example, not an engineer.
There's always a couple of out of pocket questions for the experts, for fun. They usually find ways to interpret them and give interesting answers.
@@Ogaitnas900 and in this case, he included an engineering-specific answer that the weight distribution of the passengers does matter
None of these were for an engineer
They were for pilots mostly
@@fufenbuggle indeed! didn't mean to imply he didn't
Small weight distribution here and there don't matter unless the passenger is really heavy
10:55 you're welcome
thanks.
this is a really great video! great guy seems very nice and educated!
yes i agree!! i also hear his daughter kate is really cool, not sure if it’s true though 🤔
@@lucy-pj2wn wait yes ive heard that kate is super awesome and is a german pro but not completely sure 😊
@@zosiabowlus5987 yes i heard that too!! apparently she got this super prestigious scholarship and is studying in germany this year 😱😱
Regarding the request to change seats mid flight, I think it’s less to do with the weight distribution but more with cabin management. Imagine how much time and effort flight attendants would have to devote to accommodating every passengers requests once an exception is made, let alone the potential tension among passengers who are eyeing on the same seats to switch to.
I had Dr. Crossley for AAE sophomore design back around 1996 or 1997. Good to see him here!
The aim of takeoff is to generate enough speed so that the wings produce lift. A ramp doesn't help here and it's potentially throwing you into the air before the plane is producing enough lift. In normal takeoff you don't even lift up, you just accelerate and when the plane is ready it naturally takes off.
Yeah, it's a shame he didn't really answer the question thoroughly or maybe it was edited to fit the format. Going uphill on a ramp would also decrease your acceleration/speed, so your airspeed would be lower at the end of the ramp compared to a flat surface.
Wonderful, knowledgeable post, and nice presentation! Thank you. How come the B-757 is skipped over? Many folks are fans of the 757, especially pilots. Nice presentation, though! Also, thinking about Pilot Flying vs. Pilot Monitoring roles, contact me if you'd like. Thank you again.
2:30
Saw this thought what the heck and then he said it 😂
How privileged we are! I travel 2-3 times a year, and I’m always mesmerized by airplanes and the incredible engineering behind them. I’ve had many questions, some dating back 25 years, but with the internet and AI tools, it’s now so much easier to get precise answers to even the most complex questions. My gratitude goes out to the professors and everyone striving to make the world a better place.
I had to do it the old fashioned way by getting a degree in Aero/Astro Engineering in 1989.
I love the 787. I think that its a great step in commercial aviation. I hope that future aircrafts start using more composites!
I grew up out in the country during the 90s and can affirm that the high-bypass turbofans being used today are so much more quiet than the oldies. I still see aircraft passing overhead and can only hear them on a very quiet day. I also see contrails that are smaller and go away faster too. When I hear that old roaring sound in the sky 9/10 chance it's military.
Military Aircraft including jet fighters are even quieter than civilian aircraft. What you are hearing is the afterburners. But Fighter Jets can literally sneak up on you when they want to. Problem is, when they are operating locally, its for training so theyre always going to be loud lol
@@mxviiiWhich fighter aircraft are quieter than civilian aircraft? Before or after the sonic boom? Sorry Cuz, I haven't been anywhere near a military plane casually passing overhead where I could hear the person in front of me.
@@aland7236 that’s because it’s casually flying overhead. Got to any airshow and one of the things they like to show off is how they can sneak up on you. But to answer your question: F-15s F-16s F-18s and F-22s.
Whenever people say what is an engineer is and how smart they are, I’m gonna suggest them this video!
@@Ironwill_Games Only he is stovepiped in his thinking. No consideration of aviation or human factors.
Dude, i could've answered most of these questions myself
I could listen to this gentleman all day and not get bored! Fantastic stuff!
what an incredible human being! I listen to this video during working, and it was pretty enjoyable. Right to he point, very profesional with a passion and understanding of what kind of listener is on the other side of this video. NICE! Thanks professor!
Yo Prof Crosley! Thanks for teaching me during my capstone project! Wild to see you here. Boiler up!
777 picture at 0:47 is wrong. That's 100% a 787.
Good eye!
Great comment!
0:59 you forgot the sky pencil 757
You realize how safe aviation is when you think about how dangerous driving 1000 miles is rather than flying it! Sure, it's safer PER TRIP, but it's even safer per mile.
His answer “only one fatal accident every few years” clearly hasn’t heard of sprayers.
Commercial aviation yes, general aviation not quite so much
@@JarrodFLif3r GA is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. So actually pretty dangerous!
Not a relevant point statistically, given that the average airline trip is much greater than the average car journey - 20X? So, multiply the risk by the relevant factor. That's why comparing fatalities per passenger journeys is the more intelligent metric.
I loved his simple explanation of lift: changing momentum - the wings push the air down, which pushes the wings, and therefore the airplane, up. No Bernoulli, no splitting and recombining airstreams nonsense, simple change of momentum. That's it.
9:00 Finally I understand now why we can go faster than the speed of sound. The air pushed in-front of the air craft isn't attached to other air and slips by. 😱
Dr crossly let’s go!!! Great prof, still gave me a B tho
0:47 thats not a 777, thats a 787
2:11 What about Boeing, with its whistleblowers "deaths" ?
Boeing is still successfully taking off and landing there planes at a 99.999999999999999% (or whatever it is) success rate.
You’re just filling your mind with the isolated incidences through a wonderful online algorithm 😊
@@josh021588 dude's right, the older models are doing fine, it's the newer ones. MCAS was a disaster and especially how they implemented it.
@@xino951 and the lack of training right?
@@xino951 The MCAS disaster resulted in...two accidents, *total*.
Feel free to look up how many flights are performed with the 737 MAX family per *hour*, to talk of per day or week or month.
@@fractalmuse yeah two crashes and a total of *346* deaths, not casualties!! Plus if I remember correctly Boeing didn't even provide proper information to FAA. As far as I know they are not using MCAS on commercial airplanes anymore?
And about the 737 MAX yeah I know it's still operating but I don't think it has the MCAS system implemented, I don't know.
Cool dude. I liked how he explained everything, he made it very easy to understand.
This gave me Bill Nye vibes! Prof Bill, thank you for the amazing responses!!
0:54 757 sobbing silently
That was really sad, 757 one of the coolest planes ever
Big Sad. 😥
o7 for the 757
Curled up in a ball on top of 717
And it's my favourite!
Great video, very informative.
I like space topics
Very cool
@@EvilGeorgeWashington thanks bro or sis
very cool
10:38 "into the drink"😂
@ 14:50 Amen. The Connie and Super Connie are the most beautiful airplanes ever made in my opinion, glad to see them get some love.
Some rural airports, especially in mountain areas do have ramps. Mountain Empire Airport - MKJ in Rural Retreat, Virginia is right next to I-81 and you can see the ramp on the runway as you drive by on I-81
11:34-not true, I once seen Tom Cruise fly Mach 10
0:54 do you just not like the 757?
it does exist according to Wikipedia
@@floraevoli3330could be because it was meant as a kind of twin to the 767
Also he forgot the 717
8:17 As you use up batteries, just drop them out of the airplane with a parachute. I see no problems with this.
Yeah sure… 😂
**Elon Musk enters the chat**
Michael, that’s a terrible idea and I shouldn’t have to tell you why 😭
Recovering them??? And all of the batteries are drained at the same rate.
Nah, we just need to do like they did with the electric powered glider, whole top of the wings are solar panels and it just recharges as it flies.
Surreal to see my Senior Design professor in this video series! Purdue BS AAE 2011, Boiler Up!
Finally someone that says that its not just the shape of the foil that causes lift. Its a multitude of things like he said its the shape and angle of attack, directing the airflow downward, pushing the plane upward