Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LH A320 Crosswind Landing Incident (Video)  
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 70571 times:

Just saw this picture of LH A320 D-AIQP landing during a storm today at HAM and thought it would be worth to share it:

http://www.aviation-community.de/for...92f3cc637bbcfeacb501b0ee1233#36618

(please go down to entry no 14)

They say that at least on winglet was destroyed, maybe even both of them.

By the way, thank you to the photpgraphers of Aviation community Nord for not only keeping us updated about the situation in XFW but also showing such amazing pictures.

[Edited 2008-03-01 10:19:13]

[Edited 2008-03-01 10:21:10]

300 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2163 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 71324 times:

Big version: Width: 1000 Height: 666 File size: 361kb


Wow... That picture looks amazing!

There could well be structural damage to the wing...

(I hope its not a PSP, fake!)

User currently offlineLHRlocal From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 70641 times:

Jesus, i think i would need a new set of underwear if i was on that plane!

User currently offlineLHSTR From Germany, joined Mar 2001, 226 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 70547 times:

Holy ****!
Good thing everybody is fine!

User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 4725 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 70493 times:

Wouldn't surprise me one bit, the weather up here in Denmark has been quite stormy as well. Heck, I even heard they had cancelled a Bundesliga-game somewhere as they were concerned about a hurricane developing  Wow!

User currently offlineSandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2892 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 70396 times:

Holy Sh1t!

Must have caught a gust from the right during flaring, look spretty ugly. Luckily, the engine didnt touch the ground, or did it?

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 4):
I even heard they had cancelled a Bundesliga-game somewhere as they were concerned about a hurricane developing

They did indeed. We had lots of wind here aswell, and at least two flights from ZRH to Germany returned to ZRH after failed approaches.


Pilots, Swiss Made.
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 70376 times:

In the thread is stated the plane lost at least its left winglet (wingfence).



And yes, you are right CPH-R, they cancelled Cottbus - Stuttgart; stormwarning.

User currently offlineCaspritz78 From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 70225 times:

Wow, that could have easily ended in a serious accident.

User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States, joined Jun 2006, 7540 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 70214 times:

Ouch, what will happen to her? A simple replacement of the winglet or the wing and winglet? I give the pilots kudos for landing her in that kind of weather. LH does train its pilots very well so hats off to them for saving the day.

Kinghunter


Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 7638 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 70126 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That looks fake to me - the right main gear especially shows some flat edges which makes me think it has been cut out of another picture.


Dan  Smile


If I Get G-WOWD again I'll Scream....!!!!
User currently offlineLh470 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 70109 times:



Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 9):

There seems to be also a video... simply amazing...  Wink


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaVx3JOsfJw


319-321,313,AB6,333,343,346,732-738,762,763,772,747SP,741-744,DC9,M81/3/8,D10,M11,L10,DH1/3/4,CR1/2/7,E70,E90,142,14
User currently offlineUzimmermann From United States, joined Dec 2006, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69952 times:

They reported up to 94KM/H or about 60mph winds around 2pm in HAM. Nasty.

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 8236 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Video is unavailable. Sad


"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world".
User currently offlineEaa3 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69939 times:

It looks fake. Look at the right wing fence. The bottom half is missing.

User currently offlineLH470 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 70139 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 12):

Strange, the link was working 3 minutes ago... Sad


319-321,313,AB6,333,343,346,732-738,762,763,772,747SP,741-744,DC9,M81/3/8,D10,M11,L10,DH1/3/4,CR1/2/7,E70,E90,142,14
User currently offlineWF2BNN From Norway, joined Dec 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69845 times:

IF it's real - there must me SOME media coverage of it... No?

Mats


Feel the rythm, feel the rime - Grab your ticket, it's flyn' time
User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 743 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69810 times:



Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 13):

On the other hand, one could argue that it is very real. Look at the left engine and fuselage casting a shadow on the runway. There is also a reflection of either the left wing or left elevator on the aircraft tail.

Thenoflyzone


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69786 times:

From the Aviation Community Norddeuschland board:

"hab grad mit nem Kollegen und Freund aus der Wartung telefoniert der grad Dienst hat, er hat die Kiste bearbeitet:
Wingtip komplett verbogen nach oben, untere Hälfte des Winglet ist nach inboard gebogen ca. 45 Grad, Slat ist angeschliffen...sonst alles ok!"


which is:

Just called a colleague and friend who is on duty in maintenance, he has worked on the AC:

wingtip completely bent upwards, lower half of winglet bent inboard at about 45 degrees, slat partly grounded. No further damage.

[Edited 2008-03-01 12:22:21]


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineLH470 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69762 times:

Apparently, the video is not available anymore.

If you search on YouTube for "EDDH A320 crosswind" you will still get the link of the video with a thumbnail, but the video itself is gone...).


319-321,313,AB6,333,343,346,732-738,762,763,772,747SP,741-744,DC9,M81/3/8,D10,M11,L10,DH1/3/4,CR1/2/7,E70,E90,142,14
User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 743 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69719 times:



Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 13):
It looks fake. Look at the right wing fence. The bottom half is missing.

It's there, you have to look carefully.

Besides, reply # 17 just confirmed it as being real.


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlinePHKLM From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 1030 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 69888 times:

Quoting LH470 (Reply 18):
Apparently, the video is not available anymore.

It's up and running and utterly bewildering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaVx3JOsfJw

[Edited 2008-03-01 12:30:53]

User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1125 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 69703 times:

Video is back. Holy mother of God.

User currently offlineLH470 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 69700 times:

Yes, the video is up and running again!

Kudos to the LH Cockpit-Crew! Fantastic job!


LH470


319-321,313,AB6,333,343,346,732-738,762,763,772,747SP,741-744,DC9,M81/3/8,D10,M11,L10,DH1/3/4,CR1/2/7,E70,E90,142,14
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 69662 times:

Oh my god, holy smoke! That video is definitely no fake! A Go Around.

Comment of the videographer:
Das ging beinahe in die Hose. ich glaube, dass die das hier bald einstellen.

(That's been almost a complete flop. I think they will very soon stop this here.)

[Edited 2008-03-01 12:38:06]

[Edited 2008-03-01 12:38:36]


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 69586 times:

The Aviation Community Norddeutschland presumes the video was suspended since it might have been sold to a commercial news station.

Good that it's back. Most scary stuff, holy smoke!

[Edited 2008-03-01 12:37:42]


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineLHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 69519 times:

Watched the video 2 times. Links seems alright again. God, my heart is racing after having seen this video. Scary.

[Edited 2008-03-01 12:52:59]

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 8236 posts, RR: 25
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 76889 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sheesh ... I bet Lufthansa's press department must be very worried about that video!


"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world".
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 76978 times:

Further from Aviation Aviation Norddeutschland:

"Ich kann mir gut vorstellen, dass das Video der QP als Beweismittel bei der BFU-Untersuchung herangezogen wird."

I can imagine that the video will be used as evidence in a BFU (Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung = German FAA) examination.

"Meine Frau, auch Pilotin, sagte gerade, dass die Jungs vorne wohl Mist gebaut haben. Zu hoch angeflogen und zu späte Enscheidung in den GoAround zu gehen. Unverantwortlicherweise zuviel Risiko genommen und ganz knapp an der Katastrophe vorbei.

My wife, also a pilot, just said that the guys obviously messed things up: approach too steep, to late decided to go around, taken irresponsibly too much risks and super scarcely escaped a catastrophe.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineWildbill1981 From Norway, joined May 2007, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 77697 times:

The video is working fine now... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaVx3JOsfJw

User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 76361 times:

Didn't get much of the storm in NRW, glad I wasn't in Northern Germany. Great video and photo!


Quad- and Tri-jets.....the ONLY way to fly!
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 7638 posts, RR: 62
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 76327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Still not working for me, but obviously that proves that it's genuine - just looked a bit odd to me in the picture. I certainly would not like to have been in that aircraft though!  Wow!


Dan  Smile


If I Get G-WOWD again I'll Scream....!!!!
User currently offlineEMAlad From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 76334 times:

Did the plane land safely after going round again? The video looks pretty scary, I wouldn't have liked to have been on that flight!!!!

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 76225 times:



Quoting EMAlad (Reply 31):
Did the plane land safely after going round again?

Seems so:

"Also das war die LH044 aus München. Auf der Ham.Airport-Seite steht, dass sie um 13:55 gelandet ist. Das passt auch, da dann nach diesem Vorfall die Bahn umgestellt wurde und die Finnair, die erst ne ganze Weile an der 23 stand, dann zur 33 gerollt ist und um 14:08 gestartet ist.
Außerdem waren danach dann auch einige MUC-Flüge gestrichen. Passt also alles Wink"


That was LH044 from MUC. ham.airport says it landed 13:55. This goes well with the fact that after this incidence the runway was changed as the Finnair which was standing quite a while on 23 moved on to 33 and took off at 14:08. Furthter more some flights coming from MUC were canceled.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 75946 times:

Wow, that is incredible footage. I wonder what the passengers were thinking?

User currently offlineSQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1332 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 75945 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 27):
My wife, also a pilot, just said that the guys obviously messed things up: approach too steep, to late decided to go around, taken irresponsibly too much risks and super scarcely escaped a catastrophe.

I wonder what makes her thinking that? The approach doesn' t look low or steep to me. But with 30+kts wind it is not always possible to maintain the standard 3 degree slope and a standard attitude! Some big words especially if she is a pilot

But anyhow the recovery was a great job! Low pitch shallow initial climb rate and no large bank angles like in the Simulator!
It looks like they got a gust right before touchdown leading to a longer and therefor unstable flare!
Glad I am off duty today

User currently offlineOwlEye From Netherlands, joined Feb 2006, 595 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 76729 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm glad that the Lufthansa plane made it at the end. But what a coincidence, yesterday my father in law sent me this picture (found on the internet) which shows an almost simular accident, however in this accident the Air France wing tip broke off...

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p199/Halifax_album/AirFrancewingstroke.jpg

User currently offlineDAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 53
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 76177 times:



Quoting OwlEye (Reply 35):
however in this accident the Air France wing tip broke off...

Umm, there never was accident like that, it has been established on here multiple times that that AF pic is a fake.

Oh, and the vid seems to have been removed once again.


All hail the DemandMedia dictatorship!
User currently offlineEXTspotter From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 798 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75735 times:

That looks much more like a fake than the first one did. It looks like that it is just a plane which has been rotated and super-imposed, however there are shadows, but I just don't think it quite looks right.


Types DH8-3/Q4 A319 732/8 763ER PD FR U2 BE WO VZ
User currently offlineSandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2892 posts, RR: 35
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75669 times:



Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 36):
Oh, and the vid seems to have been removed once again.

Works fine here.


Pilots, Swiss Made.
User currently offlineDALCE From Netherlands, joined Feb 2007, 1136 posts, RR: 10
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75532 times:

WOW, I'm Happy not to be on that plane!
Kudos for the crew to get it down safely afterwards!


Poor QP has to go to the doctor now Big grin


flown on : F50,F70,CR1,CR2,CR9,E75,143,AR8,733,735,736,73G,738,753,744,319,320,321,AB6. Next flights AMS-CFU-AMS with OR
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 76052 times:

Here is a new one from the same afternoon in HAM, this time a B737

Also scary. i wonder why the runway was operated the whole time.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineSQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1332 posts, RR: 9
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75409 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 40):
Here is a new one from the same afternoon in HAM, this time a B737


Also removed from Youtube!
LH PR is going strong at Youtube  Wink

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 76261 times:

No, sorry, I posted a malformed link, try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BaQ5B1ACEo

or do a youtube search "EDDH Hamburg - B737 Crosswind approach RWY23"


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75195 times:

IMHO this B737 video shows that it was completely questionable that the AC were allowed to touch down on this rwy at this point of time. Here actually the same happenes as to the LH A320: exactly immediately prior to touchdown a windput sweeps the AC laterally. This B737 was more stable but also this was most scary stuff.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 8796 posts, RR: 38
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75270 times:

I downloaded a copy off Youtube in case LH goes Tom Cruise on us and has them all removed.  Wink


Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 74874 times:

I think a wohle bunch of people have this on their drives. There are numerous forums who discuss this "live".


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineMhodgson From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2002, 4967 posts, RR: 36
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75475 times:

The LiveLeak video in this thread works:
Hamburg - A320 Nearly Crashed During Crosswind App (by JasonMiller Mar 1 2008 in Civil Aviation)


No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75030 times:

The B737 was an AB BTW. One of the posters thinks to have heard the AB pilot to have farewelled ATC with an all but friendly "have a nice day!"


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineJasonMiller From United States, joined Feb 2005, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75250 times:

Hamburg - A320 Nearly Crashed During Crosswind App

Found on Liveleak.com:

Hamburg - A320 nearly crashed during crosswind approach
1st march 2008 - A320 nearly crashed during crosswind approach at Hamburgs RWY23.




User currently offlineTupolevTu154 From United Kingdom (England), joined Aug 2004, 1613 posts, RR: 35
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75707 times:

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 44):
I downloaded a copy off Youtube in case LH goes Tom Cruise on us and has them all removed.

They have! None of the previous links work.

Really wanting to see this video now!

Tom

Edit: Just seen it in the above post. Nasty!

[Edited 2008-03-01 13:59:10]


Atheists - Winning since 33 A.D.
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 74503 times:

I'm assuming that the AB 737 video was before the LH 320 video? Amazing how you can see the smoke from the tires at touchdown just blow off to the left.


Quad- and Tri-jets.....the ONLY way to fly!
User currently offlineIcelandair75W From United States, joined Feb 2008, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 72226 times:

Although the crew was smart in going around even after an approach like that, it was quite stupid of them to even perform the approach. 60 knots with a crosswind factor is well over the max crosswind factor of an A320 and they should have held until the winds decreased or diverted. Same thing with Iceland for the past month or two, the winds could reach up to 60 to 80 knots at any point and that is why there were diversions, cancellations, severe delays, or even 24 hour delays. Same situation in November 2006 where all the USA-KEF flights diverted to GLA because of severe winds at the only four airports capable of handling a 757 in Iceland - KEF RKV AEY EGS.

User currently offlineSandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2892 posts, RR: 35
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71706 times:



Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 51):
60 knots with a crosswind factor

And who said that there was a 60 knots wind? Would you be so kind to share the active METAR of that approach with us? I'm sure the crosswind limit wasn't exceeded as, like you said, they wouldn't have attempted an approachif it was. As seen in the other videos, previous arrivals apparently made it, so the crosswind limit obviously wasn't exceeded, they were just unlucky to catch a nasty gust while flaring.


Pilots, Swiss Made.
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71683 times:



Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 52):
As seen in the other videos, previous arrivals apparently made it

Well, the AB 737 was not far from being alike, also a pretty hefty wind shear at the moment of touching the rwy.

Less hair-raising is a BA 757 landing this same afternoon in HAM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23EMfSj7Ltw


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71242 times:



Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 50):
I'm assuming that the AB 737 video was before the LH 320 video?

There was AB 6300 from MUC landing at 13.35h. Other AB came in either too early or too late. So, yes, I think you're right. The LH was 13.55.

There were two BA coming in today, BA966 and B962. I guess the BA video is the later one, since it is considerably darker on that video than on the LH A320 and the AB737.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71329 times:



Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 51):
Although the crew was smart in going around even after an approach like that, it was quite stupid of them to even perform the approach. 60 knots with a crosswind factor is well over the max crosswind factor of an A320 and they should have held until the winds decreased or diverted. Same thing with Iceland for the past month or two, the winds could reach up to 60 to 80 knots at any point and that is why there were diversions, cancellations, severe delays, or even 24 hour delays. Same situation in November 2006 where all the USA-KEF flights diverted to GLA because of severe winds at the only four airports capable of handling a 757 in Iceland - KEF RKV AEY EGS.



Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 52):
Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 51):
60 knots with a crosswind factor

And who said that there was a 60 knots wind? Would you be so kind to share the active METAR of that approach with us? I'm sure the crosswind limit wasn't exceeded as, like you said, they wouldn't have attempted an approachif it was. As seen in the other videos, previous arrivals apparently made it, so the crosswind limit obviously wasn't exceeded, they were just unlucky to catch a nasty gust while flaring.

I'm going to put my hand up for the group that says these pilots were idiots. They attempted an approach/landing in winds well beyond what was safe and could've killed themselves and everyone on board in the process. The only thing that saved these pilots was pure luck.

Airliners aren't published with maximum hard crosswind limits, only manufacturer suggestions. Guaranteed both of the pilots flying this Airbus are facing severe discipline from the airline and governing authorities. Although I can't speak for Lufthansa or rules in Europe, I know that if that were an airplane from my airline in that video... both crewmembers would be terminated immediately and end up with so many marks on their records that they may never fly an airplane again as the pilot.

These two pilots did something extremely stupid and got very VERY lucky.

User currently offlineSevenforeseven From France, joined Nov 2005, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71296 times:

FAKE...................................

User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71036 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 54):
There was AB 6300 from MUC landing at 13.35h. Other AB came in either too early or too late. So, yes, I think you're right. The LH was 13.55.

There were two BA coming in today, BA966 and B962. I guess the BA video is the later one, since it is considerably darker on that video than on the LH A320 and the AB737.

Thanks for the info!

The BA757 video seems to have been removed as well. Any guesses why? I can understand LH wanting to have their video removed, but am wondering why the other's have been removed. LBA maybe?


Quad- and Tri-jets.....the ONLY way to fly!
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70806 times:



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 55):
These two pilots did something extremely stupid and got very VERY lucky.

I'm with you here, particularly saying that this outcome was extremely lucky. Yet I would say not only attempting the landing was hazardous, but also ATC allowing them to land at that rwy at that time was equally stupid as shows the AB landing which showed what impact the wind shears had near the ground.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70750 times:



Quoting Sevenforeseven (Reply 56):
FAKE...................................

ummmmm..... did you watch the video?

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70613 times:



Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 57):
The BA757 video seems to have been removed as well. Any guesses why? I can understand LH wanting to have their video removed, but am wondering why the other's have been removed. LBA maybe?

I just think there are now parallelly hundreds of people watching and downloading these clips, so the servers won't allow too many clients to connect.

Or the videograph sold the clips to newsagents being forced to suspend accessibility for a certain period of abstention for exclusivity reasons?


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineWildbill1981 From Norway, joined May 2007, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70571 times:



Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 57):
FAKE...................................

And why do you say that?

User currently offlineAviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2051 posts, RR: 31
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70575 times:

Ahhh... this thread has 'armchairing' written all over it...  Wink

User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70361 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 60):
I just think there are now parallelly hundreds of people watching and downloading these clips, so the servers won't allow too many clients to connect.

Or the videograph sold the clips to newsagents being forced to suspend accessibility for a certain period of abstention for exclusivity reasons?

Makes sense, thanks again!

Quoting Wildbill1981 (Reply 61):
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 57):
FAKE...................................

And why do you say that?

I didn't say that, not my quote ...  Wink


Quad- and Tri-jets.....the ONLY way to fly!
User currently offlineGkyip From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 55):
These two pilots did something extremely stupid and got very VERY lucky.

I'm not sure that I agree. The approach looked stable until the final 50ft or so. To me, they were very UNlucky in that they seemed to have caught a gust of wind in the flare which caused them to bank hard to the left. You can actually see the gust as water is sprayed from the runway to the left. If the x-wind was in limits of their SOPs and the a/c was stable with the captain happy of the safety then they had no reason to G/A.

Gary


The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2679 posts, RR: 27
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70260 times:

They obviously reacted pretty fast once they realised how bad it was. I am no pilot, but the decision to go around might have come late, but not too late.

User currently offlineMrBrightSide From United States, joined Jan 2008, 202 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 70071 times:

This A/C had to be low on fuel to allow a landing at such a crosswind... it was almost blown off from the runway...


There's no better way to travel than fly (shameless rip of LH's slogan ;-)
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17684 posts, RR: 57
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 70126 times:



Quoting Uzimmermann (Reply 11):
They reported up to 94KM/H or about 60mph winds around 2pm in HAM. Nasty.

Why would anyone land in that? Why wouldn't HAM shut down?

Quoting Sevenforeseven (Reply 56):
FAKE...................................

Unfortunately, it's real. It seems like it has to be fake, because landing in that weather is so stupid...  Wink

Quoting Giosetti (Reply 60):
I just think there are now parallelly hundreds of people watching and downloading these clips, so the servers won't allow too many clients to connect.

Nope. Clearly labeled as being removed by the author. This means, as you said, that they sold it, or that LH threatened them with legal action.

Quoting AviationMaster (Reply 62):
Ahhh... this thread has 'armchairing' written all over it...

If you were a pax, would you have wanted to be on that plane? No. As the customers of airlines, we do have a right to "armchair" when it comes to safety.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2679 posts, RR: 27
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69968 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 67):
It seems like it has to be fake, because landing in that weather is so stupid..

Unfortunately all of Germany is harmed by a terrible storm today, and you have to land somewhere. Just maybe not on this runway.

I am certain that there will be an investigation of this occurence.

User currently offlineIcelandair75W From United States, joined Feb 2008, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69924 times:



Quoting Uzimmermann (Reply 11):
They reported up to 94KM/H or about 60mph winds around 2pm in HAM. Nasty.



Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 52):
And who said that there was a 60 knots wind?

There?

User currently offlineCbphoto From United States, joined Dec 2003, 735 posts, RR: 3
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69799 times:

I couldnt tell in the video, but did it touch its right wing as well on the ground?


ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineNCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69764 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 58):
but also ATC allowing them to land at that rwy at that time was equally stupid as shows the AB landing which showed what impact the wind shears had near the ground.

It's always at pilot's discretion. ATC has no responsibilities on that regards.



To me this looks like a very bad landing. Obviously not enough starboard aileron has been applied when the airplane was realigned with the centerline which caused the airplane to bounce on the wrong wheel and to shift momentum to the left and strike the left wing. They have been very lucky with the outcome but I'm sure the pilot flying will lose his job there.

Very bad airmanship and I can believe that LH doesn't want such a video to circulate on the web.

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69784 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 67):
Clearly labeled as being removed by the author. This means, as you said, that they sold it, or that LH threatened them with legal action.

On what grounds? The author filmed a landing and puts it on youtube. It is his clip, unless he sells it. If he sells it not saying that he has lost control over it since he has put it to the web before closing the agreement to sell it, then he is clearly in trouble.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 68):
Unfortunately all of Germany is harmed by a terrible storm today, and you have to land somewhere. Just maybe not on this runway.

You have a point here. All parts of the country have been hit by the storm. Yet it seems that the choice of the rwy was of importance as landings continued in HAM after the incident, but not on 23.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69384 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 71):
They have been very lucky with the outcome but I'm sure the pilot flying will lose his job there.

Tough point that you make. Let's assume we were 20 years back. This messy landing would have gone unnoticed by the public. Maybe some person in the tower and of course paxe and crew would have noticed. Maybe the crew had launched some gossip, favorably or unfavorably. Since most probably there was no first hand evidence, no one had come after the pilot. An investigation seems improbable.

And now, 20 years later? Thousands of people glance at this today, tomorrow maybe millions when the media have made it "a miracle prevents hundreds of dying in a near plane crash", so an investigation is bound to follow.

Pretty tough times!


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 879 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69154 times:



Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 51):
Although the crew was smart in going around even after an approach like that, it was quite stupid of them to even perform the approach. 60 knots with a crosswind factor is well over the max crosswind factor of an A320 and they should have held until the winds decreased or diverted. Same thing with Iceland for the past month or two, the winds could reach up to 60 to 80 knots at any point and that is why there were diversions, cancellations, severe delays, or even 24 hour delays. Same situation in November 2006 where all the USA-KEF flights diverted to GLA because of severe winds at the only four airports capable of handling a 757 in Iceland - KEF RKV AEY EGS.

Were you in the cockpit?

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 55):
Airliners aren't published with maximum hard crosswind limits, only manufacturer suggestions. Guaranteed both of the pilots flying this Airbus are facing severe discipline from the airline and governing authorities. Although I can't speak for Lufthansa or rules in Europe, I know that if that were an airplane from my airline in that video... both crewmembers would be terminated immediately and end up with so many marks on their records that they may never fly an airplane again as the pilot.

How do you know that they will face discipline?? I am sure the QAR recorders will be examined and if it turns out that they were affected by a strong gust of wind, which it looks like, that late then nothing will happen to them!
If you were running an airline it wouldn't last long as you would have fired all of the pilots once they encountered some adverse weather!!!

Quoting Giosetti (Reply 58):
I'm with you here, particularly saying that this outcome was extremely lucky. Yet I would say not only attempting the landing was hazardous, but also ATC allowing them to land at that rwy at that time was equally stupid as shows the AB landing which showed what impact the wind shears had near the ground

I don;t think ATC have much to do with what airline can land in what crosswinds. It is up to the crews. ATC don;t know everyones crosswind limits. At LHR in high winds I have heard ATC asking the crews what they can and can't take off in.

Quoting MrBrightSide (Reply 66):
This A/C had to be low on fuel to allow a landing at such a crosswind... it was almost blown off from the runway...

Do you know that?!?! Quite clearly no one here does. It could have been a very strong gust of wind that blew it that far across. Wind is capable of doing that!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 67):
Nope. Clearly labeled as being removed by the author. This means, as you said, that they sold it, or that LH threatened them with legal action.

I doubt it, does anyone know anything about legal systems???!!!! If Lufthansa wanted something removed from Youtube they would have to apply for a legal injunction against them. How would Luftansa know who the user was apart from their Youtube ID? They would have to get an injunction or something to find that out information from youtube. Clearly the user decided to take it off themselves.
And anyway as the video was presumably shot in a public place I don't think Lufthansa could do anything about that video!!!

Quoting AviationMaster (Reply 62):
Ahhh... this thread has 'armchairing' written all over it...

Quite correct!!! It is turning in to a very big armchair!!

User currently offlineSandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2892 posts, RR: 35
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69069 times:



Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 69):
There?

No. they reported the top measured windspeed in Hamburg around 2pm was 60kts. This could have been anywhere in or around Hamburg, and just a single gust. We wouldn't know what the windspeed and actual crosswind component was unless we knew the actual windcheck given to the crew during the approach.


Pilots, Swiss Made.
User currently offlineAviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2051 posts, RR: 31
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67726 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 67):
If you were a pax, would you have wanted to be on that plane? No. As the customers of airlines, we do have a right to "armchair" when it comes to safety.

If every single individual had the capability of knowing the outcome of every flight, then I bet that flight would have not taken off at all, but that is not the point of this whole discussion. I could care less if people armchair or not, especially since they are going to do it anyways, regardless if it is appropriate or not.

In this case however, making assumptions on the quality of airmanship and calling the crew of the involved aircraft 'idiots' et al, when all we have are weather reports showing some terrible conditions, a video and a couple of pictures of the incident, while not really knowing the details of what was going on in the cockpit during those crucial seconds, is crazy.

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67578 times:



Quoting Theginge (Reply 74):
Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 55):
Airliners aren't published with maximum hard crosswind limits, only manufacturer suggestions. Guaranteed both of the pilots flying this Airbus are facing severe discipline from the airline and governing authorities. Although I can't speak for Lufthansa or rules in Europe, I know that if that were an airplane from my airline in that video... both crewmembers would be terminated immediately and end up with so many marks on their records that they may never fly an airplane again as the pilot.

How do you know that they will face discipline?? I am sure the QAR recorders will be examined and if it turns out that they were affected by a strong gust of wind, which it looks like, that late then nothing will happen to them!
If you were running an airline it wouldn't last long as you would have fired all of the pilots once they encountered some adverse weather!!!

Airlines don't leave luck and chance up to the successful completion of the flight. These pilots bit off a lot more than they could chew... tried to do a landing in conditions well beyond their and the aircraft's capabilities. One of the most important aspects of a pilot's operation of the aircraft is good decision making. These pilots made a very bad decision to try to land in these conditions, could've killed everyone onboard, and will most likely be dearly punished for it.

Maybe in a best case scenario for them, the winds were reported within acceptable amounts, there were no published reports for large gusts, windshear warnings, etc. Even if that were the case (which I highly doubt), the first gust hit the aircraft at about 50agl and they really started to loose it by about 30 agl. Yet, they still continued...

The fact purely stands that, aside from something totally out of the pilots control (ie: engine explosion), airline safety is never left to chance. There are procedures, rules, training, etc for everything. Pilots are trained to be safe, know limits, and not ever put the aircraft in a situation where safety is degraded. This is one of those situations.

This isn't my personal opinion. This is straight fact of the airline industry. I 100% guarentee you these pilots are going to be punished severely. You don't win any awards in airline flying by doing something very dangerous, damaging an aircraft, and then miraculously saving everyone from disaster at the last moment.

User currently offlineNCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67868 times:



Quoting AviationMaster (Reply 76):
In this case however, making assumptions on the quality of airmanship and calling the crew of the involved aircraft 'idiots' et al, when all we have are weather reports showing some terrible conditions, a video and a couple of pictures of the incident, while not really knowing the details of what was going on in the cockpit during those crucial seconds, is crazy.

The airplane bounced on the wrong wheel... that pretty much says it all.
Looks very similar to the LCY RJ100 incident almost wingtip striking aswell: not enough aileron.
Difference? The RJ100 is a high wing aircraft...

This looks pretty green to me.

A link to the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddb_1204404185

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17684 posts, RR: 57
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67312 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 68):
Unfortunately all of Germany is harmed by a terrible storm today, and you have to land somewhere. Just maybe not on this runway.

I would imagine that they could have diverted to a location further inland from the North Sea than HAM, but maybe it was impossible. But just watching this approach and seeing how off axis it was, it looked like a cross wind test for certification, not a landing anyone would attempt with pax aboard.

Quoting Giosetti (Reply 72):
On what grounds? The author filmed a landing and puts it on youtube.

On the grounds that lawyers threaten people without grounds and some people find it easier to comply rather than fight. On the grounds that some major corporations don't like to have damaging footage out there no matter how fair it is if it might cost them later in liability...  Wink


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBaron52ta From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67675 times:

Quoting MrBrightSide (Reply 66):
it was almost blown off from the runway...

The aircraft left the runway and that was the reason for the go around about :45 into the clip

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddb_1204404185

[Edited 2008-03-01 16:28:04]

User currently offlineLHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 67261 times:

How many of us have ever landed an aircraft of that size in those weather conditions....?

NONE? Okay, next question.

How many of us have ever landed an aircraft at all?

One, two, maybe three of us? Probably.

So, who are we to decide, whether the pilots put too much at risk? Were there any casualties? No. The pilots decided to give it a try, because other aircraft had made it minutes before them. A mean gust of wind hit them and the wingtips struck. At that point of time, after that strike, a safe landing was out of the question. They performed a go-around, just as the book had tought them. The next time around the guys landed safely. No casualties. Just a bunch of horrified pax and a crew uncapable continueing their work that day - both cabin and cockpit probably.

Bottom-line: If those pilots were being irresponsible, what about all the other pilots landing before and (especially) after that incident? The guys did their job. And they did it right.

Jesus, give those guys a break. Gute Arbeit liebe Kollegen.

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 67167 times:



Quoting Theginge (Reply 74):
Quite correct!!! It is turning in to a very big armchair!!

What's wrong with sitting in an armchair at a stormy night?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 79):
On the grounds that lawyers threaten people without grounds and some people find it easier to comply rather than fight. On the grounds that some major corporations don't like to have damaging footage out there no matter how fair it is if it might cost them later in liability.

LH does a tremendously well PR. They would only loose in going after the author of the clip with lawyers. I rather think the good spotters didn't think at all but were thrilled by an incredible photograph and clip, put it on the net to get the applause from their peers and as the news spread through the forums they realized what scoop they had at their hands so they thought better of it and sold it to a newsagent. And if we will not see the clip or the photograph tomorrow in the news or the papers, then we might think the good spotter sold it to the airline.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineNCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 67245 times:

Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 81):
Jesus, give those guys a break. Gute Arbeit liebe Kollegen.

Are you a LH pilot? I hope not otherwise I'm calling the JAA.

I'm a pilot, and I can tell you that that landing was very bad.

[Edited 2008-03-01 16:41:33]

User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66824 times:



Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 81):
How many of us have ever landed an aircraft of that size in those weather conditions....?

NONE? Okay, next question.

FlyF15 probably has. I've made approaches in Turbine Powered aircraft in weather like that no landings though because I went around.

User currently offlineTheredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1074 posts, RR: 4
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66583 times:

I have been to 6 horrible landings and 3 of them ended up in Go around...

Certainly the pilots and all of us inside the plane knew the weather was bad/windy but let me tell you the conditions on bad weather change very rapidly and specially in the last 100 feet.

Its very easy to criticize the pilots, heck just look how the winds takes the 320 out of the runway!!! in my view the pilots averted disaster by going TOGA as soon as they are outside the runway... yes big scare for everyone but how do you know what the wind will do ten seconds from now?

In Jan 26 I landed at LAX on a AM Mad dog and just as we entered the runway the wind changed and the Mad Dog simple dropped like a stone, the pilot went ape on the throttles and I though we were going to make another approach, but he landed almost mid runway and pretty fast, he braked like crazy, we ended using all the 7R runway.... no disaster no news no screams, no damaged plane but quite a scare...


The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66401 times:

Seems like the weather (which is still bad at this time) is making for more difficult flying conditions.
The Dragonair 747 remodelling 3 of its 4 engines (numbers 1,3,4 IIRC) when doing a heavy (+45knots ?) X-wind landing in MANCHESTER and now this one in HAM.

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66444 times:



Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 84):
Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 81):
How many of us have ever landed an aircraft of that size in those weather conditions....?

NONE? Okay, next question.

FlyF15 probably has. I've made approaches in Turbine Powered aircraft in weather like that no landings though because I went around.

Yep, I certainly have. Some of you may remember when the entire midwest US was extremely windy about a month ago for roughly a week or so. Winds at least 30-45kts everywhere. I was flying in that the whole time.... I made over a dozen landings in very windy conditions that week. But, none of my landings turned out like the one in the video. Thats not because I'm a better stick and rudder pilot than those in the A320... I consider myself to be pretty average. Its because one must consider the situation and make an appropriate decision in the interest of safety. I had one cancellation, one diversion, and two go arounds that week. All which were the safest option for the weather at the destination. You continue as normal until you determine that any further would cause a decrease in safety... then you go with plan B.... which may be a diversion, waiting/holding, a different runway, go around, cancellation, etc. Plan B is never "continue anyways and hope that I get lucky".

Airliners can definitely land safely in very windy conditions, but only under set circumstances that are different for every landing. The pilot's job is to take all the circumstances into consideration and determine, using his/her judgment and experience, what the safest course of action is. These pilots made a bad decision.

User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66456 times:



Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 81):
How many of us have ever landed an aircraft of that size in those weather conditions....?

NONE? Okay, next question.

How many of us have ever landed an aircraft at all?

One, two, maybe three of us? Probably.

I've got my PPL and multi engine rating and have landed C172s and Senecas in xwind conditions (not even close to the conditions in the video). Since I've never flown an airliner, nor was I on the flight deck on that flight, I don't have the info I need to make a decision as the LH pilots did. So, since I wasn't there, I know to keep quiet ...  Wink


Quad- and Tri-jets.....the ONLY way to fly!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 655 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66487 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 83):

I'm a pilot, and I can tell you that that landing was very bad.

I'm not buying this for a minute! I'm not a pilot, but I can't see anything wrong with the landing. There is a strong crosswind, yeah, so what. Thousands of crosswind landings have been executed all over Europe today, we had a strong winter storm and aircraft are certified to operate in these conditions.

The LH approach was possibly a bit high, but this is always hard to tell from a video and it may have been justified given the situation and the field length. The aircraft then lines up with the center line, keeps the windside wingtip down just as it should, touches down without any problems and just as the pilot applies the rudder, the plane is caught in a sudden gust from the right that the pilots could not have expected. Had this gust not come, the landing would have been just as uneventful as all the other stormy landings today have been. The pilots then execute a go-around and again, flawlessly from all we can tell from the video.

Anyone who calls this a bad landing, please state your reasons precisely! If you claim that the conditions were such that the pilots should not have attempted to land, then please take issue with ALL airlines and pilots operating in Northern and Central Europe today! If you feel that the pilots showed poor landing skills, then please say what they should have done different.

Sheesh....

User currently offlineLHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66418 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 83):
Are you a LH pilot? I hope not otherwise I'm calling the JAA.

I'm a pilot, and I can tell you that that landing was very bad.

Hold your horses. I never said I was a pilot. But good for you, that you're a pilot. Still that doesn't put you in the situation.

As I've said before: others have landed just moments before them. And moments after them. With the same weather-conditions. Their action would have been irresponsible if they'd have foreseen that gust in their crystal-ball and attempted anyway. Eventually noone - not even you, NCB - has a crystal-ball and therefore they cannot be punished for attempting an approach!

User currently offlineEaa3 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66371 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 60):

I just think there are now parallelly hundreds of people watching and downloading these clips, so the servers won't allow too many clients to connect.

Or the videograph sold the clips to newsagents being forced to suspend accessibility for a certain period of abstention for exclusivity reasons?

You´re talking about the YouTube video, right? There is no way that a couple hundred people could have any effect on YouTube's servers.

Quoting Theginge (Reply 74):

I doubt it, does anyone know anything about legal systems???!!!! If Lufthansa wanted something removed from Youtube they would have to apply for a legal injunction against them. How would Luftansa know who the user was apart from their Youtube ID? They would have to get an injunction or something to find that out information from youtube. Clearly the user decided to take it off themselves.
And anyway as the video was presumably shot in a public place I don't think Lufthansa could do anything about that video!!!

YouTube is actually quite active in removing copyrighted content from the website. It seems to be that they make it quite easy for content to be removed.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17684 posts, RR: 57
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66259 times:



Quoting Rara (Reply 89):
the plane is caught in a sudden gust from the right that the pilots could not have expected.

This is why I placed blame on HAM, not the pilots. I don't understand why HAM didn't shut down because it is clear from other video that winds were strong and gusting to the point of tossing around many planes, not just this one. There had to be an airport within diversion distance that had different conditions or at least a different runway orientation that was more conducive to a safe landings.

Is diverting that major in the EU that they avoid it at all costs?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66192 times:



Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 90):
As I've said before: others have landed just moments before them. And moments after them. With the same weather-conditions. Their action would have been irresponsible if they'd have foreseen that gust in their crystal-ball and attempted anyway. Eventually noone - not even you, NCB - has a crystal-ball and therefore they cannot be punished for attempting an approach!

EDDH 011220Z 29028G48KT 9000 -SHRA FEW011 BKN014 07/05 Q0984 TEMPO 29035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008

Wind 290° 28 knots, gusts 48 knots, temporary 290/35/55.

If I would read this I would expect a gust anytime.

Runway is 23. So the gusts bring us above the A320's certified safe X-wind landing maxima.
If people had died, insurance companies wouldn't have paid a cent...

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66071 times:



Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 90):
As I've said before: others have landed just moments before them. And moments after them. With the same weather-conditions.

That is only partly correct. LH was the last to land on rwy 23. The next landing was on 33.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66119 times:

The amount of comments by people who have no idea what they are talking about in this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with this community.

Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 90):
I never said I was a pilot.



Quoting Rara (Reply 89):
I'm not a pilot, but I can't see anything wrong with the landing.

Then why are you commenting on landing an airplane?

Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 85):
Its very easy to criticize the pilots, heck just look how the winds takes the 320 out of the runway!!! in my view the pilots averted disaster by going TOGA

Let me guess you aren't a pilot either.

Once they got blown off centerline and the wing started to dip and their decent rate started to increase the approach lost any shred of being a stabilized approach and a go around should have been initiated.

User currently offlineLHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 65979 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 94):
That is only partly correct. LH was the last to land on rwy 23. The next landing was on 33.

Correct. But still the same weather.

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 65839 times:



Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 96):
Correct. But still the same weather.

But on 33 maybe less tangible for strong and sudden gusts.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 65753 times:



Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 95):
The amount of comments by people who have no idea what they are talking about in this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with this community.

I don't find anything wrong with a community that discusses an incident.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 1241 posts, RR: 2
Reply 99, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 66315 times:

Some crazy ones:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f78_1184881277

User currently offlineNCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3
Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 65789 times:

Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 96):
Correct. But still the same weather.

But different wind direction relative to the aircraft.

When the wind comes from 290°, the angle of the wind would be at 40° on rwy 33 but 60° on rwy 23.

Assuming a wind at 50kts close to the actual conditions, the crosswind component would be 32kts on rwy 33 and 43kts on rwy 23, a 11kts difference but a huge difference.

The A320 is rated below 40kts crosswind.

With gusts reported at 55kts, they were well above the aircraft's safety limits.

If they had the option of the 33, why didn't they take it from the start?

[Edited 2008-03-01 17:28:27]

User currently offlineLHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 65003 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 97):
But on 33 maybe less tangible for strong and sudden gusts

Which brings us back to "MAYBE". You cannot foresee it. Otherwise ATC in HAM might have put 33 in use right from the start.

User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45
Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64986 times:



Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 95):
The amount of comments by people who have no idea what they are talking about in this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with this community.

Add to that the arrogance of those who think that only trained professionals are allowed to voice their views and opinions ...  Yeah sure

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 95):
Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 90):
I never said I was a pilot.



Quoting Rara (Reply 89):
I'm not a pilot, but I can't see anything wrong with the landing.

Then why are you commenting on landing an airplane?

Because it's his given right as a paying member of this site.


Quad- and Tri-jets.....the ONLY way to fly!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 655 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64909 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 93):

EDDH 011220Z 29028G48KT 9000 -SHRA FEW011 BKN014 07/05 Q0984 TEMPO 29035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008

Wind 290° 28 knots, gusts 48 knots, temporary 290/35/55.

If I would read this I would expect a gust anytime.

Well, yes. I've been looking at METARs all day long, from various airports, and this report is nothing out of the ordinary. Yet to the best of my knowledge, no major airports in Europe have been shut down, and (as I wrote before) thousands of aircraft have landed successfully today. That's why I'm asking: if you know that the LH A320 shouldn't have landed in these conditions, then are you saying that all these other aircraft shouldn't have attempted to land. In other words, you blame the whole of Europe's aviation industry to be irresposible. Do you realize how far out of your depth you are with this?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 92):

Is diverting that major in the EU that they avoid it at all costs?

No. But many major airports in Europe have been operating with such conditions today. And we get these winter storms quite regularly. Usually it's safe to operate - in the case we're looking at, the pilots were in bad luck.

The thing is, had the gust not come, the same people that now say it was a bad landing would be watching the video and comment here how great and skillful the pilots handled the approach.

User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 104, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64915 times:



Quoting Giosetti (Reply 98):
I don't find anything wrong with a community that discusses an incident.

If you don't care about the communities credibility, you are right.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 102):
Add to that the arrogance of those who think that only trained professionals are allowed to voice their views and opinions ...

Hardly arrogance, i've spent a lot of time in doctors offices but i don't pretend to know enough to critique them

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64792 times:



Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 101):
Which brings us back to "MAYBE". You cannot foresee it. Otherwise ATC in HAM might have put 33 in use right from the start.

Well, as NBC in #100 puts it it was foreseeable, at least by and large. And yes, that is why I wonder why 23 was open for so long. And that is why - as always - there seems to be a chain of problems at hand that has led to the seriousness of the incident.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineCaspritz78 From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64587 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 71):
They have been very lucky with the outcome but I'm sure the pilot flying will lose his job there.

I very much doubt that. They will do some disciplinary and probably put him in the simulator fro some hours and that's it.

User currently offlineGiosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64437 times:

Anyway, before I shut down the computer I think it is time to be grateful that all this did not become a disaster.


I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
User currently offlineNCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3
Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64455 times:



Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 101):
Otherwise ATC in HAM might have put 33 in use right from the start.

So after the incident they were able to foresee it?

I understand your wish to defend your colleagues, but don't make yourself look ridiculous for that.

No one is perfect but in a cockpit a moment of inattention can cost you and several hundred peope's life.

As APFpilot85 pointed out, good decision making is important.

The circumstances the crew were in were extremely demanding. They had options to divert to 4 airports within 20 minutes flight time: Copenhagen, Berlin, Dusseldorf and the most ideal Hannover at only 10 minutes flight time with a 27 runway almost right into the wind.
They opted for the most economical option...

If you think safety is expensive, try an accident.


Look at the pictures at reply1. At the moment of the strike the right aileron is nowhere near full up deflection. (upgoing aileron=wing goes down)

Note: The A320 deflects its ailerons 5° downwards when operating flaps but the upgoing aileron always deflects more than the downgoing aileron (called differential aileron).

I'm not assuming, I'm analysing.