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.
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 4898 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 73845 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
MCOflyer From United States, joined Jun 2006, 8009 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 73566 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.
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 !!
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 73138 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
"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
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 7974 posts, RR: 66 Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 79679 times:
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!
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 79577 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 "
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
SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1365 posts, RR: 10 Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 79297 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
OwlEye From Netherlands, joined Feb 2006, 644 posts, RR: 1 Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 80081 times:
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...
EXTspotter From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 864 posts, RR: 1 Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 79087 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.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 78547 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
Mhodgson From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2002, 4970 posts, RR: 40 Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 78827 times:
TupolevTu154 From United Kingdom (England), joined Aug 2004, 1671 posts, RR: 39 Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 79059 times:
Quoting Newark777 (Reply 44): I downloaded a copy off Youtube in case LH goes Tom Cruise on us and has them all removed.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6884 posts, RR: 50 Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 77855 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.
Icelandair75W From United States, joined Feb 2008, 79 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 75578 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.
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.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 74594 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
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 74681 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.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6884 posts, RR: 50 Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 74388 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?
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 74158 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
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 73965 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
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6884 posts, RR: 50 Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 73713 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?
Gkyip From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 73694 times:
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
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2757 posts, RR: 30 Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 73612 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.
Unfortunately, it's real. It seems like it has to be fake, because landing in that weather is so stupid...
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.
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 73116 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.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 73136 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
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 72736 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
Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 957 posts, RR: 1 Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 72506 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!!
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.
AviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2114 posts, RR: 50 Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 71078 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.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 70930 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.
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 71220 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...
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18437 posts, RR: 60 Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 70664 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...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
LHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 70613 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.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 70519 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
Theredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1177 posts, RR: 6 Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 69935 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...
Arniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 1 Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 69753 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.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 69796 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.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6884 posts, RR: 50 Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 69808 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 ...
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 715 posts, RR: 0 Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 69839 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.
LHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 69770 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!
Eaa3 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 69723 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.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18437 posts, RR: 60 Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 69611 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.
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 69544 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!
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...
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 69423 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
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.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 69105 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
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 69141 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?
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6884 posts, RR: 50 Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 68338 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 ...
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.
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.
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 68267 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
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 68144 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
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 67807 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).
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 68255 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 103): 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.
That's an easy one to answer. You can land in a 100kts steady headwind without problem.
What matters is the crosswind component at each runway.
If you are as close to aviation as to be able to read METAR's you should know that!
Quote: I'm defending, because I just see others landing before them, same weather conditions.
Well the others didn't do it wrong and that's probably why we're not talking about them
It's not a matter of whether I was in the cockpit or not. It's the matter that if the winds were being reported at that velocity as a crosswind, you should know to look at the aircraft manual or wherever the wind component information is listed and see if the reported wind is beyond the max wind component.
Peterpuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 278 posts, RR: 1 Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 66796 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 93): 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...
It's called Max Demonstrated x-wind and it is not a limitation.
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 66408 times:
Quoting Peterpuck (Reply 112): Quoting NCB (Reply 93):
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...
It's called Max Demonstrated x-wind and it is not a limitation.
1. Let's keep things simple for the amateurs on this forum. I try not to get too technical so everyone can follow a bit.
2. You know you are partially right on this one. It is not a limitation in the sense that every airline has its own SOP's and every airline determines for itself what is the max allowable cross-wind component for each aircraft type it operates.
The problem is that insurance companies do not refer to airline SOP's, they look at the numbers in the manufacturer's manual (in this case the max.dem.x-wind component).
So yes, from an insurance point of view it is a limitation and for them it is the max value for which they cover and this fits perfectly in the context of my post.
If an airline sets the threshold beyond that of the insurance company, the airline will have to pay for all damage in case of an accident where a pilot exceeded insurance coverage requirements but operated within limits of the airline requirements and will not be able to blame the pilot for negligence as the pilot can rightfully claim that he was operating within the airline's procedures.
EarlyNFF From Germany, joined Sep 2007, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 66309 times:
So, after reading 111 posts and pouring a bottle of chateau Lynch-Moussas Pauillac, I throw in my
I could not see the "you tubes", only the "live leak", several times.
everything looks very perfect, stabilized. From the WCA, it really does not seem out of limits. On centerline.
Someone mentions high on approach. HAM Rwy 23 has a displaced threshold, AFAIK. For noise reasons, AFAIK.
Shortly before flare, they get a gust, blown off centerline, they correct it nicely. Then the touch down: here come the flaws:
1.)they decrab completely to align with runway centerline: not necessary on a wet runway
2.)when you decrab, crosscontrols, e. g. left rudder, right aileron. They just forgot. I never flew A 320, but those guys think to keep the stick upright means wings level, Boeing pilots know bettter: left rudder, right aileron, right aileron! it´s not a matter of "Last second gusts", it´s a law, and unexperienced pilots just ignore. The corrective input was way to slow.
3.)not mentioned so far, who was pilot flying. Captain should have. As far as I remember, they go: one yours, one mine, next yours, then me again. Cpt. should have flown, regardless of "sequence"
All the rest: I read the Metar. Of course ATC should work together with the Met people, if, after passing a frontal system the wind directions shift, they should consider a runway change. Of course the wind direction was more favorable for RWY 33 ops, but ATC is always sluggish on making decisions on changing runways in use, BTW, do they have an ILS on 33 meanwhile, I didn´t land there for almost two decades.
Next issue: two decades ago, you had to calculate all your wind components from a little sketch, I still keep mine. Nowadays, you have it on board, your computers tell you all your winds and components, regardless what the tower says. You know your limits, for dry runways, for wet, you decide, yes or no, NOT ATC, not any one else, not any armchair pilots, not any " writers", not any "age 21-25"people. Sorry for that, but I stick to that.
Closing down of airports: I really hate this. I experienced shut down of airports, especially, when military authorities had the say. They shut down airports well above approved airline minimums, you can´t do anything against it.
"They should get fired." Hold your horses. They will get an invitation for a coffee with their bosses. They will get SIM sesssions with max approved Xwind landings. In every day life, crosswind practising is rather rare. But I classify that fighter pilot guy the same class as the KLM Tenerife guy: we know bettter, we are the best. I wish him what I had so far: no accidents, no incidents.
BTW, just renewed my B744 licence, 22000h, 61 yrs old, still going strong.
PeterPuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 278 posts, RR: 1 Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 66188 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 113): . You know you are partially right on this one. It is not a limitation in the sense that every airline has its own SOP's and every airline determines for itself what is the max allowable cross-wind component for each aircraft type it operates
And you know LH sop's enough to say these pilots screwed up. You make yourself look like an amature by saying
Quoting NCB (Reply 71): but I'm sure the pilot flying will lose his job there.
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13135 posts, RR: 65 Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 64965 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 89): Anyone who calls this a bad landing, please state your reasons precisely!
Wingtip contacted ground. That's an automatic "bad landing" qualifier right there.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 92): 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.
It's not HAM's responsibility to shut down - it's the responsibility of the pilots not to land when conditions aren't right for their aircraft. One wonders why they weren't using the other runway if the crosswind was so bad, but that's something for the investigation to decide.
I can't see anything that the pilots did wrong in the video - the landing was mostly good, but close to the ground it started to get messy. They started a go-around, as they should have, but the engines take time to spool up, and they were at the mercy of the gusts while waiting for the thrust to come. This does not mean that they are blameless, however, since they could have known about the gusts beforehand, or gotten a windshear alert, or something like that. It is possible that they shouldn't have been shooting that approach in the first place. But without knowing what they knew beforehand and what they didn't, I can't crucify them over this. Sometimes things just go wrong.
Hard to add anything useful after a B744 skipper's analysis. But like others, e.g. NCB, that's what I saw too, especially from the photo. Not enough right aileron when decrabbing. I think if not for that, it would have been a decent landing. The final approach looked ok. The video reminded me of two things: first, this KE 744 landing at Kai Tak, where you can see the starboard wing and then ailerons to counteract it coming up during decrabbing; and second, my CFI yelling in my ear to always keep ailerons deflected while taxing to avoid crosswind surprises.
I wonder if any PIREP had been issued regarding the wind. Also I'd be curious to know whether any airline, LH included, allows landings above the maximum demonstrated crosswind component.
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 63720 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 73): Since most probably there was no first hand evidence, no one had come after the pilot. An investigation seems improbable.
Visible wing damage is "first hand evidence" in my book, even if this was 1970 before anyone had good quality digital video cameras and YouTube to play with.
Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 91):
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.
There is nothing copyrighted about standing on a fence taking video of a landing. Now if the subsequent copies of that video were downloads of the (removed) original and put up by 3rd parties... then that is copyrighted. Regardless, LH wouldn't have been involved.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 62400 times:
Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 121): Visible wing damage is "first hand evidence" in my book, even if this was 1970 before anyone had good quality digital video cameras and YouTube to play with.
Yes, I had forgotten about the damage to the wing.
Crabbing is the procedure that aligns the nose and tail with the direction of the wind, while the plane follows a different course. A prime example of crabbing can be found in the following video:
As you can see in the first footage the airliner seems to fly directly at the camera, while in fact it follows the runway perfectly. Now just before touchdown a pilot needs to "decrab", i.e align the nose and tail with the centerline of the runway. Right at that point the plane is vulnerable to gusts.
Gkyip From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 61605 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Thread starter): 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.
Sorry but you were not part of the flight planning process and it's very easy for us to retrospectively say that the pilots made a bad decision. The weather is a dynamic process and it may have been when they were looking at the descent briefing, winds were perfectly within limits.
Quoting N14AZ (Thread starter): The fact purely stands that, aside from something totally out of the pilots control
I think that rather large gust from right to left was out of control of the pilots.
Quoting Rara (Reply 89): I'm a pilot, and I can tell you that that landing was very bad.
I'm also a pilot and agree that the landing wasn't perfect, but I would have loved to have seen what you would have done in the same circumstances. As I said above, it is easy for us to comment but we don't have the full knowledge of what happened.
Why exactly would the airport be blamed? Responsibility comes down to the PIC. Not the airport, even if the winds are above limits, they may not be for another aircraft and there's nothing wrong with the airport allowing takeoffs and landings if an aircraft can easily do it.
Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 111): It's not a matter of whether I was in the cockpit or not. It's the matter that if the winds were being reported at that velocity as a crosswind, you should know to look at the aircraft manual or wherever the wind component information is listed and see if the reported wind is beyond the max wind component.
Wind is a dynamic force and gusts are always unexpected. I'm sure if it was out of limits, the pilots would have gone around but if, by the time came for landing, the winds have changed, they don't know that. Even with ATC wind checks, they aren't always accurate. I think at some airports, the wind monitoring station is sheltered for some stupid reason!
Quoting EarlyNFF (Reply 114): 1.)they decrab completely to align with runway centerline: not necessary on a wet runway
Really? Why not? I've always been taught to put some rudder in to align the nose with the runway to avoid damage to the gear and to prevent a sudden jerking movement as the aircraft touches down.
Quoting EarlyNFF (Reply 114): 2.)when you decrab, crosscontrols, e. g. left rudder, right aileron. They just forgot. I never flew A 320, but those guys think to keep the stick upright means wings level, Boeing pilots know bettter: left rudder, right aileron, right aileron! it´s not a matter of "Last second gusts", it´s a law, and unexperienced pilots just ignore. The corrective input was way to slow.
I think you're asking for trouble here!
Gary
The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee
PHKLM From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 3 Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 61431 times:
Quoting EarlyNFF (Reply 114):
2.)when you decrab, crosscontrols, e. g. left rudder, right aileron. They just forgot. I never flew A 320, but those guys think to keep the stick upright means wings level, Boeing pilots know bettter: left rudder, right aileron, right aileron! it´s not a matter of "Last second gusts", it´s a law, and unexperienced pilots just ignore. The corrective input was way to slow.
Judging based on the following footage I reckon Airbus jockeys know pretty well how to control their plane during a crosswind landing:
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 61072 times:
Quoting PHKLM (Reply 123): Crabbing is the procedure that aligns the nose and tail with the direction of the wind, while the plane follows a different course. A prime example of crabbing can be found in the following video:
Thanks for the explanation. I've seen this technique very often with gliders. I didn't know this is called crabbing but that is certainly an appropriate term.
What strikes me on your explanatory video is that when the 777 touches down the gear is still not aligned to the rwy, so I wonder how much torsion stress the gear can take? Or can even the main gear make turns?
The same was BTW true for the AB 737 yesterday: it touched ground with the center gear still in crab position and aligned when the main gear was already on the ground.
I found that 737 clip BTW at least as interesting as the A320 one. It seems the gust is even stronger as it sweeps the AC literally sidewards away from the rwy but there is no rolling movement, the wings remained leveled.
[Edited 2008-03-02 02:04:06]
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
PHKLM From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 3 Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 60631 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 127): What strikes me on your explanatory video is that when the 777 touches down the gear is still not aligned to the rwy, so I wonder how much torsion stress the gear can take? Or can even the main gear make turns?
In all fairness I have to say my video is a demonstration by Boeing on just that: torsion stress on the gear. It is a test that the 777 went through as part of certification and therefore probably not your average SOP in daily airline operations.
Furthermore, the 777 landing gear is also a bit specific as it is designed to take extremely high loads, the 777 has only 2 main landing gear struts whereas the M11 and A340 have 3 and the 747 even 4.
BrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 2947 posts, RR: 10 Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 60339 times:
It a bit over my head, but as a PAX I would not have been overly concerned about the approach. It seemed pretty stable to me. From what I saw an unfortunate gust of wind caught the aircraft. It can happen, I guess.
I dont think we can really comment more than that, we dont know so many other factors which influenced the crews decision to go ahead with the landing.
Brian.
Next flights: ORK-MAN (WW); MAN-ORK (EI) DUB-HHN-DUB(FR)
just before touch down, you try to reuce that angle as much as possible. Very important on dry runways, because of the side load you get on the gear. Not that important on wet or slippery runways.
SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1365 posts, RR: 10 Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 59637 times:
The approach was as stable as all others before untill reaching 20ft!
Only major difference was the strong gust they encountered shortly before touch down.
Would the AB B737 got the same gust when 10ft higher the scenario would look most likely the same!
The lack of directional control during the maybe to high flare is the biggest mistake these guys made. I do not try to defend anything/anybody here but the A320 is a very uncomfortable plane during strong wind conditions.
No flaming here it is just a fact that the lack of any feedback from the sidestick makes it difficult to handle the aircraft on short final.
The Airbus is designed to maintain his attitude and if blown away it should resume his original flight path. But you need some sidestick inputs during approach because the computer is just to slow to respond appropriate. In the Boeing the pilot gives an input and feels the force needed and the aircrafts reaction. In the Airbus the Pilot gives a stick input and receives no feedback or pressure from the stick. That can result in to strong or to weak inputs and corrections.
But it is always easy to discuss this on the green table maybe they had a constant X wind, nothing unusual at HAM just until reaching 10ft or 20ft.
If you take into consideration that the A320 engines need around 4 to 5 seconds to spool up from idle into Go around power they must have initiated the Go around as soon their right wing came up and with a steady and stable approach until this point maybe I wouldn' t have performed a Go around any second earlier. I don' t know!! With some more right aileron the situation would have been much better but maybe the Gust was so strong and they had full right aileron.
We don' t know it!
LH has a very good flight safety department and I am sure there will be an internal investigation but
I don' t think anybody is losing his job here they will get a Sim refresher, coffee and cake and thats it!
At the tower we do have for all runways at all times head-, cross- and tailwind components of course. For this we have two wind gauges at our disposal, one at rwy 23, the other at rwy 15. The wind is represented digitally and gets updated every 15 secs. At the same time a moving average of the last 23 minutes is available. At the moment of the incidence with D-AIQP the crosswind component for the 23 as well as for the 33 was exceeding 20 kts. These data were continuosly available to the pilots. In this case the pilot opted for rwy 23...
(Selbstverständlich haben wir auf dem Tower für alle Bahnen jederzeit die Head, cross und tailwindkomponenten für jede Bahn. Dafür stehen uns zwei Windmesser (einer an der 23 ,einer an der 15) zur Verfügung. Der Wind wird digital dargestellt und alle 15 Sekunden aktualisiert. Gleichzeitig wird ein gleitender Durchschnitt der letzten 23 Minuten dargestellt. Zum Zeitpunkt des Vorfalls mitz der D-AIQP war die Querwindkomponente sowohl für die 23 als auch für die 33 mehr als 20 Knoten. Diese Daten werden den Piloten laufend zur Verfügung gestellt. In diesem Fall hat der PIC sich für die RWY 23 entschieden....)
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 929 posts, RR: 1 Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 59374 times:
Quoting Gkyip (Reply 124): Quoting N14AZ (Thread starter):
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.
Sorry but you were not part of the flight planning process and it's very easy for us to retrospectively say that the pilots made a bad decision. The weather is a dynamic process and it may have been when they were looking at the descent briefing, winds were perfectly within limits.
Quoting N14AZ (Thread starter):
The fact purely stands that, aside from something totally out of the pilots control
I think that rather large gust from right to left was out of control of the pilots.
Hey Gary, you are doing me wrong. I didn't say this. Actually I didn't say anything except at the start of this thread. Something went wrong with your quoting.
SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1365 posts, RR: 10 Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 59295 times:
Quote from the Airbus manual
"In strong crosswind conditions small amounts of of lateral control may be used to maintain the wings level. This lateral stick input must be reduced to zero at first main landing gear touch down".
Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 957 posts, RR: 1 Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 59055 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 92): 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?
It is not up to the airports, it is up to the pilots what they take off in taking into accounts aircraft and airline limits.
Whose minima would they base the decsions to close the airport on? Some aircraft have higher maximum operating parameters, also pilots might have different limits. For example a pilot under training new to a type might have a lower limit than a more experienced ones! That is why airports don;t just close due to weather.
Skyman From Germany, joined May 2006, 492 posts, RR: 0 Reply 143, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 56730 times:
That was almost a disaster. Unbelievable that only a winglet broke. Emma really gave aviation in Germany two hard days so far. I´m also surprised that the media didn´t report anything yet. They usually are very fast when it comes to such things.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 144, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 56058 times:
Quoting Skyman (Reply 143): I´m also surprised that the media didn´t report anything yet. They usually are very fast when it comes to such things.
Yes, this surprises me as well. But then the clips were removed by the authors so can we assume they cut a deal and sold the clips? To whom? Obviously not to a news agent since nothing popped up so far and with each hour the news gets older and less interesting.
But then again: would we like to see the media exploit this as "two hundred almost died in what was an escape from sure death in the last second blablabla", making flying a bit more uncomfortable for scared paxes? I can see no sense in this either.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
So your a female pilot from Belgium. What airline do you fly for? And what gives you the authority to talk about how bad the pilots landing was. You weren't in their situation. Plain and simple, so quit.
KPDX From United States, joined Dec 2005, 1600 posts, RR: 4 Reply 152, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 54151 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 151): And you are a 13-15 year old what makes you qualified to comment on this
Cool and you are a 21-25 year old. So what?
Nothing "qualifies me" at all. I think it's funny and weird that this pilot on Airliners.net is criticizing the LH pilots landing. She wasn't even in the situation. Arm-chairing at it's best!
Lufthansa's chief pilot has watched the video and is quoted as being "full of praise" for the pilots. Lufthansa spokesman Weber said the "pilots did the right thing". "They were caught by a sudden gust after touchdown. Something like this can always happen".
Quoting NCB (Reply 71): They have been very lucky with the outcome but I'm sure the pilot flying will lose his job there.
Well. Just four days ago you assured the military forum that the tanker deal would go to Boeing, you were absolutely positive because a "US airforce insider had informed you". You're losing your credibility, very fast.
Xtoler From United States, joined Sep 2007, 890 posts, RR: 1 Reply 157, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 52303 times:
I just showed that video to my wife and she ran off to the bedroom, screaming "I'm glad you don't fly anymore." I've been in those close calls, but never that bad. I feel more assured now that a landing like that can really be recoverable.
To have someone say LH's pilot group being unproffesional and of short commercial hours, how do you explain the recovery? Dumb luck. Kudos to both 'Bus drivers on that!
EMB145 F/A, F/E, J41 F/A, F/E, because my wife clipped my wings, armchair captain
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 158, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 52018 times:
Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 150): Maybe you could run our Flight Safety departement.
What's the pay like?
Quoting KPDX (Reply 149): So your a 55-65 year old female from Belgium. What airline do you fly for? And what gives you the authority to talk about how bad the pilots landing was. You weren't in their situation. Plain and simple, so quit.
That's my wife's profile. I don't want to put my credentials on an open and silly forum but ok since you are so curious, I have almost 4 decades of history at Sabena before retiring, never screwed up.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3853 posts, RR: 15 Reply 159, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 51910 times:
I'd say yes, that was not dumb luck alone. That was skill and good training as well.
I was in a LH 737 in June last year when ther pilot aborted landing and did a go around, actually we diverted to NUE. The conditions were not as difficult as they were in HAM yesterday. All I can say is, they did an excellent job then.
Judgung what I have seen on that video, this was brilliant. They recovered in a very scary situation and they did well..
These "bus drivers" in Hamburg earned their pay
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
B767 From Norway, joined Feb 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 160, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 51770 times:
Is it often that gust,s can create such large roll movement?Personally,I got only 16-17 hours in a cherokee before my health said stop 10 years ago,and the theory regarding metrology is something I don,t remember so well. I did however practice some crosswind landings.When I got a heavy gust from the side,the aircraft behaved very fs2004like with conciderable yaw movment but wery little roll movment.Is it only rare occasions you get situations where the aircraft rolled so much?Could it be a extrem windshear? Comments from proffesionals are welcome.
Hmmm I can see an advantage of the Airbus traditional wingfence over the blended winglet. It looks like it acted like a tailskid.... and protected the aileron..imagine if that had been damaged at that crucial moment.
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 163, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 51350 times:
Quoting Xtoler (Reply 157): To have someone say LH's pilot group being unproffesional and of short commercial hours, how do you explain the recovery? Dumb luck. Kudos to both 'Bus drivers on that!
WOW wow wait a sec you're blowing it to the limits.
I said that pilot didn't fly as he was supposed to, didn't say the entire and full LH pilot's group is unprofessional.
Quoting Rara (Reply 156): Lufthansa's chief pilot has watched the video and is quoted as being "full of praise" for the pilots. Lufthansa spokesman Weber said the "pilots did the right thing". "They were caught by a sudden gust after touchdown. Something like this can always happen".
That's expected isn't it? Would the chief pilot tell the media: "Our pilot screwed up, we're going to remove him from the line for a while"?
How could an average viewer or passenger see the difference in this anyways?
I'm full of anger towards the JAA who is approving 200 hour commercial trainings.
Look at the USA: they won't put a cadet on a regional jet until he reaches at least 100 hours of multi-engine time, 500 hours of total time.
In Europe, a student with 200 hours total time is hired, put on a simulator for 1 month and followed by an instructor for the following 2 months (line training). After that, he's released on the line.
In less than 2 years a student goes from not knowing what a B737 looks like to actually flying one....
It's time that the media put their spotlights on this problem, certainly in the context of the ever increasing pilot shortage in the whole world and flight schools taking profit of it to charge over 80 000€ to every single student.
Quoting Rara (Reply 156): Well. Just four days ago you assured the military forum that the tanker deal would go to Boeing, you were absolutely positive because a "US airforce insider had informed you". You're losing your credibility, very fast.
Yes I almost bought 20k worth of Boeing shares on Friday morning. God am I happy I didn't.
AviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2114 posts, RR: 50 Reply 164, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 51150 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 163): It's time that the media put their spotlights on this problem, certainly in the context of the ever increasing pilot shortage in the whole world and flight schools taking profit of it to charge over 80 000€ to every single student.
I don't know about the other European majors, but LH's and LX's flight schools cost nowhere near €80.000.
Jawed From United States, joined Sep 2006, 463 posts, RR: 0 Reply 165, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 50824 times:
I have been on this forum for 6 months. Even though I have never flown a plane, that makes me uniquely qualified to assess the landing in the video, and to give an expert opinion on whether the pilots acted properly. It is clear that those pilots were total noobs. If I had been flying that plane, it would have been a perfect landing.
Beechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 808 posts, RR: 52 Reply 166, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 50240 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting NCB (Reply 163): I'm full of anger towards the JAA who is approving 200 hour commercial trainings.
Look at the USA: they won't put a cadet on a regional jet until he reaches at least 100 hours of multi-engine time, 500 hours of total time.
And that´s the reason why i feel like watching an episode of "Golden Girls" every time a see an US crew...
No offense, Guys.
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 167, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 50051 times:
Quoting AviationMaster (Reply 164): I don't know about the other European majors, but LH's and LX's flight schools cost nowhere near €80.000.
A bit off-topic but I'd like to comment: LH's training is sponsored and costs 40 000€ but you need to speak German.
AF and LH are one of the very few airlines in Europe to have their own sponsored training schemes.
Still, due to cost issues, the training is limited to 200 hours of basic training.
40 000€ is what a 200 hour training should normally cost.
But usual flight schools offering similar training programs ask more than 80 000€... and their classrooms are not empty...
Theredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1177 posts, RR: 6 Reply 168, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 49846 times:
Quoting Jawed (Reply 165): I have been on this forum for 6 months. Even though I have never flown a plane, that makes me uniquely qualified to assess the landing in the video, and to give an expert opinion on whether the pilots acted properly. It is clear that those pilots were total noobs. If I had been flying that plane, it would have been a perfect landing.
Then there was a great special effect department that put the video out!
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 104): Hardly arrogance, i've spent a lot of time in doctors offices but i don't pretend to know enough to critique them
You don't need to be a doctor to know that sometimes they are heading the wrong way. Just as you don't need to be an engineer to know that a cardboard bridge is a bad idea, or a software developer to know that Vista is a buggy POS. Having said that the weather was borderline. The gust that caught the plane in question didn't appear to be anomalous based on the audio track on the video.
My two cents: The pilots may have done a great job once the gust grabbed the plane, but really should have thought better of trying it in the first place.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3853 posts, RR: 15 Reply 170, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 49671 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 167): AF and LH are one of the very few airlines in Europe to have their own sponsored training schemes.
Still, due to cost issues, the training is limited to 200 hours of basic training.
40 000€ is what a 200 hour training should normally cost.
May be some LH pilots here can educate you about the LH training and what it costs. The pilots have to pay for their share ususally by a loan which is arranged and backed by LH. Training in Bremen and Goodyear AZ costs more than 40K, in D;M terms it was more than 100000DM , and takes more than 200 hrs.,
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 171, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 49758 times:
KLM shows us the right way to do it:
Quote: May be some LH pilots here can educate you about the LH training and what it costs. The pilots have to pay for their share ususally by a loan which is arranged and backed by LH. Training in Bremen and Goodyear AZ costs more than 40K, in D;M terms it was more than 100000DM , and takes more than 200 hrs.
You all seem to know it better around here don't you?
"Die Schulungskosten werden von Lufthansa komplett vorfinanziert. Das heißt, die Schulung kostet Sie zunächst einmal keinen Cent. Erst nach dem erfolgreichen Abschluss, wenn Sie einen Arbeitsvertrag von einer Lufthansa-Konzerngesellschaft erhalten, beginnen Sie mit der Rückzahlung Ihres Eigenanteils von 40.903 €."
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10807 posts, RR: 9 Reply 172, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 49599 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 103): 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.
AviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2114 posts, RR: 50 Reply 174, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 49394 times:
The pilots repay their share (€40K) once they start working for LH (usually via a small deduction from their monthly salary).
Anyways, in order to not sway too much from the original topic, on this site you will find all infos on LH's pilot training program (http://www.lufthansa-pilot.de/).
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 170): May be some LH pilots here can educate you about the LH training and what it costs. The pilots have to pay for their share ususally by a loan which is arranged and backed by LH. Training in Bremen and Goodyear AZ costs more than 40K, in D;M terms it was more than 100000DM , and takes more than 200 hrs.,
Which also proofs the fact that LH is certainly not training pilots in order to turn a profit.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 49368 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 171): KLM shows us the right way to do it:
Filmed from that position (spotter's place at Kaagbaan?) the HAM incident must have had even more hair-raising.
There is some detail that strikes me with the HAM incident. The wind data were available and, as NBC suggested, were favorable for rwy 33. The staff from HAM ATC said the pilot chose 23. Now the question: can the pilot really choose the rwy? Isn't that ATC decision?
At some other place I read rwy 23 is preferably operated because of lower noise emissions to nearby communities. So what is the deal here?
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 177, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 49130 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 176): The right way to do it on an A319 by Northwest:
I think we can collect a huge number of such approaches on the net but I guess that doesn't really help accounting for the HAM incident.
Here the interests are: why by whom and under what circumstances was rwy 23 chosen? Has noise reduction been more important than security? Was ATC too "sluggish" (as the retired 747 pilot said) in changing the rwy and why? Wasn't rwy 23 suggested to the pilots? Had they to request that rwy by themselves / decide to divert (many landings were reported to have been aborted, particularly bad must have been an EK attempt that then did divert)?
Do A320 and B737 react differently in the given circumstances and critical situations and what can be done to improve its handing and procedures? Think of the AB B737 landing 10 minutes earlier under the same circumstances: why didn't that one go out of control? Was the gust impacting at a different altitude? Does the B737 react differently/better? If so, can A3220 pilots be trained to compensate? What ought to be done then?
These are some of the questions I can think of when I try to resume what I've been able to follow.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3070 posts, RR: 14 Reply 178, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 49129 times:
Quoting Jawed (Reply 165): It is clear that those pilots were total noobs. If I had been flying that plane, it would have been a perfect landing.
If you mean this for real....no words on this world can describe how dumb such a comment is!!!
Quoting NCB (Reply 171): "Die Schulungskosten werden von Lufthansa komplett vorfinanziert. Das heißt, die Schulung kostet Sie zunächst einmal keinen Cent. Erst nach dem erfolgreichen Abschluss, wenn Sie einen Arbeitsvertrag von einer Lufthansa-Konzerngesellschaft erhalten, beginnen Sie mit der Rückzahlung Ihres Eigenanteils von 40.903 €."
Meaning that around 40.000€ have to be payed by the pilots after the training, the rest is paid by LH --> The training costs more than 40.903 €
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 4765 posts, RR: 12 Reply 180, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 49216 times:
From manchesterspotters2..... another casualty of the winds is CX039 B-KAG that suffered damage to all 4 nacelles and burst a tyre landing at MAN early this morning (01.30) Damage reported by fire service though aircraft cleared to taxi to stand. Photos on manchesterspotters2 group of some scraped nacelles, but not visible to non-members. Other MAN based snappers may get some pics up in a week or so, I assume.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 183, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 48691 times:
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 179): Is that Air Berlin Video somewhere in the web?
It has been removed by the author. Maybe it will reappear when the dust has settled? The photographs BTW belong to the http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-forum.de/portal.php. They didn't sell though they were constantly bugged by the media, as their head writes. But he decided to turn down the offered money because it would kill their credibility.
Respect!
(und es ist nicht leicht soviel Geld auszuschlagen, aber als Vorsitzender der HAF kann ich mir solch ein Debakel nicht erlauben da es unsere ganze Arbeit zunichte machen könnte und es ist gerade so OK das ich diese Bilder auf dem Vereinseigenen Forum habe. Ich muss morgen auch noch mit der Pressestelle darüber sprechen.)
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18437 posts, RR: 60 Reply 187, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 48329 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 175): The staff from HAM ATC said the pilot chose 23. Now the question: can the pilot really choose the rwy? Isn't that ATC decision?
At some other place I read rwy 23 is preferably operated because of lower noise emissions to nearby communities. So what is the deal here?
That's what I've been wondering. I'm sure there will be an investigation to find out exactly why this plane tried to land on this runway under these conditions, and who was at fault.
No matter what some "dismissers" try to say about any commentary on the landing, it is clear that this landing should not have been attempted. A plane nearly crashed due somebody's poor decision. It's just a matter of who...
Quoting KPDX (Reply 181): Are you serious? Did you even read the whole post?
No it didn't. It classified all comments as being from idiots, and said nobody has a right to comment. It also wasn't original.
Problem is, there are pilots here commenting, people who have been flying for 30 years and never had an experience like that, etc. Why dismiss all of that knowledge and experience? To feel superior in your own mind?
And sorry to break it to you, but even the customer DOES have a say in safety. It's their lives being put at risk, after all. If a pilot wants to try risky landings (if it was the pilot's call), let them do so in a private plane with no passengers. And if an airline or an airport has a policy that puts customers at risk, it should be KNOWN and CORRECTED. Silencing people doesn't help.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Theredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1177 posts, RR: 6 Reply 188, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 47350 times:
I like to trust people, and that includes pilots, I (like I said been to quite a few scares) think that they dont want to be killed, they are NO kamikazes disguised as pilots.
If they have an accident they may be killed also, I am appalled at the easy judgement and quick conlclusions some "experienced" pilots have here. (no different from us armchair pilots)
A lot of choices have to be made when bad weather or emergency procedures are in place for one reason or another, its EASY to say I would have done this or that when sipping a cofee. For example the TAM fatal accident in bad weather, pilot made a desicion and it cost thier life and a lot of people also, these LH guys averted disaster by controlling a plane that was off the runway and took off, yes the plane is damaged but there are no cassualities, being in some emergency landings myself and seeing the profesionalism of the crew and knowing they dont want to die, I trust them and I think this unfortunate event could have been a lot worse if the pilot had his mind set on landing no matter what (AM MD incident like or TAM like etc..)
And there we are. BILD, the most influential opinion-shaper in Germany, has declared the pilot a "hero" and his decision to go around "courageous". "Disaster was prevented in the last second."
If they put that in the print version tomorrow (and I guess they will), then what we thought would be bad publicity for LH turns into a major popularity boost for them. You couldn't make it up!
B767 From Norway, joined Feb 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 190, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 46778 times:
When they was about 30 feet over the runway,they were drifting off.As a result they put aileron into wind.Could it be that they turned to much into the wind.?And when they de-crabbed they figured it out.Rudder was not enough to get the bus lined up and they were drifting towards the upwind side of the runway.To help straighten up they give a little left aileron.The right wing naturally goes up,and then it is much more easy for a sudden monster gust to try to roll the aircraft over. I am no commercial pilot,so I realy don,t know,I am just asking the questions.
Artsyman From United States, joined Feb 2001, 4736 posts, RR: 58 Reply 191, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 46414 times:
I flew into FRA today on an A330, and while windy, it was not insane. I then flew out of FRA on a B735, and to say it was completely insane would be an understatement. We were roughly 4-6 inches from a wing strike on take off. As soon as we started the take off roll, you could feel the pilot fighting to stay on the centreline, and right as we started rotation, the whole plan crabbed, and the right wing dropped, real.... close. From take off to around 10,000 feet was a real fight. While I have experienced worse at altitude, I have never experienced anything so rough that close to the ground.
This comes from someone who flies more or less every day on commercial jets
LH498 From Germany, joined May 2007, 166 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 46292 times:
Glad nothing more than some big scare happened.
I too believe, the pilots were caught by surprise by some severe gusts but did a terrific job by avoiding a greater accident and going around.
Quoting Rara (Reply 189): Quoting Giosetti (Reply 184):
Oh, that was exactly what I feared:
And there we are. BILD, the most influential opinion-shaper in Germany, has declared the pilot a "hero" and his decision to go around "courageous". "Disaster was prevented in the last second."
If they put that in the print version tomorrow (and I guess they will), then what we thought would be bad publicity for LH turns into a major popularity boost for them. You couldn't make it up!
OTOH, the ZDF showed tonight the video on their main news programme 'Heute Journal' and they simply described what happened without sensationalism. The main anchor, made a remark of having an uneasy feeling by watching it alone, but that was it. I didn't expect ZDF to air such a video, but nice surprise.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5677 posts, RR: 56 Reply 194, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 45642 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 187): No matter what some "dismissers" try to say about any commentary on the landing, it is clear that this landing should not have been attempted.
After the fact, it's clear. Someone is only at fault if it was clear before the event.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3853 posts, RR: 15 Reply 197, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42856 times:
According to a newsreport, the German LBA hs started an investigation. I guess they have to.
The media is reporting this relatively calm and they are praising the crew. Also reported is that both the aircraft and the crew are back on duty. The passengers were offered psychologivcal assistance but most denied, the report said.
Good training makes the difference and it is also good to hear that the company acted exemplary.
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 198, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 42482 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 197): Good training makes the difference and it is also good to hear that the company acted exemplary.
I understand your pride for your airline, the image of your country.
Still, I don't see what difference the training has made here nor have you suggested technical explanations.
Going around is just pressing one single button...
Anyway, I would seriously question the skills of the pilot flying and decision making of the captain. That video makes it look like the aircraft has been blown away by a single gust, in reality the windside wing was not covered against the wind and let itself be blown.
I can even go as far as to suggest that they took the runway with most wind on purpose... to "see what the plane can do".
Not often do crew get to practise X-wind landings in real life nowadays...so they thake every chance to practise...with or without passengers.
The Pilot flying is with Lufthansa since 17 years (so longer than some Armchair CEO's in here are alive), Captain since 6 years...so he already had a lot of SIM-Sessions/Training in his career. Maybe this was the point PanHam mentioned.
PhilV From Germany, joined Feb 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 200, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41994 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 198): Going around is just pressing one single button...
After a sudden gust where the Aircraft is not stable? Sounds odd to me.
Quoting NCB (Reply 198): I can even go as far as to suggest that they took the runway with most wind on purpose... to "see what the plane can do".
Not often do crew get to practise X-wind landings in real life nowadays...so they thake every chance to practise...with or without passengers.
Speculating at its best. Maybe they were practising blind man’s buff as well.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 201, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 42205 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 197): ood training makes the difference and it is also good to hear that the company acted exemplary.
I have revisited the clip of the B737. I'm tempted to not share your fanfare on good training and exemplary acting. I'd rather say next windy day I'd rather choose an AB B737.
Same gust at the same moment with no roll movement. I know - this could be owed to a different altitude the gust attacked the ship, different behavior of the AC and what else.
What I do admire is how LH made this an unparalleled hagiography.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
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.
Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 55): 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.
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.
Do you really think that pilots are that suicidal and badly trained? If your average LH pilot and German ATC allows a landing attempt, that's good enough for me. These things happen. You can never 100% predict everything.
I'm surprised no one has yet decried the fact that the vaunted Airbus envelope protection didn't protect the aircraft. But before you do, ask some Airbus pilots about the ease of recovery maneuvers in a FBW Airbus.
[Edited 2008-03-03 05:17:49]
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3853 posts, RR: 15 Reply 203, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 41576 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 201): I have revisited the clip of the B737. I'm tempted to not share your fanfare on good training and exemplary acting. I'd rather say next windy day I'd rather choose an AB B737.
I think I put little emontion in my words. You make a mistake here, you compare apples and peaches. To compare the AB approach with the LH approach, there must have been axactly the same gusts, which is highly unlikely. I say nothing bad about AB and/or the 737 with this.
I was in an LH 737 making a go around here in FRA, however under better conditions than in HAM, which may have been half as scary as those in Hamburg. I found the handling very professional then.
.
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 201):
What I do admire is how LH made this an unparalleled hagiography.
Totally exaggerating. Pilots are no saints and the company does not make them saints. I find it impressive, that a young lady of 24 shared the workload and obviously did a good job there. Speaks for good, training, even if I repeat myself.
Nope, independend mind. I do not even work for the company. I would say the same about BA or AB or whoever of they did a similarly good job.
Meanwhile, the German press is taking this up in a rather big style. I heard a radio interview on HR1 half an hour ago, where a TV sports reporter was interviewed, who was on that flight. He said that this was about 15 seconds in which he thought "This may be it" , the cabin was fairly calm during these 15 seconds, only a few screams. After the a/c was completely airborne again, there was quiet in the cabin and the Captain came over the PA very quickly explaining what hapenned.
This is another indication that this was a very severe incident, compared with my experience last year were the Captain made his annoucement only after we had made the left turn, passed the field and were already heading for NUE.
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 204, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 41582 times:
Quoting Fiatstilojtd (Reply 199): The Pilot flying is with Lufthansa since 17 years (so longer than some Armchair CEO's in here are alive), Captain since 6 years...so he already had a lot of SIM-Sessions/Training in his career. Maybe this was the point PanHam mentioned.
Interesting, what is your source? Any info about the first officer?
Pilot flying like the one who established the go-around or like the one that did the approach and touch down?
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 207, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 41313 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 203): I think I put little emontion in my words. You make a mistake here, you compare apples and peaches. To compare the AB approach with the LH approach, there must have been axactly the same gusts, which is highly unlikely. I say nothing bad about AB and/or the 737 with this.
Study again both clips very carefully. The A320 comes down a lot steeper and seems much more unstable than the B737 which is at the threshold earlier (though that can depend on the camera's focus). The sweep comes at about the same hight relative to the rwy and displaces both AC laterally the same distance from which I conclude the gusts were similar in strength. In sum the A320 shows a lot more vulnerability to roll movements than the B737.
That is what I see when I compare the clips.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 208, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 41208 times:
Quoting Fiatstilojtd (Reply 206): Quoting PanHAM (Reply 203):
I find it impressive, that a young lady of 24 shared the workload and obviously did a good job there
Edit: Giosetti beat me to it
The 24 years old lady? Of course!!!! Wild cat, one would say.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2210 posts, RR: 0 Reply 209, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 40738 times:
The article in SPIEGEL is quite interesting and explains how LH sees the incident. Both pilots are already flying again:
"Er hat meisterlich umgesetzt, was er zuvor Hunderte Male im Simulator geübt hat", sagte Lufthansa-Sprecher Thomas Jachnow.
Die Fluggesellschaft habe darüber hinaus keine Zweifel, dass die Freigabe der Landebahn durch die Deutsche Flugsicherung korrekt war, betonte Jachnow. Zusätzliche Böen im Anflug könne niemand vorhersehen. Es seien sich aber alle einig gewesen, dass das Manöver anspruchsvoll würde. Die Besatzung habe hochprofessionell gehandelt."
Transscript: LH said the pilot acted like a master; The crew has acted highly professional; nobody can predict a gust of wind; everybody agrees that the manouvre was challenging.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13583 posts, RR: 68 Reply 210, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 40445 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 207):
Study again both clips very carefully. The A320 comes down a lot steeper and seems much more unstable than the B737 which is at the threshold earlier (though that can depend on the camera's focus). The sweep comes at about the same hight relative to the rwy and displaces both AC laterally the same distance from which I conclude the gusts were similar in strength. In sum the A320 shows a lot more vulnerability to roll movements than the B737.
You're making pretty sweeping conclusions from one video clip. I think their roll "vulnerability" is little enough to allow certification.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3853 posts, RR: 15 Reply 211, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days ago) and read 40006 times:
@ Giosetti - first, the AB video seems not to be available. Second, as Starlionblue already states, you are making "sweeping conclusions" from a video clip. I doubt that the wind conditons were exactly the same in both cases, that would be like hitting the jackpot twice in a row. A rather wild statement of yours.
And third, you are always smarter when you leave city hall. That goes for all those guys who say that 33 would have been the better choice.
All those familiar with the conditions in HAM know that the 33 approach is used rather seldom. It leads direct over the city , hospitals and some nice residential areas. In the 70s I had an office with direct view of the 33 threshold. It was and is used mainly for take offs, landings on 33 were the exception then and I believe still are.
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 212, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 39539 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 210): You're making pretty sweeping conclusions from one video clip. I think their roll "vulnerability" is little enough to allow certification.
Nice pun. I make a conclusion not from one but from the comparison of two videos. I just describe what I see. One AC has considerably more roll movement as the other.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 211): I doubt that the wind conditons were exactly the same in both cases, that would be like hitting the jackpot twice in a row. A rather wild statement of yours.
You "doubt" and I make a rather "wild statement"? Anyway, wind conditions have been recorded, so we will know if the weather changed considerably during those 10 minutes, the BFU will tell us.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
ZakHH From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 1569 posts, RR: 29 Reply 213, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 39525 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 211): All those familiar with the conditions in HAM know that the 33 approach is used rather seldom. It leads direct over the city , hospitals and some nice residential areas. In the 70s I had an office with direct view of the 33 threshold. It was and is used mainly for take offs, landings on 33 were the exception then and I believe still are.
Standard would indeed be 23 or 15, but I would not say that 33 is used extremely rarely. I used to live under the approach path to 33 until last year, and I'd say that it was in use for landings about maybe 2-3 times per month, usually under windy conditions.
So if I had to make a blind guess on saturday, I would have expected landings on 33. Anyway, I certainly can't comment on whether the decision was right or wrong.
YULWinterSkies From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1482 posts, RR: 7 Reply 214, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 39505 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 26): Sheesh ... I bet Lufthansa's press department must be very worried about that video!
For the amazing skills of the pilots, they should not be to the least. HAM ATC might be more worried... Why the h*** were they trying to land aircraft in these circumstances?
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3853 posts, RR: 15 Reply 215, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 39366 times:
Quoting ZakHH (Reply 213): s in use for landings about maybe 2-3 times per month, usually under windy conditio
That's over 30 years ago for me and although I usually worked 12+ hour days I was not always in the office. I'd agree with your 2-3 x per month.
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 212): You "doubt" and I make a rather "wild statement"? Anyway, wind conditions have been recorded, so we will know if the weather changed considerably during those 10 minutes, the BFU will tell us.
....what makes you sure that the BFU will make a computer simulation adoptiong the conditions under which the LH 320 landed to the AB 737 (what was it a -800, a -700 or what) for the purpose of comparison, taking the different aircraft, weights etc into account?
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 929 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2256 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 4898 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3031 posts, 
From United States, joined Jun 2006, 8009 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 7974 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 8593 posts, 
From Norway, joined Dec 2004, 89 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 922 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 1107 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2002, 4970 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2005, 159 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1177 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1079 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 310 posts, 
From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 1860 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3131 posts, 
From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 230 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13583 posts, ){kind=link}