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, 4725 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 70493 times:
Wouldn't surprise me one bit, the weather up here in Denmark has been quite stormy as well. Heck, I even heard they had cancelled a Bundesliga-game somewhere as they were concerned about a hurricane developing
MCOflyer From United States, joined Jun 2006, 7540 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 70214 times:
Ouch, what will happen to her? A simple replacement of the winglet or the wing and winglet? I give the pilots kudos for landing her in that kind of weather. LH does train its pilots very well so hats off to them for saving the day.
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, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 69786 times:
From the Aviation Community Norddeuschland board:
"hab grad mit nem Kollegen und Freund aus der Wartung telefoniert der grad Dienst hat, er hat die Kiste bearbeitet:
Wingtip komplett verbogen nach oben, untere Hälfte des Winglet ist nach inboard gebogen ca. 45 Grad, Slat ist angeschliffen...sonst alles ok!"
which is:
Just called a colleague and friend who is on duty in maintenance, he has worked on the AC:
wingtip completely bent upwards, lower half of winglet bent inboard at about 45 degrees, slat partly grounded. No further damage.
[Edited 2008-03-01 12:22:21]
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
"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, 7638 posts, RR: 62 Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 76327 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, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 76225 times:
Quoting EMAlad (Reply 31): Did the plane land safely after going round again?
Seems so:
"Also das war die LH044 aus München. Auf der Ham.Airport-Seite steht, dass sie um 13:55 gelandet ist. Das passt auch, da dann nach diesem Vorfall die Bahn umgestellt wurde und die Finnair, die erst ne ganze Weile an der 23 stand, dann zur 33 gerollt ist und um 14:08 gestartet ist.
Außerdem waren danach dann auch einige MUC-Flüge gestrichen. Passt also alles "
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, 1332 posts, RR: 9 Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 75945 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 27): My wife, also a pilot, just said that the guys obviously messed things up: approach too steep, to late decided to go around, taken irresponsibly too much risks and super scarcely escaped a catastrophe.
I wonder what makes her thinking that? The approach doesn' t look low or steep to me. But with 30+kts wind it is not always possible to maintain the standard 3 degree slope and a standard attitude! Some big words especially if she is a pilot
But anyhow the recovery was a great job! Low pitch shallow initial climb rate and no large bank angles like in the Simulator!
It looks like they got a gust right before touchdown leading to a longer and therefor unstable flare!
Glad I am off duty today
OwlEye From Netherlands, joined Feb 2006, 595 posts, RR: 1 Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 76729 times:
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, 798 posts, RR: 1 Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75735 times:
That looks much more like a fake than the first one did. It looks like that it is just a plane which has been rotated and super-imposed, however there are shadows, but I just don't think it quite looks right.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75195 times:
IMHO this B737 video shows that it was completely questionable that the AC were allowed to touch down on this rwy at this point of time. Here actually the same happenes as to the LH A320: exactly immediately prior to touchdown a windput sweeps the AC laterally. This B737 was more stable but also this was most scary stuff.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Mhodgson From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2002, 4967 posts, RR: 36 Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75475 times:
TupolevTu154 From United Kingdom (England), joined Aug 2004, 1613 posts, RR: 35 Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 75707 times:
Quoting Newark777 (Reply 44): I downloaded a copy off Youtube in case LH goes Tom Cruise on us and has them all removed.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45 Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 74503 times:
I'm assuming that the AB 737 video was before the LH 320 video? Amazing how you can see the smoke from the tires at touchdown just blow off to the left.
Icelandair75W From United States, joined Feb 2008, 70 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 72226 times:
Although the crew was smart in going around even after an approach like that, it was quite stupid of them to even perform the approach. 60 knots with a crosswind factor is well over the max crosswind factor of an A320 and they should have held until the winds decreased or diverted. Same thing with Iceland for the past month or two, the winds could reach up to 60 to 80 knots at any point and that is why there were diversions, cancellations, severe delays, or even 24 hour delays. Same situation in November 2006 where all the USA-KEF flights diverted to GLA because of severe winds at the only four airports capable of handling a 757 in Iceland - KEF RKV AEY EGS.
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, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71242 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 50): I'm assuming that the AB 737 video was before the LH 320 video?
There was AB 6300 from MUC landing at 13.35h. Other AB came in either too early or too late. So, yes, I think you're right. The LH was 13.55.
There were two BA coming in today, BA966 and B962. I guess the BA video is the later one, since it is considerably darker on that video than on the LH A320 and the AB737.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71329 times:
Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 51): Although the crew was smart in going around even after an approach like that, it was quite stupid of them to even perform the approach. 60 knots with a crosswind factor is well over the max crosswind factor of an A320 and they should have held until the winds decreased or diverted. Same thing with Iceland for the past month or two, the winds could reach up to 60 to 80 knots at any point and that is why there were diversions, cancellations, severe delays, or even 24 hour delays. Same situation in November 2006 where all the USA-KEF flights diverted to GLA because of severe winds at the only four airports capable of handling a 757 in Iceland - KEF RKV AEY EGS.
Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 52): Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 51):
60 knots with a crosswind factor
And who said that there was a 60 knots wind? Would you be so kind to share the active METAR of that approach with us? I'm sure the crosswind limit wasn't exceeded as, like you said, they wouldn't have attempted an approachif it was. As seen in the other videos, previous arrivals apparently made it, so the crosswind limit obviously wasn't exceeded, they were just unlucky to catch a nasty gust while flaring.
I'm going to put my hand up for the group that says these pilots were idiots. They attempted an approach/landing in winds well beyond what was safe and could've killed themselves and everyone on board in the process. The only thing that saved these pilots was pure luck.
Airliners aren't published with maximum hard crosswind limits, only manufacturer suggestions. Guaranteed both of the pilots flying this Airbus are facing severe discipline from the airline and governing authorities. Although I can't speak for Lufthansa or rules in Europe, I know that if that were an airplane from my airline in that video... both crewmembers would be terminated immediately and end up with so many marks on their records that they may never fly an airplane again as the pilot.
These two pilots did something extremely stupid and got very VERY lucky.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45 Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 71036 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 54): There was AB 6300 from MUC landing at 13.35h. Other AB came in either too early or too late. So, yes, I think you're right. The LH was 13.55.
There were two BA coming in today, BA966 and B962. I guess the BA video is the later one, since it is considerably darker on that video than on the LH A320 and the AB737.
Thanks for the info!
The BA757 video seems to have been removed as well. Any guesses why? I can understand LH wanting to have their video removed, but am wondering why the other's have been removed. LBA maybe?
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70806 times:
Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 55): These two pilots did something extremely stupid and got very VERY lucky.
I'm with you here, particularly saying that this outcome was extremely lucky. Yet I would say not only attempting the landing was hazardous, but also ATC allowing them to land at that rwy at that time was equally stupid as shows the AB landing which showed what impact the wind shears had near the ground.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70613 times:
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 57): The BA757 video seems to have been removed as well. Any guesses why? I can understand LH wanting to have their video removed, but am wondering why the other's have been removed. LBA maybe?
I just think there are now parallelly hundreds of people watching and downloading these clips, so the servers won't allow too many clients to connect.
Or the videograph sold the clips to newsagents being forced to suspend accessibility for a certain period of abstention for exclusivity reasons?
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45 Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70361 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 60): I just think there are now parallelly hundreds of people watching and downloading these clips, so the servers won't allow too many clients to connect.
Or the videograph sold the clips to newsagents being forced to suspend accessibility for a certain period of abstention for exclusivity reasons?
Gkyip From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70342 times:
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, 2679 posts, RR: 27 Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 70260 times:
They obviously reacted pretty fast once they realised how bad it was. I am no pilot, but the decision to go around might have come late, but not too late.
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 Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3 Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69764 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 58): but also ATC allowing them to land at that rwy at that time was equally stupid as shows the AB landing which showed what impact the wind shears had near the ground.
It's always at pilot's discretion. ATC has no responsibilities on that regards.
To me this looks like a very bad landing. Obviously not enough starboard aileron has been applied when the airplane was realigned with the centerline which caused the airplane to bounce on the wrong wheel and to shift momentum to the left and strike the left wing. They have been very lucky with the outcome but I'm sure the pilot flying will lose his job there.
Very bad airmanship and I can believe that LH doesn't want such a video to circulate on the web.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69784 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 67): Clearly labeled as being removed by the author. This means, as you said, that they sold it, or that LH threatened them with legal action.
On what grounds? The author filmed a landing and puts it on youtube. It is his clip, unless he sells it. If he sells it not saying that he has lost control over it since he has put it to the web before closing the agreement to sell it, then he is clearly in trouble.
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 68): Unfortunately all of Germany is harmed by a terrible storm today, and you have to land somewhere. Just maybe not on this runway.
You have a point here. All parts of the country have been hit by the storm. Yet it seems that the choice of the rwy was of importance as landings continued in HAM after the incident, but not on 23.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69384 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 71): They have been very lucky with the outcome but I'm sure the pilot flying will lose his job there.
Tough point that you make. Let's assume we were 20 years back. This messy landing would have gone unnoticed by the public. Maybe some person in the tower and of course paxe and crew would have noticed. Maybe the crew had launched some gossip, favorably or unfavorably. Since most probably there was no first hand evidence, no one had come after the pilot. An investigation seems improbable.
And now, 20 years later? Thousands of people glance at this today, tomorrow maybe millions when the media have made it "a miracle prevents hundreds of dying in a near plane crash", so an investigation is bound to follow.
Pretty tough times!
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 879 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 69154 times:
Quoting Icelandair75W (Reply 51): Although the crew was smart in going around even after an approach like that, it was quite stupid of them to even perform the approach. 60 knots with a crosswind factor is well over the max crosswind factor of an A320 and they should have held until the winds decreased or diverted. Same thing with Iceland for the past month or two, the winds could reach up to 60 to 80 knots at any point and that is why there were diversions, cancellations, severe delays, or even 24 hour delays. Same situation in November 2006 where all the USA-KEF flights diverted to GLA because of severe winds at the only four airports capable of handling a 757 in Iceland - KEF RKV AEY EGS.
Were you in the cockpit?
Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 55): Airliners aren't published with maximum hard crosswind limits, only manufacturer suggestions. Guaranteed both of the pilots flying this Airbus are facing severe discipline from the airline and governing authorities. Although I can't speak for Lufthansa or rules in Europe, I know that if that were an airplane from my airline in that video... both crewmembers would be terminated immediately and end up with so many marks on their records that they may never fly an airplane again as the pilot.
How do you know that they will face discipline?? I am sure the QAR recorders will be examined and if it turns out that they were affected by a strong gust of wind, which it looks like, that late then nothing will happen to them!
If you were running an airline it wouldn't last long as you would have fired all of the pilots once they encountered some adverse weather!!!
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 58): I'm with you here, particularly saying that this outcome was extremely lucky. Yet I would say not only attempting the landing was hazardous, but also ATC allowing them to land at that rwy at that time was equally stupid as shows the AB landing which showed what impact the wind shears had near the ground
I don;t think ATC have much to do with what airline can land in what crosswinds. It is up to the crews. ATC don;t know everyones crosswind limits. At LHR in high winds I have heard ATC asking the crews what they can and can't take off in.
Quoting MrBrightSide (Reply 66): This A/C had to be low on fuel to allow a landing at such a crosswind... it was almost blown off from the runway...
Do you know that?!?! Quite clearly no one here does. It could have been a very strong gust of wind that blew it that far across. Wind is capable of doing that!
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 67): Nope. Clearly labeled as being removed by the author. This means, as you said, that they sold it, or that LH threatened them with legal action.
I doubt it, does anyone know anything about legal systems???!!!! If Lufthansa wanted something removed from Youtube they would have to apply for a legal injunction against them. How would Luftansa know who the user was apart from their Youtube ID? They would have to get an injunction or something to find that out information from youtube. Clearly the user decided to take it off themselves.
And anyway as the video was presumably shot in a public place I don't think Lufthansa could do anything about that video!!!
Quoting AviationMaster (Reply 62): Ahhh... this thread has 'armchairing' written all over it...
Quite correct!!! It is turning in to a very big armchair!!
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, 2051 posts, RR: 31 Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67726 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 67): If you were a pax, would you have wanted to be on that plane? No. As the customers of airlines, we do have a right to "armchair" when it comes to safety.
If every single individual had the capability of knowing the outcome of every flight, then I bet that flight would have not taken off at all, but that is not the point of this whole discussion. I could care less if people armchair or not, especially since they are going to do it anyways, regardless if it is appropriate or not.
In this case however, making assumptions on the quality of airmanship and calling the crew of the involved aircraft 'idiots' et al, when all we have are weather reports showing some terrible conditions, a video and a couple of pictures of the incident, while not really knowing the details of what was going on in the cockpit during those crucial seconds, is crazy.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67578 times:
Quoting Theginge (Reply 74): Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 55):
Airliners aren't published with maximum hard crosswind limits, only manufacturer suggestions. Guaranteed both of the pilots flying this Airbus are facing severe discipline from the airline and governing authorities. Although I can't speak for Lufthansa or rules in Europe, I know that if that were an airplane from my airline in that video... both crewmembers would be terminated immediately and end up with so many marks on their records that they may never fly an airplane again as the pilot.
How do you know that they will face discipline?? I am sure the QAR recorders will be examined and if it turns out that they were affected by a strong gust of wind, which it looks like, that late then nothing will happen to them!
If you were running an airline it wouldn't last long as you would have fired all of the pilots once they encountered some adverse weather!!!
Airlines don't leave luck and chance up to the successful completion of the flight. These pilots bit off a lot more than they could chew... tried to do a landing in conditions well beyond their and the aircraft's capabilities. One of the most important aspects of a pilot's operation of the aircraft is good decision making. These pilots made a very bad decision to try to land in these conditions, could've killed everyone onboard, and will most likely be dearly punished for it.
Maybe in a best case scenario for them, the winds were reported within acceptable amounts, there were no published reports for large gusts, windshear warnings, etc. Even if that were the case (which I highly doubt), the first gust hit the aircraft at about 50agl and they really started to loose it by about 30 agl. Yet, they still continued...
The fact purely stands that, aside from something totally out of the pilots control (ie: engine explosion), airline safety is never left to chance. There are procedures, rules, training, etc for everything. Pilots are trained to be safe, know limits, and not ever put the aircraft in a situation where safety is degraded. This is one of those situations.
This isn't my personal opinion. This is straight fact of the airline industry. I 100% guarentee you these pilots are going to be punished severely. You don't win any awards in airline flying by doing something very dangerous, damaging an aircraft, and then miraculously saving everyone from disaster at the last moment.
NCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3 Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67868 times:
Quoting AviationMaster (Reply 76): In this case however, making assumptions on the quality of airmanship and calling the crew of the involved aircraft 'idiots' et al, when all we have are weather reports showing some terrible conditions, a video and a couple of pictures of the incident, while not really knowing the details of what was going on in the cockpit during those crucial seconds, is crazy.
The airplane bounced on the wrong wheel... that pretty much says it all.
Looks very similar to the LCY RJ100 incident almost wingtip striking aswell: not enough aileron.
Difference? The RJ100 is a high wing aircraft...
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17684 posts, RR: 57 Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 67312 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 68): Unfortunately all of Germany is harmed by a terrible storm today, and you have to land somewhere. Just maybe not on this runway.
I would imagine that they could have diverted to a location further inland from the North Sea than HAM, but maybe it was impossible. But just watching this approach and seeing how off axis it was, it looked like a cross wind test for certification, not a landing anyone would attempt with pax aboard.
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 72): On what grounds? The author filmed a landing and puts it on youtube.
On the grounds that lawyers threaten people without grounds and some people find it easier to comply rather than fight. On the grounds that some major corporations don't like to have damaging footage out there no matter how fair it is if it might cost them later in liability...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
LHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 67261 times:
How many of us have ever landed an aircraft of that size in those weather conditions....?
NONE? Okay, next question.
How many of us have ever landed an aircraft at all?
One, two, maybe three of us? Probably.
So, who are we to decide, whether the pilots put too much at risk? Were there any casualties? No. The pilots decided to give it a try, because other aircraft had made it minutes before them. A mean gust of wind hit them and the wingtips struck. At that point of time, after that strike, a safe landing was out of the question. They performed a go-around, just as the book had tought them. The next time around the guys landed safely. No casualties. Just a bunch of horrified pax and a crew uncapable continueing their work that day - both cabin and cockpit probably.
Bottom-line: If those pilots were being irresponsible, what about all the other pilots landing before and (especially) after that incident? The guys did their job. And they did it right.
Jesus, give those guys a break. Gute Arbeit liebe Kollegen.
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 67167 times:
Quoting Theginge (Reply 74): Quite correct!!! It is turning in to a very big armchair!!
What's wrong with sitting in an armchair at a stormy night?
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 79): On the grounds that lawyers threaten people without grounds and some people find it easier to comply rather than fight. On the grounds that some major corporations don't like to have damaging footage out there no matter how fair it is if it might cost them later in liability.
LH does a tremendously well PR. They would only loose in going after the author of the clip with lawyers. I rather think the good spotters didn't think at all but were thrilled by an incredible photograph and clip, put it on the net to get the applause from their peers and as the news spread through the forums they realized what scoop they had at their hands so they thought better of it and sold it to a newsagent. And if we will not see the clip or the photograph tomorrow in the news or the papers, then we might think the good spotter sold it to the airline.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
Theredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1074 posts, RR: 4 Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66583 times:
I have been to 6 horrible landings and 3 of them ended up in Go around...
Certainly the pilots and all of us inside the plane knew the weather was bad/windy but let me tell you the conditions on bad weather change very rapidly and specially in the last 100 feet.
Its very easy to criticize the pilots, heck just look how the winds takes the 320 out of the runway!!! in my view the pilots averted disaster by going TOGA as soon as they are outside the runway... yes big scare for everyone but how do you know what the wind will do ten seconds from now?
In Jan 26 I landed at LAX on a AM Mad dog and just as we entered the runway the wind changed and the Mad Dog simple dropped like a stone, the pilot went ape on the throttles and I though we were going to make another approach, but he landed almost mid runway and pretty fast, he braked like crazy, we ended using all the 7R runway.... no disaster no news no screams, no damaged plane but quite a scare...
Arniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 931 posts, RR: 1 Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66401 times:
Seems like the weather (which is still bad at this time) is making for more difficult flying conditions.
The Dragonair 747 remodelling 3 of its 4 engines (numbers 1,3,4 IIRC) when doing a heavy (+45knots ?) X-wind landing in MANCHESTER and now this one in HAM.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66444 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 84): Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 81):
How many of us have ever landed an aircraft of that size in those weather conditions....?
NONE? Okay, next question.
FlyF15 probably has. I've made approaches in Turbine Powered aircraft in weather like that no landings though because I went around.
Yep, I certainly have. Some of you may remember when the entire midwest US was extremely windy about a month ago for roughly a week or so. Winds at least 30-45kts everywhere. I was flying in that the whole time.... I made over a dozen landings in very windy conditions that week. But, none of my landings turned out like the one in the video. Thats not because I'm a better stick and rudder pilot than those in the A320... I consider myself to be pretty average. Its because one must consider the situation and make an appropriate decision in the interest of safety. I had one cancellation, one diversion, and two go arounds that week. All which were the safest option for the weather at the destination. You continue as normal until you determine that any further would cause a decrease in safety... then you go with plan B.... which may be a diversion, waiting/holding, a different runway, go around, cancellation, etc. Plan B is never "continue anyways and hope that I get lucky".
Airliners can definitely land safely in very windy conditions, but only under set circumstances that are different for every landing. The pilot's job is to take all the circumstances into consideration and determine, using his/her judgment and experience, what the safest course of action is. These pilots made a bad decision.
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45 Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66456 times:
Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 81): How many of us have ever landed an aircraft of that size in those weather conditions....?
NONE? Okay, next question.
How many of us have ever landed an aircraft at all?
One, two, maybe three of us? Probably.
I've got my PPL and multi engine rating and have landed C172s and Senecas in xwind conditions (not even close to the conditions in the video). Since I've never flown an airliner, nor was I on the flight deck on that flight, I don't have the info I need to make a decision as the LH pilots did. So, since I wasn't there, I know to keep quiet ...
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 655 posts, RR: 0 Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66487 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 83):
I'm a pilot, and I can tell you that that landing was very bad.
I'm not buying this for a minute! I'm not a pilot, but I can't see anything wrong with the landing. There is a strong crosswind, yeah, so what. Thousands of crosswind landings have been executed all over Europe today, we had a strong winter storm and aircraft are certified to operate in these conditions.
The LH approach was possibly a bit high, but this is always hard to tell from a video and it may have been justified given the situation and the field length. The aircraft then lines up with the center line, keeps the windside wingtip down just as it should, touches down without any problems and just as the pilot applies the rudder, the plane is caught in a sudden gust from the right that the pilots could not have expected. Had this gust not come, the landing would have been just as uneventful as all the other stormy landings today have been. The pilots then execute a go-around and again, flawlessly from all we can tell from the video.
Anyone who calls this a bad landing, please state your reasons precisely! If you claim that the conditions were such that the pilots should not have attempted to land, then please take issue with ALL airlines and pilots operating in Northern and Central Europe today! If you feel that the pilots showed poor landing skills, then please say what they should have done different.
LHFADUS From Germany, joined Apr 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66418 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 83): Are you a LH pilot? I hope not otherwise I'm calling the JAA.
I'm a pilot, and I can tell you that that landing was very bad.
Hold your horses. I never said I was a pilot. But good for you, that you're a pilot. Still that doesn't put you in the situation.
As I've said before: others have landed just moments before them. And moments after them. With the same weather-conditions. Their action would have been irresponsible if they'd have foreseen that gust in their crystal-ball and attempted anyway. Eventually noone - not even you, NCB - has a crystal-ball and therefore they cannot be punished for attempting an approach!
Eaa3 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 268 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66371 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 60):
I just think there are now parallelly hundreds of people watching and downloading these clips, so the servers won't allow too many clients to connect.
Or the videograph sold the clips to newsagents being forced to suspend accessibility for a certain period of abstention for exclusivity reasons?
You´re talking about the YouTube video, right? There is no way that a couple hundred people could have any effect on YouTube's servers.
Quoting Theginge (Reply 74):
I doubt it, does anyone know anything about legal systems???!!!! If Lufthansa wanted something removed from Youtube they would have to apply for a legal injunction against them. How would Luftansa know who the user was apart from their Youtube ID? They would have to get an injunction or something to find that out information from youtube. Clearly the user decided to take it off themselves.
And anyway as the video was presumably shot in a public place I don't think Lufthansa could do anything about that video!!!
YouTube is actually quite active in removing copyrighted content from the website. It seems to be that they make it quite easy for content to be removed.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17684 posts, RR: 57 Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66259 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 89): the plane is caught in a sudden gust from the right that the pilots could not have expected.
This is why I placed blame on HAM, not the pilots. I don't understand why HAM didn't shut down because it is clear from other video that winds were strong and gusting to the point of tossing around many planes, not just this one. There had to be an airport within diversion distance that had different conditions or at least a different runway orientation that was more conducive to a safe landings.
Is diverting that major in the EU that they avoid it at all costs?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
NCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3 Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66192 times:
Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 90): As I've said before: others have landed just moments before them. And moments after them. With the same weather-conditions. Their action would have been irresponsible if they'd have foreseen that gust in their crystal-ball and attempted anyway. Eventually noone - not even you, NCB - has a crystal-ball and therefore they cannot be punished for attempting an approach!
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, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 66071 times:
Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 90): As I've said before: others have landed just moments before them. And moments after them. With the same weather-conditions.
That is only partly correct. LH was the last to land on rwy 23. The next landing was on 33.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
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, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 65753 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 95): The amount of comments by people who have no idea what they are talking about in this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with this community.
I don't find anything wrong with a community that discusses an incident.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
NCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3 Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 65789 times:
Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 96): Correct. But still the same weather.
But different wind direction relative to the aircraft.
When the wind comes from 290°, the angle of the wind would be at 40° on rwy 33 but 60° on rwy 23.
Assuming a wind at 50kts close to the actual conditions, the crosswind component would be 32kts on rwy 33 and 43kts on rwy 23, a 11kts difference but a huge difference.
The A320 is rated below 40kts crosswind.
With gusts reported at 55kts, they were well above the aircraft's safety limits.
If they had the option of the 33, why didn't they take it from the start?
ACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 6770 posts, RR: 45 Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64986 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 95): The amount of comments by people who have no idea what they are talking about in this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with this community.
Add to that the arrogance of those who think that only trained professionals are allowed to voice their views and opinions ...
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 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64915 times:
Quoting Giosetti (Reply 98): I don't find anything wrong with a community that discusses an incident.
If you don't care about the communities credibility, you are right.
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 102): Add to that the arrogance of those who think that only trained professionals are allowed to voice their views and opinions ...
Hardly arrogance, i've spent a lot of time in doctors offices but i don't pretend to know enough to critique them
Giosetti From Germany, joined May 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64792 times:
Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 101): Which brings us back to "MAYBE". You cannot foresee it. Otherwise ATC in HAM might have put 33 in use right from the start.
Well, as NBC in #100 puts it it was foreseeable, at least by and large. And yes, that is why I wonder why 23 was open for so long. And that is why - as always - there seems to be a chain of problems at hand that has led to the seriousness of the incident.
I play all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order
NCB From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, RR: 3 Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 64455 times:
Quoting LHFADUS (Reply 101): Otherwise ATC in HAM might have put 33 in use right from the start.
So after the incident they were able to foresee it?
I understand your wish to defend your colleagues, but don't make yourself look ridiculous for that.
No one is perfect but in a cockpit a moment of inattention can cost you and several hundred peope's life.
As APFpilot85 pointed out, good decision making is important.
The circumstances the crew were in were extremely demanding. They had options to divert to 4 airports within 20 minutes flight time: Copenhagen, Berlin, Dusseldorf and the most ideal Hannover at only 10 minutes flight time with a 27 runway almost right into the wind.
They opted for the most economical option...
If you think safety is expensive, try an accident.
Look at the pictures at reply1. At the moment of the strike the right aileron is nowhere near full up deflection. (upgoing aileron=wing goes down)
Note: The A320 deflects its ailerons 5° downwards when operating flaps but the upgoing aileron always deflects more than the downgoing aileron (called differential aileron).
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2163 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 4725 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2892 posts, 
From United States, joined Jun 2006, 7540 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 7638 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 8236 posts, 
From Norway, joined Dec 2004, 89 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 743 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 1030 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2002, 4967 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2005, 159 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2008, 733 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 1074 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 931 posts, 