Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Weird Landing At BILBAO, Spain (VIDEO)  
User currently offlinespantax From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 323 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15485 times:

The first ac was really lucky...


http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/video/s...rizaje/00311335362488827568160.htm  Wow!  Wow!


A300.10.19.20.21.30.40,AN26,ATR42,AVR146,B717.27.37.47.57.77,B1900,C130,C212,CH47,CRJ200.700,DC9,DHC4,ERJ135.190,F27
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11649 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15489 times:

Not really, that video has obviously been sped up quite significantly - it's just a typical crosswind landing at Bilbao.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 15440 times:

I like your nick, the airline made a couple of weird landings, including the first 4-holer at XFW,
Putting down a Coronado on 1500 meters with a building at the end without a scratch is excellent airmanship. It was the boss himself, Don Rudolfo.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinegpbcroppers63 From Ireland, joined Jan 2008, 520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15327 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
it's just a typical crosswind landing at Bilbao

Indeed. I remember when I lived there, I flew in with Easyjet once and got talking to the First Officer after landing. He said crosswinds were always horrible in BIO and then the runway was awful when you finally touched down. Not the easiest airport to land in by any means in my experience!



According to one of my colleagues, my problem is that I'm addicted to travel!
User currently offlinesandrozrh From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3428 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15309 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 2):
Putting down a Coronado on 1500 meters with a building at the end without a scratch is excellent airmanship. It was the boss himself, Don Rudolfo.

No that's not excellent airmanship, that's just stupid in my books.


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15192 times:

I agree that the video has been sped up, but also the angle from where camera is located is creating a perspective which has distorted the depth.
This distorted depth causes horizontal and vertical movements of the aeroplane to look exaggerated.

I'm sure if you viewed it from beside the runway or tower it looked perfectly normal.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14983 times:

Quoting sandrozrh (Reply 4):
that's just stupid in my books.

indeed, landing at the wrong airport is

not crashing into the building and the river behind it under these circumstances is

Quoting sandrozrh (Reply 4):
excellent airmanship



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2390 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13750 times:

Quoting sandrozrh (Reply 4):
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 6):

Weren't there journalists and people from travel/leisure companies aboard, and it was a "show" flight by the company chief to tell everybody Spantax was reliable and safe?

Five deadly accidents with a sum of 310 dead within 17 years... well... I don't know if any post-war airline could top this.



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinefca767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1757 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13750 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 5):

I agree that the video has been sped up, but also the angle from where camera is located is creating a perspective which has distorted the depth.
This distorted depth causes horizontal and vertical movements of the aeroplane to look exaggerated.

the van seems to be going at a normal speed though


User currently offlineBommerJan From UK - England, joined Dec 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13023 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 7):
Five deadly accidents with a sum of 310 dead within 17 years... well... I don't know if any post-war airline could top this.

Turkish Airlines also had 5 between 1974 and 2009, ok that makes it 35 years  


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12488 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 7):
Weren't there journalists and people from travel/leisure companies aboard, and it was a "show" flight by the company chief to tell everybody Spantax was reliable and safe?

Five deadly accidents with a sum of 310 dead within 17 years... well... I don't know if any post-war airline could top this.

So this thread has turned into a Spantax bashing thread only because the OP username is the same thing. And nothing to do with the video under discussion.

Can we please get back to the topic.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12169 times:

You're right. back to the topic, out of the 3 or 4 landings shown, Spantax would at least have crashed one.


E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12143 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 10):
Can we please get back to the topic.

Thanks for sharing the link Nice landings, but not so unusual...


User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10715 times:

Quoting fca767 (Reply 8):
the van seems to be going at a normal speed though

Unless you know what speed the van was actually doing you can't tell from that video whether or not it appears to be going at the normal speed.

The video is sped up, the landings look no worse than many of those already posted on a.net



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinecalibansa333 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8354 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 11):
You're right. back to the topic, out of the 3 or 4 landings shown, Spantax would at least have crashed one.

   This comment made my day, well played sir.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3625 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8194 times:

The video does not appear to be sped up, unless that van is actually crawling at the speed of a slow walk. In addition, look at the vertical stabilizer flex just at the moment of touchdown - that was quite a hard landing.

That said, my local news just teased their noon broadcast by talking about the "shocking video everybody's buzzing about" and showing a clip of this. I can only guess that they're out there looking for any sort of unusual aviation videos they can find after the couple of bird strike incidents we've had in the NYC area that the media's been trying to whip the public into a frenzy about lately. It's only a matter of time until they start wondering how we can "end the scourge of wind at airports".



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinejrosa From Brazil, joined Jun 2005, 367 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7709 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 7):
Five deadly accidents with a sum of 310 dead within 17 years... well... I don't know if any post-war airline could top this.

I believe that in this category TAM (JJ) is a winner. The only airline which was able to crash 2 airplanes (F-100) on the very same day, plus 2 other horrible crashes both in CGH (the first was an F100 resulting in around 100 casualties and the other was an A320, resulting in 199 casualties), and also several other accidents/incidents.


User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7583 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
Not really, that video has obviously been sped up quite significantly - it's just a typical crosswind landing at Bilbao.

Nonsense, the video is at normal speed, the video is made with a moderately powerful zoom-lens which makes it appear like this.

These are not strange crosswind landings as such, though some a bit heavy and one go-around, which is only normal in the eyes of aviation geeks.

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlinewhiteguy From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 783 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The only part of the video not sped up is the Airbus flying over the camera. All the landings are at a faster speed!

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11649 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7404 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 15):
The video does not appear to be sped up, unless that van is actually crawling at the speed of a slow walk.

A quick time/distance calculation shows it is doing 40-50kmph in the video, right after a hairpin bend in wet conditions.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 17):
Nonsense, the video is at normal speed, the video is made with a moderately powerful zoom-lens which makes it appear like this.

I understand how zoom changes things as I shoot like this a lot, but it has been sped up. Look at the distance markers the departing aircraft passes, if this video wasn't sped up it's doing 300-400kmph after a roll of only 700m. Then there is the climb rate - 5000fpm, possibly more, and not into the wind either.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinecomair25 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7298 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 17):
Nonsense, the video is at normal speed, the video is made with a moderately powerful zoom-lens which makes it appear like this.

lol look at the beacon... You ever seen one flash that quickly consecutively before? Its sped up.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3625 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7276 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 19):
A quick time/distance calculation shows it is doing 40-50kmph in the video, right after a hairpin bend in wet conditions.

And I'd be passing him on that road at that speed if it were me  



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinecomair25 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7196 times:

Quoting jrosa (Reply 16):

And what accidents where those?


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11649 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7056 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 21):
And I'd be passing him on that road at that speed if it were me  

I'd have stopped and taken my camera out  
Quoting comair25 (Reply 20):
look at the beacon... You ever seen one flash that quickly consecutively before? Its sped up.

Yes that too.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4415 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6975 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The depth of field is squashed by the long focal lens used.
I do not think the film had been sped up in anyway, and in fact, it's not the most important.
What is is the fact that those planes -and their aircrews - had to cope with some really severte weather and the amount od crosswind + gusts is right up the max... That the CRJ ( ? ) had been blown off the runway is testimony of the conditions.
If you can be so blasé about that sort of vidéo, it's really time to get back to reality... These conditions were no joke, frames speed up or not.
Any pilot witnessing this is probably sweating a lot.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11649 posts, RR: 60
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6995 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 24):
I do not think the film had been sped up in anyway

The first plane touches down at the 5 second point and the video cuts away at the 10 second mark. Referencing the position of the aircraft on the runway to Google Earth you can deduce that the plane has traveled approximately 700m in six seconds. This means it is landing at 420kmph.

Similarly time the plane departing between the point you first see it and when it rotates - it's about 6 seconds. Again, relating this to Google Earth (using the touchdown markers as references) the distance traveled is 600m. If this footage was not sped up the aircraft would be travelling at more than 360kmph.

You can categorically say that this footage has been sped up quite considerably, and I've been conservative with the distances traveled.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 24):
If you can be so blasé about that sort of vidéo, it's really time to get back to reality... These conditions were no joke, frames speed up or not.

Well no, because the footage being sped up makes a very big difference actually and completely changes the way you have to look at the film. Sure there was crosswind, but it doesn't look any different to the conditions Bilbao and similar airports experience frequently. It's the speeding up of the film which creates the drama, I'm sure if you slowed the footage down it would look just like any other windy day at that airport and hundreds of others worldwide. Instead it's splashed across news networks worldwide - somebody has no doubt made quite a lot of money out of this fraud.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineL1011 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1674 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yesterday I flew from Barcelona to Paris CDG on Air France flight 1349, an A321. We experienced the same type of landing as in the video. On final approach the plane was rocking wildly, and just as we were touching down, the left wind dipped suddenly, coming awfully close to striking the pavement. The pilots gunned the engines and we went back up. The captain announced that a sudden wind gust hit us, and we would go around and try again. Our second attempt was also very unstable, but we landed that time. The passengers broke into applause.

Bob Bradley



Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
User currently offlinebeau222 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6678 times:

Can a computer auto land in crosswind conditions let alone situations this extreme?

User currently offlineAirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6418 times:

Have personally experienced the same type of wild cross-wind landing in LAS. People screaming, then clapping when we finally landed. I don't think it's all that uncommon.

User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6082 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 25):
Instead it's splashed across news networks worldwide - somebody has no doubt made quite a lot of money out of this fraud.

Indeed - it's now the most-watched video on BBC News this morning...  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17863501


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4415 posts, RR: 76
Reply 30, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 25):
Referencing the position of the aircraft on the runway to Google Earth

Referencing to what ?
Taking your argument means that the taking off airplane did it in seven seconds at a speed of more than 500 km/h ( at a guess ).
The runway, on the frame seems to have quite a slope... As a matter of fact, runway 12 has a threshold at 36.61 m and a mùax alt at 41.89 so in feet, a differential of just 29 ft. That max is just after the intersection with the first high-speed turn-off at some 1300 m from the threshold... in such a squashed perspective, I really don't see how you could measure any distances : and btw, the runway is 45 m wide, putting the apparent visible length at some 60 or seventy meters.
But as I said, that discussion is irrelevant : the widths are correct relative to each other and the CRJ, in spite of a drift correction still went off the runway in two seconds : 22.5 m in 2 sec, that's still a residual 24 kt, and don't forget the gust !

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 28):
I don't think it's all that uncommon.

NO, but it still gets your pulse racing

Quoting beau222 (Reply 27):
Can a computer auto land in crosswind conditions let alone situations this extreme?

NO, Zeke has a nice way of saying that compared to a human pilot, George is an absolute wimp : for example, the 320 has a demonstrated xwind of 33kt /gust to 38.
The A/P is limited to 20 kt xwind.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11649 posts, RR: 60
Reply 31, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
Referencing to what ?

Err, did "the position of the aircraft on the runway to Google Earth" not give it away?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
Taking your argument means that the taking off airplane did it in seven seconds at a speed of more than 500 km/h ( at a guess ).

No, this is not my argument, I don't see how you have come to this conclusion.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 30):
The runway, on the frame seems to have quite a slope... As a matter of fact, runway 12 has a threshold at 36.61 m and a mùax alt at 41.89 so in feet, a differential of just 29 ft. That max is just after the intersection with the first high-speed turn-off at some 1300 m from the threshold... in such a squashed perspective, I really don't see how you could measure any distances

Gradient has no tangible bearing on the situation. It is very simple to get a reasonable idea of where the plane is, of course it won't be 100% accurate, but you can be reasonably sure of the distance covered. Take the first aircraft landing; when it touches down the base of the aiming point marker is obscured by the tyre smoke and briefly obscured by the wing, therefore the aircraft has landed before this point. Aside of simply being able to place where the aircraft is in relation to it's surroundings, once on the ground the wing casts a slight but noticeable shadow on the runway, when the footage cuts away this shadow is just approaching the final touchdown zone marking. The distance between the start and end of these markings is 700m. Clearly there will be a margin of error associated with that distance, but nowhere near large enough to say the video has no been sped up considerably.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4415 posts, RR: 76
Reply 32, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5197 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 31):
It is very simple to get a reasonable idea of where the plane is, of course it won't be 100% accurate, but you can be reasonably sure of the distance covered.

Well, that's what I call "BULL", when 1mm on the picture is worth some 250 m at the beginning, a lot more later.
And the famous google earth... only works when the pic is vertical. the rest of the times it's guesswork... better believe in magic.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 31):
has no been sped up considerably.


Just time the beacon lights and compare with other pics. to me, they flash quite normally.
Now, extend the runway lights to the road and time the truck as its nose intersects with that extension and crosses the extended centerline : 2,5 seconds. And we know the width of that runway : 22.5 m. Therefore the speed of that truck is just 32 km/h... Sounds quite right- again, to me.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 31):
just approaching the final touchdown zone marking. The distance between the start and end of these markings is 700m

These are not TDZ markings, they are distance markers . Have you tried to put all these infos on the official map of the airport ?

And once again, it's the xwind component that counts.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11649 posts, RR: 60
Reply 33, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4939 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32):
Well, that's what I call "BULL", when 1mm on the picture is worth some 250 m at the beginning, a lot more later.

I don't know what you are looking at, because that is a huge exaggeration on my screen.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32):
And the famous google earth... only works when the pic is vertical. the rest of the times it's guesswork... better believe in magic.

What do you mean by 'vertical'. You cannot seriously be suggesting that GE is out by such a huge margin - see further down my post, it's accuracy is demonstrable and very high. Perhaps you can prove that it's magical guesswork, because I can prove that it isn't.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32):
Just time the beacon lights and compare with other pics. to me, they flash quite normally.

Yes I did, to me they are around twice as fast as other videos. The aircraft is a Volotea B717-200, the beacon strobes appear to flash three times in succession taking just over a second and I see three cycles. All other videos I have seen of the 717 shows this light pattern taking approx 2-3 seconds with 5-6 seconds between cycles meaning the film should last a minimum of 21 seconds not 10 or 11. Same with the A320 landing at the end, it's so obviously sped up when looking at the lights alone.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32):
These are not TDZ markings, they are distance markers .

No you are wrong, they are the Touch Down Zone markings and the Aiming Point. Refer to chapter five of ICAO Annex 14.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 32):
Have you tried to put all these infos on the official map of the airport ?

There is really no need. Using the above document as a reference the distances can be measured using Google Earth as conforming to standard spacing set out in Annex 14. This also demonstrates the accuracy of the Google Earth data in this area; it's accurate to about +/-10cm.

I'm afraid all the evidence points to you being wrong and the footage having been sped up.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Video: Cockpit View Landing At St. Maarten posted Mon May 5 2008 21:20:30 by Jasp25
ER4 Landing At WAW Video posted Wed Feb 27 2008 13:38:48 by Konrad
Extreme Hard Landing Swiss At London City (video) posted Tue Feb 12 2008 00:15:21 by KLM-MD11
Tango 01 Landing At AEP After Engine Failure(VIDEO posted Thu Nov 1 2007 08:42:31 by USADreamliner
A380 First Landing At De Gaulle Airport [video] posted Fri Jun 1 2007 13:29:43 by FlyATRs
Anyone Have Any Video Of Queens 777 Landing At RIC posted Fri May 4 2007 18:41:54 by Mainrunway
Video: Weird Landing posted Thu Nov 9 2006 17:55:53 by Fiaz
Incredibly LOW Landing At SXM! (Video) posted Sat Aug 5 2006 21:36:54 by 797
KLM 747 Video Landing At St Martaan posted Fri Oct 28 2005 10:28:57 by Okees
Video: MD11 Rough Landing At Kai-tak posted Wed Mar 31 2004 08:23:11 by Concord977