This is one of the craziest landings I have seen. I wonder how many passengers ended up using the puke bag!

https://youtu.be/GKBI_bVFSfs

wow.... the video sure lived up to the hype of the title.

MaksFly wrote:

wow.... the video sure lived up to the hype of the title.

I'm still amazed at it. Glad that they made it safely down.

The whole time I was like "dont be stupid just go around" but kudos to the pilots they nailed it in the end.

There are routinely videos such as this (fantastic? terrifying? horrific? Pick any three!) on youtube, from this and other channels, of Dusseldorf.
My favorites come from Cargospotter channel.
So two things:
1. Never, ever, EVER fly a Dash-8 or ATR into DUS. You're begging for misery and the smells of human stomach contents to accompany your ride. Frankly, the big jets aren't much better in these conditions.Some people like the "roller coaster" effect, but..... on a roller coaster, putrid smells aren't confined into a tiny metal tube, at least!
2. I sometimes wonder whether the approaches on some of these videos are slightly "sped up" for effect. Most don't appear that way. But some of them, possibly this one, the sink rate and the violence of the yaw movements makes me wonder whether they've been uploaded at 1.25 or 1.5 speed.

Bottom line... and I say this as an aviation enthusiast... if you wish to travel to Dusseldorf, TAKE THE TRAIN!

AA737-823 wrote:

Bottom line... and I say this as an aviation enthusiast... if you wish to travel to Dusseldorf, TAKE THE TRAIN!

Yeah that looks a little bit scary.

To add some background: Yesterday's storm was the worst winterstorm in Germany since 2007. 99% of the time landing at DUS is a nonevent, turboprop or jet engine.

...and Deutsche Bahn cancelled all the trains

Samrnpage wrote:

The whole time I was like "dont be stupid just go around" but kudos to the pilots they nailed it in the end.

Not really, they landed with an obscene side load.

I can only hope the captain had an eloquent profanity laced commentary to go with it.. "deez canadian peeze of shitee! damit Thumbs into wind heinkle!!"

There seems to be something wrong with the description of this video: The flight number is given as EW9141 GWT - DUS 18 JAN 2018. But according to flightradar 24 there was no such flight on 18 JAN, only on 12th, 14th and 19th JAN (the latter flight hasn't departed yet).
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ew9141

The a/c with the registration D-ABQD made only one flight yesterday, which would match the conditions (landing at daylight in DUS):

EW9203 BLQ 10:05 - DUS 12:13

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/d-abqd

I would have felt much safer in a jet than the small Q400......

Isn't the real surprise that the landing gear worked?

Regarding the Speed of the video I found the visuals (rotations) of the propeller fast but thought this is a difference between the video and how I normally in real life see it.

More impressions from yesterday's stormy conditions at DUS from the same youtuber:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5e7bos0OQc

I was wondering at what point during that approach could you call it stable?

These guys can fly, no doubt. As in: they REALLY can fly. My hat goes off to them, all the way to the ground. Masters of their craft.

However, from a purely professional standpoint, their judgement in not going around might still be called into question. Long lens telephoto video can be misleading: but I still seriously doubt that this landing was within safe margins.

Maybe they had already gone around once or twice before and for the heavy storm was over whole western, northern and central Germany yesterday the conditions at the possible alternate airports weren't better either, so at some point they simply had to land?

Could have been the same a/c at 1:40 (the voice at 1:49 says »this was the second go-around«) and at 6:22 in the video below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5e7bos0OQc

CGN was closed. The netherlands were closed, too. So not that many places to fly to.

devron wrote:

Isn't the real surprise that the landing gear worked?

Regarding the Speed of the video I found the visuals (rotations) of the propeller fast but thought this is a difference between the video and how I normally in real life see it.

standing wave relation between camera frame rate and propeller/rotor rpm can be quite misguiding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQDjJRYmeWg

StTim wrote:

I was wondering at what point during that approach could you call it stable?

Very hard to judge from outside, but to me it doesn't look unstabilized. Sinkrate seemed consistent, it looks spot on on the localizer, they were obviously fully configured. Due to the wind shift it's basically the yaw that made it look "crazy".

But yeah would love to see the FDR data to make a proper judgement.

The video looks sped up to me. Look at the red flashing lights on the background Eurowings Airbus. They appear to be flashing faster than normal from my memory.

Phoenix9 wrote:

This is one of the craziest landings I have seen. I wonder how many passengers ended up using the puke bag!

https://youtu.be/GKBI_bVFSfs

As a Roller coaster junkie I would have loved to be on that flight in. Hope there was some really good screaming.

Phoenix9 wrote:

This is one of the craziest landings I have seen. I wonder how many passengers ended up using the puke bag!

https://youtu.be/GKBI_bVFSfs

The video is most definitely sped up, must have been a fun (or not so fun) ride nonetheless.

AA737-823 wrote:

There are routinely videos such as this (fantastic? terrifying? horrific? Pick any three!) on youtube, from this and other channels, of Dusseldorf.
My favorites come from Cargospotter channel.
So two things:
1. Never, ever, EVER fly a Dash-8 or ATR into DUS. You're begging for misery and the smells of human stomach contents to accompany your ride. Frankly, the big jets aren't much better in these conditions.Some people like the "roller coaster" effect, but..... on a roller coaster, putrid smells aren't confined into a tiny metal tube, at least!
2. I sometimes wonder whether the approaches on some of these videos are slightly "sped up" for effect. Most don't appear that way. But some of them, possibly this one, the sink rate and the violence of the yaw movements makes me wonder whether they've been uploaded at 1.25 or 1.5 speed.

Bottom line... and I say this as an aviation enthusiast... if you wish to travel to Dusseldorf, TAKE THE TRAIN!

Maybe perspective makes it look worse than it is

smokeybandit wrote:

The next video that auto played had more landings from that same day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4EQuM_t8Fo

Rookie question but why there is a vehicle entering an active runway at around the 7:00 min of the video during the Q400 landing?

I know it is an airport vehicle and most probably is entering the runway for a runway inspection or sth similar but is it a normal operating procedure?

buzzard302 wrote:

The video looks sped up to me. Look at the red flashing lights on the background Eurowings Airbus. They appear to be flashing faster than normal from my memory.

You may be correct. The bird that darts by at 0:17 just seems to going at a very fast rate.

buzzard302 wrote:

The video looks sped up to me. Look at the red flashing lights on the background Eurowings Airbus. They appear to be flashing faster than normal from my memory.

You've got an eye for detail! I agree that it seems to be flashing rather fast..

Martijn

govigov wrote:

buzzard302 wrote:

The video looks sped up to me. Look at the red flashing lights on the background Eurowings Airbus. They appear to be flashing faster than normal from my memory.

You may be correct. The bird that darts by at 0:17 just seems to going at a very fast rate.

If the wind is that high, wouldn't bird be thrown about at a faster rate as well? Would telephoto lens add to that effect? Maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself can explain.


It is entirely possible that the video is sped up, but nonetheless, that would have been a scary / fun ride.

StTim wrote:

I was wondering at what point during that approach could you call it stable?

My thoughts exactly!

I'm sure the pilot had fun but I feel sorry for the passengers lol.

buzzard302 wrote:

The video looks sped up to me. Look at the red flashing lights on the background Eurowings Airbus. They appear to be flashing faster than normal from my memory.

Good observation. Cargospotter has a video of the same approach,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI9YthsaL6g
It looks less spectacular in his video.

He not only altered speed, he also removed some of the Q400`s ligh flashes to cover up his manipulation. He forgot the Eurowings lights though .
Still a pretty spectacular landing nontheless.

The long camera lens will also exaggerate the dipping and yawing.

o0OOO0oChris wrote:

buzzard302 wrote:

He not only altered speed, he also removed some of the Q400`s ligh flashes to cover up his manipulation. He forgot the Eurowings lights though .
Still a pretty spectacular landing nontheless.

Yeah, no... looked just as scary in that video as well. lol

That is some impressive flying in these videos. Some pilots have serious round ones. And for the passengers.... free chiropractic adjustment with each landing.

"Antonov 2 report your position"
"Antonov 2 inner marker, expecting touch down in 2 hours"

Draken21fx wrote:

Rookie question but why there is a vehicle entering an active runway at around the 7:00 min of the video during the Q400 landing?

I know it is an airport vehicle and most probably is entering the runway for a runway inspection or sth similar but is it a normal operating procedure?

I am sure it was FOD* control run. It has to be done regularly. Usually they pick time slots with not so many movements, so they do not disrupt air traffic.

* FOD = Foreign Object Damage - so they are watching for objects, which could damage a plane or might be ingested by a turbine.

I know the conditions were past Autoland parameters, but I would love to know how a computer auto landing the plane would do in these conditions

columba wrote:

I would have felt much safer in a jet than the small Q400......

Turboprops spool up much faster than jets. You’re better off in a turboprop in these conditions.

Ty134A wrote:

"Antonov 2 report your position"
"Antonov 2 inner marker, expecting touch down in 2 hours"

Big smile!

Actually, an AN-2 would move backwards (relative to ground) in 110 km/h headwind if normal approach speed was maintained:

”PERFORMANCE:
The following data applies to all An-2s except float versions which have reduced performance and load capacities.
Data is based on a typical weight of 11,600lbs. in mid-mission.
Red Line Speed: V-NE 162 kts.
White Line Flaps: V-FE 70 kts.
Best Glide: 65 kts.

Maximum Speed: 139kts. or 160mph. (120kts. more typical)
Economy Cruise Speed: 100kts. or 115mph. (95kts. more typical)
Minimum Speed: 49kts. or 56mph.
Take-Off Speed: 43kts. or 50mph. (15 degrees of flap).
Landing Speed: 46kts. or 53mph. (30 degrees of flap). <========================================
Stall Speed: 35-40kts. but controlled descents are possible at 25kts. or 30mph.”

I am usually amused when weather is rough, but a few years ago, landing at HAD, Sweden, in a Fokker 50 (as pax, I’m not a pilot), I was a bit concerned when after touchdown the right wingtip was ony a meter or so above the ground for quite a few seconds. There was a strong side wind of course.

/Fredrik

32andBelow wrote:

columba wrote:

I would have felt much safer in a jet than the small Q400......

Turboprops spool up much faster than jets. You’re better off in a turboprop in these conditions.

Watch the go-arounds in the Cargospotter videos, for instance. As soon as they go-around, they rocket into the sky. Harder to get them down than up.

ssteve wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

columba wrote:

I would have felt much safer in a jet than the small Q400......

Turboprops spool up much faster than jets. You’re better off in a turboprop in these conditions.

Watch the go-arounds in the Cargospotter videos, for instance. As soon as they go-around, they rocket into the sky. Harder to get them down than up.

Turboprops come out of the sky like a Coke machine. Getting one down is never an issue.

It is quite definitely sped up. Play it at 50% or 75% on youtube and it looks closer to being accurate.

Also, that's a dreadful landing. You are supposed to use Rudder to keep the airplane flying straight. They didn't do that. If they couldn't do that then it's the definition of unstabilized and should have gone around. As someone else said, they landed with a huge side load and are lucky the landing gear didn't collapse.

Before you criticize my opinion, I stopped counting at 10,000 hours flight time and was a training captain (checkairman) at a major US carrier training people on turboprops for years. If one of my students landed like this, it would have been back to the sim....

Have a luck at the landing at 2:25 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI9YthsaL6g That's how the rudder should be used to keep the airplane tracking straight. Though it looks far less dramatic, those pilots are the ones that have it together. The ones in the example in the first video got lucky they could taxi to the gate....

seatrump wrote:

Have a luck at the landing at 2:25 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI9YthsaL6g That's how the rudder should be used to keep the airplane tracking straight. Though it looks far less dramatic, those pilots are the ones that have it together. The ones in the example in the first video got lucky they could taxi to the gate....

Air Berlin landed side loaded as well...

Nice catch guys on the euro wings strobes!! For sure sped up. Still cool video, but the fact that’s it’s sped up a bit and on a high zoom lens from end of the runway for sure makes it much more dramatic than it really is.