Jump to content

landing practice


Recommended Posts

Remember Wayne- This occurred in the EU. If they had diverted they would have had to pay a bazillion Euros in penalties for "changing their approved flight plan"...causing the ATC guys to fill out paperwork to keep track of where they went... Can't have that.

At least thats what the penalties are for regular folks flying GA type aircraft over in the EU locales.

Safety be Dammed, it costs money to divert.

Thats why the powers that be want the same rules and penalties to come here to the US of A...Its not fair that America has it better [safer] than 'over there'.

 

My .02, although my flame suit is on, for being such a simpleton regarding this. It probably was just a freeky blast of wind that nobody could possibly have seen coming.

Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the underlying reason for that pilots decision, it was the passengers and their families that would have paid the ultimate price. He and everyone else on that aircraft came dangerously close to eating it. I would have punched his lights out after we landed, if I were a passenger on that plane. I was in a very similar incident (B747-400 engine strike in a monsoon) at Tokyo Narita a few years back, and I almost had a heart attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I would have punched his lights out after we landed, if I were a passenger on that plane...

Wow - some judgmental folks here, with damn little info to go on.

 

Do you guys know the crosswind capability of an aircraft of that size and capability? It's approximately 33 kt., with capability for 38 kt. gusts. Clearly, the guy was in a crab (perfectly acceptable) to compensate for some crosswind, and then got hit by a gust as he straightened out in the lower flare. They did a hell of a job in a plane with a 4 second delay in engine response to keep straight and level and execute the go-round.

 

The last thing that should happen to these guys, unless you somehow have some inside info about the crosswind and gusts at that airport at that specific time, is getting punched, especially by folks with no experience flying A320's.

 

Sheesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's guess, for the sake of argument, that he was landing at EDDH in Hamburg, Germany. What would have posessed him to go for the runway with the strongest crosswind component when he could have chosen the other runway, which was almost 90 degrees different, and perfectly big enough to accomodate the jet? Was the crosswind 45deg to both runways, and still that strong? Safety of the passengers, first.. no? Time to divert? maybe. Another runway? maybe. Bottom line is, he probably could have handled it differently.

 

Incedentally, my 747 was the last plane cleared to land at Narita that night before they closed the airport to all traffic. I would have thought no less of the pilot had he chosen a safe diversion even given the clearance to land. I'm sure it would have cost the airline less money than a stuffed #4 engine and a plane-full of whiter-than-ghost passengers, not to mention the inconvenience of having to wait for fire/rescue to clear us to be towed to gate. :irked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the underlying reason for that pilots decision, it was the passengers and their families that would have paid the ultimate price. He and everyone else on that aircraft came dangerously close to eating it. I would have punched his lights out after we landed, if I were a passenger on that plane. I was in a very similar incident (B747-400 engine strike in a monsoon) at Tokyo Narita a few years back, and I almost had a heart attack.

 

Sounds like someone needs a nap. :ROTFLMAO:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

at Tokyo Narita a few years back

Side note: I used to fly in and out of Narita once a week. Very exciting during huricane season.

 

The original Narita plans called for a crosswind runway, but the local environmentalist (Angry farmers with pitch forks) prevailed, and it was never built.

 

Waiter

F16 performance on a Piper Cub budget

LongEZ, 160hp, MT CS Prop, Downdraft cooling, Full retract

visit: www.iflyez.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternatively, Marc... what if that video had ended differently, and we were unfortunate witness to a planeload of passengers and crew being turned into little red smears on the tarmac 'live on CNN'? Would you hold the same opinion of the pilot then? The point is... this was way too close a call, and could probably have been avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternatively, Marc... what if that video had ended differently, and we were unfortunate witness to a planeload of passengers and crew being turned into little red smears on the tarmac 'live on CNN'?

If you believe that you can use hindsight to determine the appropriateness of a given course of action, then this matters. Does the fact that someone jumps off a roof and doesn't break their legs make it smart to do so? Does the fact that people die in an accident make it clear that someone made a mistake? People can do everything right and still have things go wrong. Not every accident is caused by a mistake.

 

Would you hold the same opinion of the pilot then?

_IF_ the crosswind was within the capability of the aircraft and _IF_ they operated the aircraft per the POH, then yes, my opinion would be no different. You cannot control all external inputs. There will, on occasion, be situations that are both unforeseeable and outside of the range of capability of the aircraft and/or pilot.

 

The point is... this was way too close a call, and could probably have been avoided.

You have absolutely no way of making that judgement given your experience and the data at hand. Neither do I - that's my point. I have no idea whether they should have attempted the landing or not, and neither do you, which is why belting the pilot as you're getting off the plane is presumptuousness at it's worst.

 

We have NO data whatsoever (at this point) that the pilots did anything wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without passing any judgment, anybody have an idea of what the crosswind component, for that plane, would have had to have been for a 45 degree crosswind correction?

Sure. The crosswind component is:

 

W = V * sin(beta)

 

where V is the forward velocity of the aircraft and beta is the crab angle.

 

If V was 130 kts and beta was 45 degrees, W would be:

 

91 kts.

 

For the more reasonable 10 degree crab angle (foreshortened with the telephoto lens in the movie to look like a lot more than that), the crosswind would be:

 

22.5 kts.

 

Even a 15 degree crab angle (very large) would give a W of:

 

34 kts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. The crosswind component is:

 

W = V * sin(beta)

 

where V is the forward velocity of the aircraft and beta is the crab angle.

 

If V was 130 kts and beta was 45 degrees, W would be:

 

91 kts.

 

For the more reasonable 10 degree crab angle (foreshortened with the telephoto lens in the movie to look like a lot more than that), the crosswind would be:

 

22.5 kts.

 

Even a 15 degree crab angle (very large) would give a W of:

 

34 kts.

 

 

AAAAHHHHHHHHH:confused:

 

It looks like the vantage point was to the left of the CL of the runway. It also looks as if from that vantage point the left main gear and the nose gear were in line with each other. If the vantage point were moved to the center of the runway, then the angle would indeed be greater than shown by the photo. A telephoto lens flattens out the depth of field. Although the movie is quite grainy, it seems as if before he straightened out, the left wing went beyond that focal depth, to return into focus when he straightened out.

 

While it is questionable what really happened, I totally agree with you that his recovery was incredible, considering all of the factors that we know.

 

In the film, it looks like he hit the left wing tip and then when he rolled to the right hit the right nacelle, or should I put my glasses on?:)

 

After modeling the concept about the change in angle with respect to the alignment of the landing gear and vantage point, I find that the opposite is true- scratch that part of the statement.

I Canardly contain myself!

Rich :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those so eager to castigate and pummel the pilots of this flight, here are the reported winds for the airport in question at the time in question:

 

29028G48KT

 

The runways available were 23 and 33, so either the wind would be 60 degrees off the runway heading or 40 degrees off the runway heading.

 

For runway 23, with a 60 degree crosswind, the crosswind component would be:

 

W(23c) = 28 * cos(30) = 24 kts.

W(23g) = 48 * cos(30) = 41 kts.

 

For runway 33, with a 40 degree crosswind, the crosswind component would be:

 

W(33c) = 28 * cos(50) = 18 kts.

W(33g) = 48 * cos(50) = 30 kts.

 

Both well within the aircraft's capabilities. Still think that they did something wrong?

 

Facts before emotions, folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the discussion gets as heated as the armchair is uncomfortable!

 

Here we sit with perfect hindsight and have as many opinions as there are people reading the topic.

 

Me, I think that all the years of experience, together with a dollop of good fortune saved the day! ;)

 

There is simply no way that the PIC, as hot as they may deem themselves to be, is going to attempt this sort of maneuvre, knowing that this could be a terminal excercise. (Bin Laden's sidekicks excluded)

 

My own rule for me (but you are welcome to adapt this for you too :) ) is not to critize the PIC in a crash or event such as this ... you see, I could have made worse calls if I were in their shoes.

 

My happiness stems from the fact that all survived and we have a video to see the buckets full of luck being dished out to all aboard. Those people don't have to play the LOTTO for awhile, they have used it all up :)

 

I hope to have as much skill & luck when this comes my way ... and you fine folks may fill the pages of the net with opions, I'll just consider my enormous amount of luck as I sit back to enjoy another day on this earth :)

I live in my own little world! but its OK, they know me here!

Chris Van Hoof, Johannesburg, South Africa operate from FASY (Baragwanath)

Cozy Mk IV, ZU-CZZ, IO-360 (200hp) 70x80 prop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that the captain wasn't in command of the first landing attempt, btw...

Which means what, with respect to the original claim that they were insane to attempt the landing in the first place? Either pilot in the aircraft is qualified and trained, and either has the right to fly the plane with the captain's permission. What's your point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the German paper "Bild"

 

May have some smaller description errors in, according to another forum.

post-4196-141090159928_thumb.jpg

I live in my own little world! but its OK, they know me here!

Chris Van Hoof, Johannesburg, South Africa operate from FASY (Baragwanath)

Cozy Mk IV, ZU-CZZ, IO-360 (200hp) 70x80 prop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, under predetermined, chosen conditions with (possibly) cream of the crop test pilots.

 

I believe the Lufthansa pilot (Airbus A320) in Hamburg Germany made a difficult call:

 

He was given the option to use the other runway according to this website:

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/06/222034/crew-of-wing-strike-lufthansa-a320-was-offered-different.html

 

And according to this website:

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYG8SUnUOR9NfNAI-ZFekXsmN5GwD8V8I3UO3

"The maximum crosswind considered safe for landing the Airbus A320 — the plane flown by Lufthansa in the incident in Germany — is 33 knots (38 mph) gusting to 38 knots (almost 44 mph), according to an Airbus spokeswoman."

 

"On March 1, the day of the abortive landing at Hamburg Airport, the average wind speed was 16 mph, with maximum sustained winds of 36 mph and top gusts of 56 mph, according to Weather Underground. The speed and exact direction of the wind at the moment when the landing was attempted is not known."

 

Nevertheless, I believe (and I am, certainly, no expert on this), the Lufthansa pilot did get into a situation that crossed the line between safe and unsafe, but he wouldn't have known until a few seconds before the wing tip hit??? He did an excellent job flying everyone out of a bad situation.

 

For my own curiosity:

 

Wayne, I was wondering what is the maximum crosswind component that the NASA Space Shuttle could land in?

 

Marc, I was wondering what the maximum crosswind component that SpaceshipOne ( and Two) could land in?

 

Thanks,

 

 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information