LH A320 Rough Landing @ Hamburg

[JuniorMan]

http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.file?id=536882887&filename=phpOltUWB.jpg


Must have been real windy!

[PA38-Pilot]

Is that... real?

EDIT:

Taking a second look...

Shouldn't the turning spoilers, or, at least the ailerons, show some attempt to prevent that from happening? And the elevator, doesn't look like there is any up force being applied...

It does look fake... although I might be wrong.

[G09]

WOW .. haven't seen an engine that close to the ground yet, anybody knows how it ended up ?

[HarryMann]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaVx3JOsfJw

Think this a video of said incident...

Frightening conditions! Looked like maybe kicked off drift a fraction early and allowed upwind wing to react to (yet another) big gust...

Anyone what happened after the go-around?

[cheesycol]

If that was today the TAF read something along the lines of TEMPO 250/25G45 TEMPO 250/35G60.

Video looks like final flare was about the intersection of 15/33, where there is potential for a blast of wind!

[JuniorMan]

Can any Airbus drivers post the crosswind limitations on this type?

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

T/O 29 kts gusting 38 kts
Ldg: 33 kts gusting 38 kts

for non-contaminated runways - goes down for flooded runways, snow, ice etc.

[0-8]

EDDH 011220Z 29028G48KT 9000 -SHRA FEW011 BKN014 07/05 Q0984 TEMPO 29035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008

[DVD]

Anybody knows what runway were they using for landing???


Dvd

[keepin it in trim]

I am not an A320 pilot, but wonder if one could answer. I was given to understand, by a colleague with experience of airbus, that it is not expected that you remove (all) drift before touchdown in strong x-winds, as the side stick is set up such that any input you make, to counteract yaw induced roll, generates a given roll rate, as opposed to merely being an input to counter the yaw induced roll from kicking off any drift. Not sure if I expressed that very well, but the upshot is that the airbus can be "quite demanding" to land in strong, gusty, x-winds.

Not seen the pics but the main thing is that everyones ok

[Cityliner]

Wind from the right 290/!! looks like rwy23 to me.
Other choice would be Rwy 33 but without a really big improvement and I am not sure if RWY33 has a ILS

[Dutch250]

Well with the wind stated above for rwy 23, it looks to me that it was over the crosswind limit.

[Rananim]

Truly amazing video.
I heard crosswind landings are tricky in the Airbus.Perhaps an Airbus pilot can comment further?
How many pilots have a crosswind chart to hand?This is one of those situations when you cant just guess the component.
Nevertheless,the pilot reacted well after the gust caught him after the touchdown(or bounce).
Right main gear should have touched first with right wing down.Looks like the opposite occurred.Also he was chasing his track throughout and was always left.Also,looks like he committed the cardinal sin and relaxed after the touchdown.Stopped flying the plane.Momentarily.However,he recovered and pulled up.
A good CP would probably put them both in the sim until they get the technique right and make sure they both have a crosswind chart.If you're outside the limits,you cant continue...pilots always try and get in.Its a natural instinct which we have to fight.

[CaptainProp]

Landings and airbuses...always been a bit of a discussion...

I have quite a bit of experience on the airbus and as far as airbuses and landings goes - You land it like you land ANY conventional aircraft! No brain surgery to it and no reason to re-invent flying.

The landing on this picture....wow, I thought my landing this evening was bad! :}

Happy landings folks!

CP

[BEagle]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddb_1204404185

Good grief!

[Blues&twos]

So how many weeks do you reckon it will take to come down off the adrenaline high?

Bet it was verrrry quiet in the cabin on the next approach.

[Zyox]

Anyone know if they switched runway or tried the same one again?

[HighLow]

Dont mind the switching of runways, maybe a switch in AIRPORT!!

[readywhenreaching]

a bit of facts:
wind was 290/33 gusts to 49 (time ~ 13:55)
happened on flight LH 044 (D-AIQP) a A320 from MUC
runway for landing 23 LOC-DME (ATIS gave no other option)
after g/a, pilots elected runway 33 also LOC-DME approach and landed safely but minus the left winglet...
immediately after the incident ATIS gave runway 23 and 33 as well

was a hell of a storm today, rocky landings all day round...
KLM refused to depart on 23 in that conditions and preferred to wait for 40 minutes for t/o rwy 33
Emirates A345 tried once 23, 15 minutes later 33, but broke off each time, exceeded bank angles on final, diverted to FRA
other widebody ground service was unable to lift up catering boxes due to windforce...all because of emma.

[HighLow]

OK, in this business it doesn't take much to get caught out,
we must at all times as aviation professionals keep on our guard right up until engine shutdown,

BUT the question needs to be asked..
When is a crosswind limitation NOT a crosswind limitation?

GET-HOME-"EYE"-TUS seems to be such a TABOO in this industry..

Glad to see nobody killed during this incident

HighLow

[F4F]

CaptainProp, sure don't agree with you...
You land it like you land ANY conventional aircraft!, yes Sir, as long as you get The steady crosswind :zzz:

Flying in blustery weather the bus is a scary beast, either you let itself to sort it out (good luck!) or your try and give some correcting inputs. Then, depending on the concerted decision of at least 3 computers you might get some form of control from your sidestick inputs... or not :ouch:

Thanks Airbus, you really gave us a fantastic machine :cool:


live 2 fly 2 live

[F4F]

readywhenreaching thanks for your facts.
landing 23 LOC-DME (ATIS gave no other option)

Well, it could be about time that we learn and make requests to ATC when needed. ATIS is, as the name suggests, an Information service. If you need another runway tell ATC in no uncertain terms, divert or declare an emergency.


live 2 fly 2 live

[square leg]

The AB flies NPA's (not LOC NPA's) like an ILS, but to a higher minimum. Some pilots were doing RNAV (GPS) approaches onto RWY 33 (the best runway at the time with that wind). So it would have made little difference if it had been an ILS or GPS approach as the visibility was good, but yes, an ILS is always better if the wind agrees.

[RetroFire]

Big question is did the pilots make a request only to have it denied?
If they didn't request 33 why not?
If the request was denied what to do then? For what reason was it denied?
Was it denied for the convenience of ATC?
If it was, what do we start doing about this? Just take what they give us? Demand what we need?
Be willing to divert/cancel, fellows. It's the only way we can uphold safety and get our point across.
OPERATIONAL NECESSITY!!! Nothing less will do! RF

[flyhigh1967]

I was flying 4 legs today, with gusts up to 50kts, W/S and +RASH all together, it was not a nice day to work, I tell you. ATC were quite on the edge as well but allways very helpfull.

Luckily to have direct flight controls (BA46RJ) but quite demanding using full deflection on ailerons and rudder, bumpy ride .. keep:cool:

Our cabin crew reported scary pax :eek:, if you would tell the pax before what they can expect, they wouldn’t fly, i tell you!



Waiting for the next strom to move across

Wating for the next storm to move across

[J.O.]

Airbus haters, please take a look at the dynamics of it and tell me if this was a design flaw, or another attempt to be a test pilot. The aircraft did exactly what was asked of it. It tried to turn toward the direction of travel when the left main touched down. That caused a roll to the left which was exascerbated by the strong (i.e. outside design limits) crosswind. And there was no "decision" to go around. It was forced upon them once they were on the downwind side of the runway.

[exeng]

As a former busdriver and a current Boeing man I would take the Boeing any day in conditions like this. Who wants the bloody computer butting in when you´re riding the bull?!

I totally agree. As a former Boeing man the first on limits Xwind landing on a 320 at LHR scared me. The training I had on the sim was just that - training on the sim. I had full sidestick and the wing just kept on coming up. In the end I released some rudder (in panic. I might add, whilst trying to just fly the plane) and landed with a considerable amount of drift on.

Because of this experience I made some considerable noise in the office (British Airways) and was given the advice that I 'probably just wasn't applying the correct techniques'. In other words - just go away.

Fortunately I mentioned this experience of mine to a 320 'old hand' who advised that the rubbish taught in the sim is just that - the drift has to be taken off earlier in the 320 so as to give the 'bus' some small time to rethink.

I am certainly no expert, but I listened to that 'old hand' and his techniques seemed to work; or perhaps I never saw those particular wind conditions again.

Back on the Boeing when you move the ailerons the wing reacts as expected - always. If it didn't then TOGA is the answer. TOGA should have been the answer that day at LHR on the Bus I'm sure now - trouble is I believed the Airbus hype and BA training.

When I look at that video I have to say "there but for the grace etc, etc".



Regards
Exeng

[GXER]

Not a a/c driver but I was handling a boat today and, although well experienced, bumped a neighbouring boat when de-berthing in a strong cross-wind. Absolute respect for you guys who have to fly your a/c full of passengers in really testing conditions. Thx.

[HarryMann]

The aircraft did exactly what was asked of it. It tried to turn toward the direction of travel when the left main touched down. That caused a roll to the left which was exascerbated by the strong (i.e. outside design limits) crosswind. And there was no "decision" to go around.Listening to that and watching that vid a dozen times, does make me think that landing an AB in those conditions, seems to be a bit of a lottery... either you do kick-off drift and CAN get some sort of normal aileron law to keep the upwind wing down, or you don't and risk colossal side-strain on the landing gear or running too quickly towards the upwind edge of the runway.
The latter of those being exacerbated by the uncertainty of aircraft position after touchdown - in those conditions.

Obvious Qu. Why don't AB just offer a normal aileron law for heavy crosswind landings...

Obvious Ans. Because they don't want to suddenly allow a switch in aircraft characteristics, you would have to get used to the change pretty quickly, and its a rare situation that demands it, unless used routinely for approcah and landing.

However: IMHO, roll-rate law near the ground is 'non-ideal' in those conditions, esp. if you require to cross the controls at times like that - which I think he/she did, or should have.

[lambourne]

On one of my first line trips in the 320 I hit the stops on the stick in strong gusty crosswind. Having flown large Boeings for most of my career this was an eye opener as the stops were never a player in some serious crosswinds challenges on the conventionally configured airplanes= stick/yoke displacement = aileron displacement. I did not find the AB roll rate algorithm intuitive to adapt to. On this flight, I announced "full left sidestick" to my F/O and we touched down in a manner resembling tossing a pillow case full of doorknobs onto the runway. After we exited he said that hitting the stops was common occurrence on the bus in strong crosswinds. I said I had just spent 6 weeks in training and at no point did anyone in the schoolhouse find it somewhat needful to convey that you might hit the stops.

The bus is a bit like tail wheel airplane. Great on a calm or wind down the runway day, but a handful in strong x-winds.

[Raredata]

Kick that much rudder,you are surely going to drop a wing.

[HarryMann]

Mmm, yes, did seem to give it a fair old bootfull, but seems theres confusion above as to whether a moment too early or for an AB, too late...

I said I had just spent 6 weeks in training and at no point did anyone in the schoolhouse find it somewhat needful to convey that you might hit the stops.

Why do you think that is so common... never being told the bad news when it could help prepare for the unexpected. Mmm.... is this the KISS syndrome being used inappropriately, or 'learning on the job' taken to ridiculous lengths?

[Hand Solo]

Hitting the stops is a bad thing and a sure sign you are over controlling. It shouldn't and needn't be common in a x-wind approach. The best thing to do when you are hitting the stops is release the stick for a second then return to flying it with a normal control level. It makes no difference to the flight path as when you are bouncing from one stop to the other all you are doing is exercising the stick, the aircraft can't react that fast!

[Gretchenfrage]

Hand Solo

So you're saying the guy should have let go of the stick for a second and the AB would have fixed the landing?? I know i'm exagerating......but if you really believe this, then continue solo, please.

But i'm in with some other guys. Most pilots who have been on a B then moved to AB know that the latter are tricky in x-winds, i presume that the company knows aswell. If only the roll-demand would fade out, just as the pitch demand, it would be much handier and more predictable, almost like an aircraft.
But pride prevails, just as with the fixed throttle.

[inciter]

A Pilot's perspective.

10/10 for Airbus because a bit of competition is always a good thing. By keeping Boeing on their toes the aviation world can now benefit from the development of the 777, 747-8, and 787.

As far as the Airbus product goes,

RUBBISH.

[Skydrol Leak]

My only question is; how come if you have a 38kts gust limitation on A320 you are still performing a landing in a 45-60 gusts?
Any 320 driver comment?

[CAT III DUAL]

@Skydrol Leak

38kts is not a limitation, its only a demonstrated crosswind back from the
old days of flight testing that beast for certification.

If you are Chuck Yeager and think you can handle it with 60, no problem.
There is NO official limitation for crosswind (except for Autoland approaches)

[Hand Solo]

Hand Solo

So you're saying the guy should have let go of the stick for a second and the AB would have fixed the landing?? I know i'm exagerating......but if you really believe this, then continue solo, please.

Errr no, I'm not saying that at all. Can you see anywhere in my post where I mention this particular flight, or landing in general?

Have you actually flown an A320?

[electricdeathjet]

If the aircraft x-wind limit is 33-g38 kts, does that assume the landing gear can absorb a landing with full drift on a dry runway?? Can the tyres cope with that sort of side loads on a 320?

[Locked door]

CAT 111 Dual.

Wrong. Fundamentally. The crosswind limit is is exactly as stated previously in this thread. It is defined as the crosswind at which no pilot input is required in yaw until the nosewheel is down in a normal landing (same for any commercial jet). Yes you can land with more of a crosswind if you are a good pilot but you are exceeding the certified limit and will be hung in any aaib investigation that arises.

Those of you that state that the airbus is fundamentally flawed either by experience or from what a friend said are imho talking bo//ox or rubbish pilots. I have 4000+ hours A320 family and am happy to land to the appropriate limitations. I also have 700 hours Boeing widebody and find it a joy to fly.

Either learn how to fly it properly and learn the appropriate limitations or quit whinging.

[NigelOnDraft]

I think you can read too much in about the Airbus here...

He seemed fairly nicely setup until, say 50R when he got a gust from the RHS. Blew aircraft downwind and needed a large right AoB input to not only correct drift, but also to regain CL. With 20:20 hindsight that is when someone might have been better to throw it away... (on any type).

However, they continued, and from my time on the bus, any large/abrubt input (e.g. that massive left kick straight) stores up secondary effects. I now try to use smaller inputs over a longer period (as in fact is taught), and if they prove insufficient, then the weather is outside my and/or the aircraft's capability. As others have said, it might not be pretty, but it lands quite happily with large drift angles on, and as TPs various demonstrate in uTube videos etc., it works well if required ;)

A good brief to your colleague to not hesitate to call G/A and discuss later... Also a brief that if you need/use full stick seriously consider a G/A... and for NHP watch the HP's hand, and if they are using using full stick consider calling G/A... (which I have done to a NHP encountering wake ~30R)

If all they've damaged is a winglet, great :) Ours (BA) get knocked off regularly by catering trucks etc....

NoD

[NigelOnDraft]

PS Once the G/A does start, it seems impressive steady control in roll (RH wingtip kept just clear of ground) and yaw (just kept on runway), and pitch (not yanking nose up until power bites)... with maybe a nice brief touchdown on the RH mainwheel :D

[quickturnaround]

If the demonstrated X-wind comp. is 38, would it be wise then to go beyond it? Wonder what the BFU would say after an incident like this.... What is the maximum wind velocity in which doors can be opened and slides can be deployed safely, without flying away on the A 320 series?
Is there already an offical LH statement on this approach?

Greetz, QTA

[calypso]

I have experienced this sort of thing on the bus before (but to a much lesser degree, thank god!) and while I am fairly new to FBW it seems to me that a little bit of crosscontrols on the flare might help things. This is however not recomended by Airbus. The computers just don't react fast enough to the wing drop when the drift is removed and the aircraft just behaves as a boeing would if you don't apply into wind aleron. What is the harm of anticipating this by applying into-wind sidestick as you decrab (ie crosscontrols)? On adition while it is prefered to touch down with both main wheels at the same time is it not safer to definetely touch down with the upwind wheel rather than possibly touch down with the downwind wheel?

[Bearcat]

From the picture it looks like full flap was used and little stick input used in the gust....yikes............it appears they Flared way too early........they are lucky they didnt crash cause if that wing had dug into the grass it could have been curtains.

IMO You got to drive it in esp with flap 3. Flaring that early can expose you to vicious gusts and thats what it looks like they got unfortunetly .

Yes we all hark back to the boeing esp the 737....the 200/600 was a little fighter but the cross wind limits was less than the 320.

From memory landing on 23 can produce vicious shear. Likewise be warned rwy 23R at Dusseldorf can produce vicious shear in the last 500 ft with the winds from the north. Safe flying and throw it away if you dont like what you see and yes pick your legs carefully.:ok:

[149pax]

What is the maximum wind velocity in which doors can be opened and slides can be deployed safely, without flying away on the A 320 series?Out of FCOM:

Wind for passenger / cargo door operation :

Maximum wind for passenger door operation : 65 knots

Maximum wind for cargo door operation : 40 knots (or 50 knots, if the aircraft nose is oriented into the wind, or the cargo door is on the leeward side).

The cargo door must be closed, before the wind speed exceeds 65 knots.

[electricdeathjet]

And the maximum wind for slide deployment???

[NigelOnDraft]

And the maximum wind for slide deployment???I hate to be rude, but that is rather a silly question :rolleyes:

Do you really think airlines are permitted to fly fare paying passengers in conditions were slide deployment is prohibited :ugh:

Furthermore, I don't think anyone is suggesating the wind was out of limits are they? X-wind might have been factor, but not overall W/V...

[Nightstop]

I flown thousands of hours on the 733 and 319 and must say the rudder pedal input/travel required when removing max crosswind drift on the 319 is far less than the Boeing. The Bus rudder is extremely powerful. Too much of a "bootful" will result in a roll in the applied rudder direction. Also, unlike the Boeing, the Bus requires little or no into wind aileron input...provided the rudder input wasn't excessive. Crosswind landings on both types are not a problem provided the wind is in limits and the appropriate technique is utilised ie flare, look down the runway, remove drift gently, touchdown, reverse to taste, go to the pub.

[ads1963]

http://www.airliners.net/uf/536882887/middle/phpOltUWB.jpg

[F4F]

Nightstop agree on what on are saying... but there is no talk of steady xwind here. We are talking about rapid and effective corrections required due to factors as varied as gusts (evidently the case on this one), wake turbulence or, a problem that is becoming more and more common, building induced wortex.
In these cases the Bus doesn't score well.
Give us real control and we'll do real landings in real weather :cool:

live 2 fly 2 live

[lambourne]

It makes no difference to the flight path as when you are bouncing from one stop to the other all you are doing is exercising the stick, the aircraft can't react that fast!Thanks for the advice but I was not hitting the stick from side to side. I was at the lateral limits trying to keep the wing from rising. Being one of my first trips out of the box and not a seasoned Airbus veteran it took me by surprise that it did not fly like an airplane in those conditions. (hold stick to keep wing down) The whole rate command issue with the AB in x-winds is a mental contest that is not intuitive unless you have drank from the French cup for quite some time. I spent 36 months on the bus and got off as soon as I could to go back to the Boeing. I miss the tray table and the quite cockpit but other than that it is a compromise airplane. It does a few things OK but nothing great and you have to be half a computer engineer to accomplish CB resets to trick fornicate the airplane into repairing itself. Certainly, don't miss the early morning departures with "1FD1" hidden on the PFD followed by the call to mtc and the goat roping exercise that followed to "fix" this issue.

Flying the 777 now and when the engines don't decide to quit there is hardly an issue. It just seems to work and does most everything very well. Too bad I don't hear the same from fellow pilots about ANY of the Airbus series of airplanes.

[Nightstop]

OK F4F I agree that in the ideal world we'd like the aircraft to respond instantly to our control inputs when due to gusts the machine's not travelling in the direction we want, but is it really that important until you're actually in the flare? Until then I tend to let the aircraft "ride the waves" a bit and not fight every upset. When the flare and hold off for touchdown is in progress any upset that requires very large control inputs to correct must make one very go-around minded, because the aircraft simply isn't under full control.
Good point too about the increasing problem of building and tree induced low level vortices when the wind is blowing from certain directions, this is something that should be included in Route Manual special briefings eg Funchal runway 23 :{

[exeng]

Thanks for the advice but I was not hitting the stick from side to side. I was at the lateral limits trying to keep the wing from rising. Being one of my first trips out of the box and not a seasoned Airbus veteran it took me by surprise that it did not fly like an airplane in those conditions. (hold stick to keep wing down)

That was exactly the scenario I was referring to in my earlier post. Not only did it not fly like a real aeroplane, but it certainly did not behave like the BA sim.

And like you it would have been nice if somebody had told us about these characteristics during the conversion course.


Regards
Exeng

[F4F]

PKPF68-77 crosswind training in my orange airline is still accomplished using real ships for ab-initio or ex turbo prop pilots. As for experienced (> 2000 hrs) jet pilots converting from another airplane, the training is done entirely in the sim during the ZFFT.

Again stressing here the difference between a nice and steady crosswind, a breeze (pun intended) to train and land in, and gusty conditions in which the bus is a :mad:


live 2 fly 2 live

[Mr A Tis]

Any news on damage to the aircraft- is it back in service?
Did the crew get the rest of the day off to recover?

I dont remember so many scary rides in the days of Tridents & 1-11s, do modern commercial pressures tempt you more into "having a go" compared to the old days when a diversion was more likely-or is it modern aircraft are more robust & able to manage x wind landings better?

[puddle-jumper2]

Whilst approaching Amsterdam recently I was offered the normal landing runway (90 degree 30kt wind) or the into wind runway, unlike many - I choose the x-wind runway.

Why ? The simple answer is although I've been flying Jets for nearly 20 years I have only been on my current type for 1 year and I want to know how the A/C reacts in that situation. As I normally do in rough weather the A/P and A/T was disconnected.

I'm not for one minute saying that this particular crew were out of practice but from my own perspective I don't want to experience on the limit x-wind weather without practising something not quite so bad first.

PKPF68-77.............for me the drive home is far more scarier than landing in rough weather.......I'll take the landing any day.:ok:

[TopBunk]

PJ2

I wouldn't argue with you on that. Furthermore, places like AMS and CPH are good choices, imho, as the terrain is benign, and what you tend to get is just the 'pure' wind without the turbulent effects from local features.

The adage of practice makes perfect (or proficient) applies.

[JuniorMan]

Pictures of the damage here.

http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-f...hread.php?tid=763&pid=2607#pid2607 (http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-forum.de/showthread.php?tid=763&pid=2607#pid2607)

[A4]

Firstly, hats off to the guys for recovering from a very near disaster :D

I'm Airbus. Only ever flown the B737 sim. I can honestly say in 10 years and 7000 hours on the narrowbody Bus I have never hit the stops with the sidestick - and I've landed in some pretty strong x-winds (but probably not as strong as the LH guys!) Fly the approach crabbed, squeeze (not kick) the drift off, and a little into wind sidestick works (for me!)

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the roll control laws are different with CONF3 as opposed to FULL - hence the recommendation for F3 in gusty conditions (also less drag). If anyone can find a reference or proof of this I'd be grateful as I sometimes think I've imagined it.

Fly safe,

A4

[F4F]

A4 thanks for your inputs (!) it makes for some very interesting reading and makes me wonder...
hats off to the guys for recovering from a very near disaster
Well, this only can be subjective... had they requested the more into wind runway and had they hold into wind wing down the whole thing might have been a non event :rolleyes:

I have never hit the stops with the sidestic
That is an interesting one. I admit having less experience on the Bus than you have, but already hit the lateral stops a couple of times...
Now I must meditate about the reasons for me (and some other guys here) having hit said stops and you not.
Could it be we are conditioned by our previously flown aircraft? Are we too much in a hurry in trying to correct the attitude? Have you ever encountered a situation were quick recovery was due and calmly not used stick to stops? Or is the answer a combination of all these?

squeeze (not kick) the drift off
Fully agree on that one, specially on the -19

As for F3 in gusty winds is a good choice (as on most aircraft), a few pro arguments here are higher approach speed hence stability due to increased apparent wind, better response to control inputs, and less prone to lift a wing. Can't recall anything about a change of law in 3, but never done with learning :cool:


live 2 fly 2 live

[Bearcat]

judging from the pic they might have stressed the outer section of the wing.... they are very very very lucky they didnt write the aircraft off.

[DISCOKID]

anyone know why EVERY post on this thread with a video link has now been removed?

cant understand on what basis LH would have been able to have the videos of this event pulled from youtube and all now all the links from pprune.

[John Farley]

They work fine still for me.

[seekayess]

THIS (http://tinyurl.com/2dy73d) link may survive!!




:E:E

[llondel]

The Liveleak link on the first page is still there and worked last time I tried it. I have to admit to grabbing a copy from there when the YouTube version got pulled.

[JanetFlight]

anyone know why EVERY post on this thread with a video link has now been removed?


Hey...good question...even the Youtube Account of Xylon1986, the guy who posted other "No Guts-No Glory" videos of that day at HAM, has closed and disappeared along with all those clips...:confused:

[MarkD]

context ad on Liveleak: stop fear of flying with hypnotherapy

That's pretty good software right there :D

[grimmrad]

Question of the uninitiated (i.e PAX) if II may:
Why are planes still going into an airrport if it is known that a major storm is right in that area? Wou;dn't it be wiser to either not depart or divert?

How is the situation now, flying into Hamburg tonight with EK from NYC...?

[United B-777]

How is the situation now, flying into Hamburg tonight with EK from NYC...?

I can only tell you about the situation now: It is still fairly windy, but definatly less than yesterday. The storm has passed and I think tomorrow things will be completely back to normal again. There shouldn't be any problems for your flight from New York as the flight arrives around noon, local time.

Blue skies - Jakob (I live in Hamburg ATM)

[yeboman]

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/leserreporter/2008/03/flieger__landung/flieger__landung,geo=3910488.html

Dieser Pilot verhinderte Flugzeug-Katastrophe

Dieser Pilot ist ein Held!



"verhinderte" translates to "prevented"...

[CorkEICK]

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/leserreporter/2008/03/flieger__landung/flieger__landung,geo=3910488.html

Story in german news website www.bild.de (http://www.bild.de) The Captain and a Lufthansa spokesman are briefly quoted.

[fleigle]

Now we know why Airbus have downward wingtips too, they are feelers!!!!! :}

[Outlook]

Not sure, but could the video have been taken airside?

[Blip]

If the fly-by-wire system is able to keep the aircraft safe by remaining inside an operational envelope (not too fast, not too slow, limits on bank angle and angle of attack etc.) why can't the same be done with aircraft attitude when close to the ground.

There is an envelope outside of which either the tail will scrape, or the wingtips will scrape given the aircraft's attitude and height above the ground. Why can't these limits be protected via the flight control software/computers?

[J.O.]

Mainly because computers can't decide if in fact you need a sudden bank angle demand, such as for an avoidance manoeuvre.

[fireflybob]

I would be interested to hear what formula various companies use to assess whether the crosswind component is with limits. The company I work for use the crosswind component for the mean wind plus half the TOTAL gust.

So if you are landing on RW 23 and the wind is 290/33 gust 49, the mean component is 30 kts (60 degrees off is 87%) plus 8 (ie 49 minus 33, divided by 2) which gives a figure of 38 kts. I think this system works well.

Some comments on crosswind landings. If you are going to make any mistakes apply more into wind aileron rather than less. Never have liked the term kick off the drift - I think of "straightening the a/c with rudder". The further effect of rudder is roll so whilst doing this you need to feed in opposite aileron. The important bit is getting the timing right! Also I believe a common error is to carry excess speed. Ok if its gusting 49 kts more speed is probably safer than less but if you have excess speed in the flare you are going to float before touchdown which makes judgement of when to straighten the a/c more challenging!

Mind you if in doubt ask for another runway or divert!

[Blip]

J.O. I'm simply talking about keeping the wing tips and tail a safe distance from the ground.

Say that safe distance is 3 feet. If the wing tip gets to say 2.5 feet, the Flight Control Computer (or whatever Airbus call it) makes it's own input to restore the wing tip back to 3 feet. It's no different to limiting the bank angles at higher altitudes only the values are reduced. Perhaps when this kind of input is being made by the computer the pilot can be informed with some kind of annunciation or sound.

Surely the safe operating envelope can be made to reduce as the RA passes from say 20 feet to touchdown. We're simply talking about a computer program aren't we?

O.K. What would happen if at circuit altitude, you try to maintain the bank angle right on the aircraft's limit with the control stick and then induce further roll through rudder or thrust asymmetry? Would the computer simply make an aileron input that brings the roll back to within it's limits?

I have never flown Airbus so these are sincere questions.

[CAT III DUAL]

Picture of the damaged wing...
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/3250/undhp145uc1ic7.jpg

[fr8tmastr]

I have not flown the bus either, but it seems the last thing this aircraft needs is more computer control. From what I understand from talking to pilots that have flow it is that you have to forget much of what you know about flying and do it the Airbus way. They basically say if you can get your mind around what Airbus was trying to do the plane is ok, (many are not that kind) and you eventually get used to it.
If anything the pilot should have more control in this kind of situation, the last thing you want when trying to stop a wing from hitting the ground is a computer telling you "sorry that roll rate is too fast"

[FourGreenNoRed]

Very well executed Balked-Landing, good training paid off and prevented a catastrophic situation. :D

But still: The question needs to be asked why they even attempted to land on RWY 23 with the winds somewhat more favourable for RWY 33, even if its not a big change it makes a significante diffrence under those conditions.

What about the procedure acc. OM-A or OM-B? How come other flights diverted or used the other RWY as described earlier in this thread and therefore didnt expose their Pax to such a potential dangerous situation?

Our (NJE) SOP states if the actual winds, including gusts as reported by the TWR / ATIS exceed the X-Wind limit then a missed approach shall be initiated. Every FMS / FDC should have a function where you can calculate the X-Wind for each runway. Part of the apporach briefing should include this discussion as well on which runway to use and what limit is the limit.

It appears to me, that those question are not really ciritically discussed here since the Crew solved the situation in an excellent manner. But commercial pressure might have put them there in the first place.

What conditions have to prevail in order to use the alternate?

What are your company procedures regarding this?

[Admiral346]

Hamburg has an ILS to RWY 23, and only LOC to RWY 33. As far as I know, gusts do not get taken into account for calculating xwinds with Lufthansa. It is the steady component that counts.
So I would have chosen 23 over 33 there also, just to have the vertical guidance and be able to give more of my capacity to the monitoring of all parameters. In fact I made the same choice that day flying into Basel LFSB, using ILS 16 instead of circling 26 for this reason, and the fact that 26 only provides 1600m LDA, with a wind of 250 25G38.

You also have to look at the airport layout of EDDH. There is forest to the north of 23, with 33 intersecting the touchdownzone of 23. There is a gap in the forest, of course, for the RWY extending NNWwards. On the picture of the scrape happening you can actually read the sign for RWY33. I believe, that the wind gut funneld down RWY33 and hit the plane right at the intersection...

Case of bad luck, in my opinion...

[HolidayPilot]

From Admiral346 "Hamburg has an ILS to RWY 23, and only LOC to RWY 33. As far as I know, gusts do not get taken into account for calculating xwinds with Lufthansa. It is the steady component that counts."

If true, I believe Lufthansa should revisit the use of gusts for takeoff and landing limitations.

[Sallyann1234]

The video is now on the BBC news site. "Plane narrowly avoids disaster"
No doubt this thread is being watched for a suitable quote .."Pilots say A more dangerous that B"

[Blip]

Surely the aircraft manufacturer gives guidance on whether or not gusts should be considered and how (eg no gust, half gust, all gust).

Our company considers the "Demonstrated" crosswind as limits AND that includes all the gusts too (Boeing and Airbus).

I'd have thought it was just like tailwinds. You treat whatever value is stated in the Performance Limitations manual as a limit, and include gusts if they are reported, rather than disregarding them. If your manual says not to land with tailwind above 10 kt and the reported wind is up the tail at 10 knots gusting 20, are you going to ignore the 20?

fr8tmastr I too would much rather have direct control with the flight controls. That's one of the reasons why I have chosen not fly the Airbus.

[LYKA]

http://www.estofex.org/ (http://http://www.estofex.org/)

[sispanys ria]

Very well executed Balked-Landing, good training paid off and prevented a catastrophic situation. :D

I don't agree with the "prevented a catastrophic situation". Look at the pictures of the damaged wingtip. It was very very unsure that the aileron wasn't damaged or jammed, and in case of a go around in such a windy day, I'm not sure the plane would have flown very far.
It already happened in the past, and had a bad ending.
They were lucky, that's all I can say.

[FourGreenNoRed]

Let me refine my concern: Looking at that video, they changed their angle of crab quite severly on short final so they knew it was gusty, to say the least. There was a more favourable runway avialable as well. The winds were at the limits and other decided not even to attempt or went right away to the other runway.

Still my question is: How much is the commercial pressure influencing our decision making process? Knowing how much trouble it is to divert to the alternate aerodrome for the company and the Pax?

And: What is the responsiblity of the Airport authorities? Acc. JAR right now as far as I know: None. It will change in the near future with EU-OPS. They should have a junk of responsiblities under those conditions too.

So what did we all learn out of this? I hope we learend something because that could have ended in a nightmare quite easily (knock on wood!!) and then all of the hero-praisers would ask diffrent questions which I think would sound a bit more leaning towards questioning the decision to try to land under those conditions.

Gotta go, have to find wood to knock onto!

[puddle-jumper2]

sispanys,

What would you have done ? Continue with the landing ?

Regardless of how they got in that situation and whether or not they are 'hero's' :} if they had tried to continue with the landing it is highly likely they would have ended up on the grass. Things like wingtips, gear, engines, start to 'dig in' then.........not good.

I take your point RE. the possible aileron jam.....yes perhaps they were lucky but you also have roll spoilers and then once safely away form the ground the option to disconnect the ailerons and try for a different airport.

In my humble opinion they made the right decision to poor on the coals and get the hell out. :D

[Down Three Greens]

Just shown on Sky News.

[mike_o]

Hi There

I was surprised to see that the PIC did not carry the right wing lower into the flare. The plane was never more than horisontal and touched down on both wheels at the same time.

I'd have expected a distinct right bank and right wheel first touchdown.

rgds

Mike

[flyr767]

In my humble opinion they made the right decision to poor on the coals and get the hell out.Truth be told they probably should gone missed a lot earlier, requested a different runway or go through any other options at their disposal. The approach was fairly stabilized up until the point of flare where it all began to unravel. With the wingtip contacting the runway surface obviously their decision wasn't the safest or best course of action.

[Mungo Man]

Now on the BBC site with the reporter saying "the wing touched the ground the - pilot managed a re-start - the pilot averted a potential catastrophe"
:}

[fireflybob]

During spells when the wind gets stronger for a few seconds - often near or in showers - the wind direction tends to veer.
Your 290 wind can easily become 310-320 making the crosswind component jump to a value well above limits.

PKPF68-77, yes I agree! For this reason alone I would have been considering RW 33 in this case, all other things being equal.

[Nick NOTOC]

Veering of the wind in gusty condition is something I alway take into consideration. I'm not sure where I have learned about this (I think it was A KLM procedure) But the rule was that during a gust the wind may change up to 30 degrees increase in direction, at EU lattitudes and obviously on the northern side of this planet.

With this consideration I wander what would have been the most favourable runway?

Control laws on the 320's are roll rate 0 when no stick input, so my understanding is that in such case if you input rudder (altough slowely) you will not bank as a result. Also as stick input gives roll rate demand there is no link between aileron deflection and stick input, so a higher approach speed makes no difference in response rate from pilot input. I do remember something about a change in these laws during landing, but I'm not sure. I do believe that the control laws in such conditions may not be a great help.

Curious to see the outcome of this investigation.

Cheers, Nick

[F4F]

Former astronaut Frank Borman once said:
A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill... :cool:


live 2 fly 2 live

[Flight Safety]

In looking at the damage from the photo in post #82, if the aileron had jammed due to the bent wingtip, it would have been all over. :uhoh:

[NigelOnDraft]

if the aileron had jammed due to the bent wingtip, it would have been all overErrr.... and why???

NoD

[DaveReidUK]

It's official, the pilot is a hero...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=524615&in_page_id=1811

[woolzer]

It's coming up on ITV's Lunchtime News shortly too.....

[hstaub]

I have had plenty of experience landing Boeings in severe crosswinds (50K). Each time it was the only Rwy available. All of them were in a Boeing. The hardest was the B-707 due to clearance between ground and inboard engine. It was a skill we practiced many times in the simulator (except there was no B-707 Simulator that had that capabiliity). The manouver to straighten out must be made at the correct time. The good thing about the Boeings is that when you move the controls as required, they responded. My understanding, from fellow pilots who flew the Airbus, is that even when you disconnect the autopilot the computers make the final decision. In the video it appears that the pilot should have recognized that it was not a stable approach, probably due to severe gusts. He should have gone around before committing himself to continue his landing. However, we all know that hangar flying is bull, because we were not there. The solution for any pilot is to know the capabilities of his aircraft. And the Airbus, according to the imput I have received, does have the reputation of making crosswind landings difficult. That is one reason I stayed on Boeings throughout my career (B707, 737, 747-400).

Anyway, I repeat, none of us were there, and it is often easy to criticise. But knowing the capabilites of your aircraft, and your competency is paramount. In this age, with the Simulators available, you can practice. However, often "get home-ites" gets the best of us. Steady x-wing is one thing, severe gusts on approach, it is time to go somewhere else. As to x-wind limitations, they are usually advisory, but if you screw it up, you will have to answer to your decision. Again, know your aircraft and if it is extremely gusty, no matter which airplane, go somewhere else. The old airport in Hong Kong has seen many examples where someone made a wrong decision.

[Flight Safety]

NOD, are you saying that spoilers on the left wing, and/or flight controls on the right wing would have enough remaining control authority to overcome a jammed aileron (depending on jammed neutral or jammed deflected I guess)?

[NigelOnDraft]

Well presumably, since there are plenty of failures you can fly with where both ailerons don't work (albeit ideally floating neutral) ;)

NoD

[Flight Safety]

If an aileron is jammed deflected, one could use the rudder and side slip too I guess. It would make a landing rather tricky I think, especially with a cross wind, unless one could choose the cross wind direction?

[timpara]

During spells when the wind gets stronger for a few seconds - often near or in showers - the wind direction tends to veer.
...
I do not know if this is written down anywhere in Aviation Met literature but having spent hundreds of hours on long shifts staring at anemo (dials) :sad: I can confirm this is indeed the case.



Since a gust is often just a parcel of higher, faster moving air coming down to the ground, then the "right-with-height" observation explains the veer.

[Newforest2]

Do we know which pilot was flying? Check the inside of the Bild and you will see that the co-pilot is more attractive than the Captain, IMHO!

[puddle-jumper2]

Flight Safety,

especially with a cross wind, unless one could choose the cross wind direction?

Exactly, that's the whole point. If this guy had tried to continue with the landing and ended up over the grass, with a possible control problem and STILL in the same nasty wind conditions that assisted the damage in the first place...............????

The bottom line is he got it away from the ground, sorted the A/C and himself out, re-grouped and chose another runway. No loss of life........just some explaining to to. :{

We are all capable of making mistakes, errors of judgement etc... it's what you do after the mistake that counts.

[kingair9]

From the above linked press article:


spokesman for the organization German Flight Safety


Just for info - this is too direct translation: "Deutsche Flugsicherung" which could be verbally translated into "German Flight Safety" is Germany's ATC...

[Sallymo]

there it is again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJeC2pxxbM&feature=bz301

[PAXboy]

On a slight tangent: Once again, all carriers must be ready for amateur video footage of their a/c to be shown at any time. Whether the a/c and crew show up well or badly, they must presume that the entire world can see what happened.

Likewise, all crew must assume that someone is taking a video of them, inside or outside, legally or not!

[Eagle402]

Sky News cobweb has the a/c as an A380 landing at Munich !

Marvellous research as ever.

Eagle

The story has now been corrected with the News Editor telling me that "we knew it was a 320, the reporter made a typing error". You couldn't make it up could you?!

[Hurkemmer]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/969255/amazing_crosswind_landing/

a320 drivers spot the difference.

[MartyMcFly]

Less than a year ago I finished my conversion from 737 ,which I have flown for 7 years, to A320.

I fully agree with lot of posts here that the Boeing handles better in these circumstances. Nevertheless, below 50 feet the Bus should be in direct Law. This means so much that your sidestick input is directly proportional to control surface deflection. In this last phase of flight "the machine" should not be superimposing inputs on pilot's inputs.

Another question that fascinates me: the certification criteria (JAR) for escape slides are 25 kts. This means that at greater wind speeds there is a serious possibility that they may be not or only partially usable. If something goes wrong (and the video demonstrates that that is more likely whith these weather conditions as to CAVOK, wind calm) how do you evacuate??

Grtz

[25thID]

CNN has posted the video on their website this morning.

[NigelOnDraft]

Nevertheless, below 50 feet the Bus should be in direct Law. This means so much that your sidestick input is directly proportional to control surface deflection. In this last phase of flight "the machine" should not be superimposing inputs on pilot's inputsNot sure I agree ;)

Direct Law, apart from the failure cases, is on Takeoff Roll >50R / 5s etc. then blends to Normal Law.

On Approach, from 50R, it enters "Flare Mode". This is essentially "Normal Law" but with a Pitch added factor (tries to push nose down). In Roll, AFAIK it is still Normal Law. It does not go back to "Direct Law (Ground Mode)" until 5s after landing...

If something goes wrong (and the video demonstrates that that is more likely whith these weather conditions as to CAVOK, wind calm) how do you evacuate??Certification criteria is not a "limit". You evacuate regardless if needed...

NoD

[MartyMcFly]

I stand corrected :rolleyes:


I agree that if you need to evacuate you just do it. But how likely is an succesful evacuation if your slides are blown all over the place due to the wind. Correct me if I am wrong but if an exit / slide is inop you have penalties regarding the number of pax you may take, because it takes longer to evacuate. Nobody is doing that here.. What if something goes wrong and people get injured or worse because they couldn't leave the A/C on time. Who is responsible?! If your A/C is certified to a certain limit and you willingly exceed this limit than you are gonna have a hard time explaining yourself I guess. How far is that the case here? Should you fly somewhere where the wind is gusting up 45 - 55 kts, and where the possibility is great that your alternates have more or less the same weather conditions? I know everybody does it, I've done it as well, it just makes me think..

Happy landings!

[NigelOnDraft]

If your A/C is certified to a certain limit and you willingly exceed this limit I am unaware that the aircraft is certified to this limit. If it were, then such a limit would be in the FCOM "Limitations" section. I have all sorts of limits in there, some related to wind... but nothing about slides :eek:

In short, if the slides have a 25K limit, then so does the aircraft for passenger carrying operations ;)

I think you may be alluding to a JAR Ops test being conducted at 25K or similar. That might be a "certification requirement", it is not an aircraft limit however if the Flt Crew don't have it as such :)

IMHO of course ;)

NoD

[Springer1]

Just saw it on CNN. Interesting on Xwind limits for various operators. We are a very large Airbus operator in America and our 320/319 Xwind limit is 29kts. We include all of the gusts when computing the Xwind. Also cannot land with a reported loss of airspeed of greater than 15kts. As one can see, we are conservative which is ok by me.

On extremely Xwind days, my personal technique is to take out a little of the crab prior to the flare. It appears in the vid that most of the rudder was applied at touch down. On short final I like to remind my crew member and more importantly myself a go-around is always an option...sometimes we forget that in the heat of the battle.

[Arne Blå]

Not familiar with the A320, but all I see is a bad x-wind landing.

[Dream Land]

but all I see is a bad x-wind landingYes agree, very poorly executed.

[Doors to Automatic]

Question from a non-pilot:

If the crab had been taken out slightly later and the starboard wing dipped into the wind would this have been avoided?

[fireflybob]

Perhaps we should remember that most of the "great unwashed" think that everything on an airliner is "automatic" and that we just sit there and press a few buttons everyday. Maybe these pictures will cause those people to think that it's not as easy as they think! Landing in marginal conditions can be demanding for even an experienced pilot on type but it is all about knowing the a/c limitations (and your own) and being prepared to make a decision to abandon an approach and/or landing which is not going as planned.

In short, if in doubt then don't!

[javelin]

Airbus croswind and turbulence technique is easier to describe in front of someone, not as easy in writing but I will have a go.

I have 7,500 hours on 320/1/330 and had factory training thoughout.


FBW will do a fantastic job, up to a limit - it will correct disturbances from the flightpath well but only so far.

If you have an extra disturbance through turbulence that further affects the aeroplane, FBW wants a correction to bring it back within its capabilities and no more. Hence, in gusty crosswinds, you WILL hit the stops, but only for a short time - quick, rapid inputs and then release to allow FBW to continue doing it's job.

This works, it was taught in training and will result in as stable an approcah as can be expected in some of foul weather that we all encounter from time to time.

It is radically different from Boeing because of the flight laws and way the Airbus operates. You cannot therefore compare the two, although I would be interested to hear from any 777 drivers who's aeroplane use a similar adaptation of the Airbus FBW system - from memory. There are significant differences due to the backdrive required but will stand to be corrected.

Beyond that, lay off the drift on approach, kick it off in the flare, dip a wing and land into wind wheel first - it works a treat :ok:

[electricdeathjet]

I agree, shame he didnt put a bit of in to wind aileron prior to touch down...
I think the Air France video is the perfect demonstration to a text book cross wind landing.
The airbus can do them! Its all a bit vague, but it can do them. (Hope no spotters are about with video recorders on my windy landings!!!!)

[PJ2]

Nod;
On Approach, from 50R, it enters "Flare Mode". This is essentially "Normal Law" but with a Pitch added factor (tries to push nose down). In Roll, AFAIK it is still Normal Law. It does not go back to "Direct Law (Ground Mode)" until 5s after landing...

Fully agree. That's the way the Airbus works.

(edited for a response to javelin)

javelin:
Beyond that, lay off the drift on approach, kick it off in the flare, dip a wing and land into wind wheel first - it works a treat :ok:

Yes, but only up to the point where physics permits. Only so much crab or bank angle can be achieved to counter the crosswind forces. Once that crab or wing-low limit is reached and the forces remain in favour of the crosswind, the airplane will be blown downwind and off the runway perhaps even against the friction of the landing gear, (a whole new set of problems such as runway contamination, side-loads etc), just as this one was during the go-around. At this point, it has nothing to do with skill, experience and the capabilities of the airplane - the physical forces are beyond the airplane's capacity to counter.

As an aside, I would ask the Boeing enthusiasts-Airbus bashers, do you want to force the airplane onto the ground in circumstances far outside the manual or are the limits to be respected? There is a post down below which speaks of commercial pressures as well...do they enter into this? Does Pride? Perhaps the real fact that was "demonstrated" in the crosswind landing tests Airbus did for the 320 was, the airplane cannot counter the physical forces described above. Javelin, what did Airbus say about those limits?

Cheers,
PJ2

[KC135777]

In tough, gusty xwind conditions, PLANT IT ON.
Align your aircraft to the runway with appropriate rudder/ailerons and MINIMUM flare.
With GUSTY crosswinds, any attempt at finesse and smooth landing is giving
"the gusts" TOO much of an opportunity to ruin your day.
Don't "hang it out there on the table", because there's a chance of getting it "chopped off".
It does NOT matter if the pax think you did a poor job at it. YOU know better!
I assume the AB will let you 'plant it on', won't it?

Just statements of opinion.
Making ZERO suggestions/judgments of what actually occurred during the Lufthansa incident.

[rubik101]

BBC, for one, have yet another cock-up, put together by their resident 'aviation expert', no doubt, showing a picture of an AA 767 on the ground, surrounded by emergency vehicles. Then follows the LH 320 X wind wing touch video clip with a voice over explaining that they are one and the same aircraft.
Brilliant journalism, once again.

[patrickal]

An Associated Press report on Yahoo is now reporting that the plane was hit by a 155 MPH wind as it tried to land. I have a hard time believing that either 155MPH or even 155KPH were recorded. Good think tornados are rare over there, otherwise that would be in the story too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_re_eu/germany_rough_landing_1

[eyeinthesky]

rubik 101: Don't be so hard on the journos this time!
Also just watched the BBC Six O'clock news. I think the American airlines clip in the snow was the 'Gallery' playing the wrong clip: the diversion to Glasgow story was not covered but they had pictures.
The Hamburg clip came on shortly thereafter.
They did say: "The pilot needs a pay rise". Some on here might have adifferent view!

[Astra driver]

Paktrickal;

I was just about to post the same link. When I saw the "155 mph winds" I thought "oh yes"
:rolleyes:

[alf5071h]

In an earlier (now deleted post?) One off pilot asked “Should the landing have been attempted?” This is exactly the right question to ask.
In this thread too many people are answering the wrong question; instead of discussing flight techniques they should be considering “should we be landing in these conditions”, and how can we assess such situations to choose the safest option. Decisions such as these should be routine, but they continually appear as problem areas in approach and landing accidents.

The assessment of weather conditions for landing usually involves some degree of unknown, thus individual judgment is required – experience – knowledge, and skilful disciplined thought.

Unfortunately, the demands of today’s industry do not easy this task; there are many commercial and operational pressures which promote the ‘Press on’ option. Many of the marginal or risky options have become the industry norm, which crews are ‘expected’ to carry out, influenced by peer pressure or covert management policy.

Crews should remember that wind measurement and reporting is not an exact science. The paper on ‘Safety aspects of aircraft operations in crosswind’ (www.nlr-atsi.com/downloads/NLR-TP-2001-217.pdf) discusses crosswind landings and the associated hazards. Wind speed measurements are subject to considerable error, gusts more so than steady state winds.

Very few aircraft have an AFM defined crosswind limit; a max demonstrated value is more normal and unless specifically stated it may not include gusts. Many operators might overlook the subtleties of certification when defining their operating limits, e.g. the conditions in which the demonstrated values were achieved. Manufactures are required to show that the aircraft is safe in both left and right crosswinds, thus the test conditions tend to be flown in winds at 90 deg to the runway enabling approaches from each end. Also for accurate measurements, the gust values may be lower than normal; thus, there may not have been any evaluation of gusts or the effects of veer.
The test teams will have had opportunity to workup in the conditions, incrementally assessing the aircraft's reaction and use of alternative handling techniques. The resultant ‘demonstrated value’ (and recommended technique) should be representative of an average pilot ‘without use of undue skill or effort’ (certification term). But I have yet to find any pilots who rate themselves as ‘below average’, neither any who will first fly an evaluation approach; thus for may pilots encountering limiting winds it is a new experience – a first time ‘test’ of their skill and judgment without practice (simulators IMHO, are not sufficient in these circumstances).

The safest option would be the earlier use of knowledge, experience, and judgment to evaluate the conditions and consider any other effects, i.e. wet runway; never dismiss the option to divert without careful reasoning.

[rubik101]

I agree that ALL pilots deserve a pay rise for flying last week! I had two of the roughest approaches in my 35 years of flying landing in UK last week.
Let's award ourselves at least a pat on the back!

[DozyWannabe]

Regardless of the question of whether GA should have been called earlier, it'd be great if I could get some clarification on another point that seems to be unconfirmed in this thread.

As I understood it, the Airbus FBW system when in Normal Mode will do its best to keep the wings as level as possible when the sidestick is centred. Does this extend to automatically correcting the roll effect of a reasonably hard rudder deflection or not?

Thanks in advance!

[snowfalcon2]

During spells when the wind gets stronger for a few seconds - often near or in showers - the wind direction tends to veer.
Your 290 wind can easily become 310-320 making the crosswind component jump to a value well above limits.

I do not know if this is written down anywhere in Aviation Met literature but having spent hundreds of hours on long shifts staring at anemo (dials) I can confirm this is indeed the case.

This is called "Learn to Love Left Crosswind."

With the wind from the left you get the gusts more on the nose -> good :) .

Whereas with the crosswind from the right, as in this case, the gusts veer to worsen the situation -> bad :( .

[Paradise Lost]

Completely concur with KC135777 and the concept of "planting" it firmly and swiftly back on terra firma. All the new generation a/c seem to be getting wider wingspans and correspondingly lower angles of bank tolerable at landing.
Interestingly the commonly posted U tube of the Boeing 777 demonstrating max Xwind landing, seems to land on the runway offset and then "kick" it straight before lowering the nosewheel.

[highonsnow]

I bet a helicopter pilot wouldn't consider landing in conditions like that, he'd divert immediately due to good airmanship and judgement ;) hehe

[moggiee]

38kts is not a limitation, its only a demonstrated crosswind back from the
old days of flight testing that beast for certification.

If you are Chuck Yeager and think you can handle it with 60, no problem.
There is NO official limitation for crosswind (except for Autoland approaches)
That would depend upon the company SOP. The majority of airline SOPs that I've used list crosswind LIMITS, not maximum demonstrated crosswinds. If the company puts it in the SOP as a limitation then that is EXACTLY what it is, no matter how it was derived in the first place.

I would be pleased to hear just how YOU personally determine how far above the maximum demonstrated crosswind is safe - because if no one has demonstrated greater you are in uncharted territory.

[ILS27LEFT]

For once the Italians can be proud of being more efficient than the Germans...this AZ MD11 did definitely better than the LH :) A320.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1w4KEnkWIg&feature=related


:)

[exeng]

Beyond that, lay off the drift on approach, kick it off in the flare, dip a wing and land into wind wheel first - it works a treat

That is exactly how I was taught, apart from the 'kick it off' bit - more of a squeeze really.

However the one trime it frightened me (as I and others have alluded to) is when the into wind wing kept on coming up despite full sidestick. So in my case there was no 'dipping a wing' because 'it' would not let me. As I stated before an A320 'old hand' told me to take the drift off earlier to give the FBW a chance to sort itself out.

Perhaps I had experienced a temporary gust outside the limits - I will never know.

You asked about the 777. I only flew it for a year as an F/O and it was an absolute delight to fly and felt like a real aircraft - different FBW logic entirely to the 320. I always had confidence that the 777 would perform as advertised - not so in the 320.

Back on the 737 following a 2 year break on the 757 and both types behave very well in a xwind - the 737 marginally better than the 757. I've only twice landed the 737 in a limiting xwind and on both occasions I was nowhere near the roll authority limit.

Incidentally the 320 was a great aircraft in many respects, especially when you consider how old the FBW design logic is. What I did find worrying is the reluctance for Airbus Industrie to consider that they may have a problem with any of their design - it took a crumpled aircraft in Bilbao before they accepted what other operators had been telling them for some time - the ELAC design as it stood then was dangerous.


Regards
Exeng

[llondel]

Paradise Lost:
Interestingly the commonly posted U tube of the Boeing 777 demonstrating max Xwind landing, seems to land on the runway offset and then "kick" it straight before lowering the nosewheel.

Doesn't the B777 have main gear with features similar to the B52? That's what allows the big bomber to land with a crosswind and then straighten out. I'm sure I saw a reference to the 777 using similar technology but I can't find it now so perhaps I dreamt it. I know they've got some fancy main gear tricks to help with take-off on a shorter runway.

[KC135777]

on the 777, the rear two tires (one on each side of each truck) turn opposite direction of turn - on the ground to help tighten/reduce turning radius and (if I remember correctly) also reduce scrubbing of inside tires. They MUST lock straight before takeoff thrust is applied, or a t/o warning occurs. They remain straight in the air, and there is NO crabbing of it's gear for landing.

[Down Three Greens]

You could always take 'Mr 4 Engine Glider Pilot's ' advice :rolleyes:

Jon di Paolo
Sky News Online
Updated:16:44, Monday March 03, 2008

A plane carrying more than 100 passengers escaped disaster by a hair's breadth as it tried to touch down in gale-force winds.

The passenger jet attempts to landThe Lufthansa passenger jet was buffeted by powerful crosswinds as it attempted to land at Hamburg airport.

Video shot at the scene shows the Airbus A320 struggling to keep in line with the runway as it makes its approach.

Just as it is about to plant its wheels on the tarmac it rolls, scraping one of its wings along the ground, before aborting the landing and flying away.

The aircraft, which was carrying 131 passengers and five crew on a flight from Munich, circled the airport before touching down safely a second time.

Passengers were unhurt but "shaken up" and were given assistance by psychologically-trained staff at the airport, a Lufthansa spokesperson said.

The jet's wing was scraped but otherwise it was undamaged and is now back in service.

Eric Moody, a former British Airways Boeing 747 captain, said everyone on board had had a lucky escape.

He explained that standard procedure when landing in a crosswind is to line the plane up with the runway on approach, then use the rudder and aileron - a hinged control surface on the wing - to straighten up at the very last moment.

Mr Moody said it was a tremendously difficult skill which the pilot had not quite managed.

"It's not an easy thing to do," he told Sky News Online.

"You have to be so precise. You've got to steel your nerves to hold it there, and then in one movement kick the rudder, move the opposite aileron and plant it on the runway."

The airline's spokesman told Sky News Online the jet had been hit by a very strong gust of wind just as it was about to touch down.

He added the airline was "very pleased" with the pilots - saying they had coped well with an "extraordinary" situation.

Thirteen people died and severe damage was caused over the weekend as storms tore across central Europe, bringing torrential rain and winds of up to 125mph.

In January, 136 passengers escaped unhurt when a British Airways Boeing 777 crash-landed short of the runway at London's Heathrow Airport.

[exeng]

Doesn't the B777 have main gear with features similar to the B52?

No it doesn't. As I remember the aft pair of wheels on the main wheel bogies of the 777 are 'steerable', rather like the 'body gear' is on a 747. You cannot align the main gear with the rwy C/L in a xwind as I understand you can do on a B52.


Regards
Exeng

[PitotTube]

What time UTC did it happen? News are reporting winds up to 155 mph during landing which is equivalent to 135 knots.

EDDH 012350Z 26015KT CAVOK 06/03 Q0997 NOSIG=
EDDH 012320Z 27014KT CAVOK 05/02 Q0997 NOSIG=
EDDH 012250Z 27013KT CAVOK 05/02 Q0997 NOSIG=
EDDH 012220Z 27013KT 9999 FEW023 SCT070 05/02 Q0998 NOSIG=
EDDH 012150Z 28014KT 9999 SCT023 BKN060 05/02 Q0998 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 012120Z 27013KT 9999 FEW023 BKN060 06/01 Q0998 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 012050Z 27017KT 9999 FEW023 BKN070 06/02 Q0998 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 012020Z 28020G33KT 9999 FEW023 BKN070 06/01 Q0997 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 011950Z 28019KT 9999 FEW023 BKN070 07/01 Q0997 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 011920Z 28020G30KT 9999 FEW023 BKN035 06/02 Q0997 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 011850Z 28022G37KT 9999 FEW023 BKN035 06/01 Q0997 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 011820Z 28022G38KT 9999 BKN025 07/02 Q0996 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 011750Z 28021G34KT 9999 SCT023 06/02 Q0996 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 011720Z 28026G42KT 9999 -SHRA FEW012 BKN023 07/02 Q0995 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 011650Z 29023G35KT 9999 BKN025 07/02 Q0994 TEMPO 30030G45KT=
EDDH 011620Z 29025G37KT 9999 FEW015 SCT033 07/01 Q0994 TEMPO 30035G50KT=
EDDH 011550Z 29026G44KT 9999 FEW025 SCT050 BKN120 07/01 Q0993 TEMPO 30035G55KT=
EDDH 011520Z 30023G42KT 9000 -SHRA FEW014 BKN024 06/03 Q0992 TEMPO 30035G55KT=
EDDH 011450Z 29027G40KT 8000 BKN035 07/01 Q0991 TEMPO 30035G55KT=
EDDH 011420Z 29029G43KT 8000 -SHRA BKN029 07/02 Q0990 TEMPO 30035G55KT=
EDDH 011350Z 29030G44KT 8000 BKN029 BKN120 07/02 Q0989 TEMPO 30035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008=
EDDH 011320Z 29029G44KT 8000 -SHRA BKN023 07/03 Q0987 TEMPO 4000 SHRA BKN008=
EDDH 011250Z 30030G49KT 8000 FEW015 BKN020 08/04 Q0986 TEMPO 4000 SHRA BKN008=
EDDH 011220Z 29028G48KT 9000 -SHRA FEW011 BKN014 07/05 Q0984 TEMPO 29035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008=
EDDH 011150Z 28023G37KT 9999 FEW013 BKN017 08/06 Q0983 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRA BKN008=
EDDH 011120Z 28021G33KT 9999 -SHRA FEW012 BKN015 08/05 Q0983 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008CB=
EDDH 011050Z 28019G34KT 9000 -SHRA FEW013 BKN017 07/05 Q0982 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008CB=
EDDH 011020Z 27021G32KT 8000 -SHRA FEW013 BKN017 07/05 Q0981 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008CB=
EDDH 010950Z 27016G32KT 9000 -SHRA FEW013TCU BKN018 07/05 Q0981 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008CB=
EDDH 010920Z 27021G33KT 9999 -SHRA FEW015TCU BKN022 07/05 Q0981 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008CB=
EDDH 010850Z 27012G28KT 9999 -SHRA FEW015TCU BKN022 07/04 Q0980 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008CB=
EDDH 010820Z 26017G29KT 9000 -SHRA FEW015TCU BKN022 07/05 Q0980 RERA TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008CB=
EDDH 010750Z 27013G27KT 7000 -SHRA FEW015 BKN022 07/04 Q0980 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008CB=
EDDH 010720Z 27017G30KT 9999 -SHRA FEW015 BKN022 07/04 Q0980 TEMPO 28025G45KT=
EDDH 010650Z 27018G28KT 9000 FEW015CB BKN022 07/04 Q0979 TEMPO 28025G45KT=
EDDH 010620Z 28013G31KT 9999 -SHRA FEW012 SCT015CB BKN025 06/04 Q0978 RERA TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008=
EDDH 010550Z 28016G30KT 9999 -SHRA FEW012 SCT015CB BKN025 07/05 Q0978 REGS TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRAGS BKN008=
EDDH 010520Z 25014KT 9000 SHRAGS FEW012 SCT015CB BKN025 06/05 Q0978 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 BKN008=
EDDH 010450Z 25010G24KT 9999 -RA FEW013 BKN022 06/05 Q0977 RERA TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRA BKN008=
EDDH 010420Z 24008G18KT 9999 RA FEW015 BKN026 BKN120 06/05 Q0978 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 BKN008=
EDDH 010350Z 24011KT 9999 RA FEW015 BKN028 BKN100 06/05 Q0978 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 BKN008=
EDDH 010320Z 24011KT 9999 -RA FEW015 BKN034 BKN100 06/04 Q0979 RERA TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 SHRA BKN008=
EDDH 010250Z 25009G20KT 9000 RA FEW008 SCT014 BKN023 06/04 Q0980 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 BKN008=
EDDH 010220Z 28016G28KT 7000 RA FEW008 SCT014 OVC025 06/04 Q0981 TEMPO 28025G45KT 4000 BKN008=
EDDH 010150Z 27020G30KT 4500 +RA SCT008 BKN014 OVC024 08/06 Q0982 TEMPO 25020G40KT BKN008=
EDDH 010120Z 23015G25KT 8000 RA SCT008 BKN011 08/07 Q0982 TEMPO 25020G40KT 4000 BKN008=
EDDH 010050Z 24010G23KT 9999 -RA FEW008 BKN012 08/07 Q0983 TEMPO 22020G40KT 4000 RA BKN008=
EDDH 010020Z 23020G31KT 8000 -RA FEW008 BKN012 08/07 Q0984 TEMPO 22020G40KT 4000 RA BKN008=

[flycheaper]

For sure if a pilot during a sim session with a wind ( 290/33 gusts to 49 ) like that on a rwy 23 is able to handle the aircraft safely or like today without too much damage, i would call him a very good pilot with great skill.

I don't want in any case to judge the decision of the crew as it's always easy to criticize when you are not in the situation... but as a young pilot without so much experience, I want to learn from this incident.

So as I understand here is the situation before the beginning of the approach :
- The crew is aware of the xwind
- Since 2 days all the Germans medias broadcast a warning for a storm the Saturday morning
- The crew has heard already on the radio that others aircrafts chose to divert or chose an other R/W
- There is 131 passengers aboard which must probably will understand a delay or a diversion which such weather
- The copilot is 24, probably a good pilot but most probably she doesn't have a lot of experiences in such an adverse weather(I might be wrong;-))
- R/W 23 in HAM can be really tricky

Ok the decision is taken to do the approach...

- During the approach it must be really bumpy and uncomfortable ( for my part i did an approach friday with a steady 15 and gust 28 in the axe of the R/W, probably one of my most uncomfortable approach)
- There must be a lot of variation in the speed( Where to call for a GA for my part i think +/- 10 kts is a good limit)
- Both pilot must already be stress by the approach

Ok no GA, let's go for a tricky landing...

- Ok I am not a Bus pilot so I can't judge the xwind landing technique, but i have the impression that it's take ages to push the TOGA....

Well I think that this case will be a lot discuss during CRM courses in the future... Hopefully for the crew and the passengers saturday the holes of the Swiss cheese where not all aline..

[schoolkid]

Sky News Online
Updated:16:44, Monday March 03, 2008

A plane carrying more than 100 passengers escaped disaster by a hair's breadth as it tried to touch down in gale-force winds.

The passenger jet attempts to landThe Lufthansa passenger jet was buffeted by powerful crosswinds as it attempted to land at Hamburg airport.


From looking at the Sky News active blurb just now,they are reporting that the aircraft involved was an A380 at MUC....They really do have their wires crossed this time:E

Now an A380...that would be very interesting to see:8

[littco]

Video was just shown on the BBC news..

[BEagle]

Just shown on News at Ten.... Whose smirking talking heads (McDonut and some woman) seemed to find it terribly amusing.

W:mad:ers!!

[The Flying Pram]

Interestingly the commonly posted U tube of the Boeing 777 demonstrating max Xwind landing, seems to land on the runway offset and then "kick" it straight before lowering the nosewheel.

I've got some video from a Farnborough airshow many years ago of an Ilyushin IL96 being demonstrated. After a normal approach the pilot deliberately cross controlled it to plant the maingear down with considerable drift, before straightening up and lowering the nose. Seems to suggest that on that type (at least), and maybe some others, landing with some drift would be preferable to scraping a wing or engine.

[D&M]

Above on the thread someone mentioned "what if" it had been an A321... (remember that TAP video at LPPT)

I'd say an A321 would've touched the runway during the flare, for a similar sidestick input. Of course, had the input been different, the possibilities are immense...
I usually tend to say that the A321 in gusty winds behaves like a boat at low speeds; you give an input and wait... sometimes it's like nothing happens and it just seems to go where it wants to go! Not so much in pitch but in terms of bank...

Video links are being deleted off different websites. Here's a fresh one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQcFCy_Uyvg

We'll see how long it lasts.

[sevenstrokeroll]

CNN interviewed a passenger from the flight. At one point he felt ATC had given the pilots an impossible task, to land on the least favorable runway.

Earlier in this thread, someone reminded us that the pilot must choose the runway and if needed, wait for it.

But the really interesting thing is the video. Add to this the proposed cockpit video recorder. Wouldn't it be interesting to see the exact control inputs by the pilot flying and compare it to the video of the results?

Upon numerous viewings of this event, I must agree with an earlier poster that this is a less than perfect crosswind landing. At one point, the wings are level and it is almost as if the PF stopped working the landing. Then the right wing came up and bam the left wing hit. I think it was a bit of luck that the outcome wasn't worse than it was.

I do hope someone will post the investigative report someday. I also have to think that the airline "spun" this incident in an effort to avoid lawsuits. The real heroes are the airline pilots who never make the headlines.

If this plane had hit the right wing first, at least you would know how hard they were trying.

[Arrowhead]

Being a Bus driver, and having reviewed the video over and over again, I am going to say something apparently controversial: he made a good job of a bad situation (which he probably should not have been in the first place).

1) On the video on YouTube it looks to me like he is coming in with Conf3. Which makes sense for the 320 in these conditions - even after the ELAC upgrade has taken place.

2) The wind clearly picks up below 50ft, but he is still on the centreline (or at least the cockpit is). It does not look like he deviates significantly from it below 100agl.

3) He does drop it into the ground, with left gear touching first, then right (see the smoke in the video), and then a bounce followed by a huge gust picking up the right wing.

4) The aircraft rolls left (causing the lefty wingtip to touch), then rolls back to the right, after a short delay. But Bus drivers know that it takes about half a second from a full sidestick input to actually getting the spoilers to give a good roll rate. The photo clearly shows no spoliers deployed to correct the roll for this exact reason. And I believe THAT is the cause of the wingtip strike.

Conclusion: he was caught in a very bad situation but made a reasonable landing attempt (except perhaps choosing to land on that runway in the first place). I just hope this prompts Airbus to quicken the response times for full sidestick input on final approach (which by the way is not unusual in strong gusty crosswinds).

[Dan Winterland]

There's a lot of rubbish being talked on this thread by people who either don't fly the Airbus FBW types and don't understand how they work - or those who probably aren't pilots at all!

Demonstrated x wind limits are treated as hard limits by many companys - including mine. Up to those limits, the aircraft is perfectly manageable. There are a couple of tricks which can help, some have been mentioned here but I would recommend that they are taken with a pinch of salt as you don't know who the poster is and you may find it hard trying to explain to your chief pilot that you dented an aeroplane trying a technique you heard about on pprune!

I was a passenger in a similar landing in a 737 in the 70's where the wingtip contacted the grass at the edge of the runway. It's not the preserve of the Airbus!

[JanetFlight]

Video links are being deleted off different websites. Here's a fresh one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQcFCy_Uyvg

We'll see how long it lasts.


What i really wanted to see posted again was those other 3 clips of that same day by the same guy at HAM, but effortless it seems no one had the ideia to saved them before they disappeared only few hours after being there on Youtube...it was a 757, a 738 and a GA of another one i cannot recall now...all of them pretty scary with real Guts:ooh:
The main problem its that i dont know how to save clips from Youtube to my Disk...i really hope someone had done that...:)

[justawanab]

As a wannabe and just learning to understand METARS, can someone please enlighten me as to the meaning of the bits labelled "TEMPO"

ie:

TEMPO 30035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008=

[JanetFlight]

TEMPO 30035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008

TEMPO= A Temporary change of 2 hours or less is expected during the forecast period.

[PA38-Pilot]

1) On the video on YouTube it looks to me like he is coming in with Conf3. Which makes sense for the 320 in these conditions - even after the ELAC upgrade has taken place.

As a soon-to-be 'bus driver, could you explain which ELAC updates are you talking about?

Thanks!

[sevenstrokeroll]

dan

you mentioned a 737 that hit its wingtip many years ago...was it the wingtip lowered into the wind or away from the wind?

[HarryMann]

This is called "Learn to Love Left Crosswind."

With the wind from the left you get the gusts more on the nose -> good :)

Whereas with the crosswind from the right, as in this case, the gusts veer to worsen the situation -> bad :(

This is why that was almost certainly the wrong runway...

[ABX]

Answering as a gunnabe also:

I think TEMPO = a temporary forecast or wx report, usually given for a specific amount of time, ie. 15-30 minutes after which it expires.

If I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be informed!:}

[PJ2]

PA38-Pilot;

The ELAC upgrade occured a number of years ago now. It was discovered that the aileron control was a bit too aggressive in Config Full and that in gusty, (possible shear) conditions, Airbus recommended Config 3 vice Config Full for the landing. Although the following article deals more with the ALPHA protection, it may lend some insights into the ELAC change itself. Here is what I found on a quick google. There will be others here who will perhaps take this further. For those who may need it, I offer the caution that this is taken off the internet and I can't verify it's accuracy.

This information is historical in nature and not intended for current operations. As always, the AOM is the only reference.

Software Changes Being Made to Help Prevent Landing Mishaps (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_25_15/ai_75641543/print)


A February 7 landing accident of an Iberia A320 in Spain has prompted manufacturer Airbus Industrie to develop a modification to its flight control software. It will prevent the airplane's built-in protection against stall from being activated by a high rate of change in angle of attack.

The software change is intended to help pilots safely land their airplanes in gusty wind conditions, as was the case in the accident.

It has been widely reported in other media that Airbus was expanding the allowable angle of attack (AOA) the pilots could apply in its computer- controlled fly-by-wire A320/A319 aircraft. This is not the case. Rather, the modification returns to the threshold AOA criterion for stall protection that was certified originally in 1988.

Until the software change is distributed to the fleet, Airbus has advised A319 and A320 operators to maintain a higher speed when landing in gusty wind conditions and to limit landing slats and trailing edge flaps to Configuration 3. At this setting, one step short of full slat/flap deployment, the slats are at 22? and the flaps are at 20?. The guidance applies to a worldwide A319/A320 fleet of some 1,270 aircraft.

In related action, the French DGAC (Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile) issued an airworthiness directive (AD) in early April requiring A320/A319 operators to fly at least 10 knots faster and to use only a setting of "CONFIG 3" during approach with gusts higher than 10 knots or when moderate to severe turbulence is expected on short final. The AD also mandates an immediate go-around if the GPWS "Sink rate" alert sounds below 200 feet. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued comparable guidance, contained in AD-2001- 08-26, which has an effective date of May 11. This is only part of the interim story. Both the French and the U.S. ADs are being modified to permit autoland operations without flap restrictions under the same environmental conditions.

The Airbus software change deals with the so-called "alpha protection" designed into the airplane's computerized flight control system to prevent excessive angles of attack. The alpha protection, designed to guard against stalling the airplane, is one of the crown jewels of the Airbus flight control system.

Since the advent of the fly-by-wire A320 in 1988, Airbus officials have hailed the added margin of safety provided by their alpha protection feature. In the approach to stall regime, alpha protection limits the amount of pitch-up that can be commanded, thereby preventing too high an angle of attack (AOA). Should the situation deteriorate further in the approach to stall regime, the alpha floor protection also will apply take-off go-around thrust (TOGA).

In the Iberia case, two aspects of the alpha protection feature apply. One is the angle of attack (AOA). The flight control laws programmed into the computers will not allow the aircraft to exceed a predetermined AOA, based on the aircraft's weight and configuration.

The other aspect governing alpha protection is the rate at which AOA is allowed to change before reaching the protection limit. The alpha protection is triggered by two combined conditions: a threshold AOA and the rate of AOA change. To change the outcome in dynamic wind conditions near the ground, Airbus plans to modify the software to eliminate pitch rate as a controlling factor in alpha protection. In plain language, with the rate of change in the value of AOA being removed, the modification basically reverts the software to an earlier standard where pitch rate was not part of alpha protection (the pitch-rate limitation was installed as a result of post-1988 flight tests). The software change, contrary to some reports, does not alter the allowable AOA. However, Airbus officials said the change stems directly from the Bilbao accident. By implication, pilots will have a greater ability to control the rate of pitch change, which should help them to better cope with dynamic wind conditions during landing.

Accident details
During a nighttime flight from Barcelona to Bilbao, the pilots of Iberia (Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana) Flight 1456 were planning to land their A320 with 136 passengers and seven crew on Runway 30 at Bilbao's Sondica Airport. As it was a training flight, there were three pilots in the cockpit.

During their final ILS approach, the aircraft encountered heavy turbulence at about 200 feet above the ground (AGL). With gusts up to 65 mph., the winds were much more severe than the 9-10 mph winds at 240? with light turbulence initially reported to the crew. The aircraft encountered a 1.25G updraft, then below 150 ft. the airplane encountered a potent downdraft. The first officer as the pilot flying (PF) pulled back his sidestick to arrest the rate of descent. The downdraft was followed by a tailwind gust as the aircraft was just 70 feet AGL.

The dramatic and sudden shifts in wind direction and intensity are the classic symptoms of windshear. The airport is not equipped with windshear detection technology, although Spanish pilots reportedly have been calling for its installation. The Iberia crew had not been advised previously by local control that three aircraft had tried unsuccessfully to land at Bilbao and had diverted to their planned alternates. Sources advise that the airport's conditions contributed to two other weather-related accidents during the preceding 15 days and to three other accidents in the previous five months.

When the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) alerted the crew with a "Sink rate" warning, the captain called for a go-around while pulling on the sidestick - reportedly without pressing his priority control button.
Protection triggered

The combination of dynamic winds and crew actions created a situation that triggered the airplane's alpha protection system. As the crew applied TOGA power for a go-around, with both pilots pulling back on their sidesticks, the alpha protection law reduced the elevator nose-up command. Instead of a go- around, the aircraft struck the runway with a vertical speed Airbus officials relate was some 1,200 feet per minute (fpm). The airplane would normally descend at a rate of about 500-600 fpm and, depending on the pilot's skills and his discretion in the last moment during flare, it would descend at a rate of 50-120 fpm. The 1,200 fpm descent rate translates to about 20 feet per second, slightly less than the certification requirement of 21.3 feet per second.

In the landing at Bilbao, the main gear and the nose landing gear all struck at virtually the same time, and the nose gear collapsed under the force of impact (one report, unconfirmed, has the airplane bouncing once and the nose gear collapsing on the second impact). The airplane continued some 3,280 feet down the runway before coming to a stop. During the subsequent emergency evacuation, some of the crew and four passengers received minor injuries. One passenger, a 75-year old woman, was hospitalized. The aircraft, only six months old, received substantial damage to the engine nacelles and the wing structure. Sources say it may be a total loss.

The accident is being investigated by the Spanish CIAI (Comision de Investigacion de Accidents e Incidentes). This body may have its work cut out for it. No two of the publicly available descriptions of the final sequence of events agree. As one veteran A320 pilot remarked, "There is a lot going on here." Consider, he said, there's (1) windshear. (2) The aircraft is below 50 feet. (3) The aircraft is in the flare mode. (4) Take off go-around (TOGA) has been commanded. (5) Both sidesticks are being pulled back without use of the priority button. As he put the matter colorfully, using a "rope" metaphor to describe the aircraft's computerized flight control system, in the Bilbao accident "there are five guys pulling on the rope."

'Strictly Adhere' To These Procedures
Extracts of Airbus Industrie Operations Engineering Bulletin No. 146/1
Reason for issue: An A320 operator encountered a case of unexpected activation of high AOA protection during flare.

Analysis:
The AOA protection law can be triggered by AOAs lower than the stated threshold due to the advance phase term introduced in ELAC (elevator/aileron computer) L80. This advance term is only activated by sidestick input...

The combination of specific wind gradient/updraft and pilot inputs...caused the aircraft to enter the high AOA protection, which prevented the normal flare.

Note: During extensive simulator sessions, including simulation of the encountered wind gradient/updraft, it was difficult to reproduce the event, unless specific sidestick inputs were performed in a specific sequence and timeframe. (ASW note: What this is all saying is that under specific gusty conditions, the protection logic could restrict nose-up elevator orders.)

Procedures:
For approach to runways:
With known gusty environments, especially if these conditions generate vertical gusts due to the surrounding terrain,
Or,
When the reported gust wind increment (max. wind minus average wind) is greater than 10 kt.
Or
Where moderate to severe turbulence is expected on short final,

The flight crew should strictly adhere to the following procedure:
- Use CONF 3 for approach and landing.
- Minimum VAPP (approach speed) is VLS (lowest selectable speed at CONF 3) + 10 kt. The recommendation to use managed speed remains valid.
- Correct the landing distance for the speed increment (ASW note: With a 20% adjustment in landing distance, this guidance can reduce the choice of airports with limited runway conditions.)
- If the "SINK RATE" GPWS warning occurs below 200 ft., immediately initiate a go-around.

Source: Airbus

The Changes Explained

Airbus Industrie responds to the pertinent questions:

ASW: What is being changed?
Airbus: As presently implemented, the logic that triggers the Alpha Protection law is based on two values: Angle of Attack (Alpha), and the rate at which Alpha is changing. This latter term was added to the logic recently (two years ago) as part of an enhancement of the aircraft behavior following some flight test work showing that very aggressive pitch inputs could result in transient exceedance of alpha max. However, as the experience at Bilbao demonstrated, this additional rate, or anticipatory term, could prematurely trigger alpha protection law under a very specific set of circumstances, viz., a combination of severe vertical and horizontal gusts and aggressive flight control inputs, that could result in a hard landing. To minimize the probability of this, the decision was made to revert to a definition close to the previous one; i.e., alpha protection will be triggered only by alpha, with the rate of change term deleted.

ASW: Is the change being made as an outgrowth of the accident at Bilbao?
Airbus: Yes, the decision to delete the rate term was made directly as a result of the experience at Bilbao.

ASW: If it does not affect AOA, why is the stretch A321 not affected?
Airbus: The A321 is not affected because the logic change for alpha protection was never made on the A321; due to the dynamic response characteristics of the longer fuselage on that aircraft, the issue noted during the flight tests mentioned above did not apply. (ASW note: the A320 is 123 ft. long (37.57m), and the A321 is 146 ft. long (44.51m). The angle between the ground and the tailcone on the A320 is 13.3?, and the angle from the ground to the tailcone on the longer A321 is 11.13?)

ASW: If the change is a reversion to previous software, why does it need approval of the certifying authorities?
Airbus: Certification is of the entire Elevator Aileron Computer (ELAC) software package. In the new standard the only change is the alpha protection law, however it is still necessary to re-certify the entire Elevator and Aileron Computer (ELAC) software package.

ASW: How would this change have helped to prevent the accident at Bilbao?
Airbus: Analysis of the Bilbao data has shown that alpha protection law was triggered by a very specific combination of environmental factors including vertical gusts and wind shear, and pilot inputs. As noted previously, this unique combination of circumstances triggered alpha protection because one of the two logic conditions that could trigger alpha protection was met: a very high rate of change of alpha along with large amplitude side stick inputs from the pilots. In the absence of this rate of change term, alpha protection law would not have been triggered. Very precise timing was necessary to reproduce the Bilbao event on a simulator. Intensive simulator and flight tests proved that the new software would have worked as planned in Bilbao.

ASW: From various accounts, the pilots were thwarted in their attempt to go-around. Would not a TOGA command override? Even if their airplane has contacted the runway, as a general proposition aren't the systems designed to allow the pilots to execute a go-around?
Airbus: Because of the premature triggering of alpha protection law caused by the combination of aggressive maneuvering and severe vertical gusts, side stick input was commanding angle of attack, not load factor, as is normally the case. During the Bilbao event, the crew selected TOGA (take off and go- around) thrust, and the engines spooled up to TOGA rating. However, the selection of TOGA thrust has no relation to the fly-by-wire control laws and, therefore, could not result in any "override" of alpha protection. The solution to the problem noted in Bilbao is to avoid the early triggering of alpha protection law in the first place, which is what the new ELAC standard accomplishes.

ASW: When is revised software to be distributed? Will the temporary recommended restrictions in gusty conditions be lifted at that time?
Airbus: Distribution of the revised ELAC standard will begin immediately upon certification. However, due to production and installation time requirements, we estimate it will be as long as one year before the entire fleet of aircraft has been modified. In the meantime, the temporary operating limitations will remain in place for all unmodified aircraft. These restrictions no longer will apply to an airplane once the new ELAC standard has been installed. It should be noted that operating restrictions also do not apply to autoland approaches, and under the terms of the Airbus OEB (Operations Engineering Bulletin), if autoland is otherwise approved, autoland approaches may be made without operating restrictions.

ASW: From what is known, did the Iberia airplane hit alpha protection or alpha max?
Airbus: Due to the early triggering of the alpha protection law in combination with a wind shear encountered after alpha protection was triggered, neither alpha protection nor alpha max was reached. The max value of alpha reached was less than alpha prot or alpha max.

ASW: Somewhere below 150 ft., but it's not clear where, both pilots reportedly pulled full aft side stick (FO was PF). If, say, the captain pulled aft side stick, while overlooking the need to press his priority button, the sum of the two pitch inputs might be greater than alpha max. What would the airplane do: 1) Not respond, 2) go to alpha max, or 3) go to alpha protection and maintain there?
Airbus: Simultaneous side stick inputs are summed only to the point where the command equals the equivalent of a single, full-stick command. In the event of dual side stick inputs that exceed the value of maximum deflection on a single side stick, the aircraft would respond as if there was a single, maximum input on one stick. These inputs were done below 50 ft, two seconds before impact.

ASW: At around 50 ft. AGL, during the transition to landing flare law, the airplane is programmed to nose over about 2? over an 8 second period, using as a reference point the last side stick position. If TOGA has been commanded, would it override, or would this lowering of the nose in the flare somehow conflict with the need for the nose to pitch up to execute a go-around?
Airbus: Phasing in a nose down input during the final stages of a landing is done to give the pilots the "feel" of a normal flare. In order to hold the desired pitch attitude during the flare, the pilot must make increasing aft stick inputs, thus making the aircraft behave conventionally from a pilot's point of view. When TOGA thrust is commanded, the engines spool up to TOGA thrust and the Flight Director provides pitch guidance to the pilot. TOGA thrust selection has no relation with the flare law of the fly-by-wire system and therefore does not affect the 2? nose-over feature.

[E.Z. Flyer]

That was awful. Sudden loss in altitude on short final. At least or an apparent 30 degrees of heading into the wind? No slip angle, but only to continue to drop (only this time a loss of control to the wings, one, and then the other), steer off and away from the lift, and be overtaken by the cross-wind. Jibe Ho!

[PA38-Pilot]

PJ2, thanks! Great reading.

[JuniorMan]

This is all just excellent PR by LH. Call the pilot a hero and tell the media the winds were gusting to 155MPH. Ridiculous!:*

[BRE]

Frankfurter Rundschau (probably the best nationwide newspaper we have, compareable to the Guardian) today ran an interview with the head of Cockpit (the German equivalent of ALPA), who happens to be an LH pilot.
1. the airline does take into account gusts and these are hard limits
2. the approach was legal
3. atc was legal in offering the runway
4. it was all basically plain bad luck
5. it was not all that dramatic or dangerous

This may be a case of a union leader covering a member, but Cockpit has been known to be very strict on safety issues and take on LH if needed. So if all of the above are thruthful, then the limits need examination. How can we allow bad lack to play a role?

Also, from the main article, plane and crew are back in service.


edit: links

article (will disappear after a few days):
http://www.fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/magazin/?em_cnt=1297487

interview:
http://www.fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/magazin/?em_cnt=1297726

[JanetFlight]

Check these 3 App here resulting in 3 G/A at Shonai Sakata, also due to Nasty Winds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMbqSqglP_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l6WKdiZz5c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvBv4Dvgdyo

Same ANA 763...Cool;)

[ron83]

TEMPO= A Temporary change of 2 hours or less is expected during the forecast periodI always thought it's temporary change for a period of less than 60 minutes...

[Mr. Maximus]

Hard to figure out which was worse - the complete breakdown/lack of ADM or the piss poor technique. :eek:

I'm against MMQB as much as anyone - but seriously that was a pathetic display of decision making and flight "skills".

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Check these 3 App here resulting in 3 G/A at Shonai Sakata, also due to Nasty Winds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMbqSqglP_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l6WKdiZz5c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvBv4Dvgdyo

Same ANA 763...Cool;)

TOGA, TOGA, TOGA!

[llondel]

JanetFlight:
The main problem its that i dont know how to save clips from Youtube to my Disk...i really hope someone had done that...

It's easy on Linux, this will do it. It should also work on Windows if you've got Python (http://www.python.org/download/windows/) installed.

http://www.arrakis.es/~rggi3/youtube-dl/

[manrow]

LH vs AZ (Germany Vs Italy)
For once the Italians can be proud of being more efficient than the Germans...this AZ MD11 did definitely better than the LH A320.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1w4K...eature=related



Agreed, but that MD11 pilot adopted the recommended technique of NOT kicking all the drift of until after main wheel touchdown.

[Bobbsy]

Well, the video has now made it onto Australia TV too...and keeping up the tradition of accurate journalism, here's a new twist:

According the Channel 7 here, the reason the plane was crabbing to the right was that...a gust of wind from the left caught the nose and blew it off line!

...but don't worry. The same report said the wing tip ALMOST touched the ground, but didn't. I guess the damage in those photos was just normal wear and tear! The flight crew were characterised as heroes though but ATC is under investigation for "ordering them to land".

I submit this one as the WORST report so far. It even beats the 150mph winds.

Bobbsy

[satos]

A couple of years ago in Melbourne Australia a Thai Airways A340-600 port wing tip hit the runway during gusty conditions.The L/H main gear,wing tip was damaged and a couple of burst tires was the result of this mishap.I was wondering could it be an airbus inherent problem as boeings seem to handle these conditions much better.

[grizzled]

Well done.

As a professional in this business I find these forums to be at times enlightening and engaging, while too often uniformed and even juvenile in tone and attitude. If all posts (or even the majority) were half as as good as your last one, these forums would be a great place to spend more time.

Again, bravo and thanks.

[Nickctaylor]

Assuming the BBC did some checks it is available on their front page. Ten minutes later there was a safe landing according to voice over

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

[FatFlyer]

Question for Bus drivers-( i will have to leave a comfy 737 for one later in the year)
There seems to be some disagreement between you on this thread about what the stick does at low level, does it command control deflection (direct law? like a boeing) or do you still get roll rate commanded (ie stick central=wings level)? or depends on other factors/no one knows/not sure ?

[csrster]

From The Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/weirdwiredweb/february2008/germany.htm) "A German passenger jet carrying 137 people has had a narrow escape in an incident reminiscent of the Heathrow crash landing in January." "Reminiscent", presumably, in the sense that they both involved passenger jets trying to land at European airports. I'm finding it hard to think of any other similarities, except possibly that the number of people on board was in three digits in each case. The Telegraph also repeats the claim of 155mph winds. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif Maybe somebody thought the knots were actually metres per second and doubled them to get miles per hour???

[Right Way Up]

FCOM 1.27.20 A320 series.

When the aircraft is in the "in flight" mode, normal law combines control of the ailerons, spoilers (except N° 1 spoilers), and rudder (for turn coordination) in the sidestick. While the system thereby gives the pilot control of the roll and heading, it also limits the roll rate and bank angle, coordinates the turns, and damps the dutch roll.

The roll rate requested by the pilot during flight is proportional to the sidestick deflection, with a maximum rate of 15° per second when the sidestick is at the stop.

When the aircraft is in "flare" mode, the lateral control is the same as in "in flight" mode.

After touchdown, the aircraft smoothly transitions from "in flight" mode to "ground" mode.


So no change until after touchdown.

[bsieker]

There seems to be some disagreement between you on this thread about what the stick does at low level, does it command control deflection (direct law? like a boeing) or do you still get roll rate commanded

Here's what the FCOM has to say on crosswind landings in the landing SOP (may be slightly different for different carriers ...):

Routine use of into wind aileron is not recommended, because sidestick deflection commands the roll rate until touchdown.

I. e. as the airbus pilots here have said, roll control stays in normal law until touchdown, "flare mode" superimposes a nose-down movement over the pitch stick deflection (load-factor demand).

(ie stick central=wings level)?

That is not quite accurate. Stick centered means, bank angle stays where it is up to 33 degrees, or returns to 33 degrees if it was more.


Bernd

[TurboTomato]

Reported on GMTV this morning and pilot hailed a 'hero'.

[Bearcat]

a hero?:uhoh:

[OSCAR YANKEE]

"Converted" to the A319 from 737 about 10 mths ago.
I have about 3000 hrs on 733, 734,735,737 & 738, and only around 500 hrs on the bus.
So I am not the most experienced around......
With all the technicalities aside (FBW, roll rate, software etc.) the bottom line is the bus is just harder to land well in gusty conditions.
Most of the time (said with due reference to my thus far limited experience on the bus) it ends up allright, but sometimes leaves you with the sensation that is was'nt all you that did this. :confused:

It is not unsafe, I think its just the lack of tactile feedback that leaves you with a feeling, that is very much different to the feeling of landing a conventional aircraft. All the aircraft I have flown from the PA28 up to the Airbus have been conventional - thus basically requiring the same technique, all of a "sudden" comes a beast that IMHO is superior in any other aspect than the last 50 ft on a windy and gusty day.
The experienced guys in my present company says that it takes some time getting used too, but after a while you just do.

All that beeing said, you can allways GO-Around.

Lets wait and see what the BFU comes up with in the end......

OY

[DozyWannabe]

satos:
I was wondering could it be an airbus inherent problem as boeings seem to handle these conditions much better.
You *could* read that into it, but it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. As many more knowledgeable than me have confirmed, Airbus control logic means that you handle the sidestick in a different way in crosswind conditions than you would a yoke in a Boeing, as the sidestick commands roll *rate* directly, whereas the yoke commands aileron deflection. Therefore cross-control will feel very different between types - the word is "different", not better or worse.

I'm wondering whether some of these incidents are a subconscious reversion to older control methods in moments of stress.

[TheKabaka]

Bernd

Everything you said is correct but

Stick centered means, bank angle stays where it is up to 33 degrees, or returns to 33 degrees if it was more.



Is not quite the full story with the stick central if a gust upsets the attitude the bus will hold the new attitude and the pilot must still use the stick to return to wings level. Keeping the stck central does not mean the wings will be leveled for you only that you have asked for not change in roll rate (rate = 0)

[GMDS]

Not wanting to qualify the pilot and by no means implying of being the better one, this attempted landing is not really a success, much less a heroic act.

The final seems steady, with a distinct drift. On short final the pilot loses the centreline. This happens quite often with the larger aircraft as pilots tend to line up the cockpit and forget to do this with the center gear. If this happens a GA should be flown. Reason being is, if you correct late to continue, the last track is amended, away from the runway track. Perfectly visible here as the aircraft slides towards the upwind edge of the runway. This amendment then coincides with the flare and decrab. Out of this situation a (at least partial) decrab becomes necessary to align with the runway track. Mostly such a decrab will be more than usual and accompanied with a roll input to compensate. At the same time the AB logic kicks in with its own roll command (to keep the latest vector, which was not the one desired, see above). The double input on the roll will be slightly too big, leading to the pilots reaction to unroll. The wing comes up and will get additional lift from the wind. This, with the somewhat bigger rudder input, leads to a unwanted drift to downwind, demonstrated here again, as the aircraft ends up on the downwind edge of the runway.

Lesson: With a Airbus it is even more vital to stay on centreline (the one of the gear). Any deviation on short final is hugely difficult to undo, as the computer tries his part as well and in such brief time frames you end up fighting each other. A decrab technique is nice in steady wind conditions, but very tricky with gusts, thus the AB recommendation not to do so. I know these landings hurt the pride of all pilots, but if the technology does not allow it, go for the uncomfortable landing instead of the dangerous hit and GA.

[calypso]

I'm wondering whether some of these incidents are a subconscious reversion to older control methods in moments of stress

That could be if the aircraft was over banking into wind and they touched with the into wind winglet. In this incident, and a very similar one in Bilbao only a couple of months ago
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=308926&highlight=iberia+bilbao
the aircraft banks aggressively to leeward ie not enough into wind aileron, not enough conventional technique. This problem starts when the rudder is used to straighten the aircraft this creates an associated (and predictable) banking moment unfortunately once the windward wing begins to raise the problem quickly gets worse because the wing catches the ever greater exposed surface, the leeward gear touches down and provides the wrong momentum.

The only solution I can see is to pro-actively flick the windward wing down as you squeeze the rudder to straighten the aircraft in the flare. The FBW needs a little helping hand here as it is obviously not quick enough to correct the wing drop associated with the rudder input.

[skadi]

I bet a helicopter pilot wouldn't consider landing in conditions like that, he'd divert immediately due to good airmanship and judgement ;) hehe


But as a helicopter you dont need a runway, in most cases you land into the wind, especially in high wind conditions you dont have to accept xwind....

skadi

[coopervane]

Have not read all the posts on here but it seems most comments are about cross wind limits, get home itus,Boeing v Airbus and are you a stick and rudder man.

My first thoughts on watching the video are releif after watching it climb away but then turned to thoughts of airframe stresses.

After the AA A300-600 accident where the fin parted company with the aircraft after a boot full of rudder,I do hope Lufthansa will carry out NDT testing of the fin attachment lugs on this A320. The rate of yaw and the speed the aircraft reacted must have put an awful strain on the airframe.

Although the speed in this instance was somewhat less, the violent activity displayed can only have pushed the flight envelope to the limit.

Lastly I would like to say well done to the crew for not losing the plot at the critical moment which could so easily have happened and ended in disaster. The arguments about whether or not an approach should have been made are a seperate issue, but once a committed you have to go with the live situation.

I guess this is a classic demonstation that compared to the power of nature, the difference between a large airliner and a small single is such an insignificant one.

Coop & Bear:D

[Georgey]

Come on guys, this is all getting a bit in depth.

We just land the thing. Look outside, squeeze the drift and keep the wings level. Sometimes a little cross control is needed but so what?

All being said about the theory and laws, its still an aircraft, I remember the number one rule - fly the aircraft.

[CaptainProp]

F4F - Cool, you don't have to agree with me! :p I have not killed anyone yet after 10 years of "conventional" aircraft and airbus landings! :ok:

When I started flying the airbus I did some line-training with a VERY experienced airbus driver. On one of my first days with this guy we had some quite strong and gusty winds and I asked him for some "airbus" hints. His said "Don't think airbus, think landing an aircraft. You have landed before haven't you??!" with a big grin on his face. :ok:

Looks like the worst weather is over for this time anyway.
Happy landings!

CP

[AndyGiov]

GMDS, you wrote:


At the same time the AB logic kicks in with its own roll command (to keep the latest vector, which was not the one desired, see above).


How does this AB logic work? May you give some more details?


Thanks

[CaptainProp]

Georgey - 100% Correct! :ok:

[Bis47]

Much controversy about "direct law" and "roll control".

But think about it ...

Direct law (or direct control linkage) :
Right stick, proportional right aileron up.
Assuming no secondary effect (or secondary effects being properly corrected) : right aileron up => roughly proportional roll rate to the right.=> Roll rate in proportion to stick defection in normal conditions.

Airbus "roll control" law :
Right stick, proportional right roll - whathever secondary effects might happen. Perhaps the electronic processing of the signal would take a few milli seconds?

I see no reason, in theory, for a lack of manoeuvrabilty due to the Airbus "roll law" ...

Stick to the right = roll to the right - looks like a very pleasant feature!

Now, if the same computer can also garantee that "rudder to the right" = yaw to the right ... then the aircraft remains a "stick and rudder" flying machine ...

Actually, the Airbus recomandations for crosswind landings are quite close to the flying technique that is recommanded for a Piper or a Cessna.

But ... are we sure that we remain "stick and rudder" pilots?

Some years ago, I had to check out a F-16 fighter pilot on a C172 ... Obviously, that guy was no longer proficient whith the use of the rudder, and totally unable to properly land a small aircraft in any crosswind.
He was a good pilot and he quickly caught the trick. But the fact is that he was instructed never to cross controls on the F-16, in order "not to confuse the computers" - his own words.

I would suggest, maybe ... ;) that airlines pilots, from time to time, take a refresher course in handling a Piper Cub in some crosswind ... ? Just to make sure they remember that there is a rudder overthere ...

[GMDS]

AndyGov

I am a simple jockey and no AB freak, so i stand to be corrected or hanged by the lobby, but here is my understanding of the logic:

The AB is flown with the "demand" philosophy. You demand a track/vector/movement with the stick and the computer executes it (you let the stick go after the demand input, the demand is maintained and must be cancelled with a opposite demand). On final the demand law fades out to direct law on the pitch, meaning the stick input gets back to conventionally executing directly what input you give, irrespective of the outcome of the command versus space (you let the stick go, the elevators go back to neutral). However the roll axis remains in the demand mode. If you kick in some rudder, the computer senses a deviation in space contrary to the initial demand, and wants to correct it thus applying some roll.

[rubik101]

Hero, by definition, is someone who does something heroic or outstanding.
I would suggest that the LH pilot was doing exactly what he is paid to do. Fly the aircraft. As did the Iberia pilot in Bilbao, incidentally.
The fact that the wing-tip touched the runway in one instance and not in the other makes no difference. The correct decision was made, to Go-Around, land and go home for dinner and a glass of wine.
Whatever happened that day is not cause for me or indeed any of you so-called professionals to post judgement the pilot. He was landing within the limits of the aircraft and de facto, his own as he is a LH Captain. The fact that a gust caught him out at the critical point in the landing does NOT mean, most emphatically, that he is anything less than a competent and well qualified pilot.
I would just say this to some of you; were you flying last week in the extreme weather that obtained over large tracts of Europe? If not, then please refrain from posting an opinion about the qualifications of the pilot.
How many years have you been flying as the handling pilot, in all and every weather condition imaginable, and perhaps some unimaginable, since you obtained that coveted license? Enough to be sure that you can land in those conditions that the LH Captain experienced last week?
Enough to be sure that you would have made the decision to divert to another airport much sooner? And where would you have gone? The whole of Europe was suffering the same met conditions last week so the closest, longest runway will always be the preferred choice. (Unless you happen to know of one into wind!)
All this talk of direct law and squeezing crab off at the appropriate time amount to nothing more than a lot of hot air. As has been mentioned, it's an aircraft, fly the airplane and land it as well as you can in the circumstances.
Extreme weather, which it undoubtedly was, make for extreme situations and I, along with a few other enlightened souls on this thread, salute the pilot for his quick reactions and obvious skill in retrieving a critical situation.
If you tell me he shouldn't have got himself into such a critical situation in the first place then all I can say to you is, show me the pilot who never misjudged a situation and I will show you a rank amateur, fair-weather air head who thinks he is superior to his peers. Believe me, if you think that, then God help you and God help us all.
I would rather trust my life with him than some of the so-called 'experts' who frequent these pages.
Well done, that man!

[worrab]

Out of interest, it would seem that the secondary effect of applying rudder would tend to increase the bank angle and drop the into-wind wing onto the tarmac. Does the Airbus computer take account of this and do anything to mitigate the effect?

[fireflybob]

I always understood that sidestick in the middle in Normal Law meant zero rate of roll commanded. So in theory once you have levelled the wings and centred the sidestick the wings will remain level. When you start getting close to the ground (50 FT RA) you go into direct law, which means you now have to work at keeping the wings level in the conventional way. Maybe this changeover in Law is where you might get caught out should a wing drop. Up to that point you have been used to not having to make a correction (in roll) to keep the wings level but after you have to correct.

[PBL]

I just realised that we did not have the 2001 Bilbao accident report in our compendium of Computer-Related Incidents with Commercial Aircraft (http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/compendium/) but it is there now, for anyone who wishes to read it.

PBL

[Wader2]

Rubik,

I watched the video on the TV News. It looked to be an extremely professional recovery with no apparent warning. One moment the aircraft appeared stable, right wing down and on course for a safe touchdown.

Moments after the accident the aircraft was again in a stable and level attitude but to the left of the runway and in the recovery.

It appeared to be well handled, skillfully recovered and flown off safely.

[Right Way Up]

Fireflybob,
There is no change in roll control until touchdown. See post 184.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from rubik101 [Today, 11:59]:
All this talk of direct law and squeezing crab off at the appropriate time amount to nothing more than a lot of hot air. As has been mentioned, it's an aircraft, fly the airplane and land it as well as you can in the circumstances.
Extreme weather, which it undoubtedly was, make for extreme situations and I, along with a few other enlightened souls on this thread, salute the pilot for his quick reactions and obvious skill in retrieving a critical situation.
[Unquote]

Hear, hear !
Have resisted the temptation to contribute to this thread so far. That said, I see a lot of constructive and sensible comment on previous postings, as well as the usual uninformed anti-Airbus hysteria. Not to mention the venom from those, mainly armchair, pilots who claim that they have never been caught-out by extreme weather – and never will... :=

My first impressions of the video are that the A/C was caught by at least 2 massive gusts, well beyond the capabilities of any current airliner to accommodate. Hamburg airfield is very exposed and, surrounded by trees, is subject to low-level windshear – and particularly on Rwy 23. Experience suggests that the wind would have been gusting – from the Rwy 15 threshold end – towards the first half of Rwy 23.

For what it's worth, I do have clear views on A320 crosswind techniques. And they are based more on the fact that it is a very conventional aeroplane aerodynamically, than on the intricacies of the FBW control laws. These opinions are based on 14 years' line-flying on type (1988 - 2001). My manuals remain un-amended since my retirement, so there may have been some minor changes to FBW control logic in the meantime.

To avoid duplication, you can see my opinion via the link below, specifically on Post#56. If you go there, there is also a link to the Iberia A320 Bilbao photos on Post#63, and my comments on Post#73.

Yes, the A320 programs zero roll-rate when the stick is central, but – if displaced by a gust – the pilot has to use the stick to roll the wings level again. Any logic that tries to compensate for yaw-induced roll, during de-crab, will not cater for any accompanying gust. Read on...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=308926&page=3

PS: Wader2, Remember, this event is defined as an "incident", not an "accident"!

[fireflybob]

Right Way Up, thanks for the correction! It's a while since I have flown the A320!

[Rananim]

rubik101,
I dont think the thread as a whole has been quick to judge.Kudos has been given to the pilot for his pitch/roll control in the recovery stage.

He was landing within the limits of the aircraft and de facto, his own as he is a LH Captain.
We dont know that.The video and the recorded met say something else.

I would just say this to some of you; were you flying last week in the extreme weather that obtained over large tracts of Europe? If not, then please refrain from posting an opinion about the qualifications of the pilot.
I find this very arrogant.In the States we get stuff like this much more frequently than you guys do.Asia has monsoons/typhoons.All pilots are qualified to comment and discuss this(the issue-not the pilot I agree).

All this talk of direct law and squeezing crab off at the appropriate time amount to nothing more than a lot of hot air. As has been mentioned, it's an aircraft, fly the airplane and land it as well as you can in the circumstances.
This is NOT the impression I get from reading this thread.I have never flown Airbus(thank Christ) but it appears that it is clearly notjust like any other aircraft in this situation and that using "conventional" techniques in a cross-wind will not have the same effect in an Airbus.This is not "hot air".Its important and the crux of the discussion.
The video doesnt lie.It clearly shows incorrect technique.Do the Airbus control laws below 50' enable the pilot to manipulate his aircraft to deal with such a crosswind?In other words was it man or machine?Some have said it did exactly what it was asked to do...well,I find that hard to believe.These are important issues and worth discussing dont you think?

NO,I disagree.This has been a good thread and raised many issues like:
-choice of rwy..left vs right x-wind..vortices from buildings influencing pilots decision in rwy choice etc
-flap setting for gusts
- large track adjustment at threshold=continue OR GA
-x-wind limitations..include gusts(yes!)..demonstrated(test pilot)= HARD limitation
-calculation of x-wind component..precise calculation by chart vs guess-estimate..
-airbus vs conventional aircraft x-wind techniques/capabilities(the kernel of the discussion)
-HF..get it down now somehow vs the pain of diversion

Important stuff and what this site needs more of..............

[The Flying Pram]

The main problem its that i dont know how to save clips from Youtube to my Disk...i really hope someone had done that...If you use Firefox (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/landing/better/?utm_content=0705features&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=0507lndgpgtest&gclid=CK6klbPQ85ECFQSKMAod9ylSpw) as your browser (you mean you don't already?) there are "Add Ons" available to do this. I use "Download Helper (http://www.downloadhelper.net/)". The resulting files are normally .flv format which requires something like VLC media player (http://www.videolan.org/) to play them. These are all free open source programmes. I've just discovered that VLC has an inbuilt "screen shot capture" facility as well - Ctrl+Alt+S which is handy to take still frames out.

[Che Guevara]

Hello all,

There seems to some confusion about x-wind landings on the Airbus FBW aircraft etc.
If anyone is interested, the Airbus Safety Library on their website has an excellent set of briefing notes, in particular their Crosswind Landing Technique document.
The following URL should take you to the correct place, then simply go to Landing Techniques and Voila...

http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/ethics/safety_lib/

Hopefully this will clear up some of the misconceptions etc.

[Dream Land]

:eek: It appeared to be well handled, skillfully recovered and flown off safely.Did you watch the same video as I did, that approach was incredibly bad, tried to save it and screwed that up too.

[Ali Qadoo]

Probably setting myself up for a sound kicking, only ever having flown military single- and twin-jets, but to me it seems that in pretty horrendous conditions with a howling crosswind and in an aircraft that can be a bit of a handful (not to mention having x hundred pax down the back), it was pretty ropey airmanship to continue the approach in the first place. Having done so and bashed the wingtip on the ground in the process, surely one’s reaction should be: climb to a safe height, low speed handling check and then head for the nearest piece of into-wind concrete over 6,000’ long. The last thing you'd do would be to have another go at the same runway. In days of yore, even if it was the most junior JP on the squadron who’d done something like this, he’d have been taken behind the bike sheds for a good duffing by his flight commander for a gross act of press-on-itis.

[md4490]

My company suggests the decrab techinque...I prefer to "fly" cross control all the way to touchdown..flap3 ,top rudder ,wing down ,medium brake ,full reverse...you have to fight it a bit more but it gives (me) a better feel of how to handle the plane...the stronger the wind the earlier I start my inputs...as for wind limits only steady max 29 for a dry runway..gusts are left to Cpt. discretion...I forgot to mention that I fly the "family" 319,320,321....anyway the guy did recover and nobody got hurt...

[Kerosene Kraut]

German tabloid Bild now claims 24 yr old FO at controls during incident refering to german AAIB "BFU".

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/vermischtes/2008/03/04/pilotin/hat-vielleicht-den-sturm-jet-gelandet.html

[flown-it]

All flying machines are to a more or less degree subject to some basic laws. One of which is the roll-yaw coupling. If a plane rolls it yaws, if it yaws it rolls. Therein lies the answer to how to fly a bus, particularly if you fly a crab approach. When you "kick off the drift" you better be dropping the wing into the wind. That action also prevents a drift downwind. Finally, a bad approach rarely leads to a good landing. Trying to get back to the center line at that late stage in that weather was not the smartest move.

[F7X2007]

Now after I read that the copilot flew, I am very convinced that this is what happened: she struggled to get it back to the centerline and – helas! I made it to the touchdown! – released the control inputs (you see NO lateral input on the video or picture after touchdown). Once the upwind wing rises, the wind pushes the airplane sideways, I doubt that here was any “additional” gust.
As 3.500-hrs A320-Cpt I can only confirm what md4490 and Right Engine state: in strong crosswinds, an Airbus must be landed like any other airplane, since the physics are the same, and it works (hold that upwind wing down!)

[walk23]

The German news magazine "Der Spiegel" now also reports in its online version that the FO was flying:

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,539336,00.html

Some (translated) extracts:

"During the spectacular high wind landing attempt in Hamburg, it was the young female co-pilot who controlled the plane. The dramatic go around manoeuvre was then carried out by the experienced captain."

They also present this as if it is something that should not have been done:

"It is currently unknown why captain Oliver A. allowed his inexperienced colleague to do the approach during the storm 'Emma'".

[Sensible Garage]

google translation:

For now appears Saturday a very young co-pilot behind the bat almost nearly crash in Hamburg.

The film of the landing caused much stir. But according to Bild was not the hard wind which almost crashed Airbus, but the fact that the first pilot not behind the wheel Saturday.

The newspaper had this morning is the 39-year old pilot Oliver A. As the hero of the day presented: he saved the 133 passengers of flight LH 044, a death by exchange soon to withdraw when the landing threatened to go wrong.

Oliver was also very modest commented: "we have done our best."

Now it turns out that he probably is not in the chair Saturday, but the 24-year-old Maxi J. Bild raises the question: how is it possible that Oliver in this hard wind a late inexperienced colega countries?

The paper answers the question immediately: only in bad vision, the most experienced pilot with the bat. In hard wind applies that rule.

Lufthansa itself is a commentary on the plain: "The landing was teamwork."

[akerosid]

One thing that struck me about the handling of the two recent incidents, by CX and LH - is the vast difference between these two top class carriers. I can't help wondering what would have happened if this incident had happened with a CX aircraft? Would the crews have been returned to flying duties as quickly?

I know CX uses the "Reason model"/Swiss cheese approach to accident and incident investigation, but it occurs to me that in order for this to work effectively, there must be a very open culture, not one where a pilot/crew fears dismissal for any/every error; CX's culture - where it seems much more willing to do this - does not seem to be as conducive to optimum safety? LH's seems moreso?

(Might it also be said that the protections for employees are much greater in Germany than in HK, so CX has that much more freedom?)

Just some observations from a non-pilot ...

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Che Guevara:
Hopefully this will clear up some of the misconceptions etc.
http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/ethics/safety_lib/


It needs to be pointed out that this document is NOT specific to Airbus-FBW, but includes ALL Airbus types.

Quote from the Airbus document:
"During the flare, rudder should be applied as required to align the aircraft with the runway heading. Any tendency to roll downwind should be counteracted by an appropriate input on the sidestick ([U]or control column, as applicable)"


Notice anything significant?
Airbus makes no distinction between their FBW types and their predecessors (A300/310).

Continuing the same quote from the Airbus document:
"With higher crosswind (above 15 kt to 20 kt component), a safe landing requires:
– A crabbed-approach, and
– A partial decrab prior to touchdown, using a combination of bank angle and crab angle (achieved by applying cross-controls).
"On most Airbus models, this requires touching down with:
– [U]Maximum 5 degrees crab angle, and
– Maximum 5 degrees of bank angle."


Later quote from the Airbus document:
"In a high crosswind, [U]cross controls may have to be maintained after touchdown to prevent the into-wind wing from lifting and to counteract the weathercock effect... (etc.)..."


So, you Airbus-sceptic 737 drivers (bigots excepted), does all the above sound strangely familiar ?

The A320 is just another aeroplane. In a limiting crosswind, you can have just as much fun de-crabbing and chucking her bang on the centreline – with crossed controls and a little bit of into-wind bank – as you can on the 737. But - like any aeroplane - if you get it wrong, or the wind gusts way outside limits – mother nature will always win.

[U]NOW: can the morons stop slagging this crew off? They can see the video just as well as we can. How many of us have, in the past, been subjected to this kind of ill-informed public scrutiny when we made one of our less tidy landings? :)

Let he or she who is perfect cast the first stone...

[boofhead]

Never flew the latest Airbus types, only A310 and most Boeings, but have always been interested in the differences, with a bias.
The 'bus driver has to account for different control laws, in this situation they change, how that affects the approach only they know.
However the biggest difference seems to me to be the side-stick that does not move. In a conventional airplane you can see the amount of aileron applied by the amount of control wheel (stick) displacement and if you have enough, you can wait for a response before moving it further or reversing the direction. With a non-moving side stick, I cannot see how this type of control can be used. You must leave it to the computer, and hope the conditions are not more than the computer can handle. Why not, then, accept the fact that all you are doing is a form of auto land and simply leave the auto pilot engaged for all landings? Why have a pilot at all in the Airbus types?
And another point I have not seen discussed; what happens when, after 20 plus years of flying this type of airplane, you move back to a conventional airplane? How do you restore your basic flying skills? If you are trained to leave it all to the computer, you will not be able to handle this sort of approach problem, or many others, because your instincts have been altered to one of inaction, when in a conventional airplane direct action will be required to maintain safe control.
I have seen how hard it is for a glass pilot to go back to conventional instruments, mostly because pilots will take the easy way out and begin to rely on the computers for instrument flying rather than use raw data occasionally. Basic handling, though, is much more serious and it would not surprise me to see more accidents due to a lack of skill for pilots coming back to conventional equipment.

[Chris Scott]

PKPF68-77, If you were an aerodrome Met Forecaster, I bet our paths have crossed!

To answer your question, I'm sure ATC would not DREAM of issuing a "Trend" forecast. That's why, with the sad dparture of you guys from most UK aerodromes (many years ago), said airfields ceased to issue Trends on their METARS. Gatwick is a typical example.

And, by the way, now that Rwy 23L at LHR is closed for good, is Stansted the only airfield in the South of England with a decent-length runway if the wind is, say, 190/35G48?

[OATNetjets]

Boofhead I do not see your point:

1 - On the FBW airbus fleet the sidesticks DO move, and near the ground you will get direct control law on the lateral axis. This means that you get roll control surfaces displacement proportional to the stick inputs, as in any other airliner. On the longitudinal axis the situation is almost the same in that apart from the protections if you put more stick displacement you get more elevators displacement.

2 - Well for your training concern, for sure most AB pilots would lack some skills to fly a super-constellation, but I am not sure they would be the only ones nowadays... But I do not see many around these days :)

[MSAW_CFIT]

I have had the opportunity to be a passenger on a landing similar to this on a Continental Airlines flight into BHX.

After a wobbly approach on short finals to RWY33 the wingtip just avoided the tarmac as the MLG hit the deck pretty hard, the aircrew then decided to initiate a go-around and landed on RWY15. Wind conditions were gusty.

I was working in ops for a BHX airline at the time, this is by far the worst landing I've sat through.

I'd like to know if get there-itis was a factor. The go-around would have been a good choice before the MLG touched down.

I remember a CPH flight from BHX with Maersk that had to make a fuel emergency call in severe weather after trying a diversion to Billund.

[Right Way Up]

OATNetjets,
On the A320 roll is in normal law until you touchdown.

[Chris Scott]

boofhead,

It's not that much different from the (ahhh...) "Orca" (A310), I can assure you.

On an A310, you know how much aileron you've selected, definitely. But the bottom lines are (a) roll-rate and direction of roll; (b) bank angle. When I did my A320 conversion (from the DC-10), most of the mystery disappeared on the first simulator session. It was almost a non-event, even after 20 years of control columns. The trick is: make your roll inputs short and often, except (1) rolling into, or out of, a turn; (2) on the ground (in ground law) for into-wind aileron; and (3) when you want crossed controls (briefly, as described in my previous posts). ***

Pitch inputs are also best short and often, except (1) rotation; (2) the flare, when countering the progressive forward trimming in land-mode; and (3) in recovery from a dive or steep climb.

On the ground, for T/O, you can see how much aileron/elevator you or the other pilot has selected by the white cross on your PFD, thereby avoiding "cracking" the roll-spoilers on a crosswind T/O. It's not perfect, but it works.

The main deficiency of the side-sticks (from the pilot's point of view) is that the PNF cannot easily monitor PF's inputs, while the aeroplane is airborne. [They are not inter-connected, despite what OATNetjets seems to be suggesting.] It's also rather easier - compared with a control column - to select pitch inputs, for example, when making a sudden roll input.
To answer your point about A320 pilots who move on to conventional types: YES. Because the A320 is always in the equivalent of the old "Control-wheel steering", the stab trim is always automatic. Remember the A310 in the go-around? There's a lot of forward trimming to do, and we ex-A320 pilots can easily forget it.
Hope this helps.


*** Editing POSTSCRIPT [Mar14, in the light of Post #449, Mar12/12:46, by Lemurian.]
For minor amendments to this, see my EDITED Post of Mar14/20:52, currently #474.

CROSSWIND LANDING
In airborne sideslip, (usually delayed until decrab) the sidestick roll-input must be released as soon as the desired bank is achieved. However, the opposite rudder will have the effect of lifting the lowered wing again, so you may need to reapply the roll command intermittently, elsewhere referred to as "bumping". [See Post #449, et al.] Once both main L/Gs have touched down firmly, the stick can be kept slightly displaced in the direction of the sideslip. 5 seconds later, the FBW will revert to roll-direct mode (stick-to-aileron), and continuous into-wind aileron can (and should) be applied - in the conventional manner - until the wing ceases to be vulnerable to side-gust.

CROSSWIND TAKE-OFF
A small amount of into-wind aileron can be selected before starting the T/O run, avoiding "cracking" the spoilers.* During rotation, the upwind wing tends to rise in the conventional manner, and can be countered by retaining into-wind aileron. As the main L/G lifts off, any downwind rudder will be eased off, yawing the aeroplane into wind. This will temporarily assist the aileron. Half a second after lift-off, however, Normal Law in roll is introduced. At that point, any remaining roll input needs to be released.
5 seconds after main L/G lift-off, Normal Law also becomes effective in pitch (so the white cross on the PFDs should disappear). Stick-to-elevator control is now removed, and pitch-attitude can be refined by small nudges of sidestick.

* Roll-spoiler deployment can be avoided by placing the PFD white-cross so that its inner edge is not noticeably to the side of the centre spot.

[drkraft]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet but your best source of realtime information on FMC equipped aircraft during landing is Prog page 2 (Boeing types). I know there is a similar prompt on Airbus aircraft, just don't know what it's called. It gives realtime wind direction/speed, crosswind speed in knots and either L or R direction, and vertical track error in feet from whatever type approach has been selected. I always have one of the FMC's on that page during landing. It keeps me legal and keeps me from getting surprised. Having said that, even with all the automation/computers available to us, at the end of the day it still boils down to being able to do "Pilot" stuff.

[owl 24]

Maybe crosswind landings should be reviewed by the company!

Changing to the ill-advised "crab technique" (around 20' looking at the video) is both stupid & dangerous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRr5u__Uqh4

[Right Way Up]

drkraft,
I agree FMGC info is a good situational awareness tool, but on the 'bus there is a weakness especially if you are using it to keep legal. The wind arrow/windspeed is IRS driven and thus can be subject to large errors.

[md4490]

boofhead do you really think that a Pilot would trust his/her life on a computer? I do so in a Cat 3b apporoach but I'm always ready to take over or go around..but in a bad weather xwind landing I'm the one flying the plane on the centerline (hopefully) not the computer...Airbus (319/20/21) are just like other planes..once you get used to it....:cool:

[Cam32]

Hi

Saw the video have been away for a few days, can someone direct me to photos of the aftermath. (if any) How much wing was grated off.
Cheers

[sevenstrokeroll]

I tend to agree with RIGHT Engine's post.

There was a post that I didn't quite understand indicating that the copilot made the landing.

I would like to know:

who made the landing/approach?

who made the go around?

who made the later, happier, landing?

Does anyone have the real information?

[drkraft]

Right way up
My experience, especially during windshear or heavy winds, is the information given by the tower "can be subject to large errors" depending on the location of their measuring equipment and the runway you are using. Also, just about every Airport/Runway has something unusual about it, depending on wind direction. For many runways, the last 100 feet during high winds, can be very challenging.

[Frosch]

@ sevenstrokeroll

I would like to know: (what for :confused:)

- who made the landing/approach? - the crew
- who made the go around? - the crew
- who made the later, happier, landing? - the crew
- Does anyone have the real information? - the crew, possibly LH as well...

As for the decision-making.... wait and see. :rolleyes:

[sevenstrokeroll]

Frosch:

I ask the same questions again.


I certainly understand that each crewmember has vital duties during an approach and landing. I will ask :

who was the pilot flying the plane druing approach and landing? (aka PF or handling pilot depending what part of the world you live in)

Who was the pilot flying the go around?

Who was the pilot flying the second landing?

I will further ask, if the copilot was the PF/handling pilot during the landing, did the captain takeover at any point?

You ask why I want to know? I can't imagine any pilot on this forum NOT WANTING to know.

And please don't say the crew was flying the landing unless you mean BOTH PILOTS were manipulating the flight controls.

Perhaps we use different terminology?

[asva]

I am not a pilot but the very many I travel in airplane and I have acquired one sure experience. Case of Hamburg seems to me that where the conditions weather were prohibitives the pilot could very well avoid to try the landing (being diverted the airplane on others airport), than for miracle it is not only ended in a disaster. Also I have happened myself in similar situations where - mainly for economic reasons - some pilots irresponsibles try however to land, heedless of the which had real risks for very bad the meterological conditions and of the terror of the passengers.

[Oilhead]

What is it about this plane that makes it so susceptible to........web postings! :p It seems like when there's a wind blowing and an Airbus is starting an approach, all the cameras start rolling! :}

Disclaimer - I made probably the worst landing of my life in a X wind at SFO in the A 320 :{

I'm glad I got off it before too many of my landings got filmed! :O

[Cam32]

Company rules dictates who makes the landing. I have know idea who did this one but in my company it would have been the captain according to the SOP's.

[bsieker]

Boofhead I do not see your point:

1 - On the FBW airbus fleet the sidesticks DO move,

Well, they move when the pilots move them. They are spring-centered, and neither backdriven nor coupled.

and near the ground you will get direct control law on the lateral axis.

No you won't. Reversion to ground mode (direct law) is after touchdown.

This means that you get roll control surfaces displacement proportional to the stick inputs, as in any other airliner.

No. Stick displacement controls roll-demand.

In addition to FCOM quotes in recent posts by Right Way Up and me, showing that normal law remains active until touchdown, here are some more interesting tidbits from FCOM Bulletin 54/2, of June 2002:



Subject: Aircraft Handling in Final Approach

General

The purpose of this FCOM bulletin is to highlight certain aspects of aircraft handling during final approach, and to illustrate that the feedback received from in service experience merits further attention.

[...]

Aircraft Handling on the Lateral Axis

Generally speaking, lateral handling of fly-by-wire aircraft is conventional. But, in very gusty conditions, it is necessary to recall the principle of the flight control law in roll. With the sidestick, the pilot can order a roll rate up to a maximum of 15°/second. However, the aerodynamic capacity of the roll surfaces, when fully deflected, is much higher: that is, up to about 40°/second. This means that, if the aircraft is flying through turbulence that produces a roll rate of 25°/second to the right, the aircraft still has the capacity to roll to the left at a rate of 15°/second, with full sidestick command. This is more than what is necessary in the worst conditions.

The sidestick's ergonomical design is such that the stop at full deflection is easily reached. This may give the pilot the impression that the aircraft is limited in roll authority, because there is a time delay before the pilot feels the result of his/her action. In conventional aircraft, due to the control wheel inertia, the pilot needs considerably more time to reach the flight control stop.

The fly-by-wire system counteracts the effects of gust, even with the sidestick in the neutral position ; the pilot's task is to give overall corrective orders. In other words, the pilot should smoothen and filter inputs and should resist moving the sidestick from one stop to the other.

Every sidestick input is a roll rate demand, superimposed on the roll corrections already initiated by the fly-by-wire system. The pilot should only apply "longer-term" corrections as needed.

Before flare height, heading corrections should only be made with roll. As small bank angles are possible and acceptable close to the ground, only small heading changes can be envisaged. Otherwise, a go-around should be initiated.

Use of rudder, combined with roll inputs, should be avoided, since this may significantly increase the pilot's lateral handling tasks. Rudder use should be limited to the "de-crab" maneuver in case of crosswind, while maintaining the wings level, with the sidestick in the roll axis.

[...]




Bernd

[walk23]

The German news magazine "Spiegel Online" now has more info about this as well:

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,539336,00.html

Some (translated) extracts:

Ttitle: 24-year-old controls Airbus during landing

"During the spectacular high wind landing attempt of an Airbus in Hamburg, the plane was controlled by the young (female) co-pilot. The dramatic go-around manoeuvre, which prevented a disaster, was then executed by the captain."

"Why pilot Oliver A. allowed his inexperienced colleague to do the approach during the storm 'Emma' is not clear."

"Lufthansa reaffirmed on Tuesday that the crew has acted correctly."

[doctone]

who was the pilot flying the plane druing approach and landing? (aka PF or handling pilot depending what part of the world you live in)
Who was the pilot flying the go around?
Who was the pilot flying the second landing?
I will further ask, if the copilot was the PF/handling pilot during the landing, did the captain takeover at any point?


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,539373,00.html

HTH,
Markus

[Suzeman]

This from that bastion of the truth, the ManchesterEvening News...:eek:

HEAVY wind forced an Airbus A380 to abort a landing attempt when the plane was almost flipped over as it touched down.

The Lufthansa jet was carrying 131 passengers and crew when it tried to land at Hamburg airport during heavy crosswinds.

Suzeman

[callimoucho]

I tend to agree with RIGHT Engine's post.

There was a post that I didn't quite understand indicating that the copilot made the landing.

I would like to know:

who made the landing/approach? Copilot

who made the go around? Captain

who made the later, happier, landing? Captain

Does anyone have the real information?

[milkybarkid]

I guess they will pull the wind and gusts from the data recorder and we will get to experience them in future sim rides.
But that would not settle the many arguments about the advantages (or not) of Airbus like flight controls.
What would be interesting would be an series of experiments using, say, both 320 and and 737ng sims. Take many pilots with a spread of experience on type; with the wind event expected and unexpected. What type would be more controllable? I know what I think but the facts would be interesting.

Good topic for your PhD thesis?

Anyway good luck to the folks involved

[sevenstrokeroll]

calimoucho

thank you.

I had a feeling that was the case.

Many companies, my own included, indicate the captain should make the critical takeoffs or landings...wx, special airports, judgement, etc.

I would wonder if Lufthansa has a similiar provision.

Lufthansa seems to hire pilots through an ab initio program with cadets learning to fly in arizona, usa.

perhaps after this incident, a segment of tail wheel crosswind landings will become standard.

[ihg]

Having followed this interesting thread, I still have some questions (no pilot, just engineer, airframes):

- in nearly all post, it seems to be a given, that the A/C was hit by a gust or even two. But was it really? Or could the same, let say, 'manoeuvre', also be explained for a steady crosswind and pilot 'actions'?

- was the late turn into the wind just before touch-down a 'active' pilot manoeuvre to correct an otherwise misaligned approach back to the centreline? Or was it an manoueuvre to compensate a gust? The latter possibility seems unlikely to me, as no additional drifting of the A/C can be observed prior to the manoueuvre and there would always be a time lag between a gust and the reaction to it....

- given, that it was a late corrective effort to get back to center line (regardless if due to gust or not enough crab angle before), would the need for such a 'significant' corrective action shortly before touch-down commonly be regarded as a trigger for a 'go-around' or would you try to proceed anyway?

- To me the A/C seems already slighty banking to the downwind side during de-crab. Wouldn't a strong de-crab manoeuvre by rudder-input not necessarily result in a roll-moment to the down-wind-side due to yaw-roll coupling (again no pilot, just rough flight mechanics knowledge....)? And, secondly, could it be that this roll-moment just has not been compensated sufficiently and thus letting the A/C bank, exposing the upwind wing, and so on .....So there would be no necessity for a gust during de-crab to explain the drift downwind?


Just my thoughts following your discussion. I guess only the pilots themselves will exactly know the chain of events. But, bottom line, for me it would interesting, if the same incident can be explained without the alleged gust, but also with a nearly steady crosswind component and too late and maybe too strong corrective actions of the crew?

Regards, ihg

[Gargleblaster]

sevenstrokerol, Frosch and callimoucho are seemingly asking these questions:
"who made the landing/approach?
who made the go around?
who made the later, happier, landing?"

I'm just wondering, why are you asking ?

The incident report will have all the relevant data. I myself don't care what the pilots names are. I am absolutely sure the authorities and Lufthansa will take any relevant and needed training / personnell / discipline actions, should there be any, which I doubt.

[manrow]

I do not understand why anyone NEEDS to know NOW who was flying the aircraft for this approach. That will come out in the enquiry report.

From my own experience and comments on this thread, we do not need to consider the Airbus form of flight controls.

What little information we have is shown on the recorded videos portrayed on YouTube and others.

From those video clips we might deduce whether the control inputs were effective. Or whether an alternative crosswind landing technique might have been more useful.

Discussion on these 2 aspects would be appreciated!

I do however commend the crew decision to abort that particular approach in favour of another when the wind would be more favourable!

[OKhalsa]

Captain's landing in marginal weather? Well, my present and past airlines practise that. However, there were cases where the humble eff oh did a better job.
Years ago in another life flying the old A300 B4 into old Kai Tak at the onset of a typhoon. X-Winds were within limits but very gusty. After the checker board, we were turning beautifully for a textbook gusty X-W landing when a mighty gust turned everything pear shaped! The wings went wiggy waggy, the concentration and focus throughout the whole IGS 13 approach was so intense that the skipper ended up with tunnel vision and keep struggling to salvage the landing. The F/E was pretty quiet; the young F/O just grunted " GO A... " and pressed the Go levers! In a daze the skipper and F/O struggled together for a split second before, unbelievably, the skipper shouted " you have control " and the young f/o took it around. The skipper , ashen faced, with shaking knees and squeaky voiced asked the f/o to fly to TPE. Since we had plenty of fuel ( no problem with 8 extra tons ), the young f/o proposed another try. Skipper agreed with f/o flying..well f/o brought it down beautifully on the IGS to an equally beautiful landing. Later we celebrated at the bicycle bar!
The skipper was : YOURS truly. The F/O... well he has moved on to become a great skipper. The F/E; he probably learnt a lot that day and too took up flying as f/o and is now a junior skipper!

[JanetFlight]

Great Story OKhalsa;)

Its's with those lil pieces of Humble Airmanship that all of us in this crazy Aviation World could have somethin'to learn and enjoy...:)

Cheers, My Friend:ok:

[earlyNFF]

Or could the same, let say, 'manoeuvre', also be explained for a steady crosswind and pilot 'actions'?


to some degree, yes.

I would wonder if Lufthansa has a similiar provision.

they have.

[OKhalsa]

Thanks JanetFlight. It was a humbling experience and it showed what tunnel vision can do. The F/O swore that he called Go Around 2 times ( the F/E meekly confirmed that ) before hitting the go levers on the third call! I swear I only heard him mumbled the last one!! My only lame excuse was it was the third leg after an early morning start.

[sevenstrokeroll]

gargelblaster and others:

why did I want to know who was pilot flying? because the landing , (regardless of the fly by wire vs non fly by wire control methods), was just that bad. the lack of "keeping the right wing down, or at worst, level, really seemed like something an inexperienced pilot would allow to happen.


the "der spiegel" article seems to confirm that the copilot was pilot flying.

the copilot was 24 years old. the captain 39. even assuming that they both learned to fly at age 17, the 24 year old had 7 years of experience and the captain had 22 years experience.

experience does matter. method of training matters. the only real question now is why did the captain let the copilot do the landing if it was such a bad day?

was the captain a training captain/check airman etc.?

and just in case you think my concern is gender related, it is not. it is experience related.

does this answer your question?

[PEI_3721]

Its not experience that matters, it’s what you do with it.
The First Officer might actually be an excellent stick and rudder person, or even more ‘experienced’ in those particular conditions; we don’t know.
Similarly there are many unknown aspects; what was the ‘actual’ wind, or at least the tower report on which (presumable) a decision to land would be taken?
Was the runway wet? If so this should have influenced the decision to land – crosswind landings aren’t just about getting onto the runway, you have also got to stay on the runway, and just because the subsequent landing was ‘OK’ doesn’t mean that it was safe or justified.

[PJ2]

JanetFlight, could not agree more...nice call.

OKhalsa;

A fine aviator's story, thanks.
Re, It was a humbling experience and it showed what tunnel vision can do. The F/O swore that he called Go Around 2 times ( the F/E meekly confirmed that ) before hitting the go levers on the third call! I swear I only heard him mumbled the last one!!

An F/O friend suggested a solution to tunnel vision; I've seen it used, ...once, and it did save the day. FWIW:

The first word/sound we recognize in almost all situations including high-stress ones is our name.

Tunnel-vision can be tough to break through but using the PF's name can help do that...If "Jack" is the PF and it's going to be a mess, how about:

"JACK!, JACK! - GO-AROUND, GO-AROUND, JACK!!) instead of just calling Go-around? A thought...

PJ2