Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.
At least one overshoot - and some very squirrelly landings - including what looks like a 737 yawing after touchdown. Having never flown there - is this airport known for tricky crosswinds or was this just unusual WX conditions?
Location: A Whilom nimble brain. With 31 million posts.
Age: 73
Posts: 3,380
Just that touch of wing down seemed to instantly stabilize the last one. Well, to the point of being containable. Pity engines and big flaps stop us standing on the top rudder these days.
Sorry rivets - don't understand... please explain? Although I only fly lighties - those did look like `interesting' landings - even for big, hairy chested jet pilots...
Not sure if this was the right forum so I understand if it's moved.
Just saw this on BBC website. May be all in a days work for you but looks bloody scary to me and just makes me thankful we have a professional sitting at the pointy end
If it is within limits, that's what we are trained to do.
That is why 1 Euro fares are unsustainable, because training and safety costs money. Experience is worth rewarding.
Interesting that the only decent, stable approach was in a B737. Hmmmm pays your money and takes your choice. You get what you pay for and maybe you want to bear that in mind when choosing a carrier.
Completely agree with regard experience is worth the reward. If my £30 flight to x European country costs £5 more then i'd be happy to pay it knowing there's someone with experience getting me on the black stuff in one piece
Interesting that the only decent, stable approach was in a B737. Hmmmm pays your money and takes your choice. You get what you pay for and maybe you want to bear that in mind when choosing a carrier.
I didnt see a single 737 in that video, a couple of A320's yes. Great video though
You get what you pay for and maybe you want to bear that in mind when choosing a carrier
That's about as helpful advice as suggesting that you wait until three back-to-back crashes before taking your next trip
John-Q depends on experts in the regulator establishment to assess and control safety. If you expect him to do it by innuenedo and rumour he will get so mixed up that he simply won't fly at all ... can you say
Have you noticed that in the second and third landing, the aircraft passing overhead is not the aircraft that is landing. Look at the location of the engines.
Funny how one group of 'professionals', (journalists and cameramen), leech off another group of professionals, (pilots, air-men, and ladies, of course).
Yet, the former, and their 'editors', cannot even be *rsed to get the continuity right.
Pathetic.
Call me odd but why would the skippers of those jets attempt to land in winds like that more than once? Its clear to me that it was a bit risky for the first attempt let alone to try again.
I haven't seen the BBC coverage but CNN were sensationalising this with accelerated video footage of high yaw rate landings and a few FJ climb rate GAs.
If you were a freighter with nothing but the freight to lose go for it but when your carrying 100 plus pax you should have more in mind I reckon
Would be an interesting industry if we applied that theory. Freighters and turbo props would operate in hairy conditions, jets with 100 pax would operate in more favourable conditions, and 747's and A380's would only fly with a high cloud base and light winds......
Sorry folks, just re-read my post. What I mean is, pax comfort and safety is something that would be high on my list, my guess is the pax in the back would have been shitting themselves.
If you were say a freighter, and were confident that in similar conditions you could land you might want to give it a go.
