A380 Hard Landing at Oshkosh

[SMOC]

-yi9C8NE3Ek

How wide and long is runway 36, looks like the I/B engines are over the grass, not a lot of room to maneuver that's for sure.

[Iceman49]

Looks like its 6300' long and 50' wide; with that cross wind...they did a great job.

[B772]

A 'rough' landing by Terry Lutz in a lightly loaded A380.

[TriStar_drvr]

Runway 36 is 8000' X 150'

Didn't look like much of a flare to me. Could've ruddered out the crab before touchdown too. Of course I've never made a poor landing ;).

[Flying Mechanic]

it would be hard landing if the engines touched the grass!they did a good job.

[Vulcancruiser]

Was on the field at LAX for the first landing there......had less xwind but the landing is what it is, the 380 just seems to go through a lot of gyrations the last fifty feet and during rollout. Same shifting around and large rudder deflections at LAX.......normal nice landing for this bird apparently......

[ukpilotinca]

According to AvWeb, the A380 had to land within the first 5500 feet or else it would miss the only taxiway wide enough to get off the runway. Don't know if that qualifies as a short field landing or not.

I didn't care much for the tone of the commentator so I don't know if it really was that bad, or just another Boeing driver criticising an Airbus. I'm curious to see what the knowledgeable people here think.

Weather was

KOSH 281953Z VRB06G14KT 10SM FEW060
KOSH 282053Z 26007G17KT

[buggaluggs]

That make you cringe just watching it! Never mind checking the 'g' meter, that would have registered on the Richter scale! :eek: What's the bet he had the autothrust in and it pulled off the thrust at an inopportune moment!

Having said that, the X wind looks like a solid 25 kts if not more, which would not have helped. No doubt he briefed a 'firm' arrival due to the limited runway length available, just not quite that firm! :ooh:

Perhaps a covert hard landing inspection at OSH tonight!

I've never screwed one up either :ok:

[vapilot2004]

With every landing I've seen of big bird, the tail does seem to be doing an inordinate amount of waggling. More so than other craft on the same approach with the same x-wind. Not sure why this is.

[Knighty]

Have a look at where the photographers are. Just a bit of showing off for them so they could get a head on shot of the touchdown!

[HondaCRV]

Having flown most Boeings (707,727,737, 747-200,300,400) and Airbus (A300, A340- 200,300 &600 and A319) give me a max cross wind landing any time in a Boeing before an Airbus. Note how many Airbus's have runway excursions versus other types!

[Flap 5]

This is a slow speed landing in a big jet. That is going to result in a firm landing as there isn't the energy available for an effective flare.

A high nose attitude on landing could also result in a tail strike.

A firm landing is safer on a short runway as it enables a short landing roll because energy is dissipated in the landing.

[aviate1138]

Where's the damage? What fell off? Plenty of insinuations from Boeing trained pilots. Look at the Avweb video and the 777 pilot comments. Did anything come undone inside? Was anyone videoing from the flight deck on that approach? Would love to see/hear that footage........


AVwebFlash Complete Issue (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1423-full.html)

[Kerosene Kraut]

The video comments are ridiculous.
It was a firm landing to keep it short and to make that special taxiway for parking. And a landing with stiff crosswinds on a narrow runway. I wanna see those same two "experts" doing it.

[HarryMann]

A firm landing is safer on a short runway as it enables a short landing roll because energy is dissipated in the landing.

Many more like that and there'll be lot's of energy dissipated elsewhere too :ooh:

[TowerDog]

He could probably have landed just as short if he had flared and used rudder.
150 feet is plenty wide if ya land on the centerline. :sad:

[Rainboe]

Well I'm a lifelong Boeing pilot and it looked good to me. I would say 'firm', not hard, and exactly like it should be given the crosswind and roll-out considerations. Once again a drama being made out of nothing. 747 wings flex given firm landings like that. When you have a really 'hard' landing, the winglets fly off when the wing flexes violently. That was a good one.

[A-FLOOR]

Rainboe is on the money. What this 777-pilot does not mention is that a wing with two engines on it will flex a lot more under the same circumstances than one with only one. The fact that the crew didn't decrab might have to do with the lack of ground clearance of the upwind outer engine when such a maneuver would be performed, and with this in mind the crew elected to perform a touchdown with crab on, but wings level instead.

Good job I would say!

[Rainboe]

The aeroplane is authorised for landing with crab on anyway. No problemo! I didn't even notice any nodding of the engines which is a must for a really hard arrival.

Spotters on a website such as this with a high proportion of real pilots must try and not sensationalise each and every thing they see that could possibly construed, on even a dull day with nothing else happening, to create 'incidents', 'hard landings', 'almost crashes' out of nothing, please! Particularly here. You will get eaten. No 'youtube'-style sensationalism- it does not go down well.

For a short landing in a heavy crosswind, that was quite excellent. Why does everybody have it in for this aeroplane? Any possible 'incident'- they're out in force bleating about the 380!

[Miles Gustaph]

Whats with the negative vibes?

It looks to me like he kept the nose towards the people with cameras for as long as he possible could to give them the best photo opportunities, it does look good with the big wings etc...pulled of a rather natty landing on a short runway, maybe a bit too much panache, but hey, then probably, and here's the real speculation... took his sports car (red/flashy/one of) from the hold, as he was lightly loaded, drove off with his Biggles-esk scarf streaming into the wind, sunglasses glinting in the sun while on his way to the most trendy bar in town, the one that has the really hot women.

Think positive about a fellow aviator and keep the mystery, that wasn't a heavy landing it was style!

[Springer1]

Having flown with the A380 Captain in the Air Force (Phantoms), the airlines, and our experiemental aircraft (RV's), I'll put him up against any pilot on this board.

[Roadtrip]

Is that standard procedure to land the A380 in a severe crab on a dry runway?

That looked like a hard landing to me, exacerbated by not de-crabbing the aircraft prior to touchdown.

[JammedStab]

Did anything come undone inside?


Well, I was there for the taxi in. Did not see the landing as I wanted to be close to where it parked to avoid a huge lineup for the promised tours of the airplane that afternoon of arrival. After all, it was my last day.

How disappointing when they said that now there would be no tours given on the same day as arrival and we would have to wait until tomorrow. I wondered why they changed it all of a sudden. Now I wonder how long it takes to stow 550 O2 masks(if it is a pax configuration).

[WhyIsThereAir]

So what's the problem? He landed in a crab, either because of the xwind or to give the camera drones a nice show. Hardly anything flexed, and I didn't see anything fall off or bend permanently.

Only thing I can't tell for sure is if he possibly oversteered slightly taking the crab off, and wiggled around a little bit. But given the short landing and the inital crab, I suppose he was likely doing differential braking while slowing down for the exit. I suspect this kind of landing isn't practiced in the simulator every day.

[Flight Detent]

Makes one wonder, doesn't it "Jammedstab".....

Well, if that landing was 'a good job' by airbus standards, then no wonder they are experiencing multiple runway excursions!

What is it with touching down without decrabbing? (Is this an ex-B52 pilot!)

I would have expected somewhat better. For instance check out the landing of the Classic B747 of SAA into it's very last resting place, for the museum.

Good, err...I mean normal approach and touchdown, kept it right on the center line, and rolled out with very little heading wander. THAT was a good landing under similar conditions of runway and crosswinds!

Those standards are what I call 'good'!

...incoming!

[Rainboe]

No incoming at all! But it is a tiresome feature of Spotter sites that there has to be drama and trauma in almost every landing there is a video for. There was nothing wrong, the airline is certificated to take crab landings, and it appears he was aiming to make a quick turn-off. Nothing wrong at all, but some people can't accept that. And now the theory is there was 550 O2 masks out! 'Overwrought' imaginations!

[Kerosene Kraut]

BTW: This is MSN004. It has a test cabin without seats and masks.

[ukpilotinca]

The authors of the video have written a rebuttal to those who say they were being unfair A380 at AirVenture (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AvWebInsider_AirbusLanding_200874-1.html)


A380 At OSH: Yeah, It Was a Hard Landing
Email this blog |Print this blog

By Paul Bertorelli

Somewhere in that little book of unwritten rules that pilots are supposed to adhere to is one that says thou shalt not criticize another airman. This is observed or ignored to varying degrees, thus it was no surprise that we received a blizzard of e-mail on Dan Gryder’s commentary on the spectacular arrival of the Airbus A380 here in Oshkosh on Tuesday afternoon.

Not to put too delicate a point on it, but the vast majority of this reaction is of the “dear idiots” variety. “You should be embarrassed for doing this,” wrote one viewer. But every tenth comment or so is from some heavy driver—Boeing or Airbus—who says Gryder nailed it and had the guts to say so. Most of the adverse reaction attacks not the analysis of the landing itself, but the fact that Gryder stepped over some imaginary line in stating bluntly what he thought of it.

A few correspondents insisted that the 380’s touchdown was perfectly normal for airline operations, but my view is that this argument is just not credible. Look at the video again and decide for yourself. If you’re a pilot with heavy aircraft experience, I invite you to post your comments below, pro or con. Reasonable people might disagree on this, but my guess is they are sitting around a conference room in Toulouse looking at that video and that the FDR data has been examined.

Some of our correspondents interpret all of this as Airbus bashing. But I actually think it’s the reverse. Airbus deserves kudos for bringing the 380 to Oshkosh—not to mention building the thing in the first place—and its awkward touchdown represents one thing and one thing only: less than optimal airmanship on that day, on that landing.

Dan Gryder and I had a conversation about his description of the touchdown as “ugly,” a word that inflamed many who saw the video. When I brought the subject up, he looked at me as if to ask if I’d call the landing pretty. Ummm, no, I wouldn’t, although some e-mail improbably insisted that it was. Gryder likes his truth unvarnished and referring to the rule above, some readers and viewers don’t like the truth at all and would simply prefer to leave the subject untouched. As an aviation Web site, we promote the industry vigorously, but that doesn’t mean we have to be mindless cheerleaders.

And at this juncture, a word about editorial judgment. When I was editing the video and patching in Gryder’s comments, I had some misgivings about the commentary being too strong. I won’t pretend to say that we aired the video in the name of aviation safety. We aired it because it was interesting and Gryder’s comments—whether you agree with them or not—represented what seems to be popularly called a teachable moment.

If I had the judgment to make again, I’d make it the same way.

[Roadtrip]

Damage from a hard landing is not usually readily apparent visually. That's why there is a mandatory hard landing inspection after such an event. However, the label of "hard landing" is subjectively applied by the PIC and therefore subject to his own integrity.

An airplane as advanced as the A380 may also have electronic measurement of g-force and sink at touchdown that may drive a hard landing inspection.

As far as a relatively light GW airplane always resulting in a firm landing by one poster, here - baloney. Of course, my experience in jumbos is limited to 747s and I don't have any A380 experience. Lighter weight 74's are a little more difficult to finese, but not scary like that landing. Landing in a crab like was done on that A380 landing is very hard on the landing gear. I'd be interested to hear what the flight manual has to say about landing in a crab.

Sorry gentlemen, but that was a BAD landing. We've all done them.

[TopBunk]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a bad landing, but it sure as heck makes you wince quite a bit, shame (or perhapes just as well) there was no sound track of the A380 'caressing' the runway to go with it :ooh:

Having said that, we've all been there, seen it, done it and got the t-shirt, so no blame attached to the crew.

[For journos/geeks alike: current B747-400 driver]

[TEEEJ]

How many marks out of ten for the second landing?

f1qqFHGjPRo

[Rainboe]

I don't know who or what 'Gryder' is, but I do not take him to be an expert in large aeroplane operations or landings! It sounds to me like he is commentating beyond his experience. I have flown 747s for 18 years, and 4 engine intercontinental jets for 7 years before that. I have seen 747 arrivals like that. Usually one can't wait to get up to see the pilots and laugh and say 'planted that a bit, didn't you?!'. But not have a heavy landing check done. That was firm. A 'hard' landing would have bounced. You want to see a hard landing, go to the Pan Am SFO hydraulic failure landing on one system out of four, with 1/4 elevator capacity. That was a bounce that went 30' back up into the air. This was just a firm arrival to make a turnoff in time.

I like the way the author of that article dispenses with pilot testimonies of what the landing was like! Yeah- is he such an expert? Yet again, sensationalism rules, and when you try and say 'it wasn't such a drama' you get shouted down because you are pricking peoples' imaginations that 'yes, there was a drama here!'. There wasn't!

Funny how adverse comment about the 380 appears at the slightest excuse. Behold the 747 replacement- a long awaited replacement of a 45 year old design that can't be stretched on forever!

[treadigraph]

You want to see a hard landing, go to the Pan Am SFO hydraulic failure landing on one system out of four, with 1/4 elevator capacity

Thanks for explaining that, I saw the video with no details appended recently and wondered what happened. I presume it was the same incident anyway.

[snowfalcon2]

Have a look at this, second video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6TtDwmmwY4&feature=related) of the same landing. Looks much better in this clip IMHO. Perhaps the first clip used a very long telephoto lens that "magnifies" the yawing of the plane.

[GlueBall]

Total non-event; not even close to a hard landing. :rolleyes:

[PS: I'm a 74 driver, never driven a Bus]

[Rainboe]

Completely agree. Seeing it from that angle, it shows how totally ordinary an arrival it was. The drift is not that great- the telephoto is exaggerating it. Because some idiot goes public with what a 'hard' landing, it is taken as read despite professional pilots here trying to say there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. The aeroplane enthusiasts do nothing for their reputation going off on one for something as ordinary as that! It is, actually, quite damaging as well as being totally idiotic. Take a neighbouring thread, 'Tapping a roof on finals'- no wonder there are so many people so nervous of flying if they think a video landing like that is 'hard' and dangerous, and aeroplanes regularly hit roofs before landing. This idiocy must be stopped. I make myself thoroughly unpopular when I step in and try and bring some normalcy back. Who then?

[sludge]

Ok, yes its a big airplane. But the runway is PLENTY long! They were trying to make the turnoff? Please. That airplane was empty and very light, it should have been no big deal. Isn't it supposed to be some kinda technological tour de force? So why such an ugly landing? As far as the "envy" some are implying, sorry, but that plane is a white elephant, and the biggest taxpayer ripoff in history! How many have they sold? Aren't the pilots some kinda super Airbus test pilot dudes? Where are they now? Back in France doing some explaining? Isn't Airbus trying to SELL these things? That landing didn't make me want to buy one. Sorry, unimpressed. ;)

[PaperTiger]

Completely agree. Seeing it from that angle, it shows how totally ordinary an arrival it was. The drift is not that great- the telephoto is exaggerating it. Because some idiot goes public with what a 'hard' landing, it is taken as read despite professional pilots here trying to say there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. The aeroplane enthusiasts do nothing for their reputation going off on one for something as ordinary as that! It is, actually, quite damaging as well as being totally idiotic.Looked like a standard Kai Tak arrival to me. :}

While I can probably forgive the spotties for wetting themselves, the commentator ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Those who can, do; those who can't, commentate. I suppose. :(

[Rainboe]

Sludge shows what it is really about. The poor old 380 is copping a lot of nationalistic antagonism in the heart of 'enemy territory'. It's not about the landing, it's about any excuse to denigrate it. Sludge, I love the 747, I flew it for 18 years altogether in 3 different marques. But it was designed in 1967. The elapsed time since then taken earlier goes back to 1925. Can you imagine a 1925 design still relevant in 1967? And here we are, 2009, with economies of latest design, large scale and ultra long range. As the 747 program nearly caused Boeing to turn the lights off in Seattle, the 380 has cost more than projection, but not nearly so bad an overrun. It will be the non-US airline preferred long haul aeroplane- Europe-Far East, Europe-Australia, Europe South Africa, and Far East-US. US airlines have no place for a leviathan like this, just as the 747 now is too large for the US market.

Attacking it is irrelevant. Airbus has determined it will work. It will prove itself. The sales will gather pace as the recession recedes. There is no point blustering about it- the US taxpayer will not pay. Boeing dropped the ball with large scale, long range airliners. The 380 will top the market over 777 and croaking 747s. In 20 years, nobody will want to be seen dead in a 747. They might be flogging cargo around. Who would have thought BA would end up with 57 747-400s, after buying over 30 747 Classics? They have barely scratched the surface yet of how many 380s they will operate. How many will SIA and Emirates alone get through? The 777 and 787 will just not cut the mustard in 10 years- the world is poised for BIG tourism and travel.

Go to a major airport and watch the wide bodies. You will see landings like that throughout the day. But it's not really about the landing, is it? Poor unloved 380, but it is going to knock the 747 off its perch! And I should think the pilots are not back in France- they will be playing with all the displays at Oshkosh and planning their next home project if I understand pilots, which I do!

[con-pilot]

Ok, yes its a big airplane. But the runway is PLENTY long! They were trying to make the turnoff? Please.

Yes they were trying to make a turn off, not to show off, but there is only one turnoff on that runway that the 380 can take. If they had missed that intersection one of two things would have happened.

1. They would have had to reverse engines 2 and 3 to backup to the intersection. Hardly a brilliant idea.

2. Wait until a tow could come out to the runway and push them back to the intersection. The most logical, but it require the runway to be shut down at the busiest airport in the world, as OSK is the busiest airport in the world by far while the EAA airshow/meeting is ongoing.

Besides that, it was not hard of a landing, just embarrassing with all those video cameras and the thousands of people watching.

[Airbubba]

Having flown with the A380 Captain in the Air Force (Phantoms), the airlines, and our experiemental aircraft (RV's), I'll put him up against any pilot on this board.

For an Air Force pilot, that was a great landing!:ok:

Wasn't he an FO at Northwest or something like that before he went to Airbus?

Reminds me of some of the old Kai Tak videos of crosswind landings:

YouTube - 747 Extreme Landing at Kai Tak Airport (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMOCAfSMnqQ)

[sludge]

Rainboe, the A-380 will make money just like the Concorde did - never. Even by Airbus' account, they gotta sell 250 of them to break EVEN! Good luck with that. It's the European taxpayer, just as with the Concorde, who will pay the bills. It's a huge govt. jobs creation program. "Ladies and Gentlemen, look out on final and watch in awe as the worlds largest and most advanced aircraft, the Airbus A-380, a shining example of superior technology and sophistication, lands at Oshkosh".............SPLAT!!!!! (Lots of tire smoke, full rudder deflections both ways, wings flexing.....yikes!). WHoops! Yea, when I wanna sell my airplane I'm gonna hire a ****-hot test pilot and have him crash land it in front of the buyer!!!

Dan Gryder is a Delta 777 pilot btw, and instructs in his DC-3, he does a helluva job, and knows how to land in a crosswind. He's gotten his -3 in and out of I believe a 2000' strip, if I remember right, its all on AVweb » The World's Premier Independent Aviation News Resource (http://www.avweb.com). No substitute for proper technique!

[SFCC]

A Delta 777 pilot eh?
Wow:}

[fdcg27]

Well, no.
The A380 is very good at what it does.
For routes requiring both range and capacity, nothing else comes close.
In terms of sales, neither Boeing nor Airbus has much to show in net orders in the current year.
The A380 remains a young program, and anyone with any knowledge of the air routes of the world can see that the aircraft will serve those airlines wise enough to add it to their fleets very well.
WRT the landing, anyone who has flown much as SLF, or even spent much time at an airport, has seen worse.

[galaxy flyer]

SFCC

Apparently, in the UK, you aren't taught to bow down and pay proper homage to the Delta pilot. They consider themselves superior gentlemen and pilots; they have a natural right to be in the air and the company can do naught wrong. Wives are dazzled in admiration having been told by DL management that their husband and their futures are secure and stable as befitting members of the Delta family.

Oh, wait a minute, it is 2009. Sorry

GF

[Rainboe]

Sludge, you got a problem with the 380. Not to worry, but don't use one less-than-ideal landing to castigate the whole program. You are not paying for it! Don't worry about it. It took the 747 program years to go into profit, and some 35 years to reach 1500 hulls. The 380 will outsell that....over 35 years. And we haven't seen the 'stretched' version yet (that wing and those engines are built for a lot of growth). Got to sell 250 to go into profit? The eventual numbers for Emirates, BA and SIA will exceed that alone! Look what happened to the 707/DC8 when bigger came along. Whilst the US hangs onto point-to-point and its drawbacks, other countries are doing central hubs to central hubs- in the future, the 380 will be the right size for the rest of the world. Let it prove itself- you're not paying in the meantime.

[sludge]

Well Rainboe, I can tell from your pontificating tone that you are obviously right, so I guess I believe you. Wish I had a crystal ball like that! I don't have a "problem" with the 380, I just don't believe all the hype. I hope it's a grand ambassador for aviation and flies folks safely for many years. So far I'm not too impressed with it or the EADS philosphy of "flight by committee", or the Airbus fly by wire protocols. I think we've all heard the jokes and seen the videos of the snafu's with that! For the record, I have about 500 hours in Dassault products and think they are magnificent flying machines! I fly a Boeing on the weekdays and a Pitts on the weekends, with about 22K total time. WHoopee! That and $2.00 will get me a cup of coffee, maybe! I've had some memorable ldgs, who hasn't, and I'm gonna laugh WITH you about it!!! ('specially in the Pitts, yowww!)

Far as the "short field" aspect, that runway is a MILE AND A HALF long! There is also a video on youtube showing A-380 doing a "short field" ldg. Looks like a smoooooth touchdown to me! You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth! hehehehe! Guess theres gonna be a whole lotta airports having to completely rebuild themselves to accomodate that thing!

[Miles Gustaph]

Rainboe, well said! :D

[Rainboe]

You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth! hehehehe! Quite honestly I don't bother with day dreaming or lies. Nothing but cold hard truth! Guess theres gonna be a whole lotta airports having to completely rebuild themselves to accomodate that thing!
Just like when the 747 came along, and the airports that had painstakingly adjusted taxiways and parking gates for 707s had to re-adjust them upwards again! Life's a bitch sometimes! This thing is so much bigger than a 747. The wing area is astonishing.

But frankly I'm surprised someone who is (self proclaimed) so experienced cannot assess that landing on the 'firm side of ordinary' and has to criticise the drift. And he did flare too. Firm, but not too bad.

[Springer1]

"Wasn't he an FO at Northwest or something like that before he went to Airbus?"


Airbus Captain
ALPA staff test pilot
F-4/F-16
USAF Test Pilot School Graduate
Owner/builder RV-8

One of the nicest guys you will ever meet. No chip on his shoulder like some who post here.

[treadigraph]

For another video of the same landing it was also a late turn to finals with little time to stabilise the approach - yeah, a firm arrival, but what's the problem? Ever see the Buffalo at Farnborough? Now, that was a heavy landing...

Dan Gryder may be a hero to Sludge but on the video on AvWeb he does come across to me as a bit of a self important motor mouth. Never fumbled a landing Dan? Lucky I guess...

Over the years I've seen various highly regarded pilots publicise their own errors and offer analysis of where they went wrong. They may occasionally offer some critique of another pilot's incident but it's usually sympathetically expressed and a case of "there but for the grace..."

[con-pilot]

One lesson I learned early in my 727 career was, that on landing and you see a TV crew filming your arrival, don't both of us in the front seats be looking at the TV crew and forget to flare. (Oh, the FE was a lot of use, he was laughing his butt off, he could see what was getting ready to happen, but did he say anything,,,,,,,,,,,,,hell no. And yeah I bought the beers that night.)

The same could be said for landing at St. Maarten when young ladies only wearing bikini bottoms are standing on the seawall waving at you as you land, but somehow that is more forgivable. ;)

All the test pilots I know are paid to make safe landings, not necessarily smooth landings.

[Spooky 2]

Whats wrong Galaxy? Didn't get by the rocking chair interview :mad: at DL? Just kidding:ok:

[PETTIFOGGER]

I don't know about the landing from a handling point of view, but it looked OK to me. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I was expecting something thrilling, sphincter-tightening and exciting. Then I watched the video, which was a bit of a disappointment. Not even a decent bit of wing flapping, with the outer engine nacelles bouncing off the tarmac. But wait, I am not a 'pilot', so I guess I don't know about these things.
Ever flown on an A380? It is a different, better experience. For a start it is quiet, very quiet. That makes a big difference on 13 hour trips. All other aircraft seem uncomfortably noisy to me now, especially the 777. The A380 is spacious; it is not only wide-body it is high-body. This feeling of space is as far removed from the 747 as the 747 was from the 707. It is a step change. It seems powerful, reaching cruising altitude of around 40,000 feet in one go, not bouncing around at 25,000 to 30,000ft waiting to burn off weight to allow a further climb, like some of the 747s.
As for aesthetics, yes, the nose looks ugly. But the wing is good, very elegant, and by all accounts is very efficient. And it is proven efficiency that will sell this plane in large numbers. For instance, SIA who have been operating the A380 for some time, have just announced that 10x777 flights are to be replaced by 7x380 flights per week SIN/CDG/SIN, which they calculate will give more capacity, less trip costs overall and less capital cost.
I do not see the new generation of twins coming along to be natural A380 competitors, and anyway, their CASM is more, as is the 748's. The latter is a beautiful looking plane externally, and internally with the skyloft arrangement. A pity it has not sold more - only to LH I think - and there must be a reason. You will probably like travelling on the A380; most people who have flown it do. Returning to the landing, it looked just fine to me, with good lateral stability. Anyone else notice that?

[Johnny767]

For those here, that have flown Airbus products. We know, all to well, that there are times the "Fly by Wire / Auto Thrust" combination just can not keep up.

Light Aircraft, in a gusty wind, can be the worst.

I do not know if the 380 has the "Ground Speed Mini" feature? I would assume it does...

In a Boeing (...any Boeing) you would have more control of the sink rate, by simply adding a little thrust. In the Airbus, you are along for the ride.

Unless you are one of the, very few, that will use manual thrust.

With the Airbus (FBW,) there can be a noticeable delay.

Pitch-up on the stick to arrest the sink rate - auto thrust is working trying to keep up - delay doesn't arrest sink rate - pitch moment comes in just in time to drive the main gear into the runway.

[CubDriverMD]

From a technical standpoint (from a taildragger pilot for whom touchdown in a crab is a surefire ticket to the weeds) how is it that a monster, heavy plane like the 380 can be approved for touchdown in a crab? Does the main gear castor like on the B52? If not, the stress on the tires and gear must be phenomenal. None-the-less, I can understand the need to plant the plane firmly and quickly, given the short-field requirements at KOSH. But, that crab?!?

In the AVWeb video, the entire right side of the plane can be seen from a viewpoint way to the left of the runway....... a very large crab angle to my (untrained) eye. I was in the crowd that day and the cross-wind wasn't that bad. GA taildraggers had been landing all morning on 36. It did appear that the 380"s turn onto final was pretty close, perhaps resulting in a less than stable approach, IMHO,

Regarding the possible closing of a busy runway if the 380 had not stopped in time to make the planned turn-off.......... The 380 arrived after the entire KOSH airport had been closed for the daily AirVenture airshow, so it would have had no impact on the "busiest tower in the world." The huge tug, which had been brought in special for this arrival, was fired up and standing by for any eventualities.

All of the controversy aside, the 380 put on a helluva show that day. The slow flight performance was awesome. And very quiet, too.

It may not make much (or any) money for Airbus, but the airlines flying it should make a killing.

[sludge]

The more I read about this, the more I have to wonder about the wisdom of the Airbus fly-by-wire. Guys are saying you can/can't override the controls, use or not use the rudder on a x-wind, add power but the plane won't let you(?)- what the heck kinda flight control system is that? Then the whole "tight pattern" thing - sorry but you can bet those guys flew that whole airshow profile plenty of times in the simulator, practicing every possible scenario - engine out, flap problems, and yes, even (gasp)crosswinds! Isn't this thing supposed to be some kind of technological masterpiece? Surely it has all sorts of high-tech gee whiz to help a guy do a normal traffic pattern with what, a 8 knot xwind? Isn't it supposed to be "pilot proof"? Maybe it needs to be a little more "computer proof"!

Far as the "slow flight" etc., we all know any airplane of that size APPEARS to be moving very slowly, also you must consider they had to be VERY light - isn't the interior stripped out? Surely they didn't land with 10 hours of gas onboard either. I don't see how landing that thing on 8000', or even 5500' (whoooooo!) strip is that big of a challenge for all these test-pilots and the worlds greatest airliner. Sure is a big airplane, though.

[Rainboe]

Right girls, listen up
how is it that a monster, heavy plane like the 380 can be approved for touchdown in a crab? Does the main gear castor like on the B52? If not, the stress on the tires and gear must be phenomenal. None-the-less, I can understand the need to plant the plane firmly and quickly, given the short-field requirements at KOSH.
It has to be approved. Many pilots, many times will touchdown before pushing off drift. An aeroplane that is not cleared to land with full crab on simply isn't practical. It is usually 'not recommended', which means 'don't do it if you can avoid it'. Minor crab is nothing.
In the AVWeb video, the entire right side of the plane can be seen from a viewpoint way to the left of the runway....... a very large crab angle to my (untrained) eye. I was in the crowd that day and the cross-wind wasn't that bad.
Crab is simply a function of 2 things:
Crosswind vector
Aircraft speed
If the crosswind wasn't bad, the crab can't have been that bad, unless the airspeed was VERY low because of light weight. I doubt it was below a reasonable figure, and I did not get the idea it was extremely low from the vid. So your statements contradict themselves.
The more I read about this, the more I have to wonder about the wisdom of the Airbus fly-by-wire. Guys are saying you can/can't override the controls, use or not use the rudder on a x-wind, add power but the plane won't let you(?)- what the heck kinda flight control system is that? Then the whole "tight pattern" thing - sorry but you can bet those guys flew that whole airshow profile plenty of times in the simulator, practicing every possible scenario - engine out, flap problems, and yes, even (gasp)crosswinds! Isn't this thing supposed to be some kind of technological masterpiece? Surely it has all sorts of high-tech gee whiz to help a guy do a normal traffic pattern with what, a 8 knot xwind?
Sludge- I don't understand it either, but I know this. Whenever the Airbus boys are in a bar, we do not under any circumstances ask such questions. The evening will be ruined whilst they rabbit on about Airbuses until we are all horizontal. You are either a Boeing person or an Airbus person, and 'ne'er the twain shall meet'. Just don't ask. But it seems to work for them (most of the time)- they always make the bar alive.

But by God give them an excuse and it all comes out non-stop whilst you notice the wimmin who were with you have disappeared. All you hear is '...... Law.... drone....drone Law.... drone...Law'.

I greatly fear that we are getting one soon. They will soon be among us again.

[Flap 5]

I'll bite. I have several thousand hours on both Airbus A320 / A330 and the Boeing 737. In a previous company we changed from the 737-200 to the A320. All of the older pilots did not want to change. After a few months on the A320 none of them wanted to go back to the 737.

[No_Speed_Restriction]

PIO, PIO, PIO. Get a life! nice "agricultural" landing.

[panda-k-bear]

Rainboe, the A-380 will make money just like the Concorde did - never. Even by Airbus' account, they gotta sell 250 of them to break EVEN! Good luck with that. It's the European taxpayer, just as with the Concorde, who will pay the bills. It's a huge govt. jobs creation program.

Hmmm.

Given that they already sold 200 of them, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

And before you say "yeah, there were 200 Concordes sold, too", they've already delivered A380s to more customers (3, 4th one later in the year) than Concorde was delivered to (2). AND, to boot, none of the customers that have so far taken delivery are European, so none are a part of your "European government/taxpayer" conspiracy, either.

So how does that work, then?

Do the rest of the opinions expressed in these posts hold as much credibility as the above two little gems?

p-k-b

[Miles Gustaph]

...and here we have it, the perfect example of pilot solidarity; the complete and utter dissection, abet negatively of a landing in an aircraft which one would suggest at the most two posters are qualified to judge by type, and then a divergence into a Boeing are better then Airbus argument...

Well done chaps, having this argument in spotters corner is bad enough but have any of you read the "press may be watching this web-site" warning when you log-in recently.

Anonymity hides the individual in forums such as PPRuNe but having such a "shoot the Pilot" argument in public is not good for anyone especially our industry which I know has rewarded many of us very well; whats that old phrase? Don't bit the...

[Willoz269]

What a lot of tripe...the so called experts who love to jump on the negative bandwagon obviously know it is far easier to be negative and predict failure than it is to be positive and plan for the future....

Look at the following landing....it looks worse than the A380, lucky Avweb wasn't there to cover the landing, wonder if that moronic statement of "looks like the aeroplane might be usable still" would have been made after it.

The Boeing pilot states "in a short runway you just want to put the aeroplane down hard and early and get on the brakes and reverse thrust"...

YouTube - 727 Landing Meigs Field, Chicago Museum Science and Industry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV4tgjSPgks)

[JEM60]

Weeeellllll!!!. I'm amazed at all the comments!!. I have just returned from Oshkosh, was dead level with the touchdown point, video'ed it, consulted my video, and all I can say is that it sure as hell raised NO EYEBROWS AT ALL amongst us [experienced pilots, some of us]. It was only the next morning that someone remarked that it appeared a bit firm.
I, being right next to it, and in a good position to judge it, would describe it it as a perfectly normal crosswind landing!!!!! I'm sorry if I am re-iterating what other people have said, I haven't had time to read all the posts, but I was there, and it didn't arise any comment whatsoever!!!!

[Dan Winterland]

There's a load of b0ll0x being posted on this and other threads about this landing. And it's not helped by that @rse of a 777 pilot that was interveiwed.

It was a firm landing. But was it outside the aircraft limits? I doubt it. the pilot (a test pilot!) was faced with a short field with a strong crosswind. how did he chose to handle it - well you saw it. He minimzed the flare and allowed the aircraft to crab itself into wind. Much like I would have done it if I was faced with the same situation. I've never flown the A380, but I have lots of hours on 747s and now fly Airbusses.

The 747, and I suspect the A 380 with body gear aft of the C off G will turn itself down the centreline of the runway on touchdown. The 747 manual says this is OK. In fact, it's a reccomended technique on wet or contaminated runways. It's not pretty, but it's safe and within the aircraft limits. As for the firmness, ponder this. All aircraft which are certified to CATIIIb autoland limits have to be able to withstand a landing with no flaring should the flare system fail. This pilot did flare, therefore it was within limits.

No story here - move along!

[Rainboe]

Thanks guys. DW, I tried to explain that on page 3 Post 58. Look at the abuse I got for trying to inject a bit of sanity with these 'experts'! 'Nothing wrong with it' gets hysterical accusations of 'you're always saying that to protect other professionals' and other nonsense like a direct attack on the A380 (so sad). There is an unfortunate desire in some Spotter circles to make a sensation in everything. Couple that with a daft 'expert', and before you know it, you have a major 'incident' that the poor, unsuspecting pilot involved knows nothing about! He was probably admiring all the planes at Oshkosh when he was being accused of being hung up to dry in Toulouse.

How do nervous flyers feel reading these sensationalist idiots running amok like this? Are they doing anything positive for aviation?

[Rob1975]

YouTube - AIRBUS A380 LANDING AT OSHKOSH 2009 AIRVENTURE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6TtDwmmwY4)

Well said RB.

Here's a video without use of major zoom at touchdown point, of the same touchdown. Nothing wrong with the landing!

Rob

[JEM60]

I was 100 yds to the right of the last U tube vid. Agree totally with the people who say there was nothing wrong with it. I was there for goodness sake,150yds from it. It was fine. What would you do with a nasty crosswind like that to make it better?.
The wind throughtout the week was across that runway, frequently at 90 degrees, in fact two taildraggers ground looped on landing, and one lost control on take-off on the Sunday, spinning down the runway like a racing car. No injuries.

[leewan]

Now here's an excellent A380 crosswind landing.

YouTube - [720p] Crosswind Landing - by Singapore Airlines Airbus A380-800 ?9V-SKD? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHmgHFZFNw)

[Rainboe]

That video does not demonstarte crosswind landings well- you need to be in line with the runway, but it does show well what a fantastic set of spoiler/speedbrakes the 380 has. For crosswind landings- the bigger the plane, the better! The 747 is easier in a big crosswind than smaller types.

[CHINOOKER]

I'm not a pilot,so disregarding all the for/against bickering on here re hard landings etc,what impresses me most about this particular landing is the fact that the crew apparently didn't need to use the reversers on 1 and 4 to achieve the runway turn off point. Ok so it,s a test airfame so relatively light,but it seems that the A380s performance may be better than first percieved. Having watched many Singapore/Emirates A380 arrivals at LHR,i also get the impression that it has a "softer" landing performance,(ie less tyre smoke on impact),than the 747-400,..however it does look mighty slow on departure!....... Mind you,for sheer "wow factor",it still won't beat a fully laden 747 off 09R on a westerly SID....could sit and watch these all day!

[leewan]

he crew apparently didn't need to use the reversers on 1 and 4 to achieve the runway turn off point.

The A380 does not have thrust reversers installed on the No 1 & 4 engines.

[CHINOOKER]

Thanks for enlightening me Leewan,...just goes to proove the old saying that you learn something new every day http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[xetroV]

I just saw the videos for the first time. A total non-event, hyped up by clueless spotters who think they know more about handling a big jet than professional pilots. The landing was firm, as it should be in those circumstances.

I can imagine how a spotter would mistake this for a hard landing, but what I can't understand is the arrogance by which the opinions of experts like Rainboe and Dan Winterland are dismissed by some people in this thread (and similar threads in other forums). To those spotters, I can only say: please don't step on board of my B777 if your destination has a short or narrow runway and there's a strong wind in the forecast. I promise you, I will plant it on the concrete like that A380. You may prefer an elegant landing over a safe one, but I surely don't.

[Rainboe]

I've got myself banned from Spectators several times for taking these people to task for the rubbish they come out with sometimes! But someone has to do it in the hope they will not be so adamant next time and stop flinging vile accusations like they have at that poor 380 pilot! I think they forget this is not just an enthusiasts forum where you can get away with incredible stories- real professionals look in here ......and are horrified at the garbage they talk!

[JEM60]

Hi, Chinooker. Yes, this is a very impressive aircraft. It flew past me at Oshkosh at a mere 105 knots!!!!!!!. This speed was broadcast by Frank Chapman, test pilot, not by the awful American commentator [who apparently has been awarded the 'Sword of Excellence' for Airshow Commentating' ]You don't have to do or know much to get an award over there!!!!

[CHINOOKER]

Following on from my earlier "faux pas" re the number of engines on the A380 with reversers fitted,could someone give a brief explanation as to why?.....Is it down to the fact that the a/c has so much aerofoil capacity/braking capacity etc it doesn't need 4x reversers,or is it down to the design/build,of the wing whereby it cannot accomodate outer engines in reverse thrust?

[leewan]

The A380 brakes and spoilers are deemed sufficient enough for the braking needs of the A380. The two inboard thrust reversers were added at the request of the FAA which felt that thrust reversers had to be fitted onboad the a/c.
The exclusion of the thrust reversers on the outboard engines reduces the chances of FOD damage on these engines as they hang out of the runway onto the grass patches.

Not to mention weight and maintenance savings.

[CHINOOKER]

Cheers for that Leewan...very interesting read!....A380 seems even more impressive now!!