How not to land the A380
 

Ouch!!

Well at least we know it is not made of plastic! :O


YouTube - Airbus A380 Hard Landing At Oshkosh 2009

I thought it was a hard landing too, but I have no experience, only 150h of flight, and a few airbus pilots told me it might have been firm, but no hard, so I guess it was impressive but harmless to the plane.

Did they actually bend it?

Didnt look like a hard landing to me, looked like a landing on a short field with a reasonable cross wind.

I guess the wing flexing doesnt look great, but its designed for a lot more than that. If you want to see hard landings search for anything showing a Herc wing flexing/flapping.

Wings are not usually what gets damaged during hard landings. They are designed to flex quite a bit, so they just flop up and down.

The problem is usually the rear and forward sections of the fuse. They receive the brunt of the loads in a hard landing and will therefore wrinkle.

A short landing does not mean hard. Only Navy pilots think that way. :rolleyes: These guys planted it on unexpectedly. How can you tell? There is no x-wind correction, which also means that the resultant side-load almost put it off the pavement, just look at the right wing gear.

They either flared late or they took the power out too early. Either way, there are no excuses to hide the fact that it was a bad landing.

Looked like a normal landing, except the runway was way narrower than normal. Call the gingerbeers.

slow-motion it
 

If you make a careful frame by frame, slow- motion analysis of this footage, you will observe some significant wing distortion - which indicates the level of sink rate applying. I note that the crab was kicked off after the main gear touched and bounced not before- interesting...

Frame a datum line on the wing span just before touchdown and then do the same at max wings deflection and it is apparent that this registers as a 'harder' landing... Not that I am criticising, as I was not there and it is a short field...

20 kt crosswind on a 5500 ft runway... And no flare. My guess is the aircraft barely felt it. It is bound to run into worse landings than that during its career. It was pretty light anyway.

I guess that puts an end to the 'autoland only' myth.

No comment on the landing - glass houses 'n'at :)

If low fuel and no payload then I'd guess the most highly stressed parts would be the engine pylons.

Seemed ok apart from the crab.

Maybe didn't kick the crab off as its a narrow runway and not used to that perception and all that?

Perfectly fine, no need to straighten any more than that, the bogies are set up to take much worse

Are you guys serious??? That landing sucked a$$! Watch the aggressive hard rudder inputs. There's no need to be that rough on the rudder. Does the crash in Queens sound familiar?

Do we really need to threads on the subject on PPrune? - especially when the other one has got 3 pages of comments already?

The video if anything is an excellent demostration of a crosswind landing. The extent of flex of the wings does NOT signify a "hard" landing.

And do the guy who made the comment about Queens. If you can move a control in the cockpit, then the surface can take it. Remember that the movement of a control goes to a computer first. Don't you think the software developers have already written some code that limits the rate of movement of the control surface at certain operational conditions?

In modern FBW a/c, you can be as viscious as you like with the controls. This doesn't mean that the surface itself is moving at that viscious rate.

Pogie,
Remember q - at that speed the rudder deflections were moderate; perfectly OK.

seems to me, a very good and firm landing, considering the runway width and crosswind. :ok:

Jesus what a load of bollocks some people write in here.

That was one of the worst x/w landings I've ever seen.

Basically he forgot to flare and drove it on HARD.

forgetting to "de-crab" was not the problem ( infact it is a legitimate technique ) forgetting to reduce the sink rate was!!

Most of these larger aircraft landings look like controlled crashes to me anyway (largest I've flown is an MU-2) so I'll leave it to the heavy jet guys to judge it.

The thing that caught my eye was all the dirt being sucked up into those expensive engines.

betpump5 wrote the above.

Well I am willing to bet that you might pump them in like that but where I come from a landing like that is mighty embarrassing.

Navy pilots rock! Flaring to land = sitting to ........ :ok:

Forgetting to take the crab out is not a legitimate technique. This is just taught because it is harder to do it right.

Yes, the palne will take considerate amounts of sideload without breaking, but that don't make it right to land with sideload. Any person who has ever sat in the back of an airliner that lands sideways will tell you what a crap experience it is to land crabbed.

Just like you can do a roll with your feet flat on the floor, that don't make it right. Some airplanes will cover it up better than others, that's all. :yuk:

Actually 7700, when I did my 737 conversion course the Boeing Instructor said "land with the drift on and screw it straight". Not the most elegant of techniques but he stated that it was built to do that in max crosswinds.
Anything smoother was a bonus:ok: