Emirates 380 landing from tail camera
Thread Starter
Emirates 380 landing from tail camera
I'm surprised this hasn't made an appearance here before now.
This Emirates 380 appears to touchdown somewhat shorter than normally expected and probably a little firmer than the PF had hoped
Emirates Sydney 16R
This Emirates 380 appears to touchdown somewhat shorter than normally expected and probably a little firmer than the PF had hoped
Emirates Sydney 16R
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowhere near as good as "The belly of the beast" on youtube.
Not only was it not an A380 as titled in the video, but it was a B747, and a -200 at that, what a great video.
It's a daytime video, taken from the NLG looking aft. Starts at pushback, right up to gear retraction, then restarts at gear extension.
They were smart enough during the approach to lower the nose gear with the alternate system first, and then with the video running, to lower the main gear, looks great!
Take a look, it's really interesting.
Cheers...FD...
Not only was it not an A380 as titled in the video, but it was a B747, and a -200 at that, what a great video.
It's a daytime video, taken from the NLG looking aft. Starts at pushback, right up to gear retraction, then restarts at gear extension.
They were smart enough during the approach to lower the nose gear with the alternate system first, and then with the video running, to lower the main gear, looks great!
Take a look, it's really interesting.
Cheers...FD...
On that A380 video - To me it looks like a dangerously short under-shoot and they barely made the end of the runway.
It's a bit hard to see in the video but if you look at the PAPI it seems to show on-slope .... the problem being that the camera is on the top of the tail and that means something like twenty metres off the ground as the wheels touch (It's about 25m on the ground when level, I'm allowing for strut extension and pitch angle)
Since the wheels would normally go over the threshold at around 50' then it means that they must have touched down very close to the end of the runway, if not before.
It's a bit hard to see in the video but if you look at the PAPI it seems to show on-slope .... the problem being that the camera is on the top of the tail and that means something like twenty metres off the ground as the wheels touch (It's about 25m on the ground when level, I'm allowing for strut extension and pitch angle)
Since the wheels would normally go over the threshold at around 50' then it means that they must have touched down very close to the end of the runway, if not before.
Where's A380-800 driver when you need him for a full explanation!
And Flight Detent, in that video you're referring to, the mention of the A380 is merely pointing out the Air France 380 in the background that they pass whilst taxying out at JNB at the start of the video. Awesome vid though!!!
And Flight Detent, in that video you're referring to, the mention of the A380 is merely pointing out the Air France 380 in the background that they pass whilst taxying out at JNB at the start of the video. Awesome vid though!!!
2/25ths of a second before touchdown; threshold lights visible under the trailing edge:
Tail's 4-whites on the PAPI, so cockpit would have been a bit below that, but they would have been using the ILS GS for reference?
Tail's 4-whites on the PAPI, so cockpit would have been a bit below that, but they would have been using the ILS GS for reference?
Why is someone using a video camera during landing?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. Pax know better than us these days.
QF classifies the various electronic items in to categories based on potential impact to flight and nav instruments.
Pretty sure video cameras, digital cameras and a few others (essentially any non transmitting device) can be used at all times (a bit like the old film cameras).
[The only other considerations are high speed projectiles (from a hard short landing perhaps)moving around the cabin - but realistically there's bucket loads of that which is non -electronic carried into the cabin every day]
Pretty sure video cameras, digital cameras and a few others (essentially any non transmitting device) can be used at all times (a bit like the old film cameras).
Maybe there's a delay between when the video captures the picture to when it displays on the screen.
That's more likely than the PAPI being badly miss-aligned, thus causing the aeroplane to touch down so early.
Maybe there's a delay between when the video captures the picture to when it displays on the screen.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YPJT - video cameras allowed at QF, noise cancelling headphones - not.
As for QANTAS this is straight out of the book:
Group 1 PED (Portable Electronic Devices)
PEDs of the following kinds may be used at any time, except when special operational restrictions are applied by the Captain:
• Electronic watches, GPS, electric shavers, video and still cameras, pocket calculators and other devices powered by micro-cell batteries and solar cells.
Unfortunately your example of noise cancelling headphones is in the Group 2 PEDs.
Group 2: Devices permitted for use inflight once the Seat Belt sign is extinguished after takeoff, until top of descent
PEDs including:
• Personal computers, PDAs, electronic games, music devices such as AM/FM receivers, Compact Disk, Mini Disk and MP3 players, one-way pagers and passenger supplied noise cancelling headsets.
Of course the list goes on and covers other categories too.
As I said this is for QF - and maybe they follow a standard which emirates use too. Or maybe nobody saw him - frankly chances of electronic interference are pretty remote so other than being a potential missile (fairly remote too) maybe some common sense prevailed and they let him use it.
Anyway that is all a side issue. Would you have loved to be at the holding point to see that - either wow thats impressivly bad or holy dog poo its about to crash!)
Its kind of lucky that 16 R as a bit of a mini displaced threshold (i assume its stopway or somethingerother )
As for QANTAS this is straight out of the book:
Group 1 PED (Portable Electronic Devices)
PEDs of the following kinds may be used at any time, except when special operational restrictions are applied by the Captain:
• Electronic watches, GPS, electric shavers, video and still cameras, pocket calculators and other devices powered by micro-cell batteries and solar cells.
Unfortunately your example of noise cancelling headphones is in the Group 2 PEDs.
Group 2: Devices permitted for use inflight once the Seat Belt sign is extinguished after takeoff, until top of descent
PEDs including:
• Personal computers, PDAs, electronic games, music devices such as AM/FM receivers, Compact Disk, Mini Disk and MP3 players, one-way pagers and passenger supplied noise cancelling headsets.
Of course the list goes on and covers other categories too.
As I said this is for QF - and maybe they follow a standard which emirates use too. Or maybe nobody saw him - frankly chances of electronic interference are pretty remote so other than being a potential missile (fairly remote too) maybe some common sense prevailed and they let him use it.
Anyway that is all a side issue. Would you have loved to be at the holding point to see that - either wow thats impressivly bad or holy dog poo its about to crash!)
Its kind of lucky that 16 R as a bit of a mini displaced threshold (i assume its stopway or somethingerother )
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experienced the same thing landing at Heathrow last year, was watching the screen and we appeared to touchdown on the piano keys, however, kept watching and the deployment of the spoilers gave away the landing point....right where it should have been. You can just see the deployment of the spoilers in this vid too well after the actual touchdown, so I guess there is a delay of a few seconds, just my 2 cents worth