Airbus Crosswind... "White Knuckled Landing"
 

OK, It's CNN, so that puts it in perspective, however, the Airbus has a rudder installed on it for various reasons, it is not only decorative.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/201...ngham-orig.cnn

The control laws for elevators change as a function of radio altitude, and emulate a normal aircraft.
The ailerons are rate commands, no input no roll
The rudder is a rudder, it will give a yaw rate and when stabilised a sideslip angle. It also gives a roll moment the the aileron logic nulls out (mainly).

The rudder is there for aligning the nose of the plane, (the bit where the professionals sit...) down the runway at an appropriate and well considered point in the approach to landing.

The FBW is different, but it is still a C-150 underneath it all.

I can't see the rudder moving at all. Must be decorative.

LoL I wish we had a cockpit video and transcript for that! Good decision made though.

FD: Reasonable points. I raise this image just following the number of weird crosswind images that come into the public domain. The Airbus seems to be in a world of its own with being either plonked on the ground going sideways with the decorative tail, which exerts high loads on the beam on bogie gear sets, or we see the plane exhibiting PIOs from flying slip on final which is not a great match with AI FBW logic.

Nothing wrong with a go around.

Children of the Magenta...

BS .

The reason I made that comment was because these scenarios are where stick and rudder skills are the only thing that will result in a good landing. You can be the best button-pusher of all time but if you can't hand-fly very well, then you will have a reduced chance of a successful outcome, either landing in the zone or having the presence of mind to GA. Another Prune thread commented on the rough-controlling that sometimes occurs as soon as the AP is disconnected. That's because increasingly, people can't "fly" any more.

I fly airbuses, just not the fbw ones.
No aileron inputs on take off roll due to the spoilers coming up and creating more problems than anything else

From the base training document I received:

Basically as already mentioned

Mmmmmm. OK... The B737 images you show are pretty unpleasant. As a group we contend with the conditions reasonably well, but we also place a rod on our own backs.
Continuing approaches in conditions that are severe may not be what the punters are paying for. That is a peer pressure/normalisation/mission completion item, tied up with the financial needs of the companies. The punters are paying to go from A to B, rather than C, however they are also not paying for disneyland rides, where there is elevated risk of bad outcomes. Not casting nasturtiums, I've looked out the #2 window in a B74 to see the runway, and at 500' decided that there was no way the landing would end up without making a headline. In retrospect, even calling it quits at 500' wasn't that much fun for the people paying our salary on that evening.

Not a fan of the B737, Boeing makes some great flying planes, the B737 makes money for the airlines. Can't argue that. The Airbus down in the flare behaves like a real plane. In both cases, (and not shown in these videos anyway) wing down/slip doesn't work very well, more of a problem on the Airbus than any other, but in both cases, wing down on the approach results in more unstable flight paths than flying with drift until the flare, and then aligning the nose towards the end of the runway.

Mild PIO is not an issue on this approach, it becomes more prevalent with slipping flight. The A320 video is of interest only on the amount of time spent with drift on just above the ground, before the G/A was initiated. The crew are dealign with challenging conditions in the A320 video. My point is that getting down in the weeds and ending up in a position where the rudder isn't applied due to the conditions, probably indicates we are in the wrong place at that point. Back when London's Hyde Park fell over in storms, we drove a B74 into MAN RWY06 with a gusty 35Kt crosswind, which was fun until it wasn't. I got the plane to the runway with a reasonable setup, cockpit slightly upwind of the centerline for the alignment, and eased the power off to land, and was about to put in rudder when we got hit with a 60Kt crosswind gust. The good news is the gust assists align the aircraft into wind through directional stability, but the track went from straight down the runway to a recorded 15 degree downwind track. about a second later we touched down, but in that time I had thought about putting in into wind rudder... pretty ugly, doing a go around... not going to happen without touching down, or planting the aircraft. I planted the aircraft. and spent the next 10 minutes apologising to the rest of the crew who were still in fits of laughter. The passengers weren't. The company was happy we got there for the passengers. I think we should have stayed in bed, and defended the passengers rights more effectively. The B74 is a sweet handling crosswind aircraft. Much nicer than the B762, even the B763. The B777 is also a great crosswind aircraft, with a remarkably effective rudder. (there is one oddity with the B777 however, for the takeoff roll, aircraft will weathervane into wind and need down wind rudder to maintain alignment. The B777 does as well, but only above about 80Kts, below that, the aircraft has an out of wind tendency which can be seen in the data if any crew look at their FDM/QAR output data). Years later, looking at serious incidents on one particular type and airline, the aircraft was tearing up the MLG trunnions. The data analysis showed that the crew were routinely landing with high levels of drift on. In those cases, this was also happening on landings with relatively low crosswinds, but where the crews were flying slip, they were getting out of sorts, such that in a 7kt crosswind, they had full rudder applied, and the aircraft in a forward slip into the flare and touchdown. That was eventually resolved, and the training reinforced to comply with the OEM's TM guidance, de-crab in the flare or after establishing the landing attitude.

FDR, yet another fascinating post of yours; thank you.

These are interesting comments. When we started on our "Boeing" (not really a Boeing; inherited from McD), the FCOM (written by Boeing) had nothing much to say about crosswind landings. Then, in 2010, there was a major rewrite, with a completely new section devoted crosswind landings which introduced the Forward Slip technique, at "approx. 200ft AGL". Later revisions changed that to "below 200ft AGL", but it was still the full forward slip. Whether this applied to all Boeings, I don't know, but I think was an acknowledgement that kicking it straight at the last second and dropping it on was getting beyond the capabilities of some pilots. See my comment above. It feels bl@@dy awful to sit through, but that's what Boeing now wants...

You seem to be into the FDM; an analysis of bank/angle pod strike risk verses landing with the wing down in a juicy crosswind using the forward slip technique is interesting!

Reading the B737 Classic FCTM it says "The airplane can land using crab only (zero sideslip) up to the crosswind limit guideline speeds. On dry runways upon touch down the airplane tracks toward the upwind edge of the runway while de-crabbing to align with the runway."
To me that implies you can safely touch down sideways without removing drift.
Perhaps Boeing should have added with a sly wink "And the Devil take the hindmost." To those who have seen this happening and shuddered at the thought, remember the old adage "Neat but not gaudy - like an elephant's arse sown up with a bicycle chain," might humour the frightened.

Well Said
 

Sadly, you are correct. Not just in the cross wind landing area either.

OBD.

Stick and Rudder skills