Speaking as a passenger whose first reaction to that video was, "cool!", what is the problem everyone else seems to understand? Is it the strain on the landing gear? Is it the fact that they attempted a landing at all in these conditions? Is there something else about the technique that's wrong?

Classically the technique is incorrect - however I have been reliably informed that the runway at LHR is considered narrow for an A380, and employing the correct technique in these challenging gusty conditions can increase the chance of striking the outermost engines on the ground. So it appears the 'safest' thing to do in conditions like these is to plant it on the deck and let physics take care of the rest.

From Flight Operations Briefing Notes ...”the objectives of the lateral control of the aircraft during the flare are to land in the centreline, and to minimise the liars on the main landing gear” Hmmm. 🤔
Well, he may have complied with the first part but as to the second...

Sorry, should have read “loads on the main landing gear”

Was it a wholly manual landing or part automatic with the pilot adjusting track
very deceptive cameras angle too

It’ll be one or the other (99% chance it was manual), part automatics don’t really exist bar the autothrust.

First, fully manual landing, possibly using autothrust but equally possibly not.
Technique down to flare was good, then it turned to worms.
Start the flare and then kick off the crab, Try to touchdown pointing down the runway (Thats when its at its longest!!!).
Steer with rudder until nosewheel steering becomes effective.
The runway at LHR is not narrow for an A380, it is 60m wide! Where do you hear this drivel?

For those who prefer not to use the Sky News link.

Distance massively foreshortened by the telephoto effect.

Technique is not good if you're kicking the rudder, and then letting it go back to neutral, prior to cross controlling for the flare.

I'm with you on that.

Is there an argument for future aircraft of A-380 size, having an under carriage which can be offset in a similar way to a B-52 for a crosswind landing?
Clive

janetflight, look at the Fu(£ing rudder inputs (just in case you don't know, you are supposed to remove the drift, not add to it)

totally agree with fantom and beardy.

Reported winds at the time?
 

Does anyone know the reported and actual winds and gusts at the time?

Disappointed in some of the comments on here.

It may have been a poor landing, but there's no need to imply that the PF should "face the chop" as a result.
In this career of professional like-minded people, I'm sure he will review this, learn from it, recognise this situation in the future, and respond to it better.

TVM,
ZH871

If you do a crosswind landing and you kick the rudder the wrong way... not pretty!

The PF needs to be retrained .CM1 demoted . Absolutely incorrect technique used and very poor decision to continue to land . ZFT requires landing properly at max x cross wind

After having done this many times in the Whale, up to 48 kts direct cross, including even with #1 or #4 shutdown, .... e.g., at KEF, ....both manually and with A/L, ...it would be my advice that one needs to know both the actual wind and gust environment, as well as the instantaneous drift rate and accelerations, and fuel state, and alternates state, and other factors too, ....so as to be able to make a reliable judgement about either pilot technique, use of rudder and lateral control, or flare technique. So... Perhaps an assessment might be best left to the crew's chief pilot to review all those kinds of parameters, as well as the DFDR data, before making any judgement, other than being thankful that in the end it apparently turned out to be a successful landing, with the aircraft appearing to be undamaged? Have we stopped giving the flight crews who were in the seat, at least the benefit of the doubt?

Hey fantom, you weren't infallible. You scared me a couple of times, but I was in no position to chop you :)

Width of Heathrow runways is 50m, isn't it?