Scandinavian flick?


Little more stagger on the outside tyre?

Thought that myself. On the full video it seems to enter a very hard turn to the right in a modest crosswind and a 5/5/5) runway. The rest is simply survival.

My guess is that the transponder sends out the pressure altitude until there is weight on wheels. As Vilnius is at 200m/600 ft, this would account for half of the drop. A low pressure area could do the rest.

Exactly that. Both facts that seem to have passed AH by. It would have been better to have no graphic at all than the misleading one - the actual touchdown appears to have been near the point labelled "FL011".

Slush On The Runway Margins
 

From the X video all looks well until shortly after mainwheel touch down. He starts out fairly well right of centreline but then yaws quickly to the right as if the right main gear has gone into slush on the runway margin. Holding full reverse as he crosses the grass is guaranteed to trash the underbelly. With all that soft grass left ahead, stopping was not an issue. I imagine the main gear struts have seen some significant side-forces beyond design limits.

In what world is it safe to continue taxy to the terminal?

in P2F world mate

They probably get a bonus for arriving at the gate on time, but they forgot to include a clause on the condition of the aircraft.

Oh good! So I wasn't the only one baffled by them carrying on and taxiing in as if nothing's just happened.

To the self-declared SLF above: Yes, I wouldn't move that aircraft an inch further until someone came and took a look to at least guarantee that everything's (mostly) in place and there's no leaking going on

I hate to spoil the "have a pop at the new generation" thing, but I know of a case in the '80s where, not only did the crew not admit they'd been off piste, but due to low viz, the tracks on the grass were only discovered by Ops in the morning, when the aircraft was tucked up on stand, looking a bit sorry for itself. There's nothing new under the sun...

I wonder if the autobrake was selected to Max and subsequently grabbed more on one side leading to the loss of directional control?

Max autobrake? Thats only for RTO

Was it a training flight? Possibly cadet training?

Could have been but the TRI/TRE is in the other seat with duplicate controls.

Maybe this was a crosswind landing, and they landed the nose gear while cock-eyed before pushing straight with the rudder ?


(my added word; we don't ever land with max autobrake.)

I stand to be corrected but am fairly sure that Airbus FBW uses directional information from the ADIRS etc. to modify the auto-braking to stay straight. So tyres or brakes losing grip or whatever would not cause this sort of deviation.

It could have been a faulty reverser on the port engine maybe.

Who knows, maybe mx came on and cleared it. "Could not duplicate. Ops check good, OK for cont. service."

There seems to be symmetric reverse from the forward video.... and lots of it. If that was a P2F cadet landing then the trainer should not have let the aircraft stray so far towards the slush on the runway margin, as the result was entirely predictable

I once had an autobrake mishap on landing with autobrake low + idle planned. Clean dry runway... As the nosewheel touched down there was a sharp grab of one brake snatching and immediately releasing. This was followed by a BSCU 2 ECAM and the autobrake dropping out. The runway was nice and long and there was no upset to directional control. Rev Idle was held to 70kts where we tried the brakes which worked fine, as did the NWS. On inspection there was a flat spot on one of the tyres so draw your own conclusions about what happened. Playing back the QAR gave no indication of fault, neither did the FDR. Engineers changed both BSCUs as a precaution. I think the Airbus logic may have prevented a double main-tyre blowout that day, and possible runway excursion.

Or worst of all...

"BITE check performed. No faults found."

I suspect the outside of the aircraft wasn’t the only thing that was brown…

Agree, but selection of MAX inadvertently is not inhibited.

I have personally seen it inadvertently selected and used on landing on two occasions (without damage but with huge pilot eyes from extremely rapid decel) on A330.

And once it featured in an A320 accident where selection of Max Autobrake was selected intentionally after Flap Ext Abnormal and the aircraft departed the runway after 5 seconds in a very similar manner to this accident aircraft.

As far as I am aware of (FCOM is not specific about it) Max Autobrake will not arm in-flight on more recent MSNs, I.e. Enhanced onwards.