Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)
Reload this Page >

A380 Hard Landing at Oshkosh

Wikiposts
Search
Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

A380 Hard Landing at Oshkosh

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 29th Jul 2009, 01:54
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A380 Hard Landing at Oshkosh



How wide and long is runway 36, looks like the I/B engines are over the grass, not a lot of room to maneuver that's for sure.
SMOC is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 02:17
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like its 6300' long and 50' wide; with that cross wind...they did a great job.
Iceman49 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 02:26
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,394
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
A 'rough' landing by Terry Lutz in a lightly loaded A380.
B772 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 03:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: California
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Runway 36 is 8000' X 150'

Didn't look like much of a flare to me. Could've ruddered out the crab before touchdown too. Of course I've never made a poor landing .
TriStar_drvr is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 03:36
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: on the move
Age: 54
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hard

it would be hard landing if the engines touched the grass!they did a good job.
Flying Mechanic is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 04:16
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Was on the field at LAX for the first landing there......had less xwind but the landing is what it is, the 380 just seems to go through a lot of gyrations the last fifty feet and during rollout. Same shifting around and large rudder deflections at LAX.......normal nice landing for this bird apparently......
Vulcancruiser is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 04:21
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Brawley, CA
Age: 58
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to AvWeb, the A380 had to land within the first 5500 feet or else it would miss the only taxiway wide enough to get off the runway. Don't know if that qualifies as a short field landing or not.

I didn't care much for the tone of the commentator so I don't know if it really was that bad, or just another Boeing driver criticising an Airbus. I'm curious to see what the knowledgeable people here think.

Weather was

KOSH 281953Z VRB06G14KT 10SM FEW060
KOSH 282053Z 26007G17KT
ukpilotinca is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 04:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: asia
Age: 51
Posts: 175
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That make you cringe just watching it! Never mind checking the 'g' meter, that would have registered on the Richter scale! What's the bet he had the autothrust in and it pulled off the thrust at an inopportune moment!

Having said that, the X wind looks like a solid 25 kts if not more, which would not have helped. No doubt he briefed a 'firm' arrival due to the limited runway length available, just not quite that firm!

Perhaps a covert hard landing inspection at OSH tonight!

I've never screwed one up either
buggaluggs is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 04:57
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With every landing I've seen of big bird, the tail does seem to be doing an inordinate amount of waggling. More so than other craft on the same approach with the same x-wind. Not sure why this is.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 05:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have a look at where the photographers are. Just a bit of showing off for them so they could get a head on shot of the touchdown!
Knighty is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 07:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing versus Airbus

Having flown most Boeings (707,727,737, 747-200,300,400) and Airbus (A300, A340- 200,300 &600 and A319) give me a max cross wind landing any time in a Boeing before an Airbus. Note how many Airbus's have runway excursions versus other types!
HondaCRV is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 09:01
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is a slow speed landing in a big jet. That is going to result in a firm landing as there isn't the energy available for an effective flare.

A high nose attitude on landing could also result in a tail strike.

A firm landing is safer on a short runway as it enables a short landing roll because energy is dissipated in the landing.
Flap 5 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 09:43
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where's the damage? What fell off? Plenty of insinuations from Boeing trained pilots. Look at the Avweb video and the 777 pilot comments. Did anything come undone inside? Was anyone videoing from the flight deck on that approach? Would love to see/hear that footage........


AVwebFlash Complete Issue
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 10:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The video comments are ridiculous.
It was a firm landing to keep it short and to make that special taxiway for parking. And a landing with stiff crosswinds on a narrow runway. I wanna see those same two "experts" doing it.
Kerosene Kraut is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 10:20
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A firm landing is safer on a short runway as it enables a short landing roll because energy is dissipated in the landing.
Many more like that and there'll be lot's of energy dissipated elsewhere too
HarryMann is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 10:29
  #16 (permalink)  

SkyGod
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
He could probably have landed just as short if he had flared and used rudder.
150 feet is plenty wide if ya land on the centerline.
TowerDog is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 10:48
  #17 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I'm a lifelong Boeing pilot and it looked good to me. I would say 'firm', not hard, and exactly like it should be given the crosswind and roll-out considerations. Once again a drama being made out of nothing. 747 wings flex given firm landings like that. When you have a really 'hard' landing, the winglets fly off when the wing flexes violently. That was a good one.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 11:07
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

Rainboe is on the money. What this 777-pilot does not mention is that a wing with two engines on it will flex a lot more under the same circumstances than one with only one. The fact that the crew didn't decrab might have to do with the lack of ground clearance of the upwind outer engine when such a maneuver would be performed, and with this in mind the crew elected to perform a touchdown with crab on, but wings level instead.

Good job I would say!
A-FLOOR is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 13:03
  #19 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The aeroplane is authorised for landing with crab on anyway. No problemo! I didn't even notice any nodding of the engines which is a must for a really hard arrival.

Spotters on a website such as this with a high proportion of real pilots must try and not sensationalise each and every thing they see that could possibly construed, on even a dull day with nothing else happening, to create 'incidents', 'hard landings', 'almost crashes' out of nothing, please! Particularly here. You will get eaten. No 'youtube'-style sensationalism- it does not go down well.

For a short landing in a heavy crosswind, that was quite excellent. Why does everybody have it in for this aeroplane? Any possible 'incident'- they're out in force bleating about the 380!
Rainboe is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2009, 14:19
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whats with the negative vibes?

It looks to me like he kept the nose towards the people with cameras for as long as he possible could to give them the best photo opportunities, it does look good with the big wings etc...pulled of a rather natty landing on a short runway, maybe a bit too much panache, but hey, then probably, and here's the real speculation... took his sports car (red/flashy/one of) from the hold, as he was lightly loaded, drove off with his Biggles-esk scarf streaming into the wind, sunglasses glinting in the sun while on his way to the most trendy bar in town, the one that has the really hot women.

Think positive about a fellow aviator and keep the mystery, that wasn't a heavy landing it was style!
Miles Gustaph is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.