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.

Looks like its 6300' long and 50' wide; with that cross wind...they did a great job.

A 'rough' landing by Terry Lutz in a lightly loaded A380.

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 ;).

hard
 

it would be hard landing if the engines touched the grass!they did a good job.

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......

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

That make you cringe just watching it! Never mind checking the 'g' meter, that would have registered on the Richter scale! :eek: 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! :ooh:

Perhaps a covert hard landing inspection at OSH tonight!

I've never screwed one up either :ok:

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.

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!

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!

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.

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

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.

Many more like that and there'll be lot's of energy dissipated elsewhere too :ooh:

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. :sad:

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 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!

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!

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!

Having flown with the A380 Captain in the Air Force (Phantoms), the airlines, and our experiemental aircraft (RV's), I'll put him up against any pilot on this board.

Is that standard procedure to land the A380 in a severe crab on a dry runway?

That looked like a hard landing to me, exacerbated by not de-crabbing the aircraft prior to touchdown.

Well, I was there for the taxi in. Did not see the landing as I wanted to be close to where it parked to avoid a huge lineup for the promised tours of the airplane that afternoon of arrival. After all, it was my last day.

How disappointing when they said that now there would be no tours given on the same day as arrival and we would have to wait until tomorrow. I wondered why they changed it all of a sudden. Now I wonder how long it takes to stow 550 O2 masks(if it is a pax configuration).

So what's the problem? He landed in a crab, either because of the xwind or to give the camera drones a nice show. Hardly anything flexed, and I didn't see anything fall off or bend permanently.

Only thing I can't tell for sure is if he possibly oversteered slightly taking the crab off, and wiggled around a little bit. But given the short landing and the inital crab, I suppose he was likely doing differential braking while slowing down for the exit. I suspect this kind of landing isn't practiced in the simulator every day.

Makes one wonder, doesn't it "Jammedstab".....

Well, if that landing was 'a good job' by airbus standards, then no wonder they are experiencing multiple runway excursions!

What is it with touching down without decrabbing? (Is this an ex-B52 pilot!)

I would have expected somewhat better. For instance check out the landing of the Classic B747 of SAA into it's very last resting place, for the museum.

Good, err...I mean normal approach and touchdown, kept it right on the center line, and rolled out with very little heading wander. THAT was a good landing under similar conditions of runway and crosswinds!

Those standards are what I call 'good'!

...incoming!

No incoming at all! But it is a tiresome feature of Spotter sites that there has to be drama and trauma in almost every landing there is a video for. There was nothing wrong, the airline is certificated to take crab landings, and it appears he was aiming to make a quick turn-off. Nothing wrong at all, but some people can't accept that. And now the theory is there was 550 O2 masks out! 'Overwrought' imaginations!

BTW: This is MSN004. It has a test cabin without seats and masks.

The authors of the video have written a rebuttal to those who say they were being unfair A380 at AirVenture


A380 At OSH: Yeah, It Was a Hard Landing
Email this blog |Print this blog

By Paul Bertorelli

Somewhere in that little book of unwritten rules that pilots are supposed to adhere to is one that says thou shalt not criticize another airman. This is observed or ignored to varying degrees, thus it was no surprise that we received a blizzard of e-mail on Dan Gryder’s commentary on the spectacular arrival of the Airbus A380 here in Oshkosh on Tuesday afternoon.

Not to put too delicate a point on it, but the vast majority of this reaction is of the “dear idiots” variety. “You should be embarrassed for doing this,” wrote one viewer. But every tenth comment or so is from some heavy driver—Boeing or Airbus—who says Gryder nailed it and had the guts to say so. Most of the adverse reaction attacks not the analysis of the landing itself, but the fact that Gryder stepped over some imaginary line in stating bluntly what he thought of it.

A few correspondents insisted that the 380’s touchdown was perfectly normal for airline operations, but my view is that this argument is just not credible. Look at the video again and decide for yourself. If you’re a pilot with heavy aircraft experience, I invite you to post your comments below, pro or con. Reasonable people might disagree on this, but my guess is they are sitting around a conference room in Toulouse looking at that video and that the FDR data has been examined.

Some of our correspondents interpret all of this as Airbus bashing. But I actually think it’s the reverse. Airbus deserves kudos for bringing the 380 to Oshkosh—not to mention building the thing in the first place—and its awkward touchdown represents one thing and one thing only: less than optimal airmanship on that day, on that landing.

Dan Gryder and I had a conversation about his description of the touchdown as “ugly,” a word that inflamed many who saw the video. When I brought the subject up, he looked at me as if to ask if I’d call the landing pretty. Ummm, no, I wouldn’t, although some e-mail improbably insisted that it was. Gryder likes his truth unvarnished and referring to the rule above, some readers and viewers don’t like the truth at all and would simply prefer to leave the subject untouched. As an aviation Web site, we promote the industry vigorously, but that doesn’t mean we have to be mindless cheerleaders.

And at this juncture, a word about editorial judgment. When I was editing the video and patching in Gryder’s comments, I had some misgivings about the commentary being too strong. I won’t pretend to say that we aired the video in the name of aviation safety. We aired it because it was interesting and Gryder’s comments—whether you agree with them or not—represented what seems to be popularly called a teachable moment.

If I had the judgment to make again, I’d make it the same way.

Damage from a hard landing is not usually readily apparent visually. That's why there is a mandatory hard landing inspection after such an event. However, the label of "hard landing" is subjectively applied by the PIC and therefore subject to his own integrity.

An airplane as advanced as the A380 may also have electronic measurement of g-force and sink at touchdown that may drive a hard landing inspection.

As far as a relatively light GW airplane always resulting in a firm landing by one poster, here - baloney. Of course, my experience in jumbos is limited to 747s and I don't have any A380 experience. Lighter weight 74's are a little more difficult to finese, but not scary like that landing. Landing in a crab like was done on that A380 landing is very hard on the landing gear. I'd be interested to hear what the flight manual has to say about landing in a crab.

Sorry gentlemen, but that was a BAD landing. We've all done them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a bad landing, but it sure as heck makes you wince quite a bit, shame (or perhapes just as well) there was no sound track of the A380 'caressing' the runway to go with it :ooh:

Having said that, we've all been there, seen it, done it and got the t-shirt, so no blame attached to the crew.

[For journos/geeks alike: current B747-400 driver]

How many marks out of ten for the second landing?

I don't know who or what 'Gryder' is, but I do not take him to be an expert in large aeroplane operations or landings! It sounds to me like he is commentating beyond his experience. I have flown 747s for 18 years, and 4 engine intercontinental jets for 7 years before that. I have seen 747 arrivals like that. Usually one can't wait to get up to see the pilots and laugh and say 'planted that a bit, didn't you?!'. But not have a heavy landing check done. That was firm. A 'hard' landing would have bounced. You want to see a hard landing, go to the Pan Am SFO hydraulic failure landing on one system out of four, with 1/4 elevator capacity. That was a bounce that went 30' back up into the air. This was just a firm arrival to make a turnoff in time.

I like the way the author of that article dispenses with pilot testimonies of what the landing was like! Yeah- is he such an expert? Yet again, sensationalism rules, and when you try and say 'it wasn't such a drama' you get shouted down because you are pricking peoples' imaginations that 'yes, there was a drama here!'. There wasn't!

Funny how adverse comment about the 380 appears at the slightest excuse. Behold the 747 replacement- a long awaited replacement of a 45 year old design that can't be stretched on forever!

Thanks for explaining that, I saw the video with no details appended recently and wondered what happened. I presume it was the same incident anyway.

Have a look at this, second video clip of the same landing. Looks much better in this clip IMHO. Perhaps the first clip used a very long telephoto lens that "magnifies" the yawing of the plane.

Yawn . . .
 

Total non-event; not even close to a hard landing. :rolleyes:

[PS: I'm a 74 driver, never driven a Bus]

Completely agree. Seeing it from that angle, it shows how totally ordinary an arrival it was. The drift is not that great- the telephoto is exaggerating it. Because some idiot goes public with what a 'hard' landing, it is taken as read despite professional pilots here trying to say there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. The aeroplane enthusiasts do nothing for their reputation going off on one for something as ordinary as that! It is, actually, quite damaging as well as being totally idiotic. Take a neighbouring thread, 'Tapping a roof on finals'- no wonder there are so many people so nervous of flying if they think a video landing like that is 'hard' and dangerous, and aeroplanes regularly hit roofs before landing. This idiocy must be stopped. I make myself thoroughly unpopular when I step in and try and bring some normalcy back. Who then?

Ok, yes its a big airplane. But the runway is PLENTY long! They were trying to make the turnoff? Please. That airplane was empty and very light, it should have been no big deal. Isn't it supposed to be some kinda technological tour de force? So why such an ugly landing? As far as the "envy" some are implying, sorry, but that plane is a white elephant, and the biggest taxpayer ripoff in history! How many have they sold? Aren't the pilots some kinda super Airbus test pilot dudes? Where are they now? Back in France doing some explaining? Isn't Airbus trying to SELL these things? That landing didn't make me want to buy one. Sorry, unimpressed. ;)

Looked like a standard Kai Tak arrival to me. :}

While I can probably forgive the spotties for wetting themselves, the commentator ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Those who can, do; those who can't, commentate. I suppose. :(

Sludge shows what it is really about. The poor old 380 is copping a lot of nationalistic antagonism in the heart of 'enemy territory'. It's not about the landing, it's about any excuse to denigrate it. Sludge, I love the 747, I flew it for 18 years altogether in 3 different marques. But it was designed in 1967. The elapsed time since then taken earlier goes back to 1925. Can you imagine a 1925 design still relevant in 1967? And here we are, 2009, with economies of latest design, large scale and ultra long range. As the 747 program nearly caused Boeing to turn the lights off in Seattle, the 380 has cost more than projection, but not nearly so bad an overrun. It will be the non-US airline preferred long haul aeroplane- Europe-Far East, Europe-Australia, Europe South Africa, and Far East-US. US airlines have no place for a leviathan like this, just as the 747 now is too large for the US market.

Attacking it is irrelevant. Airbus has determined it will work. It will prove itself. The sales will gather pace as the recession recedes. There is no point blustering about it- the US taxpayer will not pay. Boeing dropped the ball with large scale, long range airliners. The 380 will top the market over 777 and croaking 747s. In 20 years, nobody will want to be seen dead in a 747. They might be flogging cargo around. Who would have thought BA would end up with 57 747-400s, after buying over 30 747 Classics? They have barely scratched the surface yet of how many 380s they will operate. How many will SIA and Emirates alone get through? The 777 and 787 will just not cut the mustard in 10 years- the world is poised for BIG tourism and travel.

Go to a major airport and watch the wide bodies. You will see landings like that throughout the day. But it's not really about the landing, is it? Poor unloved 380, but it is going to knock the 747 off its perch! And I should think the pilots are not back in France- they will be playing with all the displays at Oshkosh and planning their next home project if I understand pilots, which I do!

Yes they were trying to make a turn off, not to show off, but there is only one turnoff on that runway that the 380 can take. If they had missed that intersection one of two things would have happened.

1. They would have had to reverse engines 2 and 3 to backup to the intersection. Hardly a brilliant idea.

2. Wait until a tow could come out to the runway and push them back to the intersection. The most logical, but it require the runway to be shut down at the busiest airport in the world, as OSK is the busiest airport in the world by far while the EAA airshow/meeting is ongoing.

Besides that, it was not hard of a landing, just embarrassing with all those video cameras and the thousands of people watching.