LH A320 Rough Landing @ Hamburg
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes if you were choosing an airplane to flight instruct in I feel the comments about being one step behind are prudent, better off with a C-172, this however is a live commercial flight full of passengers and crew, and the aircraft shouldn't be put in a situation where this type of control feed back is absolutely necessary, if the conditions are so critical, the captain (or most experienced) should be the handling pilot, do they really need to indicate this in an FOM? Common sense if you ask me.
Captain monitoring
Maybe the captain was a training captain and thus competent and licensed to teach the FO to land in such conditions...
And obviously how the FO would learn if he is not allowed to fly in some extreme conditions...
Rwy in Sight
And obviously how the FO would learn if he is not allowed to fly in some extreme conditions...
Rwy in Sight
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inappropriate attribution of irresponsibility
asva,
I don't think you will find much sympathy here for your view that, because there was a storm warning for much of northern Europe, then what happened at Hamburg was foreseeable and therefore the pilots were irresponsible.
Reasons are these.
Forecasts are just that. Nobody goes flying when the weather is clearly impossible. Many crews judged that the weather was not clearly impossible. And they were right. Of the hundreds or even thousands of flights which were completed successfully during that stormy weather period, this was the only one which appeared to have control difficulties. If this crew was irresponsible simply because of the weather forecast, then so were each and every other one of those crews who flew. Why single out the PF of this flight in particular?
Second, you suggest that hitting a strong gust of wind exactly at the point of touchdown is "hardly an unforeseeable event". I disagree strongly. I think the chances of that happening exactly at that point are very small indeed.
Here is a comparison. I was sitting in my house during the storm "Cyril" last year (actually, "Kyril", because it's the Germans who name storms), under the one ridge line which extends into the north German plain and which thus disturbs the weather around it, hoping desperately that most of my roof would still be there. During the hours of that storm, tiles came off my neighbors house just once, in one gust. They hit the middle of the road and shattered - and 5 seconds later a car came by (idiots to be driving around in that!). It happened just once. So, given that the heavy part of the storm could be predicted for a period of, say, 8 hours, what are the chances that, as you drive by, the tiles will crash down on your car? Well, *if* a gust hits the house strong enough to take a tile off (and it hit my neighbor's; not mine) and a tile comes off, then two seconds might be a conservative time window for a given passing car, and the chances of it happening exactly as a car passes is about one in 14,400. So now we must multiply this figure by the chances that a strong-enough gust will actually strike a given neighbor's house. I dunno; there are a couple hundred houses around here in three different groups, and I know of two that lost tiles (both my neighbors). So let's say one in a hundred. So the chances appear to have been about one in 1.44 million of getting hit by a tile while out driving around here. That is one thousand times smaller than the chances of dying on the roads in Germany in any one year. When you consider that there are about one thousand eight-hour periods in a year, you will see that, even during that "storm of the century", when everybody was warned to stay indoors and (around here) was legally barred from walking in the woods for two weeks afterwards, your chances of getting hit by falling roof tiles in your car were about equal to your chances of dying in a road accident on a normal day while going shopping. Which is a chance that people take every day, many times, without worrying about it. Even though we were astounded that someone was driving around at the height of Cyril, apparently he was only doubling his chances of dying through driving his car anyway.
So, now, you do the calculations for Emma, a far weaker storm, and the landings of all of those airplanes at all of those airports all over Europe, and let us know what you come up with. (Please feel free to post your results in Italian if you wish.)
PBL
I don't think you will find much sympathy here for your view that, because there was a storm warning for much of northern Europe, then what happened at Hamburg was foreseeable and therefore the pilots were irresponsible.
Reasons are these.
Forecasts are just that. Nobody goes flying when the weather is clearly impossible. Many crews judged that the weather was not clearly impossible. And they were right. Of the hundreds or even thousands of flights which were completed successfully during that stormy weather period, this was the only one which appeared to have control difficulties. If this crew was irresponsible simply because of the weather forecast, then so were each and every other one of those crews who flew. Why single out the PF of this flight in particular?
Second, you suggest that hitting a strong gust of wind exactly at the point of touchdown is "hardly an unforeseeable event". I disagree strongly. I think the chances of that happening exactly at that point are very small indeed.
Here is a comparison. I was sitting in my house during the storm "Cyril" last year (actually, "Kyril", because it's the Germans who name storms), under the one ridge line which extends into the north German plain and which thus disturbs the weather around it, hoping desperately that most of my roof would still be there. During the hours of that storm, tiles came off my neighbors house just once, in one gust. They hit the middle of the road and shattered - and 5 seconds later a car came by (idiots to be driving around in that!). It happened just once. So, given that the heavy part of the storm could be predicted for a period of, say, 8 hours, what are the chances that, as you drive by, the tiles will crash down on your car? Well, *if* a gust hits the house strong enough to take a tile off (and it hit my neighbor's; not mine) and a tile comes off, then two seconds might be a conservative time window for a given passing car, and the chances of it happening exactly as a car passes is about one in 14,400. So now we must multiply this figure by the chances that a strong-enough gust will actually strike a given neighbor's house. I dunno; there are a couple hundred houses around here in three different groups, and I know of two that lost tiles (both my neighbors). So let's say one in a hundred. So the chances appear to have been about one in 1.44 million of getting hit by a tile while out driving around here. That is one thousand times smaller than the chances of dying on the roads in Germany in any one year. When you consider that there are about one thousand eight-hour periods in a year, you will see that, even during that "storm of the century", when everybody was warned to stay indoors and (around here) was legally barred from walking in the woods for two weeks afterwards, your chances of getting hit by falling roof tiles in your car were about equal to your chances of dying in a road accident on a normal day while going shopping. Which is a chance that people take every day, many times, without worrying about it. Even though we were astounded that someone was driving around at the height of Cyril, apparently he was only doubling his chances of dying through driving his car anyway.
So, now, you do the calculations for Emma, a far weaker storm, and the landings of all of those airplanes at all of those airports all over Europe, and let us know what you come up with. (Please feel free to post your results in Italian if you wish.)
PBL
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 seconds later a car came by (idiots to be driving around in that!)
Why is it idiotic to drive a car in a storm but not even irresponsible to choose a runway which other pilots had apparently declined to use?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus crosswind landing
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Considerations in HAM
Landed in HAM yesterday with winds of 14kts steady from the north (ATIS wind). During descend ATC offered a visual 33 or ILS 23. Has never happened before, especially with that little wind. Now that shows that something has gone on within the ATC "background", although kind of lame because of course a visual is not always the better choice than an ILS. Never landed on 33 before, landed on 15 even with tailwind, all due to "Noise abatement". More than idle reverse is not allowed after touchdown due to "noise abatement". One crew a few weeks ago got a visit from officials and had to discuss why they selected more than idle reverse on a dry RWY. Use of APU on GND restricted due to "noise abatement". Whenever I flew to HAM (7 years) my thoughts were: If you need 33 you better declare emergency to get it! Regulations like that also put "pressure" on pilots, not just commercial pressure!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise Abatement
Just a side note:
All that noise abatement stuff, and then one look at Google maps to see how the city has totally enclosed the airport - makes you wonder where all those scientifically educated city planners have their brains stored?
All that noise abatement stuff, and then one look at Google maps to see how the city has totally enclosed the airport - makes you wonder where all those scientifically educated city planners have their brains stored?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Santiago de Compostela
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks J.O. It seems that there are 50.000 flights worldwide flying at the same time than our flight. Sounds great. The possitive thing of this, is that the best moment to flight in an airline which had suffered an incident/accident, is doing it shortly after.
Extra precautions are taken. Anyway, only the weather is not good, is matter of concern
Extra precautions are taken. Anyway, only the weather is not good, is matter of concern
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 75
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, NOR 112.60
RWY 28 must be used because a little Southern German politician with a huge ego made a big story about the intolerable incredible noise jets make 12 miles away from runway thresholds 14 and 16. He got elected
. Sadly he got the attention from some other incompetent German politicians who also needed to get reelected and manadated a new tight and "demanding" approach regime for ZRH early morning and in the evening.
ZRH ATC unfortunately has no other choice than to offer you the steep approach to 28 or the Southern approach over densely populated city areas.
Frank
RWY 28 must be used because a little Southern German politician with a huge ego made a big story about the intolerable incredible noise jets make 12 miles away from runway thresholds 14 and 16. He got elected
. Sadly he got the attention from some other incompetent German politicians who also needed to get reelected and manadated a new tight and "demanding" approach regime for ZRH early morning and in the evening.ZRH ATC unfortunately has no other choice than to offer you the steep approach to 28 or the Southern approach over densely populated city areas.
Frank
Maybe the captain was a training captain and thus competent and licensed to teach the FO to land in such conditions...
And obviously how the FO would learn if he is not allowed to fly in some extreme conditions...
Rwy in Sight
And obviously how the FO would learn if he is not allowed to fly in some extreme conditions...
Rwy in Sight
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BS
landing is a demanding task. you must expect the unexpected. winds, tire burst, steering problems (nose gear) animals on the runway, go around due to traffic on the runway, even failure to stop (rio).
BS...noise abatement, FLying out of KDCA, when offered the shorter Northwesterly runway (formerly33) instead of the northerly runway (formerly 36 now 1) to expedite things, we all finally said hell no. and that was in good weather.
BS...as to worrying about those tankers for the USAF based on the airbus, that might just not stand. so don't buy stock yet!
Unless massive control failure is found ( unlikely as the plane is flying again right now) we have a situation where the crew wasn't up to the task of landing in a high crosswind. It was a terrible crosswind landing and a lucky recovery to a go around.
Does anyone have the total time on type and total time for the pilot landing?
NEVER give up flying the plane.
landing is a demanding task. you must expect the unexpected. winds, tire burst, steering problems (nose gear) animals on the runway, go around due to traffic on the runway, even failure to stop (rio).
BS...noise abatement, FLying out of KDCA, when offered the shorter Northwesterly runway (formerly33) instead of the northerly runway (formerly 36 now 1) to expedite things, we all finally said hell no. and that was in good weather.
BS...as to worrying about those tankers for the USAF based on the airbus, that might just not stand. so don't buy stock yet!
Unless massive control failure is found ( unlikely as the plane is flying again right now) we have a situation where the crew wasn't up to the task of landing in a high crosswind. It was a terrible crosswind landing and a lucky recovery to a go around.
Does anyone have the total time on type and total time for the pilot landing?
NEVER give up flying the plane.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: €
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
instructional video about the degree of airbus stick movement during gusty landings.....
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Munich
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X-wind limits
Hi folks,
I`m a new forum-member and I have a stupid question:
As a former Tornado-driver, I had to obey a lot of x-wind limits.
Is it true, that you civil aviators don`t have any of those "hard" limits? Only recommendations?
I`m a new forum-member and I have a stupid question:
As a former Tornado-driver, I had to obey a lot of x-wind limits.
Is it true, that you civil aviators don`t have any of those "hard" limits? Only recommendations?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civil aircraft have a recommended (demonstrated) x-wind limit. It is derived from whatever wind was present at the day of the test.
It is, for all practical purposes, a hard limit. I'd like to see the captain that bust the limit, have something go wrong, and that explain why he busted the limit....
It is, for all practical purposes, a hard limit. I'd like to see the captain that bust the limit, have something go wrong, and that explain why he busted the limit....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 95
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To deviate slightly( I havent read all the posts)
I have seen one take off and one landing crash where everyone died after the aircraft got too low and touiched a vital part of the structure subsequently going into pullup and uncontrolled flight.Snce then Ive always had it in mind that, knowing I had such an unexpected contact, I would put the aicraft down at once regardless
Hind sight says that on this occasion the go around was successful , probably the pilot did not know if they had touched. If he HAD stuffed it down it would have been very messy .Ive also seen a couple which did stay on the ground with good passenger survival ; my personal rule stands for me as the safest bet.
Hindsight also says i would have called go around far earlier
I have seen one take off and one landing crash where everyone died after the aircraft got too low and touiched a vital part of the structure subsequently going into pullup and uncontrolled flight.Snce then Ive always had it in mind that, knowing I had such an unexpected contact, I would put the aicraft down at once regardless
Hind sight says that on this occasion the go around was successful , probably the pilot did not know if they had touched. If he HAD stuffed it down it would have been very messy .Ive also seen a couple which did stay on the ground with good passenger survival ; my personal rule stands for me as the safest bet.
Hindsight also says i would have called go around far earlier
Reference the posts about "noise abatement". Airlines and manufactures spent sheds of money on technologies to reduce noise. We had Stage I, II, and III and now further certification standards for the newest jets. But the noise abatement programs, ridiculous rules and noise monitors continue on as if we were all flying JT-3D and Conways. I had mistakenly thought the technololgy would eliminate the silliness of the Sixites and Seventies. Just proves a government project once in motion, obeys the Law of Inertia.
GF
GF
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yangon,Myanmar
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a different prospective
I am not a pilot, just someone who has much respect for flying and your chosen profession.
I have read this thread for the past few days and agree with many of the points made:
*the captain should have been at the controls during the 1st attempt because of the extreme conditions
*he should have called for a go around sooner...
the fact of the matter is these pilots found themselves in a very difficult situation, and on top of that it was recorded for all the world to view and dissect.
I think it is importatant to look at this incident and ask why did they pull out of it instead of the dreadful alternative. Has all the training and technology paid off?
As a pax I have complete confidence in Luftansa, Airbus and Boeing...for that matter.
Once again the pilots fell into a bad situation and may have made some judment errors. But when the S#*t hit the fan they had the ability to get it right and real quick, right in front of out eyes.
I have read this thread for the past few days and agree with many of the points made:
*the captain should have been at the controls during the 1st attempt because of the extreme conditions
*he should have called for a go around sooner...
the fact of the matter is these pilots found themselves in a very difficult situation, and on top of that it was recorded for all the world to view and dissect.
I think it is importatant to look at this incident and ask why did they pull out of it instead of the dreadful alternative. Has all the training and technology paid off?
As a pax I have complete confidence in Luftansa, Airbus and Boeing...for that matter.
Once again the pilots fell into a bad situation and may have made some judment errors. But when the S#*t hit the fan they had the ability to get it right and real quick, right in front of out eyes.