Very well executed Balked-Landing, good training paid off and prevented a catastrophic situation. :D

But still: The question needs to be asked why they even attempted to land on RWY 23 with the winds somewhat more favourable for RWY 33, even if its not a big change it makes a significante diffrence under those conditions.

What about the procedure acc. OM-A or OM-B? How come other flights diverted or used the other RWY as described earlier in this thread and therefore didnt expose their Pax to such a potential dangerous situation?

Our (NJE) SOP states if the actual winds, including gusts as reported by the TWR / ATIS exceed the X-Wind limit then a missed approach shall be initiated. Every FMS / FDC should have a function where you can calculate the X-Wind for each runway. Part of the apporach briefing should include this discussion as well on which runway to use and what limit is the limit.

It appears to me, that those question are not really ciritically discussed here since the Crew solved the situation in an excellent manner. But commercial pressure might have put them there in the first place.

What conditions have to prevail in order to use the alternate?

What are your company procedures regarding this?

Hamburg has an ILS to RWY 23, and only LOC to RWY 33. As far as I know, gusts do not get taken into account for calculating xwinds with Lufthansa. It is the steady component that counts.
So I would have chosen 23 over 33 there also, just to have the vertical guidance and be able to give more of my capacity to the monitoring of all parameters. In fact I made the same choice that day flying into Basel LFSB, using ILS 16 instead of circling 26 for this reason, and the fact that 26 only provides 1600m LDA, with a wind of 250 25G38.

You also have to look at the airport layout of EDDH. There is forest to the north of 23, with 33 intersecting the touchdownzone of 23. There is a gap in the forest, of course, for the RWY extending NNWwards. On the picture of the scrape happening you can actually read the sign for RWY33. I believe, that the wind gut funneld down RWY33 and hit the plane right at the intersection...

Case of bad luck, in my opinion...

Gusts don't count?
 

From Admiral346 "Hamburg has an ILS to RWY 23, and only LOC to RWY 33. As far as I know, gusts do not get taken into account for calculating xwinds with Lufthansa. It is the steady component that counts."

If true, I believe Lufthansa should revisit the use of gusts for takeoff and landing limitations.

Journo alert
 

The video is now on the BBC news site. "Plane narrowly avoids disaster"
No doubt this thread is being watched for a suitable quote .."Pilots say A more dangerous that B"

Surely the aircraft manufacturer gives guidance on whether or not gusts should be considered and how (eg no gust, half gust, all gust).

Our company considers the "Demonstrated" crosswind as limits AND that includes all the gusts too (Boeing and Airbus).

I'd have thought it was just like tailwinds. You treat whatever value is stated in the Performance Limitations manual as a limit, and include gusts if they are reported, rather than disregarding them. If your manual says not to land with tailwind above 10 kt and the reported wind is up the tail at 10 knots gusting 20, are you going to ignore the 20?

fr8tmastr I too would much rather have direct control with the flight controls. That's one of the reasons why I have chosen not fly the Airbus.

Not a Nice day
 

I don't agree with the "prevented a catastrophic situation". Look at the pictures of the damaged wingtip. It was very very unsure that the aileron wasn't damaged or jammed, and in case of a go around in such a windy day, I'm not sure the plane would have flown very far.
It already happened in the past, and had a bad ending.
They were lucky, that's all I can say.

Let me refine my concern: Looking at that video, they changed their angle of crab quite severly on short final so they knew it was gusty, to say the least. There was a more favourable runway avialable as well. The winds were at the limits and other decided not even to attempt or went right away to the other runway.

Still my question is: How much is the commercial pressure influencing our decision making process? Knowing how much trouble it is to divert to the alternate aerodrome for the company and the Pax?

And: What is the responsiblity of the Airport authorities? Acc. JAR right now as far as I know: None. It will change in the near future with EU-OPS. They should have a junk of responsiblities under those conditions too.

So what did we all learn out of this? I hope we learend something because that could have ended in a nightmare quite easily (knock on wood!!) and then all of the hero-praisers would ask diffrent questions which I think would sound a bit more leaning towards questioning the decision to try to land under those conditions.

Gotta go, have to find wood to knock onto!

sispanys,

What would you have done ? Continue with the landing ?

Regardless of how they got in that situation and whether or not they are 'hero's' :} if they had tried to continue with the landing it is highly likely they would have ended up on the grass. Things like wingtips, gear, engines, start to 'dig in' then.........not good.

I take your point RE. the possible aileron jam.....yes perhaps they were lucky but you also have roll spoilers and then once safely away form the ground the option to disconnect the ailerons and try for a different airport.

In my humble opinion they made the right decision to poor on the coals and get the hell out. :D

Just shown on Sky News.

Keep the wing down!
 

Hi There

I was surprised to see that the PIC did not carry the right wing lower into the flare. The plane was never more than horisontal and touched down on both wheels at the same time.

I'd have expected a distinct right bank and right wheel first touchdown.

rgds

Mike

Truth be told they probably should gone missed a lot earlier, requested a different runway or go through any other options at their disposal. The approach was fairly stabilized up until the point of flare where it all began to unravel. With the wingtip contacting the runway surface obviously their decision wasn't the safest or best course of action.

Now on the BBC site with the reporter saying "the wing touched the ground the - pilot managed a re-start - the pilot averted a potential catastrophe"
:}

PKPF68-77, yes I agree! For this reason alone I would have been considering RW 33 in this case, all other things being equal.

Veering of the wind in gusty condition is something I alway take into consideration. I'm not sure where I have learned about this (I think it was A KLM procedure) But the rule was that during a gust the wind may change up to 30 degrees increase in direction, at EU lattitudes and obviously on the northern side of this planet.

With this consideration I wander what would have been the most favourable runway?

Control laws on the 320's are roll rate 0 when no stick input, so my understanding is that in such case if you input rudder (altough slowely) you will not bank as a result. Also as stick input gives roll rate demand there is no link between aileron deflection and stick input, so a higher approach speed makes no difference in response rate from pilot input. I do remember something about a change in these laws during landing, but I'm not sure. I do believe that the control laws in such conditions may not be a great help.

Curious to see the outcome of this investigation.

Cheers, Nick

Former astronaut Frank Borman once said:
A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill... :cool:


live 2 fly 2 live

In looking at the damage from the photo in post #82, if the aileron had jammed due to the bent wingtip, it would have been all over. :uhoh:

Errr.... and why???

NoD

It's official, the pilot is a hero...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

It's coming up on ITV's Lunchtime News shortly too.....