Don't watch if you are already nervous when flying....

[Level42]

[youtube]http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=usHuqPq7g5w[/youtube]

I hope the pilots got sacked and taken their permit......

[Level42]

Ooppssssss, wrong section.....was meant for Everything else.....of course:D

[patrickl]

I saw this a few days ago on tv and the reporter claimed that the pilot actually saved the aircraft when it was hit by a sudden gust of wind.

I tried to "land" a plane myself once and I was amazed how sideways I had to fly to stay on course. But then on the small airfield where I was landing they had only one runway. You would expect they'd have a better aligned runway for these big planes.

[Level42]

You mean pointed to the wind.... ?  Not all airports have a set-up like f.i. Schiphol....if there's only 2 runways, this happens. It's not uncommon to land with cross-winds. Planes are allowed to a certain angle landing, and I've read that the computers are programmed to do landings like that. They test with even much worse cross-winds, but as far as I've seen them on youtube, those are _steady_ winds...in deserts etc. A storm rarely is rarely steady....

The "trick" is to maintain the angle and then do a quick turn just over the first part of the runway and then touchdown. The thing going wrong here is the gust that drops the right wing by a good deal....then it turns right too much. It also looks to me that he's too high over the runway start...but I'm not a pilot

I read the 39 year old captain let the 24 (!!!) year old co-pilot do the landing. Would have been OK in somewhat more normal situation, but this was the heavy storm from last weekend !!!

It said the captain took over to do the re-take off.......

[patrickl]

The "trick" is to maintain the angle and then do a quick turn just over the first part of the runway and then touchdown.

Yeah that's what I was trying to do too. I tried a flying lesson from Lelystad airport once. Luckily the instructor actually landed the plane. I'm pretty sure I would have wrecked it He let me fly pretty close to the ground though. Quite scary.

I read the 39 year old captain let the 24 (!!!) year old co-pilot do the landing. Would have been OK in somewhat more normal situation, but this was the heavy storm from last weekend !!

Ah, just like the Martinair crash on Faro.

[Level42]

Cool, I still have that on my list of "must do" things....

I've actually safely landed a 747 once.

OK, it was not exactly on the runway and it was with Flightsimulator but hey I didn't read any of the books or had training. The plane was in one piece and safe on the ground (Of course this was without any crosswinds etc. etc.)

I'm pretty good with Airline Pilots too.... Always play it when we're at Scheveningen...

The best flying game I played was in a real F16 simulator though......many years ago. My uncle did electronics maintanence of F16's in the army. I got a private tour there.....man....best "game" I ever played, but it's already hard to keep a "rocket with tiny wings" up in the air....let alone fight others
Graphics were amazing for that time and projection all around  of course.....

Indeed, when I watched that clip the first time I thought about that this was something pretty simular to Faro.........

[danny_galaga]

you almost always have some amount of cross wind. even if you had 180 diferent runways, you would still probably end up with 60 minutes of crosswind! two runways is quite common and normally end up with a livable amount of crosswind. they normally align them to the most common (statistically) prevailing winds. most common way for light aircraft is to crab in and then kick it straight just before touchdown. for commercial flights they sometimes fly with crossed controls to keep the aircraft straight but with one wing lower than the other (more comfortable for passengers). i learnt to fly at darwin which had two runways. the training area though only had one banana-shaped dirt runway with a wire fence alarmingly close to the thresh hold. good times 

[HaRuMaN]

Another problem with crosswinds is that it can set up distortion in your jet engine inlets... 

[Ginsu Victim]

Video no longer available

[RayB]

im pretty sure the wheels can rotate to an extent to align with the tarmac even though the body of the plane isn't.

[danny_galaga]

i've heard that too. the wheels can castor or something. the undercarriage is rated for up to 45 degrees from straight apparently!

[Level42]

Video no longer available

Fixed. If it dies again search for "hamburg crash landing" (Although it's not really a crash of course).

[SavannahLion]

Why should the pilot(s) lose their permit over this? There are other examples with some really bad landing strips.. 

[Level42]

Uhhh.....did you actually watch the Hamburg video ??

That was a cross-wind (better:storm) landing on a regular strip. The landing should have been aborted earlier. (around 0.35).

St.Maarten is famous by now and there are dozens of video's on youtube which all show fine landings.
The reason for the Jumbo's going so low over the beach is because of the short lenght of the strip. You need to put it down right at the start of the strip...

There's one aborted landing by a KLM plane on one of the video's. which is rather the best thing to do when the strip hasn't been cleared yet...also normal procedure.

[SavannahLion]

I did actually and I see nothing that could really be considered deserving of a loss of license. He probably could have handled the situation a little better, yeah, the pilot probably should've aborted before getting in as close as he did. But losing his license due to a bad crosswind? C'mon. Get real. If pilots refused to land every time there was a crosswind, there wouldn't be much air traffic to speak of since no one could land a plane unless conditions were absolutely perfect.

And letting a possibly inexperience 24yr old copilot try to land? Again, probably not the best judgment, but in the end, every pilot learns by experience. If the pilot always flew the plane and never actually let the copilot do anything, then what's the point?

In the end, how can we pass judgment a 1:05 video about a situation we know very little about? Maybe the pilot had to land there. Maybe the plane was carrying some kind of life saving cargo. Was it a private or commercial plane? What kind of experience did the pilots have? What lead up to that video? What happened afterwards? How "heavy" is a heavy storm? Would it be the same kind of "heavy" storm that Alaskan bush pilots are known to contend with or is it the kind of "heavy" storm that causes an desert airport to shutdown due to a mere 2" of snowfall?

It's an interesting video, all it's really good for is a little armchair discussion.

[Samstag]

In the end, how can we pass judgment a 1:05 video about a situation we know very little about? Maybe the pilot had to land there. Maybe the plane was carrying some kind of life saving cargo. Was it a private or commercial plane? What kind of experience did the pilots have? What lead up to that video? What happened afterwards? How "heavy" is a heavy storm? Would it be the same kind of "heavy" storm that Alaskan bush pilots are known to contend with or is it the kind of "heavy" storm that causes an desert airport to shutdown due to a mere 2" of snowfall?

You can look up the answers to those questions if you'd like to argue based on fact rather than ignorance. 

[danny_galaga]

samstag is right. you are legally obliged to duty of care as commanding officer. these questions:

"In the end, how can we pass judgment a 1:05 video about a situation we know very little about? Maybe the pilot had to land there. Maybe the plane was carrying some kind of life saving cargo. Was it a private or commercial plane? What kind of experience did the pilots have?"

are moot points. 1) pilot in command always submits a flight plan which includes an alternate landing site. 2) cargo doesnt matter 3) most of the rules regarding safety are the same for private or commercial. besides, other than john travolta, there arent that many private planes around that size...

 in this situation, he probably should have gone round earlier. around 35 seconds into the video id say. having said that, even though there are clear legal guidelines on safety, there are always pressures from the operators on the pilots. this is often what leads to accidents- pilot trying to save time and/or money by taking risks/shortcuts. even though in the end, if there is an accident, its the pilot who is most accountable...

[SavannahLion]

In the end, how can we pass judgment a 1:05 video about a situation we know very little about? Maybe the pilot had to land there. Maybe the plane was carrying some kind of life saving cargo. Was it a private or commercial plane? What kind of experience did the pilots have? What lead up to that video? What happened afterwards? How "heavy" is a heavy storm? Would it be the same kind of "heavy" storm that Alaskan bush pilots are known to contend with or is it the kind of "heavy" storm that causes an desert airport to shutdown due to a mere 2" of snowfall?

You can look up the answers to those questions if you'd like to argue based on fact rather than ignorance. 

You've got to be kidding, thank you for missing the point entirely. This is really an armchair discussion that holds no bearing on whether the pilot in question keeps or loses his license. I'm not arguing about anyone discussing on facts vs ignorance. Feel free to spend hours, weeks or months digesting all the facts about this incident and why the pilot kept his license. In the end, what does it get you? Congratulations, a whole lot of information about this one incident. Those hours could have been better spent... I don't know, working on your WIP, earning a bit of cash, hell, even learning to fly might be a good one.

Everyone here can discuss this until they're blue in the face. It doesn't change anything about the situation. If the pilot loses his permit, then so be it, the decision was made. If the pilot kept his permit, again, the decision was made. I'm not debating what should have or shouldn't have been done. I'm debating that it's pointless for anyone to state that these pilots should have lost their permit.

Good day.

[Samstag]

Sorry, I thought I was giving you some helpful advice.  Usually the people who think facts get in the way of a good argument stick to the PnR forum.

[AtomSmasher]

I'm not debating what should have or shouldn't have been done. I'm debating that it's pointless for anyone to state that these pilots should have lost their permit.

Welcome to the internet.  Is this your first time online?     

Pointless debates are the staple of any online community.   

[SavannahLion]

I'm not debating what should have or shouldn't have been done. I'm debating that it's pointless for anyone to state that these pilots should have lost their permit.

Welcome to the internet.  Is this your first time online?     

Pointless debates are the staple of any online community.   

---fudgesicle---... you got me there. 

[Level42]

In the end, how can we pass judgment a 1:05 video about a situation we know very little about? Maybe the pilot had to land there. Maybe the plane was carrying some kind of life saving cargo. Was it a private or commercial plane? What kind of experience did the pilots have? What lead up to that video? What happened afterwards? How "heavy" is a heavy storm? Would it be the same kind of "heavy" storm that Alaskan bush pilots are known to contend with or is it the kind of "heavy" storm that causes an desert airport to shutdown due to a mere 2" of snowfall?

You can look up the answers to those questions if you'd like to argue based on fact rather than ignorance. 

You've got to be kidding, thank you for missing the point entirely. This is really an armchair discussion that holds no bearing on whether the pilot in question keeps or loses his license. I'm not arguing about anyone discussing on facts vs ignorance. Feel free to spend hours, weeks or months digesting all the facts about this incident and why the pilot kept his license. In the end, what does it get you? Congratulations, a whole lot of information about this one incident. Those hours could have been better spent... I don't know, working on your WIP, earning a bit of cash, hell, even learning to fly might be a good one.

Everyone here can discuss this until they're blue in the face. It doesn't change anything about the situation. If the pilot loses his permit, then so be it, the decision was made. If the pilot kept his permit, again, the decision was made. I'm not debating what should have or shouldn't have been done. I'm debating that it's pointless for anyone to state that these pilots should have lost their permit.

Good day.

Of course it's pointless to state that, but it is my opinion. However, I do not have the power to withdraw that girl's license.

There were about 118 passengers IIRC on-board, it was a commercial (Lufthansa) flight.
What does that have to do with anything ? Even if it was an empty cargo plane, it was still a misjudgement to continue the landing after 0.35.

Cross-wind landings are a fact of flying, and I bet a dozen planes landed before (and after) that one without problems. The thing is, this was a storm, not a steady cross-wind. I actually drove alongside one of Schiphol's runways during that storm and saw how the planes were landing, amazing to see.

If it's done right it looks like this:


Looks scary,uncomfortable, but no problems there.

The fact that a person deserves to be allowed to fly such planes full of people is in the fact that they take split-second decisions ALWAYS in the favor of safety. The pilot should have broken off the landing at 0.35 when the plane dips out of control. She didn't so I say no more flying missy !

(By the way, the captain did an amazing job in getting it out of trouble AFTER he took over, that has to be said too).

[Level42]

Luckely, they did find out what really happened in the cockpit:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=8rbZg_Y3AgY&feature=related[/youtube]


(Amazing how well those German pilots speak French )

[Level42]

Nice shot:

[danny_galaga]

(By the way, the captain did an amazing job in getting it out of trouble AFTER he took over, that has to be said too).

that is a bigger question to me- why the first officer let his judgement lapse and let the way less experienced second officer land in such conditions. he did an amazing job AFTER cocking up badly 

[Jouster]

So most everyone here seems to think that a co-pilot should never be given the chance to land in bad weather?  If that is case...please tell me how they wil ever be ready to be the captain?  The co-pilot has to make attempts to land in bad weather as well as good.  The fact that the pilot let the co take her all the way to the ground before stepping in says a lot in what he thought of the co's piloting I think...only resuming control after that attempt was failed.

Personally, I want my pilot to have landed in that kinda crap before.  If the younger co-pilots never get to land in that situation, pretty soon you are gonna have planes flown be those co-pilots...with no one in the cockpit with any experience landing in that situation.  That'll be the day I stop flying.

Jouster

[danny_galaga]

So most everyone here seems to think that a co-pilot should never be given the chance to land in bad weather?  If that is case...please tell me how they wil ever be ready to be the captain?  The co-pilot has to make attempts to land in bad weather as well as good.  The fact that the pilot let the co take her all the way to the ground before stepping in says a lot in what he thought of the co's piloting I think...only resuming control after that attempt was failed.

Personally, I want my pilot to have landed in that kinda crap before.  If the younger co-pilots never get to land in that situation, pretty soon you are gonna have planes flown be those co-pilots...with no one in the cockpit with any experience landing in that situation.  That'll be the day I stop flying.

Jouster

i know what you are saying, but the point is that NO ONE should be landing in those conditions. co-pilots get plenty of experience, but you dont really want them to experience crashing a plane! those sort of conditions you should really only ever 'experience' in a flight sim to get an idea of what not to land in...

[patrickl]

Other planes were landing there just fine. The airport wasn't closed. It's more that a landing can go wrong and then you decide to fly through and try again as opposed to trying to slam the plane it into the ground. 35 seconds in the clip really is the point where the landing should have been aborted.