Weather at the time.EDDH 011220Z 29028G48KT 9000 -SHRA FEW011 BKN014 07/05 Q0984 TEMPO 29035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008 So winds were 290/28 knots gusting to 48 knots. Dont believe the rubbish you read in the press.Rob

Uh yeah, okay, but that landing, it looked like stonger winds than G55. Not that I am talking out of experience, but what's your opinion?

It looks like when he kicked off the drift he didn't add enough right Aileron leaving the right wing slightly high. and a combination of bad luck when the gust hit the right wing. The A320 switches to normal law below 50ft (or maybe it's 30ft) and from what I have heard a lot of pilots dont like the Airbus logic in strong crosswinds. I'm not a Pro so again I say hats off to those guys... I would have slammed the Thrust levers to TOGA at 500ftRob

Haha, my friend told me about that this morning.It's definatly a good thing the pilot did a go-around, otherwise that could of ended terribly!

He did not lower his upwind wing enough to negate the drift from the crosswind a big mistake, and after this he actually managed to show some skill with the recovery he made, and believe me it is horrible to land a commersial jet with this stupid sidestick they decided to put in the airbus

The sidestick is not the problem.... If you speak to most real world pilots they will tell you flying with a sidestick is a lot simpler then a control yoke. The Problem is with the ELAC Logic behind the scenes. If you search online you will find a story about a Emirates A340 departing from FAJS or FACT the Pilot pulled back to Rotate and the Aircraft did nothing.. the Aircraft decided his rotation rate was incorrect and rejected it! In the end the pilot WAS in the wrong as he was rotating following the Flight director (You should never do this in any aircraft) However this causes a big debate about having to reject a lot of things you have learnt when flying other aircraft that are less forgiving.People bash airbus all the time but if you understand the system logic you will be fine.Rob

Hello all,I'm no expert but instead of blaming the Airbus technology (which has I believe fully proven itself over the years) shouldn't we debate about why the airport was not closed.Isn't 48KTS gustling crosswind above landing limitations?Regards

Yes you are absolutely right as I did not express myself correctly

I have felt for some time that too much onus is put upon the pilot about landing decisions in bad weather or ground conditions that are not either fully understood by the pilot, or explained by ATC.I think some decisions by ATC are more to do with having business as a priority rather than safety. In this case, why was this runway assigned as the active when there was an alternative safer runway available.Sure, diverting is not an ideal "business" solution, but the safety of the passengers and crew should ALWAYS be the first priority, and the landing and takeoff of aircraft shoud be considered more of a partnership between ATC and the pilot and not the pilot's sole responsibility.Ron

The Pilot in command is just that. In command and fully responsible for himself the aircraft and anyone else on board, he has the final say. Weather conditions should always be fully understood by the pilot, if not he has no business being on the flightdeck. If anything, pressure comes from the Airlines and sometimes from pilot Ego, If the guy in front got her down safely then so can I. Also dont quote me on this but I'm fairly sure the Alternate runway was LOC only and did not provide glide path. Also the runway was a lot shorter.

I believe from comments from someone who was on the flight that in fact the alternate runway was used succesfully.Ron

>Also dont quote me on>this but I'm fairly sure the Alternate runway was LOC only and>did not provide glide path. Also the runway was a lot>shorter.It's true that RWY 33 at Hamburg is a LOCDME approach only. But it is actually longer than 23 where this incident did happen.

Thanks for the correction guys, a friend also confirmed this. The news is now saying the handling pilot was the 24 year old female copilot and the captain took over for the Go-around. Most Airlines have a 15 knot crosswind limit for a F/O I find it hard to trust the press when they say the plane is a A380 and then a 777. Why would the Captain let the F/O practice in such conditions?Rob

>Thanks for the correction guys, a friend also confirmed this.>The news is now saying the handling pilot was the 24 year old>female copilot and the captain took over for the Go-around.>Most Airlines have a 15 knot crosswind limit for a F/O I find>it hard to trust the press when they say the plane is a A380>and then a 777. Why would the Captain let the F/O practice in>such conditions?>>Rob I seem to remember that Lufthansa has the policiy that Captain and FO alternate as PIC during a flight. On the return trip the Captain would have been PIC during the landing.

If the 24 year old female copilot really was in command that surely would have been her last practise