HighBypass

Bumpy Landing Airbus 380

Recommended Posts

I think the landing is made more dramatic by the foreshortening effect of looking down the runway. Mind you I wonder what it was like sitting in the back rows... :blink:

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

To see a large aircraft like that tossed around like a kite is amazing.  In all the years I've flown I've only been in one strong crosswind landing, in a puddle jumper coming into Philly, where they use a smaller runway at a 90 degree angle to the main runway and prevailing wind.  The pilot warned us we'd be coming in at an unusual angle.  I could see the approaching runway from the passenger window, that's how crabbed we were.  I felt him kick the rudder to line up just before landing, then felt the strong side to side swaying as he fought the crosswind down the runway as he decelerated.  Since I was an aviation geek at that time anyway and flew once a week as well, I wasn't overly concerned, just uncomfortable as my body strained against the swaying which is normal for that type of landing.  When I got out I estimated the crosswind at 20-25 knots, maybe more, quite strong and steady.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Mind you I wonder what it was like sitting in the back rows... :blink:

I think the cleaning crew will be spending a little extra time back there.:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, don't all A380 seats come with tv screens where you can watch the onboard plane cameras? Top of the fin etc. Gives you some situational awareness :) I would have loved to have seen the footage on that sucker! :biggrin:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a landing in Houston coming back from Paris on an Air France 777 that was similar to that, but thankfully not quite as bad.  I've only been scared once on landings and takeoffs and that was the time.  I happened to be watching on the cam which was mounted somewhere near the nose wheel, I think, and that sure gives a person a different perspective.  And actually, going over to Paris, the landing in Paris was not very relaxing either.  I didn't know if it was just bad luck or maybe the AF pilots.  I usually fly KLM.

Jeff

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago when I was a logisitcs guy in the US Air Force I got to fly as a mission observer on LOGAIR run out of Kelly AFB TX to Columbus, Warner-Robbins, Hurlburt and then back to Kelly.  We got in to Robbins and overnighted because of the weather at Hurlburt Field in Florida.  Next morning we got out of Robbins fast because the weather was predicted to go "south" quickly down in Florida again.

As a Mission Observer I could ride in the cockpit of the L188 in the jump seat.  The Pilot gave me the "rules", one of which was no talking to the pilots below 10,000 feet.  Approaching Hurlburt the weather was getting worse and worse.  I could tell by their movements...and the aircraft movement...the pilots were fighting the weather.  We're low...really low, but I keep my mouth shut.  I'm looking out the windscreen and I don't see a runway, just trees ahead.  Can't take it any longer, I blurt out...against the rules..."where's the runway?"

The pilot calmly points out the left side window and there it is.  We're crabbing, flying almost sideways.  Just before we landed he kicked it hard left, we lined up and swoosh, we were down.  He turned and looked at me after we stopped and sternly said..."That's one!"  Then he smiled and said he didn't blame me, he would have said something as well if he was in the jump seat.

Randy

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was some landing. The gear held up well...

That rudder movement - as violent as it was - reminded me of the airbus accident over NY some years ago which lost most of its rudder - wasn't the crew censured by Airbus for 'over use' of the pedals ?

I'm not criticising, but that rudder is huge, and that appeared a bit rough. (but obviously the circumstances made it necessary). It appeared to me that the conditions were borderline for a crosswind landing ?

Scary.

Thanks for the link.

Regards

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BillCusick said:

.... that rudder is huge, ....

I guess a massive fat biffer of an aeroplane needs a massive rudder! :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that must have been quite the jarring experience in the back of the plane. Those lateral forces were huge and must have cracked some heads and wet a few seats.

Kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cannot believe something this big can survive a landing like this!

Edited by Jim Young
Removed duplicate video
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BillCusick said:

That rudder movement - as violent as it was - reminded me of the airbus accident over NY some years ago which lost most of its rudder - wasn't the crew censured by Airbus for 'over use' of the pedals ?

I'm not criticising, but that rudder is huge, and that appeared a bit rough. (but obviously the circumstances made it necessary). It appeared to me that the conditions were borderline for a crosswind landing ?

Scary.

Thanks for the link.

Regards

Bill

Yup, the Queens crash in 2001 was an Airbus A300-B4: American Airlines 587. It was caused when the co-pilot overused the rudder at speed. He had apparently been cautioned about his tendency to over use the rudder prior to that accident in check rides, but at the time American Airlines training had advocated coarse use of the rudder, suggesting it was okay in those circumstances (i.e. the aircraft flying through suspected wake turbulence), however, AA have since altered their training procedures to make pilots aware of the danger. If other pilot and ATC reports, weather and radar tracks are are to be believed, sadly, it is likely AA587 would have simply rode the turbulence out had the co-pilot not done anything at all, but he attempted to correct the aircraft deviations, using too much control input.

To be fair to the pilot however, it was perhaps not entirely his fault, unfortunately, a lot of pilots are unaware that full deflections of the rudder at higher speeds can put dangerously high side loads on the vertical stabiliser. Personally, I consider myself lucky that I had an instructor who warned me about that when I was learning to fly, which was long before the AA587 incident highlighted the issue, as it shows how knowledgable my instructor was; before he told me about that, the notion hadn't even occurred to me, so I don't find it surprising that some pilots don't know this even these days. Airbus did not put any sort of inhibitor on the A300's rudder pedals to prevent full defections happening at beyond safe full manuevering speeds, instead relying on pilots to know this is not something they should do. This didn't help either.

What made matters worse with flight 587 however, was the repeated rudder deflections from full left to full right at fairly high speed, which became akin to rocking a fence post stuck in the ground backwards and forwards to loosen it, i.e. one or two movements won't do much, but do that repeatedly and you will loosen the fence post and maybe even break it. It is this phenomenon which is exactly what happened to the lugs which held AA587's tail fin on. But the force generated would be very different at landing speeds on approach, you actually do need big rudder defections at those lower approach speeds the A380 would have been at in the video, in order to correct its course; there isn't as much airflow at that lower speed in order to grant as much rudder authority as AA587 would have had whilst accelerating up to 250 knots on a climb out after take off, which means there would not be anywhere near as much side load on the fin of that A380 as there would have been on AA587.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is 1.3 million pounds of aircraft, therefore the forces being thrown around is really impressive when you compare it to a 777 that weighs in the 300,000 pound region, or an A320 that is in the area of 140,000 pounds. This is a lot of mass and forces at play :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drift it they said... OK  I said...

The title of my post in Hangar Chat with the same video. :happy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now