Lufthansa A320 in scary landing, HAM

[akerosid]

Here's a video of it; clearly very windy conditions ... you can see the wingtip strike. Landing was aborted shortly afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaVx3JOsfJw

[DAL767-400ER]

Something like that was bound to happen. We faced some gusts up to 70mph today due to storm "Emma" passing by. Actually surprised that they didn't close the airport down due to the strenght of the gusts. IIRC, even EK's A345 was diverted to FRA because they couldn't land at HAM.

[AJ]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eaVx3JOsfJw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eaVx3JOsfJw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[DAL767-400ER]

Before anyone is wondering, that video seems to disappear and then reappear on a constant basis, so if you get a "video has been removed" message, wait a few minutes and try again.

[Mungous]

^ YouTube vid no longer available apparently

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddb_1204404185

[Cam]

http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.file?id=536882887&filename=phpOltUWB.jpg

[Tbun]

Any damage pics? Looks like a touch to me.

[daninho]

take a look here

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/leserreporter/2008/03/flieger__landung/flieger__landung.html

[Tbun]

cheers

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/leserreporter/2008/03/flieger__landung/4-8703292-flieger-gelandet-quer,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=225.jpg

[Tbun]

some here

http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-forum.de/showthread.php?tid=763&pid=2607#pid2607

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7726/undhp144mx3.jpg

[brianw999]

Vorsprung Durst Fu**ed It !! :uhoh:

Jeez...bloody glad I wasn't on that one !

[MaxPower]

There's also another LH aircraft, an Airbus A346, damaged by Emma's gusts, knocking over a catering-truck attached to RD3 onto the trailing edges of the right wing.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3869983/

[ptbodale]

What an amazing recovery. High winds all over Europe this week. MUC was particularly bad as AC846-29 couldn't land and diverted to FRA and in FRA an AC A330 and a Lufthansa A340 both suffered lightning strikes and needed to go in the hangar, however it was too windy to open the hangar doors to put the planes in.

[Cloudhopper]

That's what i call good recovery.
Professionals at work.


Thats the level of expertise i hope to have on duty on my flight when being passenger during bad weather conditions.

[scottkin]

I hate to make light of a pretty dangerous situation but talk about bad reporting. 155 mph crosswinds. WTF????http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,538926,00.html

[Rolling-Thunder]

Looks like they corrected that... the article now says 56mph (90kmh)

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story contained information from German wire service DPA that listed the strength of storm winds near the airport at 250 kilometers-per-hour (155 miles per hour).

pmm/dpa

[scottkin]

I was getting ready to say, thats either one ballsy pilot or the reporter had a late night the night before.:shock: I figured the later of the two. I will say in that video that was some serious crabbing.

[MaxPower]

I think I have watched the video a dozen times now, but still every single time, it makes me shiver. Glad the only outcome or damage to it was the dented winglet. Kudos to the Pilots.

[Squawk7500]

The same video on CNN's website:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2008/03/03/vo.germany.plane.close.call.liveleak

[Cargo Runner]

Kudos to the Pilots.

yes very

[Cargo Runner]

80MPH winds reported in the BBC, same winds broke the mooring ropes of a boat in Felixstowe, bringing the boat crashing back into the side of the dock, hitting 2 container cranes, sending them tumbling and they fell onto a stack of containers which had a domino effect on others. The 2 cranes are a write off LOL what fun - not

[AASuper80Fan]

Wow!!!! That's all I can say, nice recovery there.

[Messerschmitt Man]

I dont get why people are praising the pilots & everything, the landing attempt was horrific & the strong cross winds are no excuse, countless aircraft have landed safely in much worse conditions than that.

They used the rudder like an on/off switch to pivot the nose, if they applied it more gently & progressively it would have left them less vunreable to wing strike & given them more control about the longitudinal axis. Bollacks to anyone that says they had to apply all that rudder given the weather conditions, it's far easier/safer to apply more rudder/aileron as needed than to go in all guns blazing.

[screaming_emu]

I dont get why people are praising the pilots & everything, the landing attempt was horrific & the strong cross winds are no excuse, countless aircraft have landed safely in much worse conditions than that.

They used the rudder like an on/off switch to pivot the nose, if they applied it more gently & progressively it would have left them less vunreable to wing strike & given them more control about the longitudinal axis. Bollacks to anyone that says they had to apply all that rudder given the weather conditions, it's far easier/safer to apply more rudder/aileron as needed than to go in all guns blazing.

Jets do not land like cessnas/pipers. You cant just throw that thing into a slip 1/4 mile out and ride it in. Swept wings don't like that.

[Gabriel]

He touched down with the wrong leg and didn't apply aileron into the wind as de-crabing. That means he put the aiplane in a stron sideslip and the stong dihedral efect of swept wings (the same that incontrolably inverted a couple of 737s after an uncomanded full rudder deflection) did the rest. Ok, fire now.

[Egil]

I too cannot understand the praising of the pilot going on in papers etc everywhere. Clearly this was not a good landing attempt and could have resulted in a crash.
I think people realize that this could have ended badly, but need to attribute the pleasant final outcome somewhere. The pilot is a likely target for that. If the plane had flipped and crashed, which it easily could have, I think the pilot would have been put to blame.

[3WE]

Good pilots or bad?

I haven't studied the film (I have watched it a few times), but probably need to really study it, but for now, would trust Gabe's analysis.

I imagine the pilots know how to deal with a crosswind and are not complete idiots, and I imagine some of what we see is an extreme, stray wind gust. The early phases look like a "normal" landing in a serious cross wind.

There is a question if the landing should have been attempted, but to pass judgement on that depends on us knowing what the pilots had been told about winds and WHEN They were told. Yes, hindsight is really good, they should have waited a while. But if someone landed fine 5 min before and the wind reports were reasonable, then it's not bad judgement, and aviation doesn't shut down just because it gets windy and rainy.

Now about the pilot's ability:

Some of the aircrafts "final" lateral movements and gyrations seem very strange. Maybe the pilots did do some wrong things (Gabe's comments). I will say that when you kick out of a crab, you expect the aircrafts inertia to keep you going forward for a few seconds, and do not expect the aircraft instantly start blowing sideways in the wind. By the way- crab and kickout (which is basically what they did) is fine crosswind technique- as long as you keep the upwind wing down.

Enough talk, I'm going to watch it again, but again, it seemed to "defy" normal aerodyamics to me, so for now, I say a strange, extreme wind gust.

EDIT: Ok, I watched it again, and it makes more sense now. As they came out of the crab the wing came up "for some reason" when it should have ideally been "held down". 1) Maybe they used bad technique, 2) maybe it was a stray wind gust that suddenly lifted the wing, and 3) Maybe (as I've read elsewhere) the FBW computer was limiting their control effectiveness.

As they drifted way to the left, I am troubled that the aircraft seemed to settle, as IMO, they should have been maintaining altitude or initiating a go-around. However, as I make that parlor-judgment, I should acknowledge that jet engines are slow to spool up, AND who knows if the gusty winds caused a speed-loss wind shear- so the pilots may have been "doing their best" with what they had.

[Will M]

Ouch ! Great photos from all !

[flyboy2548m]

I haven't studied the film (I have watched it a few times), but probably need to really study it, but for now, would trust Gabe's analysis.


Why, of course you would. It's part of Parlor Talker's Unwritten Honor Code.

[3WE]

Why, of course you would. It's part of Parlor Talker's Unwritten Honor Code.No, I trust Gabe due to demonstrated expertise.

[DaveGF4G]

EVERY aircraft has published crosswind limits that should be easily determined in the cockpit once the winds are obtained..... the aircrew obviously failed to look into the checklist and figure this out. They should have said .... SHIT WE CAN'T LAND ON THAT RUNWAY.... the tower ALSO has the responsibility to change runways (if they have multiple runways) when the wind dictates..... the aircrew and the tower should take hits

[LSGG]

they just say here:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/vermischtes/2008/03/04/pilotin/hat-vielleicht-den-sturm-jet-gelandet,geo=3926766.html (in german)

that not the pilot (39), but the co-pilot (24) was flying the A320 while landing in the storm "emma" at HAM...

is this normal procedure to let the much less experienced co-pilot land an aircraft in such conditions...?!?

[3WE]

EVERY aircraft has published crosswind limits that should be easily determined in the cockpit once the winds are obtained..... the aircrew obviously failed to look into the checklist and figure this out. They should have said .... SHIT WE CAN'T LAND ON THAT RUNWAY.... the tower ALSO has the responsibility to change runways (if they have multiple runways) when the wind dictates..... the aircrew and the tower should take hitsOh no, here we go.

Aircraft do not have published crosswind limits.

However, airlines often have lmits in their operations manuals.

I would also speculate that the reported winds were not in excess of what is listed as a limit in ops manual or the published maximum demonstrated crosswind.

[DaveGF4G]

I beg to differ... every aircraft has it's own crosswind limit that is determined through flight testing by the manufacturer. This limit is published in the aircraft's operating manual (checklist) and a quick chart can be used to determine if the winds are out of limits..... it takes about 5 seconds to look up the wind direction and speed and runway heading to determine if the crosswinds are out of limits. These guys obviously failed to do that

[andyb99]

all i know is if i was a passenger on that plane i would never get on a plane again! last week was my worst week travelling ever (i'm a scared flyer) and that has scared the crap out of me.

[DaveGF4G]

Don't be scared..... it is STILL the safest way to travel..... BY FAR. And the chances of this happening to you are about the same as winning the lottery

[T.O.G.A.]

Whoa! If I were on that flight my sphincter would be so tight you wouldn't be able to drive a 10 penny nail through it with a 5 pound hammer

[screaming_emu]

is this normal procedure to let the much less experienced co-pilot land an aircraft in such conditions...?!?

Just because the pilot flying is the f/o doesn't mean he's "much less experienced". Its possible but not for certain.

[screaming_emu]

I beg to differ... every aircraft has it's own crosswind limit that is determined through flight testing by the manufacturer. This limit is published in the aircraft's operating manual (checklist) and a quick chart can be used to determine if the winds are out of limits..... it takes about 5 seconds to look up the wind direction and speed and runway heading to determine if the crosswinds are out of limits. These guys obviously failed to do that

Wrong. Aircraft have "demonstrated maximum crosswind". This means that during testing that speed is the maximum they were able to land the airplane using "average pilot skill".

That MAY mean that it was the maximum they were able to get the airplane to do, but it could also be the maximum that particular pilot doing the testing, or the maximum wind speed they could find on the days they were testing.

The only limits that are set in stone for us when it comes to crosswinds are max for wet runways, when braking action is less than good, and if the captain has less than 100 hours in type. Other than that in most cases there's nothing wrong with taking it down and giving it a look. Once you know the airplane well enough you can tell pretty early whether or not you're going to be able to handle the wind or not.

[DaveGF4G]

The main point here is... the approach to THIS runway should never have been attempted. There was enough data available to determine that

[screaming_emu]

The main point here is... the approach to THIS runway should never have been attempted. There was enough data available to determine that

Didn't it say that they landed successfully on the 2nd try or did I hear incorrectly?

[andyb99]

yes he did. he aborted, flew above the wind, circled for a bit then till the wind had dropped and he landed fine.

bet that second approach was worse than the first for the passengers, even if it was smooth i'd have still be cacking it!

[duelingdragons]

The main point here is... the approach to THIS runway should never have been attempted. There was enough data available to determine that

What data was there? Keep in mind that the data the pilots had as they approached was probably not as updated, even if only by a minute or two.

That being said, great recovery considering the circumstances.

[ToRX]

1) DFS (German Air Traffic Control) reports that the "official wind speed" was 45 km/h, i.e. approx 28 mph or 24-25 knots. Additionally, the effective wind direction was the same on either runway (23 and 33) due to coming from west-northwest.

2) The jet landed on the alternative runway (33) after the go-around.

3) Runway 23 has ILS, while runway 33 does not and reportedly that made the pilots decide to use 23 instead of 33 (now, I'm not a pilot, so could one of you please make a comment if it's a difference under the given conditions whether to use ILS or not?).

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/HHAirport.jpg>

[Messerschmitt Man]

I just want to say that before my last post I overlooked how computerised the Bus really is, my understanding now is the computers will keep wings level no matter how much rudder is kicked in, however the strong gust blew the aircraft over with a roll rate faster than the computers could correct so the onboard computers must have hindered the attempted landing?

[FlyingPhotog]

Didn't it say that they landed successfully on the 2nd try or did I hear incorrectly?

Yes, on another runway they did. I assume they used the other runway on the 2nd attempt due to possible debris from the wing strike on the first attempt.

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1204579270.html

[Airbus_A320]

Jets do not land like cessnas/pipers. You cant just throw that thing into a slip 1/4 mile out and ride it in. Swept wings don't like that.
Why is it that swept wings don't like slips, is it the the design and the way the air flows around the wing, or other factors? Also, what are the techniques for landing in crosswinds in jets/swept wing, that differ from a 172 for example? I'm just asking for the sake of knowledge.

I wish all the know it alls would stop posting in topics like these, so that those of us that actaully admit we don't know it everything, but want to learn stuff can ask questions, and those such as Emu and others who are pilots and can provide more insight (if they wish to) can have a legitimate discussion instead of having anything useful being buried under 30 posts of "the pilots suck", "ATC sucks", blah blah blah :rolleyes:

On a side note, what's up with the strom being named Emma? Is this a regular occourance to have these type of storms over there, kind of how winter storms, hurricanes, and the like get named?

[ToRX]

OT, but in short:

On a side note, what's up with the strom being named Emma? Is this a regular occourance to have these type of storms over there, kind of how winter storms, hurricanes, and the like get named?

Since 1954 the FU Berlin is responsible for the naming, male and female names alternate every year between high pressure and low pressure systems:
Adopt-a-Vortex (http://www.met.fu-berlin.de/adopt-a-vortex/)

[Quench]

Just because the pilot flying is the f/o doesn't mean he's "much less experienced". Its possible but not for certain.

Research shows that in a disproportionately high percentage of landing accidents the F/O is flying the approach. The same research shows that in most cases it is the fact that the Captain does not do the F/O's job right rather than the other way around, that causes the accident

This is understandable because the Captian has a higher workload, he is doing all the F/O duties plus he is still the captain with overall responceability.

I say to the OP.
When should the F/O attempt an approach like this. After he is captain with no one to offer advice, or before ???


I wonder who flew the second approach :-)

[DaveGF4G]

Does anyone agree with me there are cross wind limits on aircraft?

[Airbus_A320]

Does anyone agree with me there are cross wind limits on aircraft?
Why don't you find some POH's and look it up? I know with the 172 there is no limitation, that's the only plane I've ever flown, and the only one I have have a POH for. It was certified with max demonstrated crosswind landing with a 15kt direct crosswind. It says right in the text, NOT A LIMITATION. Also, a crosswind isn't just a crosswind, it's made up of a crosswind and a headwind component. Unless of course it's direct. The chart shows it.

http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/V2T5F.jpg

In this case there is no limitation on the plane itself. On others there well may very well be, but you are looking for support on a blanket statment that may or not be true depending on what plane you are talking about. In the example I gave, you are wrong.

[Spike]

A different website [in UK] is reporting the first attempt was 24 yr old female FO and the Capt did the go around and subsequent succesful landing.

[Dmmoore]

Why is it that swept wings don't like slips, is it the the design and the way the air flows around the wing, or other factors? Also, what are the techniques for landing in crosswinds in jets/swept wing, that differ from a 172 for example? I'm just asking for the sake of knowledge. <SNIP>

There are two reasons. Both affect the wing retreating as the aircraft yaws.
1. The nose of the fuselage tends to block some of the airflow over the retreating wing.
2. The Advancing wing effectively grows longer and if enough yaw is induced the advancing wing can become straight with the airflow. The retreating wing grows shorter.

The result of 1 and 2 is an increased likelihood of the retreating wing stalling while the advancing wing is unaffected.

[3WE]

1) On the subject of slipping vs. crab/kickout, it isn't just the swept wing, but also that there is "less relative wing clearance" in airliners...i.e it's easier to scrape a wing, thus any wing-low slipping into a crosswind is fairly minimal in an airliner.

So again, you do not slip down to the runway, with the aircraft aligned with the runway. Instead, essentially crab, kick the crab out, and "plant" the aircraft on the runway before it starts "getting blown sideways". Any wing dip needs to be a relatively minor wing dip.

2) Dave, maybe we are being nitpicky but there is not a "published maximum crosswind" that is "determined by intensive testing" of the aircraft.

The aircraft does get tested extensively, including crosswind landings, but the published crosswind "number" is whatever the maximum crosswind they encountered during the testing.

Think about it- if they really set out to test what the maximum was, then they'd have to try to land in winds right at, or in excess of what the plane is capable of and risk genuinely bending something, or making tracks in the grass and breaking runway lights (I'm joking but I'm not joking!).

While you might want to start this program and be involved in such testing, I suspect the manufacturer would forbid you from risking thier very expensive toy to truly establish a crosswind limit.

It is made very clear in formal aviation training that the "crosswind number" in the pilot handbook is not the crosswind limit. It is stated that the aircraft can quite possibly be landed safely in higher crosswinds.

The "crosswind number" in the handbook is instead the highest crosswind that occurred during the aircraft testing, is exactly how it's stated in the POH that Airbus posted and and is not a limit.

[Airbus_A320]

There are two reasons. Both affect the wing retreating as the aircraft yaws.
1. The nose of the fuselage tends to block some of the airflow over the retreating wing.
2. The Advancing wing effectively grows longer and if enough yaw is induced the advancing wing can become straight with the airflow. The retreating wing grows shorter.

The result of 1 and 2 is an increased likelihood of the retreating wing stalling while the advancing wing is unaffected.

Alright, thanks.

Here's some more nice ones. I notced the B1900 and ATR landed straighter in a slip, than most of the rest of the stuff, so I'm assuming that's the reason, since those wings are straight?

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=f78_1184881277" height="370" width="450">





</object>

[Gabriel]

Do we all agree that, if the main cause of the upset was a gust, it had to be a strong, sudden gust from the right?

Strong, because if it was weak it would have not upset the airplane so much.
Sudden, because if the intensity of the gust would have increased smoothly the pilot would have had time to counteract before the upset got so ample.
And from the right, well, I hope it's obvious from the video.

Now, you are flying an airplane in any phase of flight and in any state as long as it is under control. By "any state" I mean that it could be fast or slow, pitching up or down, coordinated or in a sideslip, in a crab or not, flaps extended or retracted, high at cruise or low at the flare, etc.

Say that the airplane gets hit by a strong, sudden gust from the right.
What's the first response you would expect from the plane, before the pilot has time to take corrective measures?

The answer to this question is the reason why I don't think that a gust was the main cause of the upset. Not that it could not be contributory though.

[Airbus_A320]

Say that the airplane gets hit by a strong, sudden gust from the right.
What's the first response you would expect from the plane, before the pilot has time to take corrective measures?
Well, ideally, you'd want to be feeling what's coming on and take action before the airplane gets off course from where you want to be going. Like if you are on approach and you feel the plane wants to move to the right you'd want to take action before you got off course. Basically you just want to keep the plane flying straight as best as you can, and you do that by feeling what the plane is doing or wants to do and reacting as best you can, sometimes with better results than others, and obviously someone with 5000 hours is going to be more experienced at doing this than someone with 200, etc... at least that's how I think of it.

[Tbun]

A different website [in UK] is reporting the first attempt was 24 yr old female FO and the Capt did the go around and subsequent succesful landing.

Mystery solved. Cheers!

[Gabriel]

Well, ideally, you'd want to be feeling what's coming on and take action before the airplane gets off course from where you want to be going. Like if you are on approach and you feel the plane wants to move to the right you'd want to take action before you got off course. Basically you just want to keep the plane flying straight as best as you can, and you do that by feeling what the plane is doing or wants to do and reacting as best you can, sometimes with better results than others, and obviously someone with 5000 hours is going to be more experienced at doing this than someone with 200, etc... at least that's how I think of it.
You'll never know that the airplane is about to be hit by a strong, sudden gust from the right.

You first become aware of that gust because of the initial uncommanded airplane's response once it's hit. The question was what that response would be (not the pilot's response but aircraft's response before the pilot has time to react).

The answer to that question, or more specifically the lack of that response (as seen in the video), is the reason why I don't think a strong, sudden gust from the left was the main cause of the upset.

And no, it's not going off course.

[3WE]

Ok, I'm being very nitpicky here.

Forget about whether they should have made the approach.

Forget about WHY the wing came up and she scooted off to the left.

I want to ask the professional pilots: Did she do a good job recovering?.

The plane scooted left, she gently banked right and turned right....that looked ok to me.

What did not look ok is that the plane settled very low and I'd swear it touched down almost on the grass.

I would have expected the aircraft to maintain a higher altitude, not settle and maybe initiate the go-around sooner...But, (I've said it before), I don't know if engine spool-up times or speed-loss wind gusts/shear might not have come into play and her efforts may have been reasonable.

So again- did she do ok on the recovery after she scooted way left?

[flyboy2548m]

No, I trust Gabe due to demonstrated expertise.

You mean the three crosswind landings he logged in a Tomahawk about a hundred years ago? And when you say demonstrated, do you mean you witnessed him doing crosswind landings?

[MCM]

I agree that in general, in Light Aicraft there is no crosswind limitation published, just a max demonstrated crosswind. I'm not sure on exactly how it is worked out, but it is at about the point that the rudder can no longer hold the nose straight against the wind, so you will be drifting at touchdown.

That said, get out the B744 limitations manual, and it quite clearly presents the figures as limitations, not demonstrated figures (although it does have some max demonstrated for things like the autoland system).

Some of these limits may be company specific (like the max take off weight limitation), however they are published limits, in the Boeing limitations manual. The aircraft *can* be successfully landed above these limits, but they are still limits.

SO... I think the answer is both of you are right, in different circumstances.

[3WE]

You mean the three crosswind landings he logged in a Tomahawk about a hundred years ago? And when you say demonstrated, do you mean you witnessed him doing crosswind landings?

Gabe might take offese at the hundred years ago, but yes, his private license, his aerodyanic training, his reading since parenthood economics grounded him, and the level of expertise that is demonstrated in his postings.

I have not witnessed his flying abilities, but he says the right things.

A particularly strong endorsement of Gabe's expertise comes from a professional pilot, who sometimes seems to despise hangar talk, enjoys stirring crap, and occasionally shares his expertise:

http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?p=461167#post461167

Gabriel......a most valuable and useful contributor.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Leftseat86]

I'd hate to fly an Airbus in a xwind...

[JordanD]

I'd hate to fly an Airbus
Fixed that for you. :razz:

[flyboy2548m]

A particularly strong endorsement of Gabe's expertise comes from a professional pilot, who sometimes seems to despise hangar talk, enjoys stirring crap, and occasionally shares his expertise:



I believe that's what the patron saint of parlor talkers Don Moore refers to as "quoting too closely" which was "one of his issues with me". Evidently, I'm not the only one who does that.

[3WE]

I'd hate to fly an Airbus in a xwind...I guess that experience and training means a lot, BUT on a gross scale, a little wrist action rocking a joystick back and forth doesn't seem to be the right way to maneuver a big aircraft, vs a big wheel to crank back and forth.

And for the purists, I don't mean to simply trash a stick....The old yard-long stick coming up from the floor seems very appropriate....but something that resembles a computer-game joystick......yuck!

[Leftseat86]

I guess that experience and training means a lot, BUT on a gross scale, a little wrist action rocking a joystick back and forth doesn't seem to be the right way to maneuver a big aircraft, vs a big wheel to crank back and forth.

And for the purists, I don't mean to simply trash a stick....The old yard-long stick coming up from the floor seems very appropriate....but something that resembles a computer-game joystick......yuck!


I'd be more concerned about the way the rudder system works. I hear you get used to it, and I've obviously never actually tried it myself, but from what i've read and been told, it seems very bizarre.

[3WE]

I'd be more concerned about the way the rudder system works. I hear you get used to it, and I've obviously never actually tried it myself, but from what i've read and been told, it seems very bizarre.Don't touch the pedals 1) the yaw damper handles yaw corrections and 2) if you do choose to "adjust" yaw with the rudder, it might fall off. :twisted:

Do you need rudder control to land in a crosswind? :razz:

[Leftseat86]

Don't touch the pedals 1) the yaw damper handles yaw corrections and 2) if do choose to "adjust" yaw with the rudder, it might fall off. :twisted:

Do you need rudder control to land in a crosswind? :razz:


I would think so. lol

[G-DALE]

Do you need rudder control to land in a crosswind? :razz:
Sorry but it comes across as though you've got no idea what you're talking throughout this thread and that there just proved it.

I'd just give up now if I were you.....

[screaming_emu]

Don't touch the pedals 1) the yaw damper handles yaw corrections and 2) if you do choose to "adjust" yaw with the rudder, it might fall off. :twisted:

Do you need rudder control to land in a crosswind? :razz:

Yaw damper only keeps you coordinated. Landing in a crosswind requires you to be uncoodinated so the yaw damper is actually counter productive, but is easy to overpower (at least in the CRJ)

[3WE]

Sorry but it comes across as though you've got no idea what you're talking throughout this thread and that there just proved it.

I'd just give up now if I were you.....Let me explain.

A few years ago, a pilot chose to use the rudder pedals when his Airbus started yawing in some wake turbulence.

He might have used excessive 10-lb of forces and excessive 1" movements on the pedals.

The rudder fell off.

Some folks have implied that he was a bad pilot because he used the rudder pedals when the plane yawed.

How stupid!- Using rudder pedals when the plane yaws! What has the aviation world come to? ;-)

Thus a sarcastic question (with an emoticon) asking if the rudder is needed for crosswind landing.

Any more questions?

[G-DALE]

You can't compare the two - Rudder input in a crosswind is different from wake turbulence.

[3WE]

You can't compare the two - Rudder input in a crosswind is different from wake turbulence.I can't compare the two?

Well, if I need a yaw input to the right, I push the right pedal, and get a yaw response to the right....and left for left. Do these rules change in wake turbulence vs. a crosswind?

Sure, the "philosophy" is somewhat opposite. You are maintaining coordination vs causing uncoordinated flight.

But, does the rudder really care why you have "cocked it" into the airstream? The aerodynamic responses are fundamentally the same.

I do believe that LeftSeat and I are in agreement that the Airbus rudder system is a bit strange.

[screaming_emu]

The problem with the rudder on the AA A300 accident was that the pilot used rapid side to side motions on the rudder. In a crosswind you stick it out in one direction and leave it there.

Picture it this way, the rudder pushes the tail to one side at a fairly high speed, then, he went full opposite rudder which because the tail is moving to the opposite direction caused EXTRA force on the tail.

[Bok269]

Also, isn't there a world of difference between the A300 and the A320 in terms of Avionics and FBW?

[flyboy2548m]

Sorry but it comes across as though you've got no idea what you're talking throughout this thread and that there just proved it.

I'd just give up now if I were you.....

Actually that's been proven long before this thread, but, sadly, he hasn't given up.

[Gabriel]

Let me explain.

A few years ago, a pilot chose to use the rudder pedals when his Airbus started yawing in some wake turbulence.

He might have used excessive 10-lb of forces and excessive 1" movements on the pedals.

The rudder fell off.

Some folks have implied that he was a bad pilot because he used the rudder pedals when the plane yawed.

How stupid!- Using rudder pedals when the plane yaws! What has the aviation world come to? ;-)

Thus a sarcastic question (with an emoticon) asking if the rudder is needed for crosswind landing.

Any more questions?
It's not Airbus fault that the rudder failed under such inputs. The force applied to the fin was by far in excess of what the regulations (FAR and JAR) require.

The pilot applied full rudder travel to both sides and at the worst time, and the regulations require only that at Va and flying with no sideslip the rudder pedal is fully and quickly deflected to one side and let there until the airplane stops the yawing oscilation, then from the resulting sideslip condition the pedal is quickly centered again. Using the rudder to create a maximum sideslip, overswing included, and from that extreme condition applying full anti-yaw input, is not required. And that is what the pilot did. Seven times.

So it's the pilot's fault: He applied those inputs seven times to both sides. That is pilot induced oscilation. Further, the inputs were not warranted. The turbulence they encoutered was minimal, and according to the NTSB the airplane response is almost completely explained with the pilot's inputs alone.

But why did the pilot do that?

It's AA fault. He tought the pilots to be "too" worried about wake turbulence, they even practiced recovering from an extreme bank (over 90 deg) pretending that they got there in the first place after encountering wake turbulence. They also tough the pilots to be aggresive on the rudder to asist recovering from an unusual bank attitude, despite Airbus' opinion, known to AA; that rudder should be used only to keep the airplane coordinated unless the aileron input was ineffective, in which case a moderate ammount of rudder should be used with caution.

It's Airbus fault, because they did a rudder variable travel in which, instead of reducing the rudder travel for a given pedal displacement with speed, it was the rudder displacement which was reduced with speed, but the rudder forces reamined low as per the pedal displacement. The total pedal travel was very low and the force needed to produce that total travel was barely above the force needed to start moving the rudder. That gave a poor feedback to the pilot which was conductive of pilot induced oscilation.

Some considered also Airbus' fault to just take the minimum requisites as their own requisites. Boeing, for example, has it's own standard which, in addition to what the FAR requires, requres the fin to withstand a full anti-sideslip rudder input from a maximum steady sideslip starting condition, only that for that condition they just require a safety margin of 1.2 instead of the standard of 1.5.

It was the industry fault as a whole. Almost every pilot and instructor thought that when flying at Va and below it was impossible to make any control input that would impose aerodynamic loads that would brake the plane (and I was not the exception). Now everybody knows that that's wrong. There are several ways to brake the airplane below Va, and the AA accident was one of them.

Some consider it the regulator's fault too, for not having such a speed defined. I am among them. If you think carefully about the requirement, it requires the fin to withstand a full uncoordinating input and a "let it alone" recovery after a fully uncoordinated condition. But it doesn't require to withstand any recovery (anti-yaw) input! So, if your airplane yaws for whatever reason, don't apply any-yaw input! To attempt a recovery (except don't move and wait) violates the requirements and the manufacturer will not be held liable!

About whether the rudder is needed for a crosswind landing, ask an Ercoupe pilot!

[3WE]

The problem with the rudder on the AA A300 accident was that the pilot used rapid side to side motions on the rudder. In a crosswind you stick it out in one direction and leave it there.

Picture it this way, the rudder pushes the tail to one side at a fairly high speed, then, he went full opposite rudder which because the tail is moving to the opposite direction caused EXTRA force on the tail.

Edit: Gabe slipped in ahead of me- so there's some redundancy...and disagreement too. Good post Gabe.

Hey, just to be clear- Left Seat implied that the rudder system was strange and I attempted to interject a sarcastic joke (with a smiley) and Left Seat said "LOL" indicating he understood.

And now that we are drifting off topic- I still defend the AA FO, I genuinely doubt that he was "mindlessly" slamming the pedals full left-full right and feel that using a little rudder to counteract yaw is sort of natural.

I worry that he might have given what he considered to be very appropriate, gentle 1", 10-lb inputs. (And IMO, 1" and 10-lb is a mild input!). But we learn that such inputs could run the Airbus rudder stop to stop.

We'll never know what he was thinking and whether his foot movements were "stupid" or "reasonable". I strongly belive that some of the blame goes to a strange quirk of unintended PIO, maybe a quick 1" rudder-waggle like many light plane pilots have routinely done in turbulence and not "stupid overkill" of the rudder pedals.

I recognize that there is now extra training on how to work rudders, plus the general rule for "routine flight" on yaw-dampered airliners is "don't touch the rudder pedals" except when you genuinely need to induce uncoordinated flight during crosswinds & such.

I do worry that this guy was criticized for using the rudder to deal with yaw! It is sort of natural!

We also have to remember that this crash took a lot of the aviation community by surprise- those that thought you could do anything with the controls below maneuvering speed and not break anything. It was quite the surprise to learn that you only get one full-stop rudder kick, not multiple ones to go along with full-stop elevator and aileron movements.

I think Left Seat and I are in agreement that the rudder system is a bit unique.

Going back on topic, many posts ago, I posed the question if the small side stick was perhaps prone to over-controlling as this incident seems to be a bit more about roll issues than yaw issues as evidenced by the scraped wing tip...any thoughts on that?

[Gabriel]

You mean the three crosswind landings he logged in a Tomahawk about a hundred years ago? And when you say demonstrated, do you mean you witnessed him doing crosswind landings?
I have not witnessed his flying abilities...
Not my best landings, but hey!, I was a student PP yet, the conditions were not favorable for greasers, and both I and the airplane survived for further flights with no medical / mechanical intervention needed.

Please excuse my salmon coloured sweather!
And the crappy video quailty. I've just bought a video grabber and either I'm not managing to make it work as intended or the grabber is a piece of crap.

There!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/acqVC2IzRtA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/acqVC2IzRtA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[3WE]

Well, you didn't drag any wing tips.:wiggle:

[Gabriel]

Going back on topic, many posts ago, I posed the question if the small side stick was perhaps prone to over-controlling as this incident seems to be a bit more about roll issues than yaw issues as evidenced by the scraped wing tip...any thoughts on that?
Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

I don't agree. For me this incident (accident?) has a lot to do with yaw, specially if you talk about overcontrol. Or do you think that the pilot overcontrlloed with left aileron input while decrabing while landing with a strong right wind, where the correct input would have clearly been a right roll input?

As I said, my hypothesis is an overcontrolled left kick with an insufficient right roll input.

[3WE]

Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

I don't agree. For me this incident (accident?) has a lot to do with yaw, specially if you talk about overcontrol. Or do you think that the pilot overcontrlloed with left aileron input while decrabing while landing with a strong right wind, where the correct input would have clearly been a right roll input?

As I said, my hypothesis is an overcontrolled left kick with an insufficient right roll input.It appeared to me that the plane intially yawed about the right amount to be aligned with the centerline and aligned with the direction of ground travel...so my initial reaction was that the rudder control was appropriate......

Then yeah, the right wing came up...big time and then she resembled one of my memorable landings as a low-time student pilot (but I wasn't flying in 50 mph winds either!)

Of course, as we both know that kicking the rudder does more than a simple yawing response, your average aircraft will bank too unless you approriately add roll input....

[MCM]

Yes, the response to Yaw is Roll.... but thats where the Airbus does it all for you! You put in the rudder, and the aircraft holds the wings level.

If its particulally severe, then some pilot input is required, but only a little.

I can see how it would be very very easy if you don't think the aircraft is picking up the wing fast enough, to put in a slightly overcorrected aileron response, causing, possibly, you to overcontrol and oscillate.

HOWEVER, I have no reason to think that has occurred here... I've seen 743's scrape pods due to rapid wind reversals at the flare, and its entirely possible they hit a low level rotor/shear and had difficulty flying out of it. I'm not willing to say it was a control error or a system design floor without having been sat in the cockpit while it was all happening!

[Gabriel]

Of course, as we both know that kicking the rudder does more than a simple yawing response, your average aircraft will bank too unless you approriately add roll input....
Specially in swept wings ariplanes. The roll authority of the rudder (in fact of the sideslip via dihedral effect) can overwhelm the roll authority available with the ailerons. Think Colorado Springs. And a lot of crosswind requires a lot of crab which requires a lot of de-crabbing which requires a lot of rudder input and produces a lot of sideslip and a lot of roll moment (via dihedral effect) tendency. That, or you accept to land with a bit of residual crab, which is not that bad anyway.

[3WE]

I can see how it would be very very easy if you don't think the aircraft is picking up the wing fast enough, to put in a slightly overcorrected aileron response, causing, possibly, you to overcontrol and oscillate.Not picking up the wing fast enough???

The "light plane" way is to do "everything you can" to hold the upwind (right) wing down, not pick it up.

I'd argue this was a problem of "undercontrol".

Now whether it was:
1) Undercontrol by the pilette (feminine form of pilot).
2) Undercontrol by the computer
3) Or undercontrol because the wind was too damn strong for the aielrons to overcome regardless of who was telling them what to do.

???

[3WE]

The roll authority of the rudder (in fact of the sideslip via dihedral effect) can overwhelm the roll authority available with the ailerons. Think Colorado Springs.Ok, you've got a point (and a mechanism) there.

[MCM]

As you say yourself, that is the LIGHT PLANE way of doing it.

Unless you haven't noticed, this was not in a light aircraft, nor was it in an aircraft with "traditional" control methods.

Most operators suggest:
Wings level throughout the approach with a crab.
Flare
Decrab
Aileron to maintain wings level (if required)

In that order.

There are some exceptions, but thats the general idea.

These are not light aircraft, and in many cases cannot be flown like one.

Don't forget this is an Airbus aircraft, and it controls the roll from rudder itself, not the pilot. Thats why I said "pick up" the wing, as in the downward travelling wing. Thats what it does. Automatically.

Gusty conditions can exceed the control ability of the aircraft. Also why I said that I do not necesarily say that there is overcontrolling in this case although in the go around it does look like there may have been. I wasn't in the flight deck, I don't know what inputs were required.

Just please don't keep insisting it needs to be flown like a light aircraft. That just isn't how its done.

[3WE]

Just please don't keep insisting it needs to be flown like a light aircraft

Please don't insist that things are said when they aren't said.

There was no "insistence", just a statement of an analogy. And, it clearly identified as "light plane" for the sake of potential contrast.

I reread the post and nowhere does it say: "The light plane way and therefore the heavy jet way must also be."

The "light plane" way is to hold the upwind wing down

Now, the idea of "picking up the wing"- that's my disagreement and I don't think that's the light plane way nor the big-iron way.

...if you don't think the aircraft is picking up the wing fast enough...

I belive that light or heavy, the objective is to hold the wing down and ok if you want to word mince- "hold down" means "keep it from coming up" or "hold the wings level".

It seems that "Most operators" whom you quote agree with me that you don't want to pick up a wing, you want to keep them level:

Most operators suggest:
Wings level throughout the approach with a crab.
...
Aileron to maintain wings level (if required)

Actually, when landing a light plane in a crosswind you don't want to drag a wingtip. I guess I do insist that airliners be flown similarly.

[flyboy2548m]

Of course, as we both know that kicking the rudder does more than a simple yawing response, your average aircraft will bank too unless you approriately add roll input....

Yes, you both clearly know a whole bunch of things.

[Uncle Jay]

Only one way to land in a crosswind -

Never a slip, because the purpose of a slip is to lose altitude rapidly at the expense of coordinated flight, so Emu I believe youre wrong about uncoordinated flight being desirable back to the sim please

Instead, you want a crab, which is straight, coordinated flight at the normal descent rate (especially when IFR) .. a completely stabilized approach in all respects.

Near the ground, you make a determination as to the presence of gusts. If the gusts are in excess of the demonstrated crosswind component, you will lose big time in court if you crash, so go around.

If the gusts are acceptable, in the last 50 feet kick rudder and hold the upwind wing slightly down so you have time to correct for gust + ground effect

Do not stomp all over the rudder once in ground contact, hold the nose wheel straight and concentrate on dumping lift and braking, let the airplane seek a straight line by itself. Steer only when positive braking is evident.

[screaming_emu]

so Emu I believe youre wrong about uncoordinated flight being desirable back to the sim please

in the last 50 feet kick rudder and hold the upwind wing slightly down so you have time to correct for gust + ground effect



So you're saying the airplane is coordinated while you're kicking the rudder and doing opposite aileron? Interesting... :grin:

[3WE]

Bold is mine.

Only one way to land in a crosswind -

Never a slip,

Uncle Jay always makes absolute statements, and never adds sarcastic emoticons.

I usually disagree with him, but suspect he's pulling folks chains.

Pitch controls airspeed, power controls altitude. Absolutely, my favorite rule of thumb.

[Leftseat86]

Yes, you both clearly know a whole bunch of things.


I'm not sure whats worse, people commenting incorrectly on a sitiation based on their limited knowledge, or someone who just chimes in and says "you don't know anything" over and over. I have a feeling it's the latter.

And lol @ my comment and the ensuing joke resulting in 2 pages of discussion.

Additional lol @ G-DALE saying "I'd give up now" as if your MS flight simulator experience puts you ahead of the pack.

As for the AA accident, like most it was a series of failures and problems that all contributed to it, but IMO if the rudder can fall of that easily pilots should be made aware.


Finally, here's a nice video:

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=766_1196775900" height="370" width="450">





</object>

[flyboy2548m]

I'm not sure whats worse, people commenting incorrectly on a sitiation based on their limited knowledge, or someone who just chimes in and says "you don't know anything" over and over. I have a feeling it's the latter.

<OBJECT type=application/x-shockwave-flash height=370 width=450 data=http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=766_1196775900 wmode="transparent">
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
</OBJECT>

I think it's about the same.

[Quench]

Alright, thanks.

Here's some more nice ones. I notced the B1900 and ATR landed straighter in a slip, than most of the rest of the stuff, so I'm assuming that's the reason, since those wings are straight?
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=f78_1184881277" height="370" width="450">
</object>

I notice many of those are still coming out of the crab after the main gear has touched down. I would expect to see shed loads of smoke from the tires as they skid but I dont. Does the main gear pivot ?