It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Extreme crosswind landing in an A380

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

I'm sure Manchester airport has one called the runway visitor park. There are mounds to view from and also a tour of concorde that's there iirc.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well that makes sense. I am sure the insurance companies and whoever else would be interested in crash data would like to be able to get footage in an accident or disaster scenario, too.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: Imagewerx

I'm sure Manchester airport has one called the runway visitor park. There are mounds to view from and also a tour of concorde that's there iirc.


There's a guy with a good Youtube channel with a lot of good videos taken from there
.

Meanwhile while we're talking about Emirates A380s and holes in fences.......




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: evc1shop

The AvNerd community about lost their collective minds when it was announced that airports were starting to work with and welcome spotters instead of running themn off and giving them as hard time.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I certainly hope there were no pets in the cargo, that's a horrible way for whiskers or fifi to go



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: evc1shop

The AvNerd community about lost their collective minds when it was announced that airports were starting to work with and welcome spotters instead of running themn off and giving them as hard time.


KLVK has an observation tower with AC power for your notebook running ADSB.

When I finally tracked down the Dynamic Aviation "sprayer", I took the photos from the KLVK observation tower.

www.lazygranch.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Little did I know at the time that it sprays sterile flies rather than chemicals.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Fence surfing




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger



There was one recently of a Caravan or something about that size where the wheel actually brushed the guy that was filming it.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


I always liked this one



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
As a pilot myself, I hesitate to cast shade on a fellow pilot, but in this case I think the A380 pilot blew it.

For non-pilots, there are two accepted techniques for crosswind landings. The first is called "crabbing" (because the aircraft is flying partially sideways, similar to the way a crab moves). In that technique, the pilot sets the pitch attitude (nose up) and the throttle to give the correct glide slope and approach airspeed. Additionally, the pilot holds the wings level and uses the rudder to point the aircraft nose off the runway centerline and into the wind (the "crab angle"). By using the rudder only, it's fairly easy to keep the center of mass of the aircraft on the runway centerline and moving in the direction of the runway, but the pilot may have to look out the side window to keep the runway in sight during the approach. The problem is that if you touch down with the fuselage pointed in the direction of the crab angle, the aircraft will immediately jerk and try to run off the runway in that direction. If you overcorrect, it will try to run off in the other direction. This is exactly what the A380 pilot did in this case, as manuelram16 pointed out. So the trick is to neutralize the crab angle by using the rudder at the exact instant the wheels touch the runway. That takes a lot of practice.

The easier technique is called "slipping" to a landing. In that technique, the pilot likewise sets the pitch attitude and the throttle to give the correct glide slope and approach airspeed, but banks into the crosswind while cross controlling with the rudder in order to remain on the runway centerline. In a slipped landing, you maintain the controls steady until just before touchdown, and then slowly and smoothly relax the bank angle and rudder to their neutral positions. Because the fuselage is always pointed in the direction of the runway centerline during a slip landing, there is a much reduced likelihood of the aircraft trying to veer off the runway. Also, the final controls adjustment just before touchdown consists primarily of removing the rudder and aileron angles and allowing them to go back to their trimmed settings; that doesn't require exquisite coordination and huge amounts of practice to get it right--the aircraft naturally wants to do that. (Actually, you want to touch down with just a small amount of bank angle remaining so that the upwind main landing gear touches down immediately before the downwind tire does; with a tricycle landing gear setup that makes the landing smoother.)

So why didn't this pilot execute a slip landing? Because the Airbus operations manual says not to. From what I've been able to find out, the Airbus autopilot doesn't like it when the human pilot tries to fly the aircraft with crossed controls (the ailerons trying to turn right, for example and the rudder turning left)--and a slip landing is definitely a crossed control example. Apparently, Boeing autopilots don't have this characterIstic so 777's, for example, can and do begin a slipped approach to landing when they're within about 400 feet of ground level. My understanding is that the Airbus manual says the pilot should execute a crabbed approach until just before touchdown and then--in quick succession--align the fuselage with the runway using the rudder, bank into the wind by using the ailerons to lower the upwind wing, and then cross control with the rudder to keep the aircraft on the runway centerline. Essentially, you're supposed to execute a crabbed approach to the last few seconds of flight and then immediately enter a slipped approach attitude.

The way it looks to me, this is exactly what the A380 pilot was attempting to do. The problem is that he seemed to have run out of altitude about 1 or 2 seconds before he would have completed the maneuver. He overcorrected the yaw maneuver (actually flying with the crosswind instead of against it) and did not have time to get the fuselage aligned with the runway before the landing gear touched the pavement. Simultaneously, it looks like he was trying to bank slightly right into a slipped approach attitude but didn't get very far with that maneuver either, before the landing gear touched down. It seems to me that this approach puts a heavy cognitive workload on the pilot at exactly the moment of touchdown. If the pilot had begun his transition from crabbed approach to slipped approach even a few seconds earlier, it could have been a much less dramatic landing.

If there are any Airbus pilots here, please let me know if my understanding of their practices and procedures isn't correct.
a reply to: FredT



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer
Absolutely 100% Boomer. All these people crowing about how good the pilot was clearly missed the fact that he wasn't, at least not in this case. What he did was dumb and you are also completely correct about Airbus autopilots, they dont like these scenarios and have a habit of gross compensation. I had the fortune of travelling on company A-380's on 4 long haul sectors over the last few weeks and jump seated one a few days ago. The tech crew were adamant that it was pilot induced error coupled with the autopilot.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: manuelram16
Clear case of overcorrection....


NO KIDDING !! He was walking the rudder all the way down for absolutely no reason... youtu.be...

Same airport with some guys who know what they are doing..

Whoever landed the 380 needs to fly with a check airman and get squared away or retrained



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer

I thought that slipping anything big was a major no-no. If the passengers needed a new set of drawers after this pilot nerfed his flare+straighten out maneuver, I can only imagine what they'd do after someone tried to slip something that big. That is, if any modern FBW aircraft that size would even let you try a slip.

But yeah, Emirates has a reputation for pushing young pilots to the big birds faster than any other carrier. On this landing, it shows, and his short final looked like something even a student would get some "constructive criticism" over.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Exactly this. Manhandling your aircraft on the final like that is one thing if you're taking your buddy up in the Bonanza on a Saturday afternoon. It's a completely different animal when 500+ lives potentially hang in the balance.

My backside puckers up when I put even a fraction of those bouncing or lateral loads on a GA aircraft's gear after a crummy landing. To bounce and fishtail like that post-touchdown on something that large rather than go-around learning from what you fudged on approach+final the 1st time around seems unconscionable to me, and it's a miracle that he didn't end up with gear/structural damage.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby
Yes it would have been interesting to see how many messages popped up in the PFR bin file after that flight. I reckon the G and lateral loads were either exceeded or very close to them. In which case post flight inspection would be needed.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

That sucker makes a god awfully loud racket.

They buzzed Opa Locka tower when leaving and omg it was loud.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Barnalby wrote:

"I thought that slipping anything big was a major no-no.

I'm not sure why there would be any fundamental aerodynamic reason to make slipping a big airplane different than slipping a small one, but if there is I would like to know what it is.

I can imagine that passengers might have an alarm reaction to a slipped landing since--from their limited perspective--anything other than a wings level attitude so close to the ground might seem to suggest that the airplane is in danger of crashing.

I have also seen it discussed that slipped landings in large jet aircraft are avoided due to the possibility of striking the ground with the upwind wing tip/engine pod, since the upwind wing has to be banked down toward the ground and may extend below the level of the landing gear, if the crosswind is severe enough.

Now, it is certainly true that if you maintained the slip attitude down too close to the ground before correcting, the wing/engine pod would strike the ground before the landing gear and result in an unrecoverable crash. However, it seems to me that the same would be true of a crabbed approach, as well.

There is no landing approach technique that produces a successful landing without requiring the pilot to actively fly the airplane all the way to contact with the ground and the subsequent rollout.

Which brings me to speculate whether this incident might be a reflection of differences in flight training and standard operating procedures between, for example, US pilots and some non-US pilots. I'm thinking of the Asiana Flight 214 landing accident that occurred at SFO in 2013 when the 777 got too low and slow because the crew was relying on the autopilot to conduct the landing and overlooked the fact that the autothrottle had been inadvertently disconnected.

My experience is that in the US it is drilled into student pilots from day one that the pilot in command is personally responsible for controlling the aircraft from engine start to wheels stop.

Just conjecture on my part.

a reply to: Barnalby



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: Imagewerx

I'm sure Manchester airport has one called the runway visitor park. There are mounds to view from and also a tour of concorde that's there iirc.


Being an old fart, the AVP is too full of kids for my liking
. If you click on my sig, all the airliner pics I take are from the opposite side to the AVP and it's visible in quite a lot of shots. Look for the Nimrod end Trident on the ground. Also, the large white building visible in these shots is where the Concorde is.

Eta - the Manchester AVP is partially visible in the photograph

flic.kr...
edit on 23-10-2017 by waynos because: Add image link



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer
Barnalby wrote:

"I thought that slipping anything big was a major no-no.

I'm not sure why there would be any fundamental aerodynamic reason to make slipping a big airplane different than slipping a small one, but if there is I would like to know what it is.

a reply to: Barnalby


From what I gather, it's a mix of regulations and physics that keep pilots from performing slips in airliners. On the regulatory side, it's typical for most airlines to have internal policies requiring that an aircraft be on in a "stable" flight attitude, i.e. on the proper heading, glideslope, and in a landing configuration/attitude by 500' agl if not 1000' agl, violation of which which typically requires a mandatory immediate go-around be performed.

Flying a slip, in which you are countering a bank with counter-pressure on the rudder, with the uneven wings to show for it, is not considered to be a "stabilized" flight attitude, and would land you in bigtime hot water if you entered one at under 1000' agl and did't also perform the go-around. Crabbing, in which the wings are (nominally) level and you're (hypothetically) using your rudder to maintain a straight track relative to the crosswind, is still considered to be a stable attitude, and as such is the only thing you ever see anyone in the big jets performing.

There is also the issue of physics and aerodynamic stresses, as a big jet has much, much more mass to both accelerate and decelerate rather than a GA aircraft. Light aircraft don't have this issue, which is why a Cessna flying light will still sink like a rock in a slip while immediately halt its rate of descent the instant you straighten it out. I'd imagine that such responsiveness is a lot harder to come by in something that weighs the better part of 100 tons and has much more highly loaded wings than a CessnaPiperBeechcraftCirrusMooneyetc. Trying to halt that 100 tons of aircraft from a slip-induced fast descent rate sounds like a recipe for overstressing the airframe, and that's if you're lucky. It's the same reason why a basic aerobatic instructor can spin your Cessna 152 until the cows come home, while even the most seasoned of test pilots wouldn't dare try and intentionally spin an airliner.

And that's before you consider the aerodynamic stresses involved in using that much rudder deflection to slow an approach on an aircraft where the pattern speed is faster than Vne on the majority of GA aircraft. It seems like it would be a recipe for repeating AA flight 587.


originally posted by: 1947boomer
Which brings me to speculate whether this incident might be a reflection of differences in flight training and standard operating procedures between, for example, US pilots and some non-US pilots. I'm thinking of the Asiana Flight 214 landing accident that occurred at SFO in 2013 when the 777 got too low and slow because the crew was relying on the autopilot to conduct the landing and overlooked the fact that the autothrottle had been inadvertently disconnected.

My experience is that in the US it is drilled into student pilots from day one that the pilot in command is personally responsible for controlling the aircraft from engine start to wheels stop.

Just conjecture on my part.

a reply to: Barnalby


I've heard that as well, that pilot over-reliance on autopilot approaches in clean air can lead to major skills degradation when it comes to actually having to fly an aircraft down to the runway in adverse conditions, and that yes, it seems to be more common in foreign-trained airline pilots (remember how many airlines overseas directly recruit and train their own flight crews) who haven't had to spend their formative first 1500 flight hours wrestling GA aircraft around in whatever duties someone's willing to fly in.

I've also heard that the complacency/flying skills degradation is more common in Airbus crews, where the level of automation in the aircraft encourages "fly by knob-twiddling" rather than touching that filthy, scary side stick, than it is in Boeings, which have remained much more involved aircraft to fly compared to any post-A320 Airbus product.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join