LH A320 Rough Landing @ Hamburg
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In my area it would still be an accident.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wader2
In my area it would still be an accident.
It might be argued that this was the case here, although I think the pilots still had full control authority. The wingtip fences' functions are reducing wake vortex ("induced drag") and thereby saving fuel.
However, ICAO Annex 13 makes the specific restriction:
[...] except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is
limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for
damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires,
brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the
aircraft skin
limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for
damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires,
brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the
aircraft skin
Bernd
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks DL, the operative word in my post was appeared. I saw the video clip just once on the TV News and thus my assessment was really a real-time snapshot. I bow to the slow time analysts. (not being rude I assure you).
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I am glad that replacement of the end of the wing was a minor repair not requiring extensive checking of the mainplane structure. Fortunately it is unlikely I will be flying LH in the near future.
If it's an incident fine, all in a word.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FMC/FMGC wind readouts
drkraft
I may be misunderstanding you but I do know that too many pilots refer to the FMC/FMGS wind readouts on approach with regard to their company limits but any such limits are referenced to w/v on the surface (or pehaps more accuaretly 15 metres above the surface).
Or are you saying that you literally have you colleague looking at the FMC page at 50' agl when they should perhaps be closely monitoring other parameters
There is no doubt that the w/v from the FMC has got some value but given the huge variations that can occur between reported surface wind and winds aloft, I would suggest that it's real value is to give a clue to expected shears as you approach touchdown.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet but your best source of realtime information on FMC equipped aircraft during landing is Prog page 2 (Boeing types).
I always have one of the FMC's on that page during landing.It keeps me legal and keeps me from getting surprised
There is no doubt that the w/v from the FMC has got some value but given the huge variations that can occur between reported surface wind and winds aloft, I would suggest that it's real value is to give a clue to expected shears as you approach touchdown.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OKhasla
QUOTE]The skipper was : YOURS truly. The F/O... well he has moved on to become a great skipper. The F/E; he probably learnt a lot that day and too took up flying as f/o and is now a junior skipper![[/QUOTE]
Great repect to you for such an honest and very interesting posting.
QUOTE]The skipper was : YOURS truly. The F/O... well he has moved on to become a great skipper. The F/E; he probably learnt a lot that day and too took up flying as f/o and is now a junior skipper![[/QUOTE]
Great repect to you for such an honest and very interesting posting.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starbear,
It's like any other tool you have in your toolkit. I said I use it as a reference, not a primary instrument. It's just another reminder that you might want to start thinking about plan B in case plan A isn't working out.
It's like any other tool you have in your toolkit. I said I use it as a reference, not a primary instrument. It's just another reminder that you might want to start thinking about plan B in case plan A isn't working out.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Minneapolis MN USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Brainless Journalism:
Inside Edition, a syndicated US newsmagizine program heavy on celebrities,
doing a predictable "scared pax" story, led off with "150 mile-per-hour crosswinds". This broadcast was Tues, yesterday. Do these people ever check anything?
doing a predictable "scared pax" story, led off with "150 mile-per-hour crosswinds". This broadcast was Tues, yesterday. Do these people ever check anything?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GMDS, you said: "there is definitely a small roll input on the AB when decrabbing, which is not on a B.)"
It doesn't matter if it's a Boeing or an Airbus, ALL swept wing jet aircraft will have some additional roll moment induced upon "decrabbing" (input of downwind rudder). This is due to a reduction of "sweep" on the upwind wing in relation to the relative wind, thus an increase in lift on that upwind wing (as it 'swings' into the wind w/ a lesser angle), and the opposite affect upon the downwind wing- "more sweep" reduces lift on that one. Low, upwind wing required, at that point, to maintain runway track and actually landing on runway.
It doesn't matter if it's a Boeing or an Airbus, ALL swept wing jet aircraft will have some additional roll moment induced upon "decrabbing" (input of downwind rudder). This is due to a reduction of "sweep" on the upwind wing in relation to the relative wind, thus an increase in lift on that upwind wing (as it 'swings' into the wind w/ a lesser angle), and the opposite affect upon the downwind wing- "more sweep" reduces lift on that one. Low, upwind wing required, at that point, to maintain runway track and actually landing on runway.
KC135777;
I think the point of the post was, Airbus WILL correct that rolling moment due to roll-control laws (as discussed extensively here) and Boeing will not correct the roll. I think we all agree that the aircraft will have a roll moment when de-crabbing, especially a swept-wing design.
My original point about some pilots believing that AB would "put the wing down" remains...some pilots believe that the airplane will de-crab and put sufficient wing down to continue tracking straight. Such an understanding is not correct.
The AB autoland will do this up to a point, perhaps because it has track-guidance, but it will land slightly crabbed, notwithstanding.
I think the post by Bernd, providing the Airbus Bulleting #54/2 (post #243) is worth reading closely.
ALL swept wing jet aircraft will have some additional roll moment induced upon "decrabbing"
My original point about some pilots believing that AB would "put the wing down" remains...some pilots believe that the airplane will de-crab and put sufficient wing down to continue tracking straight. Such an understanding is not correct.
The AB autoland will do this up to a point, perhaps because it has track-guidance, but it will land slightly crabbed, notwithstanding.
I think the post by Bernd, providing the Airbus Bulleting #54/2 (post #243) is worth reading closely.
Very few if any FMS provide ‘real time wind’. Most are heavily damped using averaging laws. If you do not know exactly how your FMS calculates wind then it should be treated with caution especially for ‘precision type’ decisions.
Just because the wind etc, is within legal limits (rules vs FMS or tower report), does not mean that the attempt to land is the safest option; that requires judgement and skilled thinking.
“Its not the pilot’s hands that get them into trouble, its their heads” James Reason.
The recommendations in the report linked in post #136 indicate that a realistic crosswind limit (applied by the crew/operator) should always include the gust.
‘Safety aspects of aircraft operations in crosswind’
Just because the wind etc, is within legal limits (rules vs FMS or tower report), does not mean that the attempt to land is the safest option; that requires judgement and skilled thinking.
“Its not the pilot’s hands that get them into trouble, its their heads” James Reason.
The recommendations in the report linked in post #136 indicate that a realistic crosswind limit (applied by the crew/operator) should always include the gust.
‘Safety aspects of aircraft operations in crosswind’
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Romania
Age: 73
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the damages observed in:
http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-f...d=2607#pid2607
the pictures show that there is a little more to look at, and work on, that wing and the plane as well. Just take account of the scratches on the underwing-not the tip winglet. My experience as an old certification crew member yields something about the "g"-s of the tip ground contact; the elongation of the deformation was just elastic or... is it inside limits? I remember changing two years official letters with the designers before approving to service a TU154 which touched with the wingtip the snow in Berlin during a low vis app GA back in '80-s.
http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-f...d=2607#pid2607
the pictures show that there is a little more to look at, and work on, that wing and the plane as well. Just take account of the scratches on the underwing-not the tip winglet. My experience as an old certification crew member yields something about the "g"-s of the tip ground contact; the elongation of the deformation was just elastic or... is it inside limits? I remember changing two years official letters with the designers before approving to service a TU154 which touched with the wingtip the snow in Berlin during a low vis app GA back in '80-s.
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Romania
Age: 73
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was saying earlier (NET LOST MY MESSAGE) that according with the pictures in:
http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-f...d=2607#pid2607
it is important the "g" on ground contact. Back in '80-s as RCAR eng., I was changing two years official messages with the designers before clearing to service a TU154, after a wingtip contact with snow in a low viss. app. GA at Berlin SFX.
http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-f...d=2607#pid2607
it is important the "g" on ground contact. Back in '80-s as RCAR eng., I was changing two years official messages with the designers before clearing to service a TU154, after a wingtip contact with snow in a low viss. app. GA at Berlin SFX.
Maximum certificated crosswind component (GUST)
Quote from PEI_3721:
The recommendations in the report linked in post #136 indicate that a realistic crosswind limit (applied by the crew/operator) should always include the gust.
[Unquote]
Haven't read the report (46 pages), but the A320 crosswind limits I worked to did include a maximum GUST (component) of 38kts, as has appeared somewhere else on this thread.
What I cannot remember are the limits on a wet runway, which are normally lower.
On a slightly different note, here is one for the genuine A320 pilots who have suggested that the aeroplane is a particular handful in gusty crosswinds, presumably because of its FBW controls:
How come the FAA and CAA - not to mention the other authorities applicable in 1988 - granted type-certification with a maximum crosswind-component of 38 knots in gust?
Do you think they didn't try it out? Or could it be that some of you guys have not been briefed and trained properly?
The recommendations in the report linked in post #136 indicate that a realistic crosswind limit (applied by the crew/operator) should always include the gust.
[Unquote]
Haven't read the report (46 pages), but the A320 crosswind limits I worked to did include a maximum GUST (component) of 38kts, as has appeared somewhere else on this thread.
What I cannot remember are the limits on a wet runway, which are normally lower.
On a slightly different note, here is one for the genuine A320 pilots who have suggested that the aeroplane is a particular handful in gusty crosswinds, presumably because of its FBW controls:
How come the FAA and CAA - not to mention the other authorities applicable in 1988 - granted type-certification with a maximum crosswind-component of 38 knots in gust?
Do you think they didn't try it out? Or could it be that some of you guys have not been briefed and trained properly?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ. USA
Age: 56
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" seventhree:
Pitch goes gradually to direct, roll not. And that makes it tricky...
Rudder is always direct.
Pitch direct is blended in gradually and reached around 50ft and even a light nose down momentum is induced to you make you pull the stick. Stabilizer position is also a key factor for pitch control (if it's bad you can hit the mechanical stop of the stick)"
WRONG
Flare mode memorizes the pitch and gradually introduces a nose down trend but the sidestick still commands load factor or angle of attack (mode dependant) Direct control of the elevators does not occur until after touchdown.
Pitch goes gradually to direct, roll not. And that makes it tricky...
Rudder is always direct.
Pitch direct is blended in gradually and reached around 50ft and even a light nose down momentum is induced to you make you pull the stick. Stabilizer position is also a key factor for pitch control (if it's bad you can hit the mechanical stop of the stick)"
WRONG
Flare mode memorizes the pitch and gradually introduces a nose down trend but the sidestick still commands load factor or angle of attack (mode dependant) Direct control of the elevators does not occur until after touchdown.