A380 Landing in LAX

[Bob Clough]

Anyone notice what seemed to me to be rather large deflections of the
rudder during landing at LAX the other day? The video is on CNN --
can't provide direct link so go to CNN video site and search for
"Gigantic jet arrives in U.S.".

Was there a significant crosswind that morning? On touchdown, the A380
appears to turn a bit and then recover. I believe the 380 gear is
designed to land somewhat crabbed on a pivot and then turn straight.

Comments?

Bob

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bob Clough > wrote:
> Anyone notice what seemed to me to be rather large deflections of the
> rudder during landing at LAX the other day? The video is on CNN --
> can't provide direct link so go to CNN video site and search for
> "Gigantic jet arrives in U.S.".
>
> Was there a significant crosswind that morning? On touchdown, the A380
> appears to turn a bit and then recover. I believe the 380 gear is
> designed to land somewhat crabbed on a pivot and then turn straight.

Nope. No real crosswinds at all. the video on CBS2.com (CBS LA
Affiliate) has ATC comms on it, and when MSN101 checked in, Tower
reported winds 280 at 4. So for all intents, winds were calm. They
definitely turned to recover it, and it was dramatic on the CBS2 video.
I think they just missed the runway centerline and corrected to get
back onto that. Just with the size of that beast, any correction like
that is going to look drastic.

Here's the URL to the video:



BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGAsaVyBkZmuMZ8L8RAj47AJ0aqxnqgJQ17k+owA3W5C U+rXDqagCcDFjQ
MEfLtsf7eVrBXYN3iyeHeOU=
=e6Ps
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jim Stewart]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bob Clough > wrote:
>
>>Anyone notice what seemed to me to be rather large deflections of the
>>rudder during landing at LAX the other day? The video is on CNN --
>>can't provide direct link so go to CNN video site and search for
>>"Gigantic jet arrives in U.S.".
>>
>>Was there a significant crosswind that morning? On touchdown, the A380
>>appears to turn a bit and then recover. I believe the 380 gear is
>>designed to land somewhat crabbed on a pivot and then turn straight.
>
>
> Nope. No real crosswinds at all. the video on CBS2.com (CBS LA
> Affiliate) has ATC comms on it, and when MSN101 checked in, Tower
> reported winds 280 at 4. So for all intents, winds were calm. They
> definitely turned to recover it, and it was dramatic on the CBS2 video.
> I think they just missed the runway centerline and corrected to get
> back onto that. Just with the size of that beast, any correction like
> that is going to look drastic.
>
> Here's the URL to the video:
>
>

There was some speculation on pprune that they
may have applied reverse thrust before the nose
was firmly planted. If that was the case, a
little asymmetry with the reverse thrust coming
on could cause the yaw.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> There was some speculation on pprune that they
> may have applied reverse thrust before the nose
> was firmly planted. If that was the case, a
> little asymmetry with the reverse thrust coming
> on could cause the yaw.

If that's the way landings take place with the best A380 pilots around in the
cockpit, what will happen when regular pilots start to fly it? That was an
amazingly clumsy and rough landing, especially given that there was no obvious
reason for it (heavy crosswinds or whatever).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> There was some speculation on pprune that they
>> may have applied reverse thrust before the nose
>> was firmly planted. If that was the case, a
>> little asymmetry with the reverse thrust coming
>> on could cause the yaw.
>
> If that's the way landings take place with the best A380 pilots around
> in the cockpit, what will happen when regular pilots start to fly it?
> That was an amazingly clumsy and rough landing, especially given that
> there was no obvious reason for it (heavy crosswinds or whatever).

So now you feel sufficiently knowledgable to question test pilots..

Asshole.


Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>
>>There was some speculation on pprune that they
>>may have applied reverse thrust before the nose
>>was firmly planted. If that was the case, a
>>little asymmetry with the reverse thrust coming
>>on could cause the yaw.
>
>
> If that's the way landings take place with the best A380 pilots around in the
> cockpit, what will happen when regular pilots start to fly it? That was an
> amazingly clumsy and rough landing, especially given that there was no obvious
> reason for it (heavy crosswinds or whatever).

It's only your assumption that it was a clumsy
landing.

I'm of the opinion that they did what they did
to get it firmly planted and stopped as quickly
as possible. And that's a safe landing, especially
for such a high value plane. A little roughness
weighed against the consequences of a overshoot
and nosegear collapse is a good tradeoff.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Jim Stewart writes:
>>
>>
>>>There was some speculation on pprune that they
>>>may have applied reverse thrust before the nose
>>>was firmly planted. If that was the case, a
>>>little asymmetry with the reverse thrust coming
>>>on could cause the yaw.
>>
>>
>> If that's the way landings take place with the best A380 pilots around in the
>> cockpit, what will happen when regular pilots start to fly it? That was an
>> amazingly clumsy and rough landing, especially given that there was no obvious
>> reason for it (heavy crosswinds or whatever).
>
> It's only your assumption that it was a clumsy
> landing.
>
> I'm of the opinion that they did what they did
> to get it firmly planted and stopped as quickly
> as possible. And that's a safe landing, especially
> for such a high value plane. A little roughness
> weighed against the consequences of a overshoot
> and nosegear collapse is a good tradeoff.

Agreed. I also should point out that the A380 was able to make
the Z highspeed, and not need the 90 that was further down at full
length. So it really wasn't a question of coming in too fast or hot,
either.

I wonder.. with 24R being one of main arrival runways, and it
also having the reverse highspeed Y (highspeed for 6L), I wonder how fast
it could turn that corner to exit the runway. It would be a sharp tight
turn, but one that could be tested, especially since there are more of
those off of 25L, and they will also be landing on the south side too.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGAwOWyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtV2AJ9Dlfg13RFBRvGhVTjnaZ A4QyG27QCfbTWg
MNgVjRxxs8Rt3oU2CvuyH5c=
=Zk41
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> There was some speculation on pprune that they
>> may have applied reverse thrust before the nose
>> was firmly planted. If that was the case, a
>> little asymmetry with the reverse thrust coming
>> on could cause the yaw.
>
> If that's the way landings take place with the best A380 pilots around in
> the
> cockpit, what will happen when regular pilots start to fly it? That was
> an
> amazingly clumsy and rough landing, especially given that there was no
> obvious
> reason for it (heavy crosswinds or whatever).
>

Says the idiot that has never landed a real plane EVER.

--------------------------------------------
DW

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> So now you feel sufficiently knowledgable to question test pilots.

When they land that poorly, I'll question them no matter why type of pilot
they are supposed to be. The whole world was watching, and the pilot screwed
up (or the aircraft has a problem).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> It's only your assumption that it was a clumsy
> landing.
>
> I'm of the opinion that they did what they did
> to get it firmly planted and stopped as quickly
> as possible. And that's a safe landing, especially
> for such a high value plane. A little roughness
> weighed against the consequences of a overshoot
> and nosegear collapse is a good tradeoff.

Why isn't this necessary with a 747?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> Says the idiot that has never landed a real plane EVER.

So say quite a few pilots as well. Odd that it only engenders criticism when
I say it. I think I could say the sky is blue and someone would try to argue
with me that it is not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> So now you feel sufficiently knowledgable to question test pilots.
>
> When they land that poorly, I'll question them no matter why type of
> pilot they are supposed to be. The whole world was watching, and the
> pilot screwed up (or the aircraft has a problem).

You don't know either for a fact. I don't know either for a fact and i have
significantly more experience than you do...



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Says the idiot that has never landed a real plane EVER.
>
> So say quite a few pilots as well.

they have a right to, you don't


Bertie

[Viperdoc]

We have to remember that mxsmanic suffers from a psychiatric problem. The
very nature of his problem results in argumentative behavior and social
isolation.

Engaging in a discourse with him rapidly will degenerate into an argument,
and he is incapable of ever acknowledging when he's wrong.

[Darkwing]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
t...
> We have to remember that mxsmanic suffers from a psychiatric problem. The
> very nature of his problem results in argumentative behavior and social
> isolation.
>
> Engaging in a discourse with him rapidly will degenerate into an argument,
> and he is incapable of ever acknowledging when he's wrong.
>
>
>

Just like my mother-in-law...

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> You don't know either for a fact. I don't know either for a fact and i have
> significantly more experience than you do...

I can still express my opinion.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> they have a right to, you don't

That doesn't change the validity of the observation. If they are right, so am
I; and if I'm wrong, so are they. It's not a question of rights.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting Viperdoc > wrote:
> We have to remember that mxsmanic suffers from a psychiatric problem. The
> very nature of his problem results in argumentative behavior and social
> isolation.
>
> Engaging in a discourse with him rapidly will degenerate into an argument,
> and he is incapable of ever acknowledging when he's wrong.

Which leads me back to the Dilbert Rule:

Never argue with someone who is an idiot. They will drop you
down to their level, then beat you with experience.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGBBM/yBkZmuMZ8L8RAtTcAKCY9vJOWFvCAUYQJfm5RzeNyNMTwwCg6f ql
nj7dqfQQ9wQDy5xwJnWW0go=
=PmQQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
t:

> We have to remember that mxsmanic suffers from a psychiatric problem.
> The very nature of his problem results in argumentative behavior and
> social isolation.
>
> Engaging in a discourse with him rapidly will degenerate into an
> argument, and he is incapable of ever acknowledging when he's wrong.

Remember it? I'm counting on it.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> they have a right to, you don't
>
> That doesn't change the validity of the observation. If they are
> right, so am I; and if I'm wrong, so are they. It's not a question of
> rights.

Spoke like a true fraud.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You don't know either for a fact. I don't know either for a fact and
>> i have significantly more experience than you do...
>
> I can still express my opinion.

Oh sure! I think you're a fukkin scream!


Express away, twit..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Mar 23, 3:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > they have a right to, you don't
>
> That doesn't change the validity of the observation.

yes it does.


Bertie

[Kev]

On Mar 24, 1:10 am, "Bertie the Bunyip"
> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 3:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > > they have a right to, you don't
>
> > That doesn't change the validity of the observation.
>
> yes it does.

Good grief, will you two get a room or something? It's like you're
married.

Kev

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Mar 24, 10:41 am, "Kev" > wrote:
> On Mar 24, 1:10 am, "Bertie the Bunyip"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 3:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > > > they have a right to, you don't
>
> > > That doesn't change the validity of the observation.
>
> > yes it does.
>
> Good grief, will you two get a room or something? It's like you're
> married.
>

Oh Pshaw, he's aBertie Virgin so far..



Bertie