A380 hard landing at Oshkosh - video

[Darkwing]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/EAAAirVenture2009_AirbusA380_HardLanding_200850-1.html

Yowser!

[Robert Moore]

"Darkwing" wrote

> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/EAAAirVenture2009_AirbusA
> 380_HardLanding_200850-1.html

Firm... yes, but not near as bad as Gryder makes it out to be. Now...if
the wheels had bounced off the runway, that would probably be classified
as a hard landing. Remember, in order to meet the certification standards,
the transport category aircraft must be able to land with a 600fpm sink
rate at MLGW and with a 360fpm sink at MTOGW. This aircraft was nowhere
near those numbers.

Gryder's comment about the aircraft still being useable is more befitting a
comedian than an aviation professional.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[John Smith]

Safety first, and in a crosswind situation, it's safest to "plant" the
plane. Even more so if you have a limited runway in front of you.

Those two super pilots who comment have seen an A380 for the first time,
yet they've become instant experts. Just cheap Airbus bashing.

[Peter Dohm]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/EAAAirVenture2009_AirbusA380_HardLanding_200850-1.html
>
> Yowser!
>
Well, speaking just for myself: That video really underscores the reasons
for my irritation about web based videos--both the You Tube variety and the
Webinar Meetings. The resolution is poor and the frame rate is much too
slow; and (in this particular case) the camera was zoomed in a little too
close to provide the best reference.

Obviously, in the event of an accident or substantial damage, those low
quality videos are usually much better than nothing. However, IMHO, they
really shed little light on the sorts of "technique" issues that were
addressed in the dialog.

Personally, I am a long time "Boeing Bigot" and that makes "Airbus Bashing"
just a little difficult for me to avoid--especially after reading that
several recent designs from Airbus do not allow the pilot to cross control
the aircraft. Clearly, some version of a classic "kick out" would be the
natural way to make that sort of landing if the "rules" of the control
system permitted it; but, even so, that landing did not look nearly as
unsettling as most of the internet videos of routine landings at windy
airports around the world.

Peter

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> Personally, I am a long time "Boeing Bigot" and that makes "Airbus Bashing"
> just a little difficult for me to avoid--especially after reading that
> several recent designs from Airbus do not allow the pilot to cross control
> the aircraft. Clearly, some version of a classic "kick out" would be the
> natural way to make that sort of landing if the "rules" of the control
> system permitted it; but, even so, that landing did not look nearly as
> unsettling as most of the internet videos of routine landings at windy
> airports around the world.

The only unsettling thing for me was the strange bend in the middle of
the wings after touchdown. Once I realized this was just how they were
built, I couldn't see why this video merited comment at all.

The comment about wing flex really puzzled me. I don't know how much an
A380's wing is supposed to flex, but I suspect that these commenters
don't know either. Wing flex varies so dramatically between airplanes
that you can't just make a blanket statement like they did about how
that degree of wing flex automatically implies a hard landing. On some
planes, that much flex would mean you broke it. On others, like mine,
you can get that much flex just by grabbing a wingtip and shaking it up
and down gently at the right frequency.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Gilbert Smith]

John Smith > wrote:

>Safety first, and in a crosswind situation, it's safest to "plant" the
>plane. Even more so if you have a limited runway in front of you.
>
>Those two super pilots who comment have seen an A380 for the first time,
>yet they've become instant experts. Just cheap Airbus bashing.

On the crosswind, all aviation videos (other than those taken standing
on the centre line) appear to show massive drift angles.

What sort of crosswind would require 10 deg of crab on an a/c of this
size ?

[John Smith]

Gilbert Smith wrote:
> What sort of crosswind would require 10 deg of crab on an a/c of this
> size ?

Crab angle depends on speed, not on size.

I have no idea what the approach speed was. But assuming reasonable
numbers, 10 degrees of crab yield a crosswind component of 20 to 25 knots.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Robert Moore" wrote:

> Firm... yes, but not near as bad as Gryder makes it out to be.

The crowd I was in went "ooh!" when the 380 touched down. It looked damned
hard to me.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

[K M]

On Aug 1, 10:39*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yowser!

Bob is right about this one . Another thing about certification is
that a transport category plane is certified to touch down in a crab
right up to its cross wind limit . The idiot narrating this video
should try landing one of these in a cross wind without contacting
the ground with the engine nacelle . On the Boeing you only get a few
degrees before this becomes a factor . Gyder is an idiot .
FB

[Dave[_19_]]

Agreed!

They HAVE to be landed in a crab, or you drag that expensive #1 0r #4
engine on the rny!

They are designed to handle the side stress....

Tires (are still) cheaper than engines....

Dave




On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:16:27 -0700 (PDT), K M > wrote:

>On Aug 1, 10:39*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Yowser!
>
>Bob is right about this one . Another thing about certification is
>that a transport category plane is certified to touch down in a crab
>right up to its cross wind limit . The idiot narrating this video
>should try landing one of these in a cross wind without contacting
>the ground with the engine nacelle . On the Boeing you only get a few
>degrees before this becomes a factor . Gyder is an idiot .
>FB

[John Smith]

Dave wrote:
> They HAVE to be landed in a crab, or you drag that expensive #1 0r #4
> engine on the rny!

Actually, they *can* decrab in the flare to some extent. Those huge
planes have sufficient inertia that they don't get instantly blown off
the runway even with the wings level. It's the pilot's choice whether he
wants to try a nice landing or just keep it simple and safe.

> They are designed to handle the side stress....

Of course.

[Peter Dohm]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
>> They HAVE to be landed in a crab, or you drag that expensive #1 0r #4
>> engine on the rny!
>
> Actually, they *can* decrab in the flare to some extent. Those huge planes
> have sufficient inertia that they don't get instantly blown off the runway
> even with the wings level. It's the pilot's choice whether he wants to try
> a nice landing or just keep it simple and safe.
>
>> They are designed to handle the side stress....
>
> Of course.

Actually, this has been discussed previously of this formu with regard to
certain Airbus models. Apparently, some allow the rudder to be used
independently, under some configurations, and some others might not. That
serious of discussions were related to another video clip that was
referenced and circulated a year or so ago.

Personally, I have no idea; but I admit that I am curious.

If you happen to have access to the operating manuals for the A380, would
you please be so kind as to divulge the control rules for the rudder just
prior to touchdown in the landing configuration.

Peter

[John Smith]

Peter Dohm wrote:

> If you happen to have access to the operating manuals for the A380, would
> you please be so kind as to divulge the control rules for the rudder just
> prior to touchdown in the landing configuration.

I don't have access to operation manuals, but this clip of two test
landings at Keflavik (Iceland) with crosswinds between 40 and 50 knots
should answer the question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5pGlw4o3Ks

[Brian Whatcott]

Gilbert Smith wrote:

> On the crosswind, all aviation videos (other than those taken standing
> on the centre line) appear to show massive drift angles.
>
> What sort of crosswind would require 10 deg of crab on an a/c of this
> size ?

Ahem...
for an aircraft of ANY size, a 10 degree crab is required by an 18 kt
crosswind, for every 100 kts of approach sppeed.

But approaching aircraft are photographed by telephoto lenses - which
greatly exaggerate visual crab angle.

Brian W

[Jim[_13_]]

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:06:40 -0500, brian whatcott
> wrote:

>Gilbert Smith wrote:
>
>> On the crosswind, all aviation videos (other than those taken standing
>> on the centre line) appear to show massive drift angles.
>>
>> What sort of crosswind would require 10 deg of crab on an a/c of this
>> size ?
>
>Ahem...
>for an aircraft of ANY size, a 10 degree crab is required by an 18 kt
>crosswind, for every 100 kts of approach sppeed.
>

This may be a little misleading. The crab angle decreases with
increasing TAS for a given crosswind strength. This may suggest that
the crab angle increases with increasing TAS.

As for the calculation of crab angle:

crab angle is the arcsin of (crosswind strength / true airspeed)


>But approaching aircraft are photographed by telephoto lenses - which
>greatly exaggerate visual crab angle.
>
>Brian W

[Panic]

Yeah. That is why they designed the B-52 with a crosswind landing gear.
The main struts can be hydraulically turned up to 20° so that, while landing
in a crab the main gear is aligned with the runway. A wing low cross
controlled approach and landing is not feasible with an aircraft that
large... plus the outrigger landing gear.

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler Web Site
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
USAF Pilot Class 55-I Web Site
http://pilotclass55india.org/

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed!
>
> They HAVE to be landed in a crab, or you drag that expensive #1 0r #4
> engine on the rny!
>
> They are designed to handle the side stress....
>
> Tires (are still) cheaper than engines....
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:16:27 -0700 (PDT), K M > wrote:
>
>>On Aug 1, 10:39 am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yowser!
>>
>>Bob is right about this one . Another thing about certification is
>>that a transport category plane is certified to touch down in a crab
>>right up to its cross wind limit . The idiot narrating this video
>>should try landing one of these in a cross wind without contacting
>>the ground with the engine nacelle . On the Boeing you only get a few
>>degrees before this becomes a factor . Gyder is an idiot .
>>FB
>

[Brian Whatcott]

Jim wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:06:40 -0500, brian whatcott
> > wrote:
>
>> Gilbert Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On the crosswind, all aviation videos (other than those taken standing
>>> on the centre line) appear to show massive drift angles.
>>>
>>> What sort of crosswind would require 10 deg of crab on an a/c of this
>>> size ?
>> Ahem...
>> for an aircraft of ANY size, a 10 degree crab is required by an 18 kt
>> crosswind, for every 100 kts of approach sppeed.
>>
>
> This may be a little misleading. The crab angle decreases with
> increasing TAS for a given crosswind strength. This may suggest that
> the crab angle increases with increasing TAS.

Yes indeed. Thanks for pointing that out.

Brian W

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Jim wrote:

>>> Ahem...
>>> for an aircraft of ANY size, a 10 degree crab is required by an 18 kt
>>> crosswind, for every 100 kts of approach sppeed.
>>>
>>
>> This may be a little misleading. The

--> crab angle decreases with increasing TAS for a given crosswind strength.

>> This may suggest that the

--> crab angle increases with increasing TAS.

>
> Yes indeed. Thanks for pointing that out.


Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like he contradicted himself or left
something out.

Matt

[John Smith]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>>> Ahem...
>>>> for an aircraft of ANY size, a 10 degree crab is required by an 18 kt
>>>> crosswind, for every 100 kts of approach sppeed.

>>> This may be a little misleading. The

> --> crab angle decreases with increasing TAS for a given crosswind strength.

>>> This may suggest that the

> --> crab angle increases with increasing TAS.

>> Yes indeed. Thanks for pointing that out.

> Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like he contradicted himself or left
> something out.

You're missing that "this" refers to the post he's referring.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 5, 10:06*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Gilbert Smith wrote:
> > On the crosswind, all aviation videos (other than those taken standing
> > on the centre line) appear to show massive drift angles.
>
> > What sort of crosswind would require 10 deg of crab on an a/c of this
> > size ?
>
> Ahem...
> for an aircraft of ANY size, a 10 degree crab is required by an 18 kt
> crosswind, for every 100 kts of approach sppeed.
>
> But approaching aircraft are photographed by telephoto lenses - which
> greatly exaggerate visual crab angle.
>
> Brian W

Brian, you're not quite right, it's more nearly an inverse
relationship between crab angle and airspeed, angle increasing as air
speed decreases for a given crosswind. Think of the crab angle if you
flew a 100 kt pproach into a 100 kt xwind. You'd fly at 90 degrees to
the runway and have the shortest landing roll you can possibly have
and still have a useful airplane afterwards!

Of course, getting to your tie down would be a problem.

[Aluckyguess[_3_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 5, 10:06 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Gilbert Smith wrote:
> > On the crosswind, all aviation videos (other than those taken standing
> > on the centre line) appear to show massive drift angles.
>
> > What sort of crosswind would require 10 deg of crab on an a/c of this
> > size ?
>
> Ahem...
> for an aircraft of ANY size, a 10 degree crab is required by an 18 kt
> crosswind, for every 100 kts of approach sppeed.
>
> But approaching aircraft are photographed by telephoto lenses - which
> greatly exaggerate visual crab angle.
>
> Brian W

Brian, you're not quite right, it's more nearly an inverse
relationship between crab angle and airspeed, angle increasing as air
speed decreases for a given crosswind. Think of the crab angle if you
flew a 100 kt pproach into a 100 kt xwind. You'd fly at 90 degrees to
the runway and have the shortest landing roll you can possibly have
and still have a useful airplane afterwards!

You would not be moving, you would have to increase airspeed, until you
reached the runway.

Of course, getting to your tie down would be a problem.