Ack!! video A320 xwind in Germany

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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

"gatt" wrote in news:13sol8u8jlhokb5
@corp.supernews.com:

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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




Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"gatt" wrote in news:13sol8u8jlhokb5
@corp.supernews.com:

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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




Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Perhaps so - but it's been alleged there was a wind gust of 155 mph:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/..._rough_landing

Recently, Jim Logajan posted:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"gatt" wrote in news:13sol8u8jlhokb5
@corp.supernews.com:

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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




Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Perhaps so - but it's been alleged there was a wind gust of 155 mph:

Could it have been caused by that wing almost hitting the ground? ;-)

The entire approach looked bogus to me, but I'm nowhere near a heavy
driver. The result was exactly what I'd expect with that technique...

--
Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in news:y9Zyj.19181$J41.7752
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

Recently, Jim Logajan posted:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"gatt" wrote in news:13sol8u8jlhokb5
@corp.supernews.com:

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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




Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Perhaps so - but it's been alleged there was a wind gust of 155 mph:

Could it have been caused by that wing almost hitting the ground? ;-)

The entire approach looked bogus to me, but I'm nowhere near a heavy
driver. The result was exactly what I'd expect with that technique...

The approach was fine all the way to the flare.

Bertie

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:42:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Perhaps so - but it's been alleged there was a wind gust of 155 mph:

Could it have been caused by that wing almost hitting the ground? ;-)

The entire approach looked bogus to me, but I'm nowhere near a heavy
driver. The result was exactly what I'd expect with that technique...

The approach was fine all the way to the flare.

Bertie


The pilot de-crabbed too high, started to drift, then hurried to
recapture the correct crab angle and stabilize. While flaring not
enough aileron was applied into the wind, this allowed a gust to
momentarily bank the left wing into the ground.

The pilot should have maintained a stabilized descent, with crab
correction, to approximately 30' AGL before executing a simultaneous
de-crab and flare.

In article ,
says...


Recently, Jim Logajan posted:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"gatt" wrote in news:13sol8u8jlhokb5
@corp.supernews.com:

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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




Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Perhaps so - but it's been alleged there was a wind gust of 155 mph:

Could it have been caused by that wing almost hitting the ground? ;-)

The entire approach looked bogus to me, but I'm nowhere near a heavy
driver. The result was exactly what I'd expect with that technique...


Why? The approach was perfect until the moment he had to get the right
wing down and "couldn't" or just "didn't" .We'll have to wait for a full
analysis from Mxmanic to be sure though. . .

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"gatt" wrote in news:13sol8u8jlhokb5
@corp.supernews.com:

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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




Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Perhaps so - but it's been alleged there was a wind gust of 155 mph:

Nah. has to be a misprint. probably 55 mph.

He may have encountered a gust at that point, but it wouldn't have done
that to the airplane.

I've flown smaller in heavier winds than that.
In fact, I was flying in that storm not a million miles from where he was.
Our runway was more aligned with the wind than his was, though. We were
getting 50 plus in gusts about twenty degrees off with a baseline of about
38.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"gatt" wrote in news:13sol8u8jlhokb5
@corp.supernews.com:

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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




Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Perhaps so - but it's been alleged there was a wind gust of 155 mph:

Nah. has to be a misprint. probably 55 mph.

He may have encountered a gust at that point, but it wouldn't have
done
that to the airplane.

I've flown smaller in heavier winds than that.
In fact, I was flying in that storm not a million miles from where he
was. Our runway was more aligned with the wind than his was, though.
We were getting 50 plus in gusts about twenty degrees off with a
baseline of about 38.

This article has more details that do seem to suggest a misreporting (if
not a typo) of the wind speed:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...538926,00.html

Scroll to the bottom for an 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)."

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"gatt" wrote in news:13sol8u8jlhokb5
@corp.supernews.com:

WTF kind of crosswind does it take to cause this?

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




Wasn't so much the crosswind as the technique used to deal with it.

Perhaps so - but it's been alleged there was a wind gust of 155 mph:

Nah. has to be a misprint. probably 55 mph.

He may have encountered a gust at that point, but it wouldn't have
done
that to the airplane.

I've flown smaller in heavier winds than that.
In fact, I was flying in that storm not a million miles from where he
was. Our runway was more aligned with the wind than his was, though.
We were getting 50 plus in gusts about twenty degrees off with a
baseline of about 38.

This article has more details that do seem to suggest a misreporting
(if
not a typo) of the wind speed:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...538926,00.html

Scroll to the bottom for an 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)."

Yeah, I think there were regions that did get winds of near that
strenght, but even leaving the reporting aside, it's pretty plain to see
that it;s the airplane itself causing those gyrations, not the wind. If
you eliminate the ground from that picture and just look at the
airplane's control deflections. wind or no wind it will do just what it
did if the rudder is kicked with nothing to stop the roll.


Bertie