Lufthansa Crosswind Landing at Hamburg

In case you haven't seen this yet. One post I read said that the wind
was 290 at 35 kts gusting to 55 kts. I'm not sure what the runway
heading was, but that's some pretty serious wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z42fchrzhHY

"Phil J" wrote in message
...
In case you haven't seen this yet.

Seen it? You can't watch CNN for over five minutes without having seen it
multiple times.

Vaughn

In article
,
Phil J wrote:

In case you haven't seen this yet. One post I read said that the wind
was 290 at 35 kts gusting to 55 kts. I'm not sure what the runway
heading was, but that's some pretty serious wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z42fchrzhHY

As I understand it, they landed later on an intersecting runway, with a
more favorable wind direction.

My questions:

Where in hell was ATC's head when they directed the plane to a runway
with that severe a crosswind in the first place?

Also, why did the pilot accept that runway?

Is it the German acceptance of authority?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Mar 3, 7:28*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article
,
*Phil J wrote:

In case you haven't seen this yet. *One post I read said that the wind
was 290 at 35 kts gusting to 55 kts. *I'm not sure what the runway
heading was, but that's some pretty serious wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z42fchrzhHY

As I understand it, they landed later on an intersecting runway, with a
more favorable wind direction.

My questions:

Where in hell was ATC's head when they directed the plane to a runway
with that severe a crosswind in the first place?

Also, why did the pilot accept that runway?


I read that they were attempting to land on runway 23. According to
one website I found they have runways 05/23 and 15/33. Seems like 33
would have been a better choice if the wind was from 290.

Phil

Phil J wrote:

I read that they were attempting to land on runway 23. According to
one website I found they have runways 05/23 and 15/33. Seems like 33
would have been a better choice if the wind was from 290.


That's correct. The failed attempt was on rwy 23 and the METAR showed
winds 290 @35G55. A 60 degee right crosswind. Their second (less eventful)
landing was on 33. A more manageable 40 degree left crosswind.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200803/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:80aa3cae34e9a@uwe...
Phil J wrote:

I read that they were attempting to land on runway 23. According to
one website I found they have runways 05/23 and 15/33. Seems like 33
would have been a better choice if the wind was from 290.


That's correct. The failed attempt was on rwy 23 and the METAR showed
winds 290 @35G55. A 60 degee right crosswind. Their second (less
eventful)
landing was on 33. A more manageable 40 degree left crosswind.

23 had the ILS, didn't it? The METAR also indicated clouds at 1100 and
1400, so I wonder if he just said "Screw it. I'm going visual" the second
time around.

Maybe the problem started because he didn't want to bust IFR. It looked
overcast, though, despite the METAR so he might have had to approach through
that as well.

-c

"gatt" wrote in
:


"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:80aa3cae34e9a@uwe...
Phil J wrote:

I read that they were attempting to land on runway 23. According to
one website I found they have runways 05/23 and 15/33. Seems like 33
would have been a better choice if the wind was from 290.


That's correct. The failed attempt was on rwy 23 and the METAR
showed
winds 290 @35G55. A 60 degee right crosswind. Their second (less
eventful)
landing was on 33. A more manageable 40 degree left crosswind.

23 had the ILS, didn't it? The METAR also indicated clouds at 1100
and 1400, so I wonder if he just said "Screw it. I'm going visual"
the second time around.

Maybe the problem started because he didn't want to bust IFR. It
looked overcast, though, despite the METAR so he might have had to
approach through that as well.


Well, he could have circled easily onto 33 from the first ILS with a
ceiling like that. Might be what he did the second time. But if the wind
was over limits on the surface, there's no way he would have continued for
23 in the first place. Ever been to Germany? Nobody jaywalks. It's eerie


Bertie

Orval,

Where in hell was ATC's head when they directed the plane to a runway
with that severe a crosswind in the first place?

The options are 23 and 33 (this is my home drome). With the wind between
280 and 290, you figure out the difference in crosswind component. It's
not that much. But 23 has a CAT IIIb (I think) ILS, while 33 is
localizer only.

Also, why did the pilot accept that runway?

See above.

Is it the German acceptance of authority?

No.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 5 Mar, 17:36, Thomas Borchert wrote:
Orval,

Where in hell was ATC's head when they directed the plane to a runway
with that severe a crosswind in the first place?

The options are 23 and 33 (this is my home drome). With the wind between
280 and 290, you figure out the difference in crosswind component. It's
not that much. But 23 has a CAT IIIb (I think) ILS, while 33 is
localizer only.

Also, why did the pilot accept that runway?

See above.

Is it the German acceptance of authority?

No.


Probably just the lack of a sense of humor.


Bertie

Phil,

I'm not sure what the runway
heading was,


23.

If there hadn't been video...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)