White-knuckle jet landing attempt in Germany

[Spin Echo]

As for the wind... that plane was moving laterally from the start, I am with the Tuxedo

I may be misunderstanding what you mean, but that's how you land into a crosswind. You stick the nose into the wind and the plane moves laterally towards where you intend to go.

[lPeregrine]

As for the wind... that plane was moving laterally from the start, I am with the Tuxedo

I may be misunderstanding what you mean, but that's how you land into a crosswind. You stick the nose into the wind and the plane moves laterally towards where you intend to go.

I think what he means is it wasn't just the nose pointing off-center, the whole plane was slipping to the side (nose pointing the same direction) as each gust hit. Like:

Code: Select all

------------>
               |
               |
                ------------>

Where the line is the actual flight path, not the direction the nose is pointing. That's the dangerous part, it looks like some of those bumps might be enough to shove a wing into the ground/hit too hard and break the landing gear/whatever, if one hit while they were too close to the ground.

[lPeregrine]

Late edit: it looks like that's exactly what happened, except they got incredibly lucky and it wasn't quite enough to damage the wing and crash the plane.

[Darth Servo]

Damn, never knew planes could fly sideways.

[Spin Echo]

I've been reading a pilots forum and the crosswind was 48 knots! The pilot really should have been using his superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skills and requested another runway.

[Wicked Pilot]

The pilot made a very basic error, he didn't keep his crosswind correction in throughout the landing roll. Instead it appears he removed it right after the main landing gear touched down. Just because you have contact with the surface it doesn't mean you don't need to still 'fly the airplane'. On most days doing that sort of fuckup just means you roll down the runway leaning slightly, with this sort of wind it means a wingtip striking the pavement.

Instead of being called 'hero', the pilot should instead be refered to as 'first officer' for a few weeks.



And we can reasonably assume the crosswinds where within the aircraft's operating limits or dispatch would have sent the jet somewhere else.

[Spin Echo]

And we can reasonably assume the crosswinds where within the aircraft's operating limits or dispatch would have sent the jet somewhere else.

I can't say I know the crosswind limitations personally, but the pilots over on PPRuNe say the A320 has a crosswind limit of 33 gusting 38 knots. The METAR at the time put the crosswind components at 31 gusting 48 knots. So technically underlimit... if you don't get a gust of wind.

[Wicked Pilot]

What tower was calling at the time is what really matters.

[Spin Echo]

What tower was calling at the time is what really matters.

I wish I had your faith in the Tower.

[salm]

It´s currently being investigated why the real pilot let his 24 year old co-pilot try to do the landing in a storm like this. It a appears that the pilot isn´t a hero but a fucking idiot.

[Warsie]

heh..I remember them showing this on CNN yesteray and LOLed at the liveleak imprint...gotts enjoy the large amount of camcorders to record this type of stuff in this time period.

[Wicked Pilot]

I wish I had your faith in the Tower.

Having worked in the tower I can you what they call as part of their landing clearance is the real time reading, and as such if far more accurate than the METAR or ATIS which are usually updated no more than hourly.

[tim31]

Fuck me... I've been in a 172 doing a crosswind landing like that, but I'm just trying to imagine having port side row one window seat...

[Wicked Pilot]

It́s currently being investigated why the real pilot let his 24 year old co-pilot try to do the landing in a storm like this. It a appears that the pilot isńt a hero but a fucking idiot.

First off, the copilot is a 'real' pilot too, and is (at least in the US) fully qualified to land that jet in any condition the captain is. Yes in most scenarios the captain is more proficient and experienced than the co is, and that is exactly why the guy in the right seat needs to practice these kinds of things. It would be a disservice to safety if a co upgraded to captain without ever landing in severe crosswinds, shooting an approach down to mins, or half a dozen other challenging scenarios. Then he's in the left seat, responsible for a $150 million dollar aircraft and the lives of the 100+ people in the back, and now he or she has to make a landing for the first time. Where would you rather he get his cherry popped, as a co with an experienced pilot walking him through it, ready to take the controls should he fuck up, or as a captain for the first time with limited backup?

[Kamakazie Sith]

It´s currently being investigated why the real pilot let his 24 year old co-pilot try to do the landing in a storm like this. It a appears that the pilot isn´t a hero but a fucking idiot.

I'm seconding Wicked Pilot on this.

When would you recommend that the co-pilot be exposed to that sort of stressful landing? If anytime is the best time to be exposed to that it's when you have an experienced pilot with you. There was nothing wrong in the decision. The mistake was made in the execution, but that was recovered.

Besides, it's not like this is the only career where they use real life in which real lives are at risk to train the new guy.

[Darth Wong]

I'm seconding Wicked Pilot on this.

When would you recommend that the co-pilot be exposed to that sort of stressful landing?

When flying a cargo plane rather than a jetliner full of civilians. The public safety has to be your overriding concern, and you don't use civilians as a learning exercise.

[Wicked Pilot]

When flying a cargo plane rather than a jetliner full of civilians. The public safety has to be your overriding concern, and you don't use civilians as a learning exercise.

It doesn't work that way, in the world of big iron you fly cargo (UPS, FedEx), or for the airliners, not both, and not one after the other. And yes you do use planes full of civilians for a 'learning exercise', or did you not know that in almost every case the first time a pilot flies a large jet it's with paying customers in the back?

[Darth Wong]

When flying a cargo plane rather than a jetliner full of civilians. The public safety has to be your overriding concern, and you don't use civilians as a learning exercise.

It doesn't work that way, in the world of big iron you fly cargo (UPS, FedEx), or for the airliners, not both, and not one after the other. And yes you do use planes full of civilians for a 'learning exercise', or did you not know that in almost every case the first time a pilot flies a large jet it's with paying customers in the back?

Frankly, I find that idea a little disturbing. One would think that someone should have some real experience with a particular type of plane before flying with a hundred civilians in it.

[Wicked Pilot]

Frankly, I find that idea a little disturbing. One would think that someone should have some real experience with a particular type of plane before flying with a hundred civilians in it.

They do, it's called the simulater, and they're amazingly accurate, but they're not an airplane. When these first officers graduate after months of academics, procedural trainers, simulator rides with every possible emergency and weather thrown at them, and receive a check ride by the FAA or equivilant, they are fully qualified. Then they are paired up with the most senior captains at that particular airline for their first couple of months on the line. This is the norm everywhere and has been for quite some time and yet aviation, especially the airline world, still remains ungodly safe. People seem to forget that the last airliner to go down in the US was back in Nov of 2001. Even that 777 putting down short at Heathrow resulted in no major injuries (and the copilot was at the controls btw)
I won't say it's never happened, but you would be hard pressed to find an incident with a life or hull loss due to a brand new copilot not having 'the hands' to pull off a particular maneuver.

[FSTargetDrone]

It doesn't work that way, in the world of big iron you fly cargo (UPS, FedEx), or for the airliners, not both, and not one after the other. And yes you do use planes full of civilians for a 'learning exercise', or did you not know that in almost every case the first time a pilot flies a large jet it's with paying customers in the back?

Is this done because they don't want to be flying empty passenger aircraft, tying up aircraft that they cannot afford to take out of service?

[Wicked Pilot]

Is this done because they don't want to be flying empty passenger aircraft, tying up aircraft that they cannot afford to take out of service?

Essentially that is the case. The extra cost of training compared to the minuscule if any improvement in safety does not balance. The best simulators out there today are just that good and are getting better.

Most airlines will train you in house. If you for example get hired on by Delta and they assign you a B767, you can expect them to train you in their facilities with their top of the line simulators. When done you'll have your 767 type rating and your first flight will be with revenue generating passengers.

Let's say instead you want to fly for Southwest and so you go out with your own money to get a B737 type rating so as to have a more competitive resume. There are plenty of independent schools out there who can give you this training, for a price of course. Some have the same top of the line simulators the airlines have and the process is the same, i.e. all training done in the metal box with hydraulic legs. Some schools however have cheaper and/or older simulators that aren't as cutting edge. With those guys the process is just like that above, but at the end you are given a short flight, maybe half an hour, in a real B737, and then you're good to go with your rating.

[Broomstick]

When flying a cargo plane rather than a jetliner full of civilians. The public safety has to be your overriding concern, and you don't use civilians as a learning exercise.

It doesn't work that way, in the world of big iron you fly cargo (UPS, FedEx), or for the airliners, not both, and not one after the other. And yes you do use planes full of civilians for a 'learning exercise', or did you not know that in almost every case the first time a pilot flies a large jet it's with paying customers in the back?

Frankly, I find that idea a little disturbing. One would think that someone should have some real experience with a particular type of plane before flying with a hundred civilians in it.

No one gets into either seat of an airliner carrying passengers without being fully qualified. The competition for civilian flights jobs is such that I'm pretty they all vastly exceed the minimum requirements.

Although it's not common, it IS becoming the case more often that you find a co-pilot who has more experience and/or skill than the pilot - that's because in the airlines who is captain is determined SOLELY by seniority. What with mergers and airlines going under, someone can go from being a senior captain at one airline (which goes under) then back to co-pilot at their next employer (because they start at the bottom of the pile, just like everyone else). In such instance, the co-pilot might be considerably older with many more hours than the designated captain.

More commonly, these days airlines, the FAA, and the NTSB refer to "pilot flying" and "pilot not flying" when discussing an incident, as recognition that BOTH people in the cockpit are fully qualified or else they wouldn't be there.

My understanding is that current practice is for the two pilots to alternate take-offs and landings. Also keep in mind that the pilot not flying is not simply sitting there - he or she also has significant duties, such as communicating with air traffic control, looking for conflicting traffic both on the air and potentially on the runway, monitoring the aircraft's operation, and so on. Alternating in this manner is believed to be the most efficient way to keep everyone's skills at peak.

I should also point out that there are circumstances that dictate who should fly beyond mere hours in type. For example, during the infamous Gimli Glider incident, when an airliner ran out of fuel at 30,000 feet or so (it was cruising altitude, I remember that much off the top of my head) the more experienced captain handed the controls to the co-pilot - which sounds insane until you know that the co-pilot flew glider competitions as a hobby and the captain had no experience with unpowered flight. The reasoning was the guy who routinely flew without an engine would be best able to handle an Airbus-turned-glider.

[Broomstick]

It doesn't work that way, in the world of big iron you fly cargo (UPS, FedEx), or for the airliners, not both, and not one after the other. And yes you do use planes full of civilians for a 'learning exercise', or did you not know that in almost every case the first time a pilot flies a large jet it's with paying customers in the back?

Is this done because they don't want to be flying empty passenger aircraft, tying up aircraft that they cannot afford to take out of service?

Just to confirm what Wicked said, yes, that is the case. In fact, as far as I'm aware ALL airline training is now down in simulators. For one thing, it's a hell of a lot cheaper, even if the simulators used cost hundreds of dollars per hour to operate. Prior to such simulators airlines did take empty aircraft up for routine maneuvers such as stall practice. Not anymore.

Simulators also allow pilots to practice simulated emergencies that are considered too hazardous to perform in actual life. I'm sure the pilots here could come up with a list of them, starting with engine failure on take-off on a short runway. After the Sioux City Iowa accident the FAA had several crews attempt to re-create the emergency (all hydraulics and thus most of the control of the airplane FUBAR - they steered and landed it - well, sort of landed it - by differential engine thrust) to learn more about the crash. No way in hell would you attempt such a recreation in real life.

[Spin Echo]

I wish I had your faith in the Tower.

Having worked in the tower I can you what they call as part of their landing clearance is the real time reading, and as such if far more accurate than the METAR or ATIS which are usually updated no more than hourly.

Well, I don't doubt that, it's that I've learned the Tower is just as human as I am and one should not blindly follow instructions given.

"Uh, Tower. Do you really want to clear me to take off on runway 16 considering you just cleared that 737 to land on runway 34 after the departing Tomahawk?"

[Wicked Pilot]

Heh, I once took command of Baghdad International when the tower controller did a similiar thing. He cleared a C-17 to takeoff on 15R while we where on base for 33L. It's hard to blame him, he was being swamped with calls from helo traffic and everyone was blacked out (it being night). He just got behind the SA curve. ATC in North America and Europe is top notch, but by god it's not their lives in they fuck up.