Ack!! video A320 xwind in Germany

D Ramapriya wrote in news:706e02c1-4a48-4b69-91e9-
:

On Mar 4, 1:04 am, Jim Logajan wrote:

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, it was the plane that was traveling @ 155 mph

Ramapriya


On the local CBS news tonight (Channel 5, San Francisco) they stated the
winds were 150 miles per hour.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marty Shapiro wrote in
:

D Ramapriya wrote in
news:706e02c1-4a48-4b69-91e9-
:

On Mar 4, 1:04 am, Jim Logajan wrote:

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, it was the plane that was traveling @ 155 mph

Ramapriya


On the local CBS news tonight (Channel 5, San Francisco) they stated
the winds were 150 miles per hour.

They weren't. If they had been, the A320 would have climbed away vetically.
I was inthe area at the time, BTW, and it was blowing about 50 in the
gusts.


Bertie

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Marty Shapiro wrote in
:

D Ramapriya wrote in
news:706e02c1-4a48-4b69-91e9-
:

On Mar 4, 1:04 am, Jim Logajan wrote:

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, it was the plane that was traveling @ 155 mph

Ramapriya


On the local CBS news tonight (Channel 5, San Francisco) they stated
the winds were 150 miles per hour.

They weren't. If they had been, the A320 would have climbed away vetically.
I was inthe area at the time, BTW, and it was blowing about 50 in the
gusts.


Bertie

It still raises a couple of questions:

1. Why did ATC direct them to a runway with such an excessive crosswind?

2. Why did the Captain accept such a clearance?

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

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Marty Shapiro wrote in
:

D Ramapriya wrote in
news:706e02c1-4a48-4b69-91e9-
:

On Mar 4, 1:04 am, Jim Logajan wrote:

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, it was the plane that was traveling @ 155 mph

Ramapriya


On the local CBS news tonight (Channel 5, San Francisco) they
stated the winds were 150 miles per hour.

They weren't. If they had been, the A320 would have climbed away
vetically. I was inthe area at the time, BTW, and it was blowing
about 50 in the gusts.


Bertie

It still raises a couple of questions:

1. Why did ATC direct them to a runway with such an excessive
crosswind?

2. Why did the Captain accept such a clearance?


Probably it was within limits.. I just got of the phone with an A320
friend of mine. Demonstrated x-wind as published by Airbus is 35 knots.
He reckons Lufty might have that shortened to 33.
If it's within limits you take it if you are comfortable.
The wind may have veered and or strengthened while he was on approach.
That's tkind of th enature of high wind. We try and keep an ear out for
the current wind as we're making the aproach.Also, we have several wind
displays on board. There'd be a wind arrow on the nav screen with
direction and strength, and a digital display breaking it down into head
and crosswind components, so the crew can see whan the wind is where
they are at any given moment. In short, they knew what the wind was on
the runway and it would have been within limits when they shot the
approach.



Bertie

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Marty Shapiro wrote in
:

D Ramapriya wrote in
news:706e02c1-4a48-4b69-91e9-
:

On Mar 4, 1:04 am, Jim Logajan wrote:

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, it was the plane that was traveling @ 155 mph

Ramapriya


On the local CBS news tonight (Channel 5, San Francisco) they stated
the winds were 150 miles per hour.

They weren't. If they had been, the A320 would have climbed away
vetically.
I was inthe area at the time, BTW, and it was blowing about 50 in the
gusts.


Bertie

It still raises a couple of questions:

1. Why did ATC direct them to a runway with such an excessive crosswind?

2. Why did the Captain accept such a clearance?

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

Winds were 290, choices were 23 or 33.

EDDH 011220Z 29028G48KT 9000 -SHRA FEW011 BKN014 07/05 Q0984 TEMPO
29035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008

Al G

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:17:31 -0800, Al G wrote:

Winds were 290, choices were 23 or 33.

EDDH 011220Z 29028G48KT 9000 -SHRA FEW011 BKN014 07/05 Q0984 TEMPO
29035G55KT 4000 SHRA BKN008

Gust to 48 from my E6B:

Rwy 23 - x-wind: 41.6 h-wind: 24

Rwy 33 - x-wind: 30.9 h-wind: 36.8


--
Dallas

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro wrote in
:

D Ramapriya wrote in
news:706e02c1-4a48-4b69-91e9-
:

On Mar 4, 1:04 am, Jim Logajan wrote:

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, it was the plane that was traveling @ 155 mph

Ramapriya


On the local CBS news tonight (Channel 5, San Francisco) they stated
the winds were 150 miles per hour.

They weren't. If they had been, the A320 would have climbed away
vetically. I was inthe area at the time, BTW, and it was blowing about
50 in the gusts.


Bertie

Accuracy from a news report regarding aviation -- no way! Not only did
they say it was a 150 MPH crosswind, they also stated that both wings hit
the runway.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marty Shapiro wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro wrote in
:

D Ramapriya wrote in
news:706e02c1-4a48-4b69-91e9-
:

On Mar 4, 1:04 am, Jim Logajan wrote:

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, it was the plane that was traveling @ 155 mph

Ramapriya


On the local CBS news tonight (Channel 5, San Francisco) they stated
the winds were 150 miles per hour.

They weren't. If they had been, the A320 would have climbed away
vetically. I was inthe area at the time, BTW, and it was blowing
about 50 in the gusts.


Bertie

Accuracy from a news report regarding aviation -- no way! Not only
did they say it was a 150 MPH crosswind, they also stated that both
wings hit the runway.

It looks like they did, actually. Looks like he got them both in turn if
you watch carefully. There's a stil shot out there of the left most
definitely on the ground and if you look at the video the right seems to
be touching as he aborts as well. Could be that the right is just
raising a little wake in the water, though.


Bertie