A380 hard landing at Oshkosh - video

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/excl..._200850-1.html

Yowser!

"Darkwing" wrote

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/excl...re2009_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)

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.

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/excl..._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

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

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 ?

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.

"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

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

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