A-380 Oshkosh Ooops

[retroaviation]

Um, wow........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iIG1ZOPLJA
(sorry for the link)

Gary

[The Inspector]

TAKE THAT, EARTH!!

[warbird1]

Wow, I had heard about that, but hadn't seen the video. The pilot criticizing the landing is Dan Gryder who owns and runs the Herpa DC-3 flight school. He's also a 777 Captain with Delta Airlines.

The biggest problem I see is that the A380 pilots failed to take the crab out at landing. That video reminds me of the infamous Boeing test certification films where they took the big Boeings out to Eastern Washington to certify the crosswind landing capabilities. Those videos are AMAZING and they show a SERIOUS amount of crab, like 20 to 30 degrees off runway heading. Here's some examples:

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

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


I agree with most of what Dan has said, but I wouldn't have made such a public spectacle out of criticizing the landing. Everyone can have a bad landing, I know I've had my fair share of them, but to be fair he was landing on a short runway (5500', I believe), so it's not like the A380 pilot had a lot of time to get a good landing. If he just would have put in a little rudder at touchdown, it would have been fine. I don't know about the A380, but my friends who fly the smaller Airbuses (A320,A321,etc.) tell me that landing that fly-by-wire airplane in a crosswind is probably the toughest thing to do. I've heard that the computer likes to fight the pilot on landing during crosswinds.

I fly Boeings, and have never flown Airbuses, so I would have cut the A380 Pilot a little more slack. At least he got it down safely on a short runway with strong crosswinds. That's worth something, right?

Any Airbus pilots here care to comment?

[mustanglover]

I heard a little different take on the landing.

He had to plant the A380 on the numbers so that he was stopped by the time he got to the turn off to Aeroshell square. Apparently that is the only way in for him as he could not go down to the end and turnaround or take the taxiway.

[RyanShort1]

I heard a little different take on the landing.

He had to plant the A380 on the numbers so that he was stopped by the time he got to the turn off to Aeroshell square. Apparently that is the only way in for him as he could not go down to the end and turnaround or take the taxiway.

That makes a LOT more sense.

Ryan

[warbird1]

I heard a little different take on the landing.

He had to plant the A380 on the numbers so that he was stopped by the time he got to the turn off to Aeroshell square. Apparently that is the only way in for him as he could not go down to the end and turnaround or take the taxiway.

I hadn't heard that either. Could they not have put a tug on him and push him back on the runway to get access to the Aeroshell square?

Do you know how far down the short runway that turnoff to Aeroshell square was?

[Kyleb]

I heard a little different take on the landing.

He had to plant the A380 on the numbers so that he was stopped by the time he got to the turn off to Aeroshell square. Apparently that is the only way in for him as he could not go down to the end and turnaround or take the taxiway.

I hadn't heard that either. Could they not have put a tug on him and push him back on the runway to get access to the Aeroshell square?

Do you know how far down the short runway that turnoff to Aeroshell square was?

5,500' is what I understood. The tug was an option if he missed the turn-off, but missing the turnoff would have delayed the airshow a bit, so I'm sure they wanted to avoid that.

[retroaviation]

Hmmm, interesting input mustanglover. Kinda makes sense. Thanks.

Gary

[skybolt2003]

if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going . . .

[CAPFlyer]

BTW, the "failed kick-out" of the crab before landing is standard Airbus Ops. It's completely illegal for US airlines (due to the "Stabilized Approach" requirements), but Airbus still built the autopilot and trains its pilots to not remove the crab until the very last second (within 100 feet of gear touching down). When Frontier first got their Airbuses, I heard more than one pilot complain about it because they didn't think it was safe. Frontier eventually modified their training program. All of the other US operators I've seen have done the same, and I think that's a lot of why few (or possibly none) have certified their aircraft for autoland operations as well.

[warbird1]

BTW, the "failed kick-out" of the crab before landing is standard Airbus Ops. It's completely illegal for US airlines (due to the "Stabilized Approach" requirements), but Airbus still built the autopilot and trains its pilots to not remove the crab until the very last second (within 100 feet of gear touching down). When Frontier first got their Airbuses, I heard more than one pilot complain about it because they didn't think it was safe. Frontier eventually modified their training program. All of the other US operators I've seen have done the same, and I think that's a lot of why few (or possibly none) have certified their aircraft for autoland operations as well.

Can you explain what you mean by the illegal statement above?

[CAPFlyer]

In the US, almost all (if not all) airlines have a requirement for an aircraft to be in a "stabilized approach" or else a go-around must be executed. Failure to do so (other than putting the aircraft at a higher risk of crashing) can result in various disciplinary actions. The understanding I've always been given is that the Airline Operating Manual and policies have the effect of a FAR, including the ability of the FAA to levy fines for violations of Airline policies. Thus deviating from airline policies can be considered "completely illegal".

One of the major items is that all wind drift corrections are supposed to be made PRIOR to the flare, not after or during it and it is to be done in a smooth and predictable manner. With the Airbus, the AP "kicks out" the drift during the flare, and in a fairly firm manner, causing the aircraft to become uncoordinated, and thus unstable. The Airbus training for the maneuver is similar in that the crab is to be removed within 100 feet AGL, requiring it to be done in a manner which can (and as the A380 landing shows) often does destabilize the aircraft.

Flight Safety has a document on the Stabilized Approach that is generally in line with what most airlines have -

http://www.flightsafety.org/alar/alar_b ... edappr.pdf

[warbird1]

In the US, almost all (if not all) airlines have a requirement for an aircraft to be in a "stabilized approach" or else a go-around must be executed.

This is a true statement, but that has nothing to do with landing in a crab vs. landing with no crab. The "stabilized approach" requirements have more to do with energy management and being in a position to safely land the aircraft. "Stabilized approach" requirements are not relevant to the video or this discussion.

Failure to do so (other than putting the aircraft at a higher risk of crashing) can result in various disciplinary actions. The understanding I've always been given is that the Airline Operating Manual and policies have the effect of a FAR, including the ability of the FAA to levy fines for violations of Airline policies. Thus deviating from airline policies can be considered "completely illegal".

Partially correct, but some expanded clarification is needed here. In any Operating Flight Manual/Policy/Handbook used by the airlines, the rules, guidance, and suggestions basically have 3 levels of compliance:

1) FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations) - These are the "heart" of an operating manual, incorporating Federal guidance based off of official regulations set forth by the FAA. This is the most basic level, by which all airlines and their pilots must adhere. The two major FAR's which constitute the vast majority of an Operations Manual for scheduled airline passenger service are FAR Part 91 and FAR Part 121. Anyone violating an FAR, whether they are an airline pilot or private pilot, can and probably will have certificate action enforced upon them by the FAA.

2) Ops Spec (Operations Specification) - This is a "contract", or agreement, if you will, agreed upon - on an airline specific basis - between that specific airline and the FAA as to how the airline will operate under it's own operating certificate. Violation or deviation from an Ops Spec by a pilot will usually have certificate action enforced upon them by the FAA.

3) Company policies or procedures - This is further guidance from the airline as to how they wish for their pilots to fly their aircraft encompassing things such as safety, operational efficiency, or customer service items. Violation of company policy or procedure will almost never result in certificate action from the FAA unless it is already covered or related to the above 2 items. The FAA could really care less whether a pilot violated company policy. A pilot will not have enforcement action from the FAA for a violation, but will probably receive disciplinary action and/or termination in extreme cases, by the company.

So, when a pilot violated some portion of the Flight Operating Handbook/Policy/Manual, they are not "deviating from airline policies and can be considered "completely illegal". This is not a true statement. It really depends on which part of the Flight Ops Handbook/Policy/Manual they are deviating from, according to the 3 above mentioned parts.

One of the major items is that all wind drift corrections are supposed to be made PRIOR to the flare, not after or during it and it is to be done in a smooth and predictable manner. With the Airbus, the AP "kicks out" the drift during the flare, and in a fairly firm manner, causing the aircraft to become uncoordinated, and thus unstable.

I don't know where you got this from, unless you are specifically referring ONLY to criteria for auto-land situations. I am not familiar with auto-land criteria. If you are referring to manual landings by the pilot and not auto-pilot landings, then there are absolutely no restrictions whatsoever regarding crab with respect to the FAR's, unless it is further limited by the aircraft manufacturer and it's operating limits, such as landing at or near crosswind landing limits, etc. Unless the crosswinds and/or design limits of the airplane are a factor, the pilot can land however they choose, whether in a crab or no crab, based on the conditions at the airport.

The Airbus training for the maneuver is similar in that the crab is to be removed within 100 feet AGL, requiring it to be done in a manner which can (and as the A380 landing shows) often does destabilize the aircraft.

The only reason the A380 became "destabilized", as you put it, is simply because the pilot landed the aircraft in a crab, when he should have kicked out the drift at the end and landed with the longitudinal axis aligned with the landing runway with zero crab. I'm not familiar with the A380 Pilot Operating Handbook, but I would be very, very surprised if the pilot was supposed to land that way. It may exist, but I don't know of any large, commercial airliners that are supposed to be landed in a crab during day, dry, VFR conditions, with the pilot manually landing the aircraft unless at or exceeding the crosswind limitations of the aircraft.

Flight Safety has a document on the Stabilized Approach that is generally in line with what most airlines have -

http://www.flightsafety.org/alar/alar_b ... edappr.pdf

While that link is a good source of information it has absolutely no relevance to the A380 video or what we are talking about.

[lotus49]

Warbird 1 is completely correct, destabilized has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the crab, if this were so there would be alot of go arounds inside of minimums!
Most companies, in my experience require a "stabilized" approach within 1000 feet IFR, 500 feet VFR, although some raise this to 1500 and 1000.

Stabilized refers to parameters, airspeed, flaps, gear, basically landing configuration, on glide and loc, and on REF +/- based on corrections.

Thats it, if one or more of these parameters are not met by the defined altitude, a go around is mandated.
But any crab required due wind is not part of these parameters,
(the exception would be if the crosswind component exceeds either manufacturer or company limits)
I usually make any crab corrections inside of 500 feet, any higher and the potential exists for over correction, lower and there is not really enough time to get the correct feel.

On another point, I was the FO on the B747 which displayed, landed and was parked on Aeroshell square at Oshkosh in 2002.
We landed on the same runway, at the same point as the 380, and we made the turn at the intersection with no issues, in fact we used minimum autobrake, and reverse, it was not really an issue, we had to add power to make the intersection!
When we left we also went from the same intersection.
I would imagine we had a similar Vref to the 380, we were at about 122 Kts, they would have been about 125.
The 380 only has inboard reverse, and it is pretty ineffective, but again this is not nearly as noticable at low weights.
So there was no need whatsoever to "fly it on" just a simple mistake, and we all make them time to time, it was just unfortunate that it happened there with cameras running.

[CAPFlyer]

I stand happily corrected then. As I said, my understanding and learning of the stabilized approach was that no "large" corrections were to be made once stabilized. I don't consider "kicking out" the crab to be a large correction if done smoothly, but having spoken to both Frontier & United Airbus pilots, they stated that the "Airbus Way" of kicking out drift was quite aggressive and they felt to be somewhat unsafe because it would destabilize the aircraft (i.e. make it do what you saw the A380 do where you over do the correction) and that should necessitate a go-around (again, based on how the stabilized approach was taught to me).