Most precious 5.5 seconds

falconeye · 03-03-2008, 02:23 PM

OT

Last sunday, air flight LH004 from Munich to Hamburg made a most spectacular landing.

The most precious 5.5 seconds are captured here:
http://www.livis.de/download/pub/5.5-seconds.mp4

I thought, it may be interesting to see new applications for the K20D's 5.5 second-long burst mode

(if the shutter is pressed at the very best moment, of course...)

Pilot Oliver A. later said: "The approach was demanding... The procedure was teached in training". The plane (Airbus A320) actually touched the ground with one wing's tip and needed a one day repair. He saved 134 lifes.
--
Source with full length video: LiveLeak.com - Hamburg - A320 nearly crashed during crosswind approach

flyer · 03-03-2008, 06:34 PM

You say he saved 134 lives. In my book he almost killed 134 people. Looking at his approach, he was "crabbing" by about 30 degrees, which, right there, should have let him know that the conditions where to bad for the A320 he was flying. A lot of people who have seen this video said that it was alright to try since he had been cleared to land by the control tower, But the control tower will almost always give you permission to land when you ask, as long as the runway is free and clear. It is for the pilot to know the limitations of his plane in relation to wind speed/direction/gust. It sure looks like this guy tried to go past the possibilities of his plane.

RoxnDox · 03-03-2008, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by flyer

You say he saved 134 lives. In my book he almost killed 134 people. Looking at his approach, he was "crabbing" by about 30 degrees, which, right there, should have let him know that the conditions where to bad for the A320 he was flying. A lot of people who have seen this video said that it was alright to try since he had been cleared to land by the control tower, But the control tower will almost always give you permission to land when you ask, as long as the runway is free and clear. It is for the pilot to know the limitations of his plane in relation to wind speed/direction/gust. It sure looks like this guy tried to go past the possibilities of his plane.

My personal opinion is standing there right next to yours... Yes, it was good piloting and a healthy dose of luck that got the plane back in the air for another try, but in my eyes it was a big dose of poor judgement to have made the attempt when the crosswind was that bad. The video clips showed that plane being bounced around the sky well before touchdown, when there was plenty of time to abort the try.

Jim

Mike Cash · 03-04-2008, 04:14 AM

He did a fantastic job recovering. But even as a layman it strikes me that he was a damned fool for coming in that cockeyed to begin with. This is sort of like pointing a loaded gun at your buddy, having it go off, and then being praised as a hero for stopping the bleeding and saving his life.

I had only heard radio news accounts of the landing and what I heard was about a sudden gust of strong crosswind that he recovered from. It is quite obvious from the video that he was fighting winds too strong for a prudent landing well before he got near the ground.

falconeye · 03-04-2008, 04:39 AM

I basically posted this for the strong impression even a 5.5 seconds movie may make.

Then, I am a layman for aviation too. From news covering in Germany I may say that the whole story is under investigation now and we will have to await the findings.

Yes, I agree, it was kind of astonishing that the landing was tried at all. But, after recovering from this approach, he did it again at similiar winds (on the other runway). And many planes before him had landed at the same winds. So, the point is that landings at such strong crosswinds seem to be considered ok by professionals. I don't feel reassured, though. It was said the real problem was an additional sudden squall or gust of wind (and starting over isn't immediate because engines have to recover from idle to full throttle which the A320 is able to achieve within an impressive 2s -- still half the video

)

It was said the squall catched the plane after the landing had already been abandoned, while engines switched to full throttle and that the squall pushed the plane down while it built up speed again.

Mike Cash · 03-04-2008, 02:58 PM

It will be interesting to see after the investigation if he remains a hero or gets recast as a villian.

flyer · 03-04-2008, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

I basically posted this for the strong impression even a 5.5 seconds movie may make.

Then, I am a layman for aviation too. From news covering in Germany I may say that the whole story is under investigation now and we will have to await the findings.

Yes, I agree, it was kind of astonishing that the landing was tried at all. But, after recovering from this approach, he did it again at similiar winds (on the other runway). And many planes before him had landed at the same winds. So, the point is that landings at such strong crosswinds seem to be considered ok by professionals. I don't feel reassured, though. It was said the real problem was an additional sudden squall or gust of wind (and starting over isn't immediate because engines have to recover from idle to full throttle which the A320 is able to achieve within an impressive 2s -- still half the video

)

It was said the squall catched the plane after the landing had already been abandoned, while engines switched to full throttle and that the squall pushed the plane down while it built up speed again.

Actually, because a B747 could have landed in that crosswind doesn't mean an A320 can do it. Coming in for landing, you could clearly see he couldn't get stabilised for landing, so he should have aborted before reaching the runway. When he landed on the other runway, that one was more in line with the wind, so it made it a lot easier. But he should have asked for the 2nd runway before attempting his first landing. If the pilot before him was a "kamikaze", he sould not have tried to follow. When I learned to fly, one of my instructor said: "there are two kind of pilots: the bold pilot and the old pilot. There are no old bold pilot." So I guess I'm not that bold, I've been flying for 34 years!

flyer · 03-04-2008, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

It will be interesting to see after the investigation if he remains a hero or gets recast as a villian.

In 1983, Air Canada had just received it's new B767. Not long after the introduction of the plane, one ran out of gas in midair and glide landed in Gimli, Alberta. When the pilot realised (before take off) that the fuel gauge where defective, he asked engineering to check with manual gauge to make sure he had enough fuel. Engineering said he had more than enough, so he took off the same. After he landed safely, he was acclaimed as a hero, but after the inquiry, all the blame was put on his shoulder for taking off with no fuel gauge, even though engineering told him everything was all right. But if the pilot had refused to take off after engineering said it was all right, he would have been blamed by his employer for the missed correspondence and so on...Sometimes, you just can't win. By the way, that pilot is also flying gliders at my club, and he is an outstanding pilot. Go figure

Romoman · 03-04-2008, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by flyer

In 1983, Air Canada had just received it's new B767. Not long after the introduction of the plane, one ran out of gas in midair and glide landed in Gimli, Alberta. When the pilot realised (before take off) that the fuel gauge where defective, he asked engineering to check with manual gauge to make sure he had enough fuel. Engineering said he had more than enough, so he took off the same. After he landed safely, he was acclaimed as a hero, but after the inquiry, all the blame was put on his shoulder for taking off with no fuel gauge, even though engineering told him everything was all right. But if the pilot had refused to take off after engineering said it was all right, he would have been blamed by his employer for the missed correspondence and so on...Sometimes, you just can't win. By the way, that pilot is also flying gliders at my club, and he is an outstanding pilot. Go figure

I also thought that they made a mistake with the conversion from metric to SAE when calculating the fuel load. They landed at an abandoned AFB where the SCCA was running a race. Must have been pretty excitiing for the racers!

flyer · 03-04-2008, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Romoman

I also thought that they made a mistake with the conversion from metric to SAE when calculating the fuel load. They landed at an abandoned AFB where the SCCA was running a race. Must have been pretty excitiing for the racers!

Actually, I shortened to fit . When the pilot realised the gauge where inoperative, he asked technicians to do manual measurements with graduated sticks. But the B767 was the first metric plane in Air Canada's fleet, so in the conversion from the Imperial manual measures to metric, the pilot wasn't 100% sure of his figures, so he asked maintenance to double check everything. They did, but where not 100% sure either, so to cover their a**, they asked engineering, which confirmed everything was all right. Th big problem was that everybody checked the pilots figures, but didn't check if he used the proper mathematical formula for the conversion, which he didn't........

falconeye · 03-04-2008, 07:46 PM

Yes, shit happens, it seems.

Wasn't there a plane crash where pilots realized that one engine was burning and shut down the other (good) one? Because they "smelled the smoke" and said: "Hey, air conditioning is on the right wing, so let's shut down the right engine". But this particular version of the plane had air conditioning on both sides and this mistakes was the pilot's last one.

03-03-2008, 02:23 PM	#1
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Most precious 5.5 seconds OT Last sunday, air flight LH004 from Munich to Hamburg made a most spectacular landing. The most precious 5.5 seconds are captured here: http://www.livis.de/download/pub/5.5-seconds.mp4 I thought, it may be interesting to see new applications for the K20D's 5.5 second-long burst mode (if the shutter is pressed at the very best moment, of course...) Pilot Oliver A. later said: "The approach was demanding... The procedure was teached in training". The plane (Airbus A320) actually touched the ground with one wing's tip and needed a one day repair. He saved 134 lifes. -- Source with full length video: LiveLeak.com - Hamburg - A320 nearly crashed during crosswind approach

03-04-2008, 04:39 AM	#5
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871 Original Poster	I basically posted this for the strong impression even a 5.5 seconds movie may make. Then, I am a layman for aviation too. From news covering in Germany I may say that the whole story is under investigation now and we will have to await the findings. Yes, I agree, it was kind of astonishing that the landing was tried at all. But, after recovering from this approach, he did it again at similiar winds (on the other runway). And many planes before him had landed at the same winds. So, the point is that landings at such strong crosswinds seem to be considered ok by professionals. I don't feel reassured, though. It was said the real problem was an additional sudden squall or gust of wind (and starting over isn't immediate because engines have to recover from idle to full throttle which the A320 is able to achieve within an impressive 2s -- still half the video ) It was said the squall catched the plane after the landing had already been abandoned, while engines switched to full throttle and that the squall pushed the plane down while it built up speed again. Last edited by falconeye; 03-04-2008 at 04:49 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I Finally Saw Precious	Ira	General Talk	4	03-28-2010 03:23 AM
My precious	Kresica	Monthly Photo Contests	0	02-25-2010 11:39 AM
Landscape 10 seconds to get it right	Eastern Shore Charlie	Post Your Photos!	17	01-24-2010 08:13 AM
Precious Ruby	bonovox	Post Your Photos!	0	10-11-2007 08:09 AM
Precious Bundle	Mike Cash	Post Your Photos!	3	05-26-2007 11:27 AM

03-03-2008, 06:34 PM	#2
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	You say he saved 134 lives. In my book he almost killed 134 people. Looking at his approach, he was "crabbing" by about 30 degrees, which, right there, should have let him know that the conditions where to bad for the A320 he was flying. A lot of people who have seen this video said that it was alright to try since he had been cleared to land by the control tower, But the control tower will almost always give you permission to land when you ask, as long as the runway is free and clear. It is for the pilot to know the limitations of his plane in relation to wind speed/direction/gust. It sure looks like this guy tried to go past the possibilities of his plane.

03-03-2008, 09:35 PM	#3
RoxnDox Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Gig Harbor, Washington, USA, Terra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,494	Originally posted by flyer You say he saved 134 lives. In my book he almost killed 134 people. Looking at his approach, he was "crabbing" by about 30 degrees, which, right there, should have let him know that the conditions where to bad for the A320 he was flying. A lot of people who have seen this video said that it was alright to try since he had been cleared to land by the control tower, But the control tower will almost always give you permission to land when you ask, as long as the runway is free and clear. It is for the pilot to know the limitations of his plane in relation to wind speed/direction/gust. It sure looks like this guy tried to go past the possibilities of his plane. My personal opinion is standing there right next to yours... Yes, it was good piloting and a healthy dose of luck that got the plane back in the air for another try, but in my eyes it was a big dose of poor judgement to have made the attempt when the crosswind was that bad. The video clips showed that plane being bounced around the sky well before touchdown, when there was plenty of time to abort the try. Jim

03-04-2008, 04:14 AM	#4
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	He did a fantastic job recovering. But even as a layman it strikes me that he was a damned fool for coming in that cockeyed to begin with. This is sort of like pointing a loaded gun at your buddy, having it go off, and then being praised as a hero for stopping the bleeding and saving his life. I had only heard radio news accounts of the landing and what I heard was about a sudden gust of strong crosswind that he recovered from. It is quite obvious from the video that he was fighting winds too strong for a prudent landing well before he got near the ground.

03-04-2008, 02:58 PM	#6
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	It will be interesting to see after the investigation if he remains a hero or gets recast as a villian.

03-04-2008, 06:12 PM	#7
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by falconeye I basically posted this for the strong impression even a 5.5 seconds movie may make. Then, I am a layman for aviation too. From news covering in Germany I may say that the whole story is under investigation now and we will have to await the findings. Yes, I agree, it was kind of astonishing that the landing was tried at all. But, after recovering from this approach, he did it again at similiar winds (on the other runway). And many planes before him had landed at the same winds. So, the point is that landings at such strong crosswinds seem to be considered ok by professionals. I don't feel reassured, though. It was said the real problem was an additional sudden squall or gust of wind (and starting over isn't immediate because engines have to recover from idle to full throttle which the A320 is able to achieve within an impressive 2s -- still half the video ) It was said the squall catched the plane after the landing had already been abandoned, while engines switched to full throttle and that the squall pushed the plane down while it built up speed again. Actually, because a B747 could have landed in that crosswind doesn't mean an A320 can do it. Coming in for landing, you could clearly see he couldn't get stabilised for landing, so he should have aborted before reaching the runway. When he landed on the other runway, that one was more in line with the wind, so it made it a lot easier. But he should have asked for the 2nd runway before attempting his first landing. If the pilot before him was a "kamikaze", he sould not have tried to follow. When I learned to fly, one of my instructor said: "there are two kind of pilots: the bold pilot and the old pilot. There are no old bold pilot." So I guess I'm not that bold, I've been flying for 34 years!

03-04-2008, 06:23 PM	#8
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by Mike Cash It will be interesting to see after the investigation if he remains a hero or gets recast as a villian. In 1983, Air Canada had just received it's new B767. Not long after the introduction of the plane, one ran out of gas in midair and glide landed in Gimli, Alberta. When the pilot realised (before take off) that the fuel gauge where defective, he asked engineering to check with manual gauge to make sure he had enough fuel. Engineering said he had more than enough, so he took off the same. After he landed safely, he was acclaimed as a hero, but after the inquiry, all the blame was put on his shoulder for taking off with no fuel gauge, even though engineering told him everything was all right. But if the pilot had refused to take off after engineering said it was all right, he would have been blamed by his employer for the missed correspondence and so on...Sometimes, you just can't win. By the way, that pilot is also flying gliders at my club, and he is an outstanding pilot. Go figure

03-04-2008, 07:02 PM	#9
Romoman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 126	Originally posted by flyer In 1983, Air Canada had just received it's new B767. Not long after the introduction of the plane, one ran out of gas in midair and glide landed in Gimli, Alberta. When the pilot realised (before take off) that the fuel gauge where defective, he asked engineering to check with manual gauge to make sure he had enough fuel. Engineering said he had more than enough, so he took off the same. After he landed safely, he was acclaimed as a hero, but after the inquiry, all the blame was put on his shoulder for taking off with no fuel gauge, even though engineering told him everything was all right. But if the pilot had refused to take off after engineering said it was all right, he would have been blamed by his employer for the missed correspondence and so on...Sometimes, you just can't win. By the way, that pilot is also flying gliders at my club, and he is an outstanding pilot. Go figure I also thought that they made a mistake with the conversion from metric to SAE when calculating the fuel load. They landed at an abandoned AFB where the SCCA was running a race. Must have been pretty excitiing for the racers!

03-04-2008, 07:25 PM	#10
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by Romoman I also thought that they made a mistake with the conversion from metric to SAE when calculating the fuel load. They landed at an abandoned AFB where the SCCA was running a race. Must have been pretty excitiing for the racers! Actually, I shortened to fit . When the pilot realised the gauge where inoperative, he asked technicians to do manual measurements with graduated sticks. But the B767 was the first metric plane in Air Canada's fleet, so in the conversion from the Imperial manual measures to metric, the pilot wasn't 100% sure of his figures, so he asked maintenance to double check everything. They did, but where not 100% sure either, so to cover their a**, they asked engineering, which confirmed everything was all right. Th big problem was that everybody checked the pilots figures, but didn't check if he used the proper mathematical formula for the conversion, which he didn't........

03-04-2008, 07:46 PM	#11
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871 Original Poster	Yes, shit happens, it seems. Wasn't there a plane crash where pilots realized that one engine was burning and shut down the other (good) one? Because they "smelled the smoke" and said: "Hey, air conditioning is on the right wing, so let's shut down the right engine". But this particular version of the plane had air conditioning on both sides and this mistakes was the pilot's last one.