I want this pilot to take me home

[spot]

I'm not sure I'd want him anywhere near a plane I was in. Why do you think he should still be allowed to carry passengers after that?

[G#Gill]

The pilot should have obtained a TAF or METAR, then switched channels and asked the tower/approach control for a surface wind speed measurement. Also in this case, the tower should have selected another runway for approaching or departing aircraft, and change the pattern (advising all aircraft, of course), if they were aware of gusts of high mph.

If they were not aware of such high mph gusts, then this was a superb piece of flying.

If they were aware of such gusts then all parties displayed extreme foolishness, and should be disciplined accordingly.

[G#Gill]

We'll just have to await the outcome of an enquiry. Hopefully this will be published in the media, as the film of the incident was shown on the news.

[spot]

Go on, just look at it.

ATIC advised them of the crosswind and they elected to come in.

It's not ATIC's call anyway. They're Air Traffic Information, they're not flying the plane. They advised a 35 gusting to 55 knot crosswind, it's a lunatic decision by the flight crew to continue on in after they had to throw that huge jink on the video to stay lined up. They're not obliged to land, they've just got the end of the flight in their heads instead of passenger safety. The photo shows they were plain wrong to persevere. That's not a stunt plane, that's got a hundred passengers on board.

[G#Gill]

Information that winds were 35 knots with gusts of up to 55 knots crosswind would be within the capabilities to land safely. Of course the final decision to land is up to the pilot, and having ascertained this information and knowing the capabilities of the aircraft, made the decision to land. However I doubt whether anybody could have foreseen that a reported freak gust of 150 knots would hit the aircraft just before the point of touch-down lifting the starboard wing and grounding the port wing. The pilot then did well not to panic, but to level the aircraft and fly it in 'ground effect' until it had picked up sufficient flying speed to begin climb-out.

[Bryn Mawr]

G#Gill;792252 wrote: Information that winds were 35 knots with gusts of up to 55 knots crosswind would be within the capabilities to land safely. Of course the final decision to land is up to the pilot, and having ascertained this information and knowing the capabilities of the aircraft, made the decision to land. However I doubt whether anybody could have foreseen that a reported freak gust of 150 knots would hit the aircraft just before the point of touch-down lifting the starboard wing and grounding the port wing. The pilot then did well not to panic, but to level the aircraft and fly it in 'ground effect' until it had picked up sufficient flying speed to begin climb-out.


I have a feeling that the gust was 55 knots rather than 155 - I think the 1 was with the m as part of a misprint.

155 knot winds do not come out of nowhere during conditions of 35 knots gusting to 55.

[G#Gill]

Bryn Mawr;792261 wrote: I have a feeling that the gust was 55 knots rather than 155 - I think the 1 was with the m as part of a misprint.

155 knot winds do not come out of nowhere during conditions of 35 knots gusting to 55.


Thanks Bryn for that. I did say it was reported as 'freak'. However a sudden gust of 55 knots at just above the threshold of landing would be capable of lifting the starboard wing unexpectedly, after all it is not slowly changing events that catches a pilot out, it is suddenly changing events that can surprise - e.g. 30 knots crosswind on descent, suddenly followed by 50 - 60 knots on final, can be catastrophic, as was nearly seen, on that video.

[Bryn Mawr]

G#Gill;792272 wrote: Thanks Bryn for that. I did say it was reported as 'freak'. However a sudden gust of 55 knots at just above the threshold of landing would be capable of lifting the starboard wing unexpectedly, after all it is not slowly changing events that catches a pilot out, it is suddenly changing events that can surprise - e.g. 30 knots crosswind on descent, suddenly followed by 50 - 60 knots on final, can be catastrophic, as was nearly seen, on that video.


A gust like that nearly did for me once on the M6 near Preston - one moment I was ambling along in the inside lane and the next I damn'd near hit the central reservation with the bike almost on it's side trying to turn back into the wind.

[spot]

G#Gill;792252 wrote: Information that winds were 35 knots with gusts of up to 55 knots crosswind would be within the capabilities to land safely. Of course the final decision to land is up to the pilot, and having ascertained this information and knowing the capabilities of the aircraft, made the decision to land. However I doubt whether anybody could have foreseen that a reported freak gust of 150 knots would hit the aircraft just before the point of touch-down lifting the starboard wing and grounding the port wing. The pilot then did well not to panic, but to level the aircraft and fly it in 'ground effect' until it had picked up sufficient flying speed to begin climb-out.


150 knots???

Gill, you strange person, the "150 knots" was a misprint. No parked plane on the entire airfield could have avoided being blown over if a 150 knot gust had passed through. No wind of 150 knots has ever happened in recorded history anywhere in Europe.

What speed crosswind to tolerate is a piloting decision. This pilot obviously called it wrong. The gust he was caught by was no more than he'd been warned to expect before he brought the plane in. The runway he was directed to has a reputation for gusts rather than steady air, he'd been warned it was gusting up to 20 knots more than the steady 35 knot crosswind and the gust that nearly did for him wasn't above what ATIC had described. Where do you get evidence of "30 knots crosswind on descent, suddenly followed by 50 - 60 knots on final"? I've seen nothing anywhere suggesting that the gust exceeded the ATIC warning.

I've no idea whether that photo shows skill at getting out of it or an inability to avoid getting into it. I'm quite certain that it shows awful judgement about whether to divert or ask for another runway.

[G#Gill]

Quote - Spot :

150 knots???

Gill, you strange person, the "150 knots" was a misprint. No parked plane on the entire airfield could have avoided being blown over if a 150 knot gust had passed through. No wind of 150 knots has ever happened in recorded history anywhere in Europe.

Perhaps you missed Bryn's post. Also my acknowledgement to him. Had you noticed this, maybe you would not have felt the need to post the above quote.

Also, at the time I made that post, it was late and I was tired and missed the possibility that the information I used was indeed a misprint. Perhaps the original writer misread his information as Kt (knots) instead of Km/h (Kilometres per hour), and I had not picked up on that.

[Quote - Spot]

Where do you get evidence of "30 knots crosswind on descent, suddenly followed by 50 - 60 knots on final"? I've seen nothing anywhere suggesting that the gust exceeded the ATIC warning.

Here again, you should have noticed I put e.g. (for example) , as quoted below :-

[Quote - G#Gill]

Thanks Bryn for that. I did say it was reported as 'freak'. However a sudden gust of 55 knots at just above the threshold of landing would be capable of lifting the starboard wing unexpectedly, after all it is not slowly changing events that catches a pilot out, it is suddenly changing events that can surprise - e.g. 30 knots crosswind on descent, suddenly followed by 50 - 60 knots on final, can be catastrophic, as was nearly seen, on that video.

Having put our personal interpretations on this incident, perhaps it would be wise to await the official enquiry reports, before pointing accusing fingers in any directions. It does seem such a pity that some people are so quick to lay blame on the pilots, in cases of aircraft incidents, when it is patently obvious that full details are unavailable to the general public until a full enquiry has been completed. Until then, it is only guess work, and misleading assumptions are often made

[spot]

Balderdash. Any commercial pilot who deliberately puts his plane in that position should be hung from the nearest lamp post as an example to the rest of the profession. It's quite clear that he had the information, he had the choices and he ended up where he did because he chose to be there. All you're missing is his reason for doing it.

[G#Gill]

Oh, I forgot to mention in previous posts that the pilot flew a go-around and successfully landed his plane on that same runway. There is also the small matter of the 'black box' to reveal it's evidence.

[spot]

I do wish you'd give some hint each time you quote a fact, I end up spending half an hour trying to find any source at all that says what you've put.

No, "successfully landed his plane on that same runway [23]" is really not right and I simply haven't found anywhere saying it is. All reports I've seen agree with the PPRUNE thread "after g/a, pilots elected runway 33 also LOC-DME approach and landed safely but minus the left winglet". The same writer also notes "Emirates A345 tried once 23, 15 minutes later 33, but broke off each time, exceeded bank angles on final, diverted to FRA". The diverted to Frankfurt is a reasonable step to take. Hero pilots are those who never make headlines, or (quoting Frank Borman) "A superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill" - if, indeed, that's what the video actually showed.

[G#Gill]

I'm not quite sure how anybody would know, pre-enquiry, such information that is quoted. How 'official' is PPRuNe forums post 19 ? Were they in the Control Tower at the time? Have they had a sight of recordings of transmissions? Were they on the flight deck of the aircraft that was involved?

Only the pilot, and probably the flight crew, will know the full circumstances of this incident.

[Quote G#Gill post 12]

Having put our personal interpretations on this incident, perhaps it would be wise to await the official enquiry reports, before pointing accusing fingers in any directions. It does seem such a pity that some people are so quick to lay blame on the pilots, in cases of aircraft incidents, when it is patently obvious that full details are unavailable to the general public until a full enquiry has been completed. Until then, it is only guess work, and misleading assumptions are often made

[spot]

Gill, you're talking about what RUNWAY they landed on! It's very visible!

Where did you see a report about them coming down on the same runway after their go-round?

Are you disputing the weather reports being issued at the time?

Of course the pilot had no business trying to land in such marginal conditions. How do I know? Because of the photo of what happened when he did try. No commercial pilot should ever make news.

[Kathy Ellen]

Hey Mags:-4

I agree. It's important to know that the pilot just knows how to maneuver and get out of the problem....I'd fly with him anytime:-6

[spot]

And you're seriously saying he didn't put the lives of his passengers at risk by not diverting, trying to land outside the proven safety envelope of his plane?

The quality of his technical feat isn't being questioned by anyone - not by me because I consider it totally immaterial whether he did it well or badly.

[spot]

You didn't answer my question.

[spot]

Yes, that's the one.

[G#Gill]

Thanks Fuzzy, I have been struggling to explain that it is pure speculation, and dangerous assumptions that are being put forward by certain posters on this thread, or was it just the one poster? I have kept saying that we will have to await the conclusions of the enquiry, also, why put the blame on the pilot before the enquiry is completed and all evidence gathered and analysed. Who's to say that there was enough fuel on board to get the plane to another airport? I wish Spot would put his bone down and be patient, and not make these accusations without evidence (that he is so keen on insisting from others). Oh and Spot, evidence is not just the viewing of a video, or heresay, it is the crew's evidence, the 'black box' evidence, the Control Tower evidence ---- '101' sources of evidence.

I'm very tired and I am going to bed. I will leave you all with a video to astound you, an amazing example of superb skills at the controls of an aircraft ! Featuring one of the best pilots in the world, the Hungarian pilot, Peter Bensenyei ! Enjoy :-6

[G#Gill]

There are some really interesting vids on Youtube :wah::wah: