IME all flights into DC National follow this prescribed course.
I hear Hong Kong used to have an air port where you just about had to fly between city buildings to get the plane lined up for a landing.
It wasn’t til the windshear dropped the wing towards the tarmac that I found anything “exciting” about the clip.
And, as for luckiest passengers - I’m still of the opinion that the luckiest passengers ever were those aboard Aloha Airlines Flight 243.
That was Kai Tak Runway 13, now closed. Watching the filmed approaches is a lot of fun for me, an enlisted flyer.
I can only imagine what the inside of the cabin smelled like. I damn near shit myself watching it.
I flew into Kai Tak about 30 or 40 times as a passenger. It was a lot of fun for me, too! Sitting in a 747 looking through people’s windows as they watched TV in their apartment. The first time, when I wasn’t expecting it, was a trifle… “surprising”!
I miss Kai Tak. 
Good compilation tribute to it here, if you ignore the silly opening credits.
I don’t speak much German, but I thought I heard the word “Hose” (= trousers) from the person filming - he may have had the same thought!
That’s what I was thinking “Cabin crew: trousers to manual!”
He said “Das ging beinahe in die Hose.” which comes out to something like “That almost went really wrong.” Haven’t quite been able to make out the rest of what they’re saying outside of “Did you see that?” and “It looked that way to me too.”
I just watched a longer TV report on the landing and their lead-in talked about barf bags maybe getting more use than usual.
The story itself said that the pilot’s second approach actually took him to the safer runway; it’s still not clear why he didn’t start out there to begin with other than the first runway had some sort of automation that the second one didn’t.
GT
Huh? What’s there to question? By the time he was in any position to set the plane down in a controlled manner, he was well left of centerline (with the crosswind already pushing him left) and had lost a couple thousand feet of runway. I’m too lazy to look up that airport and see how long that runway is, but in that case, I see no problems with going around.
And I’ve never heard of this philosophy of running off the runway… pilots have what’s called a refusal speed, where once reached, you go flying no matter what the heck happens to the plane. Once past refusal you don’t have enough runway in front of you to bring the plane to a stop without running off. Basically, you’re willing to take the thing flying, even with some sort of known or unknown damage, rather than bring it back down and run off the runway. You’re betting that if something goes wrong in between refusal and rotate, whatever it is isn’t catastrophic enough to bring you down before you can bring it back under control.
Also, for those who are wondering why anyone would even attempt landing on that runway with that wind, keep in mind there’s usually a simple calculation that’s made to determine if it can be done (I’m speaking from a Navy viewpoint, but I’m assuming the Airlines have something similar). If you’re coming into an airport and there’s a crosswind, you simply determine the crosswind component and see if it’s within the limits of the aircraft. If so, then you press. If not, then you re-evaluate (I’m assuming, of course, that there is no tailwind component–you really don’t want to land with one of those).
Ok, I buy this. I knew some big planes were designed to rotate their gear to land in a crosswind - they have no choice but to land in a crab.
This I don’t agree with. I’m certainly no flight instructor, but I have a couple of hundred hours as a Private Pilot. The majority of my time is in a '45 Taylorcraft. There’s no way you can convince me that landing that plane in a crab on pavement is the way any pilot should do it - experienced or not.
I can’t tell from the video that the wing touched the runway. The “smoke” may be from water on the runway being blown up by the engines.
I was on a flight once where they were landing in a strong crosswind-as we approached the runway the plane was rolling like crazy, first one wing would dip then the other, until right before touchdown when the pilot stablized her and the actual landing went off without a hitch.
Well, critical damage to the wing or a cartwheel were certainly possibilities, but airliners are built pretty tough. They can lose part of a wingtip and keep flying. Mind you, I do NOT recommend flying with damage as a standard procedure, nor would I myself enjoy being on such a damaged airplane, but scraping the end off a wing is NOT Sudden Death. I would, personally, be more afraid of a wingtip digging in, afterwhich Bad Things will happen, than I would be of losing the tip of the wing due to scraping along the ground.
As previously mentioned, this is actually a standard maneuver. The non-pilots are less familar with it because, first of all, when carrying passengers most pilots try to avoid situations where such an extreme version of crabbing or slipping is required. Secondly, crabbling looks less alarming from inside the airplane than from the outside.
I have a fondness for slips, myself, but then, I usually fly high-wing airplanes. As also mentioned previously, airplanes with wings on the bottom, and with engines slung underneath, have much less ground clearance for slips and thus are more likely to go to crabbing.
In extreme cases you might use BOTH a crab and a slip, but as I said, most pilots try to avoid such situations, particularly with non-pilot passengers.
Actually, sometimes it’s safer to go back up than to continue with a landing. I realize this is alarming to a non-pilot, particuarly a nervous one. However, if a truck pulls onto the runway (for example) during a landing then it is certainly more prudent to go back up and try again than to simply proceed and risk a collision. I have also had occassions where I was on final approach and hit some sort of wind condition (crosswind, turbulence, that sort of thing) that caused me to drift away from the runway or otherwise messed up my planned approach. In such circumstances I may abort the landing, go back up, and plan a second approach utilizing my now-updated information on conditions.
Should you ever be on an airplane that does a “go-around” please be assured that this is done in the interest of safety and the pilot has, through training and experience, determined that it is safer to start over than to proceed. These are done to avoid Bad Thing.
Surely you yourself have encountered times when the weather prediction did not match actual conditions?
The problem is, once you’re up in the air at some point you have to land. Unfortunately, sometimes the conditions worsen during flight, or the information you were given about conditions at your destination were wrong. Also, weather can change quickly at times. I am certain the pilots did not plan to find themselves in such circumstances, but finding themselves in it, they then had to deal with it. If there was another runway available I do question their judgment in picking the one shown in the video, but since I am not familiar with the airport I can’t definitively say it was a completely bad call. Other runways, for example, may have been significantly shorter which can also present problems, or there may have been other factors at work influencing their decision to attempt a landing with such a strong crosswind.
OK, I’m not brewha but I am a pilot - yes, crabbing is a matter-of-fact, no-big-deal sort of thing. If you’ve flown commercially more than once it is virtually certain that you yourself have been on a crabbing airplane. However, MOST of the time the crab angle is not so extreme. In the passenger cabin you may not even notice it (as a trained pilot sitting in coach I can deduce conditions in which I am certain the pilots are crabbing to land but my senses can’t detect it, even though I know what to look for).
Since that sort of sideways-to-direction-of-travel is not something seen in vehicles non-pilots are familiar with operating it certainly can seem very strange or even frightening. Let me assure you that even student pilots can perform competent crabs - at the flight schools I’ve been to you aren’t permitted to solo until you can demonstrate both crab and slip to landings.
Keep in mind that what is seen on this video is an extreme form of a crosswind landing.
I’ve mentioned this in prior threads, but in gusty/crosswind conditions you do, actually, want to plant the landing gear firmly, more firmly than in calm conditions. You want to transition from flying to not-flying as rapidly as possible, to maximize ground-handling, steering, and braking and minimize the chance that a sudden increase in wind gust will lift you back into the air in an uncontrolled manner. It is uncomfortable for the passengers, but in some conditions a thump really is safer than a whisper-soft landing.
That “155 mph crosswind” has got to be bogus - sounds like someone got mixed up there. 48 knots is pretty nasty, though - in the Chicago area even the big airports like O’Hare tend to shut down with that sort of windspeed/crosswind unless they can find a runway pointed into the wind.
It’s possible to get yourself into a situation where you have to land under adverse conditions but like I keep saying, pilots really, really try to avoid getting into that spot in the first place. Something like you see in the video can make pilots declare Underwear Emergencies and not just the passengers.
I would have said “definitely” rather than “apparently”.
As a pilot, I’m not entirely comfortable with such a blanket statement. Clearly, it is always preferable to have an intact airplane, but in reality airplanes can take some damage and still remain functional. Although in the small airplanes I fly running off the end of a runway might be an option under some circumstances size really does matter. You see, if I run my small airplane off a runway the odds are that ordinary turf will easily support the machine. If you run an airliner off a runway the ground will NOT support it. The wheels will sink in and come to a complete halt. At the same time, in obedience to the laws of physics, the rest of the airplane will want to keep going forward. The result is that the fuselage succeeds in continued movement, ripping free of the landing gear. If you’re lucky, it stops there. If you’re not lucky the airplane will continue to rip, shred, and shed parts until it comes to a halt. This is something both pilots and passengers wish to avoid experiencing first hand.
It’s a judgment call, of course, but if the wingstrike was glancing- that is, it didn’t dig in and flip the airplane - then, under the circumstances, I can see where the pilot decided a go-around, even with damage, was preferable to running off the runway. So you scrape off a few inches of aluminum and the position light on that side - so what? I mean, yes, there will be a hefty repair bill but as far as being able to fly that’s minor damage. You still have lifting capability and as long as the steering mechanism on that side still works you should be OK. It’s the equivalent of busting a car headlight and mangling the end of a bumper - not desirable, and there may be hidden damage, but for the most part it’s ugly but doesn’t affect the basic ability of the driver to maneuver in a controlled manner to a safe parking spot.
brewha, you’re flying a tailwheel. Tricycle gear airplanes are usually MUCH more tolerant of side-loading and less than perfect touchdowns. I don’t recommend side-loading any landing gear, but airliners are designed and built with the idea that it will sometimes happen… Your Taylorcraft is also a highwing - you have less concern with hitting a wingtip in a slip than a low-wing, underslung engine airline pilot does.
I don’t like to crab tailwheels, either - given any choice at all I slip them to land. In fact, I refused to get into a cockpit once with a tailwheel instructor who insisted crabbing was the way to go. I agree with you, it’s NOT the way to safely land a Taylorcraft!
My thoughts exactly. Do we have any confirmation of a wing strike on the ground or is it just the “smoke” in the video?
Yea, you better just stay up there. 
I said “crab technique”, not LAND in a crab.
The crab method is to keep the aircraft in a crab most of the way down to the runway on final approach, and then use the rudder to kick it out straight before touchdown. Kick out too early and you’ll drift. Too late and you land sideways, which you certainly don’t want.
But as I said, the timing of this maneuver is the real trick. Most other instructors I know agree that sideslips, as non-intuitive as they can be to many people, are simpler to execute than a crab-technique landing. That’s what I encourage my students to use, but I make them aware of both methods.
As someone who’s a nervous flier and has had the opportunity to freak the hell out on two separate, mostly benign aborted landings, I would like to say: Gahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa whimper.
Thanks to all of you pilots and flight instructors for the explanation. I fly a couple of times a year and don’t get very nervous anymore, but it’s always nice to know more about bad weather landing techniques.
The latest coverage I’ve seen is in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s major papers. There’s a Reuters video that includes a report with a statement from Lufthansa’s director of flight operations. He states that the wingtip grazed the ground. The diagram in slide 2 shows that the “winglet” was slightly damaged. (This is somehow in a section on catastrophes although the heading on the diagram says “near-catastrophe.”) The rest of the slides are stills from the video.
GT
Windshear?
Doesn´t look like that at all. In fact it seems much more simple. The plane is crabbing it´s way down the runway with the wind blowing from the right. When the pilot levels and aligns the plane the wind lifts the right wing up and things get hairy. Windshear has nothing to do with it.