# Hamburg - A320 nearly crashed during crosswind approach



## v2 (Mar 2, 2008)

1st march 2008 - A320 nearly crashed during crosswind approach at Hamburgs RWY23:

LiveLeak.com - Hamburg - A320 nearly crashed during crosswind approach


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 2, 2008)

Crash? Go around. Close, but go around.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 2, 2008)

YIKES!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2008)

Damn this was dearing the terrible storm we had this weekend. I am surprised that plane was even allowed to try and land. Winds were sustained during that storm at 150kmh.

Hamburg was hit pretty hard.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Mar 3, 2008)

superb pilots performance..even if they could possibly take an alternate airport. But it was the same weather all over Northern Europe that day


----------



## seesul (Mar 3, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> superb pilots performance..even if they could possibly take an alternate airport. But it was the same weather all over Northern Europe that day



Not only Northern Europe sufered...We had the same weather here on Saturday noon. 2 victims, one of them a 11 old girl...killed by falling tree...

Anyway, that A320 pilot did a great job... I´m also wondering they allowed him to land in such a weather conditions


----------



## seesul (Mar 3, 2008)

I just read that the wing hit the runway 2 times and was damaged...
On a second attempt he landed safe on the same runway...
A lot of luck...and really good job of that pilot...


----------



## timshatz (Mar 3, 2008)

Talk about your hairy landings. Man, oughta give that guy a medal.


----------



## wilbur1 (Mar 3, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Talk about your hairy landings. Man, oughta give that guy a medal.



EXAXCTLY!


----------



## johnbr (Mar 3, 2008)

I am glad that all were safe.Thanks to a very good pilot.


----------



## seesul (Mar 3, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Talk about your hairy landings. Man, oughta give that guy a medal.



Did I say anything wrong? I just wanted to say how dangerous it was...
I admire that pilot!


----------



## Glider (Mar 3, 2008)

I hate to disagree but that crosswind was either 
i) way outside normal operating limits in which he shouldn't have tried a landing
ii) was inside operating limits in which case it should have done a better job of it
iii) either i or ii, once he was uncomfortable he should have gone around again
Going around once both wingtips have touched the ground was very dangerous, the chances of a structural failure were significant.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Mar 3, 2008)

I've read a few comments from German members on another forum stating that the pilot ignored a crucial warning from tower. Where they heard/read that, I do not know.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2008)

That was on Germans news as well but what they said is that the Tower warned him of the bad cross winds but told him he was clear to land.


----------



## Velius (Mar 3, 2008)

One of those videos that makes you grit your teeth! Wow! Glad it didn't get worse- good piloting.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That was on Germans news as well but what they said is that the Tower warned him of the bad cross winds but told him he was clear to land.


The controller can't tell him not to land providing the runway is clear the pilot should know the X wind limitations and his own. Its all on the pilot


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 3, 2008)

Pilot always has final discretion wrt weather phenomena. If he had no diversionary airport with better wx conditions, the controller can't deny him.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 3, 2008)

ICAO Doc 4444 PANS-ATM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 3, 2008)

A319/320 Info....

Max 90° crosswind component (including gusts) for Takeoff and Landing
29 knots(U) 
Max 90° crosswind component (including gusts)For CAT II/III
15 knots(U)


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 3, 2008)

Good point FBJ. However, those are operating maximums. Not type design maximums.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 3, 2008)

True Matt, but if you bend one of these aircraft those are the numbers the Feds are going to be looking at...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 3, 2008)

Not necessarily. If those maximums are not part of AFM Sect 3, Operating Limitations, then they become an operating curriculum per Part 121 whose enforcement is much more fuzzy from a regulatory perspective. As you probably are well aware, this is where the special interest groups like ALPA and IFALPA quickly come into play with lawyers and their interpretations.

I rather doubt that the AFM states "crosswinds of X speed/direction are prohibited".


----------



## Trebor (Mar 4, 2008)

I saw that! omg that was so scary to watch on TV. I was amazed at how winds can push something of that size O.O he must have been a damn good pilot to stay on the runway the way he did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Not necessarily. If those maximums are not part of AFM Sect 3, Operating Limitations, then they become an operating curriculum per Part 121 whose enforcement is much more fuzzy from a regulatory perspective. As you probably are well aware, this is where the special interest groups like ALPA and IFALPA quickly come into play with lawyers and their interpretations.
> 
> I rather doubt that the AFM states "crosswinds of X speed/direction are prohibited".



But I could almost bet you that a 121 operator will state a max crosswind component in their ops manual that will have to be approved by the Feds. If it's exceeded and the landing comes out OK I'm sure there's some kind of self-disclosure that could be turned in. It it's exceeded and you scrape the wingtips and wind up on youtube I'm sure you're going to be talking to someone.

I'll ask my father in law. He was a standards captain and was checked out in the A319/320. Today he's doing sim work at CAE and is an examiner.

Don't know how the German Civil Aeronautic Authority will handle this one.


----------



## ccheese (Mar 4, 2008)

They made a very big deal about it, this morning, on Good Morning America.
Must'a showed the film clip a dozen times.... interviewed passengers, etc.

Charles


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 4, 2008)

Maybe there was no pilot error about wind limit: if the wind force increased sharply when he was on finals he may have taken the right decision to attempt a landing when wind was whithin cleared parameters and had to face an emergency when force changed and he was too 'low and slow' to abort landing quickly. 
I think this behemoths have a slow pick up time, if you are on finals and you apply full power probably you still need several seconds to wait for energy before attempting to climb. 
More in this case when he had to work hard with rudder and aileron to counter the wind, so wasting a lot of energy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2008)

Parmigiano said:


> Maybe there was no pilot error about wind limit: if the wind force increased sharply when he was on finals he may have taken the right decision to attempt a landing when wind was whithin cleared parameters and had to face an emergency when force changed and he was too 'low and slow' to abort landing quickly.
> I think this behemoths have a slow pick up time, if you are on finals and you apply full power probably you still need several seconds to wait for energy before attempting to climb.
> More in this case when he had to work hard with rudder and aileron to counter the wind, so wasting a lot of energy.



Parm, I think that would be the case if there was no damage but he did clip the wingtip and I'm almost wiling to guess that between the damage to the wingtip and inspection time of the airframe you're talking over $20,000 - in the US that's reportable to the NTSB. I don't know how the JAA would see this but I do know they are basically in unison with a lot of operator related issues like this.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 4, 2008)

was he flying it manually or was the autopilot


----------



## Snautzer01 (Mar 4, 2008)

The co- pilot was landing. 

and its a she

Die schÃ¶ne Co-Pilotin (24) steuerte den Airbus - Bild.de


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2008)

Snautzer said:


> The co- pilot was landing.
> 
> and its a she
> 
> Die schÃ¶ne Co-Pilotin (24) steuerte den Airbus - Bild.de



Interesting....


----------



## seesul (Mar 4, 2008)

interesting article, thank you Snautzer! there´s written (and they say) that under such a conditions the captain should take over the control. why the landing was done by young co-pilot, no one knows till now...


----------



## Glider (Mar 4, 2008)

I admit that was the last thing that I would have expected


----------



## Snautzer01 (Mar 5, 2008)

i think the captain decides who will land the plane. he or the co-pilot. All the rest is advice.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2008)

I spoke to my father in law yesterday. He was a United Airlines Standards Captain and is currently an FAA Examiner for the 737 and A319/320. He is currently doing contract work for Flight Safety. He told me the numbers I posted were wrong and the actual max crosswind component for the A319/ 320 was 33kts with peak gusts to 37kts. If a pilot exceeded that they violated the ops manual from Airbus. Most airlines use LOWER crosswind components.

When asked about the clip he told me he didn't see it but heard others talking about it. His comment was "why did they even try to land there?" He thinks they should have diverted if possible. During his last few months at United he told me he did get an A319 into Anchorage with a 35 knot crosswind. Another trip the component was over 50 knots so he diverted.

The fact that the crew damaged the aircraft does not constitute them doing a “good job” in getting the aircraft down, especially if they could have diverted. In accordance with the JARs they should have had enough fuel to divert.

BTW he retired from United with 15 years and 19,000 hours...


----------



## Glider (Mar 5, 2008)

I have little doubt that there will be some type of investigation which I hope will be published.
I was half expecting a queue of Lawyers forming to claim for stress iro the passengers


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> I have little doubt that there will be some type of investigation which I hope will be published.
> I was half expecting a queue of Lawyers forming to claim for stress iro the passengers



Agree.....


----------



## HoHun (Mar 5, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Agree.....

It's Germany - you can only expect serious damages to be paid if you are partially or totally disabled for work. Different legal system, too - no ambulance chasing around here. Don't ask me why ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 5, 2008)

Just got done watching something about this on Stern TV on German TV. They interviewed 2 of the passengers. Was kind of interesting hearing what it felt like in the back.

The usual from the airline however, they will not say anything until the investigation is over.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2008)

HoHun said:


> It's Germany - you can only expect serious damages to be paid if you are partially or totally disabled for work. Different legal system, too - no ambulance chasing around here. Don't ask me why ...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)


You do have a point....


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 5, 2008)




----------

