A380 Landing

[mcjohn]

I'm not qualified to talk but my first thought was that the plane was approaching either too fast or too slow. Likely that the pilot was just being extra cautious on nailing a speed. I look foward to hearing any heavy jet pilot's input.

 

[Lilah]

The heaviest plane I've ever landed only weighed a little under 30,000lbs, so that doesn't really make me qualified to comment.

On the other hand, I always consider an arrival to have TWO landings, the mains, and then the other wheel(s), be it in back or in front of the mains. In the case of larger aircraft, if the first landing is botched (the mains), there is some personal satisfaction in landing the nose wheels smoothly.

That being said, any true pilot of a large aircraft will take much greater satisfaction in a well flown, stabilized approuch over a smooth touchdown everyday. The public doesn't see it that way.

In the case of the A-380 the "second" landing looked a little jarring. The airplane movements also looked like they involved considerable inertia on all three axis. I wonder if that will be a negative attribute to this design. Have there been any public comments on the flight charactoristics of this plane by someone who has flown it?

Lilah


PS> In my half dozen 777 sim landings, I had three tailstrikes. It came from being conditioned to pull full aft yoke after landing on a particular taildragger.

 

[HAL]

The biggest Airbus I've flown is the A-320, but if the ultra-whale has the same flight control laws that its smaller sibling has, then crosswind landings will be a pain in the butt. I couldn't see much out of the ordinary in the small-screen video from the BBC, but it appeared to handle about like the 320 did as all the fancy flight-envelope protection laws were blended out at 50 feet to direct-law control, and your previously stable approach gets all squirly and shot to heck.

Then again, maybe the pilot was just having crappy day. Remember the old adage:

One smooth landing is skill.
Two in a row is luck.
Three in a row and someone is lying.

HAL

 

[JumpCaptain]

"The new pier 6 has been specially designed to handle the A380's twin decks."

Anybody heard the specifics yet on how they have designed certain gates to accommodate the 380? I bet if it parked at a normal gate, it would take forever to board.

 

[Guitar rocker]

I bet they board 1:20 min prior to blast off. Whose gonna wanna be sitting in 92E for that time frame before you even get moving? The question of alternates is interesting though. If it cant land at airoprt X, I am sure that it is severely limited in where it can divert to as a result of it's weight and specifically what airports and what runways and ramps can accomodate it. Lets see, if it's going to ORD, and the wx is down, I suppose it will have to use SFO or LAX as it's alternate.

If an a380 was sitting right next to a nice new B-787 (when it comes out), I would much rather ride on the 787.

 

[mcjohn]

Anyone know where to find the takeoff and landing distances? The idea of alternates is quite interesting. Also, am I right in assuming that the larger the plane the higher the cross wind that it can handle? If so then it should be harder for this plane to get Wx'ed out of an airport right?

 

[32LT10]

The biggest Airbus I've flown is the A-320, but if the ultra-whale has the same flight control laws that its smaller sibling has, then crosswind landings will be a pain in the butt. I couldn't see much out of the ordinary in the small-screen video from the BBC, but it appeared to handle about like the 320 did as all the fancy flight-envelope protection laws were blended out at 50 feet to direct-law control, and your previously stable approach gets all squirly and shot to heck.

Then again, maybe the pilot was just having crappy day. Remember the old adage:

One smooth landing is skill.
Two in a row is luck.
Three in a row and someone is lying.

HAL

HAL,

I would second those thoughts. When I flew the bus I never used A/T for the approach and landing unless it was an autoland. The thrust movements from A/T and the die-by-wire flight path unstablizer logic that the POS has made it a real peach in x-winds. When I saw the video it looked just like a normal bus landing in a big wind.

 

[Iceman21]

Also, am I right in assuming that the larger the plane the higher the cross wind that it can handle? If so then it should be harder for this plane to get Wx'ed out of an airport right?

The issue of max crosswind component is not a matter of size, but more a matter of aerodymanics. True, most larger aircraft have a higher max x-wind component, but it not that much higher than many of the piston airplanes that are flown. For example, IIRC, the max x-wind on a MD-11 is 24kts.

 

[AdamKooper]

The bigger the airplane, the bigger the penis of the pilot. These pilots must be like horses.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

The bigger the airplane, the bigger the penis of the pilot. These pilots must be like horses.

It's the other way around...

CE