Here is a good example of why you should not land with too much crab, especially in a narrow runway. Only the pilot knows what happened, but I don't think the commentary is correct. I think the pilot forgot to compensate his flare for the visual illusion of landing in a really narrow runway. A narrower than usual runway gives you the illusion of being higher than you actually are. Which is why his flare seems very minimal and late.The other aspect could be that the short length could have been weighing on his mind and he did not want to float much. Or, it could have been a combination of both.Anyway, it is a good video of how not to land an aircraft. Nothing against the pilot, we've all had landings which we wish we could do over again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_s3bFHeLnU&feature=related

Enjoy

O.O that's a scary one. But i think it's better than an autoland, because here you really feel you ''touched''

Well said Mariano.Another interesting example:

Idle Reverse too Not so good....granted in more severe WX conditions....

As Mariano said the 'crab/de-crab technique' aims to keep the wings level throughout the flare & touchdown manoevure - this reduces the risk of a pod strike (think swept wing commercial jet with under wing power plants) - the margin for error is as you can see from the second sequence slim. It should also keep you on the better side of the drag curve (think less aileron input = less drag = smaller power adjustments)

Just one more ....

It must be an Air France thing

Good examples there Steve. I believe BA's policy on reverse is the same as ours, we operate the RB211s as well. Idle reverse unless the runway is contaminated basically, or if you have some sort of braking problem. Using reverse with normal braking action doesn't do anything extra since the auto-brake modulates to achieve a deceleration rate. Since the 400 has carbon brakes, you actually want them to warm up since they will be more effective when warm.The main reason for not using more than reverse idle on the Rollers is that they have a lot of compressor problems as a result of the last mod. The engines are subjected to a lot of stress at full reverse and it manifests itself as compressor failures in flight. Something about the rubbing of the blades with the modified ring case compressor. Anyway, RR is working on a solution for the modification, but it really makes sense to minimize the use of full reverse unless really needed. After all, brakes are cheaper than engines.That first Air France landing really shows what I was talking about as far as de-crabbing too early. You can tell he takes out the crab and then flares too high, leaving him in the air too long. As the wind starts to carry him downwind he starts lowering the upwind wing and as a result of the rocking from touching down with a bit crab, he almost strikes the number 3. The second Air France landing is quite bad as well, same effect but from an insufficient flare with no de-crab. The plane carries a lot of inertia and the rocking as it stabilizes can lead to problems. You also must consider that the struts cross-stabilize between the wing gear.Long live the whale, it truly is a great airplane. Thanks for the videos.

+1 For the DC-8 there at the end. Great to see those still cookin!

Here is a good example of why you should not land with too much crab, especially in a narrow runway. Only the pilot knows what happened, but I don't think the commentary is correct. I think the pilot forgot to compensate his flare for the visual illusion of landing in a really narrow runway. A narrower than usual runway gives you the illusion of being higher than you actually are. Which is why his flare seems very minimal and late.The other aspect could be that the short length could have been weighing on his mind and he did not want to float much. Or, it could have been a combination of both.Anyway, it is a good video of how not to land an aircraft. Nothing against the pilot, we've all had landings which we wish we could do over again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_s3bFHeLnU&feature=related

Enjoy

I think it's a typical example of reporters making news when there is no news.Bert Van Bulck

I think it's a typical example of reporters making news when there is no news.

I don't think so. It is just commentary from footage taken at Oshkosh. They go on to talk about other aircraft at the event mostly, but I guess when you make such an entrance into one of the biggest aviation events filled with thousands of pilots you are going to attract a little criticism. It is not a news outlet and they are not reporters.

It is a specialized news outlet I guess.I do not know runway 36 in OSH that has been mentioned, but I guess a desire for short, positive landing on short runway, with afforementioned illusion of height over a narrow runway. can end up in a spectacularly hard-looking, albeit possibly within all limitations, landing, the worse problem here I would guess is the PIO for the aircraft that tries to steer back left after TD.

positive landing on short runway

I brief this all the time, but I sure hope it doesn't look like this one. You want to reduce the amount of float, but you still need to flare. That A380 landing is not positive - that is hard. Might have been within limitations, but completely un-necessary. Which leads one to think it was un-intentional.

Yeah, when your wings shake like that, ya messed up a bit, but I don't think it was worth the attention it got. I think the intention most had in passing it along to their pilot buddies was to have a quick laugh at the other guy's expense. Believe you me, we've all had some bad landings. I had a stellar landing into a short field one morning a few months ago, and not 3 hours later planted at my home field, on an approach that was much easier than the one earlier.What ended up happening with that video, though, is most who don't know much about aviation (or even those who know just a little) took it as something to get worked up over and start criticizing the pilot for, and overanalyzing. That's a challenging approach for such a behemoth of an aircraft.

That video is a typical example of people talking about something they know little or nothing about. What you see is a a perfectly normal crab approach to an extreme crosswind landing. No crosswind landing is ever going to be a "greaser". If were to be then it would guarantee an excursion off the runway.Instead of the title "Terrible Landing" it should be entitled "excellent landing!"vololiberista

I'm not going to go so far as to agree with that, either, to be honest.It wasn't a good landing at all, but it certainly wasn't terrible given the circumstance and a relatively new airframe.

That video is a typical example of people talking about something they know little or nothing about. What you see is a a perfectly normal crab approach to an extreme crosswind landing. No crosswind landing is ever going to be a "greaser". If were to be then it would guarantee an excursion off the runway.Instead of the title "Terrible Landing" it should be entitled "excellent landing!"vololiberista

No greaser or an excursion? I'll take choice #3.

That video is a typical example of people talking about something they know little or nothing about. What you see is a a perfectly normal crab approach to an extreme crosswind landing. No crosswind landing is ever going to be a "greaser". If were to be then it would guarantee an excursion off the runway.Instead of the title "Terrible Landing" it should be entitled "excellent landing!"vololiberista

Sorry, but that is plain rubbish. There is nothing normal about that landing, make no mistake of that. If you can't see that from looking at the video then you know nothing about flying or aircraft. That doesn't mean the guys need to be crucified, I can certainly see how it could have happened. As a professional, you have to be able to objectively look at your work and be able to asses your performance without your ego getting in the way. If that was my landing I would be seriously analyzing it to turn it into a learning experience. This is how you improve and grow as a professional. Not just for yourself but for your trade in general.In this industry I have found that you never stop learning. No-one is trashing the guy, like I previously said, but you have to be able to look at this objectively. This is the backbone of many advances in CRM over the years, and it is why aviation is as safe as it is now a days.

Yeah, when your wings shake like that, ya messed up a bit, but I don't think it was worth the attention it got. I think the intention most had in passing it along to their pilot buddies was to have a quick laugh at the other guy's expense. Believe you me, we've all had some bad landings. I had a stellar landing into a short field one morning a few months ago, and not 3 hours later planted at my home field, on an approach that was much easier than the one earlier.What ended up happening with that video, though, is most who don't know much about aviation (or even those who know just a little) took it as something to get worked up over and start criticizing the pilot for, and overanalyzing. That's a challenging approach for such a behemoth of an aircraft.

+1Bert Van Bulck