RE: Wild Landings!

MarinerOne · 07-01-2004, 08:36 PM

In reference to this wild landing at Kai Tak (HK) taken from Airliners.net, if this plane is truly swerving to the left as it appears (see the tire tracks), I am really surprised that the plane didn't eventually end up on the grass, have its tires blow out, or have its landing gears ripped off due to the severe stress of the touchdown and sharp turn. The right wing is much closer to the runway, and maybe even the RH inboard engine has scraped as well.

Is there any visual distortion due to the distance of the camera or is this really the way it is? I remember when watching planes takeoff from SFO when I was a kid, the planes always appeared skewed at an angle right after rotation. It was something to do with perspective I believe?

Ken · 07-02-2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarinerOne

In reference to this wild landing at Kai Tak (HK) taken from Airliners.net, if this plane is truly swerving to the left as it appears (see the tire tracks), I am really surprised that the plane didn't eventually end up on the grass, have its tires blow out, or have its landing gears ripped off due to the severe stress of the touchdown and sharp turn. The right wing is much closer to the runway, and maybe even the RH inboard engine has scraped as well.

Is there any visual distortion due to the distance of the camera or is this really the way it is? I remember when watching planes takeoff from SFO when I was a kid, the planes always appeared skewed at an angle right after rotation. It was something to do with perspective I believe?

If you look at Airliners.net you'll find dozens of photos like this one at Kai Tak. From what I have heard, from pilots, and what I have read Kai Tak was a beast of an airport to land in. Crosswinds caused havok like the one pictured and then there were the tall buildings that also hindered landings at this airport. I have not heard the same said of the new airport. But I have heard from pilots that they were gald Kai Tak was gone.

Ken

MarinerOne · 07-02-2004, 05:45 PM

Thanks for your thoughts Ken. I have seen some of the other photos of "wild landings" at Kai Tak and found them rather frightening. On some, I really question the pilot's judgment as to why they chose to land under the conditions as opposed to going around. I mean these guys are flying $100M dollar airplanes with hundreds of passengers lives at stake. What are they thinking?

MR. GSE · 07-03-2004, 04:24 PM

Those are bad but look all of these pics were from Kai Tak (HK). IS IT CURSED!?!

MR. GSE · 07-03-2004, 04:25 PM

THESE WERE TOO!!

IT IS AMAZING

MR. GSE · 07-03-2004, 04:30 PM

What I saw from this was nerve racking! I think I'm on to something though.

With the tall building there always seems to be a boat in the harbor so the piliots seem to be preoccupied with the boats and buildings!?!

This may solve the big mystery of the Kai Tak Disasters!

newsnerd99 · 07-03-2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR. GSE

This may solve the big mystery of the Kai Tak Disasters!

I don't think it's a big mystery...it's just the wind. Buildings don't make planes fly sideways.

MR. GSE · 07-03-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newsnerd99

I don't think it's a big mystery...it's just the wind. Buildings don't make planes fly sideways.

But if the pilots are distracted it will make them fly out of control!

anime' · 07-03-2004, 06:10 PM

Most of the images above were taken while crosswinds were present. The 747 is designed to withstand landings where the actual touchdown occurs at as much as a 45 degree crab angle. Pilots are trained to do this so they avoid engine strikes, although engine strikes may sometimes be inevitable. So truly, there is no mystery.

MarinerOne · 07-04-2004, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anime'

Most of the images above were taken while crosswinds were present. The 747 is designed to withstand landings where the actual touchdown occurs at as much as a 45 degree crab angle. Pilots are trained to do this so they avoid engine strikes, although engine strikes may sometimes be inevitable. So truly, there is no mystery.

Are you serious? 45º is a tremendous amount of "crab angle" for a plane that size. IMHO, if a large airliner were to touch down in that extreme, the tires and gears would be ripped to shreds. I can't imagine that being the case, although I have no supporting info one way or the other. If someone can shed more light on this subject, I would like to know more about it ...

aeronautic · 07-04-2004, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anime'

Most of the images above were taken while crosswinds were present. The 747 is designed to withstand landings where the actual touchdown occurs at as much as a 45 degree crab angle. Pilots are trained to do this so they avoid engine strikes, although engine strikes may sometimes be inevitable. So truly, there is no mystery.

Yes its the crosswind
I have seen some clips of B52 bombers, landing at nearly 40 degree angle !
I am not shure, but i think the landindgear could make some compensation

anime' · 07-04-2004, 11:08 AM

These images might not be the best, but they show how the main landing gear is able to steer.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/435184/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/529855/M/

winged racer · 07-09-2004, 12:25 PM

Just keep in mind that all of the above is correct but even more so due to two issues.....

1. most international carriers only the Captain makes the lands and/or the takeoffs. And for some the CRM programs practiced here in the states (COCKPIT RESOURSE MANAGEMENT) is virtually non-exsistant. So co-pilots, flight engineers will not say or make suggestions if a particular plan of action is suggested...ie the KLM MD-10 I believe where the captain completely ignored the co-pilot about suggestions that they divert to nearest landing airport and so consequently the cockpit so filled with smoke the plane crashed into the atlantic.

2. a lot of pilots (both domestic and international) do not believe in 'going around' regardless. A great example of this was the SOUTHWEST flight that landed in Burbank at a much too high a speed yet instead of aborting the landing the crew continued to land and consequently ran off the end of the runway and destroyed the airplane plus some minor injuries. It could have been a lot worse.....had the airplane not stopped were it did and continued on its course and hit the gas station gas pumps the ensuing fire and/or explosion would have devastating.

DirtyBird · 07-09-2004, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winged racer

Just keep in mind that all of the above is correct but even more so due to two issues.....

1. most international carriers only the Captain makes the lands and/or the takeoffs. And for some the CRM programs practiced here in the states (COCKPIT RESOURSE MANAGEMENT) is virtually non-exsistant. So co-pilots, flight engineers will not say or make suggestions if a particular plan of action is suggested...ie the KLM MD-10 I believe where the captain completely ignored the co-pilot about suggestions that they divert to nearest landing airport and so consequently the cockpit so filled with smoke the plane crashed into the atlantic.

KLM MD-10 ...huh??? Do you mean Swissair MD-11 Flight 111 crash Sept. 3 1998?

I dont think there was any disagreement between the capt. & co capt., records show they were in the process of diverting to the nearest airfield and were waiting to dump fuel when the cockpit fire got out of control and their flight systems started going down. Sadly the timeline shows that even if they had not taken the time to dump fuel and headed straight for a fully loaded emergency landing, they would not have made it as far as the airfield.

no duh! · 07-09-2004, 03:25 PM

Yeah... Here's a video to better explain... I'll look for more.

http://www.modellflugclub-kropp.de/v...7-kai-tak.mpeg

DirtyBird · 07-09-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no duh!

Yeah... Here's a video to better explain... I'll look for more.

http://www.modellflugclub-kropp.de/v...7-kai-tak.mpeg

Holy s.h.i.t.e, I bet you a lot of people crapped their pants on that landing. Korean has a horrible safety record and most of their mishaps are due to pilot errors, I wonder if its due to having a lot of pilots with military backgrounds or if thats the case?

MarinerOne · 07-09-2004, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no duh!

Yeah... Here's a video to better explain... I'll look for more.

http://www.modellflugclub-kropp.de/v...7-kai-tak.mpeg

I had forgotten I had seen that video a few years ago ... that's one frightful landing for sure ... very interesting how the pilot made the last second correction to align the plane with the runway.

Not being an expert in flying, can someone comment on whether or not that was truly a crosswind landing, or was it a case where the pilot overshot the runway centerline on the initial turn and tried to make a successful landing without a go-around?

winged racer · 07-09-2004, 04:39 PM

i stand corrected however the report that I read stated that the co-pilot was trying to convince the captain somewhat sooner but the captain was referring to the inflight manuals.

In regards to the issue of too much on board.....well under normal circumstances such as an engine out , loss generator or pack ok however if there is smoke and a possiblity of fire there is only one decision....land asap

even if you are over weight,,,,,especially if smoke begins to enter the cockpit.

This according to a friend of mine that flies the 767 and has flown the Airbus A330. As for me well I was never a pilot but I was a flight engineer long long ago. Anyway that Korean 747 video was quite an eye opener.

no duh! · 07-10-2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarinerOne

Not being an expert in flying, can someone comment on whether or not that was truly a crosswind landing, or was it a case where the pilot overshot the runway centerline on the initial turn and tried to make a successful landing without a go-around?

Yes, this is a crosswind landing. You pretty have to make a hard yaw to line up with the centerline at the last second.

Here's another video. http://www.sv.ntnu.no/psy/bjarne.fje.../alitalia2.mpg

Particularly Asian pilots will land the aircraft on the first attempt. Doing a "Go Around" is a sign of failure, so... Kai Tak was no exception.

jjorgemiami · 07-10-2004, 01:21 PM

WooHoo check out that Alitalia 11, damn!

ZX1100F1 · 07-10-2004, 09:02 PM

The Korean 747 pilots made a bad decision to continue the landing, the film clearly shows that they are initially correcting (with a right turn) a slight close-in overshoot and then again overshoot as they start the flair and land completely right of the centerline.

This was done in an obvious crosswind situation but was a piss-poor approach and landing regardless.
The normal procedure is to use your stick and rudder (seat of the pants) flying skills to establish the aircrafts crab angle and attempt to maintain the track while on final with as few corrections as necessary (easier said than done sometimes), you then stab the rudder as you begin the flair (to align with the center line as much as possible to avoid scrubbing or tipping) and fly the aircraft onto the runway planting it firmly with as little float as possible, this prevents drifting off center and back into a crab before touchdown.

The pilots of the Swiss MD-11 had several factors working against them, and for some of you to make blanket statements like: “land ASAP even if you are over weight,,,,,especially if smoke begins to enter the cockpit” and “even if they had not taken the time to dump fuel and headed straight for a fully loaded emergency landing, they would not have made it as far as the airfield” is very misleading.

In this type emergency situation (such as Swiss flight #111) generally the situation is discovered and dealt with (in a non-panic stricken manner) as smoke in the cabin/cockpit is not extremely unusual (I have experienced this twice) and normally is not catastrophic and does not necessarily mean a fire is eminent.
Sometimes smoke can quickly be squelched by simply pulling the effected circuit breaker with a little help isolating the source from a cabin crew member.

In this case the situation remained constant for a time and then deteriorated rapidly not affording the crew sufficient time to land as soon as possible, it was evident (in the CVR transcripts) that the Captain was not fully convinced that the smoke/fire was serious enough to warrant an over maximum gross weight landing, by the time the aircraft began to suffer ill effects (and he became a believer) it was too late. The co-pilot on the other hand appeared to be leaning towards the side of caution and was convinced early on that they were in serious trouble; he turned out to be correct however in many cases the more experienced Captain is correct.
I can understand the reluctance of the Captain to land over-gross even though, I have the hindsight now to admit he was wrong.

07-02-2004, 05:45 PM	#3
MarinerOne Insane Collector Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: SAN Age: 40 Posts: 1,287	Kai Tak landings Thanks for your thoughts Ken. I have seen some of the other photos of "wild landings" at Kai Tak and found them rather frightening. On some, I really question the pilot's judgment as to why they chose to land under the conditions as opposed to going around. I mean these guys are flying $100M dollar airplanes with hundreds of passengers lives at stake. What are they thinking?

07-03-2004, 04:24 PM	#4
MR. GSE Senior Collector Join Date: Jun 2004 Age: 32 Posts: 428	Those are bad but look all of these pics were from Kai Tak (HK). IS IT CURSED!?! __________________ REMEMBER TO ASK ME ABOUT MY ! FREE ! FOILS Lets go Herpa make me a AA Super-80 Long live... Continental United Airlines Southwest Airlines Northwest Airlines American Airlines American Eagle Air Canada CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH GSE MR.GSE

07-03-2004, 04:25 PM	#5
MR. GSE Senior Collector Join Date: Jun 2004 Age: 32 Posts: 428	THESE WERE TOO!! IT IS AMAZING __________________ REMEMBER TO ASK ME ABOUT MY ! FREE ! FOILS Lets go Herpa make me a AA Super-80 Long live... Continental United Airlines Southwest Airlines Northwest Airlines American Airlines American Eagle Air Canada CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH GSE MR.GSE

07-03-2004, 04:30 PM	#6
MR. GSE Senior Collector Join Date: Jun 2004 Age: 32 Posts: 428	What I saw from this was nerve racking! I think I'm on to something though. With the tall building there always seems to be a boat in the harbor so the piliots seem to be preoccupied with the boats and buildings!?! This may solve the big mystery of the Kai Tak Disasters! __________________ REMEMBER TO ASK ME ABOUT MY ! FREE ! FOILS Lets go Herpa make me a AA Super-80 Long live... Continental United Airlines Southwest Airlines Northwest Airlines American Airlines American Eagle Air Canada CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH GSE MR.GSE

07-09-2004, 12:25 PM	#13
winged racer Master Collector Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: palm city florida Age: 60 Posts: 679	in response to Just keep in mind that all of the above is correct but even more so due to two issues..... 1. most international carriers only the Captain makes the lands and/or the takeoffs. And for some the CRM programs practiced here in the states (COCKPIT RESOURSE MANAGEMENT) is virtually non-exsistant. So co-pilots, flight engineers will not say or make suggestions if a particular plan of action is suggested...ie the KLM MD-10 I believe where the captain completely ignored the co-pilot about suggestions that they divert to nearest landing airport and so consequently the cockpit so filled with smoke the plane crashed into the atlantic. 2. a lot of pilots (both domestic and international) do not believe in 'going around' regardless. A great example of this was the SOUTHWEST flight that landed in Burbank at a much too high a speed yet instead of aborting the landing the crew continued to land and consequently ran off the end of the runway and destroyed the airplane plus some minor injuries. It could have been a lot worse.....had the airplane not stopped were it did and continued on its course and hit the gas station gas pumps the ensuing fire and/or explosion would have devastating.

07-01-2004, 08:36 PM	#1
MarinerOne Insane Collector Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: SAN Age: 40 Posts: 1,287	RE: Wild Landings! In reference to this wild landing at Kai Tak (HK) taken from Airliners.net, if this plane is truly swerving to the left as it appears (see the tire tracks), I am really surprised that the plane didn't eventually end up on the grass, have its tires blow out, or have its landing gears ripped off due to the severe stress of the touchdown and sharp turn. The right wing is much closer to the runway, and maybe even the RH inboard engine has scraped as well. Is there any visual distortion due to the distance of the camera or is this really the way it is? I remember when watching planes takeoff from SFO when I was a kid, the planes always appeared skewed at an angle right after rotation. It was something to do with perspective I believe? Last edited by MarinerOne; 07-02-2004 at 12:56 PM.

07-03-2004, 06:10 PM	#9
anime' mr. badger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 222	Most of the images above were taken while crosswinds were present. The 747 is designed to withstand landings where the actual touchdown occurs at as much as a 45 degree crab angle. Pilots are trained to do this so they avoid engine strikes, although engine strikes may sometimes be inevitable. So truly, there is no mystery.

07-04-2004, 11:08 AM	#12
anime' mr. badger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 222	These images might not be the best, but they show how the main landing gear is able to steer. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/435184/M/ http://www.airliners.net/open.file/529855/M/

07-09-2004, 03:25 PM	#15
no duh! NO f**king DUH! Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 405	Yeah... Here's a video to better explain... I'll look for more. http://www.modellflugclub-kropp.de/v...7-kai-tak.mpeg

07-09-2004, 04:39 PM	#18
winged racer Master Collector Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: palm city florida Age: 60 Posts: 679	swissair not klm i stand corrected however the report that I read stated that the co-pilot was trying to convince the captain somewhat sooner but the captain was referring to the inflight manuals. In regards to the issue of too much on board.....well under normal circumstances such as an engine out , loss generator or pack ok however if there is smoke and a possiblity of fire there is only one decision....land asap even if you are over weight,,,,,especially if smoke begins to enter the cockpit. This according to a friend of mine that flies the 767 and has flown the Airbus A330. As for me well I was never a pilot but I was a flight engineer long long ago. Anyway that Korean 747 video was quite an eye opener.

07-10-2004, 01:21 PM	#20
jjorgemiami Complete Wacko! Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: MIAMI Age: 47 Posts: 5,666	WooHoo check out that Alitalia 11, damn! __________________ Fly United Airlines we are R I S I N G !

07-10-2004, 09:02 PM	#21
ZX1100F1 Buford T. Justice Join Date: Sep 1999 Posts: 2,004	The Korean 747 pilots made a bad decision to continue the landing, the film clearly shows that they are initially correcting (with a right turn) a slight close-in overshoot and then again overshoot as they start the flair and land completely right of the centerline. This was done in an obvious crosswind situation but was a piss-poor approach and landing regardless. The normal procedure is to use your stick and rudder (seat of the pants) flying skills to establish the aircrafts crab angle and attempt to maintain the track while on final with as few corrections as necessary (easier said than done sometimes), you then stab the rudder as you begin the flair (to align with the center line as much as possible to avoid scrubbing or tipping) and fly the aircraft onto the runway planting it firmly with as little float as possible, this prevents drifting off center and back into a crab before touchdown. The pilots of the Swiss MD-11 had several factors working against them, and for some of you to make blanket statements like: “land ASAP even if you are over weight,,,,,especially if smoke begins to enter the cockpit” and “even if they had not taken the time to dump fuel and headed straight for a fully loaded emergency landing, they would not have made it as far as the airfield” is very misleading. In this type emergency situation (such as Swiss flight #111) generally the situation is discovered and dealt with (in a non-panic stricken manner) as smoke in the cabin/cockpit is not extremely unusual (I have experienced this twice) and normally is not catastrophic and does not necessarily mean a fire is eminent. Sometimes smoke can quickly be squelched by simply pulling the effected circuit breaker with a little help isolating the source from a cabin crew member. In this case the situation remained constant for a time and then deteriorated rapidly not affording the crew sufficient time to land as soon as possible, it was evident (in the CVR transcripts) that the Captain was not fully convinced that the smoke/fire was serious enough to warrant an over maximum gross weight landing, by the time the aircraft began to suffer ill effects (and he became a believer) it was too late. The co-pilot on the other hand appeared to be leaning towards the side of caution and was convinced early on that they were in serious trouble; he turned out to be correct however in many cases the more experienced Captain is correct. I can understand the reluctance of the Captain to land over-gross even though, I have the hindsight now to admit he was wrong.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: