Lufthansa Pilot Overcomes Crazy Crosswind at Hamburg Airport
Posted by PWY at 3/3/2008 7:08 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
Video is circulating on the web today of a Lufthansa Airbus A320 attempting to land during a storm at the Hamburg, Germany airport on Saturday. The video, taken from ground level at the end of the runway clearly shows the A320 in an extreme "crab" angle into a strong crosswind as it attempts to land. It looks to me like the plane is angled away from the runway centerline at least 30 degrees, maybe more, indicating a very strong crosswind. As the pilot attempts to level the wings and align the plane for touchdown, a strong gust picks up the right wing and forces the plane to start drifting towards the left side of the runway. During the drift, the left wing tip scrapes the runway briefly before the pilot gets everything straightened out and performs a "go-around" maneuver, landing safely on the second attempt.
Some reports are saying the wind gust that hit the plane during the first landing attempt was as high as 155 mph. That would be almost a category 5 hurricane wind. I doubt very much that the A320 saw anywhere near that high a gust. If it had, I don't think the pilot would have ever been able to keep aligned with the runway, let alone recover, like he did. Now I'm not an airline pilot, but I have flown small planes in strong crosswinds, and I can say that each aircraft, from the smallest to the largest, has a limit on how much crosswind they can handle on landing. Typically it is called the maximum demonstrated crosswind component. Once the actual winds exceed that component, you don't have enough force from the planes control surfaces (ailerons, rudder) to stay aligned with the runway. For the small planes I fly, the max crosswind component is about a 25 mph wind 90 degrees to the runway. For larger airliners such as a 737, 747 or an Airbus A320, it can be as high as 45 mph in a steady wind, with the ability to handle short duration gusts of around 55 mph. But those are pretty extreme conditions, and most pilots would probably not want to attempt to land with those kind of crosswinds unless absolutely necessary. They would usually request to land on a runway more into the wind, or divert to another airport with more favorable winds and/or runway alignments. If the winds were gusting even over 50 mph, I would think the pilot would not attempt a landing on that runway at Hamburg, let alone a second try after scraping one wing on the first attempt. It will be interesting to see what the actual crosswinds were during this incident, and if they were so extreme, why the pilot attempted to land.
As an aside, the video of of this incident is pretty good, and will surely aid in the investigation. The first clip I saw just showed the plane as it rounded out right before touchdown, and I thought it was taken from an airport camera. But when I saw the full clip (below) its clear it was taken with a personal hand held video camera from someone positioned near the end of the runway, probably outside the airport boundary. I've often wondered why major airports don't have remote cameras set up to record all the takeoffs and landings that occur each day. Even though airline travel is still very safe, the majority of commercial aircraft mishaps occur during the takeoff or landing phase of flight. With relatively inexpensive digital video cameras and recorders available these days, it shouldn't be too expensive to have several cameras positioned to give varying views of the active runways. If nothing happens, which is 99.99% of the time, no big deal, you just erase the digital video at the end of each day. However, if there is a mishap, the ability to quickly look at video from different angles would greatly aid in determining what went wrong. Such video may have helped with the investigation of the British Airways 777 landing mishap at Heathrow that I wrote about in a previous blog entry.
Some reports are saying the wind gust that hit the plane during the first landing attempt was as high as 155 mph. That would be almost a category 5 hurricane wind. I doubt very much that the A320 saw anywhere near that high a gust. If it had, I don't think the pilot would have ever been able to keep aligned with the runway, let alone recover, like he did. Now I'm not an airline pilot, but I have flown small planes in strong crosswinds, and I can say that each aircraft, from the smallest to the largest, has a limit on how much crosswind they can handle on landing. Typically it is called the maximum demonstrated crosswind component. Once the actual winds exceed that component, you don't have enough force from the planes control surfaces (ailerons, rudder) to stay aligned with the runway. For the small planes I fly, the max crosswind component is about a 25 mph wind 90 degrees to the runway. For larger airliners such as a 737, 747 or an Airbus A320, it can be as high as 45 mph in a steady wind, with the ability to handle short duration gusts of around 55 mph. But those are pretty extreme conditions, and most pilots would probably not want to attempt to land with those kind of crosswinds unless absolutely necessary. They would usually request to land on a runway more into the wind, or divert to another airport with more favorable winds and/or runway alignments. If the winds were gusting even over 50 mph, I would think the pilot would not attempt a landing on that runway at Hamburg, let alone a second try after scraping one wing on the first attempt. It will be interesting to see what the actual crosswinds were during this incident, and if they were so extreme, why the pilot attempted to land.
As an aside, the video of of this incident is pretty good, and will surely aid in the investigation. The first clip I saw just showed the plane as it rounded out right before touchdown, and I thought it was taken from an airport camera. But when I saw the full clip (below) its clear it was taken with a personal hand held video camera from someone positioned near the end of the runway, probably outside the airport boundary. I've often wondered why major airports don't have remote cameras set up to record all the takeoffs and landings that occur each day. Even though airline travel is still very safe, the majority of commercial aircraft mishaps occur during the takeoff or landing phase of flight. With relatively inexpensive digital video cameras and recorders available these days, it shouldn't be too expensive to have several cameras positioned to give varying views of the active runways. If nothing happens, which is 99.99% of the time, no big deal, you just erase the digital video at the end of each day. However, if there is a mishap, the ability to quickly look at video from different angles would greatly aid in determining what went wrong. Such video may have helped with the investigation of the British Airways 777 landing mishap at Heathrow that I wrote about in a previous blog entry.
Thanks for the excellent commentary. Do you think it is possible that whoever reported the crosswind at 155 mph actually meant kilometres per hour? Even then, though, that would put it at about 99 mph - probably still faster than the actual conditions.
Reply to this
Ross,
That's a possibility, since the press in Europe was reporting winds form Hurricane Emma (the storm lashing Europe last week) as between 150-180 km/h. But like you said, even 99 mph is too high to attempt a landing, so I don't think those were the actual winds. Maybe the wind gusts were around 55 mph, and someone added the "1", getting confused about winds reported elsewhere in Europe during the hurricane. A 55 mph gust is more believable, since it's just at the limit a pilot may attempt a landing. Thanks for you comment.
Reply to this
As any experienced pilot would know -
If you are crabbed excessively on final (this aircraft was according to the video) you may not have adequate rudder or aileron authority to overcome the crosswind that becomes more powerful as you enter ground effect. Why would anyone start an approach looking out the port window let alone try to land?
This defies logic and the dubious press release praising the pilot's experienced good decision to go around was not credible. As far as going around - I don't think he had much of a choice. The aircraft was skidding sideways off the runway!
As the pilot transitioned to land, the upwind wing caught wind as he tried to input left rudder (too abruptly) to align with the runway. Left rudder also happens to cause a rolling moment to the left (i.e. a barrel roll). Watch the video again and tell me what I am missing. Slower rudder input higher above the ground with cross aileron control (right and down) to keep the right wing down would have prevented the aircraft from floating in ground effect. A slight push forward on the stick/yoke in ground effect would have used gravity to transition through ground effect quickly. In this case a firm, but straight and controlled touchdown, would have been possible.
All of it appears to lack credibility. The press release and praise for this aviator/crew seems like a CYA maneuver. They made it seem like the entire incident was beyond the crew's control - "it just happened, we had no idea". I don't think so.
Personally, I would be embarrassed by making such an unsound decision with passengers on board. Watching this video made me cringe and I doubt Lufthansa's credibility. In addition, I think their aircrew training is suspect if they think this guy did the right thing.
Second, at what gale force crosswind was the tower going to take control and change the active runway? If tower tells me to land on 26R and the crosswind is excessive or worse yet, exceeds my crosswind limit - the correct answer (in the interest in safety) is I need another runway. The tower, at a minimum, contributed to this event. They have anemometers all over that airport - I have landed there many times before. I think they were broadcasting steady state winds and peak gusts, as they should have been. When you figure crosswind landing, peak gusts must be taken into account as worst case when apply the crosswind charts. I think a “business decision” was made in the cockpit to save time. That is a poor excuse for what I saw . I am glad no one was injured or killed but now I wonder who is flying Lufthansa‘s aircraft and what they are thinking.
Am I the only one that sees this?
My Background: 20 years as a military fighter pilot (Instructor Pilot), Fighter Weapons School graduate and formally trained Mishap and Accident Investigator. I hold an FAA ATP and more than one type rating. Stephen
Reply to this
The maximum demonstrated crosswind for the Airbus A-320 is 38 knots (approx 43mph). Most pilots will not even attempt landing over 30 knots crosswind unless it is a fuel emergency etc. They would hold until a more favorable runway becomes available or divert to another airport. Landings near the limit require absolutely optimum technique, allow little margin for error, and frankly are not safe. While the angle in the video appears extreme, it is consistent with a crosswind of not more than 30 kts. In the A-320, unlike other airplanes, when rudder inputs are made to align the fuselage with the runway for landing, some aileron is automatically added into the wind by the flight computers to keep the aircraft tracking straight. However, there is a "lag" in this input, so if left rudder is applied abruptly the aileron input will not be quick enough to cancel the all of the left rolling moment. Also, this automatic input is not available on the ground, so the pilot must make all the "conventional" inputs. There appears to be some of this going on in the video. There also may been a huge gust from the right at the moment of touchdown, another reason not to attempt landings near the limit. (I am a U.S. airline pilot with over 3000 hours in the A-320).
Reply to this
Paul - your hands-on insight (actual experience) is informative.
Isn't the lag a generally know quantity? I have no experience whatsoever with any Airbus but had similar characteristics (digital assist), to a lesser extent in other aircraft.
Hindsight is also a wonderful thing but just because an aircraft has a particular limit doesn't mean the guy steering up front is up to the limit.
I guess I think back on similar situations where having well-honed flying skills and good judgement meant doing something else so I did not have to use the exceptional flying skills. We usually knew what could happen and we knew what we could get away on each day. Sometimes you are up to the task and sometimes it is just better to take the low road so as not to increase risk.
As I watched the video I wondered what the lateral forces felt like in the back with the "tail wagging like a dog in a meat market...".
Reply to this