Wonky A380 landing

[oz_mark]

PARIS - AIRBUS on Friday sought to minimise the scraped engine suffered by one of its A380 superjumbos operated by Korean Air as it banked while landing at Tokyo Narita airport.


The incident happened when the plane, flying from Seoul's Incheon airport, touched down at Tokyo on Thursday morning, Korean Air said.

Airbus plays down A380 scrape in Tokyo - Google News

...and a pic from AVHerald.

See: Incident: Korean A388 at Tokyo on Jul 21st 2011, engine pod strike

 

[mannej]

Korean did this with a 777 at NRT a while ago( wonky landing ) that was caught and now on YouTube


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[gumpy]

that landing doesn't look ideal... why did Airbus step in to comment? The plane was being piloted by KE pilots right?

 

[LiamR]

Wow. Not a good landing. I think jb747, would be shaking if he saw this.

 

[samh004]

Can't have been hat bad if the plane flew back a couple of hours later. Or at least, they don't have the same standards as Qantas.

 

[ftm]

that landing doesn't look ideal... why did Airbus step in to comment? The plane was being piloted by KE pilots right?

Maybe it happened during an autoland, in which case the Airbus logic behind the automation might be questioned?

 

[Sifor]

My guess is a nasty crosswind...

 

[gumpy]

Maybe it happened during an autoland, in which case the Airbus logic behind the automation might be questioned?

Does auto land exist? I thought the pilots were actually suppose to do the landing part... you learn something new...

 

[yohy?!]

Korean did this with a 777 at NRT a while ago( wonky landing ) that was caught and now on YouTube


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app

Think this is it - ‪Korean 777 - Terrible landing‬‏ - YouTube

Yikes I won't be flying them anytime soon!

 

[Flying Fox]

Hopefully it will buff out

 

[mannej]

It turned around fairly quickly so
I can't imagine there was much of a dent there!


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[elbarto]

Does auto land exist?

Indeed it does. One criticism of Airbus aircraft are that Airbus has chosen a route where they designed their aircraft with computers that take over a lot of functions which the pilot used to be responsible for. The pilots still have complete control and can override the computers however.

 

[jb747]

The pilots still have complete control and can override the computers however.

Sort of.....

 

[elbarto]

Sort of.....

Can you explain a bit more? I'd like to stop posting rubbish!

 

[jb747]

There are modes in which the protections don't exist, or are limited, but they are reversionary modes (direct and alternate law). In other words they only come in to play after various system failures. You cannot bypass anything in normal law.

You can fly the aircraft via the joystick, or using the autopilot, but when flying manually, joystick inputs simply ask the flight control computers for an outcome, which is no different to the autopilot doing so.

 

[elbarto]

There are modes in which the protections don't exist, or are limited, but they are reversionary modes (direct and alternate law). In other words they only come in to play after various system failures. You cannot bypass anything in normal law.

You can fly the aircraft via the joystick, or using the autopilot, but when flying manually, joystick inputs simply ask the flight control computers for an outcome, which is no different to the autopilot doing so.

So theoretically you could give an input to turn left and get a computer says no response?

 

[jb747]

So theoretically you could give an input to turn left and get a computer says no response?

No, but it might pitch up or down...opposite to what you'd input. I might add, that it's a lot more sensible than it sounds.