This landing is the subject of an Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) inquiry, in part using this video, and a report is expected in 6-12 months.
I don't get the impression that the crosswind was beyond the capability of the aircraft but I do get the impression that it was beyond the capability of the pilot.
If you look at the ailerons at 1:28 , it would appear that the control column is being used to try and ‘steer’ the aircraft back onto the centreline. While this might seem intuitive, the upwind aileron should actually be deflected up! With the left wing down and full right rudder they may have been able to regain directional control, but instead they just ended up wheelbarrowing on the right main gear.
Martin Neep you are absolutely right, that right aileron deflection (instead of left aileron deflection)and no rudder deflection at all to regain directional control caused the aircraft to depart the runway, hard lesson to learn, at this level you expect proper instinctive response.
Could it be a company operating jets as well ? Might explain unproper touch down technique... Unstable from 1:04 Should have touch the main wheel into the wind Flap back to 15 deg ( kill the lift + ready for go around) Ground control.... Was there a pilot in the plane ? There was some panic there... We used to take more than 36 kts with 748 on gravel runway, the plane can take a lot !
Yann Connan If the ATP is anything like the 146 or other BAe aircraft, then there is no rudder-fine nosewheel steering via the rudder pedals. Maybe they jumped onto the tiller in the hope to regain directional control, but with the aircraft not being in firm contact with the surface, it was ineffective.
It seems from the very beginning, the pilot was not on the centerline. In crosswinds you want the aircraft right on it. As this is a turboprop, the correct technique for the touch down is to put the aircraft in a sideslip, by using the rudder to align the aircraft longitudinal axis with the centerline, while at the same time using the opposite ailerons to prevent the upwind wing from lifting up. This way, the upwind wheel usually makes the first contact with the runway. After landing, the aileron into the wind should be maintained to prevent the upwind wing from lifting off. This is particularly important in a smaller aircraft as they are more susceptible to this. In this case, the pilot failed to apply enough right rudder for the alignment and the aircraft landed in a crab (sideways). After the touch down, the weak rudder input resulted in the aircraft veering to the left. Usually, with enough frictional forces, the aircraft automatically aligns with the runway even after a crabbed landing. This is true for most heavy jets due to their weight and the extension of spoilers which effectively kills the lift and puts in more frictional load on the wheels. For turboprops this does not happen and the aircraft wings continue to generate lift and the wind keeps attacking the wing. This is the reason why when the pilot applied the wrong ailerons, the left wheel lifted up and caused the aircraft to further weathercock into the wind. I have many hours on medium sized turboprops. And in a crosswind, after landing you always keep the aileron into the wind to ensure good ground steering.
This is an incredible catch. I vividly remember a couple of harrowing experiences I had while making a crosswind landing when working on my private pilot's license. There's no easy way to master them. It takes time and experience. This video reflects an extreme crosswind component. I'm guessing that this landing was very near the maximum envelope allowed for this model of aircraft.
Holy moly. That was impressive. Seeing that ATP's main left gear going up... and I thoroughly didn't expect the plane to literally vacate the runway... awesome catch mate!
Sometimes, not landing the airplane is the mark of a good pilot. Pressing on into dicey conditions requires more luck than skill to survive. I've flown for 40 years and not making stupid decisions is why I'm still here. No schedule or "important passenger" is worth my life.
If the pilot had only biflurated the intake valve, the coefficient tardiness of the flare elongnaters could have expectorated the differential thingamajigs to achieve bilateral confusion. That would have eliminated him dancing through the tulips.
Funny name but this is called wind cock effect. From the first and second video notice the similar movement of the aircraft into the wind just after the landing roll. It's called wind cocking. Happens mostly during landing roll and the plane slowed down. As the plane slows down, rudder effectiveness is reduced. That's the time when plane becomes a wind vane. During crosswind conditions (ex. Left x-wind) the rudders will tend to deflect on the right. The proper way is to keep or reduce that rudder deflection but not turn the rudder unto the wind because that's where the problem starts. Apply rudder pressure on the right side only. If the plane drifts right, relieve rudder pressure on the right pedal. Never use the left pedal unless necessary. Relieving rudder pressure will make the wind cock kick in. Use differential brakes as well. Also ask your co-pilot to push the yokes and maintain wings level during the landing roll because nosewheel steering will be more effective and can help big time. This procudere has been recommended by ATR. This was discussed during the ATR Safety Conference video, as some ATR72 have also experienced the same scenario as with this BAe ATP.
They didn't relax, that was the problem. The airplane went into the direction of their crab (left). They needed to take the correction out as the airplane decelerates. Oh and to the dude that posted the video: the reason why there was no other air traffic going in was because everyone else diverted for crosswinds out of limits. Only this crew thought it was a good idea to land.
Bad idea to continue the landing. Aileron should have been set to keep left wing down but opposite applied leading to the left wheel lifting and veer off to left. Rank bad flying.
This is one of those situations where it's hard to really applaud the pilots for the safe outcome, when it was their poor decision making that put the plane in danger in the first place.
When I was doing that sort of thing I always stayed upwind of the centre line during the approach and used the 'wing down' method. As far as I know neither of these things are taught. Kicking off the drift in a strong x wind is a fool's errand. The configuration of some aircraft of course doesn't allow too much wing down.
I had a similar situation occur to me while attempting to land at Rialto Airport in a Bonanza, w/ easily 50-60 knot crosswinds. I knew I had to keep my speed up a bit and got myself set up for the landing when a big gust came across from the port side just as I was touching down. It blew me quite a ways off the runway and my left wingtip scraped the ground, but I got her down. When I finally got the plane to the leeward side of the hangars, I had to ask for assistance w/ tying the plane down. Once that was acomplished, I did a visual inspection of the left wingtip and noticed the flashing marker light was gone, w/ just a minor scratch or two to confirm the hit. Never been more content to be grounded in my life.
50-60 knots crosswinds?? Maybe 30-35 and the rest as headwinds. Impossible to land a Bonanza with total of 60 knots crosswind component and keep it on the runway. Specially with only one person onboard. The lighter the airplane, the more difficult to handle crosswinds..
@@feetgoaroundfullflapsC Say what you will, I lived it and am glad to be alive. Check weather reports for Jan. 1, '71 (or '72?) and you'll see they recorded hurricane force winds over the Sierra Nevadas during that New Year. And you can bet I kissed the ground when I was able.
@@manlatycon You can kiss my ass. Even the Tower Operator said he'd never seen such "finesse" in that kind of winds. I was just glad to be on the ground after 50ft rises and falls coming over the Sierra Nevadas, where hurricane force winds were recorded - Jan.1,1971/2.
@@v.e.7236 Try kissing the State Prosecutor's ass when, at the subsequent court hearing, you are proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you exceeded the aircraft's FOM limits. and then wait for the insurance company (if you've got one) to sue you for every penny you've got. You might have been best mates and a better pilot than Chuck Yeager but flying in conditions you describe is idiotic and potentially suicidal. And when you can come back with 9500 hours, if you live that long, you can wipe mine.
Could an actual CPL rated pilot explain what would be the aftermath of such event for the pilot(s) - paperwork involved, possible investigation and what kind of consequences could the pilot(s) expect for such incompetence?
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't teach, post RU-vid critique. It's like every person who's played FS thinks they can fly a real plane. :)
I was able to look down the runway coming in to land at Minot AFB once. I was in a left side window seat in a Navy C-9, headed back to WA from Norfolk, and we landed at Minot for gas. There was a _bit_ of a cross wind. :)
@@muskaos I arrived at NAS Pensacola, back in the 80s, to check aboard my new assignment, (USS Lexington) and when I arrived at the peer she was gone, she was out to sea. So I was directed to go to the BEQ in order to check in there and while on my way I got to thinking 'hell yeah'😊 ! I'll be on temp duty until she returns from sea. Hopefully I'll be dispensing basketballs at the gym for the next 6 weeks ! At BEQ a chief came out of nowhere, looked at my orders and said 'gather all your things, you're going to the airfield and you'll be on the Lex, , , tonight' 😒 I ended up as a passenger on a Grumman C-2 Greyhound bound for the Lexington that was somewhere in Lake Texas, otherwise known as the Gulf Of Mexico. The pilot gave us a single warning to prepare for landing and after an eternity of waiting we went from 150mph to 0mph in a split second. It was a hell of a ride though and I never forgot that little Grumman Greyhound.
There should be an inquiry into why Birmingham has never prioritised building a runway into the prevailing wind instead of wasting money on other projects, it's only a matter of time before something more serious happens here. Videos/incidents like this will put off passengers and airlines. Build a new HS2 Airport and close the current site
Birmingham used to have an into wind cross runway. It was closed about 15 years ago. One end is now taxiway T (I think, and the other end has a hangar on it).
It did have a runway into the prevailing wind but, it was too short and there wasn't, and still isn't, the free area to extend it. It is therefore now officially a taxiway. 33/15 was extended in recent years at a cost of millions which included the rerouting of the A45 a very busy main road which feeds the M42 aswell as the airport, Birmingham Business Park and the NEC. You would've needed to demolish most of the NEC, completely divert the main London to Birmingham railway line, pull down half of Marston Green and Birmingham Business Park. I've been going to Birmingham airport for over 30 years man and boy and never once witnessed a single incident.
The old runway could support smaller jet operations (CRJ A319) and even a 757 on at least one occasion. An ATP would have had no issues either. It was ostensibly closed to keep the NIMBYs happy. I have an old obstacle light in my garden from the old days of operation.
The AAIB report into this occurrence has been published. The approach was apparently poorly briefed. First approach flown by the FO. Go-around initiated by the captain. Second approach 'flown' by the captain who basically couldn't handle the crosswind and became overloaded. He eventually used the control wheel iso the rudder after touchdown 'like in a car' which is why they departed the runway.
I can tell you that after spending 44 years getting paid to fly airplanes including not only turboprops in this class, but also operating as PIC on 3 types of heavy jets, that there are thousands of pilots who could have done a much better job. This was a piss-poor performance!
My comments in the first “landing” attempt video just proven emphatically. To all who argued in support of this crew..... if you think this and the previous attempt are acceptable levels of professional airmanship, then it might be time for you to think about hanging up the headset😉.
and321now generation x here my friend so bit late to the party to be boomer era. If there were “modern CRM” at work here then both these of these “crosswind calamities” would never have been allowed to develop to that end in the first place.
Cirrus Driver.--HEAR, HEAR. I have decided to ignore all further negative replies to my comments. Anyone who pays attention while watching this excellent video and still can't understand why the pilot flying demonstrated extremely poor crosswind landing skills does not deserve a response.
I never even saw this until I saw the Flightglobal article with the investigation into this today. What an awesome catch flugnsug. Thanks for sharing (thankfully the ATP is a hardy bird)
I'm sitting on my sofa looking at planes on RU-vid, so obviously my credentials are beyond repute when it comes to stating what the pilots should have done.
@@tenpiloto No doubt. But like I said, it's also perfectly legitimate for me, the sofa expert who has watched a few Mentor and Captain Joe videos, and has attempted to land an A380 on an aircraft carrier in GEOFs (on more than one occasion and with crosswinds turned off), to give my two cents on what is clearly some of the worst piloting ever observed from an armchair. The real pilots here, who have years of training and experience, know all the facts before they've commented. That much is assured, so it's wise to listen to them.
Clueless Joe. We take lessons so we can learn how NOT to run off the runway during high crosswinds. Once we know-how, we can get good flying jobs. Unfortunately, not everyone passes the tests.
There are several very well qualified commenters on this thread who are disgusted not only by this crew's obvious lack of required skills, but also by posters who don't understand how dangerous this was but tell us we don't know what we are talking about. That runway excursion was extremely serious, and at many airports could have involved major aircraft damage, injuries, or even fatalities. The posters who are praising this crew (who demonstrated woeful incompetence in the go around and botched landing) are entitled to comment anything, but when their posts indicate that they have little or no subject knowledge, they should expect informed critique from others who are also entitled to comment. Cheers.
Have you read the incident report on this? do you know if the aircraft had any technical defects? Have you got access to the flight data recorder? u say obvious lack of required skills but you were not on the flightdeck at the time so do not make comments on the crew until the report comes out about weather conditions crossword limitations tech defects etc etc etc, all u see here is some iphone video
The posters who are crucifying this crew are entitled to comment anything, but when their posts indicate that they have little or no subject knowledge, they should expect informed critique from others who are also entitled to comment. Cheers right back at ya.
herobo123456 It’s not an iPhone video, check your head. Also check your eyes, because it doesn’t take a genius to literally watch the video and clearly see incorrect aileron input. I recognize there are so many factors, and I’m not saying I can do better (I cannot) and not saying the pilots are incompetent, but it is very clear that they made at least one major mistake, which is simply indisputable.
I really don’t understand where all the criticism is coming from. It’s almost like everyone forgets that a man is flying, not a machine that can do every single thing every single time in every type of situation perfectly, and that every single situation is different and affected by hundreds of variables, and yet, everyone can point out only one thing and confidently blame the pilot, accusing him of being untrained. WTF
The criticism is probably from people who work in the industry. Unlike other industries, flying is very unforgiving of mistakes. Pilots are expected to recognise when a situation is potentially dangerous and NOT to press on. In this instance, the pilot continued with a landing that was unlikely to be a success, given the unstable approach, the amount and degree of control inputs and the very strong crosswind. The pilots will have been trained to follow the correct procedures, abide by the limits of the aircraft and to recognise when the situation is "running away" from them. Without this very high standard and expectation, flying would be a lot more deadly! I sympathise with this pilot, and you are quite correct that to err is human, but I will stake money on the fact that the pilot will be deemed responsible (and not because management will want a scapegoat) for a very serious incident that could have cost a lot of lives..
Felix Deer Idk to me the approach for this heavy of a crosswind and this light of an aircraft seemed pretty stable, but I still don’t know why he lacked crabbing before touchdown. I’d rather wait for an investigation. And yea, the control inputs are kind of everywhere. I’ve learned to find the sweet spot and stick with it, which is why my money is on low level wind shear as a possible culprit. However, like I’m sure you agree, my biggest beef here is the incorrect aileron input when the plane started to veer to the left and presumably got hit by that wind shear. He went right aileron, away from the wind. A big no no. It’s hard to say, and I’m definitely not gonna shit on the pilot from my stance because honestly there isn’t the whole story from a two minute video. I’d be interested in the final report on this one.
People keep blaming a low time copilot for this landing. If that's true, then the captain ain't no captain for letting this get so out of control without taking over.
I would settle for that as a passenger, not ideal but all things considered. Thanks for sharing, great catch! Be careful though, Birmingham Airport might tell you that you can't share this video due to an "active investigation." lol
That flight crew owes the airfield landscaping guys a steak dinner for keeping such as smooth safety area. One good pothole or rut out there would have taken out that undercarriage.
Unlikely... All that weight and speed the plane would just plow over a pot hole or tear up the ground even more but wouldn't have much effect on the plane...
@@Roc790 I've got a buddy that maintains runway safety areas. Next time it pours rain, I'll tell him he can leave all the huge wash-outs it makes. Roc790 said it was cool. Hahaha.... -- In all seriousness though, airfield guys put a lot of work into keeping those safety areas very smooth. Soil is constantly hauled in to compensate for erosion, settling of runway light foundations and the runways themselves, fill for ruts from vehicles and aircraft, animal activity, etc. It's one of those jobs that you would never know is being done. A well-maintained safety area makes the difference between a situation that ends well like this one and a situation that ends in a collapsed nose gear and injuries/fatalities.
@@MechMan0124 I never said anything about that it was not necessary to maintain the grounds... All I implied is some pot holes is not going to break off the undercarriage, it would ride right over them with minimal effect on a large aircraft as the one in this video.
@@Roc790 That depends entirely on the dimensions and geometry of the defect... Ahh, I'm "feeding the trolls" now aren't I? You're right Roc, have a cookie.
@@MechMan0124 Oh so now pothole turns into an unknown sized defect.... now you're talking a whole different scenario that doesn't happen unless maybe some years old abandoned airfield.
But you are right. He should have realised earlier he wasn't stable, and gone around. Not sure it was actually a wind issue, looks like the issue could be 75 centimeters behind the stick.....
Midland Skies--either way--if out of limits, bad judgement. If not out of limits, terrible demonstrated crosswind landing skills. Both scenarios show lack of ability.
Flugsnug the legend always catching this stuff. If I'm right you caught the A320 going off the taxiway at BHX as well? Keep up the good work mate especially when it can be used for accident investigation purposes 👍
not all places have an alternative airport even then what if this was there alternative airport then they have no choice to put down because we dont have magic ever lasting fuel tanks yet.
My observations IMHO: 1. The plan'es maximum crosswind component capabilities were greatly exceeded. 2. Replant a few new runway edge lights, and some veggies in the dirt rows created. 3. Needed more cowbell and right rudder. 4. Bob Hoover couldn't have pulled this off. 5. Change of underwear and hit the bar to celebrate you live to fly another day.
He wasnt blown off the runway. He over corrected for the crosswind factor, then didnt apply left aileron to keep the wing down as we weather vaned into the wind when he didnt relax left rudder. This was pilot error, not caused by weather.
Don't get it, why right aileron input at 01:25? If there's left crosswind you'd have to go full left aileron to decrease lift on the upwind wing. At least that's my understanding as an experienced armchair aviator. 😁
griffn14--good to see an "armchair aviator", as you describe yourself, really paying attention to the video. You are correct. Basic crosswind landing technique--it is really a slip--rudder to keep the nose straight down the runway, and aileron into the wind to stay on centerline (keep from getting blown to the right in this case). This was egregious pilot error.
Tenpiloto - I thought it was a strong gust of wind that picked the wing up, but was extremely surprised to see full right aileron input. I'm really interested in what will the incident report say.
Matthew Vecellio--sorry, can't see me do it anymore. I retired a few years ago after 44 years getting paid for flying many different types of military, corporate, and airline equipment, including 8000+ hours on wide-body jets, and ops in 100+ countries on 6 continents. I probably only made a few hundred landings in heavy crosswinds. How many have you made?
"Ahhhhhhh West Atlantic this is Birmingham tower...If you want to leave a bill at the counter for airfield mowing we will get that sent to your company right away"
JohnL . . . since there are over 800 comments here and few of us will read them all, I will copy and paste something I wrote in response to someone else's comment. I believe it will directly address yours, as well. Forgive me if your question was rhetorical and you already knew the answer. Too many instructors, flight schools and airlines are also teaching crab landings instead of a wing-low slip. For the airlines, part of the reason is that the increasing wingspans of newer airliners don't have commensurately tall landing gear to allow a controlled wing-low touchdown at 29 knots direct cross without the upwind wingtip or outboard engine nacelle contacting the ground. So they teach a crabbed approach with a rudder kick just prior to touchdown to roughly align the aircraft with the centerline. If you use that technique but don't immediately put full down aileron into the wind, the upwind wing will start flying, as can be seen at 1:30 in the video. Left main is well up in the air. The wing is flying because the pilot is not, if you know what I mean.
@@muhammadsteinberg Demonstrated max crosswind limit for the 172 is 15 knots. I hope your 28k of wind wasn't more than about 32 degrees off the nose (or tail, if you are OK with 25k of tailwind component). Crosswind component is simple to figure, but I have found that the majority of pilots I have flown with don't know how to compute it. More accurately, they don't remember how from ground school and don't bother.
@@daveriley6310 Yep that's what the POH says. Demonstrated is legal talk. People naturally assume that means maximum. Can't recall chapter but further along in POH they mention something in regards to skill level (very roughly paraphrasing). Btw...runway 170', winds 130' at 11 G18. They later picked up. Don't recall the constant but gust got up to 28. I intentionally look for days like that to do closed traffic work. Of course I've had full deflection cross controlled landings and go arounds but 28 is doable.
Replay it and take a look at the right hand aileron from 1:28. The wind was from the left during the entire landing but there appears to be a dramatic wind shear at the end of the runway.
I did see the earlier video where they did the first approach with a go around. I commented that at least they had the sense to go around. This video; indefensible from what I could see. Let's see what the Air Accidents Investigation Branch make of it.
The quote marks might be implying the ridiculousness you're talking about. As in, the pilot said he was blown off the runway, but a blind man with shite in his eyes can see they didn't reduce their correction for crosswind when they landed.
@@mariuspanaitescu7352 The airplane was not blown off the runway. The airplane was flown off the runway by the pilot. The conditions were well within the capability of the aircraft. Improper positioning of flight controls resulting in failure to maintain directional control with rudder, nosewheel steering and brakes. When you've landed a transport aircraft on an ice-covered runway at Erie with weather at minimum and a crosswind, you understand the importance of tracking straight down the centerline before touchdown and maintaining crosswind controls after touchdown. Any drift just prior to touchdown on ice is very likely to end in a runway excursion. On the downwind side.
I've looked at the landing and then the 'go-around'. I don't know the aircraft's fuel state but, personally, I would have found an alternate. That said, without knowing all the circumstances like the wind conditions at alternate fields, I think everyone on-board owes their lives to the skill of the pilots. You know what they say, "...walk away... it's good." Cheers, BH
I used to live less than 12 miles from BHX (which I still know as Elmdon), right under the flight path from the SE. The first inbound BAC 1-11 was often my wake-up call. With a single runway that's at 90deg to the direction of the prevailing wind and with most gales coming from the SW, crosswind landings must be almost the norm.
@@grahamj9101 G'day Graham, So, heavy cross winds were well known at BHX. One would hope the pilots of the subject aircraft knew that as well. Perhaps not. We used to have BAC 1-11s in the RAAF when I was in, many years ago. Our motto for them (also in the squadron as I recall) was, 'Deaf From Above'! They were a really useful little aircraft but oh, that noise! Good to hear from you. Cheers, BH
@@davehart4403 G'day Dave, Thanks for the added info. Well, this changes a few issues connected with these mishaps. I'm not familiar with that type, although it's about the same size as the HS-748s we used to fly in the RAAF. (They were not cargo variants). So, I'm guessing they have a two-person crew. Now it comes down to an agreement between the Skipper and the 1st Officer. If both pilots wanted a second go at landing then the decision is totally on them; and risking their own lives. Anything past this point would be conjecture on my part as, clearly, I'm not in possession of all the facts. If I were the junior pilot I'd be relying heavily on the Skipper and, IF he or she had loads of experience with the wind conditions at this field. I would still be quite nervous about the landing attempt; but, if I knew the Skipper well and we had a great level of communication, I’d be happy to go along. If I had any serious misgivings, I’d communicate this with the Skipper and quickly suggest an alternate. They must have thought a successful landing was possible, ergo the second attempt. The opposite situation to that is an unwise decision to go ahead with the second attempt. I'll stop there because guessing in these situations is a waste of time. I would, however, be most interested to know the outcome of the official investigation. Thanks again, Dave, for setting me straight. Cheers, BH
Bill Halliwell the airline use BHX alot, they have nightly freighter run so I would expect the crew to be familiar with the airport and i’m sure they would have this kind of weather before, but it was very windy that day i must admit (i live at runway 15 end at BHX) they did well to rescue it at the end but came very close to it becoming much worse !! Regards DH
Incorrect landing technique. Aelerons were in opposite direction to what they should have been at touchdown.ie - Full into wind. Alot of the time the right aeleron was up and left down. There was never a chance of a half decent landing. ( hardly a calamity tho)
I would say that the rudder is what is missing... almost doesn't move, it should be compensating the direction... I would say that the pilot should do a few hours on the simulator doing landings with crossed winds...
