Delta: "Wind Check"
10-28-2009 | 02:25 PM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
10-29-2009 | 12:20 AM
#73
Thread Starter
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Anybody else notice that the photo ISN'T a DAL-N (NWA) A-320 like the thread lead says. Not one of our aircraft has the brand name witten in big red/orange letters down the side like it shows on the right side of the aircraft.
My guess, its a European carrier like Easy jet or .com line landing in Spain or similar territory. Even the runway signs at the end look "off".
My guess, its a European carrier like Easy jet or .com line landing in Spain or similar territory. Even the runway signs at the end look "off".
At the time the other "Why does Delta always ask for a wind check?!" thread was shutdown I saw the picture on the underground airline porn site and wanted to post it as a "see what happens when you don't ask for a wind check? You die." joke. It just required starting a new thread.
Where we learned about crabs.
10-29-2009 | 12:32 AM
#74
Thread Starter
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Want to see a landing in a crab?
YouTube - Airbus A380 Hard Landing At Oshkosh 2009
How about one that is not in a crab... but not necessarily under control but hey, if this is proof positive of the need to ask for a wind check in your falsetto voice, like 80 knots clamp says he will in SJO.
YouTube - Airbus A380 Hard Landing At Oshkosh 2009
How about one that is not in a crab... but not necessarily under control but hey, if this is proof positive of the need to ask for a wind check in your falsetto voice, like 80 knots clamp says he will in SJO.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 10-29-2009 at 12:47 AM.
10-29-2009 | 10:04 AM
#75
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 41
From: Middle Seat
10-29-2009 | 10:16 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 79
From: Legacy FO
And who was the genius who decided that using reverse thrust over the grass was a good thing? Take a look at the last seconds of that video. They are sucking up debris into the engines.
Really Airbus? Really?
Remind me to never fly on this thing.
10-29-2009 | 10:42 AM
#77
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Holy crap? Seriously, how do you do that during a demo flight? Look at that wing flex. I want to have someone at Airbus look me straight in the face and say "the wing was designed to do that". Uh huh. I've never seen this thing land smoothly ... it's always a "firm" landing.
And who was the genius who decided that using reverse thrust over the grass was a good thing? Take a look at the last seconds of that video. They are sucking up debris into the engines.
Really Airbus? Really?
Remind me to never fly on this thing.
And who was the genius who decided that using reverse thrust over the grass was a good thing? Take a look at the last seconds of that video. They are sucking up debris into the engines.
Really Airbus? Really?
Remind me to never fly on this thing.
It was hilarious people on jetcareers trying to justify an earthcrushing landing like that.
The wings flap up and down like that b/c they just tried to lower the field elevation, haha. If you look at a 747-400 or most any other very large widebody during a slammer or heavy turbulence, they do the same.
10-29-2009 | 10:47 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 79
From: Legacy FO
Yeah, the inboards are still sucking up crap.
I just love the spokesman's comments "and we really don't need that much runway". Wow, what a statement.
Seriously, do they expect these things to last long with landings like this?
In a former life my report would read ... "LANDINGS: Q-3, Incomplete Flare. Send back to FTU. Thanks. Good day."
haha
I just love the spokesman's comments "and we really don't need that much runway". Wow, what a statement.
Seriously, do they expect these things to last long with landings like this?
In a former life my report would read ... "LANDINGS: Q-3, Incomplete Flare. Send back to FTU. Thanks. Good day."
haha
10-29-2009 | 11:16 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Pet Peave Alert, Pet Peave Alert!
While not dismissing the occaisional use of a wind check, excessive and habitual "wind checks" are for automatons. Seaplane and "bush" pilots safely land thousands of times a day all over the world without the aid of a "wind check", a tower, atis, a windsock, a runway etc. A good pilot is constantly attuned to their environment and is aware of their crab angle as well as the crab angle of other aircraft, tree leaves, wave patterns, blowing dust, tire smoke, etc, etc...
Many "wind checks" are used as a crutch by inattentive "airplane operators" not aviators. Wind checks are only necessary if the pilot is uncertain of a dynamic wind vector that could be a factor in the safety of the landing. There are usually numerous cues that make a wind check request unecessary. An attentive pilot should have a very good idea of the wind conditions for the runway of intended landing long before short final.
Remember that the wind readout from the tower is from a location on the field that may or may not be near the approach end of the runway you are landing on. While not advocating the banishment of the "wind check" let's listen up, pay attention and use it more sparingly please.
Sorry.....can't.....stop.....typing!!!
All better now...
winglet
While not dismissing the occaisional use of a wind check, excessive and habitual "wind checks" are for automatons. Seaplane and "bush" pilots safely land thousands of times a day all over the world without the aid of a "wind check", a tower, atis, a windsock, a runway etc. A good pilot is constantly attuned to their environment and is aware of their crab angle as well as the crab angle of other aircraft, tree leaves, wave patterns, blowing dust, tire smoke, etc, etc...
Many "wind checks" are used as a crutch by inattentive "airplane operators" not aviators. Wind checks are only necessary if the pilot is uncertain of a dynamic wind vector that could be a factor in the safety of the landing. There are usually numerous cues that make a wind check request unecessary. An attentive pilot should have a very good idea of the wind conditions for the runway of intended landing long before short final.
Remember that the wind readout from the tower is from a location on the field that may or may not be near the approach end of the runway you are landing on. While not advocating the banishment of the "wind check" let's listen up, pay attention and use it more sparingly please.
Sorry.....can't.....stop.....typing!!!
All better now...
winglet
10-29-2009 | 11:26 AM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 79
From: Legacy FO
Pet Peave Alert, Pet Peave Alert!
While not dismissing the occaisional use of a wind check, excessive and habitual "wind checks" are for automatons. Seaplane and "bush" pilots safely land thousands of times a day all over the world without the aid of a "wind check", a tower, atis, a windsock, a runway etc. A good pilot is constantly attuned to their environment and is aware of their crab angle as well as the crab angle of other aircraft, tree leaves, wave patterns, blowing dust, tire smoke, etc, etc...
Many "wind checks" are used as a crutch by inattentive "airplane operators" not aviators. Wind checks are only necessary if the pilot is uncertain of a dynamic wind vector that could be a factor in the safety of the landing. There are usually numerous cues that make a wind check request unecessary. An attentive pilot should have a very good idea of the wind conditions for the runway of intended landing long before short final.
Remember that the wind readout from the tower is from a location on the field that may or may not be near the approach end of the runway you are landing on. While not advocating the banishment of the "wind check" let's listen up, pay attention and use it more sparingly please.
Sorry.....can't.....stop.....typing!!!
All better now...
winglet
While not dismissing the occaisional use of a wind check, excessive and habitual "wind checks" are for automatons. Seaplane and "bush" pilots safely land thousands of times a day all over the world without the aid of a "wind check", a tower, atis, a windsock, a runway etc. A good pilot is constantly attuned to their environment and is aware of their crab angle as well as the crab angle of other aircraft, tree leaves, wave patterns, blowing dust, tire smoke, etc, etc...
Many "wind checks" are used as a crutch by inattentive "airplane operators" not aviators. Wind checks are only necessary if the pilot is uncertain of a dynamic wind vector that could be a factor in the safety of the landing. There are usually numerous cues that make a wind check request unecessary. An attentive pilot should have a very good idea of the wind conditions for the runway of intended landing long before short final.
Remember that the wind readout from the tower is from a location on the field that may or may not be near the approach end of the runway you are landing on. While not advocating the banishment of the "wind check" let's listen up, pay attention and use it more sparingly please.
Sorry.....can't.....stop.....typing!!!
All better now...
winglet
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
