Dang, that's a pretty cool ability--I can see how it would come in handy when landing in high cross-winds. My robotics team's mentor is rated as a multi-engine jet instructor, which is pretty much one rank below space shuttle pilot in the heirarchy. I should see what he knows about the 777...
Cross wind landing tests are pretty neat. If you can find video footage of 747's landing at the old Hong Kong airport you would be amazed. They are worse that this video. PLUS, there are people in the planes, not just a bunch of test equipment.
My backyard overlooks the flight line at Offutt AFB and sometimes when it's really windy we go out and watch the training pilots try to land with strong winds. Amusing to say the least.
I was landing at Midway near Chicago one day and the winds were very strong. That plane was all over the place. I was sitting far enough back in the plane to be able to see the entire tube flexing several feet. Not a single person was saying a word as we 'crabbed' in to the run way at a very sizeable angle from our point of view. We were all very happy the pilot was able to put that thing down and walk away from it.
Stryker wrote:Yes, the landing gear were steering into the runway... Cool stuff.
Actually, they weren't. The B747 main gear isn't steerable. The B777 main gear is a three axle truck and only the rear axle is steerable. However, they don't use it on cross wind landings.
I think what you were seeing was the angle the truck hangs at with respect to the gear cylinder. Because the B777 truck has 3 axles, the illusion can be quite pronounced.
I remember being in a 20-seater prop job when we had to come in an a pretty good angle like this. We could all see right through the pilot's window. It was a little weird.
My fiance is a commercial rated pilot... she'll get a kick out of this. (Random fact, fi you all know this, whatever.) There are two ways to do it- that way (I think it's referred to as "scrubbing") and by coming in with your wings banked... some of the smaller planes, with the wings mounted on top of the plane lend themselves to the second way.... cross wind landings are pretty freaky, though.
Yes impressive. I do believe however, that the landing gear are designed for that. I remember watching the B52s landing at Carswell Air Force Base in the late 60s and seeing them canted like that, albeit at not such a steep angle of attack though.
I hate to say a good word about airline pilots because so many of them are whiny bitches, but I have to give kudos to those two Jet Blues guys. Job well done.
First of all, it's crabbing, not scrubbing. Second, she said usually they would crab in on final approach, then just before touching down yaw to align with the strip, and roll to account for the cross wind. (That would be with little cessna's) I guess they can't roll with those big planes because of wing clearance.
Dedman wrote:I hate to say a good word about airline pilots because so many of them are whiny bitches, but I have to give kudos to those two Jet Blues guys. Job well done.
i played that video and for some reason the colors are all FUBAR, and i cant correct it. mozilla wont allow me to play it because its not supported. good video though..... i bet those passengers got tired of seeing LA over and over and over again.
i do got one good question....... they took off from Berkley CA right? why hover over LA for 3 hours instead of just going over the pacific and dumping fuel and bring that flight time to a matter of maybe an hour or 30 mins just so that ground crews can inspect the bird and then bring it in?
AceCombat wrote:i do got one good question....... they took off from Berkley CA right? why hover over LA for 3 hours instead of just going over the pacific and dumping fuel and bring that flight time to a matter of maybe an hour or 30 mins just so that ground crews can inspect the bird and then bring it in?
I saw this on MSNBC last night, they said the A320 can't dump fuel - dunno if that's actually true or not.
AceCombat wrote:i do got one good question....... they took off from Berkley CA right? why hover over LA for 3 hours instead of just going over the pacific and dumping fuel and bring that flight time to a matter of maybe an hour or 30 mins just so that ground crews can inspect the bird and then bring it in?
I saw this on MSNBC last night, they said the A320 can't dump fuel - dunno if that's actually true or not.
ill have to look that up. if its true, well then i stand corrected for that action not being taken.
if it could have been done, i very strongly disagree with making those passengers have to see LA over and over and over again, worrying for 3 hours wether they are doing to die or become seriously and possibly permanently injured.
