Be glad you weren't on this flight Options

[Hartmann]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z42fchrzhHY

If you look closely, the left wing touches the ground. Lufthansa has been praising the pilots saying that they reacted very well to the conditions.

[theIncredibleEdi...]

One wild ride!

Notice the tail kinda swings to the side also before the wings do the touch.

[Mommy]

ya... I saw this video yesterday. Damn good pilot if you ask me... to maintain control of the plane through 155 mph wind gust

[impala454]

not to argue, but there's no way in hell the wind was gusting to 155mph in that video.

damn good pilot though

[Mommy]

not to argue, but there's no way in hell the wind was gusting to 155mph in that video.

damn good pilot though

why do you say that? and thats the number the AP is reporting. It may have been a draft slightly above the ground and thats why the camera seems fairly undaunted by it

[theIncredibleEdi...]

To move something that large that drastically, they would need some pretty strong winds....

and wind speeds vary at different altitudes....hence why pilots will often go higher when there is rough air.

[Hartmann]

not to argue, but there's no way in hell the wind was gusting to 155mph in that video.

damn good pilot though

Well, it was a hurricane and there are reports of gusts in excess of 160mph in some areas but not sure if it was at HAM.

http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-forum.d...id=2607#pid2607

[Hartmann]

Der Spiegel is reporting that crosswinds during the landing were around 60 mph.

That's a lot and out of the safety range for some aircraft. Early in the video you can see the jet shoved sideways by the gusts.

[cmac]

i think parachutes should be an optional upgrade when booking a flight.

[impala454]

why do you say that?

look at the bushes

[Mommy]

look at the bushes

that's the windspeed on the ground. What about at an altitude 100 ft. up? Obviously he was having trouble controlling the plain from a higher altitude. He was still trying to stabalize when the wing hit the runway.

[impala454]

that's the windspeed on the ground. What about at an altitude 100 ft. up?

it wasn't 40 mph on the ground, and 155mph 100 ft up.

Obviously he was having trouble controlling the plain from a higher altitude. He was still trying to stabalize when the wing hit the runway.

Oh no doubt, I still think he did a damn good job. But there's no way in hell those were 155mph winds. maybe 50-70mph or so, which is still hellacious. but 155mph, no friggin way.

[Mommy]

it wasn't 40 mph on the ground, and 155mph 100 ft up.


Oh no doubt, I still think he did a damn good job. But there's no way in hell those were 155mph winds. maybe 50-70mph or so, which is still hellacious. but 155mph, no friggin way.

Well, Stephan is saying that a site reported wind speeds at 60 mph. I did read in that AP story yesterday that it was 155 mph, but today I did a quick search on the story and couldn't find anything that said that figure again, whereas three sites said it yesterday. Weird. Maybe there was some sort of reporting error that made 55 mph into 155 mph... Either way, wind speeds are different at certain altitudes. While that was an extreme example I gave, it is possible for winds to affect the atmosphere quite differently at certain altitudes. I don't know how to say it technically because I'm not a freaking meteorologist but still...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/german...,538926,00.html

and yeah, this story right here says 56 mph winds... I think the AP had an error yesterday.

EDIT: finally, I found a story that still says 155 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/03/03/4896931-ap.html and I now realize I am a moron because that's how fast the plane was traveling.... *shrug* I still think the AP was reporting 155 mph winds yesterday. I think they had their numbers crossed

[Hartmann]

There was a clarification on the AP story (and the Der Spiegel story) that changed the number from 155 to 56.

[impala454]

MYSTERY SOLVED