Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I would like to know what sort of retarted Air Traffic Controller (or Airport in general) thought it was OKAY to allow any plane to land in that kind of weather. I hate the FAA, but at least they would have forced that plane to go somewhere else, where it was safe. Hell, they won't even let planes land in thunderstorms here, let alone in a storm with a high crosswind. Especially if it really was 250kph. Everyone with control in that airspace needs to be fired, and the pilot needs a medal and a million Euro for that asshattery!!!

TEG

PS - I'm A Pilot, so I know from which I speak.
 
I would like to know what sort of retarted Air Traffic Controller (or Airport in general) thought it was OKAY to allow any plane to land in that kind of weather. I hate the FAA, but at least they would have forced that plane to go somewhere else, where it was safe. Hell, they won't even let planes land in thunderstorms here, let alone in a storm with a high crosswind. Especially if it really was 250kph. Everyone with control in that airspace needs to be fired, and the pilot needs a medal and a million Euro for that asshattery!!!

TEG

PS - I'm A Pilot, so I know from which I speak.

And as a pilot, whose responsibility is it for the safe conduct of flight, and whose decision is it to accept or reject a landing decision? When you're cleared to land, does that compel you to put the wheels on the ground? Also, 250 kph? That's a typo, right?
 
And as a pilot, whose responsibility is it for the safe conduct of flight, and whose decision is it to accept or reject a landing decision? When you're cleared to land, does that compel you to put the wheels on the ground? Also, 250 kph? That's a typo, right?

I'm not absolving the pilot of any responsibility, but I doubt he knew how bad it really was on the ground, as often the weather systems are behind, and rarely do the approach controllers update you quickly.

TEG
 
I'm not absolving the pilot of any responsibility, but I doubt he knew how bad it really was on the ground, as often the weather systems are behind, and rarely do the approach controllers update you quickly.

TEG

You can always get current winds, by asking. The airport wasn't closed due to the current weather conditions and it's not up the controller to make that decision, is it? Just look at that video. The airplane was in a massive slip right down to the ground, which is the moment the pilot decided that it wasn't going to work. In an aviation accident (and this was very nearly a major one), there's usually lots of blame to spread around. But the reality is the decision and final responsibility to go or not to go belongs to the pilot, not the controller, not the company, just the pilot.
 
As for Lufthansa, i hate that airline. And the frankfurt airport couldn't be any worse.
What's wrong with Lufthansa? They're only among the most reliable airlines in the world... You'd better have good reasoning before you go start bashing on my company.

And what's wrong with FRA (and what does Frankfurt have to do with this)? I've flown through there hundreds of times and hardly ever misconnect even with some pretty short connections.
 
Sorry kind of off topic....

But I still don't understand why airlines put life jackets on planes I thought the more logical choice would be parachutes :confused:

And congrats to the pilot who successfully landed that plane from the looks of the landing I thought they would have been jam at the end of the runway.

I think parachutes are somewhat useless - what are you going to do, jump out of the plane going 500 mph as you crash? I don't know about you but I'd be afraid of hitting the plane (wing, tail, etc.) as I jump out / get sucked into the engine.

I agree that the landing should never have been attempted. Reminds me of an episode of "Air Emergency" I just watched involving the American Airlines flight (cannot recall year or flight number) that crashed in Little Rock. With that said, I think it's impressive that the pilot was able to successfully recover.
 
I was watching a special on the history channel about planes and an engineer said that pilots don't land planes, the computer lands the plane. So, I am assuming that the pilot took it off auto-pilot and flew it himself which must have been scary as hell.
 
I was watching a special on the history channel about planes and an engineer said that pilots don't land planes, the computer lands the plane. So, I am assuming that the pilot took it off auto-pilot and flew it himself which must have been scary as hell.

I think there is a fair amount of human involvement in any landing. Maybe it was that it is possible for planes to land on autopilot. I am no expert though.
 
These things just scare the livin' shtink out of me. Been in a couple of nasty nail biters and when it's really REALLY scary, there is absolutely no sound on the plane.

Gut turning anxiety when you and 50-150 of your fellow passengers think you're going to die and you just had a fight with your wife or didn't say "I Love You" or kiss your kids bye when you left home. I know that when I was on my most lucky one (would take way long to explain,) there were a lot of people who all of the sudden found religion.

Now I don't worry about delays, food, cramped seats, etc. I'm just happy to take off and land safely.
 
I think there is a fair amount of human involvement in any landing. Maybe it was that it is possible for planes to land on autopilot. I am no expert though.
My sister's friend is a pilot and he says the planes land themselves. The human is just there to make sure nothing goes wrong. According to him, planes take off, fly and land by themselves. The pilot is just there to make the passengers feel safe. According to him, you really don't need a pilot - that's how sophisticated planes are these days.
 
My sister's friend is a pilot and he says the planes land themselves. The human is just there to make sure nothing goes wrong. According to him, planes take off, fly and land by themselves. The pilot is just there to make the passengers feel safe. According to him, you really don't need a pilot - that's how sophisticated planes are these days.
In that kind of weather, a computer won't do anything for you. I promise.
 
As for Lufthansa, i hate that airline. And the frankfurt airport couldn't be any worse. :eek:

In my opinion, it's one of the best airlines out there. I've never had a problem with them. And if you book funky tickets via Orbitz and miss your connecting flight because of Lufthansa, they take care of you and make sure you reach your final destination. Also, they serve wine for free, unlike the crappy American airlines.

And Frankfurt is a million times better than Heathrow.

I would like to know what sort of retarted Air Traffic Controller (or Airport in general) thought it was OKAY to allow any plane to land in that kind of weather. I hate the FAA, but at least they would have forced that plane to go somewhere else, where it was safe. Hell, they won't even let planes land in thunderstorms here, let alone in a storm with a high crosswind. Especially if it really was 250kph. Everyone with control in that airspace needs to be fired, and the pilot needs a medal and a million Euro for that asshattery!!!

TEG

PS - I'm A Pilot, so I know from which I speak.

The storm Emma covered much of Europe. Go somewhere else? Where? Also the intensity of the storm was very sudden (I was in a train at the time) and if the plane was already in the air, what do you suppose it should do? Fly somewhere else like to the States? Or maybe it should just circle until it ran out of gas and the magic computer would land it!

Sorry for my sarcasm, they are not directed at one individual, but rather all the silly comments being made here.
 
Sorry for my sarcasm, they are not directed at one individual, but rather all the silly comments being made here.

Airliners carry enough fuel to divert substantial distances to another airport under conditions such as these. This is standard procedure. Storms covering large areas are common throughout the world.
 
What's wrong with Lufthansa? They're only among the most reliable airlines in the world... You'd better have good reasoning before you go start bashing on my company.

And what's wrong with FRA (and what does Frankfurt have to do with this)? I've flown through there hundreds of times and hardly ever misconnect even with some pretty short connections.

Probably the most unconfortable seats EVER made are put on Lufthansas. Seriosuly. And all the flight attendants are rude and stuck up.

Lufthansa used to be good, and I actually liked flying with them, but not anymore.

However, it cant be any worse than conntinental and their all their backed up flights.
 
Probably the most unconfortable seats EVER made are put on Lufthansas. Seriosuly. And all the flight attendants are rude and stuck up.

Lufthansa used to be good, and I actually liked flying with them, but not anymore.

However, it cant be any worse than conntinental and their all their backed up flights.

Must have been to Newark lately! Houston never gets delays.....:p
 
All I can say about Lufthansa is that when they were a client of mine, I usually had to threaten to repossess hardware before they'd actually pay me. Always 60-90 days late on payments. This is also when the airlines were flush with money. Screw 'em.
 
I would like to know what sort of retarted Air Traffic Controller (or Airport in general)... Everyone with control in that airspace needs to be fired, and the pilot needs a medal and a million Euro for that asshattery!!!

TEG

PS - I'm A Pilot, so I know from which I speak.

From what I read in the Hamburger Abendblatt today, it seems that air traffic control gave the pilot the option of using either of Hamburg's two runways.

The pilot was lucky to escape with just damage to the winglet and slat... next time I think he'll go around.

And the JAA / EASA and the individual European aviation authorities aren't in any way unsafe when compared to the FAA. :rolleyes:
 
Probably the most unconfortable seats EVER made are put on Lufthansas. Seriosuly. And all the flight attendants are rude and stuck up.

Lufthansa used to be good, and I actually liked flying with them, but not anymore.

However, it cant be any worse than conntinental and their all their backed up flights.
Show me some comfortable coach seats... And never once have I encountered rude flight crew. They are all very professional. And so you know, Continental is regarded as the best legacy carrier in the United States, so you must be a tough person to please.
 
Show me some comfortable coach seats... And never once have I encountered rude flight crew. They are all very professional. And so you know, Continental is regarded as the best legacy carrier in the United States, so you must be a tough person to please.

The past 2 flights ive been on on Lufthansa have been horrible. Worst part about it was i was going from Detroit, MI to Frankfurt, Germany. A little over a 7 hr flight. :eek:

Air France and KLM, and Emirates in the Mid east :)
 
But I still don't understand why airlines put life jackets on planes I thought the more logical choice would be parachutes :confused:

The average person can't put on a parachute safely in a plane that's rapidly descending and jerking in every single direction. Plus you're often flying at high enough altitudes to freeze to death before you would land. And I think people would be freaked out if they were told to jump out of a crashing plane.
 
The past 2 flights ive been on on Lufthansa have been horrible. Worst part about it was i was going from Detroit, MI to Frankfurt, Germany. A little over a 7 hr flight. :eek:

Air France and KLM, and Emirates in the Mid east :)
That's strange... Whenever I fly transatlantic with them (any class), the crew is going by every 30 minutes or so with orange juice and snacks, even during the night. And yes, Emirates is great.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.