How The Worlds LARGEST Plane Almost Flew Into The Ground In Russia | Emirates 131
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2022
- Grab AtlasVPN Special deal for 82% OFF get.atlasvpn.com/AirCrash
Help Support The Channel!: / miniaci
Join My Discord: / discord
This is the story of emirates flight 131. Now emirates is a weird carrier, airbus came out with A380 and no one else really liked it but emirates was like you know what ill take your entire stock, its not an exaggeration to say that the A380 program lived and died with emirates. They are the largest operator of the type and its not even close. But with such a large plane you have to ask yourself what would happen if one of these crashed and on the 10th of september 2017 one almost did. The largest passenger jet almost hit the ground. On that day an airbus a380 was on its way from dubai to moscows domodedovo international airport with 422 passengers and 22 crew members on board. Nothing of note happened during the flight and as the plane got closer to the runway the air traffic controllers decided to switch things up for the A380, the controllers wanted to send the plane on a different approach than the one that had been set up in the flight plan. Now this is nothing weird things like this happen all the time, operational reasons dictate a change in approach, sometimes its weather sometimes its traffic sometimes its just a way to reduce noise in and around the airport. For whatever reason the controllers sent the a380 towards runway 14R, As the plane got closer to runway 14R the conroller allowed the flight 131 to descend down to 500 meters or 1600 feet above the terrain at the pilot's discretion. The pilots decided to go for it, in the cockpit the latitude knob was changed from 3300 feet to 2300 feet, the pilots also put the huge plane in a left bank to line it up with the runway. As the plane slowed the flaps and slats came out the gear came out and the worlds largest plane was configured for landing. As flight 131 reached the final approach point for this approach the controller tried to hand the plane off to the tower controller but the crew of flight 131 never responded, The controller now noticed that the plane was losing altitude very fast, they were well below the 500 meter lower limit that he had set for them, but the plane kept descending, he repeated his instruction 3 times before the A380 finally pulled up at 290 meters off of the ground. In the cockpit the pilots pushed the 4 throttles to the max and in a few moments the huge a380 went from descending at 2000 feet per minute to climbing at 2500 feet per minute. When they were just 500 feet off of the ground the EGPWS or the enhanced ground proximity warning system started going off letting them know that they were dangerously low. At this point they were 7.3 nautical miles from the runway, they should have been at a few thousand feet not the 474 feet that they were at. The controller then set the plane up for another approach to runway 14 R as the first one had been unsuccessful, as the controller set the plane up for attempt number two the controller asked the crew if they were ready to make the final left turn to line up with the runway. At the point of the left turn the pilots were maintaining 3300 feet , but the crew felt that the approach was off and called for another go around this time much earlier than the one that they had called for before. So the 
Наука
Grab AtlasVPN Special deal for 82% OFF get.atlasvpn.com/AirCrash
seriously, nobody needs to pay for Internet connection twice, most of the VPN companies are scams.
I’m new to your channel. I like your videos, however you do seem to mumble your words.
The A380 has so few options not because of landing, but because of take off and gate accommodations. Sure there are other issues like runway length and density altitude, but landing one at one of the other Moscow airports wouldn’t have been a huge problem. Taking off may have been but they’d likely ferry it empty with minimal fuel needed to get to the airport that can accommodate it.
Makes sense. Airbus probably thought about that possibility.
Both uuee and uuww have similar runways to uudd and regularly see heavy aircraft (cargo B747s). It is true that they dont have the proper A380 ramps, but disemarking via a stair truck seems like a minor inconvience when safety is at stake.
Both those comments were just what I was about to say! Also, If they had to I guess the crew would just have to make the decision to divert or carry on much earlier, while they were within reach of an airport that could accommodate them. Many airports have made a couple of gates “A380 ready” as it states at the parking stand. Any airport that regularly had 747 traffic in and out would be able to land an A380. For takeoff, the plane *could* begin a takeoff roll from a taxiway if space was an issue and do a continuous takeoff (is that the right term?) but as a non pilot that may be a dumb suggestion.
I think there is also a weight per tire issue, although this is not the exact technical term. Rather a matter of pressure to the tarmac below the tires footprint. This regards both the runway for landing (especially at touchdown point, where the non spinning wheel hits the runway surface with huge tearing stress) and the taxiways for simple (quasi) static weight & gravity pressure on the tarmac.
Not sure if the A380 rating for tarmac strength significantly exceeds those of other heavy airliners (747, 777, …) but it surely exceeds the runway ratings of a military base for fighter jets, or an average regional airport, even though some of those may have a long and wide enough runway.
Almost Crash Investigation
Underrated comment
I well remember the first time the A380 landed at Glasgow airport, in Paisley where I live, not Glasgow, seven miles away. They had no stand that could handle it but the single runway was perfectly adequate. It's not about runways so much as handling facilities.
KPHX has had 2 a380 diversions in the past despite not being capable of supporting the aircraft in regular commercial service. Both times, they were able to stay at a part of the airport with taxiways strong enough to support it but couldn't go anywhere near the terminal
I know an A380 diverted to and landed at Philadelphia KPHL, even though the airport isn't equipped to handle it. The runways were plenty long enough, and it was able to taxi to a holding pad near the de-icing station where it's wider than normal wingspan wasn't an issue, and it could depart under it's own power, EI: It didn't require push-back via a TUG, because the airport didn't have the proper connections to hook one up to the enormous airliner.
As far as I know, most runways of large airports can accommodate an A380. It would be a major logistical headache because there is no easy way to get the passengers out of the plane, or the luggage, but for emergency landings, any airport that accommodates a Boeing 747 would be just fine. I guess that landing, getting some fuel, and taking off with the passengers and luggage still in the plane should be an option.
Maybe I missed it but what was the reason for all the initial confusion? Seems like asking an A380 to make a last minute Runway change is sort of like asking a semi tractor trailer to make a last-minute freeway exit. You can't toss these things around like a F-16 or a ferrari.
It's pretty common that you leave from your starting airport with the expectation to land on runway X.
Then when you contact the tower at your destination they will tell you that the wind has turned and you now have to land on runway Y.
it wasn't a last minute change. It was given with enough time to prepare. Also, in such a situation the flight crew can simply say they are unable to accept the change.
A last minute change is not unusual, and it is up to the pilots to say if they’re not happy. Period.
I’ve had plenty of “last minute changes” over a lengthy career (though “last minute” is an over exaggerated saying- it’s not “LAST minute” before landing. You don’t accept something that you’re not comfortable with.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 that comment from people always makes me smile. I immediately think of Sully and his conversation with a panicking controller trying to come up with landing options. “Unable” “unable” “unable”. 😊
@@moiraatkinson I don't think that Sully had a panicky controller talking to him, but one who was trying to give him options. Sully just said unable to the options, when they would not work for his flight under Captain's authority.
At min. 04:00 it is implied that the A380 requires a longer runway than any other aircraft. This is not true. It requires the same length as the one needed for a 747. This was a design choice: the A380 was already going to need improved gates and larger terminal areas to handle passengers - so, if runway extensions were also needed, they wouldn’t have been able to sell any aircraft! For this reason, they made sure that it could land at any runway that already would accommodate the 747. This is a common misconception, but I’m a bit surprised to find it on this channel: the only issue with the A380 is the terminal, not the runway.
Emirates A380 has been diverted to Helsinki, Finland couple of times from Russia due bad weather.
It can land on most airports. The main issue is if runway is not wide enough, then they must do service more often on the two outer engines since they have increased risk of sucking in foreign objects when engines are outside or near outside runway, thin each such landing 'counts' as several normal landings. But in an emergency, pilots would not car too much about that.
That sounds like a comment from a pilot 😊.
How wide does the runway have to be?
@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 From what I can find, qualified for "standard" 45 meters, but needs 58meter to land without performance/maintenance penalties.
We had a Singapore A380 divert from JFK to Stewart KSWF in Newburgh NY… Stewart was an alternate landing site for the space shuttle and used to have C-5A Galaxy cargo aircraft based there on the air guard side… the big issue with airports as with a C-5 making a diversion is nobody has the correct towing equipment for these aircraft
I just thinking of Stewart AFB. The C-5 can takeoff and land with a lot of weight. It's the largest production cargo jet in the world.
An A380 would likely handle the runway okay if a C-5 can. One constraint for an A380 might be avoiding issues with outer engines blowing debris while taxiing, but didn't seem to be an issue at Stewart. Also, The passengers might have issues getting off the aircraft, but at least the jet would be safely on the ground.
@@neuropilot7310 technically the largest production cargo plane is the Soviet AN124 but only by a small margin of 4000 pounds carrying capacity compared to the C5.
I think I remember hearing about some small airports along common A380 routes specifically getting upgrades to their runways to accomodate the large plane, just to have enough possible diversions available. Total guess, but I would assume that those airports don't have full passenger handly equipment for it and only the larger runways, so the plane wouldn't ever land there for normal flights but could should an emergency occur.
I wonder about emergency services. Should such giant suffer an on flight fire or crash land, it'd be a handful
Was riding my horse, with other riders, the other side of the road at the end of the Gatwick (runway? Trackway? whatever). An Emirates A380 was taxiing towards us. It was a misty day. It was absolutely magnificent, really. As he got to the turn, the pilot flashed his lights - I like to think it was at us but it probably wasn't!
Very good observation... most airports are long enough for it(a380) to land, maybe not wide enough , nor equipped with the facilities for smooth embarkation n disembarkation service. But the strips are usually long enough.... my opinion....
Intercepting the GS from above is neither "vastly more difficult" nor is it "precarious". It is a simple procedure straight out of the airbus flight manual. Like many other procedures, you do need to be within certain parameters to perform it properly, and it won't work if you are too high and/or fast. It's also a very common procedure at some airports like SFO. If you exceed the specified parameters, you could cause it to become precarious or even dangerous. An important one is to limit VS to 1500-2000 fpm or less. Also to be established on the localizer first.
Yes being established on the localizer is very important. Also, intercepting the glide slope from below is quite straightforward - you just fly level, at a safe altitude while established on localizer, and intercept it.
If I can note the details like the PAPI changing with the plane’s ascent REALLY make me appreciate this stuff.
The A380 is the best long haul plane I've ever been on! Love these planes and being from a country at the arse end of the earth, I'm grateful that companies like Emirates and Qatar have these incredible planes coming to my country to allow me to get to the other side of the globe from time to time
Just curious... Where is the "arse end of the Earth"? 😄
@@mayday6916 Australia. 🤣
@@SallyGreenaway Oh 🤣But surely Australia must have some benefits? You have two of my special interests: Interesting geology and fossils, and very strange animals. ☺
Arse end -lmao
There is also Qantas, Singapore, heck, you could even use ANA or JAL. You act like the Gulf Carriers are like a Luftbrücke ...
Where to land in an emergency? On the ground. Obviously. A runway, even a short one, is of course preferred. I do not know how watertight the plane is, but with exits in the upper deck, you likely can keep the lower deck doors closed and have the plane swim for a long time. So any water body of enough length and depth will do. Other than that, any flat, preferably soft and free of obstacles, surface will have to do for a belly landing.
What about an alternate airport? Like he said not all airports are equipped to land an a380. So do they carry even more fuel to be able to make to a further alternate?
@@ashikmohds Naah. They only take fuel for one or maybe 2 go-arounds, so the pilots also have to be well trained in bad-weather gliding.
Obviously.
@@advorak8529 They don't have extra fuel to fly to an alternate airport?
@@dare-er7sw They do.
@@dare-er7sw Of course they do not! Look at what Ashik Mohd wrote ...
Clearly, all planes only take fuel for the nearest airport as an alternative, even if it is only dirt or grass runway used by general aviation or a model planes' airport. They do not carry fuel for _a further alternate._ And as the video said, most big jets can land anywhere.
One misunderstood notion about ILS is that its signals are "solid" (unvarying) and 100% reliable, once in range. However, that is untrue.
Most know ILS signals are highly directional *radio* signals (aka, lobes), but because they are radio signals, they are highly susceptible to interference from nearby metal objects within the range of the antenna arrays. For that reason, there are non-encroachment zones surrounding the arrays -- when ILS is active, those zones *must* be clear of all vehicles, including other aircraft.
Likewise, if there is another aircraft between you and the array, the ILS signals can be adversely affected, sometimes to the point of being unusable/unreliable. However, this specific phenomenon is mitigated by proper spacing of the aircraft within the ILS zone. Most fields use a 3-mile minimum separation rule, which ensures the correct precision and fidelity of the ILS signals themselves. Some fields use a 2-mile separation min, making it slightly less reliable, but still usable nonetheless. The last mile of the final is the most crucial, but by that time there will be no traffic ahead of you.
The last consideration is field congestion. The more planes in the air within the ILS antenna "radio space" (a 5 to 10 mile semicircle off the end of the runway), the higher the chance of the ILS radio lobes are of becoming distorted or warped. That was one of the contributing factors here that made it difficult for the plane to lock onto the ILS signals. When they got closer, the signals were stronger, and the lobe shapes were more consistent, making it easier for the plane's ILS receivers to interpret and lock on.
Nice job!
In NZ a few years ago, an Emirates A380 from Dubai had to divert from its final destination of Auckland due to debris on the runway from a prior incident, to RNZAF Ohakea, about 200NM south of Auckland, but as an Air Force base it is of course designed to be able to accommodate large aircraft such as Antonovs and Boeing Globemasters so there was no problem. There are however no immigration facilities at Ohakea so the A380 had to wait for a few hours at Ohakea with the Pax still on board until they had cleared the runway in Auckland and it was able to proceed to its final destination.
Another well-researched and interesting video - thanks. As I keep saying, there are so many things which can go wrong when flying, that I prefer to stay safely on the ground..! This could so easily have been a tragic disaster - thank God that it wasn't.
New MACI episode, best part of anyone’s week!
I did a go around coming into LHR just a few hundred feet off the approach. There was another aircraft on the runway. What a great experience seeing those engines spool up and the massive aircraft standing on its tail and climbing out! Woo hoo!!
Moscow has 3 huge international airports, including Domodedovo
they definitely had options
It actually has 4 commercial international airports, Domodedovo, Sheremetyevo, Vnukovo, and Zhukovsky (formerly known as Ramenskoye). Both Domodedovo and Sheremetyevo have scheduled A380 services. The A380 has exhibited at the MAKS airshow which is held at Zhukovsky and it has the third longest runway in Europe. Vnukovo's runways should be able to handle it but I am not certain about its taxiways.
Plus St Petersburg and Minsk 2 as viable alternates.
Another great video mate.
I have traveled over 700 plus flights globally and sometimes I felt Emirates try to like catch up on delay at departures with lots of flying fast and descending fast at same time during landing. I never got that feeling with other airlines.
It’s all most impossible to make up time on an airliner. It’s also very common to increase descent speed (not descent rate) in order to facilitate an arrival, if it’s allowed on the STAR.
They can also use military airports in case of an emergency. They have long and wide rwys.
Not really. The pilot apps for charts, and the navigation databases don’t have military airports in them. Getting the right information about the airport is probably more trouble than it’s worth.
There are plenty of airports in near by countries that can handle the A380 like Helsinki in Finland, Kastrup in Denmark, Berlin in Germany just to name few (and all these cities are with in 1/20 away from Dubai where it took of so they should got an extra fuel for 1 hour extra flight
Common flying sense, reject the approach and tell ATC that they were not ready. This is what is expected from professional pilots with even basic training.
It’s frightening how frequently a pilot can become rattled when forced to hand fly the aircraft. Disconnect the AP, fly the plane, tell the controller, compose yourself, and then reconfigure.
Just like Asiana 214 - they could not hand fly a long straight in with calm wind and max visibility.
@@mikederucki Emirates specifically is known for having very minimal hand flying experience and company requirements to use auto pilot whenever possible.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 wild world we live in sometimes.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Was going to say this. I remember hearing a story of another Emirates flight almost crashing on takeoff because the pilots followed the flight director (which wasn't set up properly), and basically buzzed the top of nearby apartments because they didn't pull up... because the flight director wasn't telling them to... pretty scary actually
@@Teh_Random_Canadian geez I want to go to Maldives one day and emirates is the way to go but hearing this I’m worried. My work friend was a flight attendant for them and she said they were incredibly safe.
Cool Video Mini Aircrash Investigation.
Fantastic video!😸
Hello my there friends thanks you'll for sharing keep up the great work GOD BLESS YOU'LL TAKE CARE
Never heard of this one. Thanks.
Me too
I heard of it. There were 2 or 3 of these events with Emirates in a short time with them being very low on approach far from the airport. I think one was at 1000 feet 18 miles away. I remember wondering how that many people could be in the cockpit with no one looking out the window and ordering a go around.
I’ve just flown on this plane, registered A6-EEZ back in August, while I was headed to Beijing, I never would’ve thought that the same plane that took me to visit family for the first time in four years would almost crash 😬
I think the intercept from above may be fairly common... yes its a more condensed form of approach, but not unusual, nor considered overly dangerous, at least at really busy airports.... for example Schiphol had at some point 85%-90% of its approaches use a diagram(published approach) requiring an ILS intercept from above.
Heathrow also commonly used such a type of approach Pre-Corvid, since it allowed far greater airspace density... Domodedovo being Moscow's main hub for a while, probably meant it was also rather busy... also, given that quite a few internal airlines do still flew converted Antonnov transport planes (meaning vastly different approach speeds), they might have separated the low and high speed circuits by altitude.
@Stanislov, do you have evidence to support this claim? I was taught to always intercept GS from below and only after being established on the localizer to avoid possibility of intercepting a false GS. If there are/were procedures which require interception from above I would be interested in learning about them, but I can't find anything online.
@@toddsmith8608
this is the Procedure done on a PC type simulator for RUclips: ruclips.net/video/Cmfnolyby04/видео.html
as I read about it a while ago, I cannot find any of the articles off the top of my head, but the procedure with it's pros and cons was detailed in the Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 Crash report,
this is the source of the statistics I gave here...
as for Heathrow, if you listen to one of the channels such as "LIVE ATC" for the appropriate sector you can hear the clearances for an Intercept from above ILS approach being given fairly regularly
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 I'm aware it can be done and does happen in real life. We call those "slam dunk" approaches when the controller keeps you high and gives tight vectors to intercept the final approach course. My point was that I was not aware of any published procedures that REQUIRE the aircraft to intercept GS from above, which you seemed to indicate is the case. (If that's not what you meant then i misread your post.) If anyone can provide an example of this I'd be greatly interested to learn about it, because it contradicts the whole idea of a stabilized approach.
@@toddsmith8608 somewhat misread what I meant, at least in terms of the focus of my point...
I think, ATC does clear you for that kind of approach, and it does exist on their charts, more-so, I do believe having heard that certain airlines (Turkish, KLM, Air-France, Qantas etc....) do have a checklist for that kind of approach...
but I am not qualified to really get into the details on this.
It isn’t necessarily a firm procedure at any airport, but it is an expectation that a pilot is able to capture the GS from above if needs be. It’s a very simple process, usually grabbing a handful of speed rake is all you need to increase your rate of descent.
Aw man, i thought this was gonna be about the AN-225… i guess technically it’s no longer the largest plane though :-(
Pleaseeee increase the recording volume not everyone listening it in a silent panic room
Amen. Thank you. The captioning isn’t always precise and often requires translation.
I would imagine they would ensure that their alternatives will support a super aircraft. This may means they have to carry a lot more fuel of course and I would imagine in a real emergency they could land at a military airfield which I would guess could support a large aircraft like the A380
As far as alternates go for the A380, Emirates plan alternates based on availability of facilities. They also have a hierarchy of alternates, with destinations being at the top and emergency alternates at the bottom. The onboard navigation databases and pilot chart app will not contain details for small regional airports and airports that can’t handle the A380.
As for this incident, it just proves that the biggest and “best” isn’t necessarily so, and such an aircraft can easily be flown into the ground by any number of system and human failures.
The A380 can land on normal airports, it's the ramps that cannot accommodate the craft
I think you missed the obvious mistake: the ATC reported altitude in metres and not the globally standard feet!
It’s not a mistake. Russian airports give altitude in meters and Chinese give altitudes and flight levels in meters. It’s a known thing so not a surprise to pilots.
I love your videos ! - The A380 may have a great safety record but that because it hasn't been in service for very long. In fact the 747 has been flying for 54 years and over 1500 have been built. The A380 has only been flying for 15 years and only 251 were built. Its also worth mentioning that the A380 has been flying during the safest times of aviation due to technology amongst other things.
Nice insights about intercepting the glide slope from below being preferred or normal.
I was taught in basic instrument training to always intercept GS from below, and only after being established on the localizer.
@@toddsmith8608 makes sense, I have only flown sim, no wonder I could never land properly when intercepting from above. I did not know it was even a thing.
@@tensevo it can be done but involves a steeper than normal descent, which makes it harder to slow down to final approach speed. Out of curiosity, which aircraft do you most often use in the sim?
@@toddsmith8608 heavy passenger stuff
I'm sure during the pre-flight briefing the crew go over alternate airports.
Just from watching these videos and of course the original Air Crash Investigation (Mayday), I have learned a few things never to do:
- never leave the autothrottle enabled if you have to go around;
- never try to intercept the glideslope from above;
- never fail to act on your own initiative if you see or feel the other pilot is being sluggish or non responsive (in a coma or just plain deaf to you)
Nothing wrong with an intercept from above provided it is done correctly you cross check the altitudes and have set stabilisation gates.
Also nothing wrong with having the auto throttle in for a go around, once again common procedure.
@@battyjoe LOL nothing wrong except a few hundred dead that would have been avoided if the pilots were not overwhelmed by the situation and forgot that the autothrottle was still on.
@@AudieHolland Because a couple of guys made a mistake doesn’t mean that its unsafe. Many aircraft leave the AT on for go arounds with no problem. They made mistakes of that there is no doubt, that doesn’t make auto throttle unsafe. I have 15000hrs that back that statement up, both Boeing and Airbus test pilots and engineers have assessed it as a safe option. Maybe they are all wrong?….
Also maybe I am missing something “a few hundred dead that would have been avoided if the pilots hadn’t forgotten the AT was still on”. No one was killed, it landed safely.
@@battyjoe Do you often suffer memory loss? My first comment started with: "Just from watching these videos and of course the original Air Crash Investigation (Mayday),..."
That means my conclusion was not based on this sole example. If you cannot even grasp that, we're done talking and you're a troll.
@@AudieHolland so let me get this straight you are making comment on what you have learnt that is nothing to do with this video but is about other videos. Yet I am the troll. Back to your flight sim buddy, maybe you will get some real flight time one day and have an actual idea what your talking about. Get your PPL first if that’s not too taxing for you 🙈
About the sim you're using... On that last landing at the end, is there supposed to be a tower so close to the runway? Seemed a bit odd.
I just imagine the captain saying: “F* this auto land, I’m flying manually” and plugs the keyboard and the mouse😂
Thank you.
Could you please do a video on Australian airline’s Stinson crash in the 1930s, theres so many museums of the crash where i live but barely any information online
Bernard O'Reilly's book Green Mountains is the best source for the story of how he rescued the survivors. The resort sponsored a documentary about the crash, but I doubt that it's on RUclips. It's a great survival story. It would be hard to do a mini air crash investigation about it. The key reasons for the crash were that the aircraft wasn't pressurised, so it couldn't fly over the storm, and when they tried to fly over the McPherson Ranges, they were too low, and the downdraft threw the plane into the ground on the north side on the range. None of the crew survived so we'll never really know. My guess is that they thought they were further north and trying to fly under the clouds to see where they were. No GPS, inaccurate maps, no radar, no black box.
Unlike most jets today, the A380 has four engines, and can fly with two engines safely to a farther away alternate airports that can accommodate it's size.
There is a video of a plane , that was well off the azimutal area of the slope wave, and they caught a secondary lobe of the wave(that was the explanation) and they were misled
I got here late but glad I made it!
The problem is not that an A380 can not land on so many airports, the problem is that not all airports are equipped to handle airplanes this big. That means taxy ways, passenger bridges, etc. are not perfectly suitable for A380s. Landing itself is normally not a problem.
A380 can land on any runway that a 777 or A350 can land on, the issue is the gate capacity to offload it if it diverted.
Nice one
We're almost to the video of the flight "IHV200K." A TU-144 from TGZ (Tuxtla) to LNK (Lincoln.)
Could you please do a video on Canadian Pacific Air Lines Flight 108? I don't believe you have done this aircraft yet. Thank you!
All airports supporting B777 or B747 can accommodate A380 as alternate. The plane won’t be able to be at contact at the terminal, however in case of emergency, passengers disembarking on the runway with busses is not a big deal
I thought at the beginning of the video, the ILS was supposed to be unavailable? Or was that the previous video of yours I just watched? (The plane that slammed into a New York runway.)
I suppose in the worst case they could land the A380 on a runway that is too short for the A380. That would still be better than crashing. Pick an airport with an EMAS system and a good amount of open space beyond the end of the runway, touch down right at the threshold and full brakes full reversers, and just plan on overrunning the end of the runway. A runway overrun is survivable, especially if emergency services knows ahead of time that its going to happen.
Yesterday, I saw an a380 takeoff at Manchester airport
Emirates is not a "weird" airline. I have flown with them many times.
We had a flight from Sharjah to delhi every thing was fine until we reached the Jaipur mainland it was very windy and it was raining hard , the pilots tried to land yk the sideways landing thing and failed almost touching the ground , they knew the weather was bad and attempted to land again again failed , finally we landed in Jaipur for refueling and the other airport was closed because of dangerous winds well after 3 hours we landed in delhi
Not all airports can accommodate the A380 because it's too big to fit at the gates. But the certified max landing weight needs only 7000 ft runway.
So many runways can accommodate a landing. Many terminals can't accommodate a regular schedule.
They would land at the nearest suitable runway, park on the apron remote from the terminal and use mobile steps and buses for passengers.
Emirates operated the AN225?
".. but where the hell do you land an Airbus A380..." ( 4:00 ). We're talking about Moscow. There are a number of airports around there, and DME is a secondary airport. I'm amazed that they can handle an A380, much less on scheduled service, but I haven't been there in a while. I'm sure SVO, the main Moscow airport could handle it in a pinch.
Back in the 90s when I lived there we called Domodedovo "the Dome of the Devil". It was a hellhole of an airport, and if you had to do a ground transfer, well, you'd better have a few hours to kill sitting in the back of a rattling gypsy cab. Perhaps they've upgraded it.
I don't think if this was true, because this is my favorite plane,I had have Heard about it
The A380 has big wings so a low wing loading so landing and take off speeds are not high... lower than a747 so normal runways are OK for it. However, kits wingspan is greater than any other airliner and therein lies the problem - taxyways that can accommodate the width it requires to taxy with sufficient clearance between its wingtips and objects either side of the taxyways.
The A380 is n o t "The largest airplane" as you claim: it's the largest >passenger< airplane...
I heard him say "passenger".
What's bigger now that the Antonov is destroyed?
@@tmanepic
Althogh the outside of The A380 is bigger than the Airbus Beluga 'Whale' the >inside< of the latter is larger than the former.
@@tmanepic Depends how you define 'biggest'. I think these are right.
Longest - 747-8 (will be the 777-9)
Largest wingspan - Stratolaunch
Largest internal volume - Airbus Beluga XL
Heaviest payload - Antonov An-124
Passengers - A380
DIR to disengages ALT mode as well in the A380? 🤔🤔🤔
The A380 is built when it has issues on board either it lands at nearby airport and if not it is built to go there
You make it sound as if the pilots chose to do the risky "approach glideslope from above". That's not the case. It is ATC that put planes on final before they are below the glideslope. Get yourself a map of the Netherlands, draw out how high the 3 degree glideslope is at various points and then go to flightradar24, get live ATC audio from liveATC and watch them pass the points you've plotted.
Can you cover Helios flight 522?
Btw which game is this
Go around 6 times for all I care.
Getting in safely is good airmanship
A380 lived and died with Émirats....such à Nice and meaningful saying
I remember seeing 131 fly over azer on radar
Great event for plane history.
Hey, which game is this? :)
very nice
the A380 can land at most airports, a part oif its design was to use existing airports!
It's just me, or many of these accidents happens when pilots try to intercept the glidescope from above?
Would make sense. You have to fix being too high, which then means having to fix being too fast.
@@RossTheNinja - not necessarily. Just pull a hand full of speed brake and the aircraft will descend faster without increasing in airspeed.
So why was it dangerously low (450' while 7mi from airport)? Did they set an incorrect altitude for the airport? Some similar human error?
have a look at the qantas a380 engine failure, it should not have been able to land with that much fuel on board let alone land and stop with half the systems gone as well
I never heard of this
Thank you for this explanation.
Hell, though sometimes used as a cuss word, is actually a place you don't want to go. 👀😵💫😶
Imagine if it was a night ILS landing or due to heavy rain the pilots couldn't see what's going on outside
The incident analysis doesn't explain why the pilots were unresponsive to ATC calls to pull up when below the minimum 500 metre permitted altitude.
Actually, the wounded giant name covers the Qantas A380, flight 32
By the way B777 has fewer alternates than A380 as it required higher density runways
What is a high density runway?
How do you fix all this? One of the crew must speak Russian? Only intercept the glide slope from below? They should treat this as a crash so the recommendations are clear.
I know an airport where an A380 lands every month. At schiphol Amsterdam an A380 lands monthly
what game?
Helsinki, Finland is the closest airport to Moscow and there has been divertions in the past for A380.
Helsinki isnt closest. Saint Petesburg and Minsk are closer
Hell video u make i
Thank you
These pilots don’t seem to have been very well trained as of how ILS works (and their limits of use) nor the A380’s guidance modes. They were taught a serious lesson here, fortunately with no harm.
Anyone noticed that red mast right by the right side of the runway @ 11:05 - 11:08😂
Bro, the A380 thumbnail looks like the guy saying aye yo what the (__).