Cathay Airbus A330 lands on half an engine

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ltd

Lets not descend into another Boeing V Airbus argument please. Not trying to sound nasty but with your statement on the "graceful smoother fliers" is rather ill informed and amateurish.

Also false. Though i agree its a pretty pointless argument most aviation spotters i've spoken to think the Boeing is the more asthetically pleasing to the eye. Not the other way around.

At best the arbii land a bit more 'nose up', ala a swan putting down on a pond but that is a generalisation as not all boeing aircraft land 'flat' niether (747 doesn't for example).

The airbus vs boeing thing has been done to death. Even the more 'informed' aviation spotters realise its a pointless argument.....let alone amongst the less well briefed....

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Also false. Though i agree its a pretty pointless argument most aviation spotters i've spoken to think the Boeing is the more asthetically pleasing to the eye. Not the other way around.

At best the arbii land a bit more 'nose up', ala a swan putting down on a pond but that is a generalisation as not all boeing aircraft land 'flat' niether (747 doesn't for example).

The airbus vs boeing thing has been done to death. Even the more 'informed' aviation spotters realise its a pointless argument.....let alone amongst the less well briefed....

True that, esp. since the 747 is reknowned for its ground effect.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ltd

True that, esp. since the 747 is reknowned for its ground effect.

Yes...helpful little feature that no? LOL. I used to fly the 744 in the sim (PMDG queen of the skies mod....very good quality sim plane indeed...very realistic in systems etc.) and it was dead easy to land IMO compared to the 767. And way way easier than the 737 which i HATED. Alot of pilots i've spoken to agree with this atcually...putting the 737 as one of the worst (relatively speaking....it ain't that bad) they've flown. 757 and 747 probably the two best.

767 is a notoriously 'flat' landing aircraft....which is one of the reasons it is so damn hard to land. Its not bad in terms of control laterally (good roll/rudder control helps) but horid longitudinally....its floats like a b***h and you never know for sure just how long or short if might 'drop' out.....or how hard niether. So you either transition to a nose up flair early on (and back off power....hoping you guessed right) or fly in flat, and then yank back hard and avoid a wheelbarrow at the last minute. Guess what happens if you do option 2 and you are carying 0.3 knots too much speed....hmm...why are we floating ha ha

But i digress. The 767 is one of the least appealing boeings to look at it and yet i still love the old girl. Hell if these 787s take much longer to turn up i think the QF 763s will go close to setting some new records for 767 cycles....

[MexicanBatman]

sorry Capitan ill informed, you may drive the bus, but i see many buses pull in to the stop every day, and from a side profile (afaik the spotters sit at the ends of the runway here, i dont watch ac land for recreation) the 737 is up down side to side and all over the place, that may just be the qf and dj pilots i dunno, but then when a 320 pulls in it seems to do the same job with much less fuss, same goes for a 76 not so much for a 77 or 74, but you can really notice the difference when a 330 lands but hey thats just my ill informed view.... as for a vs b i couldnt care less, if your sitting in economy they are all crap

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by DJM83

When is it on George?

Gday Dallas

Next on 2:30pm today on the History channel (606 on Foxtel)

Although that doesnt help when most of the popn is at work!

Tuesday 11/05 10:30pm

Repeated Wednesday 12/05 2:30pm

[RG]

Originally Posted by andrewg6e

sorry Capitan ill informed, you may drive the bus, but i see many buses pull in to the stop every day, and from a side profile (afaik the spotters sit at the ends of the runway here, i dont watch ac land for recreation) the 737 is up down side to side and all over the place, that may just be the qf and dj pilots i dunno, but then when a 320 pulls in it seems to do the same job with much less fuss, same goes for a 76 not so much for a 77 or 74, but you can really notice the difference when a 330 lands but hey thats just my ill informed view.... as for a vs b i couldnt care less, if your sitting in economy they are all crap

Am I the only one left scratching my head at this?

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by RG

Am I the only one left scratching my head at this?

Ah...i kinda get what andrew is saying. Its a well known fact that many (generalisations here) airbus landings will be a little 'smoother' (or will appear so from the outside or as a passenger anyway) than their boeing equivalents.

Its frankly quite complicated how you get to this situation (depends how in depth you want to go) but a big part of it is the setup of the aircraft not only in terms of aerodynamic design (lift versus drag etc.), but also, more significantly, the nature of the control systems (literally how the pilots fly the plane). They are quite different esp for the older boeings (pre mid 90s design) versus the airbii. In effect the airbi are all 'fly by wire', i.e not only are control surfaces not physicaly connected to pilots controls but the aircraft does the bulk of the work EVEN ON FINAL via its flight computers. This includes, for example, engine thrust control. That is the important bit since it is the marriage of directional and thrust control that makes for a 'smooth' landing. Not to sound too corny but landing an airbus FROM A HANDFLY STANDPOINT is akin to using the joystick on an XBOX360 controler. Joystick back, pitch up, left, roll left , right, roll right etc. Speed is maintained as set by autothrottle right to touchdown. Not so with the boeing equivalents (never use autothrottle below 200ft or something i think it is for the 767)

Stress, all of the above is generalisation. Its not an issue of safety or even overall comfort, more so 'apperance' and control methodology...

[scoupedy]

Its the landings that you don't walk away from that bother me not how pritty they look landing safely.

[aye you]

Originally Posted by andrewg6e
sorry Capitan ill informed, you may fly the plane, but i see many planes land every day, and from a non pilot point of view (eg sitting at the end of the runway watching) the 737 is up down side to side and all over the place, that may just be the qantas and virgin pilots i dunno, but then when a A320 lands it seems to do the same job with much less fuss, same goes for a B767 not so much for a B777 or B747, but you can really notice the difference when a A330 lands but hey thats just my ill informed view.... as for Airbus vs Boeing i couldnt care less, if your sitting in economy they are all crap

Translated to make slightly clearer.

Airbus aircraft may seem to be more stable on approach, this could be due to the higher level of automation. From jump seating on Airbus and boeing aircraft, yes the pilots seem to work a bit harder on boeing machines, but either way, there are so many factors that are going to affect how each and every landing is handelled

[ltd]

Originally Posted by aye you

Translated to make slightly clearer.

Airbus aircraft may seem to be more stable on approach, this could be due to the higher level of automation. From jump seating on Airbus and boeing aircraft, yes the pilots seem to work a bit harder on boeing machines, but either way, there are so many factors that are going to affect how each and every landing is handelled

Also has a bit to do with the separation point as per design of the wing and angle of incidence, and the way the airflow is diverted in proximity to the ground as well as the wake of the aircraft. A320 will have less drop than a 737 as the 737 has shorter gear, meaning it is still flying when the a320 would have already touched down. Same happens on pretty much all short geared planes like MD80's etc. You can get quite good at it such as the qf 737 guys, but the dj boys seem to have more rough ones than greasers I'm told.

As for automation, scarebuses tend to be the most passive ac to fly as the fmc overrides inputs regularly, and resultantly most approaches are at the very least highly semi automated. Overall you can fly and land a boeing, in scarebus the plane flies you.

[MexicanBatman]

sorry posted from my iphone... i wasnt intending to sound rude or like i know anything about planes at all.... but from the ground along side them thats what it looks like to the naked eye...

and also to those who have seen it the 380 looks like its going really slow, much slower than a 320 on approach and take off, but i dont think this is the case, just what it looks like to the naked eye

but i think its due to the size ( i had a pic of an a320 parked next to the a380, but cant find it atm, but it's amazing the difference)
in this pic you can park 2 a320's in the space of the a380 thats next to the 777

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ltd

Also has a bit to do with the separation point as per design of the wing and angle of incidence, and the way the airflow is diverted in proximity to the ground as well as the wake of the aircraft. A320 will have less drop than a 737 as the 737 has shorter gear, meaning it is still flying when the a320 would have already touched down. Same happens on pretty much all short geared planes like MD80's etc. You can get quite good at it such as the qf 737 guys, but the dj boys seem to have more rough ones than greasers I'm told.

As for automation, scarebuses tend to be the most passive ac to fly as the fmc overrides inputs regularly, and resultantly most approaches are at the very least highly semi automated. Overall you can fly and land a boeing, in scarebus the plane flies you.

From my times spotting i can't say there is a huge difference ltd but there does seem to be a bit of truth in that rumour. its not an issue of safety per se just the dj guys are a bit heavy handed in the operation of the craft generally. not big on smoothness that mob so once she's safely over the threshold its a bit of a 'dump it down' appraoch. off with the gas and seat of the pants down to the deck. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.

the qf guys (and most other cariers i've observed with the 737, even the older ones) adopt more of a 'fly it down' setup that is well known to experienced 73 crews. with its short legs and propensity to wobble all over the shop you need to keep on the power a bit longer than usual and only back off at the last minute, or so i'm told. this is especially the case in anything other than perfect weather. Thankfully aus has great weather for flying generally so most of the time its a nice float down to the deck.


Also agree with the airbus comments. Most common expression from an airbus pilot 'hmmm....what is she doing now?' lol

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

From my times spotting i can't say there is a huge difference ltd but there does seem to be a bit of truth in that rumour. its not an issue of safety per se just the dj guys are a bit heavy handed in the operation of the craft generally. not big on smoothness that mob so once she's safely over the threshold its a bit of a 'dump it down' appraoch. off with the gas and seat of the pants down to the deck. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.

the qf guys (and most other cariers i've observed with the 737, even the older ones) adopt more of a 'fly it down' setup that is well known to experienced 73 crews. with its short legs and propensity to wobble all over the shop you need to keep on the power a bit longer than usual and only back off at the last minute, or so i'm told. this is especially the case in anything other than perfect weather. Thankfully aus has great weather for flying generally so most of the time its a nice float down to the deck.


Also agree with the airbus comments. Most common expression from an airbus pilot 'hmmm....what is she doing now?' lol

Virgin has previously accepted lower time pilots with less twin turbine time than qf during the pilot shortage; whereas qf crews tend to be a little older. You're right, getting used to the 737 is just a matter of practice. On the rare occassions I've been on the 737 as a pax, I've only ever experienced greasers. You're also right about good weather here, try landing at JFK in a flurry after having to hold for an hour.

Got a mate who I went to school with who now flies for V Oz (and funnily enough he was on the first V flight in VH-VOZ) and we try to arrange to be away at the same time. He was telling me they may be looking at the 748 so I may not need to worry about that 180 thing pictured above.

I've heard that comment before about airbus crew, my favourite and unrelated comment is from the deep south where statistically the second most common thing said before someone dies is "hey watch this".

[motomk]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

So did I for a living.... and worked as an AME

Strategics current aircraft are new from factory.
The previous Airbus was Portugese and was only a few years old.

I think you will find their A330 (VH-SSA) is about 10 years old and has had a few operators before them. The Portuguese one they used with the Blue tail was even older. They did have a newish Portuguese A330 for a few weeks which replaced the bluetail one whilst it went for a service. That one was about 6 months old at the time.

[aye you]

the life of VH-SSA
Plane status : Active
Serial number MSN : 324
First flight : 27 jan 2000
Plane Type : Airbus 330-223
Test reg : F-WWYU

07 sep 2009 Strategic Airlines VH-SSA
01 dec 2006 Swiss International Airlines HB-IQR Stored 10/2008 as D-AIWZ
18 nov 2002 Lufthansa D-AIME
26 may 2000 Sabena OO-SFU