Free speech has it's down side it seems!! It was a hard landing on a hard surface and not a total loss of the airframe following a ditching into the sea. For a pilot in training to manage to get down by any means available seems to me a vindication of his instructors ability to deliver military pilots of challenging aircraft.
I also believe that the Royal Air Force never utilised the 'SEA HARRIER'.
Please open your mind if not your eyes. I detest journalists and find them to be somewhat inept even on a Sunday but sometimes, citizen journalists , 'ordinary You Tube subscribers', do not always have degree standard command of their own native language.
To the uninitiated, this was a 'scary' incident. To seasoned observers and those with an in depth knowledge of aviation and aeronautical physics, it is indeed 'all in a day's work'.
The footage was submitted by a regular spotter just happening to be there and 'picked up' by the mainstream media and it is to those people you should, with respect, direct your bile.
Yes sir, I think I understand you. I just cannot help noticing how, visually, a large aircraft such as a B747 or A380 'appear' to lumber up into the air or likewise touchdown because of it's sheer size compared to the usual small fry such as A320/B737 that appear to move quickly. The surface area of wings and rudder suggest to me that if engaged on a tricky windy approach they are more likely to play safe whilst the smaller aircraft tend to play the wind under wonderful stewardship of the crew. I usually always see the widebodies go-around because of the high PAX whilst see the small craft 'go for it' because they are bunny hops on 8 cycles per day etc, Ryanair/Easyjet/Southwest come to mind and usually successfully.
Does that make any sense to you sir?
I think I was trying to say the bigger the sail, the greater the forces exerted by way of wind....the rudder and the surface area of the wings etc. similar to big clippers sailing upon the great oceans before powered flight came to be!
Did I read you correctly sir? A A319 can better deal with a force 10 than a A340 perhaps
I would also add that I have noticed that the Royal Air Force use Birmingham for the occasional 'touch and go' during stormy periods for training apart from the sad Medevac flights that come through here en route to the Defence Medical facility here in Birmingham and then home to Brize Norton for the remainder of our soldiers.
I am very familiar with BHX and live quite close ( under down wind/base leg approach path to R33 ) and would just like to add something here.
Birmingham UK is well known locally and with those pilots regularly working the routes for it's crosswinds given the alignment of it's runway and the prevailing seasonal winds.
Not being originally built for civilian use, it's runways were created using the fabled wind roses by the relevant ministry during WW2 use, for the delivery of locally built Spitfire aircraft etc. it has over the following decades developed into a marvelous airport offering fantastic passenger experience and normally minimal delays due to it's uncongested locale. However, the main runway remained whilst runway 06/24 was closed in favour of taxiway and ramp use for the expansion of the airport.
Now, I once listened into ATC whilst on a 'spotting' day with my camera's and it was typically windy and one approaching pilot on his third approach complained to the contr
Please preserve us from illiterate and ill-informed journalism, 'troubled plagued' indeed! Facts first and opinion never please journalists or should more accurately say 'reporters'....I guess it is the painful price of the so called 'free press'!
Do 'journalists' have a working brain or just dog poo in their skulls? I am getting rather tired of totally inept journalism ..... sorry...inept reporting! A true journalist writes for respected journals such as Flight International etc. it is the wretched 'hacks' that cause the trouble and frighten off innocent passengers and wreck airline balance sheets!
I dislike the B787 because it is pig ugly even if it is a technical marvel but I would fly on it if it rubs a lousy reporter's nose in his or her own garbage.
It's a shame to see these grand old birds.........
I firmly believe that regulators are so risk averse that many aircraft, ships, automobiles and even hearing aids are given an inbuilt and unrealistic lifespan that a well maintained article/item should easily be able to continue to offer splendid and SAFE service indefinatly. How many well serviced DC-10's and even B707/727's could still be flying with some of the smaller airlines in developing nations that simply cannot get the necessary 'aid' and financial support to operate the B777? Forget this moment the fuel cost debate, it is about access to offer an airline in backwaters to enable global mobility etc..and in some small countries, a DC-10 would be a national flagship.
The military in many countries still operate B707 airframes even though they are nearing 60 years of design life if not airframe life such as E3 Sentry and EC 135 etc and that even the US Air Force operate B747-200's to ferry the President around the planet s