Airbus A380 Lands At LAX

[skunkwerx]

The ICAO also recommends that pilots append the term "Super" to the aircraft's callsign when initiating communication with air traffic control, in order to distinguish the A380 from "Heavy" aircraft.

[skunkwerx]

This is copied from wikipedia for all you "pilots" out there that obviously do not keep current with FAA changes. (next post is also part of it, damn character limit)

In November 2006, the ICAO issued new interim recommendations. Replacing a blanket 10 nautical miles (19 km) separation for aircraft trailing an A380 during approach, the new distances were 6 nmi (11 km), 8 nmi (15 km) and 10 nmi (19 km) respectively for non-A380 "Heavy", "Medium", and "Light" ICAO aircraft categories.

[blabla9able]

WTF this could easily have become a crash, look how unstable and awry it lands.

[25195407]

how is this considered to be a smooth landing?

[pilotmaster72]

"You can bet it's going to be a smooth landing.."

Pilot slams into the ground and jams the rudder!

"..The pilot will make sure of it."

[Prek987]

Smooth landing? Everything went just right? ....were we watching the same vid?

I thought he was gonna skid at 1:08, jesus. :s

[ejscribner]

Sure, sure, bounce is a smooth one and evrything goes right...

[Caesaurus]

naah, that little drift at 1:10 was just for showing off... :P

[SteveCessna152]

Im sorry but that was not a smooth landing at all, he was all over the runway just watch the rudder as soon as he touches down

[tnobe3]

Look, the nice lady says you can here the cockpit talking to the tower! Yes the country really likes to listen to United 81 to Honolulu.

[emparfe]

that was far from perfect landing. notice the rudder's movement!

[90Blakey]

@emparfe Oh well its a big plane they can do what ever they want

[Nitroboss2007]

crash...

[Ebsteins31653]

Notice how the NBC news readers (whom are supposed to be impartial) focus, immediately, on the negative problems of this aircraft's production; you can tell a non-engineer a mile off! Thank the Gods for the BBC...is NBC linked to the slimey Fox Network per chance? No its not an American jet, but the B787 is a superb machine too-simply built for differing roles in relation to the distance/passenger no's ratio! They are BOTH superb designes! Appreciate the vid deviavan. Best wishes

[lave444]

WOW i did not know that was call smooth.

[livewiremjk]

smooth landing my ass.

[Reqrezentin]

@livewiremjk

ahahahhaahhaa

[kozarac5]

I'm pretty sure that there were no passengers in the plane since the livery is still the one that was painted on by Airbus themselves.

[glup2glup]

it reminds me the pionneers of aviation of the last century. It seems like a new departure for futur planes

[1967beatlesfan]

It's not called "hitting the ground" it's called "LANDING!"

[pab4994]

Look at 1:10 Jesus Cris looks like a flight sim landing

[arushbhai]

lol that plane almost crashed, must b flown by american pilots.

[nbaballer8227]

@arushbhai what are u smoking? "that plane almost crashed?" you really think you are being funny by saying that? btw, that was a near perfect landing.

[serratealldemoncrats]

LMAO! "You can be sure it's going to be a good landing." Damn near did a wipeout when he hit! Nice try tho.....

[DynaVoiceM85]

MAke sure it's a good landing lol, quite some rudder action there!

[jcynavarro]

as of May 4, 2010... there are two of these @ LAX... one of them has been there for the past 2 months!!!

[surreal99]

haha shit landing. check all the rudder action

[beergut111]

airbus makes good planes, but they have a long way to go to catch boeing's quality.

sorry, its just history

[technoload]

I work in Hamburg Finkenwerden. I am happy to see the big bird flying round the world.

[queliverzan]

dam that was a scary landing..

[familyguy958]

he jammed the rudder by accident

[familyguy958]

wow, he actually made a shit landing

[oaklucas]

A quick comment on the Video description: LAX is on the ocean, and it is often quite cloudy on the coast, before the Marine Layer lifts about noon. What you're seeing is simply low-lying clouds, not smog. Smog of that thickness simply doesn't exist in Los Angeles anymore.

[wishpackers]

@oaklucas Thanks for pointing this out. It drives me nuts when people confuse smog with Marine Layers. This landing took place in the month of March and heavy smog during that time is pretty much non existence.

[chillaxer1993]

smog only comes out in the summer when theres no santa anas or any wind at all

[op3l]

Well... I live in the inland empire and without winds I can clearly tell there's a thick layer of smog :P

But anyways. CA > rest of US :P

[siryolsem001]

q bn

[Urban509]

i like the way they get realy exited and say AMERICAN boeing when the biggest bowing landed on other videos. but when the airbus lands its not european, its just airbus.

[Badsellcut]

@Urban509 maybe because they are American newsreaders broadcasting to an American audience. Aren't they allowed to be proud of American products? Everyone pushes their own products a bit.

[lisdoddestraat]

haha its gone be a nice landing, it was a crazy landing never a nice one..:P

[k5lta]

no american plane comps have these,guess we can't afford them...oh well

[wishpackers]

I remember that day, the airbus landed right after a united airlines 747. I think he hit the wake turbulence of the united jet and that's why he swayed a bit. The pilot in the airbus was awesome.

[AdamJLemon]

I don't think the wake turbulence from a smaller plane would have much effect.

[morg3k]

747 is hardly smaller than an A380.

[AdamJLemon]

Lol...you're joking, right?

[morg3k]

Ummmm, LOL???? What is the LOL about? Look I'm not speaking about a 737 or Piper Seminole dude.

Compare the 747 schematics to the Airbus A380. The 747 is obviously smaller, but it isn't so small that it won't have any wake effect. ATC will still give the A380 wake turbulence separation, it is not immune to it.

WTF is this? Do you know what a 747 is?

[AdamJLemon]

Would you give separation to a 757 taking off behind a CRJ 700?

Same thing. The A380 is so much bigger and displaces so much more air than any other passenger jet in existence, it's not even funny, and yes that includes a 747. Do a search of the two side by side and you'll see what I'm talking about. You obviously have no grip on how big an A380 really is.

[morg3k]

First you bring up size, and now you directly reference air displacement which makes sense obviously. But to say that a 747 has little effect on an A380 without proper ATC separation is very inaccurate.

[wishpackers]

To me, it didn't *seem* like there was a lot of time between the landings of the 744 and the A380. That's why I wondered if there was enough time for the wake from United to dissipate (but I have to admit, I really don't know how long it takes for wake turbulence to go away). Still, it was a thrill watching that baby come in.

[morg3k]

Exactly, and very true....fun video.

[ggurks]

a380 is just a few meters bigger than b747 (length 72,3 m to 70,6 m, span 79,8 m to 64,4 m)

[AdamJLemon]

A nearly 50 foot difference in wing-span is quite a significant difference, wouldn't you say?

[woarboar]

@AdamJLemon You fly an A380 right behind a 747 without the proper minimum 2 minute sepparation and you've got you yourself a crashed A 380. A380 is big but 747 will still shake it right out of the sky if you don't watch it!!! Btw, is it me or could that landing have gone a lot smoother? I feel the struts on the gear had to counter some terrible shear there!

[AdamJLemon]

Shake it out of the sky? Wake turbulence doesn't "shake planes out of the sky". Please name me one incident you can come up with where wake turbulence has caused an in-flight break-up. I'm not saying an A380 should ride the tail of a B747 on final, but wake turbulence coming off a B747 onto a plane such as the A380 would have minimal effect.

[woarboar]

Oxford Aviation academy book 2: Airframes and Systems + book 12: Operational Procedures beg to differ! I'm sure there's a note in book 13 (POF) where they mention the same thing. If you fly an A380 (cat heavy) behind a 747 (also heavy) you need a minimum of 2 minutes sep. I'm pretty sure that if you fly an A380 right behind a 747 and there is still significant wake and the 380's wing flies through the wake it could tip the 380 in a very steep bank. If you're a ATPL pilot then ur not very good!

[AdamJLemon]

Hate to burst your bubble, but A380 is not Cat. Heavy, it's Cat. Super which is a step above Heavy (I'm not making this up for shits and giggles). The minimum separation is different between these two categories.

[dahdahdah123]

@AdamJLemon

The separation needed is as follows I believe:

Heavy preceded by a Super, 8 miles in trail.

Anything other than a heavy preceded by a Super is 10 miles in trail.

[woarboar]

@AdamJLemon Once again, there isn't a single aviation authority that has officially recognized A380 as a "super". There is no such thing! try filing a flight plan and put super in the wake turbulence category and the guy who has to process it will laugh in your face. There's light, medium and heavy and the minimum separation s still two minutes! Look it up on some official websites before making up crazy names!

[woarboar]

@AdamJLemon Except the FAA but that will soon change!

[Mikelaren101]

My god, that was insane, that rudder in the back is as tall as most houses, and to see it move like that as well as to see it land it, is a engineering masterpeice.

[ImperialUprising]

Yea man. The tail is like 5 stories tall. Its a beast

[geico009]

I'd never fly on one of those things.

[pvuf431]

no one is asking you to

[gwo68]

Not a Qantas plane; not a smooth landing. Otherwise, great commentary!

[ryac2008]

definitely i don´t like this plane, the boeing 747-400 it´s a beautiful plane

Ah, i´m from europe but i don´t like the 380.

[gop4usa12]

The a380 has yet to stand the test of time. We already know the 747 has accomplished that much.

[attributionerr]

A waste of money, why do you need 500 people in one spot, that's going to be a lot of people go down if one crashes.

[sniffsnarff]

Who are these news readers? I wish they'd shut the hell up.

[PaganEgyptian]

definitely not a great landing.... a controlled stall would have been better... it would have sat it right down with no lift on the right wing like was shown here to make it squirmy.

[morg3k]

Have you ever heard of a crosswind landing?

[microsoftflightsim08]

I think 747 landings look a lot more magnificent and beautiful. I think the A380 is nice but not as nice as the 747.

[FLIGHTCOMPANY]

747 is the true queen

[microsoftflightsim08]

The A380 might be bigger and not as loud but the 747 was the first and it has, in my opinion, a beautiful design.

[DillardxDUH]

the fuckin' rudder is moving wild...that landing sucked...

[DarkChaoMan75]

"And you can be sure that its going to be a smooth landing"

It wasn't. lol

[Nenko24]

Well maybe you will land it better. This is a new plane and still the pilots need to learn how to keep all that weight under control. Overall it was a nice landing

[comalley0130]

that was not the nicest looking landing ever, but, no tail drag at least

haha

[szdude8]

he stuck the landing

[gloomyoutlook]

The Dugong has landed, rofl.

such a cool plane though

[MoebiusGer]

Jürgen Thomas, the father of the a380: do it with german engerneering

[TheCoolPeopleDude]

I wish I was there to see the Airbus 380 land. xD.

[sunnythomas64]

This is Very dangerous landing,

[morg3k]

All landings are dangerous, the one you saw in this video was a crosswind landing with good execution considering the circumstances.

[vyrgo84]

that's why it suddenly banked while on the runway??

[morg3k]

Yeah that's why. They land that way to keep the aircraft from drifting off center and tearing up any runway equipment on the side or damaging the airgraft itself.

So they tilt and yaw it fully parallel to the runway as they shift the aircraft weight from the wing to the landing gear or wheels.

It's all technique ;),

[sebielcanchero]

can you even spell ,sucker?

[morg3k]

okaaay?

[ArmyofSeaturtles]

that was a little cross wind, but there are some heavy cross winds where aircraft had to do some go arounds

[aceridgey]

AHAHAHAHAHA  """U CAN BE SURE THAT THE PILOT IS GOING TO MAKE A SMOOTH LANDING"""

AND JUST LOOK HOW BAD IT WAS :p

[fsimpro]

it wasnt that bad...

[morg3k]

It's called a crosswind landing, maybe you should take a demo flight at a flight school on a windy day and see what it's like.

[smit1807]

Wow, great timing Airbus...just as oil got too expensive to buy for this hulking piece of crap.

[ap1190]

Actually you got it all wrong.

It's perfect timing as the A380 is 20% more efficient than the 747. Hence less fuel used per passenger = lower ticket prices!

[smit1807]

Um, ACTUALLY...since the entire airline industry will probably be unrecognizable in 3-4 years as a result of ever-higher fuel prices, the average American (the majority of the industry's revenue) won't be able to afford to fly to Arizona from NYC to visit granny twice a year ...tell me then, who is going to fill these planes to attain the threshold to render the average mile-per-gallon on this thing economically feasible? Small planes will rule the skies in the (near) future. Mark my words.

[smit1807]

Also, I am by NO means defending Boeing here...it (747) is also too big for its own good the coming scarcity in petroleum. What I'm saying is that we are nearing the end of the jumbo jet era. And don't tell me that hydrogen, batteries, or used Burger King cooking oil is going to replace that shortage with any substantial success. The industry is simply too large to sustain at current levels and prices.

[ap1190]

Well thats true for domestic but international flights will go on, and for airlines the less planes they use, the lower the fees so the more people they can pack on one plane the less they will pay

[smit1807]

I just don't think that's going to happen. People won't be flying to/through Singapore, Hong Kong, or Reykyavic like they used to...  Sorry, I just don't buy it. The costs of operations will FAR outstrip their ability to make it affordable. All they have are jumbo jets anymore...who's going to build all these small planes fast enough to keep up with the demand for cheaper prices?

[ap1190]

I disagree, airlines today have the choice of 22 hour non-stop flights (through 777-200LR and a340-500) but for most passengers this is not an option. For many the stopover is like a gas station stop on long drives. Most of us need them.

But anyway neither of us are experts, we'll just have to see what happens.

[splotsplot]

To Smit1807.. Miles/gallon/passenger figures improve the larger the plane. It's calles "economies of scale". Small planes will therfore be at a distinqt disadvantage in the future if fuel prices rise! These planes will be flying from the Far East to where ever people in the Far East want to go.

[smit1807]

Sorry. If you want to talk economies of scale, then small economy = small planes. It's already happening! What makes you think that in the future economy of expensive oil, people in the 'far east' will have the money to board these planes? To think that these planes will be flying in 15 years is delusional and proposterous.

[smit1807]

And look at my comment about flying through/out of Rekyavic...LOOK at what happened to their economy since I made that statement...? Ya'll think this is an isolated incident???? I don't think so... Regardless, NO more 357's flying through there to Minneapolis for weekend shopping at the Mall Of America anymore...maybe Cessnas. lol

[Dutchdrummer99]

"the average American (the majority of the industry's revenue) won't be able to afford" Actually most of the planes are being sold to Asia and the Middle east; Many of your American airline companies have been in big trouble for many years already. And the economies of Asia will need bigger passenger planes regardless. With a 10 percent increase in economy each year (for China alone) they can take a few bad years of the West and still keep growing. With globalisation the wealth is spreading.

[smit1807]

Well, I will feel sorry when Asia and the Middle East have a shit-load of these things on the ground. When oil goes up, it will go up GLOBALLY (thank the global markets for that). It will cost 3-4000 USD to fly from Dubai to Riyahd, Beijing to Honk Kong, St Louis to NYC, etc, regardless of what country one lives in. Even "as the wealth spreads", the average Saudi or Chinese (or American) will NOT be able to afford that price. The railroad is where we need to be putting our money into.

[Dutchdrummer99]

Many People will keep flying regardless. They just sell more economy tickets. And is it better to fly 3 small planes or one large plane which is extremely fuel efficient. The math is obviously in favor of large planes at large traffic routes. Biofuel, Hydrogen and Electric cars are picking up as well not to mention that oil has currently dropped to historic lows. Airbus sales have now risen to 200 Airbus A380`s so there is certainly a demand. They are now looking to build a 650 seat version.

[smit1807]

Yes, many people will, but not in NEARLY the numbers they are flying in now. ...and the reason for the historic lows of these oil prices? The shitty economy (essentially triggered from our current economic set-up's inability to absorb them) has destroyed demand. And as soon as the economy gets back on its feet, so will oil prices. BIG TIME. And that will just start the cycle all over again. Except even more people will be left jobless next time around.

[smit1807]

Then, tell me, where will all of these former middle classes of people left jobless come up with money to put their fat asses on these jumbo jets? The thing you are assuming about my comment of flying smaller planes is that there will be the same amount of people in the skies. There won't be. The airline industry is headed back to whence it came...reserved only for the upper ranks of society. A smaller populace of rich will be filling smaller planes to fly. Look around you...observe, don't hope.

[smit1807]

*the part I put in paretheses above was supposed to read, "Our current economic set-up cannot support the high oil prices that we saw last summer. Therefore, in my opinion, it was the trigger for the world's economic collapse."  And since oil is in finite supply and going down FAST, these low prices will go sharply up as soon as the economy shows signs of improving. And next time, a gallon of gas will be 7 - 10 USD, not 4$. What does that mean for jet fuel?

[morg3k]

Your statements make sense Dutchdrummer99

[whitireia]

It is interesting that 1 year later the world economy has climbed out of the recession and the airline industry continues to roar along.

Unless the apocolypse occurrs in 2012 I can assure you that people will continue to travel by air, the worlds population will increase, and third world contries like China will continue their economic growth.

A380 has been designed to meet the needs of the future and will replace aging 747 because of its economic advantages.

[CSXkid22]

shaky landing but not bad

[wolfsheim80]

Its just a fact, that the US economy is continuing to fail

[ap1190]

This is true, however the dumb shit excuse for a president GWB will be gone soon. And both Obama and Palin(not McCain) will be good economic leaders. IMO

[gankala8]

this is simply horrible.... long live the jumbo 747

[EuroSport2006]

Nah, that's old. Old old old, Airbus is bigger and more efficient than the 747.

[kuyakev]

bad landing..just look at how much the pilot had to compensate by looking at the rudder..

[Dudeboy4000]

thats actually quite a good landing, the A380 was most likely caught in some wind so the pilot used a amount of rudder that he thought was suitable to keep the aircraft straight on the runways centerline. :]

[agentfazexx]

That is actually a great landing.

[leon6266]

Very cheap Melb to LA only $400 and im going Nov

[vtwinbreed]

Yup, because they've been the staple in Airline Industry since before you were a cum stain in your fathers pants.

[gbjolly]

huge plane but to bad they went out of business!

[dangerardo80]

really? why fuel, expensive?

[smeary10]

What's too bad is that idiots like you leave ridiculously stupid comments like that on Youtube. You are living proof why cousins shouldn't fuck.

[barneyffc]

I notice they are all too keen to talk about the down side of it.

[Jamaicanheedro]

That thing's not gonna fit well with america's already heavy flight vector

[m3xchampin]

come to lsa vegas

[jerseykid565]

lil bumpy

[kv2818]

Well from that view it seemed like a bumpy landing but i am still in favor of Boeing they are the leading airline aircraft manufacturer and always will be even if Airbus comes out with the A380 Boeing has more orders for the 787 than the A380!

[smeary10]

Just like General Motors would always dominate the automotive market hey? Motorolla, Ford, etc etc..

[ap1190]

Toyota!!

[WorldImage01]

USA crap media :D

[socalivy]

Just so you know, that isn't smog. It's the marine layer, better known as morning fog. ;)

[tyjox777]

and she says, "you can hear the cockpit talking to the tower."

"RGR: UNITED 81 HEAVY"

United? or test flight? hmnn should talked to KC....

[blasdelf]

Faaake.

[congaleader2000]

I just love it when reporters who know NOTHING about the subject are the ones giving us thir BS. The bimbo says as the A380 flares "you can hear the cockpit talking to the tower" when you can clearly hear "United 81 heavy", whan an idiot! who talks to the tower as you flare!

[PIMPMACHINE90210]

i think that pilot had a little something to drink on that landing!

[superbertie]

Boing!

[Celeon999A]

It was caught by a strong wind during touchdown. :) The front gear of the A380 is turnable and computer controlled. What you saw was the board computer assisting the pilot in countering the movement to the side. Through that the A830 can safely start and land even during very strong wind conditions. :)

[congaleader2000]

WRONG!! there was no WIND at the time of the landing, checked the atis from several sources

[Celeon999A]

Name the sources ;)

[congaleader2000]

noaa adds metars, flightaware, etc. I was watching the WX, track, atclive, etc. at the time of the landing...low ceelings, small temp/dewpoint spread and NO wind. Perhaps it was a last second correction since he didnt touch down centerline, or who knows, that stinking french computer controlled rudder decided to act up! :-)

[yvesgomez]

I think he has landed at a slower speed than usual for the show (although the a380 can land at the same speed than the a320)

[sunnythomas64]

where in sea?

[curexcult]

lol a little shacky there on touch down :P

[tf51d]

I think that commentator had to eat his words about it being a smooth landing!

[rooster103059]

lol yeah the rudder was going nuts there!

[juanpxm]

Viva Airbus!