Delta A330 | LANDS BEFORE THE RUNWAY | Lights Damaged at Amsterdam

[@VASAviation]

Subject aircraft is enroute back to Atlanta at the time this video is released.

[@George_the_protogen]

The afternoon flight outbound from Amsterdam was canceled with that aircraft (on the day of the incident)

[@classicalroach]

Thanks for your videos

[@theellisoncountrylife3015]

I'm in Atlanta now, 20 miles from the airport

[@ashleystrout6651]

The flight number is Delta 9937 - flight numbers that high usually mean it's a ferry flight only, no passengers. Probably did some basic repairs in Amsterdam but Delta techs will take a closer look once it's back at home base.

[@angelnhevn]

@ashleystrout6651 it's not always a ferry flight. They also carry their passengers the following day from their canceled flight with their flight number that high as well.

[@76mmGMC]

Those first few feet of runway get no love ever, what a thoughtful pilot ❤️

[@tpain5402]

This is why I pee on the top half of the urinal.

[@jayswarrow1196]

Reminds me of a story, about the Navy guy, bet some hunk'o'diner he could hit a bottle tap at the begining of a runway, which resulted in him landing _under_ an aircraft carrier..

[@blops420]

i was working at eham this day, generally this runway is only used for general aviation aircraft, unless there are stormy conditions. it happened to be very windy that day, with lots of go arounds

[@VASAviation]

Thanks for the information!

[@jfelipe1987]

@@VASAviation landing heavies on 22 is an interesting idea. its a tiny runway

[@crimeinvest6523]

@@Ros.A314 Even more concerning is that the crew of the Delta did not report immediately to the tower. Talk about safety hazard.

[@blops420]

@@Ros.A314 definitely agree, i am not fimiliar with all the procedures at schiphol, but it seemed to me like that could be dangerous. I assume they probably left it up to the pilots to decide what was safe since they couldnt see the extent of the damage and rerouting them all the way to the polderbaan would probably be quite a hassle. (18c/36c) is closed

[@nlSpiller]

@@Ros.A314 Don't land where you're not supposed to land is generally a good practice. Follow that and with or without FUD you'll be fine.

[@dutchlion7663]

Probably wanted to get as much of the runway as possible because 22 is the shortest one at Schiphol. Overdid it by a smidge.

[@George_the_protogen]

Yup and adding to that pressure, they had a big plane + heavy wind and turbulence. Reason they went to it, is due to the winds going 30 gusting 50kts at thst heading.

[@lenmetallica]

Isn't this an ILS approach? Why didn't they just do a CAT 2 or 3 landing if the conditions were that bad?

[@wmsnowboarding336]

@@lenmetallica the aircraft has wind limits for cat 2 and 3 auto lands. Must be hand flown. Autolands are a great tool and work well but they are usually used during very low visibility days in which the winds are typically very light.

[@marcuscrassuss]

@@lenmetallica "bad conditions" to do a cat 2 or 3 approach are related with visibility, plus cat2 or 3 approaches have more restricted wind limits, In my company if you have more than 30 kts headwind (which is the case here) or more than 20 knots crosswind, you cant do an autoland. And also there is no reason to do an autoland in this situation, as long as you have the visibility as a pilot you would like to have control. I dont know the exact situation what these guys had, but when you do the landing distance calculation it assumes that you would be at 50 feet over threshold plus this headwind aircraft wouldnt have any problem to stop.

[@lenmetallica]

@@marcuscrassuss thanks for the information.

[@wickedpawn5437]

impressive document as usual. People don't understand how hard is to come up with, compile and present this material. Thanks VASAviation.

[@tioswift3676]

What’s so hard about it

[@economicprisoner]

@@tioswift3676 Try doing a basic video edit with some "b-roll". When planning simple edits for my brother's funeral I realized I may want to practice with even simpler edits (no b-roll) first.

[@jaws1025]

They landed on runway 04/22 at Amsterdam Schipol Airport. That particular runway is only 6,608ft in total length, about half the length of the other runways at Schipol. Additionally, there is no blast pad or overrun area for this runway. This was intended as a short field landing which didn't quite go as planned, but be aware that this a VERY short runway for an A330 landing. Tough situation for the pilots, but I'm glad everyone is safe. When in doubt - Go Around.

[@gnnascarfan2410]

How bad was the weather in Paris at that point? Could have diverted to another Skyteam hub.

[@yamthirdnow]

They didn’t even use the entire runway, they vacated the runway about 1,300m after the beginning of the runway. Extremely short landing for an A330.

[@papstjohannespaul]

Landing performance (speeds and distance) is calculated before each and every approach. The performance is calculated with a touchdown in the touchdown zone. If the numbers dont allow for a landing then either request a different runway or divert. A landing "on the numbers" like these pilots here performed is anything but professional judgement. The only excuse would be a negative wind gust that let them sink more than expected.

[@boahneelassmal]

As Pfleger Film pointed out LDA is always mentioned beginning from the TDZ and with a few other deductions it is usually wildly shorter than runway length. If LDR is at or above LDA you must not land on this runway and this decision making is part of the approach briefing. Easy at that. If the numbers technically fit but it is kinda close, it is indeed a judgement call but especially days with meteorological events (wind, rain, snow, basically anything that could potentially delay touchdown or decrease braking action) you should add a little bit of a safety margin on top of the already included safety margin.

[@starguy2718]

Delta: "We paid for this runway, and we're going to use all of it!"

[@stans2244]

To be fair, 2000m/6600ft isn't a lot of runway for an A330.

[@ffortissimo]

That's the Dutch way ;D

[@patricksheehan9102]

As an American, this is why we can’t have nice things. 😂

[@38911bytefree]

Now you bought some lights too.

[@wayne1512]

any1 else thought that 'police 03' was a police car 😅 Was confused when he said cleared for takeoff 😅

[@beyondinsanitybr]

Same here.

[@Astro95Media]

It's a Delorean.

[@starguy2718]

@@Astro95Media Great Scott!

[@rudiklein]

You clearly haven't seen our Dutch police cars. 😄

[@AlexT74]

Dutch police helicopters are based at Schiphol.

[@wgraham2410]

How in the world do they not close the runway immediately upon the report of FOD??!! The police aircraft that reported it shouldn't even have been able to depart. At KORD, we close the runway immediately upon of a report of possible FOD and don't open it until we complete a full sweep of the runway. This blows my mind

[@tioswift3676]

Time is money my guy

[@wgraham2410]

@Tio Swift fodding out an engine or slicing tires is even more money my guy. Time might be money but safety first. There is no debate in this, that runway should have been closed immediately upon report of FOD

[@jimmc2990]

It’s not like they didn’t have RW 27 to put planes on temporarily or anything 🤔 Maybe that was their departure runway but jeez can’t imagine letting FOD blow around in 36 knot winds.

[@z00h]

Dem dutchies dun giveafu. Years of exposure to ganja melts brains.

[@wgraham2410]

@Wouter still an aircraft and still can throw FOD up into the rotors and spread it more on the runway. Helicopter or aircraft, runway closed.

[@Levikj]

subject aircraft apparently does not like airport pavement apparently. i worked this aircraft (N802NW) at MSP 12-23-16 as a minnesota vikings charter MSP-ATW when it slid off the runway in ATW due to an icy runway

[@pistonburner6448]

I always wondered what the "apparently kid" is going to grow up to be. Now we know: airport ground crew! (Or mechanic?)

[@thenormanator9379]

I was just going to say I swore that 802NW was the one involved in the ATW incident. Sad that ATW doesn't get any NFL charters anymore always looked forward to a walk down to see the 757/767/A330s every other week or so

[@RaineStudio]

ATC tells you there is debris on the runway and its "probable" location. Do you land and take your chances? Do you go around and demand another runway? Do you divert?

[@evanscm3]

ask for a new runway

[@gankala8]

Irresponsible dutch

[@hairsiluet]

Good job dear Victor from @VASAviation 💪🏻

[@tatoween1]

Thats going to be a fun write up

[@ryanmitcham5522]

Seems irresponsible they didn't immediately close the runway when alerted by Police 03 until a full runway inspection had been carried out. How could they know how far any possible debris went down the runway and the potential for additional debris from a damaged aircraft?

[@panjandrum.conundrum]

Yes, huge mistake.

[@fzw0011]

2:19 I believe it’s “Police 03 is Victor”, not “is exiting”, Victor being the VFR entry / exit point on the southeast side of the Schiphol CTR

[@EllipticGeometry]

Also “request [frequency] Amsterdam”, I believe. But extra hard to make out while wearing earplugs.

[@Reyno259]

0:25 it wasn't a few minutes after the incident, but well over 2 hours (!!) before it was reported by the police helicopter. The last plane to land at RWY22, KL702, landed at 8:58UTC, while the incident occured at 6:53UTC when the Delta landed short. 2 hours of plane landings went by without anyone reporting it. Strange situation.

[@icebreaker7079]

Sounded like some pretty gusty winds there at the time of landing which may account for the short landing.

[@watty9297]

As someone else pointed out, I think it sounds more like going below the glidepath on purpose to get a bit of extra runway, as RWY 22 is relatively short.

[@OlesonMD]

The short landing is due to poor pilot technique or lack of pilot skill. If 6,600 feet was outside of their skill level, they should have refused the runway assignment.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

@@OlesonMD When it's that Windy it's unlikely that any other runway would have been within the allowed crosswind component. even if there were another acceptable runway I don't think pilots get to choose unless they declare an emergency.

[@EdOeuna]

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 - of course pilots get to chose the runway. You wouldn’t expect a 747 or A380 to land on a 2020m runway? It’s insane that they believed they could do it. If they tried to duck under the GS or PAPI then that’s even worse.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

@@EdOeuna Flights don't depart for an airport that doesn't have an appropriate runway. When planes arrived and asked to land there are assigned a runway based on airport operations at the time. If JFK is departing 4R and landing 4L, the tower will tell Pilot Bob to land on 4L. I don't think they'll switch around operations of the airport because Bob wants a different runway, unless it's an emergency.

[@philipjamesparsons]

Landing a wide body on a 6600 feet runway is a bit tight, even with a strong head wind. Tempting to do something a little different to a normal landing; aim for the numbers maybe. Combine that with the guaranteed windshear you get with strong winds like this and trouble is brewing. I wonder why runway 24 was not in use? No ILS, but it does have 11300 feet of runway and an RNP approach.

[@Rob2]

24 would have been the take-off runway edit: no, 24 is in maintenance. so 27 would have been for take-off and in case of emergencies for landing.

[@philipjamesparsons]

@@ytfan3815 Thank you and Rob for your answers. I have not been to Schipol for a while and have never landed 22. The widebody I fly, will stop in about 5400ft at max landing weight. So 22 is enough, but with a definite go around if the aircraft looks like it will land long.

[@BradGryphonn]

Probably a good thing they didn't touch down another 20 metres earlier. That's some soggy ground just before the runway. Thanks for your on-the-scene information too, @blops420

[@marksanders768]

Remember, as well, that when the aircraft first touches down, there is very little weight on the wheels. At that moment, the full momentum of the plane will sheer off anything upright as it moves forward, but it's not going to sink into soft mud like a car would if it suddenly drove off of the pavement; at touchdown, the wings are still carrying very nearly all of the weight.

[@jeffa251]

Thanks, I was hoping you would feature this incident

[@VASAviation]

Sure thing

[@dre-explores]

Thank you for the pictures! Damage appears minimal. Is this an actual case of "it'll buff right out"!?

[@prorobo]

Various inspections would need to be made and any damaged components to the gear would have needed to be replaced. They were very lucky.

[@38911bytefree]

If it was an A350, paint will have fallen off anyways. They coudnt care less.

[@alexandernordstrom1617]

That'll buff right out!

[@Mountain-Man-3000]

Was waiting for this one!

[@LucasL512]

Always nice when they talk in your native language

[@williamgray5017]

Wow. In the US they would have closed the runway for hours. In Amsterdam? " don't land on the trash at the end of the runway."

[@Jaspereyne]

*beginning of the runway

[@F35Nerd]

Did the Delta pilots not realize they had landed short? Even if they didn't know they hit the lights, they should've told Tower, given that there are things that they could have *possibly* hit? It would've just been a "hey, we landed short, not sure if we hit anything, but just letting you know"

[@mattmcginn8096]

Would bet given the short runway and the conditions, the pilots were aiming to land quite short. From the photos it looks like the rear tires hit just a couple feet short, so the landing on dirt, going onto the runway, hitting a light, all would've happened in a very small fraction of a second. Likely just felt like a completely normal landing given the strong winds. Most likely the pilots just weren't aware of how short they were, and landing felt totally normal, so nothing to alert tower about.

[@crimeinvest6523]

Probably cocky american pilots who don't wanna acknowledge their fault/involvement.

[@rebelfrlfe]

@@crimeinvest6523 WOW... really?

[@tomloeper8933]

@@crimeinvest6523 Wow. Just… wow.

[@crimeinvest6523]

@@rebelfrlfe What are you shocked about? Have you not seen other videos where their attitude stinks? Even in real life i've witnessed it.

[@PetrolHeadBrasil]

Those damn lights.... 01:27 - Some debris on the ACTIVE runway, but don't worry! You can land! Dear Lord, what is happening with the aviation!?!?!?!?!?

[@kurtrussell3700]

FOD on RWY, roger, clear to land🤦🏻‍♂)))

[@pomerau]

@Vas This is probably a non story now, but there was an Express (UK) newspaper article yesterday, and updated today, about public reports of a near miss above London City Airort, with a photo and enlargement. NATS (National Air Traffic Services) replied to their request today that no incidents were reported and the distances were hard to judge. (45 - 90 degree convergence) The name NATS also reminded me of a report that London City Airport was to be the first to have a remotely located tower. I see this now became operational in January 22nd 2021; so 2 years ago, and is based in Swanwick near Southampton on the South Coast; 70 miles away!

[@JimWhitaker]

No FoD inspection before next landing/to?

[@ArchivalQuality]

Captain took it literally when someone told him "Touch grass".

[@buckstarchaser2376]

Not shown in video: The painted markings that indicate the intended touchdown zone, because they're well out of frame.

[@michaelb7524]

Arriving at Amsterdam, the pilot couldn't wait to get on the grass.

[@shaymcquaid]

FLY NAVY!

[@therickman1990]

The runway is obviously long enough for the heavy's but it is shorter then most runways. Making your approach the runway also looks short even though you know it's long enough. This might have prompted the pilots to alter the descend causing them to land slightly short?

[@wouldntyouliketoknow9891]

KLM just casually accepts landing clearance on the runway with FOD on it...

[@dermann439]

FOD before the touchdown zone. Where exactly is the problem?

[@ronnieireland2006]

Very easy to get distracted around red lights in Amsterdam

[@georgeli9967]

Please do todays Qantas144 flight with single engine failure!

[@colonelflagg9669]

Yes. I bet they didn't say may day once.

[@Rhinozherous]

This is the Offroad version of the A330 B-)

[@chrzoc]

They must have been forced onto 22 due to cross/tailwind component, sounds very windy based on the wind check from the tower b/c that’s a hella short rwy for an A330. I don’t have the ATIS for this day but looking at the photos it looks like conditions where 5-5-5? Probably with a slightly wet runway, when they ran the numbers with the RWY 22 LDA they likely had very low margins and tried to land on the numbers as opposed to the TDZ. This is why we don’t land on the numbers, lol. Sometimes you’ve got to make due though. Just had a very similar situation up here at KISP. The wind has been nasty lately.

[@bd5289]

Crazy there were no burst tires when hitting the edge of the concrete for the runway

[@timtmt522]

Holy cow!! Guessing he was trying to hit the numbers but came up short.

[@dutchaviationspotter]

Police03 with a left turn out VICTOR departure. Please add Victor.

[@pomerau]

(as a non pilot) What if the grassy area was heavily flooded? Is there a minimum depth or a concrete base to that grass area? (Also is that an emergency service road at 0:17?) I'm just imagining, if it was the main gear that landed short and not the tail touching in this instance, or if any plane's gear touched further back, wouldn't there be a possibility of ripped off undercarriages as soon as the runway was met? There's probably strict criteria for this area. Then again I was shocked on a recent Probable DG video that some / many GA runways in the US have a large, high lights bar on a pole in the middle of the runway threshold itself.

[@jason38321]

I'm no pilot either, but as I understand it: you don't land at the threshold, you land in the touchdown zone, which is a thousand feet down the runway. This given you a thousand feet of error to undershoot.

[@rustynail6819]

There is absolutely ZERO chance they didn't know they landed short! They should have notified the tower ASAP, but instead hid the fact they hit a bunch of equipment on landing and caused a very unsafe condition. That crew needs to be at the very least suspended pending an investigation.

[@Dexi]

How long have you been flying the A330?

[@markg.4246]

How do you know they didn't notify the tower? Also, suggesting that they "hid the fact" is just ignorant!

[@clarksbrother]

Did Tower clear the KLM to land with KNOWN FOD on the runway?!? That is INCREDIBLY dangerous and frankly reckless. Unless there is a mitigating factor, not first having an inspection of the runway for debris is inexcusable. What if the KLM cuts a tire or multiple ties, or ingests debris into a turbofan? Yeeesh.

[@Xanthopteryx]

Pilot is in charge of that decision. Pilot can always reject it.

[@Theonedjneo]

I'm shocked that they didn't close the runway immediately after the report of fod. Allowing aircraft to both take off and land on a potentially contaminated runway is highly careless imo.

[@efoxxok7478]

Completely different attitude in Europe. That report would have required an instant closure of the runway with go arounds and holding until runway was inspected and FOD was cleared.

[@davidpearson3304]

You do realize this WAS in Europe right?

[@44R0Ndin]

@@davidpearson3304 I interpreted it as them saying "There's a completely different attitude over here in the US compared to Europe" and then the rest of their post remains unchanged. Because that's how it works in the US. FOD on runway = close runway and divert everyone as soon as the knowledge is known. Doesn't matter what caused the FOD, if there's something on the runway that's not an airplane, that runway gets closed. Simple as that.

[@lyaneris]

@@44R0Ndin I have seen situations in the US where the pilots were asked if they wanted to continue the approach (with possible FOD on the runway)

[@evanscm3]

i think i'd be asking for a different runway if i was on the approach and there was unknown FOD. who knows how far up into the TDZ it was carried...

[@Bren39]

I don't see why many pilots try riskier options to help out atc when there are alternatives..e.g. little bit of delay for a longer runway. You don't get a prize or a raise for landing on a very short runway. Think about the risk/reward equation. 10-15 minutes saved compared with now plane down five days with associated expense and a personal one on one chat with the chief pilot.

[@nguyenthanhminh4047]

why is this a330 landing on a 6608 foot runway? is it safer to put this aircraft on a longer runway? af358 happened: short runway, bad weather?

[@Rob2]

Because there is not an infinite number of runways to choose from... Normally landing will be on 18R, but with wind 240@30 gusting 59 it is understandable they do not use that.

[@nguyenthanhminh4047]

@@Rob2 rw 27 would be a better choice, isn’t it?

[@Rob2]

@@nguyenthanhminh4047 I am sure the runway planners at Schiphol value your advice! Put your phone number here so they can call you next time there are windy conditions.

[@eldermartins130]

Pilot: they built the whole runway, so I'll use the whole runway!

[@hajow9303]

As we Dutch say in situations like this....oepsie

[@MyGoogleYoutube]

I'm gonna duct under the slope a little bit... runway is short....wanna use it all. Threshold Crossing Height? Never heard of her...

[@Transitfan93]

I guess the pilot took the term "short final" too literal

[@mauritsbol4806]

Why did they continue to operate the runway with FOD, and no clear damage assessment of the runway? Honestly that strikes me most. I mean have they verified that there is no debris later on that runway? I believe thats baffling.

[@TheRealCFF]

Why was the pilot so low on glidepath that he managed to make contact with the ground that early in the approach?

[@paulroling1781]

Land and hold short - > Land short and hold...

[@lammie001]

AMS needs to stop offering this runway to widebodies period

[@dnwklin]

What is the rule for which language to use with ATC?

[@stewiepid4385]

" ALL of the runway. " I guess that includes the property lines too.

[@auwz66]

Missed it by much

[@philipcollier7805]

That's definitely getting a bit below the glideslope

[@EdOeuna]

Which should be an immediate go-around.

[@CrossingTalkAdmin]

For those who care, this was DAL134 from DTW.

[@tchevrier]

Wow, that's quite a bit short

[@johnwelch6490]

Bang Ding Ow

[@XPLAlN]

...Wee Tu Lo

[@sebastianmikaelsen7628]

De vries on the run way?

[@idonthaveanamenoone3526]

Lol I thought video was over at 0:21 seconds and I was like????

[@TrentEngineFan]

I don’t understand why a ginormous Airbus A330 is landing on THAT runway when there are five other runways at the airport that are all almost double the length.

[@alalal8157]

Missed it by that much..................

[@andrewnicholson6634]

Good thing it wasn’t at SFO

[@javiTests]

And the pilots didn't say anything or notice they landed way before the touchdown zone? 🙄

[@malmo66]

As many are saying possibly a combination of factors such as gusty conditions (almost certainly played a role) and maybe trying to touchdown early due to short runway (hopefully they did not try this). If they had a strong headwind which suddenly dropped off due to gusts, their airspeed would also drop with it possibly causing a sink. If autothrust was disengaged (unlikely) the effect would be even worse due to no ground speed mini.

[@marksanders768]

There's no way you would use auto-anything in a landing like this (winds were gusting to 38 knots). This was a hand-flown approach. Automatic landings are for still, calm conditions, usually when visibility is very poor - not for wind storms. Some airlines go so far as to prohibit autoland operations in conditions like these.

[@malmo66]

@@marksanders768 it’s not an autoland I am talking about. Airbus recommendation is to use autothrust in gusty conditions because of a feature called groundspeed mini. It gives you extra buffer of additional airspeed in gusty conditions so that if the wind drops off your airspeed is not dangerously low. You can see more if you Google it. Basically it adjusts the approach speed depending on current gusts experienced. It also allows you to keep a higher thrust throughout the approach regardless of wind which helps for a quick go around decision (engines take a while to spool up to TOGA so idle thrust can be dangerous).

[@kentskor2055]

You can't use the whole runway unless you start right at (or before) the beginning.

[@tonybeam]

Agreed.

[@NicolaW72]

And Amsterdam is NOT located in Denmark as the FAA seems to think!😃 Thank you very much for picking this incident up!👍

[@dknowles60]

do the Pilots still have a Job or did they get fired

[@idunnoanymore2870]

Somebodies in trouble at Delta! Maybe a demotion!

[@uprrslo]

Someone is going to the principals office!!

[@flyjagz]

I'm shocked that the runway wasn't immediately closed for inspection. Have we not learned from the concorde CDG disaster? I know AMS is an experienced and capable operating international hub so could someone explain to me why they went about it in the way they did?

[@williamedwards1528]

The pilots and controllers handled the situation professionally

[@maestroazzey]

a) I suspect because they had a spotter (not meaning the plane hobbyists outside the perimeter) nearby seeing the debris and signalled it only got that far. b) Schiphol is a wind-sensitive airport (which is why it has runways in every likely wind direction) so not all runways can be used at all times c) the reason why the Oostbaan (Runway 04) is in use at the moment is because of lengthy maintenance on one of the preferred runways; the Zwanenburgbaan (Runway 18C/36C). The Oostbaan is one of the older runways (basically the only visible remaining part of the Schiphol of before 1967) and these days primarily in use for general aviation, so commercial use of the runway only happens when there are hardly other options. Because of how busy Schiphol is - and considering wind limitations - I think the only other option was to keep the three planes in a waiting pattern to go to one of the remaining runways. But those were already quite crowded at that moment and it's difficult to say if they had the fuel levels to do so. These three are likely to have played an important rol in the decision making to let those three aircraft pass by before closing the runway.

[@breakinghues2751]

Delta has had a rough go at it for the past few weeks.

[@spinnersf]

Clear of the touchdown zone? Apparently not for everyone. Seems like a debris check was indicated here...

[@Boodieman72]

Why did they land so short? Pilots are told to aim for the 1,000 mark as the touchdown point.

[@Dexi]

Shortest runway at the airport in high winds.

[@Boodieman72]

@@Dexi In that case the pilot should have performed a go around.

[@Zooz.]

@@Boodieman72 it ain't going to get any longer on the second go!

[@soramame7528]

How long is the runway and what were the winds?

[@barrel6468]

I’m interested to know what happened to the pilots. I can’t imagine they were reprimanded too hard, considering the conditions.

[@eeknl]

They should be reprimanded, they where way below glideslope in case of windsheer they should have done a go-around. And it seems odd nobody onboard felt this.

[@brentboswell1294]

This is pretty serious. It's one of those things where the day was saved by luck. You can bet that the airline will treat it as such. Touching down in the dirt in an airliner is never a good thing.

[@barrel6468]

@@brentboswell1294 Oh I absolutely agree, the pilots should have some sort of punishment or additional training or *something*. I don’t think the pilots are entirely at fault, though. It’d be different if it was calm weather on a much longer runway, but in these conditions I don’t think pilot error was the only factor.

[@andrewstorm8240]

Why don’t they extend the runway by an extra 3 meters to help?

[@marksanders768]

@@eeknl Negative. Once the plane reaches decision height (DH) there's no glideslope to follow. At that point, it is up to the crew to land as early as practical if runway length is a concern. Even if they conduct a normal landing, gusty winds will cause minor vertical deviations. If there was wind sheer, it (obviously?) happened right at the very last minute, so there was no time to go around. As for nobody feeling it - what would they have felt? Every touchdown is felt as a bit of a thump... and this one was exactly the same. When the tires first grazed the grass, there was no weight on them.

[@spelldaddy5386]

One thought, with such strong winds, is that it could have been a wind shear. That doesn't really make sense though, since they would surely have extra speed for precisely that reason. Otherwise there really is no reason to touch it down so early. Outside of PPL training (or coming into a very short runway), there is no reason to land on the threshold. If you aim for the 1,000 foot markers, then even if you misjudge it or you get wind shear, you still have 1,000 margin before hitting the grass

[@dutchlion7663]

It's not common for heavies to land on this runway. It is only used when winds are really high and gusty and landing on the usual longer runways is too risky. Runway 04/22 is the shortest runway on AMS and my best guess is the pilot wanted to use as much of the runway as possible.

[@lawrencewestby9229]

Runway 22 is only 6608 feet (2014 meters).

[@lastdance2099]

They didn't even make the threshold, they touched down on the grass.

[@Xanthopteryx]

Well, wind is powerful and can easily push or 'drag' you down suddenly.

[@EdOeuna]

@@dutchlion7663 - “using as much runway as possible” isn’t something that pilots should consider beyond rolling out on a long runway. You aim for the touchdown point shown by the PAPI and runway markings. To aim short is utterly reckless.

[@jakecostello8400]

240@30?? Wonder if it was LLWS

[@blops420]

eham

[@TacticalTightwad]

Since this was Amsterdam, was that wind report in knots, or KPH?

[@gillyA320]

@@TacticalTightwad Will be knots

[@YSLaurens]

@@TacticalTightwad Winds are always either knots or metres per second. You’ll find the latter in China and some ex-USSR countries.

[@sushi777300]

How could the Delta pilots not have noticed such a big incident???

[@GigsTaggart]

its a big plane and the pilots are a long way from the wheels. passengers probably didn't notice either unless they were behind the wing and watching out the window

[@GigsTaggart]

@Jim Allen landing a plane makes noise too. They were looking to probably plant it firmly on the numbers. They expected a bump.

[@SidestickPilot]

@JimAllen-Persona yeah you’re not hearing the sound of those lights getting crunched. 1). You’re too far to hear that. 2). While the bus flightdeck is quiet the sound of the engines is gonna drown that out with ease. 3). The sound of touchdown and vibration as well as the callouts being made will also drown out that sound that you most definitely could not hear anyways.

[@Sebastopolmark]

As usual, hit like THEN watch the video! !! !!!

[@gemberkoekje]

And this, kids, is why you don't take your airplane rallying.

[@WX4CB]

talk about a short field landing

[@CRJ08]

Por un pelito nada más

[@arnoldsherrill2585]

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the Delta Chief pilots office., When the incident review meeting starts. Only roasting that would be worse, is the one the American airlines flight crew, involved in the runway incursion, at JFK, will experience

[@jdaz5462]

ATC guy needs to be fired for allowing the use of a runway with known FOD. Parts of those lights could have been drug further down the runway along with damaged parts of the airplane that hit them.

[@marksanders768]

As long as he announces it to arriving flights, it's up to them whether to land or not. It's not his job to tell them what they can and cannot do.

[@bangcallahan]

Great video... and check this out. I just learned that a woman in her 20's saved $198 per month on her car insurance.

[@kaimeier8528]

Gusty winds

[@datalorian]

They went agricultural

[@LivingTheDream21]

Does this go on their record? Asking from someone with only pedestrian experience.

[@marksanders768]

It depends on what you mean by "their record". Internally, it'll be a matter for the airline to keep track of for a short time, especially if remedial training is deemed necessary. Beyond that, it's unlikely that it'll last long in anyone's memory. The FAA doesn't keep a "rap sheet" of mistakes. If they think a pilot is unsafe, they can take certificate action, but that seems very far-fetched in this situation. In other words, if either of these pilots were to apply with another airline in a year or two or ten, this wouldn't come up. I'd go so far as to guess that the pilots, themselves, will have forgotten about it within a few months and only reflect upon it if they're ever faced within landing under similar circumstances in the future. Remember that they probably didn't even know that there was a problem until someone told them about it afterwards.

[@christopherhand4836]

No way they are the best of the best 😅

[@mountains889]

gusting 36 told me why this might have happened

[@Hiei2k7]

Literally 5 feet ahead of the tarmac.