Just how windy does it have to be for a runway to shut and planes are unable to land?

Are there set limits or what?

There must be some guidelines set for airports to follow. Without input from airlines or pilots they’ll automatically switch runways so some wind speed must be dictating those changes. I do know that input from pilots can effect runway usage if they complain of too high a tailwind or start asking for a more suitable runway.

I don’t think (but I could be wrong) an airport can shutdown a runway due to excessive wind. If someone wants to try it they can’t really deny them a landing or takeoff clearance as long as it’s a reasonable request (ie a 30 knot headwind and not a 30 knot tailwind).

I’ve been wondering throughout this thread why no one questioned why the approach was even conducted? Especially at this airport, which has runways arranged in such a way that this shouldn’t happen (they’re not all parallel at Hamburg, as at CDG or ATL for example).

Far, far from getting medal for his “heroics,” I’ll bet this Captain’s Chief Pilot (or whatever LH calls management pilots) was livid and has looked into the incident very thoroughly. An airline the quality of LH will not tolerate such demonstration of poor judgement by a Captain for long. Where was the FO? Was he just a doormat for the Captain, what about CRM? At a minimum, I’ll bet they are getting some time in the simulator and a few trips with a Check Pilot. I would also be very surprised if the civil authorities in Germany were not looking for some explanations.

I never cease to be amazed at the public’s apparent need to glorify airplane drivers. I guess it makes us feel comfortable to think some superman is always in command. It’s almost as if Cali(FMS confusion), Air Transat (glider), Hapag-Lloyd (glider), Lexington (wrong runway), DFW (727 attempted take off with flaps up), Air Canada (glider), and many others never happened.

I think you make some very important points. I seriously doubt the company is laying any praise on the pilots for this. Clearly with the trouble they were having landing the aircraft they should have aborted their attempt well before it degraded to a wing strike. We’ve seen a few at our airline and every time the crews were reprimanded. The captain each time was busted back to FO for 6 months to a year and had to be given permission to upgrade again.

Certificated airplanes have a maximum demonstrated crosswind component that they can land in. Most airlines have in their operational manuals the maximum crosswinds that they will operate under.

In my experience some airliners don’t have any demonstrated crosswind listed. We removed ours from the manuals a few years ago (it was 30 kts). The big reason is/was is that a demonstrated crosswind is NOT a limitation. All it does is say what the aircraft manufacturer tested the aircraft at so you are more than legal if you land with more than the listed number. I’ve landed with a 40 knot crosswind but that is about the limit of the flight controls IMHO. Companies don’t want to limit their pilots with a “hard” number because there are too many factors that determine the effect of wind. A constant 30 knot crosswind is a lot different/easier than winds at 10 gusting to 30 knots.

You’re a non-pilot in a different country asking a pilot from another airline, who wasn’t there, had no direct involvement with the incident, “analyses” what happened on the basis of media reports and publically available ATIS, METAR’s and TAF’s but without a transcript of radio communications, the CVR and the FDR or an interview with crew? And to top off all of this consequences for the PFL’s career are also determined as a “free” bonus?

To be fair, a wing strike is never a case of a pilot making the best of a bad situation. A wing strike is an accident or making a bad situation a lot worse. Our last one resulted in the Captain being charged with an Accident which will be on their record for the rest of their career. Even the passengers knew enough that A) a wing strike should never happen in any situation and B) they were lucky it didn’t end up a lot worse. Thank goodness the wing hit the pavement and not the soft earth where it could have dug in.

What a longwinded way to say Take off or land flapless and you’ll get away with it provided the runway is long enough.:)

It isn’t as simple as adding more runway, there are other factors that must be considered. All aircraft tires have speed limits for one. Also beyond having enough distance to takeoff aircraft must also have enough braking power to stop an aircraft within the runway length from the takeoff decision speed. An aircrafts braking system will have a hard time stopping the aircraft at such high speeds as well as handle the associated thermal energy created.

The aircraft would have a climb performance penalty meaning it wouldn’t be able to achieve the necessary altitude/speed requirements once off the ground.

I don’t think there is anyway an aircraft can “get away with it” if it hasn’t been flight tested.

Does the engine position help determine if flaps are required or not? As in, for example, would it be easier for a BAe Avro/Do328 JET/An-72/74/124/225/ATR/DHC-8/Il-76 etc to take off without flaps due to their high wing configuration over ‘conventional’ aircraft?

I would think that wing design is the driving factor behind flap/slat requirements for different phases of flight.

I could be wrong but I’m certain they are.

I haven’t heard of nor found any performance data for Flap 0 takeoff in any manual. In fact the takeoff safe aural warning is only inhibited when flaps 9 or 18 are selected meaning those are the only 2 authorized positions for the flaps on takeoff.

Flaps are not control surfaces.
Essentialy, they are merely an aid to flight. A plane, with the correct speed can land and take off without them.

Very few airports (if any) have enough runway for an airliner to takeoff with no flaps not to mention achieving the necessary climb gradient so I would say that no airliner can takeoff without them. I’m sure there are a few rare exceptions to the rule. As long as an aircraft can be configured for takeoff a lack of flaps for landing is much less critical. (but much more than just an aid).

Great pictures, glad everyone got out without a scratch. It looks from the pictures that they had flaps,slats and thrust reverses so approach speeds were probably normal but I’m sure they had degraded brakes. I don’t know the systems on the 767 but they might have had to use the parking brake to stop the airplane at the end there which would have caused the tires to blow.

I don’t think there are any OFFICIAL merger announcements, only talks which is a big difference.