Travel Caught on camera: Terrifying moment KLM plane banked sharply just a few feet over runway as pilots struggled to land in high winds

Do you think this could have been done by a computer (auto land?) or someone sitting 100s/1000s of miles aways in the safe confines of a cube at HQ?

This right here is why we need human brains in the front.

I don't think crosswinds were the problem. Sudden gusts were.

the phrases in this squawk "terrifying moment" and "hair-raising moment" are both just a bit too, too much. This is silly sensationalism that the non-pilots get all hot and bothered about, and the pilots simply note that each of us looks at that video asking ourself " could I get that thing safely on the ground?", and if not, or in some doubt, then go around and go someplace else. You got the fuel and you got the self-preservation instinct. If you have gotten any acrobatic training, or if you are a glider pilot, then this is not so tough a thing to do.

Why is this terrifying? and how do they know that the pilot was indeed "struggling? it looked to me like he flew the airplane exactly like he should and landed safely with no damage or injuries/ Why is this even a topic for discussion? In other news, a KLM jetliner landed safely.... Back to you in the studio......

That was a go around IMHO, with at least 300 on board - whats the point?
and no I probably wont respond :)

Looks like the hit some shear right after flare. Facebook and CSB reporting gusts to 75mph. Max cert is about 40. Good Job Boeing and flight crew. We have all been there at one time or other if we flew long enough. All could have been good or just light crosswind when they stabilized, then turn into pucker city. LOL

Here is an alternative take on the landing which clearly shows that the Daily Mail version had been sped up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD27YPgoOtQ&feature=iv&src_vid=nruCdbH_50g&annotation_id=annotation_3584612923

in response to the nonsense offered down the page some, that autoland or remote piloting could be used, I say balderdash. even when a flight seems from the cheap seats to be "going well", in fact there are constant monitoring and observing, from the best seats , the cockpit, that have to happen for the full duration of the flight, landing, and taxi to terminal. I won't get in any airliner without live pilots upfront, in charge and awake. We pilots make it all look too easy, hardly ever breaking a sweat, but acountants and airline executives spin some fairy tale about needing less pilots or no pilots, butthat is just faulty greed speaking there. I have been there when radars go down, when the weather turns into bad news, and when mechanical and electronic things break in flight. An experienced pilot, who has seen it all several times, prevents bad headlines and crashes and deaths. any one who says differently is stupid.

What this supports is that Pilots still need to know how to actually fly. To many have lost that ability to autopilot.

final word on this: all of the components have unpredictability: mechanical problems can occur anywhere, anytime. But weather- I guarantee that KLM pilot knew what he had in front of him from pilot reports from the flights just before him. Those are called PIREPS. That is why he carried a few extra knots of speed over the threshold of the runway, then took just a second to bleed that away, with some side to side motion, then contacted. EXperienced pilots can do that landing anytime, and are happy to not have to do such a landing very often. But they know they can safely do so. He also knows go-around and going to an alternate airfield. Am I right preacher?

I'd be interested to hear from the professionals whether they would have hit the TOGA button and gone for a second attempt? Also like to see footage of previous landing to see if this was a sudden event.

Agreed. Fine job on the part of whoever was flying.

Thanks guys for all the comments but what scares me about this is that its a 777... ive stood right next to it and seen how this huge plane taxi, lands and takeoff and how sluggish this is. So i was shocked to see this plane swaying like a rag doll and how close it came to an accident that could have been fatal. One word... SCARY

Davon: that was not a scary landing. the pilot had the 777 under control, pretty much, had a bit of a crosswind landing in some choppy , gusty winds the last 50 feet, and most certainly did not soil his underwear that day. It was by NO means near an accident. It is not sluggish, because it has thousands of pounds of thrust, and flies safely at the lower landing speeds . If this scares you, take the bus- but that is far more dangerous than flying. I don't think you know what it is you saw there.

nice flying!

now I know the roll rate on the 777 is pretty good, but if you really look at the video, it looks like it has been sped up. 777's just don't move around that much..

1. Was weather condtions above minimums for landing?
2. Did the pilot choose to continue the approach in spite of the extremely unstable winds? Why?
3. Notwithstanding the final safe outcome should the pilot have diverted once he sees on the approach that the landing is going to be very risky?

I've looked at several of these clips of X-wind landings and in my humble (experienced) opinion these guys are making attempts which are way beyond the aircraft max X-wind component. Also the flare techniques are completely wrong. The landing which is the subject of this article was not such a bad one given the conditions.

excellent awareness as the pilot figured out the pendulum swings early on and compensated very well. Gusts and crosswinds in excess of 50 knots is what we saw a skilled pilot recognize and compensate for. We have all had something like this, but this time someone documented excellent pilotage. well done...

That's a perfectly good cross wind landing. Notice that the pilot is keeping the down wind wing up all the time. It would have been a bit unnerving for the pax. But for the pilots an extra day of training as it certainly isn't the first windy day Amsterdam has had!!

IMHO, from some of the comments. Bumpy approach - yes. Landing? Looking at it, it may have been a smooth one from the inside because the gear didn't get slammed into the runway, they actually touched me the wheels had a chance t spin up before the full weight fell on them. As for speed, he would have had made accommodations based on ATIS/AWOS as well as PIREPs, and while someone said he was "too fast", if he was slower, would the ailerons had enough authority to raise the right wing before the engine cowling hit? Looking at the ailerons, The last dip was not intentional as the left aileron is deflected full up, meaning the pilot was turning the control wheel to the left (trying to raise the right wing). The big boys are designed to land crosswind, and the crosswind techniques used in General Aviation will result in a tip or cowling strike in a transport jet. Keep in mind, things always look worse from the outside. I am confident the approach was briefed, parameters for a go-around discussed, and while the approach was no doubt very challenging, up front, I am sure it was less of an event then what the headlines and some comments suggest.

Starts at 1:07

*in answer to jcsjcs*

That is exactly what happened. Crosswinds had been there all day and bothered no one. After all, it's their home base. However windsheer occurred. No use talking about go around when you are that low.

ça fait vraiment très peur!

Amist all Monday morning quarter backing he put it down fairly smooth I think

Good job captain! !!

That tip just before touch down is surprising. I think he was trying to get the upwind set of wheels down first, it just didn't happen that way.

Go arounds? slower approach? you are idiots. Why go around when it could be WORSE on the next attempt? Why go slower, so you can hit a hole and stall? This pilot can fly me through any storm!!

To David and Mike and Pat. You are absolutely right; so don't let them "bully" you! This is a simple case of "I'm landing the big SOB no matter what"!! Though they are often ignored, there are always pilot options all the way to touchdown. And to exclude a go-around is ridiculous. Excellent"recovery"; but horrible and very dangerous judgement! That move in the AF would have meant grounding and retraining before next flt in command!

Hello ladies and gentleman, today's flight will be offering an inflight special on Depends.

"Pucker"...Yep sorta like "suddenly having the super human ability to snap a railroad spike between your butt cheeks"

Perfectly done......Congrats to the flight crew

I'll let those pilots fly me anywhere. skills.

yeh, and why my brother in law could not go from a kc135 to an airline, they want FIGHTER pilots who know how to fly a plane, not computer monitors who dont... there may be some truth in that....(?)

I wonder how long it took to pry the seats out of the pilot's and copilot's ...

Am why is this post negative thumbs up

I do have a great understanding of planes and the flying dynamics even though i have never flown but in saying that i know that the most unpredictable thing is weather in aviation. For the pilot to control the plane is not impossible and is not scary. What was scary however is the UNPREDICTABLE gust that banked the aircraft as it was like 5 ft from landing. If the aircraft, to my analysis, was maybe say another 5 ft from touchdown thT aircraft may have suffered damages.

This was not an example of autoland or remote poloting. Auto land has maximum crosswind limits, although wind conditions are not given, from the video you can assume that the crosswinds are well above the limits for using auto land.

This is an example of a skilled pilot landing in difficult conditions.

Am I the only person who thinks the footage has been speeded up?

The Daily Mail is pretty whack, but that was intense.

Bob: "hit a hole"? Whoa!! LOL

Good piece of flying by the pointey end crew. They were on their game.

Nope - that was a superbly controlled landing. Scary as heck to the passengers, yes, but totally under control.

KLM/Air France continue to bleed, losses in each of the past 5 or quarters amounted to roughly half a billion Euros each time. I would hate to see that this otherwise absurd landing had to do with undue pressure on pilots from upper echelons to cut flying times as much as posible to reduce expenditures.

Well, I have read all the comments posted here and have watched the movie a number of times.
In my humble opinion this is a demonstration of a well handled approach and landing in difficult conditions by a competent pilot, with what is still required today despite all the computers and gizmos THE ABILITY TO FLY THE AIRPLANE AND GOOD JUDGEMENT is paramount. It will be many decades,if ever,that this can be perfectly replicated by any electronics. It is something which is difficult to define in our species not everyone has it, but generally training, application and experience brings it out in the 'right stuff' in many aspects of human endevour.
Piloting airplanes safely is one, and the continued maintenance of handling skills is essential this was a demonstration of such.
The Media love anything that can be sensationalised and the 'armchair experts' love to expound their 'knowledge'. It was ever thus...