Successful landing is optional, and it may not be the pilot’s preferred option.
I have flown Aeromexico…and lived, but several pounds of sweat lighter. I have also flown Indian Airlines, the only airline I have ever flown on where we were overtaken by a vulture. Yet statistically both are much safer than driving in their respective countries.
You may be trying to comfort me about the relative safety of planes per my perceptions, and if so, I thank you… but I steadfastly avoid single-lane-each-way roads, I drive with a BIG pocket of space around me, I base every driving decision on being defensive against the people I share the road with as well as freak occurrences, and my objective evidence (no accidents ever) corroborates my self perception of being a significantly-better-than-average driver in a way that I have trouble letting go of. So I’ll still prefer a 10 hour road trip to a flight when presented with that choice… not just because of the safety but the convenience and price as well, and of course keeping away from the TSA, to which I have a nearly allergic reaction. 
The crosswind landing is very practised, and for commercial flights always within design limits, otherwise the pilot and/or approach must choose another runway or airport, or get busted by the FAA or Dutch equivalent in this case.
It is pretty much left to the design limitation of how far the airplane can go with a crosswind in a rudder skid(sideways-ish flight), with some aileron and elevator in there to keep keep the runway under you, and then snap it back and down to where the landing gear is aimed correctly in the calmer air right at the surface.
Commercial air transportation pilots have at least 1500hours(way more to get hired on jets), most including hours as instructor, and as co-pilot doing minimum wage work flying local commuters, much more now than accumulating hours fighter jocking around like in the old days. This looks impressive but if a hot-shot pilot does decide to take it in past aircraft limits the co pilot is required to radio approach and call for a missed approach, which screws the pilot’s plan, this was an in-design landing, it just takes normal skill. There should not be commercial pilot flying this aircraft type who can’t make this landing every time.
I have flown mostly Cessna 172 and 150s and they are limited per the POH suggestion to 15knots crosswind, the airport FBO I rent at only lets CFIs they know do 15knot crosswind landings and normal licenses 10knots or they must divert to another nearby airfield with a runway about 80 deg off and ride a taxi back. The surfaces of the empenage(and wings) on these high wing Cessnas are huge relative to aircraft weight so they have amazing glide ratio and are hard to stall, but also get blown around easily.
There is a comment about a KC-135 scraping engine pods on landing, the military practices in crazy conditions so there will be no surprises in wartime, especially during the cold war, especially-especially US Navy, stormy days are mandatory fly days.
Never knew that! Makes sense though.
On September 11, 2001, President Bush was in Sarasota at an elementary school when the airplanes were crashed into the World Trade Center towers. The secret service quickly took the President back to Air Force One and that massive 747 did a maximum throttle take off. It was awesome. You wouldn’t guess that a machine that big could get that much air that quickly.
After that landing the first thing I would do is avail myself of the nearest Amsterdam coffee shop – and skip the coffee.
I used to fly Amsterdam-Paris and back every weekend for several months in 1999, mostly KLM, Air France when I had no choice. The approach to Amsterdam Schiphol airport was invariably gusty and very bumpy, and I am a nervous flyer. KLM pilots are top-notch, like those of most European airlines.
What/where was your point of view?
Sometimes it only thinks it is an elephant.
One piece of advice: Don’t visit Europe. In most of it, you won’t be able to get anywhere other than from one motorway interchange to another, which is not terribly useful.
This is an English main road between two large towns. There are three of those things coming. The lead vehicle (out of sight) is scouting ahead to see if they can get past the next bend. (He took a wrong turning earlier).
That’s what we have to contend with.
I honestly love it. When you have to E brake, throw your car in reverse and slam into a hedge to let a ten ton tractor through… That pint of bitter in the evening is gonna taste great.
Happened on Friday, and we were on our way to a funeral…fortunately it continued to be someone else’s. John Deere…more like John Rhinoceros.
What version software was the pilot?
This is generally just referred to as a “take off”. Nearly all airplanes nearly always take off at full throttle.
This one may have climbed out more quickly than usual if ATC authorized an unrestricted climbout, rather than following the standard departure for the airport. Most airliners will climb at less than 2k ft/min under normal use for efficiency reasons, but a lightly loaded 747 (partial fuel, minimal staff/press corps), could likely manage twice that or more, and a very impressive climb angle, especially with some flap extended.
That climb-out isn’t ballistic, even though that’s what the video title says. “Going ballistic” is one of those phrases that means something completely different in popular and technical use. Ballistic flight means something with no engines and no aerodynamic effects other than perhaps drag. Think bullets, baseballs, satellites, and ICBM warheads. In aviation, such vertical or really steep climbs are usually called “unrestricted climb-outs”, since doing them is usually against the rules near the ground.
If you watch the outer 1/3rd of the wings on the KLM you can see them flexing up and down.
This needs to be a bumper sticker.
Nearly all airplanes nearly always take off at full throttle.
I don’t think that’s true, especially for commercial airliners. Everything has an auto-throttle these days and the computer will apply only as much throttle as is needed. Full throttle takeoffs waste fuel and are harder on the engines.
You are correct, and I stand corrected: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Reduced_Thrust_Takeoff
I was going to say the same thing. The MiG is fully capable of this sort of climb.
What I am curious about is if anyone has any idea what the G force on the pilot is during this type of maneuver
Just moving the meat supply:
“If this part doesn’t work, you won’t be going to the moon today.”
