Apples and oranges. I don’t think one is better than the other but for sure the initial training of European and American pilots differs drastically. In the US, you are expected to do at least 1500 hours before you can right seat an eggbeater at a regional (or more likely fly solo night freight in a Caravan). Before…

Regulators and operators have strict guidelines for weather limits. The pilots would not have started the approach unless the weather was within limits. If at any point the approach becomes destabilized, that would mean a mandatory go around.

It is impossible to tell that from the video. Gusting winds are variable by definition. The planes before and after had similar but not identical conditions.

The wing low and opposite rudder method is not used in swept wing jets. If nothing else, with underslung engines it can cause a nacelle strike. Big jets crab into the wind until just before or at touchdown, then decrab. Only aileron and elevator used except for decrabbing with rudder.

In swept wing jets you almost never use the rudder. The exception is an engine out situation. The rudder does move but without pilot input. It is controlled by the yaw damper so that turns are coordinated.

It’s Western Europe. All neighbouring countries apart from the UK are in the Schengen Area, meaning there are no border controls and a common visa requirement.

When it comes to aviation safety, things like visas take a backseat. And even so, apart from the UK, all countries in the vicinity are in the Schenghen Area so there are no border restrictions or controls.

The attitude changes are not really due to crosswind. They are due to windshear. A steady crosswind is not a problem. You just control into the wind and crab out on touchdown. However when the wind is very variable in direction and/or velocity, it is impossible to know exactly what changes are coming up. It makes life…

In theory. However in the end Saturn turned out to be cheaper anyway. Overhaul of those bits was really expensive and given the much higher deadweight per launch it would have been better to use disposable launchers. The US military realized this quite early and pretty much walked away from the Shuttle for anything…

This thing runs on a desktop PC from 1995?

All aircraft are certified to land at maximum weight. However some large aircraft such as the 777 and 747 have such a high fuel fraction that landing early after planning for a long flight leads to a landing that carries more risk than a normal one.

Fuel dumps are about landing weight, not fire hazards. Landing a widebody at high weights means a longer landing run, higher risk of a heavy landing, higher brake temperatures...

Interesting. I’ve never heard of that. The good news is that it hasn’t kept you from flying.

Somewhat surprisingly, quite a few pilots are scared of heights, including myself. Flying doesn’t seem to trigger it at all.

Endurance is one of the most important flight planning considerations. That won’t change with an electric plane.

Only very large aeroplanes have the capability of dumping fuel. We’re talking Boeing or Airbus 33o. Not even a Boeing 737 or Airbus 320 has fuel dumping capability. General aviation planes certainly do not have it.

The E-Fan dramatically improves safety by totally eliminating flammable aviation fuel from the equation. Fewer combustibles onboard an E-Fan significantly reduces the risk of injury or death for pilots, passengers, first responders and others.

Because the Saturn V was a crash program and is now 50 years old. Starting from scratch at this point would yield a more efficient and less costly vehicle.

That’s an enduring myth, but a myth nonetheless.

They did not lose the plans. That is a myth. They are still stored in multiple locations, including the US National Archives.