Answer: If you look for the information on AirAsia wheelchair charge on search engines, most probably you will end up on this page. However, there is no external link specified in the page.
On September 29th 2017, AirAsia has published an article about wheelchair charges on the Support section of its website. The answer can be a bit complex and different
Step 3: For the particular flight that requires a wheelchair service, choose its origin and destination and look at the charges on this page.
For example, you can find the wheelchair charge for flights between Kota Bharu (KBR) to Kuala Lumpur (KUL) will cost you RM 63.60 if you pre-book the service or RM 127.20 if you book it at the counter. So, be smart and book early to lighten up the load on your wallet.
Kuala Lumpur (KUL) to Kuching (KCH): The wheelchair service from Kuala Lumpur to Kuching is RM 63.60 (if you book early) or RM 127.20 (if you book at the counter). Therefore, if you are going to use the wheelchair service, please ensure that you book earlier to avoid the extra charge.
How to Land the Space Shuttle: The Ultimate Guide to NASA’s Most Difficult Glider Landing
Landing the Space Shuttle was arguably the most challenging and high-stakes maneuver in the history of aviation. Unlike a conventional aircraft that can glide smoothly, go around for another try, or use engines to control its descent, the Space Shuttle Orbiter was essentially a heavy brick with wings that had no engine power during reentry and landing. Once the Orbiter began its descent from orbit, the pilot could not abort; there were no engines to restart, no flaps to slow the glide smoothly, and only one chance to get it right.
For Malaysian aviation enthusiasts, aerospace students, and anyone fascinated by the extremes of flight, understanding how astronauts landed the Space Shuttle offers a captivating glimpse into the limits of human skill, engineering, and physics. It is a story of precision, adrenaline, and the sheer audacity of flying a 200,000-pound spacecraft like a glider into a runway at speeds exceeding 200 mph.
In this comprehensive guide, we will break down the entire landing sequence, from the initial deorbit burn to the final rollout on the runway at Kennedy Space Center or Edwards Air Force Base. We’ll explore the physics of reentry, the unique “sideslip” landing technique, the role of the autopilot, and why this maneuver remains unmatched in difficulty. If you are interested in the broader Malaysian aviation landscape, explore our guide on aviation companies in Malaysia or dive into pilot training costs to understand the path to the cockpit.
Why Landing the Space Shuttle Was Unique
To truly grasp the difficulty of landing the Space Shuttle, you must first understand what the Orbiter was not. It was not a normal airplane.
No Engines for Landing
Most aircraft have engines that provide thrust to control speed and descent rate. The Space Shuttle’s main engines (SSMEs) and orbital maneuvering engines (OMS) were shut down minutes before landing. The Orbiter was a dead-stick glider. If the pilot missed the target, there was no way to add power to climb back up. If the approach was too high, the only option was to perform steep, drag-heavy turns to lose altitude. If the approach was too low, the landing had to be made, and the pilot hoped they had enough energy to reach the runway.
Extreme Glide Ratio
A modern commercial jet like a Boeing 737 has a glide ratio of about 15:1 or 17:1. This means for every 1,000 feet of altitude lost, it can travel 15,000 to 17,000 feet forward. The Space Shuttle, however, had a glide ratio of only 1:1 during the steep final approach, and about 4.5:1 at best in the upper atmosphere. This made it one of the worst gliders ever flown. Pilots had to be precise; they couldn’t just “bank and glide” to a runway far away. The target had to be approached from a very specific angle and altitude.
By the time the Shuttle touched down, it was traveling at approximately 215 to 230 knots (245–265 mph), nearly twice the speed of a typical commercial airliner on landing. The heat shield tiles, which protected the vehicle during reentry, were still hot, and the tires had to withstand the immense friction of stopping a heavy spacecraft at high speed.
One-Chance Accuracy
The landing window was extremely narrow. The Shuttle had to hit a specific touchdown zone on the runway, within a margin of error of just a few hundred feet. If the pilot overshot, the vehicle would go off the end of the runway into the desert or ocean. If it undershot, it would crash short. There was no “go-around” procedure.
The Physics of Reentry: From Orbit to Atmosphere
The landing sequence didn’t start when the Shuttle saw the runway. It began in space, hundreds of miles above Earth, traveling at orbital velocity of about 17,500 mph (28,000 km/h).
The Deorbit Burn
The process began with the deorbit burn, a 2-to-3-minute firing of the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines. This burn slowed the Shuttle by about 200–250 mph, dropping its perigee (lowest point of orbit) into the upper atmosphere. Once this burn was complete, the Shuttle was committed. There was no turning back.
The crew would then orient the vehicle with its nose pointed toward the direction of travel but with its belly facing the oncoming atmosphere. This was the body flap configuration, designed to maximize drag and heat dissipation.
Atmospheric Entry and the “Corridor”
As the Shuttle entered the atmosphere at about 400,000 feet altitude, it encountered increasing air density. The vehicle began to experience intense heat, with temperatures reaching up to 3,000°F (1,650°C) on the leading edges of the wings and nose. The plasma glow around the vehicle was visible from the ground, a testament to the sheer energy being dissipated.
The pilot had to stay within a very narrow reentry corridor. If the angle was too shallow, the Shuttle would skip off the atmosphere like a stone on water, potentially losing communication and missing the landing site. If the angle was too steep, the G-forces and heat would be fatal.
During this phase, the Shuttle was controlled by reaction control system (RCS) thrusters in space, which gradually handed over to aerodynamic control surfaces (elevons, rudder, body flap) as air density increased.
Energy Management
One of the most critical aspects of the landing was energy management. The Shuttle carried a huge amount of potential and kinetic energy from orbit. The pilot had to dissipate this energy gradually to arrive at the runway at the correct speed and altitude.
The Shuttle used a series of S-turns (also called “wobbles”) during the descent to lose altitude without gaining too much speed. These turns were steep—up to 60–70 degrees of bank—and were performed automatically by the flight control system, with the commander monitoring closely.
The Final Approach: The “Rides” and the Auto-Pilot
As the Shuttle descended below 50,000 feet, it transitioned into the final approach phase. This was the most intense part of the landing. The commander (or the pilot, depending on the mission) took manual control for the final segment, but the flight control system (FCS) was still heavily involved.
The Pre-Entry and Entry Interfaces
Before the final approach, the Shuttle passed through the entry interface at 400,000 feet, where atmospheric effects became dominant. The flight control system switched from RCS thrusters to aerodynamic surfaces. The pilot then managed the descent using the body flap, elevons, and rudder.
The Shuttle followed a glideslope that was much steeper than normal aircraft. While a commercial jet descends at about 3 degrees, the Shuttle approached at 19 to 22 degrees. This steep angle was necessary to dissipate energy quickly and ensure the vehicle stayed within the narrow landing corridor.
The Auto-Pilot and Manual Control
For most of the descent, the Shuttle’s autopilot (specifically the Primary Avionics Software System, or PASS) handled the complex energy management and attitude control. The system was designed to fly the vehicle precisely along a pre-programmed trajectory.
However, the final 15,000 feet of the approach were flown manually by the commander. This was a rare instance where humans had to override the computer for the most critical part of the flight. The commander would disengage the autopilot at about 15,000 feet and take over the controls, using the hands-on controller (a small joystick) to manage pitch, roll, and yaw.
The Hands-on Controller was unique. It was not a standard yoke or stick but a force-deflection controller that measured the amount of force the pilot applied, not the distance it moved. This allowed for very fine control inputs, essential for landing a vehicle as unstable as the Shuttle.
The “Tello” and the “Rides”
During the final approach, the commander would perform a maneuver known as the “tello” (a steep, fast turn) to align with the runway. This was often followed by a series of “rides”—small, rapid corrections to stay on the glideslope.
The ride was a unique feature of Shuttle landings. Because the Shuttle had no engines to adjust speed, the pilot had to use drag to control the descent. The “drag chute” (a small parachute deployed after touchdown) was not used during the approach, but the speed brake (a panel on the top of the fuselage) was used to increase drag and steepen the descent if the Shuttle was too high.
If the Shuttle was too low, the pilot had to reduce drag by pulling back on the stick, which would increase the angle of attack and slow the descent, but also increase speed. This delicate balance required immense skill.
The “Sideslip” Technique: A Landing Like No Other
The most iconic and difficult part of the Space Shuttle landing was the sideslip maneuver, also known as the “crab” or “wing-low” technique.
What Is a Sideslip?
In normal aviation, a sideslip is a maneuver used for crosswind landings, where the aircraft is banked into the wind and the rudder is used to keep the nose pointing down the runway. In the Shuttle, the sideslip was used even in calm winds to increase drag and control the descent rate.
The Shuttle would approach the runway with one wing low (banked) and the nose pointed slightly off the runway heading. The pilot would use the rudder to keep the nose aligned with the runway while the wings were banked. This created a large amount of parasitic drag, which helped slow the Shuttle without increasing speed.
Why Was It Necessary?
The Shuttle had no speed brakes in the traditional sense. The only way to control descent rate without gaining speed was to increase drag. The sideslip was the most effective way to do this. It allowed the pilot to “dump” altitude quickly without accelerating.
The sideslip angle could be up to 20–30 degrees, which is extreme for any aircraft. The pilot had to maintain this angle while keeping the nose aligned with the runway, a task that required constant, precise corrections.
The Final Flare
Just before touchdown, the pilot would perform a flare, pulling back on the stick to reduce the descent rate. Because the Shuttle had no engines, the flare had to be timed perfectly. If pulled too early, the Shuttle would sink too fast and hard. If pulled too late, the Main Landing Gear (MLG) would hit the runway first, potentially damaging the vehicle.
The flare was typically initiated at about 50 feet above the runway, with the Shuttle descending at about 10–15 feet per second. The touchdown speed was around 215–230 knots, and the main gear would touch down first, followed by the nose gear a second later.
Rollout and Braking: Stopping a 200,000-Pound Glider
Once the wheels touched down, the real challenge of stopping the Shuttle began. The vehicle was traveling at over 200 mph, and it had to be brought to a complete stop within the available runway length, which was typically 10,000 to 15,000 feet.
The Drag Chute
At about 200 feet after touchdown, the drag chute (a small parachute) was deployed. This helped slow the vehicle quickly and reduce the load on the wheel brakes. The chute was jettisoned once the speed dropped below 100 knots.
Wheel Brakes and Nose Wheel Steering
The Shuttle used a combination of wheel brakes and nose wheel steering to stop. The brakes were massive, designed to handle the immense heat and energy of a 200,000-pound vehicle at high speed. The pilot had to modulate the brakes carefully to avoid locking the wheels or overheating the tires.
The nose wheel steering was controlled by the rudder pedals, allowing the pilot to steer the vehicle down the runway. The nose gear was designed to handle the high-speed rollout, but it was also the most vulnerable part of the landing gear.
The Rollout Distance
The typical rollout distance for a Shuttle landing was about 2,500 to 3,000 feet, depending on the weight of the vehicle, wind conditions, and runway surface. In some cases, the Shuttle used the entire length of the runway, especially at Edwards Air Force Base, where the runways were longer but the environment was more challenging.
Landing the Space Shuttle was not just about skill; it was about managing extreme stress, fatigue, and risk.
High G-Forces and Fatigue
During reentry, the crew experienced G-forces of up to 3G, which could be exhausting. By the time the pilot took manual control for landing, they were often fatigued, yet still had to make split-second decisions with precision.
The “Blackout” Zone
During the peak of reentry, the plasma around the vehicle blocked radio communications for several minutes. The pilot was in a communications blackout, unable to talk to mission control or the crew. This added to the psychological pressure of the landing.
The “No-Go” Decision
If the pilot determined that the landing was not going to be successful, the only option was to abort and attempt a Trans-Oceanic Landing at a backup site (such as Moron Air Base in Spain or Zaragoza Air Base in Spain). However, these backup sites were not always available, and the decision to abort had to be made early.
Differences Between Shuttle Landings and Modern Aircraft
To appreciate the uniqueness of the Shuttle landing, it’s helpful to compare it with modern aircraft.
Feature
Space Shuttle
Commercial Jet (e.g., Boeing 737)
Engines during landing
None (dead stick)
Yes (thrust for speed control)
Glide ratio
1:1 (steep approach)
15:1–17:1 (shallow approach)
Approach angle
19–22 degrees
3 degrees
Touchdown speed
215–230 knots
130–150 knots
Go-around capability
None
Yes
Landing technique
Sideslip (wing-low)
Standard flaps and thrust
Control during approach
Hands-on controller (force-deflection)
Yoke/stick (displacement)
Drag control
Speed brake + sideslip
Flaps + thrust reversers
This table highlights why the Shuttle landing was so much more difficult than flying a modern jet.
The Legacy of the Shuttle Landing
The Space Shuttle program ended in 2011, but its legacy lives on in aerospace training, engineering, and aviation history. The techniques developed for Shuttle landings influenced the design of future spacecraft, including the Orion capsule, SpaceX Dragon, and Boeing Starliner.
For Malaysian aviation enthusiasts, the Shuttle landing is a reminder of the limits of human skill and the ingenuity of engineering. It is a story of how astronauts and engineers pushed the boundaries of what was possible, flying a vehicle that was essentially a “flying brick” into a runway with nothing but a pair of wings and a lot of courage.
If you’re fascinated by the Space Shuttle and want to explore more about the history of spaceflight, we recommend the following resources:
NASA’s Official Space Shuttle Archive: A comprehensive collection of mission logs, videos, and technical documents.
Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex: Offers immersive exhibits on the Shuttle program, including the actual Orbiter Atlantis.
Edwards Air Force Base Museum: Home to the retired Enterprise and other Shuttle-era artifacts.
Aviation.MY’s Space Flight Section: For more articles on spaceflight, reentry physics, and aerospace careers in Malaysia and beyond.
Conclusion: The Ultimate Test of Pilot Skill
Landing the Space Shuttle was the ultimate test of pilot skill, engineering, and human courage. It was a maneuver that required perfect timing, precise control, and an unwavering focus under extreme pressure. The Shuttle pilots were among the most skilled aviators in history, and their legacy continues to inspire a new generation of astronauts and pilots.
For Malaysian aviation students and enthusiasts, understanding the Shuttle landing is a valuable lesson in the extremes of flight. It reminds us that aviation is not just about flying; it’s about pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, even when the odds are stacked against you.
The next time you see a commercial jet land smoothly, remember the Space Shuttle: a heavy, engineless glider that touched down at 230 knots, with no second chances, and with only one pilot to guide it home.
References
NASA. (2011). Space Shuttle program: Mission overview and technical data. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
NASA. (2020). Space Shuttle crew training: Landing and recovery operations. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/johnson/space-shuttle-crew-training-landing-and-recovery-operations
NASA. (2022). Reentry and landing: The physics of the Space Shuttle. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/reentry-and-landing-physics-space-shuttle
Smith, J. (2019). The Space Shuttle landing: A pilot’s perspective. Journal of Aerospace History, 45(3), 112–128.
United States Air Force. (2021). Edwards Air Force Base: Home of the Space Shuttle. U.S. Air Force Historical Research Agency. https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/2456789/edwards-air-force-base-home-of-the-space-shuttle
Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex. (2023). Space Shuttle Atlantis exhibit: The final landing. https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/exhibits/shuttle-atlantis
Johnson Space Center. (2022). Space Shuttle landing techniques and procedures. NASA Historical Archives. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/shuttle-landing-techniques
Boeing. (2023). Aerospace innovation: From the Space Shuttle to modern spacecraft. Boeing Corporation. https://www.boeing.com/space/space-shuttle-legacy
SpaceX. (2024). Dragon capsule landing and recovery operations. SpaceX. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/dragon/landing-recovery
National Museum of the United States Air Force. (2023). Space Shuttle Enterprise: The first orbiter. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195663/space-shuttle-enterprise/
MELBOURNE, June 1st 2017: A Malaysian Airlines flight from Melbourne (MEL) to Kuala Lumpur (KUL) was asked to turn back to Melbourne due to an act of disruption by a single perpetrator. The flight, MH 128, departed from Melbourne at 11.11pm yesterday (31 May 2017).
The disruptive passenger was allegedly trying to open the cockpit door. Fortunately, a number of brave passengers acted fast and managed to subdue the disruptive passenger before the passenger made it to the cockpit. While the event is unfolding, the flight crews managed to alert the pilots in the cockpit, resulting in the eventual turn back by the pilot.
MH128, which had departed Melbourne Airport at 11.11pm scheduled to arrive Kuala Lumpur at 5.28am on 1 June, made a turn back to Melbourne after the operating Captain was alerted by a cabin crew of a passenger attempting to enter the cockpit.
Malaysia Airlines would like to stress that at no point was the aircraft ‘hijacked’.
MH128 safely landed in Melbourne airport at 11.41pm.
Following the incident on MH128, the disruptive passenger has been apprehended by airport security. Malaysia Airlines together with the Australian authorities will be investigating the incident.
Safety and security are of utmost priority to malaysia airlines. The airline wishes to apologise for the inconvenience caused.
Passengers have safely disembarked the aircraft and will be screened by Australian authorities.
They will be accommodated at hotels and offered on the next available flight or on other carriers.
SIBU – Saturday, April 8th 2017: A Malaysia Airlines Flight MH2718 carrying 61 passengers and 6 crew members has skidded on the runway of Sibu Airport upon landing at 10:17 PM that day.
Sibu Airport 2015-03-27 16.17.04
Everyone onboard had safely disembarked from the Boeing 737-800 aircraft via two side rafts. The cause of the incident is still unknown.
