Crosswind Landing Accident.
Grand to know also you can buy his T-Shirts.
https://www.bigjettv.shop/listing/st...ign?product=46
My guess a pensioner who is dependent on welfare.
https://www.bigjettv.shop/listing/st...ign?product=46
My guess a pensioner who is dependent on welfare.
Last edited by RichardJones; 30th Dec 2023 at 10:12.
Pilot Induced Osilation?
If it ain't Boeing I Ain't Going.
BBC News - 'Oh stop!' - Storm Gerrit causes plane's bumpy landing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67830595
If it ain't Boeing I Ain't Going.
BBC News - 'Oh stop!' - Storm Gerrit causes plane's bumpy landing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67830595
I’m not sure he does ‘nail it’! Relatively smooth touchdown I grant you, but I don't see any evidence of him removing the drift during the flare. The undercarriage does the job of aligning the aircraft with the runway track.
Demanding skill especially in a strong crosswind, but surely the objective is to de-crab just before the mains settle! 🤔
Demanding skill especially in a strong crosswind, but surely the objective is to de-crab just before the mains settle! 🤔
My understanding from a few 747 jocks of my intimate acquaintance, is that the received knowledge was to never transition to a slip upon landing, rather, let the undercarriage sort it out. All of them privately acknowledged that they kicked in enough rudder to make the landing more or less in line with the centerline in actual practice.
Two of the three are now retired, but still active GA pilots, and the other flies for a global cargo concern.
none of them ever dinged a 747 as far as I know.
Two of the three are now retired, but still active GA pilots, and the other flies for a global cargo concern.
none of them ever dinged a 747 as far as I know.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
I find this quote from the report interesting:
"CL-604 Operating Manual The manufacturer’s Operating Manual (OM) stated in ‘NORMAL PROCEDURES, Approach and Landing’ that VREF+X is calculated by adding a wind correction of ‘half steady state crosswind plus all gust (regardless of direction). Maximum correction is + 20 KIAS’ to the VREF. For the reported wind of from 300° at 13 kt gusting 25 kt, and a VREF of 123 kt, this equates to a VREF +X of 142 kt".
On most airliners, it has traditionally been half(or a third) the steady state headwind plus all of the gust.
Anybody seen this before on other aircraft?
"CL-604 Operating Manual The manufacturer’s Operating Manual (OM) stated in ‘NORMAL PROCEDURES, Approach and Landing’ that VREF+X is calculated by adding a wind correction of ‘half steady state crosswind plus all gust (regardless of direction). Maximum correction is + 20 KIAS’ to the VREF. For the reported wind of from 300° at 13 kt gusting 25 kt, and a VREF of 123 kt, this equates to a VREF +X of 142 kt".
On most airliners, it has traditionally been half(or a third) the steady state headwind plus all of the gust.
Anybody seen this before on other aircraft?
I’m not sure he does ‘nail it’! Relatively smooth touchdown I grant you, but I don't see any evidence of him removing the drift during the flare. The undercarriage does the job of aligning the aircraft with the runway track.
Demanding skill especially in a strong crosswind, but surely the objective is to de-crab just before the mains settle! 🤔
Demanding skill especially in a strong crosswind, but surely the objective is to de-crab just before the mains settle! 🤔
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Finished the report. First they started off with not enough speed additive for gusts. Seems like he flared too high and was then holding off for the smooth landing(as suggested by the report) resulting in them stalling above the runway and dropping it on. The power was added but so was enough up elevator in response that the aircraft hitched very high nose up and stalled again, this time landing hard enough to cause damage to the nosegear added to the wing strike. They went off the side of the runway and then initiated a go-around.
I suppose in the initial flare that was too high, they might have been able to save the day with some power added earlier(while struggling with the crosswind) but the Operations Manual does say to go-around if power is needed to save a landing.
Bottom line.....too much elevator during a high flare and/or bounce can result in a stall. You may have to operate the elevator in such a way to neither stall or be too nose down. And perhaps even more so in challenging conditions, be willing to go-around earlier.
I suppose in the initial flare that was too high, they might have been able to save the day with some power added earlier(while struggling with the crosswind) but the Operations Manual does say to go-around if power is needed to save a landing.
Bottom line.....too much elevator during a high flare and/or bounce can result in a stall. You may have to operate the elevator in such a way to neither stall or be too nose down. And perhaps even more so in challenging conditions, be willing to go-around earlier.
Last edited by punkalouver; 1st Jan 2024 at 12:26.
421dog
"My understanding from a few 747 jocks of my intimate acquaintance, is that the received knowledge was to never transition to a slip upon landing,"
Yep, the aircraft geometry was such that if you allowed any significant deviation from wings level to develop in the flare you were in danger of smacking a pod. There were some graphs around, certainly in manuals for the 100-200, that illustrated pod ground clearance vs. pitch and roll that were quite quite eye watering...it could be tight even wings level.
"rather, let the undercarriage sort it out."
It would...and there was certainly an argument that on wet runways it was better to get the aircraft with all it's associated momentum attached to the concrete whilst the fight path vector was still aligned with the centre line, rather than spending too much time finessing the yaw alignment.
As a final point I know a lot of the comments about landings seen on streaming sites are wide of the mark but before being too critical it's always worth bearing in mind a lot of the performers seen on TV maintain recency with maybe two or three landings a month at best, might be at the end of a v long duty day and it might be oh dark horrible on their body clock.....
"My understanding from a few 747 jocks of my intimate acquaintance, is that the received knowledge was to never transition to a slip upon landing,"
Yep, the aircraft geometry was such that if you allowed any significant deviation from wings level to develop in the flare you were in danger of smacking a pod. There were some graphs around, certainly in manuals for the 100-200, that illustrated pod ground clearance vs. pitch and roll that were quite quite eye watering...it could be tight even wings level.
"rather, let the undercarriage sort it out."
It would...and there was certainly an argument that on wet runways it was better to get the aircraft with all it's associated momentum attached to the concrete whilst the fight path vector was still aligned with the centre line, rather than spending too much time finessing the yaw alignment.
As a final point I know a lot of the comments about landings seen on streaming sites are wide of the mark but before being too critical it's always worth bearing in mind a lot of the performers seen on TV maintain recency with maybe two or three landings a month at best, might be at the end of a v long duty day and it might be oh dark horrible on their body clock.....
421dog
"My understanding from a few 747 jocks of my intimate acquaintance, is that the received knowledge was to never transition to a slip upon landing,"
Yep, the aircraft geometry was such that if you allowed any significant deviation from wings level to develop in the flare you were in danger of smacking a pod. There were some graphs around, certainly in manuals for the 100-200, that illustrated pod ground clearance vs. pitch and roll that were quite quite eye watering...it could be tight even wings level.
"rather, let the undercarriage sort it out."
It would...and there was certainly an argument that on wet runways it was better to get the aircraft with all it's associated momentum attached to the concrete whilst the fight path vector was still aligned with the centre line, rather than spending too much time finessing the yaw alignment.
As a final point I know a lot of the comments about landings seen on streaming sites are wide of the mark but before being too critical it's always worth bearing in mind a lot of the performers seen on TV maintain recency with maybe two or three landings a month at best, might be at the end of a v long duty day and it might be oh dark horrible on their body clock.....
"My understanding from a few 747 jocks of my intimate acquaintance, is that the received knowledge was to never transition to a slip upon landing,"
Yep, the aircraft geometry was such that if you allowed any significant deviation from wings level to develop in the flare you were in danger of smacking a pod. There were some graphs around, certainly in manuals for the 100-200, that illustrated pod ground clearance vs. pitch and roll that were quite quite eye watering...it could be tight even wings level.
"rather, let the undercarriage sort it out."
It would...and there was certainly an argument that on wet runways it was better to get the aircraft with all it's associated momentum attached to the concrete whilst the fight path vector was still aligned with the centre line, rather than spending too much time finessing the yaw alignment.
As a final point I know a lot of the comments about landings seen on streaming sites are wide of the mark but before being too critical it's always worth bearing in mind a lot of the performers seen on TV maintain recency with maybe two or three landings a month at best, might be at the end of a v long duty day and it might be oh dark horrible on their body clock.....
Last edited by RichardJones; 31st Dec 2023 at 19:27.
Yep, the aircraft geometry was such that if you allowed any significant deviation from wings level to develop in the flare you were in danger of smacking a pod. There were some graphs around, certainly in manuals for the 100-200, that illustrated pod ground clearance vs. pitch and roll that were quite quite eye watering...it could be tight even wings level.
Well, err, yes, as previously stated it's almost all about the geometry (including the sweep of the wing) coupled with what's hanging/sticking down under the wings and where...I'd guess there are some twins with not a lot of pod clearance that don't have a lot of tolerance.
You could certainly afford to be slightly more "carefree", if I may use the term, with the AOB approaching and into the flare on something like a T7 than you could on a 747.
You could certainly afford to be slightly more "carefree", if I may use the term, with the AOB approaching and into the flare on something like a T7 than you could on a 747.
It's perhaps surprising that swept wings with podded engines have been with us for more than six decades and yet no definitive procedure has been developed for landing in strong crosswinds. With increasing incidence of violent weather and low availability of crosswind runways the difficulties might worsen in the future.
It's perhaps surprising that swept wings with podded engines have been with us for more than six decades and yet no definitive procedure has been developed for landing in strong crosswinds. With increasing incidence of violent weather and low availability of crosswind runways the difficulties might worsen in the future.
The ideal lateral position of the wings at touch down, should be into wind wing down, or slightly down. Even level, if that's how it turns out.
The pod strikes, in first generation 4, underslung engined heavy jets, often occurred when crosswinds are involved. Usually when the into wind wing is allowed to lift beyond level. If the procedure you use is correct, the A/c will be slipping into wind. No drift at touch down. Therefore the into wind wing will be lower.
We must be aware of the consequences of a heavy landing, with the wing down. The a/c will tend to rock or roll and leave the aircraft in a lateral position which is not ideal.
Stick to the basics that you were taught (if) during abinino training.
Whatever is done, make sure the rudder pedals are not juggled or pedalled like pedal car. Increase the rudder (lee wind) inputs gradually.
One may ask, when do you start crossing the controls? I crossed them gradually. Depending on the width and surface conditions. It is not ideal waiting to kick off the drift at the last moment then finding yourself not lined up and off the centre line..On occasion I have started crossing the controls as high as 500' AGL, or more. Need to be lined up and maintain it throughout the landing roll.
I was taught by a Master on a B707.
"When you can touch down, at max demonstrated crosswind for the aircraft type, on the centre line, the aircraft heading and track the same as the runway direction and maintain. Do that, you can land crosswind. This is what we aim to do right? Well if it can't be done, then it could be argued the handling pilot does not have full control of the aircraft. Or do we? Juggle the rudder, you are inviting trouble"
Last edited by RichardJones; 4th Jan 2024 at 19:08.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Glasgow, EGPF
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this quote from the report interesting:
"CL-604 Operating Manual The manufacturer’s Operating Manual (OM) stated in ‘NORMAL PROCEDURES, Approach and Landing’ that VREF+X is calculated by adding a wind correction of ‘half steady state crosswind plus all gust (regardless of direction). Maximum correction is + 20 KIAS’ to the VREF. For the reported wind of from 300° at 13 kt gusting 25 kt, and a VREF of 123 kt, this equates to a VREF +X of 142 kt".
On most airliners, it has traditionally been half(or a third) the steady state headwind plus all of the gust.
Anybody seen this before on other aircraft?
"CL-604 Operating Manual The manufacturer’s Operating Manual (OM) stated in ‘NORMAL PROCEDURES, Approach and Landing’ that VREF+X is calculated by adding a wind correction of ‘half steady state crosswind plus all gust (regardless of direction). Maximum correction is + 20 KIAS’ to the VREF. For the reported wind of from 300° at 13 kt gusting 25 kt, and a VREF of 123 kt, this equates to a VREF +X of 142 kt".
On most airliners, it has traditionally been half(or a third) the steady state headwind plus all of the gust.
Anybody seen this before on other aircraft?
But in this case it actually worked in their favour since it went some way to mitigating the incorrect initial calculation of Vref. Again I am surprised the report did not delve deeper into why they got the figure they did, but it is consistent with them not spotting that a database update has cleared the defaults. This sometimes happens, and one of the items cleared is the DOM figure, which reverts to the factory setting. so all the FMS speeds would be based on a mass around 4000lbs too low, or around 15%.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
I am not familiar with the handling of the CL604, but am reasonably familiar with it's younger sibling, the CL350.
The human factor elements definitely contributed to it.
The Chally 350 will drop a wing if you put in too much rudder. I daresay it's a similar set up on the CL604. It can catch out folks. I think he probably over rotated a smidge thus letting it float down the runway. It is a very slippery wing and needs some attention to the flare - or rather - check.
The human factor elements definitely contributed to it.
The Chally 350 will drop a wing if you put in too much rudder. I daresay it's a similar set up on the CL604. It can catch out folks. I think he probably over rotated a smidge thus letting it float down the runway. It is a very slippery wing and needs some attention to the flare - or rather - check.