PDA

View Full Version : Max Cross wind


Chally604
2nd Jun 2011, 16:00
Hi all,

just a brief one...
When you have a crosswind limit of 24 knots, and you have a wind from 90 degrees off with 20 knots gusting 30 knots.

Is this in limits?

Meaning, what is the limit? The steady wind or the gust?

Thanks for help!

welliewanger
2nd Jun 2011, 16:57
I was always told "Land it during a lull in the wind!" but I don't think that really helps.

My understanding is that the wind for your landing is considered to be whatever the last windcheck was that you got. This is similar to the RVR issue. Once you've received an RVR report which is above minima you'd better hope that they don't report another one.

The other part to my answer is this. Most (all?) Pilot Operating Handbooks state a maximum demonstrated crosswind. That's the most that the manufacturer managed to demonstrate that the aircraft can land in. If, during the certification, they didn't have any windy days then they can only give the max crosswind that they managed to demonstrate. The C152 is a prime example. It's max demonstrated crosswind is 12 knots. I (along with many others) have demonstrated that it can land in more than twice that much. But it's what the manufacturer managed to demonstrate that counts for the book.

Finally you have to ask yourself what the lawyers would say if you crash. You may not be breaking the law, but you may invalidate any insurance you have.

Mad (Flt) Scientist
2nd Jun 2011, 17:15
For the aircraft chally604 is asking about, it IS a Limitation, not a recommendation/demonstration.

Denti
2nd Jun 2011, 17:59
Shouldn't the FCOM or POH state if the limit is steady winds only or gusts included, or even extra limits for gusts?

fireflybob
2nd Jun 2011, 18:30
couple of points, definition of a gust, last time I checked, was ten knots or more from mean wind speed. (the French, for reasons best known to themselves, always seem to like to include the maximum, as in "5 kts gusting 8 kts!)

Wind passed by atc when cleared to land is usually average over last two minutes - you can always ask for the "instant" winds.

Different operators have different guidance in their operations manuals, one I am familiar adds half of the total gust to the mean wind crosswind component when deciding to assess whether within cross wind limits.

Hope this helps

A-3TWENTY
3rd Jun 2011, 01:09
To me , demonstrated x wind is a limitation.

I`m an airline pilot , not a test pilot. So I`m not allowed to push an airplane into the unknown .

In the Airbus :

For T/O they state 32 Kts(gusts included) and for LDG 40Kts (Gusts included)

Below that , there is a note which says:

"The maximum demonstrated crosswind value is not an AFM limitation : It`s the maximum crosswind experienced during the aircraft certification campaign.Airbus recommends that operators should not intencionally operate in crosswinds that exceed this value."



I think I replied your question.

CI54
3rd Jun 2011, 02:01
My 0.02 is, that crosswind is above the threshold of the limitation due to the gust. Therefore, I would wait for another shot for the approach or otherwise go elsewhere...

CanadaKid
3rd Jun 2011, 02:25
FYI from B777 Training Manual
The crosswind guidelines shown below were derived through flight test data, engineering analysis and flight simulator evaluations. These crosswind guidelines are based on steady wind (no gust) conditions and include all engines operating and engine inoperative. Gust effects were evaluated and tend to increase pilot workload without significantly affecting the recommended guidelines.

There are numerous other points to consider but anytime the aircraft is flown near any limitation, it's best to assess what margin of safety is left for your own "personal technique".

Chally604
3rd Jun 2011, 02:40
Hi, thanks for the feedback so far.

Yes it is a limit for us.
The 604 had the limit only on the reverser, when memory serves.
But acc. AFM 605 it is a hard limitation.

However, I am surprised to find no clear statement.

Sure, common sense and my will to become 100 years might lead me to avoid landing at 50kts cross, but for me it is a legal question for sim checkrides for example.

Slasher
3rd Jun 2011, 02:53
My mob says 38kt incl gusts for the A320 suck-squirt. Quite
definitive and cuts out any doubt.

The Frogmobile is quite capable of handling up to 50kts dry
and 40kts wet and regularly done in the sim just for practice
if ever a day comes when you might have to do it to survive.

"Max-demonstrated" should be THE limitation where your job
can hang in the balance - accept a few knots above and then
accidently take out just a couple of edge lights, and suddenly
max-demonstrated becomes the deciding factor in the Safety
pilot's office in giving you the arse. Believe me its happened.

bubbers44
3rd Jun 2011, 05:47
Boeing gives us a very clear xwind component. Usually around 30 knots. It always worked for me. Either it is or it isn't exceeding this limit, quite simple.

Checkboard
3rd Jun 2011, 06:26
If it's a limitation, then it's a limitation.

limit of 24 knots, and you have a wind from 90 degrees off with 20 knots gusting 30 knots.

... so as a pilot, all you need ask yourself is "Can I guarantee that I will land under the limitation, given the information I have?"

... and in your case there is only one answer, given the information you have: No

(Which doesn't stop you from gathering better information - i.e. ask the tower for the current measured wind.)

bookworm
3rd Jun 2011, 09:06
At dispatch, under JAR-OPS/EASA-OPS gusts in METARs and TAFs may be ignored for all but ETOPS alternates when comparing with wind limitations. That implies to me that one would expect the same to be applied in flight.

I'm with Denti -- if such a limitation is published in a manual, one would expect the manual to cover the issue of what the limit applies to.

Checkboard
3rd Jun 2011, 09:17
bookworm - my company ops manual shows a chart which states that (and states that the chart comes from JAR-OPS) - however as I understand it, the chart has been removed from JAR/EU-OPS. In any case, I don't think it implies that you may ignore a limitation - you may use it for planning, and then be forced to use your emergency authority to actually land over the limitation if you don't have fuel to divert.

decurion
3rd Jun 2011, 09:29
Have a look at this: http://www.nlr.nl/id~5114/lang~en.pdf (http://www.nlr.nl/id%7E5114/lang%7Een.pdf)

There is often confusion among pilots how to interpret the maximum
demonstrated crosswind component as given in the aircraft flight manual and in
the aircraft operating manual. A recent survey amongst 81 airline pilots of 5
operators done by the Germany accident investigation board BFU gave some
interesting facts about this problem. When the BFU gave the scenario of a
maximum demonstrated crosswind component of 33 kts. gusting 38 with a
actual wind gusting up to 40 kts., 40% of the pilots replied that landing is
permitted if gusts were not perceived as operationally relevant, 36% replied
landing is not permitted because the gust would exceed operational limits of the
aircraft, 20% said landing is permitted because gusts are irrelevant for crosswind
computations as only steady wind counted, and 4% had no idea. On the
question what is the practical meaning in normal flight operations of the term
“demonstrated crosswind” in the aircraft operating manual, 50% replied that it is
a limit, 47% replied it is guidance, and 3% did not know. (from: http://www.nlr-atsi.com/eCache/ATS/14/919.pdf )

bookworm
3rd Jun 2011, 09:41
my company ops manual shows a chart which states that (and states that the chart comes from JAR-OPS) - however as I understand it, the chart has been removed from JAR/EU-OPS.

It has reappeared in the EASA OPS CRD (http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/crd/part-ops/CRD%20b.3%20-%20Resulting%20text%20of%20Part-CAT%20(A,H)-corrigendum-1.pdf) at page 210 (6 MB)

GM1-CAT.OP.AH.180 Selection of aerodromes - aeroplanes
APPLICATION OF AERODROME FORECASTS

A number of errors appear to have been inadvertently introduced compared to the JAR-OPS IEM.

In any case, I don't think it implies that you may ignore a limitation - you may use it for planning, and then be forced to use your emergency authority to actually land over the limitation if you don't have fuel to divert.

Agreed, but in every other respect I can think of, pre-flight planning minima are designed more conservatively to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Chally604
4th Jun 2011, 09:50
Hi all,

Thanks a lot for your suuport.
Sure, we know all, we will not land at gusting 50kts from the right!

The question is more theoretical unrelated to preparation and anything.

Scenario:
Simride approaching 8 Miles Final
Windcheck 360/20 gusting 32 (RWY 27)

Limitation:
24 kts Hard limitation (not stated as demonstrated also no gusting limitation. Just 24. Thats it.)

Question:
Dry - Legal or not?
Wet - Legal or not?

Checkboard
4th Jun 2011, 11:28
Simride answer - Not legal, divert. Taking the conservative, safe option can't be argued with.

Real world - it only matters if you crash, and are attempting to explain to a non-pilot, frequent passenger judge, how you left the runway in a 38 knot gust you were warned about and knew was:
possible, and
was greater than the certified aircraft limit.

A37575
4th Jun 2011, 11:40
The C152 is a prime example. It's max demonstrated crosswind is 12 knots.

Strange that the Cessna test pilot was unable to find anywhere in the USA where the crosswind was more than 12 knots:ok:

Checkboard
4th Jun 2011, 11:46
The minimum demonstration requirement is 20% over the stalling speed. If you only demonstrate the minimum, then you can't be sued for anything higher, while still allowing operations (as it's only demonstrated) up to the "pilot limit" ;)

safetypee
4th Jun 2011, 13:53
Chally604 re #17. Rather than ask if the approach and landing will be legal – can I do this, ask ‘should I be doing this’, is it sensible.
Whilst the advice above varies – limits are limits, the use of any interpretive information must be your decision. Why trust the outcome of your landing to someone else’s opinion. However … IMHO (where on occasion I have determined a demonstrated crosswind in test flights), the published value should include the gust.
There is plenty of evidence from accidents and studies (decurion #15), which indicate that pilots’ risk assessments are weak, either due to lack of information about the conditions, poor knowledge about the factors in the conditions, or the application of knowledge (choice of action).
Perhaps you should ask ‘when did I last land in the max steady crosswind, if ever – what’s my currency’, what’s different – runway width, surface texture, speed, tyres, IS THE SURFACE WET (even damp).
Don’t forget that risk is not only associated with being able to land a crosswind, its also staying on the runway during roll out. IIRC there is a report that many excursions ‘side-exit’ incidents occur at relatively low speed.
A legal view may only affect biscuits with tea at the interview, alternatively a formal investigation.
A sound judgement is always be defensible (as per checkerboard #18)– you did you best in the circumstances – the culminating aspect of airmanship.

bookworm
4th Jun 2011, 15:39
There is plenty of evidence from accidents and studies (decurion #15), which indicate that pilots’ risk assessments are weak, either due to lack of information about the conditions, poor knowledge about the factors in the conditions, or the application of knowledge (choice of action).

Isn't that a very good reason why, if someone writes a "limit" into a manual of some sort, they should make it very explicit what metric (mean or max gust, time-averaged or instant, actual or forecast) the limit refers to?

Checkboard
4th Jun 2011, 15:44
"The limit is 35 knots"

Ah, what if the speed in given in mps?

"THE LIMIT IS 35 KNOTS" :rolleyes:

"Ah, what if the wind was only exceeding 35 knots for a little bit?"

"The limit is 35 knots" :hmm:

"AH .. What if I landed over 35 knots, but time averaged the wind over the last day or so, until I could come up with an average below the limit?"

"THE LIMIT IS 35 KNOTS, what part of this is difficult to understand?" :mad:

:p ;)

bookworm
4th Jun 2011, 16:48
If I give you an airspeed limitation, wouldn't you expect me to tell you if that's IAS, CAS, EAS, TAS or Mach number?

If I give you a manoeuvring speed, wouldn't you expect me to tell you what you are and are not permitted to do with the controls above that speed?

If I give you a wind limit, wouldn't you expect me to tell you what I meant?

So put another way:

Real world - it only matters if you crash, and are attempting to explain to a non-pilot, frequent passenger judge, how you left the runway in a 38 knot gust you were warned about and knew was:
possible, and
was greater than the certified aircraft limit.

How did you measure the "38 knot gust" during which you claim I left the runway? Was it at tower height half a mile away, or at the surface? Did you read it off the INS?

Here's what the paper decurion cites has to say:

Depending on the way the data are analyzed crosswind derived from the INS system includes or excludes wind gusts. At least one large aircraft manufacturer uses the INS data to derive a crosswind by plotting the crosswind component as function of time. The crosswind at the time the aircraft is 10 meters above the ground is then read off the plot. Engineering judgment is used in fairing the data. Another manufacturer has a different approach in determining the crosswind value during flight tests. During the flight tests the pilots of this aircraft manufacture requested the tower wind when the aircraft was close to a height of 10 meters from the ground. The mean wind given was then used to compute the crosswind during the crosswind certification flights. If this last aircraft manufacturer had used the approach of fairing INS data as mentioned before, the demonstrated crosswind capability for one of their aircraft would have been at least 10 knots higher than presently mentioned in the AFM of this aircraft.

Checkboard
4th Jun 2011, 17:22
I wouldn't be measuring the gust! ;) I am saying that IF you ran off the side of the runway, after a tower report (from tower measured wind) of gusts over the aircraft limit ...

... well I would imagine that would be very hard to explain to a judge. :O

Now you and I both know all of the caveats on wind reports and demonstrated crosswind limits - but convincing a judge and/or jury of that will sound a little .. um ... like a contrived excuse. :p

Not to say I'm not happy to land over demonstrated limits - I have before and I guess will again. (My current company has an ops manual hard limit though - and it's their play set.)