The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Cross Wind

Old 2nd Oct 2015, 00:43
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I flew into the Alice last year in less than pleasant conditions...very strong nor-easterly but swinging through more than 90 deg in gusts, a lot of thermal activity as well. The ATIS gave RWY 12 as active.

It was a rough ride inbound from Deep Well and the updated weather from the nice lady in the tower did nothing to build confidence. I asked if the grass was available and explained about Austers in crosswinds.

She gave me a "standby" and then came back with "not available".

I said: "This could be ugly!"

She instructed me to orbit while she got rid of an RPT. I looked longingly at the old NE-SW runway turned taxiway and headed for the big black as directed.

There is a God...on short final with what felt like 60 deg laid off for the wind, it suddenly veered and became a wonderful headwind of about 20 knots.

I plonked her down as quick as I possibly could right beside this lovely, wide, mown grass verge, and managed to turn in the shelter of the terminal to taxi to the parking area...Auster brakes were an after-thought.

I got an invitation to go up to the control deck and asked what was wrong with the grass.

She said she thought it might be too rough!


Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2015, 03:52
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I got an invitation to go up to the control deck and asked what was wrong with the grass.

She said she thought it might be too rough!
I wonder in this wonderful age of litigation and risk aversion, if this is the tower staff not wishing to accept a non standard landing surface request in case they are liable for any problem.
If this is the case, they are probably hoping the pilot in command will issue a pan or whatever, and then they can be more helpful.
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2015, 05:23
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with rjtjrt.

As a clue, there is CAAP 92-1 "GUIDELINES FOR AEROPLANE LANDING AREAS" which describes the runway strip - “runway strip” means a portion of
ground between the runway and fly-over
area which is in a condition that ensures
minimal damage to an aeroplane which
may run off a runway during take-off or
landing;
uncle8 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2015, 05:47
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I wonder in this wonderful age of litigation and risk aversion, if this is the tower staff not wishing to accept a non standard landing surface request in case they are liable for any problem.
If this is the case, they are probably hoping the pilot in command will issue a pan or whatever, and then they can be more helpful.
When a hellicopter asks for a takeoff clearence from somewhere that isnt the active runway (ie a movement area) in the US, ATC will append "at own risk" to the clearance. Why couldn't something similar be done here for non standard runway opps?
no_one is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2015, 02:54
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pilot in command has the final say.

But must be able to justify oneself.

ATC instructions/clearances are complied with as a matter of course, not because they are "orders".

This case is no different to an ATC request for a climb or descent that is outside the performance of said aircraft.

Having lit the fuse I will now stand well back.
currawong is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2015, 05:36
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Philippines
Posts: 360
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Ive landed a Moth at Camden and used 10/28 which is a grass strip. 06/24 is the main GA tarmac strip.
ChrisJ800 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2015, 13:51
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hollister, Hilo, Pago Pago, Norfolk Is., Brisbane, depending which day of the week it is...
Age: 51
Posts: 1,348
Received 11 Likes on 7 Posts
So why didn't you proceed to your alternate??
Alternates are not always required.
MakeItHappenCaptain is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 09:50
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Alternates are not always required".

Ummm... Yes you are correct. In this case however, an alternate would have been required (in case you need it spelt out for you, it is due to the winds at the planned arrival port exceeding the crosswind limit for the aircraft. Pretty simple really).
KoolKaptain is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 22:01
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 839
Received 48 Likes on 21 Posts
KoolKaptain, are you saying that in his case, prior to takeoff, the forecast indicated that the crosswind would exceed the limits of the aircraft? (I don't know what the forecast was.) Maybe chill your smarmy tone?
josephfeatherweight is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 04:45
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Albany, West Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 506
Received 19 Likes on 6 Posts
Back in the early 80's, I received a visit from a DH-82 owner/pilot who needed some agronomic advice. At the time, I lived on a farm 240 kms NE of Perth - in the sticks so to speak!

He mumbled a bit about the fact we had a 'runway' at the farm, but I didn't give it a thought until he arrived overhead. With a 25kt hot northerly blowing, he had one try at the E-W runway, prudently gave that away, then lined up on the 'finish-out' headland in the young wheat crop and floated down to a perfect 3 pointer - which took all of 50m into wind.

But, we had to then lift the tail up by hand to taxy him back to clear ground as there was no tailwheel - just the original skid. That was pretty much the condition of the entire aircraft - it was right out of a WW2 training station.

The owner/pilot was a real 'original' - wrinkled skin, faded and scratched leather jacket and leather flying helmet. " You need a 100m circle in the middle of this paddock" he said - " then I can handle any wind direction". "Don't think I can sell that idea to cockies" thought I.

"Can't say I was ever taught to fly in crosswinds" he admitted - " it never seemed necessary when every farm had plenty of pasture, but since you young blokes have begun to plant every paddock down to crops it's all getting difficult"

Well, the wind blew, the sand flew, and we had to hide the DH-82 behind a line of mallee for a few hours. Finally, we had a lull, and he was able to make a rather erratic takeoff on our strip. Last I ever saw of the old gent, or of his DH-82, but he surely didn't take any risks in crosswinds.

happy days,
poteroo is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 07:24
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,274
Received 410 Likes on 202 Posts
Is the number in the Moth POH a structural limitation (i.e. the crosswind at or below which the airframe has been demonstrated as capable of enduring for the life of type if no correction for the crosswind is made during landings) or an aerodynamic limitation (i.e. the crosswind at or above which the airframe has been demonstrated as incapable of compensation on landing, despite control inputs from the pilot)?
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 07:49
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is the number in the Moth POH a structural limitation (i.e. the crosswind at or below which the airframe has been demonstrated as capable of enduring for the life of type if no correction for the crosswind is made during landings) or an aerodynamic limitation (i.e. the crosswind at or above which the airframe has been demonstrated as incapable of compensation on landing, despite control inputs from the pilot)?
Did the Tiger have a POH? The Auster didn't and flies with an exemption.

According to AOPA, Air Safety Institute Instructor Reports

"As with most aircraft performance parameters, there is a number to guide us. The manufacturer provides a demonstrated crosswind component in the normal operating section of the pilot's operating handbook (POH). This is not the maximum side wind that the aircraft can theoretically handle. It is the most wind that the test pilots actually experienced while testing the aircraft for certification. The numbers are usually fairly high. For example, the Cessna Turbo 210 was tested to land safely in 21 knots of direct crosswind. For most of us, that will probably suffice on a day-to-day basis, and the majority of CFIs recommend that demonstrated crosswind be considered the aircraft's limit."

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 08:20
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In his book on Johnie Johnson, Dilp Sarkar recounts that Johnie flew the squadron Auster down to Rearsby on a day off in order to participate in a test of the latest Auster IV conducted by the Chief test pilot, Mr Waite.

The both got in and Waite lined it up on the runway. He announced he would demonstrate a short take off and promptly opened the throttle while standing on the brakes until the tail assumed the level for flight. Waite then released the brakes and "we were off in a very short distance indeed."

In the Auster book there is another story about the doings of Mr Waite. Apparently he did a similar demo in an AOP5 in front of the "brass"...except he announced he would take off over the manager's little Standard 10 parked ridiculously close down the runway. He almost cleared it!

But he subsequently gave a very good demo of how to land an Auster on one gear leg only toppling at the end of the landing run.

I gather the tradespeople at Rearsby had panel eating skills as well.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 08:22
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,274
Received 410 Likes on 202 Posts
Indeed.

But many people discuss crosswind limitations without realising that there's a Venus/Mars thing going on.

There are two kinds of crosswind limitations.

The first - structural limitation.

Imagine a runway aligned north/south and a crosswind from the east or west. Irrespective of the amount of crosswind, it is possible for a pilot to manoeuvre any aircraft in wings-level flight so that it 'arrives' at the threshold of the north/south runway, pointing directly north or south, at any amount of crosswind.

However, when the aircraft 'arrives' at the threshold of this north/south runway while pointing north or south in wings-level flight, it will be moving east or west at the speed of the crosswind. That will put stress on the airframe.

For example, imagine an aircraft pointing north on descent in wings-level flight, being blown sideways at 20 kts, arriving at the threshold of a north facing runway. The aircraft is moving 'sideways' at 20 knots when it touches down. That has to be 'absorbed' by the airframe, or the airframe breaks.

The second - aerodynamic limitation.

Imagine a runway aligned north/south and a crosswind from the east or west.

The pilot wants to maintain a track that is aligned with the runway centre line, so that on 'arrival' at the threshold the aircraft is not moving east or west, but instead only in the direction of the runway.

In this case, there will be a crosswind above which it is not possible for the pilot to maintain a track that is aligned with the runway centre line, because no amount of control input can compensate for the drift caused by the crosswind.

Of course it's a bit more complicated than this simple distinction, because a lot of other factors come into play once the aircraft is in contact with and rolling along the runway, but an understanding of what the number actually means is important.
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 08:34
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 555
Received 79 Likes on 38 Posts
Don't forget we are talking Tiger Moth, a tail wheel aircraft. If you try to land with any sideways movement on touch down it will try very hard to swap ends. This will happen well before any structural limitation is reached. The only limitation needed when discussing Tiger Moths is the aerodynamic limitation.
Cloudee is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.