Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

High winds at Schipol. What a landing!

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

High winds at Schipol. What a landing!

Old 14th Aug 2015, 13:04
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good example of a nice landing technique

SAWH nicely done... fortunately it looked like a reasonably steady wind, reference any gusts
7478ti is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 22:07
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South, near the end of the world.
Age: 50
Posts: 285
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Winds from the North in Ushuaia SAWH/USH are never steady because of the montains near the airport. Gusts of 40 to 50s kts are very common.
It is a very challenging flight condition because of the turbulence, sometimes it is so strong that the AP is kicked off when flying the ILS.
The crosswind component could be very easy over limit in that condition, wind from the North approaching to Rwy 25.
cosmiccomet is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 23:17
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AP performance in turbulence?

"...sometimes it is so strong that the AP is kicked off when flying the ILS" ??!!

Wow... That certainly shouldn't happen!!!

O
7478ti is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 22:02
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's no big deal if it does kick off as it sometimes does because now you get to fly instead of watch. That is a lot more fun.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 22:20
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Disconnect for turbulence alone, isn't good

Any AP self-initiated disconnect due to turbulence alone, without w/o some other internal AP or servo failure happening, or some prior saturation indication, isn't good, ...particularly when coupled to an ILS or GLS. In fact for any FAIL OP Mode, that kind of AP anomaly behavior is inappropriate, and can be dangerous, if not even uncertificable, ....or if for a system already certificated, grounds for issuance of additional operating limitations, or even issuance of an AD until corrected, or otherwise use limited.

O
7478ti is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2015, 00:35
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ops normal for the conditions?

Originally Posted by atakacs
Admittedly no experience with the 777 here but to my untrained eyes this one was way too close for comfort... Stabilised approach, really?!
Glad everyone walked away but surprised that it does not raise more concern...
Finally a landing has to be made somewhere. If the alternates have similar winds, it might be preferable to use fuel at destination rather than elsewhere.
An understandable degree of PIO might be present, and it would be hard to suggest a substantially unstable approach based on the video. I would also hesitant to call the nice touchdown a lucky break.
Old school options, like extra fuel, wonderfully opens up the holding and alternate choice possibilities.
autoflight is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2015, 22:15
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fredericton
Age: 75
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by d192049d
Some nervous but appreciative ATC....

LiveLeak.com - No place for mistakes Airbus 340
A good outcome. No shredding. Touchdown with a wee bit too much crab angle remaining.

Not too sure about the A340s but on the A300s the outcome may not be too happy. Just saying.
Chuck Canuck is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2015, 01:47
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aluminium shuffler
From misd-agin:

"The 767 and 777 are more roll sensitive than the smaller jets. Not completely sure why. Friends have talked about it but we're not sure if it's a fuselage flex issue (ie wings move fractionally before the fuselage which attempts to 'catch up'), the size of the engines creating a greater mass that is offset from the roll C.G., or perhaps a gyroscopic effective from the large N1's? We don't know. But we do know the w/b a/c tend to have a bit of a sideways 'lurching' or 'bump' if you make large, or rapid, opposing roll inputs. The 777 in particular gets a sideways bumping motion (hate to say this but it's probably the easiest way to explain... similar to braless lateral motion...). More than the 767 it requires a slight pause before changing the roll rate request or reversing the roll request.


The 727, 767, and 777, to my recollection more than the 737 and 757, get a wing dropping sensation if large roll inputs are made. At larger roll control inputs the roll spoilers start deploying and with large inputs it literally feels like the wing is falling as opposed to rolling. And the typical reaction, sometimes called 'startle reflex(?)', is to counter-act that roll input with a large roll command to the other side, to correct the drop/roll, and the 'drop' is now done to the other side. And the over-correction starts towards the first roll direction, and back and forth it goes. If you feel that look at the wing. If you see large spoiler movements that is some of the motion. It could also be caused by gusting/shifting winds. And if you're in a 777 and feel a slight sideways lurching movement, look at the ailerons and see if they're going up and down. If they are you've found the source of the motion. It's not uncommon to feel it on the 777. So it that sense I'd agree, you can't fly a 777 like a 757/767. It will exposure less than smooth control inputs while the 767, and especially the 757, aren't quite as roll sensitive."

The 73's flight controls are manual cable and pulley affairs with hydraulic assistance, rather than all out power controls, so I suspect that is why they are relatively small and have less authority than on other types - so that they can be used in manual reversion with no hydraulics without being so heavy as to be unmoveable. The same may apply to the 727, but I don't know that aircraft's systems.
To be honest with you, I found both the 727 and 737 to be more roll sensitive in turbulence and remember using quick jabs of aileron input to counteract turbulence induced roll. The 747 was definitely more of a lumbering aircraft and less responsive. While my 777 experience is limited at this point, it is more sensitive than the 747 and I was definitely overcontrolling it in the sim which was said to be more sensitive due to the fly by wire system. On the line, I have had some daytime heating thermal type approaches and with small inputs have had no problems.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2015, 18:14
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jammed - my comments were about how the planes respond to control inputs and not their responses to external(turbulence) inputs.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 14:12
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jammed Stab,

I should have been clearer about what I meant - I think the 73 has less aileron sensitivity and less roll authority because of small control surfaces, and I'm making an educated guess that design was because of the potential for manual reversion. They are relatively sensitive in roll to gusts and shear, especially the NG, due to the low inertia of such a sized aircraft and the light wing loading, especially the bigger and longer (more moment) winged NG. I found having extra fuel reduced the roll induced by wind effects considerably because of having greater mass outboard - the fuel not only gave us a better chance of getting in with allowing a second attempt before getting near reserves but also by markedly improving gust alleviation. It saved me numerous diversions and a lot of subsequent costs. Of course, it wasn't in the books, so I'd get told off by the bosses for having extra fuel... No room for common sense in modern flying.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 14:37
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chuck Canuck


'Touchdown with a wee bit too much crab angle remaining'

A whole lot better than landing D/W of the centreline. The A340 (and all modern jets) are tested on many max x-wind landings using full 'crab' on touchdown.

See B777 trials video in KEF

This was a terrific landing.
A340Yumyum is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 17:13
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 76
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Have a look at some Youtube videos of rough weather landings on RWY34 at NZWN/WLG.
Chris2303 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.