Crosswind Landing Accident.
BBC News - London Stansted Airport: Plane damaged while trying to land
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-67600872 I am interested to know the wind including gusts when that happened. |
Originally Posted by RichardJones
(Post 11551372)
BBC News - London Stansted Airport: Plane damaged while trying to land
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-67600872 I am interested to know the wind including gusts when that happened. https://assets.publishing.service.go...99PX_01-24.pdf |
Thanks.
In that wind the PF should have been able to manage, without bending it. The pilot handing skills near the ground in a decent x- wind are not there anymore. |
Originally Posted by RichardJones
(Post 11551405)
Thanks.
In that wind the PF should have been able to manage, without bending it. The pilot handing skills near the ground in a decent x- wind are not there anymore. |
Originally Posted by RichardJones
(Post 11551405)
Thanks.
In that wind the PF should have been able to manage, without bending it. The pilot handing skills near the ground in a decent x- wind are not there anymore. According to the BBC article the crew has a strained relationship and had been up for 17 hours and seemed to be determined to land rather than go around so probably fairly standard biz jet ops. That might be more relevant. |
Originally Posted by Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP
(Post 11551428)
Excellent. That's it then. We are all now considered deficient because of one incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPn3MBNt7Rc Not their fault as they havent been taught, as there are none around to teach them https://www.facebook.com/reel/245688...?s=yWDuG2&fs=e As for the 757. Not a bad effort but the PF didn't touch down with zero drift. He certainly has the capabilities to have carried that out. Just mu 2 p's worth. |
I guess Wilbur and Orville must have sucked then
|
Originally Posted by RichardJones
(Post 11551620)
There is this performance.
Not their fault as they havent been taught, as there are none around to teach them https://www.facebook.com/reel/245688...?s=yWDuG2&fs=e As for the 757. Not a bad effort but the PF didn't touch down with zero drift. |
Originally Posted by treadigraph
(Post 11551979)
Need to log in to Facebook to see that. Not me...
|
Ah... fair enough! With the rudder that far behind P/F's feet not surprised there's some lag... :p
|
Originally Posted by RichardJones
(Post 11551620)
As for the 757. Not a bad effort but the PF didn't touch down with zero drift.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a2d6857d66.jpg |
Well I have put a B707 down with 360/ 28 gusting 33 kts. Straight across. Zero crab. I long time ago. If it can be done Zero crab in a 707 surely it can be done on a 737. 707 less forgiving,
admittedly the 707 was at max landing weight which makes it easier. Cargo. That was one of my best efforts. X wind. |
Okay, first the thread drift. The 757 guy nails it, great job.
Richard J, did they build the hump on the 747 to accommodate you? Does anyone realise that a long lens (300-400mm likely for many spotters) makes objects look closer and thereby exaggerates angles? Back to the thread, it's actually worrying because once again it seems to indicate biz jet lack of handling skills, safety awareness, CRM and what not. Oh and you must give the boss a smooth landing no matter what. Anyone care to comment? |
Originally Posted by Consol
(Post 11552410)
Okay, first the thread drift. The 757 guy nails it, great job.
Richard J, did they build the hump on the 747 to accommodate you? Does anyone realise that a long lens (300-400mm likely for many spotters) makes objects look closer and thereby exaggerates angles? Back to the thread, it's actually worrying because once again it seems to indicate biz jet lack of handling skills, safety awareness, CRM and what not. Oh and you must give the boss a smooth landing no matter what. Anyone care to comment? Look I've made more than my share of stuff ups. Domt worry about that. No I am not an ace by any stretch of the imagination, either. What I have tried to do is maintain my standards. Tried to show a bit of finesse. It does sadden me when I' see very e experienced Captains for example, throw the aircraft on the deck in anything resembling a crosswind. Ok you would expect a graduate of a sausage factory to do that.. As for the aircraft handling notes. They are a legal backside covering exercise to protect the aircraft manufacturer. In basic training did we try and land sideways in a crosswind? No of course not. A lot of these skills died when they did away with tailwheel/conventional U/C training aircraft. The way some of these people throw the aircraft on the deck, in a tricycle U/G., the tailwheel aircraft would bite. I got on the sause one night with the chief pilot of a major European carrier. He told me that flying skills are well down on his list of selection criteria. I knew then, we were in trouble. |
Originally Posted by Consol
(Post 11552410)
Richard J, did they build the hump on the 747 to accommodate you?
(would have simply 'liked' the post, but seemingly not available on this particularly forum...) |
Originally Posted by First_Principal
(Post 11552485)
At the risk of not contributing anything useful to this thread, and with apologies to Richard, I have to say this was very funny! :D
(would have simply 'liked' the post, but seemingly not available on this particularly forum...) |
Originally Posted by RichardJones
(Post 11552476)
The answer is no!
Look I've made more than my share of stuff ups. Domt worry about that. No I am not an ace by any stretch of the imagination, either. What I have tried to do is maintain my standards. Tried to show a bit of finesse. It does sadden me when I' see very e experienced Captains for example, throw the aircraft on the deck in anything resembling a crosswind. Ok you would expect a graduate of a sausage factory to do that.. As for the aircraft handling notes. They are a legal backside covering exercise to protect the aircraft manufacturer. In basic training did we try and land sideways in a crosswind? No of course not. A lot of these skills died when they did away with tailwheel/conventional U/C training aircraft. The way some of these people throw the aircraft on the deck, in a tricycle U/G., the tailwheel aircraft would bite. I got on the sause one night with the chief pilot of a major European carrier. He told me that flying skills are well down on his list of selection criteria. I knew then, we were in trouble. So the slipping technique became ingrained and in general aviation allowed pilots to be mentlaly and tactically connected during the flare to allow the aircraft by slipping it, to lower the wing upwind and applying oppostite rudder so to be able to keep runway centerline in between the flare and touchdown without drifting to the downwind side. "cross controlling" is considered dangerous and not tought anymore. Few pilots know the difference betwen the slip and the skid. And the slip contrary to the skid is not a dangerous maneuver. While it does not apply to big jets, all those handling skills now gone would have certainly helped better awareness, finesse and timing during the decrabbing before touchdown. The result is that most pilots in general aviation often land too fast, without decrabbing, they are not tought to keep "flying" during the flare, they just flare and wait whatever happens. If you want to land a tricycle properly, not only during a crosswing but at all times, without throwing it around, it requires the same skills as a taildragger, i.e. having it point down the runway without crab with cross controlled inputs, and letting the mains touch the ground just before stall keeping the nose wheel off the runway until loss of lift gently eases it into the ground. Furthermore there is often a parallax problem not corrected at touchdown in side by side aircrafts, whereby the longitudinal axis is right in front of you and not passing through the prop spinner at the center of the cowling. All these techniques may not be applicable to big jets but certainly would help be coordinated, sharp and focussed during the flare with correct timing inputs to decrab at the right moment. Different skill may apply to different types of aircrafts, but the confidence each one of those skills provides makes anyone a better pilot. |
Originally Posted by markkal
(Post 11554731)
Perhaps a bit out of topic as it would not apply to big jets, with low wings and low mounted engines, Way back in the past as you pointed out, tailwheel aircrafts required precised skills among those one was required to slip on final to bleed of altitude as most of the time there were no flaps.
So the slipping technique became ingrained and in general aviation allowed pilots to be mentlaly and tactically connected during the flare to allow the aircraft by slipping it, to lower the wing upwind and applying oppostite rudder so to be able to keep runway centerline in between the flare and touchdown without drifting to the downwind side. "cross controlling" is considered dangerous and not tought anymore. Few pilots know the difference betwen the slip and the skid. And the slip contrary to the skid is not a dangerous maneuver. While it does not apply to big jets, all those handling skills now gone would have certainly helped better awareness, finesse and timing during the decrabbing before touchdown. The result is that most pilots in general aviation often land too fast, without decrabbing, they are not tought to keep "flying" during the flare, they just flare and wait whatever happens. If you want to land a tricycle properly, not only during a crosswing but at all times, without throwing it around, it requires the same skills as a taildragger, i.e. having it point down the runway without crab with cross controlled inputs, and letting the mains touch the ground just before stall keeping the nose wheel off the runway until loss of lift gently eases it into the ground. Furthermore there is often a parallax problem not corrected at touchdown in side by side aircrafts, whereby the longitudinal axis is right in front of you and not passing through the prop spinner at the center of the cowling. All these techniques may not be applicable to big jets but certainly would help be coordinated, sharp and focussed during the flare with correct timing inputs to decrab at the right moment. Different skill may apply to different types of aircrafts, but the confidence each one of those skills provides makes anyone a better pilot. The basics are the same. Doesn't matter the size of the aircraft. The big jets I have flown, were low wing monoplanes. The basices are the same as a PA 28. It's not rocket science. Don't try and reinvent the wheel. Juggling the rudders, especially on a sweeped wing aircraft you are inviting trouble. Ease a bootful in and hold it. Some leeward rudder is better than none!! I rest my case. |
How are crosswind landings taught these days? Even with low wing pod engines it's possible to safely dip the wing slightly into wind during the flare while ruddering off some of the drift, which will reduce the strain on the gear and ease directional control after touchdown. It also helps to approach with the flight deck itself tracking slightly upwind of the centreline so that at touchdown the main gear straddles the centreline.
|
P.I.O.
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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by Rabbit 1
(Post 11564227)
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. |
Originally Posted by RichardJones
(Post 11564094)
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 |
Originally Posted by Consol
(Post 11552410)
Okay, first the thread drift. The 757 guy nails it, great job.
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. |
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? |
Originally Posted by H Peacock
(Post 11564472)
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! 🤔 |
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. |
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..... |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 11564997)
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..... |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 11564997)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Discorde
(Post 11565069)
Perhaps twins are more tolerant of dipping a wing than the quads.
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.
|
Originally Posted by Discorde
(Post 11565122)
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" |
Originally Posted by RichardJones
(Post 11554878)
...
The basics are the same. Doesn't matter the size of the aircraft. The big jets I have flown, were low wing monoplanes. The basices are the same as a PA 28. It's not rocket science. Don't try and reinvent the wheel. ... |
Originally Posted by NoelEvans
(Post 11565191)
With an Aerospace Engineer and an Astrophysicist in the family, we always find those comments about "rocket science" to be very amusing!!
Well you know what I mean |
Originally Posted by punkalouver
(Post 11564527)
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? 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%. |
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. |
When looking at the Challenger 604 airframe it always strikes me how close those wingtips are to the ground. Tipstrikes are easy to make by design…
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.