Cross wind landings

[jabba pilot]

I've now got 30 hours on my RAA licence but have this hate/hate issue with crosswind landings. I think I know the theory for doing them but have never done one without an instructor. And every time I have needed him to help.
So have I got the theory right?
For a landing with a crosswind from the right - on final, crab into the wind so as to keep your track in line with runway centreline, don't use aileron - just before the flare point, straighten the plane by neutralising rudder, at the same time put in a little bit of right aileron, use rudder only to keep to centreline, but shouldn't need much. Continue with back elevator and keep the right aileron into the wind until right wheel touches first, then other settles.
This seems to be it - the wheels are straight, on the point of landing there should be just aileron into wind and no need for opposite rudder, sideslip?

I really need to get the theory straight so I can rehearse it in my head before I go flying next, scares me to think I night get caught out one day.
I seem to be having a problem with all the co-ordination, so I guess I would find sideslipping all the way down even more difficult.
Can anyone confirm this or have other ideas.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What type are you flying Jabba?

G

[sharpend]

There are three techniques.

1. The method you mention, ie crab. A little more difficult, but not too much so unless the cross wind is close to the aircraft limits. Personally, I like to put the aeroplane down on both main wheels at one. Don't forget you may need a little in to wind aileron on roll out.

2. Wing down. Favoured by many in the USA. One merely flies down the glide slope with in to wind aileron applied which means touching down on one wheel. This technique will not be safe if flying aircraft with a very long wingspan, especially on low wing aeroplanes.

3. A combination of 1 & 2.

Of course. if the cross wind is 50 knots or so, one can always land into wind across the runway with a ground speed of 10 knots or so :)

[phiggsbroadband]

You quote.... 'just aileron into wind and no need for opposite rudder,'

This is where you are getting confused, or just unable to describe it in words.

To align the aircraft fuselage with the runway will always require some rudder input, to correct for the wind forces blowing onto the Tail.
.
One method I found useful , was to keep slight pressure on the down-wind rudder pedal whilst on Final, so that you do not have a moment of thought whilst you decide which pedal to push during the flare.
This also works with a winch launch in a glider, in any sort of cross-wind.... Keep the wings level with aileron, (to prevent a wing-tip hitting the ground) and keep straight with, what you know to be, the down-wind rudder.
.

[Johnm]

For most light aircraft the technique is the same unless you are a skygod who can kick a crabbed aeroplane straight at the last second.:)

Crab into wind with aircraft in balance i.e. the ball in the middle, if the aircraft is properly trimmed that should be more or less neutral rudder.

Somewhere around 100 ft, wherever seems comfortable, use the rudder to align the nose with centre line and drop the into wind wing to stop drift. Increase wing drop and bring nose back straight with rudder to stop downwind drift, reduce into wind wing drop and ease rudder to stop upwind drift.

I can land a TB 20 in 30 Kts cross wind doing that.

[Baikonour]

so I guess I would find sideslipping all the way down even more difficult.

I think the opposite. It is much more difficult to get the yaw/roll balance setup just right if you only do it as you round out. If you are set up in a stable configuration halfway down final, there is much less to change/get wrong as you round out and flare.

You can practice this anywhere as long as there is a wind blowing - along any straight line such as a road, a railway, an edge of a field... Start off straight and level, then set up a gentle descent from say 1500 to 1000 ft agl. You can work up in stages and find straight lines with the wind more and more abeam as you improve.

I always think cross wind landings are more fun - you have to work properly :ok:

B.

[Mach Jump]

Hi Jabba.

You have it almost right.

Crab the aircraft down the approach, in balance as you describe, then, as you begin to reduce power to land, align the nose with the runway, using the rudder. This will require a sustained rudder pressure.

From here on, keep it simple.

1. Use the rudder, as required, to maintain the alignment of the aircraft with the runway.

2. Use the ailerons to adjust the angle of bank as required to maintain the position of the aircraft laterally over the centreline.

3. Use the elevator to achieve, and maintain the landing attitude as always.

Remember that, as the speed reduces, you will need more control deflection for the same effect.

This will work with 90% of the aircraft you fly.

As Genghis suggests there are a few types that require something different, but it's very unlikely that you will be learning to fly on any of them.


MJ:ok:

[Prop swinger]

All this stuff about neutralising the rudder just before the flare point & adding wing down suggests that you haven't really got the theory right.

The crab approach is flown with the aircraft heading offset into wind so that your ground track is along the centreline. The wings should be level, ailerons & rudder neutral (assuming no turbulence.) Maintain the crab throughout the roundout/flare, continue the crab through the hold-off until the nose is almost at your landing attitude & then apply enough rudder to align heading with the runway, or track. There should be no need to apply any aileron or wing down, using some rudder for a second or two will not change the direction the aircraft is moving. Centralise the rudder before the nose wheel touches down. Think of the crab as how you would fly from A to B at 2,000' in a stiff crosswind.

A wing down approach may well start out as a crab approach but use the rudder to align heading with the runway centreline much earlier. The rudder is not very effective at changing the aircraft's direction of flight but it will have some effect. The point of the wing down is to counteract the very slight tendency of the rudder to turn the aircraft, you shouldn't need too much wing down. You can set up the wing down method early in the approach & maintain it all the way through until landing, centralising the rudder after touching down.

[Heston]

What propswinger said - crab down the approach (ie wings level) and kick it straight as you hold off so that the aircraft is pointing in the direction it is moving before it encounters the ground.


My guess is that you are over-analysing, thinking too much and worrying about it un-necessarily. Just go and do it. It'll come and when it does you'll wonder what the problem was.

[9 lives]

Welcome to PPRuNe Jabba,

In addition to Mach Jump's advice, which I quite agree with, I will add a suggestion that you think about this differently in the bigger picture; Let your brain fly the plane.

Your brain knows where the plane should go, right down the runway centerline, neatly touching down on the runway, and thereafter following the centerline, until its time to turn off. Have your brain make the plane do this, don't focus on what your hands and feet are doing, or similarly what flight control is being moved how. Watch out the windshield, get the sight picture, and do what it take to maintain it. Forget about the "circuit" of control which makes that happen, it'll work itself out, if you stop thinking about it.

If you can fly an approach down the centerline, and it's not terribly gusty near the ground, your should feel confident that you can make a decent landing out of it. If you doubt, go around. If the upwind main wheel touches first, very nice, that means your brain held a little into the wind roll for the aircraft. The aircraft will happily continue straight on the runway, if your brain commands it to roll a little more as you slow.

When I mentor pilots I focus on giving airplane attitude advice if needed, rather than saying "up elevator" or "left aileron". I do admit to occasionally firmly saying "XX Rudder!" when taildragger training, but that's to get the pilot's brain thinking faster ;)

[BackPacker]

Let your brain fly the plane.

Absolutely good advice, but only works if you're a bit more experienced.

When I was still very low on hours, my crosswind landings worked fine with this method:

Fly the crabbed approach as mentioned earlier. At around 100 feet of whatever feels fine (maybe 10 seconds before touchdown), align the fuselage with the runway centerline with the rudder. Then keep the rudder in this position with your feet, and simply forget about it. The wind gradient changes and speed changes you will experience from now on are going to be so minor that they will have no consequence anymore to the alignment of the fuselage with the runway centerline.

With the rudder locked in this position, you now only have to fly the aircraft to the touchdown point. If you're drifting to the left, correct with right aileron and so forth. The only thing that feels "odd" at this time is that the horizon is not, well, horizontal.

Learning to control an aircraft in three dimensions is hard. This way you take one of the dimensions out of the equation, which is a lot easier for a novice pilot.

(Oh, and before anybody complains - this only works for a nosewheel aircraft. A tailwheel aircraft needs to be steered positively with the rudder, especially after touchdown.)

[Pace]

It's a bit like learning to Ski no matter what is said here your brain needs to get around it ) I can remember being told what to do skiing and still I was taking everyone out off the ski lifts still my legs were going in every direction they should not be in and by the end of the day I was black and blue
One day it clicked and suddenly all the correct movements became natural without thinking about it / it's the same with landing ))

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Neutralise rudder? As Prop says, you shouldn't have any on during the approach in the 'crab' method. You just fly a heading that tracks you along the extended runway centreline.

I agree with Prop's post, except the when applying the left rudder to align the aircraft's heading with that of the runway, a little opposite aileron should be used to offset any yaw-induced roll (in other words, use aileron as required to keep the wings level).

In fact to do it really properly and prevent the aeroplane being blown to the downwind side of the runway by the xwind once you are on the runway heading, the 'crab' should be converted into a slip on the runway heading just above the ground (so after aligning with the runway heading apply a bit of into-wind aileron with enough opposite rudder to prevent the aeroplane turning off the runway heading). Then hold off as usual, and allow the into-wind main wheel to touch down before the other one.

It sounds complicated, but soon becomes automatic.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Imagine the discomfort for passengers if airline pilots flew a slipping approach while on final.

[Jan Olieslagers]

... not to mention the discomfort for the wingtips scratching the concrete.

Seriously though: I have trained for the 3-axis microlight with several instructors and none of them advocated the crab technique, indeed it was never mentioned to me. I always had to keep the plane aligned with the centreline with rudder, and lower the "into the wind" wing with aileron. The field where I finally got the license has its runway oriented 15-33 with the prevailing winds from 270-240 so I became quite good at landing in crosswinds. One instructor enjoyed teaching me to land onto the "into the wind" wheel first, then wait for the plane to drop onto the second wheel, and still hold off and hold off until finally dropping onto the nosewheel, too - but that would be at taxiing speed, ideally.

GtE asked for the type of plane and that was a good question. Now if we could get an answer to it...

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The real problem is the basics are not taught properly from the start.

The understanding of attitudes and movements and the ability to produce and control them must be taught and understood by the student before take offs and landings are ever started.

[jabba pilot]

I'm flying a jabiru lsa, 80 hp. Not thr easiest, but a great training plane. Have to always use correct rudder input. Scary sometimes, but fun.

[Genghis the Engineer]

GtE asked for the type of plane and that was a good question. Now if we could get an answer to it...

Hence why I, at least, haven't offered any advice until we know a bit more about what aircraft the OP is learning to fly in.

G

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I was taught the "simple" method of kicking off the crab just before touching down.


Which works fine ... ... ... so long as you do actually touch down immediately after kicking off the crab, otherwise you're going to touch down drifting sideways downwind at an ever increasing speed.


I subsequently taught myself the "complicated" second half of the process, which is to go wing down with crossed controls after kicking off the crab, probably landing on the upwind wheel first. Which produced "nice crosswind technique" from the last instructor I flew with, so I can't have got it completely wrong.


(Cessna 152/172. Floatplanes now ... "what's a crosswind?")

[jabba pilot]

Thanks to everyone who has replied. I can see that my theory was a bit of everything jumbled together.
The flight manual recommends using the sideslip but my instructor uses the crab. But there has been no crosswind to try either so thats why I thought slideslipping would be more complicated to get my head around. The picture won't "look" right with the wing down.

I've booked training for next week so I can specifically try these methods. I know that once you get it clear in your head, the rest tends to follow. Just need to do it a few times correctly, then practice.
Is it normal to feel this aprehensive?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

(Cessna 152/172. Floatplanes now ... "what's a crosswind?")

Rivers can subject you to x/winds. :ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally I have found the sideslip method the easiest for low time pilots. While the kick out the crab seems easy, in practice timing the kick out is hard for low time pilots as it occurs at the time of maximum work load in the landing flare so that they are either too late which means the aircraft is crooked when it touches down or too early which means the aircraft will touch down with significant sideways drift.

I tell students to hold a crab until about 300 feet above ground on final and then align the aircraft with the runway centerline and adjust the lateral displacement ( ie whether you are left or right of the runway centerline) with bank. If the airplane is drifting downwind add more bank if the aircraft is moving upwind reduce the bank.

Don't worry about coordination. Do what ever it takes with the rudder to keep the airplane pointed straight down the runway but deliberately adjust the bank to attain/maintain the aircraft position over the middle of the runway.

[9 lives]

It is possible to touch down on, and hold only the upwind wheel on the surface, though this is a rather extreme demonstration.


http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Aircraft/IMG_2465.jpg

I remember the first time I landed an Ercoupe in a strong crosswind, I was really worried, as it had no rudder pedals. I had no choice, I just flew the centerline, and it all figured itself out as I touched down. Since, I have found it easier to just fly the plane, and not worry so much about the details of how I did it.

[Johnm]

Is it normal to feel this aprehensive?

If it gives you a clue.....I have 1200 hours and an instrument rating and still get the equivalent of "stage fright" before every flight. Should that stop I'll assume I've become "cocky" and give up flying.

[wood73]

I was struggling with the crosswind, as the first instructor I did it with had me hold the crab and kick it off last second, I could never quite get it spot on as I suppose this will come with experience.


Another instructor suggested kicking off the crab at some point between 100-200' giving plenty of time to stabilise the approach before the flare and this worked for me perfectly and although I'm only 35 hours into training, I have successfully landed a c172 with 12kts crosswind with no drama, using this method, this may not sound much to experienced guys but to us beginners its an achievement as when I was having trouble first time around it was only an 8-9 kts crosswind.

[FleetFlyer]

Having spent many a happy hour in a Jabiru, I can confirm that it can be a little challenging in crosswinds. The reason for this is that it has too little rudder area, though this was addressed on later models.

If I remember correctly, it could run out of rudder in a crabbed approach/kick straight scenario. The highest crosswind I ever landed in was about 25 knots at Le Touquet. Because they have a very long runway I was able to minimise the crosswind component by landing at 70 kt, no flap and one wheel at a time. It was a case of flying it on and holding it down. There's no way the crab technique would have been successful in that wind.

I suggest that when the wind is right you get your instructor to demo a few landings while you sit back and take it all in. Sometimes a just watching someone do something well will improve the way you it. God knows I'm better at snooker after I've watched the world champs for a few hours.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm flying a jabiru lsa, 80 hp. Not thr easiest, but a great training plane. Have to always use correct rudder input. Scary sometimes, but fun.

I certainly have found the Jabiru one of the more challenging aeroplanes to land well of my career, mostly because of the cockpit ergonomics. I'm assuming that yours is like the one I've flown, with the Y-shaped yoke in between the seats, and a brake lever in front of that.

The aeroplane, as I recall, responds adequately to either the crabbed or wing down approach - so do whichever your instructor is teaching you. I tended to use wing down.

The problem with the Jabiru is that it's then virtually impossible to maintain aileron input after touching down, as the only sensible way to fly it, particularly from a shorter runway, is to put your right hand through the middle of the yoke, locking the ailerons neutral, and holding the brake lever. Pulling back for maximum braking, in a significant crosswind, is wise, because that minimises the time when you've got a crosswind on the ground but can't use aileron to help balance it.

So:-

Wing down method (steer with aileron, keep on centreline with rudder)

Let it touch down on one wheel if necessary, flaring as usual.

Once settled - centralise aileron, put your hand through the middle of the yoke, pull firmly back on the brake lever whilst keeping straight with the rudder pedals.


Not an easy aeroplane to land at-all, but should make a good pilot of you.

And if your instructor is telling you something different - listen to him, not me ! It's his aeroplane, and I'm sure he has more hours on type than I do.

G

[FleetFlyer]

And another thing -if you find the crosswind to be outside the capability of the rudder to hold the aeroplane straight whilst you're holding the nosewheel off, then put the nosewheel on the ground. In a Jab its directly connected to the pedals rather than castoring so you can use it to stop yourself from being blown off the runway.

This should only be done on smooth runways though, the nose leg is very snapoffable.
Also, as G says, do what you're comfortable with. If you've run out of rudder to kick it straight then you've probably bitten off more than you can chew crosswind-wise at your relatively early stage of the game.

However, if you get good at a Jabiru it will make you a good pilot, they're slippery, trickier than average to land, but not difficult. Also, 90% of everything said on forums about their engines is bolleux, they're perfectly reliable, and if you can't make an engine failure over land survivable in something that will fly as slowly as 40 knots then you probably shouldn't be flying at all.

Have a look at this, filmed in Genghis's back yard.
Pys0ANrSoCY

[jabba pilot]

Big Pistons Forever, Genghis, and Fleet Flyer, you all make good sense and make it sound very " do-able". Starting to look forward to trying it for real!
Thank you for straightforward advice. Video's great, and its really great to hear from other Jabiru pilots.

Makes sense to keep it as simple as possible

Good to hear of another learner. Sounds like you are well on the way :)

[dirkdj]

You have to remember that the test pilot who did the 'demonstrated crosswind component' demonstration is required to display 'average' piloting techniques. I understand this to mean he made no crosswind compensation whatsoever and really only demonstrated how much sideload the landing gear could take. It is not very often that you can do better than the test pilot.

[FleetFlyer]

Actually, I'm pretty certain the test pilots do use techniques to compensate for the crosswind when getting the 'max demonstrated' crosswind figure. There's little point in demonstrating the maximum sideload that the undercarriage can take when it can be calculated in the design office. The test is one of the handling of the aircraft rather than just the strength of the gear.

I'm sure G will be along momentarily to fill us in more fully though. He knows all about this kind of thing.

[Pilot DAR]

It is not very often that you can do better than the test pilot.Sure you can!

Very often when I test fly a modified type, it's the first time I've flown that type, let alone the mod. I know what I'm looking for, and that is an an aircraft which is not demanding unusual piloting skill. I regularly meet other pilots with lots more skill on type than I have. Though I try to fly with grace, I will fly with precision. If with precision, compliance is demonstrated, then the grace I can manage is a bonus!

Crosswind testing is not a strength test of landing gear, but rather a confirmation of controllability. When I'm testing an aircraft modified with an external load, which could increase weather cocking (more vertical area behind the C of G), the continued crosswind compliance becomes important.

A float installation most commonly will affect crosswind capability, thus additional vertical tail surfaces, usually a ventral fin, are added.

An installation like this:

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/CopyofIMG_4778001.jpg

Can result in a lot more control being required to keep it straight in a crosswind. I flew this plane 100 miles to get to an airport which was that day 19G25 directly across the runway, and I did eight landings in both directions. Sometimes full rudder was required to be applied and held, along with aileron while rolling on the runway, but it was controllable. Were it not, we would have had to consider an increase to the rudder area.

During my crosswind testing of this aircraft:

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/C208VGBoom.jpg

The winds of the day were 35 knots at 45 degrees to the runway heading (no matter which of the four runways I chose). The modified plane complied with the requirement for crosswind handling - which for a Caravan is demonstrated to 20 knots. In this photo, you can see the finlets, with are required when the floats are installed.

Sorry about the photo size, photobucket refuses to resize it!

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

Do you know how demonstrated is achieved ?
Is it purely a crosswind component that the pilot has landed the aircraft in during certification or a figure he estimates the average pilot can handle with that aircraft!
Demonstrated is just that it's not a limiting crosswind component as I once found landing a Seneca with 40 kts crosswind wherei was convinced it would be a touch and go but ended up a touch and stop as the aircraft handled it

Pace

[India Four Two]

The FAA requirement for light aircraft is that the maximum demonstrated crosswind is 20% of Vso.

Some manufacturers don't bother to go beyond this requirement, even though the aircraft is capable of managing higher crosswind components.

For example, the DG1000 glider has a ridiculously low maximum demonstrated crosswind component of 8 kts, which is 20% of the gross weight Vso. However, the manual then states "Strong crosswind offers no problem", without defining "strong"!

There is an interesting older discussion on this topic: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/380299-max-demonstrated-crosswind-definition-please.html

[Pace]

Thanks for that! Normally the OM is the rule book in event of exceeeing limitations published there.
In the event of having an accident while landing at much stronger winds than the demonstrated are there insurance problems in doing so ?

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

There's only a limited amount of science in determining the demonstrated crosswind limit, here are the main bits of CS.23 - the European light aircraft standards. Other standards are pretty similar.



CS 23.745 Nose/tailwheel
steering
(a) If nose/tailwheel steering is installed, it must be demonstrated that its use does not require exceptional pilot skill during takeoff and landing, in crosswinds and in the event of an engine failure or its use must be limited to low speed manoeuvring.
(b) Movement of the pilots steering control must not interfere with correct retraction or extension of the landing gear.

CS 23.1585 Operating procedures
(a) For all aeroplanes, information concerning normal, abnormal (if applicable) and emergency procedures and other pertinent information necessary for safe operation and the achievement of the scheduled performance must be
furnished, including –

(1) An explanation of significant or unusual flight or ground handling
characteristics;

(2) The maximum demonstrated values of crosswind for take-off and landing and procedures and information pertinent to operations in crosswinds;


(And some of the interpretative material later on)
(3) Approach and Landing. The steady gliding approach, the pilot skill, the conditions, the vertical accelerations, and the aeroplane actions in 23.75(a), (b), and (c) are concerned primarily with not requiring particularly skilful or abrupt manoeuvres after passing the 15 m (50ft) point. The phrase ‘steady gliding approach,’ taken in its strictest sense, means power off. However, it has generally been considered that some power may be used during a steady gliding approach to maintain at least 1.3 VS1 control sink rate on final approach. For those aeroplanes using power during approach, power may be decreased after passing the 15 m (50ft) point and there should be no nose depression by use of the longitudinal control. For those aeroplanes approaching with power off, the longitudinal control may be used as necessary to maintain a safe speed for flare. In both cases, there should be no change in configuration and power should not be increased. The landing distance and the procedure specified in the AFM are then based on the power used for the demonstration. The power used and the technique used to achieve the landing distances should be clearly stated in the AFM. This applies to portions of the approach prior to and after the 15 m (50ft) height. The aeroplane should be satisfactorily controllable when landing under the most unfavourable conditions to be encountered in service, including cross winds, wet runway surfaces and with one engine inoperative. Demonstration of landing with an adverse crosswind of at least 0.2 VS0 will be acceptable and operation on wet (but not contaminated) runway surfaces may be simulated by disconnecting osewheel steering. The effect of weight


What does all this mean in practice. Basically the test team - ideally with a well instrumented runway (anemometers close to the threshold are nice) will go up, start into wind, and slowly increase the crosswind, and in some cases tailwind components by repositioning and picking their conditions.

Eventually one of two things will happen:-

(1) You've met or exceeded the 0.2Vso value, AND you can't find anything worse - so you declare the demonstrated crosswind limit at the worse you've seen.

(2) The team actually reach conditions which they consider require "exceptional piloting skill", so they wind it back by a few knots and declare a demonstrated crosswind limit about there.

Defining "exceptional piloting skill" is tough - but as a working rule HQR 5 or above on the Cooper Harper scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper%E2%80%93Harper_rating_scale) would be a good basis.



One thing is also worth adding - the comment that you can't expect to fly the aeroplane better than the test pilot, is almost certainly untrue. A test pilot is a man or woman with many professional tasks - not just flying, so they are not necessarily as sharp in the cockpit as a full time professional pilot who does nothing but fly. Also, at the end of a light aircraft certification programme the most experienced test pilot on type maybe has 200 hours on type? Give it a few years and there will be working pilots with 1000+ on type, and who fly nothing else. So, it would be a bit worrying if there weren't, eventually, pilots who can fly it better than the test pilot did.

I've certainly safely landed aeroplanes that I had low 3-figure hours on type, significantly beyond the "demonstrated crosswind limit" in the book, and I'll bet plenty of other people here have too.

G

[Pull what]

Crosswind landings catch a lot of pilots out at all levels, ive sat by some horendous attempts in large aircraft, I can only say thank God for strong U/Cs!

For my money the easiest method on any aircraft is cross controls after the threshold, its also what all the autoland systems use on the large aircraft Ive flown.

You need to also get a decent crosswind to practice and that can be difficult. I spent an hour once in a 35 knot crosswind in a Cessna 150 practicing landings and that was one of the most useful Ive ever spent on any training exercise and the methios that I eventually perefected that day was the method that also worked many years later on the Airbus etc..

Teaching removing the drift(not kicking, a phrase and instructor should never use) before touchdown is far too hit and miss for the average PPL student and if he gets it wrong will loose tbe centreline immeadiately.

Also, at the end of a light aircraft certification programme the most experienced test pilot on type maybe has 200 hours on type? Give it a few years and there will be working pilots with 1000+ on type, and who fly nothing else. So, it would be a bit worrying if there weren't, eventually, pilots who can fly it better than the test pilot did.

Umh not sure if I agree with that. A test pilot is already an exceptional pilot. Many pilots with many 1000s of hours are not exceptional pilots at all and never will be, in fact some have very mediocre skills and some also have deterioating judgement skills as they get older. Ive sat by young first officers with hundreds of hours who are far more skilled that older pilots with thousands of hours on type.

Trying to achieve performance better that the manufacturers test pilot is foolhardy and unnecessary. A demonstrated figure however is not limiting, as the limit is only reached when full contol deflection is reached. What you do need to consider though that the manufactures test pilot has not tested the stability of the aircraft at the point of full control deflection during a crosswind landing.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In terms of performance - absolutely, because the TP has a brand new aeroplane, and is concentrating on hitting exactly the right numbers.

In terms of of handling, only sometimes. I'm pretty sure that any current member of the Red Arrows can do more within the envelope with a Hawk than John Farley could when he was test flying it - and that's not to denegrate John who is one of the best test pilots Britain has ever produced and outside the envelope will have done stuff that would be totally alien to most current Hawk pilot.

Test Pilots are very good pilots, but handling skill is only a part of that skillset; most pilots will never be that good in the aeroplane, but some will be better.

G

[thing]

I was taught the crab technique from day one on gliders, which I learned to fly before powered, due I suppose to the long wingspan low ground clearance of gliders. When I learned powered my instructor, who is also a gliding instructor, asked me what xwind technique I used on gliders and I told him; so he said that I may as well use it in powered as it was what I was used to.

I've never had a problem with the 'kick off' drift method, I don't think it requires superhuman skills or timing (can't do if I can do it!).

Next bit of the story. In later years I got to know a GA instructor who is also a 757 captain. He is a disciple of the wing down method, which he uses while flying the 757 and teaches as a GA instructor. He explained it as mentioned in previous posts with the addition of, and I paraphrase, 'If you can't keep straight on the centreline using the rudder on the approach you know you are going to run out of control authority when you land it, so it's a safety check as well as a valid method of landing xwind; plus when you land you already have the 'correct' cross controls applied.' The more I thought about this the more it made sense. So I tried doing a few wing down approaches when landing xwind. I was surprised by how little 'wing down' you need even in quite strong xwinds.

The problem I have at the moment with this technique is I have to think about it when lining up for final, it's not intuitive to me like a crab landing is. I suppose it boils down to how you were trained in the first place but having tried both methods, and I'm sure I would get familiar with the wing down technique the more I use it, they are both valid for most GA aircraft and basically it's boils down to whatever floats your boat. Or aircraft across the centreline...:)

[Pull what]

The problem I have at the moment with this technique is I have to think about it when lining up for final, it's not intuitive to me like a crab landing is.So dont use this method on final, crab down to threshold then use crossed controls

'If you can't keep straight on the centreline using the rudder on the approach you know you are going to run out of control authority when you land it,

Thats sounds very odd to me, Ive never heard of any airline pilot trying to keep straight on the approach using rudder plus any pilot that thinks that tbe crosswind component at 3-4 miles out is going to be the same at 30 feet cant have flown many approaches of any sort!

[dirkdj]

If the "demonstrated crosswind component" is not in the LIMITATIONS section of the POH, then it is not a limit, just a testimony that someone made a landing in such and such a crosswind component while an official observer was watching.

[thing]

I can't argue about what he says Pull What as I'm not in the same league as a pilot as he but I take your point. I'm just saying what he says.

As to your 'change techniques half way down the approach' again, you are vastly more experienced than me and as someone who flies maybe four or five hours a month I would rather stick to one technique or the other for the whole approach.

Incidentally, said pilot used to frequent these forums and had some input into a similar thread a couple of years ago, might be worth searching it out if you're interested in what he said.

[Andy_P]

I am a low hour rec pilot, got about 150 hours up now. Just about to do the PPL test.

One thing I realiased about crosswind landings is that if you slip it in, you are dragging it in under power. I was doing some training with an instructor in less that ideal conditions once, low vis, crosswind etc. I had this mental block, and kept using the rudder to keep me aligned with the runway but could not understand why I had to keep feeding in the power to keep the approach angle and speed where it should be.

I dont know what the best way to approcah a crosswind is, but I have had it hammered into me to keep a tight circuit and not drag the plane in under power. Not sure how many engine failures you get on final, but that was the excuse for that style of training. I can say from my limited experience that crabbing in and using rudder just before touch down certainly requires the least amount of power. This is now my preferred technique. Is it right or wrong? I dont know, but it works for me.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

One thing I realiased about crosswind landings is that if you slip it in, you are dragging it in under power.
Depends entirely how much energy you've got, ie how low and slow you are to start with - start higher and you can slip all the way down.

(Personally I find dragging it in under power occasionally useful for short runways with no obstructions in the undershoot, but no doubt I'm going to be shot down for saying that. And I haven't had to do it for a while, so maybe I don't need to any more.)

[Jan Olieslagers]

However many or few engine failures you get, in final or whenever or wherever, there is no phase or flight where one cannot possibly happen. Always have a plan B, remember?

There is not a single reason to NOT come in fairly high, cut power as soon as certainly within gliding distance from the threshold, and sideslip off the excess altitude so as to touch down on the numbers. Crosswind or no - only, if there IS a crosswind, make sure your sideslip is on the right side.

[thing]

There is not a single reason to NOT come in fairly high, cut power as soon as certainly within gliding distance from the threshold, and sideslip off the excess altitude so as to touch down on the numbers. Crosswind or no - only, if there IS a crosswind, make sure your sideslip is on the right side.

My philosophy entirely. No doubt it's wrong though.

[flyinkiwi]

I was taught to transition from the crabbed attitude to the wing down position during the round out and flare. I've never considered flaring while crabbed then transitioning before touchdown, I might try it sometime. It does seem like you have a lot to do in a short space of time though.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The most unusual looking landings I ever did was when I was flying a DC3 with cross wind gear.

You hold the crab angle right to touch down and during the roll out after landing, it is really weird going down the runway sideways.

The biggest problem with that gear system was the weight.

When they changed back to regular gear they gained around sixteen hundred pounds.

[Flyingmac]

If you can't keep the aircraft pointing straight down the runway with crossed controls, the crosswind is out of limits.


If you can't keep the aircraft pointing straight down the runway when the crosswind is within max demonstrated, it's the pilot who's out of limits.
If the aircraft had eyes it would be rolling them:rolleyes:.


Crab or crossed controls down the approach is personal preference. It's short final that matters. I think this 'kicking it straight in the flare' business is a form of madness.


This clip shows nicely how it should be done in most light aircraft.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXz3ESt4Jy8

[FleetFlyer]

Gertrude, you're not alone. I do just that when trying to achieve a short roll out or when practicing for spot landing comps.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with doing it if you know why you are doing it. I see plenty of spam can drivers who fly 3 degree approaches and seem not to care that if their engine fails they'll never make the runway. They're exposing themselves to the risks of a short field approach believing they're flying the perfect profile.

To the guys that do this: start your final higher, use flaps and or slip and speed control to get your aiming point in the right place in the windscreen. Practice this until it feels like cheating to correct with power. Once you can do that you'll be a much better pilot and have a lot more in your skills bag to draw upon in a phase of flight that many find to be the most challenging.

[Pull what]

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with doing it if you know why you are doing it. I see plenty of spam can drivers who fly 3 degree approaches and seem not to care that if their engine fails they'll never make the runway. They're exposing themselves to the risks of a short field approach believing they're flying the perfect profile.This is a bit of Tiger Moth old folk lore theory from the days when engines were not so reliable.

If you fly from Bournemeouth to Jersey(which will take a lot longer than a 2 miile final) and have an engine failure you will never make a runway either and given the choice I would rather land in an undershoot than in tbe English Channel anyday!!!

The period of the circuit on which you are on final is only going to be one or two minutes usually and you will be at low power setting. In terms of risk you should me more concerned about the first 500 feet in the climbout with the engine working flat out because you arnt going to be able to make the runway then either, are you? However at an airfield that does have a hostile approach area consideration should be given to flying a full glide approach to the threshold

If you can't keep the aircraft pointing straight down the runway with crossed controls, the crosswind is out of limits.This isnt correct and is to my mind a misleading statement.

The only place you can determine if the cross wind is out of limits is at 33 feet above the runway because thats where the anemometer is but you also need to consider that its not over the runway.

Whats happening on the approach only tells you its a crosswind it doesnt tell you if its a limiting crosswind only the anemometer and the conditions at the threshold can tell you if its limiting

A demonstrated crosswind component is not limiting thats why its called DEMONSTRATED(doesnt matter if its in the limitations section either), all that it means is that the manufactures test pilot could only find that amount of crosswind at the time of test and that, and this is the important bit, the test pilot also determined that full rudder deflection was not required to align the aircraft with the centreline. The crosswind limit is reached when in a steady wind the full rudder defection is needed to align the a/c with the centreline with tbe a/c still stable and you dont need to be John Farley or a Red Arrow to work that out!

There are also some caveats to this:
Gusty crosswinds
Wet runways
Contaminated runways
Runway width
Recency
Personel limits.

Your flying club/school should have a manual containing crosswind limits applicable to students and PPL's especialy if the flight manual only quotes a demonstrated crosswind.

[9 lives]

The "demonstrated" crosswind value will be stated in Section 5, Performance, of a "GAMA format" Flight Manual. It will not be found in Section 2, Limitations, because were it to be there, it would become a limitation, and it is not.

The test pilot, who confirms the demonstrated crosswind capability, will find the required crosswind, which will be at least 0.2 Vso. There is no reason for the test pilot to demonstrate a value greater than that, as doing so, and stating it, would only invite liability, for zero corporate gain.

If the operator chooses to limit the use of their aircraft to a stated crosswind "limit" that is their prerogative, as they are responsible for the plane. But, doing so rigidly introduces other unintended consequences, such as a pilot having to divert because of reported crosswind, and not getting the plane back as intended.

Other than for very gusty crosswinds, or mechanical turbulence, I have never found the 0.2Vso crosswind intensity terribly challenging, so pilots should probably challenge themselves a little more to build confidence!

[Jan Olieslagers]

This is a bit of Tiger Moth old folk lore theory from the days when engines were not so reliable.

If you fly from Bournemeouth to Jersey(which will take a lot longer than a 2 miile final) and have an engine failure you will never make a runway either and given the choice I would rather land in an undershoot than in tbe English Channel anyday!!!

The period of the circuit on which you are on final is only going to be one or two minutes usually and you will be at low power setting. In terms of risk you should me more concerned about the first 500 feet in the climbout with the engine working flat out because you arnt going to be able to make the runway then either, are you? However at an airfield that does have a hostile approach area consideration should be given to flying a full glide approach to the threshold Excuse me, I really do not want to be rude but I have serious difficulty with all of this.

"Flying over the sea is more dangerous" ? Flying over water (or other areas with little options for a forced landing) is the PiC's option, to be considered before flight. Risk assessment and all that stuff. But the one risk has nothing to see with the other. It is not because one accepts the risk of flying of over possibly dangerous areas that one should take unnecessary risks in the approach or final phase of flight.

"A bit of Tiger Moth folklore" come on, give us facts, or at least arguments, not tabloid talk

"when engines were not so reliable" so a risk that was not acceptable with a 99,0% reliable engine does become acceptable with a 99,9 % reliable engine? Or are you the inventor of the famous long wanted 100,0% reliable engine?

"Risk on final is limited" yes it is. Limited but not zero - unless at a safe altitude. Which is in easy reach for the vast majority of planes and the vast majority of pilots.

"The first instants after take-off are far more dangerous" yes they may well be, depending on the surroundings. But again, that is no excuse for choosing a less safe procedure for final.

I say again because it seems to go down hard with some: There is not a single reason to NOT come in fairly high, cut power as soon as certainly within gliding distance from the threshold, and sideslip off the excess altitude so as to touch down on the numbers.

[FleetFlyer]

Hear hear.

There's no reason for the risk exposure. To put it another way: Once my engine is shown to be as reliable as gravity, I'll start flying three degree approaches for no special reason also.

Until that happens though, I'll carry on flying my approaches in a safer and more challenging/interesting/safer way than a cruise descent all the way in. In fact, even if my engine became as reliable as gravity I still wouldn't as it would remove one of the safest and yet most rewarding challenges in flying; touching down on the numbers from a glide approach.

[Pull what]

Strange really beacause Ive spent a lifetime sitting beside quite a lot of pilots who cant actually make the runway even when flying a glide approach!

Facts? Well in nearly 25,000 hours of flying Ive never had an engine failure in any aircraft on final and I only know of one SE engine failure on final ever. I know plenty of accidents were pilots have gone into the sea while attempting to fly over water.

Risk needs to be considered against time exposed to that risk. Obviously you cannot remove all risk but to suggest that the short time that an aircraft is on final is an above average risk that warrants serious consideration is just ridiculous.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you can't keep the aircraft pointing straight down the runway with crossed controls, the crosswind is out of limits.



Yes, but only for the crossed controls method of drift control.

Crab or crossed controls down the approach is personal preference. It's short final that matters. I think this 'kicking it straight in the flare' business is a form of madness.

That is a very myopic statement, I have used the kick it strait method with out of the normal strong cross winds for many decades and have never lost directional control yet on any approach or landing.

What do you do if you arrive at your destination and the cross winds are way, way above the demonstrated cross wind for the airplane you are flying and there is no where else to land?

[Pull what]

What do you do if you arrive at your destination and the cross winds are way, way above the demonstrated cross wind for the airplane you are flying and there is no where else to land?

I can reccomend what I called the 'training captain method' of crosswind landing, thats were you land with all the drift on and let the U/C supply the skill. The last time I saw it demonstrated was at Leeds and it took 2 tyres out and all the overhead bins on one side fell down on the passengers, oh happy days

[FleetFlyer]

Maybe the difference in approach stems from my background in gliding and microlighting where for different reasons I was always taught that power was a privilege rather than a right.

I also have never experienced a total engine failure, though I've had two partial failures. However, I do fly behind engines maintained by amateurs that have a MTBF of a couple of thousand hours, which tells me that at the rate I fly, I might experience one or two failures in my lifetime. If that failure happens to be on approach then fine, and I do appreciate that its very unlikely and that most failures happen in the cruise.

Funnily enough I did once have an engine stop during approach, but it was a maladjusted throttle stop and a quick turn of the key got it going again. Not what I'd call a failure though. In that instance I would have been high enough to clear the houses in the undershoot and make the runway.

Apologies to all for getting sucked into thread drift!

[P.Pilcher]

When I learned, I was taught to kick off the drift with rudder immediately before touchdown, then let it land. With about 50 hours in my book, I went to Canada for a holiday and got myself a Canadian tourist pilot permit so I could try out Canadian flying. Naturally a checkout on a Canadian C150 was necessary and we had a 10 knot crosswind. I took off for my first circuit, managed to kick off the drift reasonably successfully, and put it down. At this point my instructor gave me some words of wisdom which have served me well for the remainder of my flying career. He said: "Huh, guess you were taught by an ex RAF instructor(true), now try my technique. Drop your wing into wind and line the aircraft up on the runway with rudder. Continue and land it initially on the lowest mainwheel. You can land 'em, no sweat with 40 kts across that way!" Since that advice was received, I have found it to work successfully on all light single and twins I have ever flown, Twin Otters, Shorts 330s and Jetstreams. I have also been advised by colleagues that it also works on B707s, B737s, B747s, DC3s, DC6s and A330s.

P.P.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Here is the bottom line.

A skilled pilot will be able to handle cross winds using the slipping method, the crabbing to kick straight at touch down or any combination of these methods.

Then you can comfortably use whatever method suits the conditions and the airplane you are flying.

Not all airplanes can be landed using the crossed control wing down method.

There you go gang....

.... that about finishes that subject.:ok:

[Pull what]

now try my technique. Drop your wing into wind and line the aircraft up on the runway with rudder. Continue and land it initially on the lowest mainwheel. You can land 'em, no sweat with 40 kts across that way!" Since that advice was received, I have found it to work successfully on all light single and twins I have ever flown, Twin Otters, Shorts 330s and Jetstreams. I have also been advised by colleagues that it also works on B707s, B737s, B747s, DC3s, DC6s and A330s.

Correct PP but for a professional a crosswind landing is a every other day event, for an amateur its a life achievement!

In regard to risk by the way for those of you who feel you may be killed on short final by flying a 3 degree powered approach I can go back 50 years on my airfield and the only serious accidents I know of are 4- only one on tbe airfield, an instructor landed back on the runway after an engine failure on take off and went off the runway across the road. The other two were CFIT accidents caused by flying in IMC below safety altitude and the other one was a steep turn after take off in which the pilot lost control hit the ground and was killed.

If anyone can provide AAIB evidence of a loads of accidents in the last 50 years in the UK on finals due to to engine failure I would be more than happy to change my thinking.

[worrab]

There have been a number of accidents on final - often due to carb icing. Of course there was a very public Boeing into Heathrow due to fuel icing, but for GA, consider the G-ATRR fatal accident as an example though there have been more than a handful of less serious accidents.

[Pull what]

We are talking about SE a/c here so reference to the Boeing isnt relevant.

G-ATRR wasnt an engine failure and no cause of failure were found. Carb icing was suggested as being possible. The a/c struck a promulgated obstruction on the approach which was notified in the AIP.

Most instructors teach returning tbe carb air control to cold on PA 28s at around 300ft a very foolish procedure

If you look at my early post wihch stated
However at an airfield that does have a hostile approach area consideration should be given to flying a full glide approach to the threshold
An approach with an obstacle promulgated in the AIP is a hostile approach area.

[Big Pistons Forever]

We are talking about SE a/c here so reference to the Boeing isnt relevant.

Most instructors teach returning tbe carb air control to cold on PA 28s at around 300ft a very foolish procedure

.

Could not agree more, and carb heat cold on short final is directly contrary to the POH before landing checklist in every carburated single engine Cessna.

[worrab]

OK, so engines exploding or falling apart on final are pretty rare, but in my book if the engine stops or fails to deliver the required power then that's engine failure. If it happens to stop because of something I've done or failed to do, the aircraft is still a glider. So what's the problem with adopting a standard approach that ends in a successful on-field landing in the event of the engine stopping?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

So what's the problem with adopting a standard approach that ends in a successful on-field landing in the event of the engine stopping?

I can't think of any reason not to.

[Pull what]

So what's the problem with adopting a standard approach that ends in a successful on-field landing in the event of the engine stopping? A glide approach isnt a standard approach, a powered approach is a standard approach, thats why by far the majority of schools teach powered approaches as standard.

Do you carry a parachute? Probably not because you realise the risk of having an incident where a parachute would save you are minimal-now apply the same logic to a glide approach and you will come up with the answer.

As a matter of interst if the engine stopped for a real during a glide approach that would put you below your idle power glide angle - have you ever considered that?

[thing]

Whatever the arguments for or against, we are all here talking about it so whatever individuals use it seems to be working. For myself I've had one or two hairy moments when landing in strong and gusty winds but I've never left the runway or broken the wheels off, and I guess every one else here can say the same.

[worrab]

A glide approach isnt a standard approach, a powered approach is a standard approach, thats why by far the majority of schools teach powered approaches as standard. So maybe the standard needs changing?

Do you carry a parachute? Probably not because you realise the risk of having an incident where a parachute would save you are minimal-now apply the same logic to a glide approach and you will come up with the answer.Aerobatics? Not my bag, but most pilots do. Gliding? Yes. So why not power?

As a matter of interst if the engine stopped for a real during a glide approach that would put you below your idle power glide angle - have you ever considered that? Indeed.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I can reccomend what I called the 'training captain method' of crosswind landing, thats were you land with all the drift on and let the U/C supply the skill. The last time I saw it demonstrated was at Leeds and it took 2 tyres out and all the overhead bins on one side fell down on the passengers, oh happy days

Where were you when you saw this?

[Pull what]

In the load controllers office waiting to take it over

[Pull what]

So maybe the standard needs changing?

Standard has several meanings and youre certainly right with one of those meanings!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

We all have different ways of doing things, including how we approach and land airplanes.

I am most comfortable with the approach and landing when I close the throttle/'s at fifty feet above the touch down point, I became comfortable with using that method when I was flying DC3's off airports on wheel skis both on snow/ice and gravel/sand surfaces.

Works like a charm for me in most airplanes.

Never seen an aircraft either fixed or rotary wing that could not be safely landed without power.

P.S..::

I am not suggesting you should fly a heavy jet that way.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If anyone can provide AAIB evidence of a loads of accidents in the last 50 years in the UK on finals

Why do the Brits call on final on finals?

[thing]

This Brit doesn't. It's always been 'final to land ' for me. Finals is grammaticaly incorrect and annoys me intensely, as it did my flying instructor.

[Pull what]

Why do the Brits call on final on finals?1. I am not British

2. I was applying the plural to the word for the purposes of that sentence

The correct RT call is 'Final or 'Final to land' if its the last in a series of circuits.

"Final to Land", is not the correct call unless you are completing a series of circuits

[thing]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

This Brit doesn't. It's always been 'final to land ' for me. Finals is grammaticaly incorrect and annoys me intensely, as it did my flying instructor.

I have spent a lot of time flying in England and that saying " on finals " used to really puzzle me because it sounds like they are flying more than one machine.

Weird, really weird.

[Pull what]

It also sounds like "long final", the one that gets me is pilots when told to "report on final" -read the whole call back rather than just use, 'Wilco'

[Pull what]

We all have different ways of doing things, including how we approach and land airplanes.We do Chuck but as an instructor, and as an instructor involved in teaching pilots to become instructors, I have to focus on what I feel is best practice for teaching a wide range of abilities simply and safely. What I would choose to do myself with my experience and wisdom or lack of it, isnt what I would necessarily pass on to others as best instructional practice.

I would certainly reccomend all single engine pilots to regularily practice glide approachs, but to practice them as an abnormal or emergency procedure to enhance engine out judgement not as a standard approach.

Good night!

[thing]

Isn't long final the correct call for final at more than the three mile point though? As in a straight in. Never used it myself but isn't it a bit like 'short final' call on an instrument approach when the approach controller hands you over to tower, usually with about three nanoseconds to change frequency and get the call in?

[9 lives]

It's thread drift, but we seem to have beaten this round of crosswind talk to the end (again).

but to practice them as an abnormal or emergency procedure to enhance engine out judgement not as a standard approach.

I have learned to like the idea of a power off approach from a few hundred feet up, with a bit of power added if you need it. One of many reasons for this preference, is if you're flying a retractable wheel plane, you'll get the gear warning horn, if you forgot the gear. If you carry power to the flare, you just disabled that system. Maybe okay, if you're unable to err with the gear, but the system is there to warn you, and it won't if you don't pull the power off far enough back to make use of it...

To bring it back around to topic a little, you don't need power to maintain control in a crosswind, just fly the plane. I was demonstrating one wheel crosswind landings in the Super Cub to my charge today. Held on the upwind wheel, power off, until the full aileron would no longer hold it, then other main, while I held the tail off, until the tail settled on for lack of speed with full stick forward. Power was not required for this. All that power should be doing for you on your final approach, is allowing you to select where you will land, not how....

[Flyingmac]

Quote:
" If you can't keep the aircraft pointing straight down the runway with crossed controls, the crosswind is out of limits."

This isnt correct and is to my mind a misleading statement.


???????????????????????

[9 lives]

The conditions one might experience while maintaining (or attempting to) the runway centerline down final will be a strong indicator what might be experienced at landing. It if fair to say that if you cannot hold the centerline down final, landing will be a challenge, and an overshoot should be an option (which to me suggests at least not selecting full flaps).

Generally, the wind is less intense at the surface, so if you have maintained the centerline down approach, it's likely not worse over the runway, but there can be gusts or mechanical turbulence to upset things. One of my frequented runways has an unfortunate tall stand of trees on a small hill on the prevailing upwind side of the touchdown zone - which keeps life interesting.

The term "crossed controls" brings to mind a full slip, with one of the controls being held to the stop against the effect of the other. If a pilot is needing to fly a full slip in a crosswind, I suggest aborting that landing, it was poorly set up. A full slip will not be required to maintain control in landable crosswind conditions. Some "crossed" control input might be required for the wing down technique, though not a "slip" worth. Yes, you might get to full control input once on the runway, because the aircraft has slowed, and more control displacement is required for achieve the desired effect. In such case, go ahead, that's what the control is there for!

It is possible to touch down fully slipped in some aircraft, I have done it for practice, though if done on pavement there are horrible tire chirping sounds. That's why grass, and even better wet grass, are more desirable for crosswind landings.

[Pull what]

Generally, the wind is less intense at the surface, so if you have maintained the centerline down approach, it's likely not worse over the runwayMore misleading statements. Whats an intense wind? One that blows seriously?

You dont need any rudder correction to crab down the approach but you do need rudder input it to de crab and once you hit the stops you have no more rudder left. Whatever your crosswind limit is just above the runway you can double that wind velocity and still fly down tbe approach by crabbing so in tbe same way it might be possible to fly down the appraoch maintaing the centreline but not have sufficent rudder deflection to decrab on landing making it far worse(to use your description).

and even better wet grass, are more desirable for crosswind landings.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements Ive ever heard!

[Crash one]

Quote:
Quote:
and even better wet grass, are more desirable for crosswind landings.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements Ive ever heard!

Doing most of my flying off grass I'm inclined to agree with Step turn.
A serious crosswind is no problem and even less problem on wet grass with a tailwheel, because it slides sideways until it lines up with the track. It has saved my ass a few times. Ridiculous it is not!
Ditch the textbook and fly the aircraft.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Step turn said:

and even better wet grass, are more desirable for crosswind landings.

Pull what said:



That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements Ive ever heard!

The above is why these internet forums can be so confusing for people wishing to learn about flying.

Step turn is correct, I have no idea what Pull what is trying to do, but for sure it is not educate new pilots with the correct information.

[worrab]

Perhaps making the point than an ideal crosswind landing on any surface is fine.

I believe it's only when one lands a little crabwise that the lesser friction of wet grass comes into its own by allowing the tyres to slide sideways slightly at the moment of touchdown and hence relieving some of the strain on the airframe.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I believe it's only when one lands a little crabwise that the lesser friction of wet grass comes into its own by allowing the tyres to slide sideways slightly at the moment of touchdown and hence relieving some of the strain on the airframe.

The less friction a surface has the less problem with the airplane not being lined up with the landing direction.

I had a very difficult landing scenario one night long ago flying in the high Arctic in a DC3.

The landing conditions changed dramatically just prior to our arrival at the destination airport Resolute Bay N.W.T. , the surface winds had been almost zero for a couple of days while we did a fuel cache contract about an hour and a half N.E. of Resolute Bay.

About sixty miles out of Resolute Bay the Air Radio operator at the airport called us and asked our position and I said sixty miles out and he said the wind was increasing rapidly and there was surface blowing snow starting to reduce visibility.

We could see the lights of Resoute and told him to keep us updated of the wind and surface vis.

Long story short....by the time we were a couple of miles final the radio operator informed us the wind was fifty knots and nintey degrees off the runway and the ground visibility was zero.

We confirmed we had the winds and the vis and had the approach lights and runway lights in sight.

We had good visual of the runway right down to about fifty feet and then we entered the blowing snow and visibility went to zero.

We held the heading that had kept us on the centre line during the approach and rounded out and the wheels contacted the runway as smooth as silk, I pushed forward on the controls to keep it pinned to the runway and we slid down the runway going sideways on the snow and ice covered runway just as slick as snot.

We came to a stop still on the runway and advised the radio operator we had landed successfully.....we took forever to find our way to the ramp in the blowing snow.

So there you go gang, a true story of using a slippery runway to your advantage.

[9 lives]

Referring back to the photo I posted on page two, of the wingtip of my 150 a few inches off the surface, that would be very hard to accomplish on a higher friction surface. You'd probably roll the plane over, or at least shred a tire. Allowing a plane to drift laterally on the runway can ease directional control, particularly in a taildragger. That's why the Ercoupe had mainwheels which swung a little to each side, as there was no rudder control with which to "kick it straight" for touchdown.

When I was first getting used to a rather unforgiving taildragger, I took it out on to the ice (on wheels) in a big wind. Indeed, it was "intense" relative the the plane's characteristics! I landed progressively more and more off the wind, satisfying myself I could maintain control with the increasing crosswind component. Eventually, I was landing in a 20 knot crosswind (demonstrated was 12 for this aircraft). I had no problem maintaining my intended "runway" heading, until the plane slowed below a speed where the rudder was effective. The tailwheel had no friction on the ice. Then the plane weather cocked. On the ice, no harm done, but the point was clear.

But, as I approached this weather cocking at lower ground speed, there was more and more "slide" as the wind blew me across. If the surface had the friction of a dry hard runway, the plane might have groundlooped out of control if the tailwheel friction were inadequate to steer.

While training my charge in the Super Cub the other day, the 10 knot direct crosswind was enough to have me take notice. I kept her on the grass runway, and no problems. When We had to fly to the pavement to get gas, I flew. Once back on the grass, I had fun with one wheel landings, though not with the wing as low as I had in the 150.

So, I like grass runways, and wet if possible, for crosswind flying. If not, like parallel parking into a tight spot, I'll deal with what the circumstances offer me....

[India Four Two]

jabba pilot (if you are still here after five pages),

I would like to make an observation which may help you.

By way of background, I should say that I was trained (in England) to make a crabbed approach and then "kick off the drift" after flaring. I never felt comfortable with it, but our cross wind limits were so low, that there was never really a problem.

When I came to Canada, I was introduced to transitioning from the crabbed approach to wing-down in the flare. It took me a while to get used to, but now I wouldn't do a crosswind landing any other way.

I feel very comfortable landing single-engined aircraft in cross-winds up to the demonstrated speed and for ones that I am very familiar with, in crosswinds in excess of that value.

So after that long-winded introduction, the observation I wanted to make is that you have to get comfortable with the idea that you are planning to land on one main wheel, rather than rushing to get both mains on the ground as soon as possible.

Step Turn's photo of his 150's wingtip just above the ice is an extreme case, but it clearly illustrates the fact that rolling along on one mainwheel is easily managed.

A related point is that doing a slipping approach can be very disconcerting or even scary for non-pilot passengers. Ask me how I know!

[Heston]

I'm not the originator of this thought - I may even have seen it on pprune!


Its worth realising that all this discussion about crabbed vs slipping approaches is simply about WHEN you make the transition from crab to wing down. Look at it this way - when in the cruise we fly with the wings level compensating for the cross wind drift. In other words, crabbing. On landing, whatever we've done down the approach, if there is a cross wind then a good landing will involve some wing down with the controls crossed.


So somewhere in there we have made the transition from crabbing to wing down with crossed controls. On base leg? On long final? Half way down the final approach? Just before round-out? After round-out? It doesn't matter - do what works for you and the aeroplane.

[worrab]

...just don't try one-wheel landings with certain motor-gliders that spring to mind. "Kicking it straight" is the only way with a long, low wing unless the crosswind is negligible.

I really don't like the "Kicking it straight" phrase. It conveys the thought of an uncontrolled boot on the downwind rudder rather than the purposeful/thoughtful and possibly large shove that's needed.

[darkroomsource]

First understand, I am not disagreeing that a wet grass runway makes cross wind landings easier, especially in a tailwheel.

What I do wonder is this...
Is wet grass actually slipperier than dry grass?
The reason I ask is that it does require more runway to take off, and less to land on. And if I kick a football on wet grass it doesn't go as far as it does on dry grass.

So I wonder if it's not a case of the grass actually being "stickier" when wet which makes landing on wet grass better.

I'm not a physicist, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn express. So I could be talking out my ears.

[9 lives]

Is wet grass actually slipperier than dry grass?Yes, grass will be more slippery when wet. I was once asked to ferry a 172 up to a friend following some brake maintenance. As I taxiied out along the wet grass runway, it seemed to be dragging just a little to the left. I looked down to notice that the left wheel was not turning. I considered the implication of this to my flight, knowing that both runways I would use were wet grass that morning. I took off with no fuss, and landed at my destination, stopping just short of the paved apron. The left wheel never turned at all (bolted shut by poor maintenance). My friend asked why I did not park it - I winked, and told him he'd soon figure it out!

Where grass can be a lower friction surface than pavement, it can still be higher drag too, just because it may be long. One condition does not necessarily equate to the other directly.

Understanding the friction characteristics of the "runway" you propose to use is important sometimes, but more so, if there is a crosswind. Casual pilots sometimes open the throttle for takeoff, with little apparent consideration for a crosswind (aileron down). On pavement, this may result in a bit of lurch at lift off, and a skipped mainwheel. On a low friction surface, you may have been blown laterally off the runway early in the takeoff roll, if you don't "fly" into the wind on takeoff.

You;ll read the expression: "Fly it from chock to chock". This very true concept applies very certainly to the effects of the wind while the aircraft is moving on the surface. As soon as you are moving, and until you stop, consider the affect of the wind on the aircraft, and the tools you have to maintain control - directional in particular. If your surface is: Grass, wet grass, snow, ice, or water, you have less to no tool in surface friction to assist you in maintaining directional control - so fly the plane!

You'll be amazed at the great effect of flight controls in maintaining control - even on the surface!

[thing]

I really don't like the "Kicking it straight" phrase.

I do. It's sort of rugged and punchy, gives me a warm glow.

[riverrock83]

So on this thread we've had Chuck tell us he illegally landed a DC3 sideways in the Arctic (i don't think a DC3 has auto land) and Step Turn tell us he happily flew an aircraft from the maintenance facility that did dodgy brake maintenance to another location rather than have that facility fix it (what else could they have broken?).
Not good examples for a student!

The issue with "kicking it straight" / aligning with the runway in the flare without also lowering a wing is momentum.
If you have an aircraft with lots of momentum (a large heavy beast) then it will continue to fly down the runway so it wont matter that you don't have your wing down to stop it drifting side ways.
If you are in a microlight with little momentum, as soon as you align with the runway, you will be blown sideways. As such - the lighter the aircraft, the more important it is that you get that wing down. Of course - the faster your approach speed, the more effective wing down is.

I normally align with the runway and get the wing down just below around 100 feet. My instructors showed me both techniques. I found that the crab to the flare method before aligning meant that everything happened very near touch down and so as an early student it would be hit and miss. I'd normally end up doing two approaches - first to get a feel for how much rudder / wing down was required, second to apply it. Making all those adjustments at 20 feet means the approach is no longer stable. Setting up early becomes safer until you are more experienced and can lower the height.

Of course - some aircraft are designed with twisting / castoring landing gear - but that is the minority. Most landing gear is not designed to handle side loads, so you need to go straight along the runway.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/NykHM.jpg

On the question about powered approaches - engines don't like being shock cooled, so you need power on to keep the engine warm. An extended period at idle when continuing at flying speed will damage an engine - then you wont have power as a choice! There is also the risk of carb heat - as previously mentioned, higher as the engine operates on lower power. When doing PFLs / Glide approaches, I've always been taught to "warm" the engine at least once during the descent.

Another reason for power is for the best short field performance, as others have said. Adding power allows you to fly on the back of the drag curve, lowering airspeed and so energy required to get rid off when landing. You need power applied to give you the energy to flare. eg - in my bulldog, we do power off approaches at 75 (that is best glide but it also gives energy to flare), normal approaches at 65 (small amount of power, power off at flare), short field at 55 (power on till touch down).

[Chuck Ellsworth]

So on this thread we've had Chuck tell us he illegally landed a DC3 sideways in the Arctic (i don't think a DC3 has auto land) and Step Turn tell us he happily flew an aircraft from the maintenance facility that did dodgy brake maintenance to another location rather than have that facility fix it (what else could they have broken?).
Not good examples for a student!How was what I did illegal?

With no where else to go to land what would you have done?

And Step turn is able to make a decision on a ferry flight for maintenance in my opinion.

So once again riverrock83 what would you have done in the circumstance I found myself in the High Arctic at night with an unforecast sudden change in the weather?

[Jan Olieslagers]

engines don't like being shock cooled, so you need power on to keep the engine warm

This is the first serious argument PRO a powered approach in all this thread (or I should have missed some, but "it is non-standard" is not a serious argument to me).

It only, or at least mostly, applies to air-cooled engines, though. Which might explain why, in circles I frequent, where everybody and their dog fly behind a mixed-cooling Rotax 4-cylinder, powered approaches are frowned down upon.

[worrab]

A lovely thing about flying is that it really isn't "one size fits all". I suspect that were one to attempt a one-wheeled landing on say a Chevron it could well end in tears, but equally if it were kicked straight 100ft up one could easily end up in another county before reaching the threshold. On the other hand C150s will happily take any combination of crosswind techniques.

Similarly, in one aircraft a glide approach from the downwind is normal, in another a glide approach from the downwind is difficult and results in some fairly interesting attitudes. Maybe a more frequent use of glide approaches would improve PFLs/forced landings?

[n5296s]

Funny how people still go on about shock cooling. If you read articles by people who have spent time looking into it (e.g. Barry Schiff), there is no issue as long as CHTs are below 380 F. Maybe if you run really hot, like 450, there could be a problem. But it's really a bad idea anyway. Current thinking is you should stay below 400, and certainly below 420.

Once you reduce power for a descent, the CHTs will be below 380 so it becomes a non-issue. The idea that pulling power just before landing will damage the engine has no basis in fact.

It happens that my aerobatic instructor still worries about it, so have to nurse the engine into the glide (my rule is, if the owner of the aircraft wants to worry about something, you should too, even if you don't really believe it). But even so, every single landing we do in the Pitts is power off from pattern altitude.

A few years ago a couple of guys killed themselves because they believed it would harm the engine (a big radial) to pull the power completely. So they overshot the runway. I'm sure that did a lot more damage to the engine.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Once you reduce power for a descent, the CHTs will be below 380 so it becomes a non-issue. The idea that pulling power just before landing will damage the engine has no basis in fact.

Exactly.

Gradual reduction in power from cruise to landing following the engine manufacturers operating procedures is what protects the engine from shock cooling.

P.S. :

Somewhere in my stuff I have the pilot operating manual for the C117 and there is a caution there about rapid cooling causing cylinder choking, however by following the power reduction procedures there is no fear of shock cooling when you reduce power to zero when landing....I generally reduced power to zero about fifty feet above the runway in the C117.

[9 lives]

engines don't like being shock cooled, so you need power on to keep the engine warm. An extended period at idle when continuing at flying speed will damage an engine

"Shock" and "Extended period" are rather opposed terms. Shock cooling is bad, by degree of rate of temperature change. Allowing the engine to cool gradually will not create a problem for the engine.

If you carry power through the flare, you are cheating yourself out of the landing gear warning on most RG types, that could become hard to explain if you forgot.

The techniques for flying on the back side of the drag curve do not work well with the techniques for landing in significant crosswinds. If you have that short a runway, and that big a wind, another runway is probably a better decision.

Step Turn tell us he happily flew an aircraft from the maintenance facility that did dodgy brake maintenance to another location rather than have that facility fix it

Well... not "happily", I was rather put out to be honest. But, the aircraft was not at a maintenance facility, the mechanic had left aircraft the day before at the private runway. I was taking it to the maintenance facility at the destination.

But, I agree, students, don't fly unserviceable planes....

[India Four Two]

engines don't like being shock cooled, so you need power on to keep the engine warm. An extended period at idle when continuing at flying speed will damage an engineriverrock83,

A nice B-52 picture in your post, but your comment below it is nonsense.

Most of my powered flying these days is hauling gliders into the air. Now this is an operation where mitigating shock cooling matters. Five minutes of full-power climbing, with peak CHTs approaching 400° F - sometimes slightly exceeding it - followed by a descent and landing five minutes later.

We follow SOPs designed to minimize the rate of cooling, particularly at the beginning of the descent.

However, as others have pointed out, there is no risk of shock cooling in normal operations e.g. closing the throttle for a glide approach while at circuit speed and power. The more serious risk in this situation is carb icing, where you should follow the recommendations in the POH and not some old-wives tale passed on by well-meaning instructors. ;)