Airbus Crosswind... "White Knuckled Landing"

[fdr]

OK, It's CNN, so that puts it in perspective, however, the Airbus has a rudder installed on it for various reasons, it is not only decorative.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/09/23/air-france-landing-winds-birmingham-orig.cnn

The control laws for elevators change as a function of radio altitude, and emulate a normal aircraft.
The ailerons are rate commands, no input no roll
The rudder is a rudder, it will give a yaw rate and when stabilised a sideslip angle. It also gives a roll moment the the aileron logic nulls out (mainly).

The rudder is there for aligning the nose of the plane, (the bit where the professionals sit...) down the runway at an appropriate and well considered point in the approach to landing.

The FBW is different, but it is still a C-150 underneath it all.

[svhar]

I can't see the rudder moving at all. Must be decorative.

[macdo]

LoL I wish we had a cockpit video and transcript for that! Good decision made though.

[FlightDetent]

Some people do a strict crab technique, and only put the rudder for the landing. I was trained similar initially (pre-Airbus) by what was an ex-anhedral instructor group.

The video shows them a bit on the downwind side at the threshold markers, correcting back to center line. The G/A is initiated about 2 sec before the climb out (my guess).

They never reached the point when the rudder would had been put in. For a strict crab technique.

Maybe not the best choice in such a gale.

[fdr]

Some people do a strict crab technique, and only put the rudder for the landing. I was trained similar initially (pre-Airbus) by what was an ex-anhedral instructor group.

The video shows them a bit on the downwind side at the threshold markers, correcting back to center line. The G/A is initiated about 2 sec before the climb out (my guess).

They never reached the point when the rudder would had been put in. For a strict crab technique.

Maybe not the best choice in such a gale.





FD: Reasonable points. I raise this image just following the number of weird crosswind images that come into the public domain. The Airbus seems to be in a world of its own with being either plonked on the ground going sideways with the decorative tail, which exerts high loads on the beam on bogie gear sets, or we see the plane exhibiting PIOs from flying slip on final which is not a great match with AI FBW logic.

Nothing wrong with a go around.

[swh]

Nothing wrong with that approach or go around with 40 kts of crosswind, no PIO as claimed.

The 737 with direct control to flight control surface and connected yokes produces better results.....

https://youtu.be/x416im7maCw
https://youtu.be/trrUkKUyhl4
https://youtu.be/AueNH8-9b5c
https://youtu.be/G1CCySCh3Zc
https://youtu.be/RMLoU3Q4Ijo

[Capn Bloggs]

Children of the Magenta...

[IcePack]

If I remember correctly you have to be below 50ft for the FBW to allow cross controls. This thread might also be a timely reminder in that on touch down any aeleron input you have applied is halved.

[EDLB]

If I remember correctly you have to be below 50ft for the FBW to allow cross controls.

That is strange. If you make a slipped landing with the wing low method, cross control is what you do all the way on final to GND. Since you are in a slipp, even if it does not look that way, you need to use a bit more thrust, because the sink rate is higher.

[arketip]

Children of the Magenta...

BS .

[Capn Bloggs]

BS .
The reason I made that comment was because these scenarios are where stick and rudder skills are the only thing that will result in a good landing. You can be the best button-pusher of all time but if you can't hand-fly very well, then you will have a reduced chance of a successful outcome, either landing in the zone or having the presence of mind to GA. Another Prune thread commented on the rough-controlling that sometimes occurs as soon as the AP is disconnected. That's because increasingly, people can't "fly" any more.

[fox niner]

Without going into the B vs. A discussion, could someone with airbus experience clarify something for me? ...Since I have exactly 0 minutes flight hours on an airbus.
We were lining up behind a departing A340 in a strong crosswind. There was NO aileron input at all into the wind during their takeoff roll. The plane was clearly begging for it, as the upwind wing was higher than the downwind wing. When it lifted off the runway, only THEN was aileron input introduced. My colleague said that this was normal in an airbus because of design/control law etc.
To me it seems consistent with this landing of this airbus in Birmingham, above. No cross control in the way I have been doing the past 3 decades on boeings.

[dudubrdx]

I fly airbuses, just not the fbw ones.
No aileron inputs on take off roll due to the spoilers coming up and creating more problems than anything else

[Officer Kite]

Without going into the B vs. A discussion, could someone with airbus experience clarify something for me? ...Since I have exactly 0 minutes flight hours on an airbus.
We were lining up behind a departing A340 in a strong crosswind. There was NO aileron input at all into the wind during their takeoff roll. The plane was clearly begging for it, as the upwind wing was higher than the downwind wing. When it lifted off the runway, only THEN was aileron input introduced. My colleague said that this was normal in an airbus because of design/control law etc.
To me it seems consistent with this landing of this airbus in Birmingham, above. No cross control in the way I have been doing the past 3 decades on boeings.



From the base training document I received:

Half forward stick is used at the commencement of the take-off run. For crosswind take-off, routine
use of into-wind aileron is not recommended. In strong crosswind conditions, small amounts of lateral control may be used to maintain wings level, but the pilot should avoid using excessive amounts. This causes excessive spoiler deployment, which increases the aircraft tendency to turn into wind. A two stage power application to TOGA or FLEX is made and the aircraft is kept straight by use of the rudder.

Basically as already mentioned

[fdr]

Nothing wrong with that approach or go around with 40 kts of crosswind, no PIO as claimed.
The 737 with direct control to flight control surface and connected yokes produces better results.....


Mmmmmm. OK... The B737 images you show are pretty unpleasant. As a group we contend with the conditions reasonably well, but we also place a rod on our own backs.
Continuing approaches in conditions that are severe may not be what the punters are paying for. That is a peer pressure/normalisation/mission completion item, tied up with the financial needs of the companies. The punters are paying to go from A to B, rather than C, however they are also not paying for disneyland rides, where there is elevated risk of bad outcomes. Not casting nasturtiums, I've looked out the #2 window in a B74 to see the runway, and at 500' decided that there was no way the landing would end up without making a headline. In retrospect, even calling it quits at 500' wasn't that much fun for the people paying our salary on that evening.

Not a fan of the B737, Boeing makes some great flying planes, the B737 makes money for the airlines. Can't argue that. The Airbus down in the flare behaves like a real plane. In both cases, (and not shown in these videos anyway) wing down/slip doesn't work very well, more of a problem on the Airbus than any other, but in both cases, wing down on the approach results in more unstable flight paths than flying with drift until the flare, and then aligning the nose towards the end of the runway.

Mild PIO is not an issue on this approach, it becomes more prevalent with slipping flight. The A320 video is of interest only on the amount of time spent with drift on just above the ground, before the G/A was initiated. The crew are dealign with challenging conditions in the A320 video. My point is that getting down in the weeds and ending up in a position where the rudder isn't applied due to the conditions, probably indicates we are in the wrong place at that point. Back when London's Hyde Park fell over in storms, we drove a B74 into MAN RWY06 with a gusty 35Kt crosswind, which was fun until it wasn't. I got the plane to the runway with a reasonable setup, cockpit slightly upwind of the centerline for the alignment, and eased the power off to land, and was about to put in rudder when we got hit with a 60Kt crosswind gust. The good news is the gust assists align the aircraft into wind through directional stability, but the track went from straight down the runway to a recorded 15 degree downwind track. about a second later we touched down, but in that time I had thought about putting in into wind rudder... pretty ugly, doing a go around... not going to happen without touching down, or planting the aircraft. I planted the aircraft. and spent the next 10 minutes apologising to the rest of the crew who were still in fits of laughter. The passengers weren't. The company was happy we got there for the passengers. I think we should have stayed in bed, and defended the passengers rights more effectively. The B74 is a sweet handling crosswind aircraft. Much nicer than the B762, even the B763. The B777 is also a great crosswind aircraft, with a remarkably effective rudder. (there is one oddity with the B777 however, for the takeoff roll, aircraft will weathervane into wind and need down wind rudder to maintain alignment. The B777 does as well, but only above about 80Kts, below that, the aircraft has an out of wind tendency which can be seen in the data if any crew look at their FDM/QAR output data). Years later, looking at serious incidents on one particular type and airline, the aircraft was tearing up the MLG trunnions. The data analysis showed that the crew were routinely landing with high levels of drift on. In those cases, this was also happening on landings with relatively low crosswinds, but where the crews were flying slip, they were getting out of sorts, such that in a 7kt crosswind, they had full rudder applied, and the aircraft in a forward slip into the flare and touchdown. That was eventually resolved, and the training reinforced to comply with the OEM's TM guidance, de-crab in the flare or after establishing the landing attitude.

[Capn Bloggs]

FDR, yet another fascinating post of yours; thank you.

wing down on the approach results in more unstable flight paths than flying with drift until the flare, and then aligning the nose towards the end of the runway.
Years later, looking at serious incidents on one particular type and airline, the aircraft was tearing up the MLG trunnions. The data analysis showed that the crew were routinely landing with high levels of drift on. In those cases, this was also happening on landings with relatively low crosswinds, but where the crews were flying slip, they were getting out of sorts, such that in a 7kt crosswind, they had full rudder applied, and the aircraft in a forward slip into the flare and touchdown. That was eventually resolved, and the training reinforced to comply with the OEM's TM guidance, de-crab in the flare or after establishing the landing attitude.
These are interesting comments. When we started on our "Boeing" (not really a Boeing; inherited from McD), the FCOM (written by Boeing) had nothing much to say about crosswind landings. Then, in 2010, there was a major rewrite, with a completely new section devoted crosswind landings which introduced the Forward Slip technique, at "approx. 200ft AGL". Later revisions changed that to "below 200ft AGL", but it was still the full forward slip. Whether this applied to all Boeings, I don't know, but I think was an acknowledgement that kicking it straight at the last second and dropping it on was getting beyond the capabilities of some pilots. See my comment above. It feels bl@@dy awful to sit through, but that's what Boeing now wants...

You seem to be into the FDM; an analysis of bank/angle pod strike risk verses landing with the wing down in a juicy crosswind using the forward slip technique is interesting!

[Centaurus]

Reading the B737 Classic FCTM it says "The airplane can land using crab only (zero sideslip) up to the crosswind limit guideline speeds. On dry runways upon touch down the airplane tracks toward the upwind edge of the runway while de-crabbing to align with the runway."
To me that implies you can safely touch down sideways without removing drift.
Perhaps Boeing should have added with a sly wink "And the Devil take the hindmost." To those who have seen this happening and shuddered at the thought, remember the old adage "Neat but not gaudy - like an elephant's arse sown up with a bicycle chain," might humour the frightened.

[drunk_pilot]

Children of the Magenta...

Children of the Green in Airbus land :8

[Old Boeing Driver]

The reason I made that comment was because these scenarios are where stick and rudder skills are the only thing that will result in a good landing. You can be the best button-pusher of all time but if you can't hand-fly very well, then you will have a reduced chance of a successful outcome, either landing in the zone or having the presence of mind to GA. Another Prune thread commented on the rough-controlling that sometimes occurs as soon as the AP is disconnected. That's because increasingly, people can't "fly" any more.

Sadly, you are correct. Not just in the cross wind landing area either.

OBD.

[alf5071h]

Not overtly disagreeing with the underlying need for skills, but consider how and when modern pilots gain those necessary to manage the situations encountered today. What is the experience base in crosswinds, and in what range of circumstances; are we now required to fly closer to the limit ?

How many operators restrict crosswind exposure to Captains only, or severely restrict FO to mild conditions.

How often do Capts really get tested; oh the simulator, but how realistic is that. Simulations cannot adequately stress-test limiting skills because like pilots they lack programming for the complete range of situations, or the finesse to replicate them.
For the average line pilot, how many exposures, what range of conditions - every crosswind is different - particularly for turbulence, and then at what point in their career is a sufficient standard achieved.

The likelihood is that many pilots have yet to fly to the limits of the aircraft, and probably haven’t as yet defined the limit of their judgement or skill level.
And even for those who have flown at the limit, and are aware of their flying capability, there is always one more crosswind on a dark rainy night with a short runway.

“Don’t criticise them; they are just what we would be under similar circumstances.”
– Abraham Lincoln

[Fat Busdriver]

Without going into the B vs. A discussion, could someone with airbus experience clarify something for me? ...Since I have exactly 0 minutes flight hours on an airbus.
We were lining up behind a departing A340 in a strong crosswind. There was NO aileron input at all into the wind during their takeoff roll. The plane was clearly begging for it, as the upwind wing was higher than the downwind wing. When it lifted off the runway, only THEN was aileron input introduced. My colleague said that this was normal in an airbus because of design/control law etc.
To me it seems consistent with this landing of this airbus in Birmingham, above. No cross control in the way I have been doing the past 3 decades on boeings.

Instructors teach you not to use aileron input, reason is it's a bigger danger of having spoilers extended than no having aileron input (they simply don't thrust pilots to not overcompensate) . With this said any good pilot will still use a bit of aileron. Try it in a sim with max crosswind, it is very hard to maintain centerline and steady wings without using aileron and I always use it! Rudder is there for a reason it is not a naked girl being touched by a virgin! Step on it!! All these things apply to any aircraft 737, 172 etc. People complicate Airbus too much it is just an aircraft and it flies like an aircraft (almost) despite FBW etc, don't think just fly! Biggest problem is companies not allowing pilots to fly, all these stupid rules, with FDs, APs, Autothrust, Visual approaches......makes pilots dumb! I am lucky to fly for acompany where you actually get to fly and guess what? A330 is just a big C172 I handle it the same way, except on ground, taxi it nice and slow :-)

[Centaurus]

all these stupid rules, with FDs, APs, Autothrust, Visual approaches

How true that is. One 737 operator in Australia now requires their crews to select landing flap downwind because their pilots have difficulty flying a visual downwind and cannot guarantee to be stabilised for landing by 1000 ft. So the powers that be decide that if you can arrange to be stable and all landing checks completed before turning base, then in theory they should already be stable passing 1000 ft.

[fdr]

How true that is. One 737 operator in Australia now requires their crews to select landing flap downwind because their pilots have difficulty flying a visual downwind and cannot guarantee to be stabilised for landing by 1000 ft. So the powers that be decide that if you can arrange to be stable and all landing checks completed before turning base, then in theory they should already be stable passing 1000 ft.

Unintended consequences can be that in such a case, the standard GPWS modes are reduced in effectiveness by being in the landing configuration. With the wonders of Don Batemans creativity, EGPWS still exists, but configuring early removes a layer of onion skin off of Shrek, as much as configuring and completing the checklist before turning base would. Circling approaches were fun, but they have had their time, and with RNP-AR Radius To Fix approach capabiity, there is really little justification for circling approaches anywhere. If anyone wants RNP-AR approaches sorted out, or ARA, or point in space approaches, GAS on the VIC/NSW border does very capable work in that area.

The commercial imperatives in a competitive market make it difficult for the airlines to justify spending the additional time for training that is above the minimum required to achieve compliance with an approved training matrix. Reinforcement training is great, when the issues are known, but most of the time we are placing bandaids on top of bandaids, making checklists include more items that can now get in the way of driving an aircraft. This is off topic, but then the topic was to raise the general question of training and comfprt of our flight crew going out into the wide world and slaying dragons on a daily basis. Aviation doesn't happen because of lift and drag, it happens because of confidence that people have in being able to go out and deal with the vagaries of operating in a complex dynamic environment.

Around 98% of all HF incidents involve loss of SA at some point in the process. Often, it is because the crew are busy dealing with compliance matters, (not always, but ti happens), and end up losing the plot. Our rules, regulations and procedures end up being blood based, and become a cascade of changes to the operator of the aircraft. Sometimes those changes are well thought out, and the change management processes really deal with risk analysis, sometimes they do not. The best solution is going to be well trained crews, who comprehend what the rules are, and why they are there. That is the same as a reasonable way to fly, knowing what you do, and why you do so. The upside of some knowledge about why is that when things go pear shaped, then the mismatch between what needs to occur, is recognised, S.A. Level 1, understood S.A. Level 2, and the implications of the problems can be comprehended promptly, S.A. Level 3, and defences implemented to maintain a safe operation.

Today, we do little in the way of S.A. training, which is a shame as it impacts all aspects of the operation, and can be conducted at very low levels of fidelity.

Cognitive loads on the flight crew impact S.A. and it's maintenance. The risk areas are identifiable in the funny pages, as well as the happy snaps such as the videos in this thread etc. The conditions we ask crews to fly in puts considerable load on the crew to make good decisions, and there are occasions that the crews would probably make different decisions if they could roll back the clock, and the passengers might just understand that.

[ImageGear]

The Green/Magenta Line?

After staying with this thread from its beginning, I am more uncomfortable than ever with the responsibility placed on very young captains who simply cannot have gained the wealth of experience that is obviously necessary to deal effectively and consistently, with the situations covered above.

The media has recently featured several really young crews, flying their all singing and dancing, company wonder jet. When your destination is a socked in, and a "captains only" landing, (Thinking Nice on Westerlies) should I not be more nervous?

IG

[Capn Bloggs]

One 737 operator in Australia now requires their crews to select landing flap downwind because their pilots have difficulty flying a visual downwind and cannot guarantee to be stabilised for landing by 1000 ft. So the powers that be decide that if you can arrange to be stable and all landing checks completed before turning base, then in theory they should already be stable passing 1000 ft.
Forgive me for going off-topic for a post, but I don't actually have a problem with this. It works well. In the old days with no autothrottles, no FDs to speak of, and no FDM, it was all a piece of cake. Now it's different. Everybody's watching, and the automatics can make life more difficult. For example, remember the nice, reduced-power base and Final with the speed slowly reducing? That was because there was no ATS. Now, she's all on or all at idle. Flap changes, min speeds, VS being wound in, MCP speed being changed, checklists, sink rates, bank angles, it goes on and on. Much easier to do all that on downwind, get everything done and just do a easy base turn onto final. In fact, that is what my FCOM says to do on a min weather circle, so it can't be too dangerous. Better SA around the base turn.

And don't get me wrong; I am all in favour of having the visual pattern in our quiver of options. Now, back to white-knuckle crosswind landings!