Crosswind landings
VP. Morning.
Hope I haven’t contributed to confusion. Mr Boeing’s FCTM for 75/76 does indeed allow all three techniques (wing down, crap n kick, crab alone). I’m guessing your experience is 4 jet which is likely to be more problematic than my 2 jet. All that being said, our company teaching ( and my pref) both sim and ac is crab and straighten. If the ‘kick’ is a touch too early then maybe a little wing down to keep on the cl. There is also the ‘throw it on the rwy like a sack of spuds’ technique which has served me well on the grounds that 150T of Boeing at 150kts is a lot of inertia!
Finally for accuracy and clarity any aob applied for A/L is removed when ‘rollout’ engages at 5’radio, but i’m usually so pleased to have got that far that I don’t really notice that bit.
rgds
Hope I haven’t contributed to confusion. Mr Boeing’s FCTM for 75/76 does indeed allow all three techniques (wing down, crap n kick, crab alone). I’m guessing your experience is 4 jet which is likely to be more problematic than my 2 jet. All that being said, our company teaching ( and my pref) both sim and ac is crab and straighten. If the ‘kick’ is a touch too early then maybe a little wing down to keep on the cl. There is also the ‘throw it on the rwy like a sack of spuds’ technique which has served me well on the grounds that 150T of Boeing at 150kts is a lot of inertia!
Finally for accuracy and clarity any aob applied for A/L is removed when ‘rollout’ engages at 5’radio, but i’m usually so pleased to have got that far that I don’t really notice that bit.
rgds
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Sussex
Age: 86
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I trained in Canada (1956) I was taught the wing down technique. It worked a treat, particularly on Harvards (a well known beast). Back to the UK, where the QFIs considered Canadian trained students to be incompetent, I was forced to use the "kick of drift" method. I always prefered the former. And so it continued until, as a TP at Boscombe, I was tasked to investigate X wind landing techniques for Nimrods going into Stanley and C130s in really tough conditions. There was no doubt that the wing down method was the best. I subsequently flew the Lanc. Previous OCBBMS's told me horror stories of truly awful Xwind landing experiences using the RAF "KOD". Not surprisingly I elected to us wing down and I can honestly say that the heart rate never flickered! The Lanc also made me realise that, using wing down, the aircraft always reached terra firma with the controls exactly as required for the roll out whereas with KOD you touch down any old how. I subsequently taught civilian students wing down and they took to it like ducks to water. As I am sure readers will understand this is my pet subject. SORRY!
As a passenger who used to fly in the smoking area down the back of a 747 the wing down technique was by far the preferred option.
The alternative lurch sideways when a pilot kicked off drift just before touchdown would empty your glass of wine slightly before one had planned to.
The alternative lurch sideways when a pilot kicked off drift just before touchdown would empty your glass of wine slightly before one had planned to.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I suggest the following link to help you explore your defensive and inhibitory emotions.
Sent with love, not for an argument or requiring any reply....
https://www.hilaryjacobshendel.com/w...triangle-c18dd
Thread Starter
Thank you for your replies, v interesting!
I have discussed the issue with an ex Concorde and DC10 colleague, crab, push off drift approved on both types.
So, OAP, it is a fact that, having covered Boeing , Airbus, MacD and Concorde, all of which approve crab and drift removal I think, contrary to your statement that it IS a generally approved technique in commercial airliner ops!
No idea what you are talking about, first, second or third person nonsense. ( and if you are ex RAF Tristar. I doubt if you have flown one at twice the weight of a 767 ER, it’s only 65 k lighter than the 1011)
However, the question was what is the RAF teaching, seems it’s mixed.
I still remember an interesting discussion at Boeing . They explained that the crosswind limit was the maximum DEMONSTRATED during certification by them, and the aircraft controllability was almost certainly able to handle greater limits.
I used my crab technique on my conversion in Seattle , they were happy with that and signed me off.
They also explained that that a fully crabbed landing was acceptable because less skilled line pilots might do it! The structure could handle it.
However, because it it could be done didn’t mean it SHOULD be done if a smoother technique, such as wing down, crab /drift removal could be used.
I am more than happy to take the word of the manufacturer’s test and training pilots !
Anyway I think we have put the issue to bed.
Thank you for your replies.
I have discussed the issue with an ex Concorde and DC10 colleague, crab, push off drift approved on both types.
So, OAP, it is a fact that, having covered Boeing , Airbus, MacD and Concorde, all of which approve crab and drift removal I think, contrary to your statement that it IS a generally approved technique in commercial airliner ops!
No idea what you are talking about, first, second or third person nonsense. ( and if you are ex RAF Tristar. I doubt if you have flown one at twice the weight of a 767 ER, it’s only 65 k lighter than the 1011)
However, the question was what is the RAF teaching, seems it’s mixed.
I still remember an interesting discussion at Boeing . They explained that the crosswind limit was the maximum DEMONSTRATED during certification by them, and the aircraft controllability was almost certainly able to handle greater limits.
I used my crab technique on my conversion in Seattle , they were happy with that and signed me off.
They also explained that that a fully crabbed landing was acceptable because less skilled line pilots might do it! The structure could handle it.
However, because it it could be done didn’t mean it SHOULD be done if a smoother technique, such as wing down, crab /drift removal could be used.
I am more than happy to take the word of the manufacturer’s test and training pilots !
Anyway I think we have put the issue to bed.
Thank you for your replies.
Last edited by RetiredBA/BY; 26th Oct 2018 at 18:02.
I thought all RAF landings were Crab landings.
On the naughty step,,,,SAS
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some the smaller types none of those techniques were used, it all rather... redundant.
Just point into wind, reduce speed to zero and land..... once the skids/wheels are on, disembark pax or shutdown. Simples!
Just point into wind, reduce speed to zero and land..... once the skids/wheels are on, disembark pax or shutdown. Simples!
Comments about the F4 and drift..agreed
747 and crab vs. Wing low....wing low really not liked in the flare where/when I flew it outboard engines, pod clearance in the flare etc ...
FWIW from current 777 FCTM...
”Crosswind Landing Techniques-Three methods of performing crosswind landings are presented. They are the de-crab technique (with removal of crab in flare), touchdown in a crab, and the sideslip technique.”
Touchdown in full crab approved for slippery runways.
Sideslip with zero crab allowed in up 28 knot crosswind.
Dry crosswind limit 45 knots (removal of crab in flare)...
747 and crab vs. Wing low....wing low really not liked in the flare where/when I flew it outboard engines, pod clearance in the flare etc ...
FWIW from current 777 FCTM...
”Crosswind Landing Techniques-Three methods of performing crosswind landings are presented. They are the de-crab technique (with removal of crab in flare), touchdown in a crab, and the sideslip technique.”
Touchdown in full crab approved for slippery runways.
Sideslip with zero crab allowed in up 28 knot crosswind.
Dry crosswind limit 45 knots (removal of crab in flare)...
Dry crosswind limit 45 knots (removal of crab in flare)...
The fins of modern airliners seem proportionally larger than those of older in-service types like E-3 and RJ. But are modern RAF transport aircraft like Voyager and C17 so limited? 25kts sounds more like a limit associated with fast jets or trainers, possibly with small fin/rudder or external stores.
Must beg the forbearance of you military and ex-military types for one of my occasional intrusions into your forum. But, as you seem to be talking about the comparatively banal task of landing transports, I reckon we've all been playing the same ball-game. Like RetiredBA/BY, since retirement I've been surprised by the increasing prevalence - judging from videos taken from near the approach lights - of guys making no noticeable attempt to de-crab. The Boeing video from Duchess Driver shows four landings, of which only the third shows a full de-crab. The fourth shows a partial de-crab with the simultaneous introduction of a little wing-down. When test pilots refrain from de-crabbing, they would no doubt tell us they were simply demonstrating that the L/G can cope with the sloppiest technique on a dry runway...
Plenty of good stuff here, but I'll take this one for discussion:
Agreed, except that, as well as PPPP-PP, practice helps. Unfortunately, the long-haulers don't get much of that.
Agreed, although Onceapilot has a point.
Evidently not a 'plane-spotter!
IMO, the (roughly-speaking) three dry-runway techniques - [1] wing-down; [2] slight (late) wing-down during de-crab, and [3] wings-level (full) de-crab - are chosen as appropriate to the aircraft type.
Looking back on a short-list of various types, the following are my suggestions.
Heron [3] or [2], but minding the upwind prop.
C-47: [1], and wheel it on.
Dart Herald: [1], but avoiding wheel-barrowing and ensuring downwind wheels firmly on the ground before using any downwind brake
.
VC10: [2]. Although the only limiting factor was the outboard flaps, I never saw [1] demonstrated, and perhaps the tanker guys will comment, pod-wise;
B707-320 (JT3D turbofans): [3], due to outboard engine nacelles, but no doubt the experts could use [2]. The later KC-135s with CFM-56 engines presumably stick with [3]?
BAC1-11: [1] or [2].
A310: [2], bank slightly limited by engine nacelle;
DC-10: [2], although the auto-land adopted [1] at 138'R - but only enough for a 20-knot crosswind, if memory serves. Cockpit needed to be well upwind of the centreline prior to de-crab.
A320: [2], although - being FBW - the manufacturer recommended [3], claiming that the zero roll-rate command from the side-stick would prevent the upwind wing rising during de-crab, and that crossed controls were not recommended. But [2] works very well. I imagine the A330-200/Voyager (with similar FBW) would be comparable?
Plenty of good stuff here, but I'll take this one for discussion:
Wing-down will always work, ensuring you land with no lateral drift, but it does mean a podded engine may be too close to the ground. Conversly, if you elect to crab, then unless you get it exactly right you're either going to land with lateral drift (ie you kicked the drift off too soon) or you'll still be crabbed off (ie kicked the drift off too late).
Of the various RAF ME types I've operated I've used both techniques, or even a blend of them (ie a bit of wing down but also some crabbing). The geometry of the tailwheel types requires them to be flown accurately aligned and with absolutely no lateral drift - so had to be flown wing-down, but also to a relatively low crosswind limit. The tricycle types will always yaw themselves straight after touchdown if you've not got it right, but it can feel very uncomfortable and can't do the gear much good.
IMO, the (roughly-speaking) three dry-runway techniques - [1] wing-down; [2] slight (late) wing-down during de-crab, and [3] wings-level (full) de-crab - are chosen as appropriate to the aircraft type.
Looking back on a short-list of various types, the following are my suggestions.
Heron [3] or [2], but minding the upwind prop.
C-47: [1], and wheel it on.
Dart Herald: [1], but avoiding wheel-barrowing and ensuring downwind wheels firmly on the ground before using any downwind brake
.VC10: [2]. Although the only limiting factor was the outboard flaps, I never saw [1] demonstrated, and perhaps the tanker guys will comment, pod-wise;
B707-320 (JT3D turbofans): [3], due to outboard engine nacelles, but no doubt the experts could use [2]. The later KC-135s with CFM-56 engines presumably stick with [3]?
BAC1-11: [1] or [2].
A310: [2], bank slightly limited by engine nacelle;
DC-10: [2], although the auto-land adopted [1] at 138'R - but only enough for a 20-knot crosswind, if memory serves. Cockpit needed to be well upwind of the centreline prior to de-crab.
A320: [2], although - being FBW - the manufacturer recommended [3], claiming that the zero roll-rate command from the side-stick would prevent the upwind wing rising during de-crab, and that crossed controls were not recommended. But [2] works very well. I imagine the A330-200/Voyager (with similar FBW) would be comparable?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 60
Posts: 406
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 requires the crab technique but, bizarrely, the aircraft decrabs around the cockpit - more or less. God alone knows what the FCS does to achieve this. Previous types, for me, had me sat over the grass before a decrab and the cockpit was at the end of a long arc as you de-crabbed. My turbo-prop time was on a high wing and lent itself well to the wing down method, although one ex RN chief pilot of mine professed much alarm at this technique, claiming never to have heard of it before when I demonstrated it, whereas I was taught it on the Bulldog from the word go. I used to teach this method on light singles and had much success with low hour pilots....the 380 geometry would not allow this though.
In the 90s the USAF lost a C130 doing asymmetric training because the training Captain told the Co pilot to ‘boot the ball’ - which he did leading to fin stall and the loss of all on board.
The worst landing I have experienced in a large aircraft came when an inexperienced FO read the OM which said words to the effect of ‘kick off the drift’. As he flared he did just that! We dropped like a brick, bounced (despite ground spoiler deployment) before settling on the runway. Easyjet at the hold even transmitted a disparaging comment!
To answer the original quote, though. The RAF do not have a standard teaching, the technique deemed appropriate for each type, whether by the OEM or Handling Sqn, is taught. So for the Herc, which has to be landed straight due to undercarriage design, it is wing down. For Sentry, Sentinel etc, it is crab.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hold
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
De-crab in the flare, adjusting aileron into wind is what’s primary on the 737-800 for what it’s worth with a 40kt x-wind landing limit Wet/Dry. I guess the P-8 would be similar...
But, as you seem to be talking about the comparatively banal task of landing transports,..
DCT - The 'concept' is a far removed from the actual airborne instruction/brief! If you tell a co who perhaps doesn't know better (not an RAF co then) to 'boot the rudder' then more fool you for not anticipating his possible mis-interpretation.
So why do you have to use wing-down in the Herc; if you correctly kick off the drift in the flare you still land straight and with no drift (the whole point of this thread is it not - apart from the do nothing option and land without aligning to the runway orientation)
Hey, CS, that's probably the only bit of handling an airline driver gets these days!
DCT - The 'concept' is a far removed from the actual airborne instruction/brief! If you tell a co who perhaps doesn't know better (not an RAF co then) to 'boot the rudder' then more fool you for not anticipating his possible mis-interpretation.
So why do you have to use wing-down in the Herc; if you correctly kick off the drift in the flare you still land straight and with no drift (the whole point of this thread is it not - apart from the do nothing option and land without aligning to the runway orientation)
Yes HP, I was simply acknowledging that some posters on here may regard crosswind landings as one of their less-demanding tasks.
As captainsmiffy and DCThumb have said, the wing-down technique lends itself so well on most high-wing transports (of which there remain a wide variety. in civil and military service). It was great on the Herald. The only question is: at what height do you best transition into the sideslip? I would suggest that it needs to be done early enough to get the feel of it, but not so early that your downwind leg starts to tremble with the effort as you come over the threshold...
As captainsmiffy and DCThumb have said, the wing-down technique lends itself so well on most high-wing transports (of which there remain a wide variety. in civil and military service). It was great on the Herald. The only question is: at what height do you best transition into the sideslip? I would suggest that it needs to be done early enough to get the feel of it, but not so early that your downwind leg starts to tremble with the effort as you come over the threshold...
One teaching method I used in the western part of the USA was to have the Student fly along a barbed wire fence....as out west those section lines can go for hundreds of miles and if one flies the north/south lines....you always had a cross wind.
Then when they returned to the airfield....lining up and maintaining a track along the runway was a piece of cake to them.
That worked for crabbing or slipping (wing low) methods.....and going back and forth between the two.
Then when they returned to the airfield....lining up and maintaining a track along the runway was a piece of cake to them.
That worked for crabbing or slipping (wing low) methods.....and going back and forth between the two.