Crosswind With Gust Landings
 

:ugh:
For Example;
Runway 36
Wind 270 Dgrs 25 Knts Gust 35 Knts
Crosswind Company Limit 25 Is Knts.
So
What Is Your Intention At The Minumum?
Land Or Go Around?
And Reason?

crosswinds
 

according the the icao document for weather planning, you can ignore gusts. Its at the discretion of the captain.

Given this situation, I would:
1. Query current winds at the outer, middle, and inner marker...if still above company limits, I would go around - depending on my own experience (and judgment call), of course - particularly at that airport.
2. If winds dropped after the go around, I'd try again, otherwise...divert.Would also depend on if other traffic was able to land!
3. Why? If that was truly the company limit for direct cross wind component (seems rather low - I wouldn't think that this would present much of a problem, even in a light single or twin! I've landed in worse during a typhoon! :eek:), better not to have the head office on my back! :ugh:

faire d'income
 

That is why i said at the captains discretion and just highlighted the icao document.

annex 3 if anyone is interested

This is an important operational (technical) subject.
Consideration of gusts in the decision to land, and as a contributor in many runway excursion accidents, is an important airmanship issue. Gusts may ignored for planning, but this should not absolve pilots from considering a forecast of gusts before flight; we cannot hide behind the rules – accidents/incidents can always find errors of judgment.
When deciding to land in a crosswind with a steady component at or near the demonstrated limit, a pilot is unlikely to have knowledge of what magnitude / duration of gust it would take to exceed the absolute limit – the ability to retain control of the aircraft.
Note the errors in reporting wind speed in the link below. Also, think about wet runways.

“Crosswind Certification - How does it affect you?”

Safety aspects of aircraft performance on wet and contaminated runways.

“How Good Pilots Make Bad Decisions.”

EDIT new link for How Good Pilots Make Bad Decisions, via Google

http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]_ISAP_162.pdf

Which ICAO document?

sleepybuddha
 

I just have the page photocopied the page but its Annex 3

Title is 'Application of aerodrome forecasts (TAF and trend) to pre-flight planning'.

I have tried to download the annex from the web but you need to pay for it. i would suggest you/or your ops department get you the document. I am not based at mine so cannot give you any further page numbers etc at the moment.

Don’t really see why this ICAO document is relevant.

Your airline SOP's take precedence anyway, if it isn’t clearly stated in their manuals then id ask for clarification from the chief pilot.

At my airline we are told to ignore the gusts (for x-wind limitation purposes) however if your over the threshold and struggling to get the thing on the black stuff just go-around, and the decision to do so can be made by either pilot

I say again from the origonal post....
 

AT THE CAPTAINS DISCRETION.

Compare your SOP's to some legal documents etc. and you will find a unusually strange reflection. SOP's are legal then commercial.

For example take a look at 'destination alternates' in your SOP manual then consult EU OPS. There may be a comma out of place but thats just translation. No need to speak to the CP about it.

Flyngtincans: To ignore the gusts. Where does that come from. Is it personal advice from the chief pilot, or discretion of the captain (as i have said on every post), or a limitation written down.

May I ask: have you read annex 3. And what are the wethaer planning minimums adopted where you fly. Can you reference that document.

Whay do you think the chicago convention is not relevant.

Anyway to answer the original question,

I would go-around, hold to wait for an improvment if you can, if not divert.

Why? Because your right on limits and have gusty conditions, the aircraft limits have been demonstrated by a test pilot and im not a test pilot.:ok:

Amazing how SOPs vary. Ours are very specific (and nanny like) in that we MUST factor in gusts.

Flyingtincans
 

That was your original post.

That was your second. How did I prove your point as you did not make the same points.

If your SOP's have everything clearly stated then you must have a vast library on the aircraft. For example, do you or the aircraft have a copy of EU OPS etc. (or equivalent)on board. Or is it somewhere to reference.

Surely, planning takes place throughout the flight.

If your not worried about the original documentation why did you read annex 3.

I keep stating 'at the captains discretion' and on my last post I put it at the top in upper case. I can't be any clearer.


Taking the commercial air transport aspect out. Remember crosswind limits in your POH are generally 'max demonstrated'.

Jamestkirk you have taken this thread far from the original question. My point was your SOP's etc are approved by the CAA, whom have drawn up the national reg's from the ICAO documentation, as the books get re-written down the food chain they are either copied or even further restricted.

So your SOP's do take precedence because they will be at worst the most restricting and at best the same! Are you suggesting that you should ignore company SOP's because ICAO say something different??!

Of course it does, but from a legal perspective, planning takes place on the ground before you are airborne, once your wheels are off the ground a different set of rules come into effect.

For example you cannot plan to launch for an airfield that wont be within your planning minimum for your ETA +/- 1hr. However if while you are on the way it is out of limits you can continue all the way to the final approach point before you divert, OR if your past the final approach point and the wx then goes out of limits you can continue to actual minimums.

Because you need to read it for the ATPL groundschool

The captain doesnt really have much discretion to excersice in this case, minimums are minimums and limits are limts, he could decided to bust one of them but he needs a damn good reason to do so i.e saftey

minimums
 

When did I say the captain will bust minimums. Please look back at the post and find where I said that as I cannot find it.

We are talking about gusty conditions outside of the aircrafts limits and my original post clearly stated that you can, if you wish, for whatever reason, disregard the gust factor for planning purposes as per the ICAO document.

I did not state anywhere that when you get to your DA/MDA, the captain can choose to ignore them and carry on.

But you are right, it is going a bit off piste.

To answer the question (# 1):-

• Crosswind Company Limit 25 Is Knts.
  Excellent company policy, few operators add specific clarification to manufacturer’s documentation.
  A play on words, but 25kts is a Limit thus anything above that is ‘prohibited’.
  The comparison here is with CS 25 certification regulations. Maximum demonstrated crosswind is what has been shown to be safe, beyond that aircraft handling is unknown; “the demonstrated crosswind value may be presented in a section (of the AFM) other than the Limitations Section.”
  However, “If the maximum demonstrated crosswind is considered to be limiting for either take-offor landing, the crosswind limitation must be stated in the Limitations Section. If the crosswindvalue is considered to be limiting for one type of operation (e.g. autoland) but not for another,the crosswind limitation may also state the specific operations to which it applies.” AMC 1581.
  
  
• What Is Your Intention At The Minimum?
  Go Around. But why wait until the ‘minimum’, go-around early and don’t get sucked in by the actions or opinions of other pilots or risk you own false assessment / change on mind (human factors – plan continuation bias).
  
  
• And Reason?
  As above, the text provides a limit without exception. If the operational management wish to provide guidance on gusts then additional information must be provided, with I hope sufficient justification.
  Don’t forget that individual pilots ‘own’ the SOPs just a much as the management do – SOPs should be a communication device providing guidance, knowledge, and justification. There are not ‘the law’ as they cannot accommodate for every situation.
  Additional reasons, variability of steady wind and gust, accuracy in measuring and reporting winds, and need to judge runway condition; not all ‘dry’ runways are dry.

For info, from the regs:
CS AMC 25.1327. re HUD para14.1.4.1 “Approach mode guidance, if provided, should be satisfactory throughout the intended range of conditions, including at the minimum approach speed and maximum crosswind, with expected gust components, for which approval is sought.”

So HUD operators may have a crosswind limit which specifies gusts, perhaps smilarly for some auto land operations.

Go around. :ok:

(It says in our manual that gusts shall be included, but may be ignored at the captains discretion when it is considered it will absolutely be of no operational signifigance, which I've yet to seen applied.)

Edit: the above is NOT the wording in the SOP, sorry for the confusion on my part. The wording is "when adhering to the wind limitations the Commander shall include gusts that might be present during operations but he may exclude reported or forecast gusts that definitely will not be a factor for a specific operation".

bfisk, an interesting choice of words for a SOP. You may wish to ask your management for their explanation of ‘absolute’.
Again, a ‘play on words’, but very few things are ‘absolute’, thus in gusty conditions you cannot be sure that something remains which is operationally significant.
Yet again, what is significant? This implies a balance of risk, which requires knowledge of the risks in the operation. This is interesting because researches inform us that the misjudgment of risk is a significant contributor to error in landing accidents.
IMHO, the SOP invites opportunities for error, particularly where ill disciplined thought, or ‘subconscious’ human factors pressures might sway the decision; the "but may be" allows an errant way out.

Another reason for discontinuing an approach in gusts is related to skill and currency.
The certification regulations define limiting crosswind conditions as not requiring exceptional pilot skill, which is similar to most aspects of manual flight.
Manual landings are flown in a range of conditions and the basic skills checked regularly, but the skill in crosswind landing may not be practiced or checked at all.
I recall that flying a crosswind landing in a sufficiently strong wind was a required in the initial license flight test – it took me a month to wait for the wind. Thereafter I don’t recall any such test or check; I could have flown the reminder of my career without encountering a max crosswind.
Where pilots are not familiar with strong crosswind, what risk do they consider about their current ability (currency) to fly a demanding landing; as research shows, pilots overestimate their own ability to deal with a perceived risk and to fly the aircraft in difficult circumstances.

Ref: Risk perception and risk management in aviation.

One of the defensive measures discussed in this article is to focus on why ‘should’ the activity be undertaken, and not how ‘could’ it be done. We have to explain the reasons for our decision, first to ourselves, and then to others.

Here's what my company ops manual says!

But it also says: