Cross wind landings
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Body
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab on approach until you have to straighten to land. As you probably shouldn't land sideways (bad for the undercarriage) you have to straighten out which will require dropping on wing and using opposite rudder to stop the turn. If you are carrying pax it's much nicer to be sitting up than falling over to one side. Much easier to maintain a wind-corrected heading than a bank angle.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure what you are driving at. You say that you agree with both Hufty and myself and then say we are talking rubbish. Forgive me, but which is it
I agree that if your manual states that there is a limit and you don't comply with it, you are almost certainly not insured since compliance with the POH is normally a requirement of insurance.
I also agree that if your club's Flying Order Book gives a limit and you don't comply with it, you are almost certainly not insured since compliance with the FOB is normally a requirement of insurance for club aircraft.
However, what I do not agree with is that the "demonstrated cross wind" is a limit which must be complied with. Many aircraft manuals give a demonstrated cross wind, but do not give a limit. And in these cases, if the aircraft is privately owned, or if it is a club aircraft and the club does not set a limit (or you are exempt from any limits the club sets), then there is no limit. The example I have given of a C172 (complete with a quote of the relevant section of the manual) is an aircraft which does not have a limit.
My club, which operates two C172s, imposes a limit of 8kts for solo students and 12kts for PPLs for depature, and the same limits on forecast winds for landings, with a warning that if the wind becomes outside these limits during flight, consideration should be given to diverting. Solo students and PPLs must comply with these limits to be insured, and we will not rent aircraft to anyone if the wind, or the forecast wind, is outside these limits. However, we do not have a limit for holders of CPL or higher licenses.
Since I hold a CPL, I regularly, legally, and being fully insured, fly in cross-winds far exceeding the 15kts demonstrated limit of the aircraft, to carry out trial lessons for example. I will also teach students (with an appropriate amount of prior experience that they will benefit from it, of course) or existing PPLs how to handle these strong crosswinds, because a) it will give them confidence to improve their personal limits up to the club's limits, and b) there is always a chance that the wind will do something other than forecast during a trip, and the wind will be outside their limits when they return. (The club's rules do not prevent them from making an approach in these conditions, they merely caution that consideration should be given to diverting.)
To the best of my knowledge, the rules my club sets are fairly typical of the majority of other clubs.
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I prefer the crab method as well, but I have to disagree a bit with some of you saying that you should lower the wing when straightening out. It is not completely wrong, but you should use enough opposite aileron to level the wing, and THEN if you start to drift you should lower the wing into wind. I agree that in strong x-wind conditions you probably always have to add that extra correction...
A reason why I don't like the wing low in for example a c-172, is that on many 172's there is only one static port on the left hand side. And the wing low is a slip condition, and in a slip you will have over -or under reading IAS with only one static port, and over read of the IAS is not something you wan't on final if not aware of it.
A reason why I don't like the wing low in for example a c-172, is that on many 172's there is only one static port on the left hand side. And the wing low is a slip condition, and in a slip you will have over -or under reading IAS with only one static port, and over read of the IAS is not something you wan't on final if not aware of it.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for a novice: align the nose, then use aileron.
if you know the plane well, and know how much rudder you have to give, the crab method is OK.
guys, whatever method you use is OK, as long you are happy with.
the most dangerous situation is people turning from base to final and using to much rudder.this is a spin departure, ...
if you know the plane well, and know how much rudder you have to give, the crab method is OK.
guys, whatever method you use is OK, as long you are happy with.
the most dangerous situation is people turning from base to final and using to much rudder.this is a spin departure, ...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought that may provoke a reaction (and then couldn't get near a computer for 24 hours - drat!!)
.
Wrong.
It is a demonstrated limit, not an absolute limit. A test pilot will only have a small window to test in, if the crosswind available was only 15 knots that day, then that is what the demonstrated crosswind limit will be.
.
Wrong.
It is not "technically outside the limits of the aircraft, see above.
It is limiting when you run out of rudder authority. Simple as that. If you do, then you go around.
I agree. Though the limits are far more likely to be personal limits rather than the aeroplanes limit. The ability to turn round after you have reached the halfway point is also a good thing, but irrelevant to this thread.
Outside what limits? If it is outside my limits then I will stay at base, otherwise I will go. My limits are a lot lot less than the aeroplanes, but the aeroplanes limits are far far more than the demonstrated.
I agree that if the manufacturer sets a cross-wind limit, you must stick to it or you will not be insured. Also, if you fly a club aircraft, you must comply with any limits in the club's Flying Order Book, or you will not be insured.
The POH for the aircraft I fly the most only gives a demonstrated crosswind. What's more, the manual explicitly states that this is not a limit!
Very sensible.
You are talking about club aircraft and club aircraft only. It is for the clubs sake that these limits are imposed, due to the varying skill level of the renters. However, it does NOT imply that you cannot legally fly the same type outside of the club, therefore the demonstrated limit is not limiting nor illegal, unless a club/school has imposed rules to safeguard themselves.
Nobody is saying that they have no respect for the weather or for their aircraft. They are saying that a crosswind needn't mean a cancelled flight as long as it is not above the pilots limits. "Playing with fire" is a little of an extreme way of describing someone safely and sensibly pushing their limits (and therefore their skill level) up.
Well, Andy R if you have an accident and you were attempting to land in a crosswind outside the aircraft's demonstrated limits then you are in a sticky situation nonetheless
Wrong.
It is a demonstrated limit, not an absolute limit. A test pilot will only have a small window to test in, if the crosswind available was only 15 knots that day, then that is what the demonstrated crosswind limit will be.
If you injure anyone and you find yourself getting sued - it is going to be tough to defend your actions in such a situation. The "....well I know it is technically outside the limits but everybody does it" defence isn't a strong one
Wrong.
It is not "technically outside the limits of the aircraft, see above.
You're right that is is a DEMONSTRATED crosswind, but even though it may not be limiting it doesn't automatically guarantee that the aeroplane CAN operate in stronger crosswinds. Sure, with common types like Cessnas, there will be plenty of people who will say they have operated the equipment in stronger crosswinds than the POH states but once you are outside the limits in the book you're going to have to explain why.
in any case, as commander you will have taken a look at the weather prior to departure and as such will be aware of the strength and direction of the wind at your destination and your alternates. You will also have a view on the risks of the weather situation changing and be in a reasonable position to avoid having to land your machine outside its limits!
As such, if you check the ATIS and it is outside limits, then you should be in a poistion to go somewhere else with a runway that is more into wind.
I agree that if the manufacturer sets a cross-wind limit, you must stick to it or you will not be insured. Also, if you fly a club aircraft, you must comply with any limits in the club's Flying Order Book, or you will not be insured.
The POH for the aircraft I fly the most only gives a demonstrated crosswind. What's more, the manual explicitly states that this is not a limit!
I know that 12kts isnt bad but i wouldnt feel happy going flying in something much stronger that that. I dont care what the a/c can deal with, its what i can deal with that i care about. As a low hours PPL, i just wouldnt like to be landing in something above 12kts (ish) up until i had abit more experience behind me.
I also mentioned that you won't be insured. Ever tried to cross hire an aircraft on a windy day....9/10 won't give you the aircraft. The cert. of ins. may not mention that you have to stay within the demonstrated xwc, but the first thing the insurance companies will do is contact ATC, be it at the airfield or the MET office and get the wx. Do you really think that they will pay if you have been a bit keen to prove what a great pilot you are, and do you really think that ATC won't file a report to the CAA if you hit one of the runway side lights or Jonny at the hold.....they will.
For Christ sake, it is illegal to depart your airfield if the fc at your destination is out of limits. Fly somewhere else or fly in the morning / late evening when it is calmer (usually). You have a duty of care. What do you gain if you regularly play with fire (ok the odd approach where you feel the conditions to your commital height, 200' ish), respect.....a well done.....a wow maybe i'll try it then.....I hope not. More like a frown and noone will trust you to make a sound decision when it matters.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't get a reputation for being a risk taker...
Guys, whatever you do, be careful whatever you do. It's not a testicle-size competition. If you want a future in professional aviation, I'd recommend you not try to land a light aircraft beyond your or the aircraft's limits. I'd suggest your limits should be lower.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: new zealand
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents, personally found x/w landings to be a nightmare until I was taught the wing low technique. Later as I gained actual skill my judgement improved and could use either efficiently. Was inclined to teach the crab/kick straight method when instructing.
FFF and Andy_R are correct, the Demonstrated Crosswind is not a limit, but a Demonstrated Component. It would help if people didn't refer to it as a limit- unless it is refered to as a limit by a particular aircraft flight manual.
I also add (from memory) that in Cessna aircraft the Demonstrated Crosswind figure is not found in the limitations section but the Normal Operations section of the Flight Manual (if someone has one handy colud they confirm this?).
I believe also that the Demonstration can be limited by the conditions encountered during the test flight phase- if the cross wind component never exceeded value X then that that is where the notation occured, some aircraft types have had their crosswind component uprated when retested in stronger conditions.
FFF and Andy_R are correct, the Demonstrated Crosswind is not a limit, but a Demonstrated Component. It would help if people didn't refer to it as a limit- unless it is refered to as a limit by a particular aircraft flight manual.
I also add (from memory) that in Cessna aircraft the Demonstrated Crosswind figure is not found in the limitations section but the Normal Operations section of the Flight Manual (if someone has one handy colud they confirm this?).
I believe also that the Demonstration can be limited by the conditions encountered during the test flight phase- if the cross wind component never exceeded value X then that that is where the notation occured, some aircraft types have had their crosswind component uprated when retested in stronger conditions.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London & Los Angeles
Age: 54
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear King Rooney,
Have you considered switching to OAT as a different FTO as you seem so unhappy where you are? 
MB
"Have been seriously considering switching FTO for a while now"
MB
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the difference between the apparent difference between demonstrated cross wind componets is the method which they are obtained.
Some are demo'd without using the rudder other's do use the rudder.
The ones which do use the rudder are usually listed as limits and the ones without are demonstrated.
I presume these days its all liability.
Some are demo'd without using the rudder other's do use the rudder.
The ones which do use the rudder are usually listed as limits and the ones without are demonstrated.
I presume these days its all liability.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The ones which do use the rudder are usually listed as limits and the ones without are demonstrated.
Guys, whatever you do, be careful whatever you do. It's not a testicle-size competition.
FYI
http://www.gulfstream.com/product_su...GIV_OIS_09.pdf
http://www.gulfstream.com/product_su.../GV_OIS_01.pdf
Last edited by High Wing Drifter; 21st Feb 2006 at 10:36.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to try and address some of these technicalities a bit further.
Crosswind techniques:
In truth there are 2 methods,
1) Side Slip technique. i.e. Windward wind down for finals (The amount being dependent on strength of xwind component). This counters the drift and allows for an approach straight in on the runway 'heading'. In other words no adjustment needed on roundout.
2) The Combination technique. (I find this works best for me). This involves a 'crabbed' approach. i.e. You track the centre line on finals with the a/c weather cocked into wind. As you reach roundout, you straighten the a/c's heading to the runway heading and then lower windward wing.
There isn't really such a thing as just a 'crabbed' approach. Remember there still remains several seconds during round out before you touchdown. During this period the crosswind will move you off centre line or worse still. How is this counter acted? By roll. i.e. Windward wing down. The other important reason for lowering the windward wing is to enhance stability and ensure you don't get blown over, especially in gusting xwinds. Windward wind down ensures the wind blows over the wing and the rest of the a/c. Windward wing not down means wind blowing under the wing. Not good! (It's sometimes good to lower the windward wing very slightly on finals as well in gusts. Even if crabbed).
Just to add, on a point of order. The phrase 'kick straight the rudder' is a bit misleading and shouldn't be used. You don't 'kick' the rudder straight. You promptly & smoothly starighten with rudder as not to over do it. Then you continue to maintain runway head with rudder control until the roundout is complete and you have touched down.
Regarding rudder authority: The selection of runway should deal with this. Imagine landing on a runway 360 and you have an xwind say 15kts coming from 090. The wind blows on the right-hand side of the empennage and naturally weathercocks the a/c back into the wind. On roundout, you apply left rudder. The point some of you are raising is that you may 'run out' of left rudder before the a/c is straight. Remember on a single engine the slipstream from the prop blows in a clockwise twisting motion around the fuselage of the a/c, which means it eventually hits the left-hand side of the empennage, giving rudder more authority. (Hence right rudder during a standard take off!)
Of course, you lower the windward wing so rudder authority is not an issue and the ailerons then counter the drift). If you tried landing on runway 18, things would be more difficult as the slipstream and the wind would act on the same side of the empennage and reduce your rudder authority unnecessarily.
Obviously most a/c have a max 'demonstrated' xwind limit. The Katanas we fly have 20kts. You can breach the limit and have a go, but not really advisable as there is only so much you can do!
Hope this helps. Crosswinds can be a difficult thing for a pilot to learn. You are moving the a/c on all 3 axis all more or less at the same time. It took me a while to get the hang of these. I used to fear a good xwind. Now they're a nice challenge. Good landings are always satisfying, but a good xwind landing is even better.
REMEMBER THOUGH. Dont get sucked into getting it down if things get difficult. GO AROUND and have another try!
Here's a link for your viewing pleasure. Technique is a bit different but the principle is the same..
http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv If it doesn't work then type in '777 crosswind landing' into yahoo and access it from a different source.
Enjoy
Crosswind techniques:
In truth there are 2 methods,
1) Side Slip technique. i.e. Windward wind down for finals (The amount being dependent on strength of xwind component). This counters the drift and allows for an approach straight in on the runway 'heading'. In other words no adjustment needed on roundout.
2) The Combination technique. (I find this works best for me). This involves a 'crabbed' approach. i.e. You track the centre line on finals with the a/c weather cocked into wind. As you reach roundout, you straighten the a/c's heading to the runway heading and then lower windward wing.
There isn't really such a thing as just a 'crabbed' approach. Remember there still remains several seconds during round out before you touchdown. During this period the crosswind will move you off centre line or worse still. How is this counter acted? By roll. i.e. Windward wing down. The other important reason for lowering the windward wing is to enhance stability and ensure you don't get blown over, especially in gusting xwinds. Windward wind down ensures the wind blows over the wing and the rest of the a/c. Windward wing not down means wind blowing under the wing. Not good! (It's sometimes good to lower the windward wing very slightly on finals as well in gusts. Even if crabbed).
Just to add, on a point of order. The phrase 'kick straight the rudder' is a bit misleading and shouldn't be used. You don't 'kick' the rudder straight. You promptly & smoothly starighten with rudder as not to over do it. Then you continue to maintain runway head with rudder control until the roundout is complete and you have touched down.
Regarding rudder authority: The selection of runway should deal with this. Imagine landing on a runway 360 and you have an xwind say 15kts coming from 090. The wind blows on the right-hand side of the empennage and naturally weathercocks the a/c back into the wind. On roundout, you apply left rudder. The point some of you are raising is that you may 'run out' of left rudder before the a/c is straight. Remember on a single engine the slipstream from the prop blows in a clockwise twisting motion around the fuselage of the a/c, which means it eventually hits the left-hand side of the empennage, giving rudder more authority. (Hence right rudder during a standard take off!)
Of course, you lower the windward wing so rudder authority is not an issue and the ailerons then counter the drift). If you tried landing on runway 18, things would be more difficult as the slipstream and the wind would act on the same side of the empennage and reduce your rudder authority unnecessarily.
Obviously most a/c have a max 'demonstrated' xwind limit. The Katanas we fly have 20kts. You can breach the limit and have a go, but not really advisable as there is only so much you can do!
Hope this helps. Crosswinds can be a difficult thing for a pilot to learn. You are moving the a/c on all 3 axis all more or less at the same time. It took me a while to get the hang of these. I used to fear a good xwind. Now they're a nice challenge. Good landings are always satisfying, but a good xwind landing is even better.
REMEMBER THOUGH. Dont get sucked into getting it down if things get difficult. GO AROUND and have another try!
Here's a link for your viewing pleasure. Technique is a bit different but the principle is the same..
http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv If it doesn't work then type in '777 crosswind landing' into yahoo and access it from a different source.
Enjoy
Last edited by supercruise593; 21st Feb 2006 at 10:21.
It depends on how wide the runway is and yes, the C-172 can land with considerable drift on and stay on the runway.
What I like about wing-down is that you get a clue ahead of time when there's not enough rudder to keep the plane lined up. Mind you, there will be less wind at the surface.
If the wind picks up another 10 kt or so, do you know where to find another runway that's pointed into the wind?
Once you're down in a wind over 20 kt. and still on your wheels, be very careful about taxying downwind.
As for the FTO, they may be used to the prevailing winds and if you have demonstrated acceptable landings dual in similar conditions, they may have decided that you're up to the job. Students botching landings gets the attention of the CAA and raises the insurance premiums.
What I like about wing-down is that you get a clue ahead of time when there's not enough rudder to keep the plane lined up. Mind you, there will be less wind at the surface.
If the wind picks up another 10 kt or so, do you know where to find another runway that's pointed into the wind?
Once you're down in a wind over 20 kt. and still on your wheels, be very careful about taxying downwind.
As for the FTO, they may be used to the prevailing winds and if you have demonstrated acceptable landings dual in similar conditions, they may have decided that you're up to the job. Students botching landings gets the attention of the CAA and raises the insurance premiums.
Demonstrated limitations
Re comments about DEMONSTRATED limitations, I flew on a twinjet fleet where we'd two different marks of engine, one more powerful than the other.
Curiously, Vmcg on the lower powered variant was higher than on the more powerful machine
Boss reckoned it was entirely due to test pilot assessment - don't think more powerful had more rudder authority.
Anyway, I just flew it - didn't have to make one.
Curiously, Vmcg on the lower powered variant was higher than on the more powerful machine
Boss reckoned it was entirely due to test pilot assessment - don't think more powerful had more rudder authority.
Anyway, I just flew it - didn't have to make one.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supercruise,
I would disagree with that.
A crabbed approach involves entering the flare with crab, then just before the wheels touch down kicking it straight with rudder - sorry, "promptly & smoothly starighten with rudder as not to over do it" As the rudder is applied, a little oposite aileron is required to keep the wings level, in order to counteract the secondary effect of the rudder. The landing is made with wings level, both main wheels together, before the aircraft has a chance to start drifting. (Obviously a very light aircraft would start drifting very soon after straightening up, which makes this technique very difficult on some very light aircraft.)
The key here is that the landing is made wings level.
If the rudder is applied too soon (either deliberately or due to a slight lack of judgement, makes no difference), the aircraft will start drifting if it is not corrected. The correction which is made is to apply more into-wind aileron to lower the into-wind wing. As the aileron is applied, more rudder is required to avoid the yaw which occurs as a secondary effect of the rudder. The landing is now made with the into-wind wheel first, followed by the other main wheel, followed by the nose wheel. This is the Combination technique, and it is slightly different from the crab technique in that the landing itself happens with one wing low.
However, I think lots of people use the phrase "crab technique" to refer to this one, probably because they have never seen a properly executed crab technique and therefore don't appreciate the difference. This was certainly the case with me, until I did my FIC. In around a 25kt cross-wind in a PA28 my instructor demonstrated a crab technique properly - it was a work of art, and not something I've ever been able to replicate since.
FFF
-----------
There isn't really such a thing as just a 'crabbed' approach
A crabbed approach involves entering the flare with crab, then just before the wheels touch down kicking it straight with rudder - sorry, "promptly & smoothly starighten with rudder as not to over do it"
As the rudder is applied, a little oposite aileron is required to keep the wings level, in order to counteract the secondary effect of the rudder. The landing is made with wings level, both main wheels together, before the aircraft has a chance to start drifting. (Obviously a very light aircraft would start drifting very soon after straightening up, which makes this technique very difficult on some very light aircraft.)The key here is that the landing is made wings level.
If the rudder is applied too soon (either deliberately or due to a slight lack of judgement, makes no difference), the aircraft will start drifting if it is not corrected. The correction which is made is to apply more into-wind aileron to lower the into-wind wing. As the aileron is applied, more rudder is required to avoid the yaw which occurs as a secondary effect of the rudder. The landing is now made with the into-wind wheel first, followed by the other main wheel, followed by the nose wheel. This is the Combination technique, and it is slightly different from the crab technique in that the landing itself happens with one wing low.
However, I think lots of people use the phrase "crab technique" to refer to this one, probably because they have never seen a properly executed crab technique and therefore don't appreciate the difference. This was certainly the case with me, until I did my FIC. In around a 25kt cross-wind in a PA28 my instructor demonstrated a crab technique properly - it was a work of art, and not something I've ever been able to replicate since.
FFF
-----------
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingForFun,
Interesting comments & you sound like someone who has alot of experience of this. However, just a few more points. Forgive me for quoting you out of context or being too subjective but...
"The landing is made with wings level, both main wheels together, before the aircraft has a chance to start drifting".
"The landing is now made with the into-wind wheel first, followed by the other main wheel, followed by the nose wheel".
A bit of a contradiction in terms?
Before the a/c "has a chance to start drifting". That's rubbish.
Not even the best pilot can really everytime on a perfect roundout with more or less instantaneous heading alteration (rudder) and touchdown. Lots of xwinds variate and as someone said 'they reduce as you approach the surface'. Well generally, that is what is expected. Once well below the friction layer on approach though things could happen that are difficult to predict, especially at a point of pilot high workload.
Many xwinds variate through a range of degrees. Everyone has seen examples of this from the socks as they come in. Anything could happen. You may float, bounce, a gust may come along and tip your windward wing up, sudden windshear etc. I landed in approx 12 kts xwind the other day. The x component increased as I got to the surface! Generally unexpected.
Why rely on "chance"? Why not follow a preventative method that stops last minute drift and enhances stability? (Your correct in that you may realise there is very little drift during roundout hence so little windward aileron is required that your wings are almost level, depending on how much you are countering secondary effects). Why do you need to land with wings level if there is still drift?
Why not follow your second correct statement and land with windward wind down (hence windward main down as well). Gosh we even see the Saabs (commercial) doing it whilst we wait for RWY entry. Don't ever rely on chance unless there is a technique that removes it from the equation!
Interesting comments & you sound like someone who has alot of experience of this. However, just a few more points. Forgive me for quoting you out of context or being too subjective but...
"The landing is made with wings level, both main wheels together, before the aircraft has a chance to start drifting".
"The landing is now made with the into-wind wheel first, followed by the other main wheel, followed by the nose wheel".
A bit of a contradiction in terms?
Before the a/c "has a chance to start drifting". That's rubbish.
Not even the best pilot can really everytime on a perfect roundout with more or less instantaneous heading alteration (rudder) and touchdown. Lots of xwinds variate and as someone said 'they reduce as you approach the surface'. Well generally, that is what is expected. Once well below the friction layer on approach though things could happen that are difficult to predict, especially at a point of pilot high workload.
Many xwinds variate through a range of degrees. Everyone has seen examples of this from the socks as they come in. Anything could happen. You may float, bounce, a gust may come along and tip your windward wing up, sudden windshear etc. I landed in approx 12 kts xwind the other day. The x component increased as I got to the surface! Generally unexpected.
Why rely on "chance"? Why not follow a preventative method that stops last minute drift and enhances stability? (Your correct in that you may realise there is very little drift during roundout hence so little windward aileron is required that your wings are almost level, depending on how much you are countering secondary effects). Why do you need to land with wings level if there is still drift?
Why not follow your second correct statement and land with windward wind down (hence windward main down as well). Gosh we even see the Saabs (commercial) doing it whilst we wait for RWY entry. Don't ever rely on chance unless there is a technique that removes it from the equation!
Moderator
Not going to enter the argument about this and that as that would be a recipe for getting no-where. However I do recall learning many things about crosswinds years ago on Types such as SuperCubs on towing operations. Probably some of the things I did then I wouldn't do now ... ?
Couple of things to consider -
(a) the Design Standard will define a minimum crosswind for the certification exercise. If the test program gets more, fine, but practicality may become a limiting factor
(b) the demonstrated value may have been able to be pushed up had the program found a tad more crosswind .. the problem is the line pilot doesn't know what the TP found and how much pad there might be. I can recall a quite nice line of singles which came on the market quite some years ago. The demonstrated crosswind was quite low (15 -16 kts or so as I recall) and we redid the certification for the crosswind limit. This particular design had an interlinked aileron/rudder and we ended up deciding that discretion was very much the better part of valour at around 18-20 kts if memory serves me correctly .. that few knots increase definitely presented some limitations for handling in the landing flare and roll out.
(c) there may be other dragons waiting in the far reaches of the known world for careless would-be TPs .. consider things like tail blanking and uncommanded pitch excursions .. just what you might not want to experience during the flare ?
Couple of things to consider -
(a) the Design Standard will define a minimum crosswind for the certification exercise. If the test program gets more, fine, but practicality may become a limiting factor
(b) the demonstrated value may have been able to be pushed up had the program found a tad more crosswind .. the problem is the line pilot doesn't know what the TP found and how much pad there might be. I can recall a quite nice line of singles which came on the market quite some years ago. The demonstrated crosswind was quite low (15 -16 kts or so as I recall) and we redid the certification for the crosswind limit. This particular design had an interlinked aileron/rudder and we ended up deciding that discretion was very much the better part of valour at around 18-20 kts if memory serves me correctly .. that few knots increase definitely presented some limitations for handling in the landing flare and roll out.
(c) there may be other dragons waiting in the far reaches of the known world for careless would-be TPs .. consider things like tail blanking and uncommanded pitch excursions .. just what you might not want to experience during the flare ?
Moderator
.. Heaven forbid, mate.
On the other hand, I have to admit that greasing a strong crosswind landing on is a matter for great delight and satisfaction. Used regularly run down to a crosswind landing at one hub airport in another life ... 25-35 kts often was the order of the day and a fistful of throttles made for interest.
On the other hand, I have to admit that greasing a strong crosswind landing on is a matter for great delight and satisfaction. Used regularly run down to a crosswind landing at one hub airport in another life ... 25-35 kts often was the order of the day and a fistful of throttles made for interest.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supercruise,
No, I am describing two different methods of landing. The first line you have quoted from my earlier post relates to a crabbed landing. The second relates to either a wing-low or, in the context in which I intended it, a combination landing. No contradiction since the two quotes are in two different contexts.
Because both statements are correct in their context. Your assertion that landing with wings level is incorrect and chancy and that wing-low is the only correct way because "we even see the Saabs (commercial) doing it" is not true.
And it's not just me who thinks that, either. The same view was held by Wolfgang Langeweische, who I think is universally recognised as one of the experts in handling aircraft. I quote from his book Stick And Rudder, where he describes the crabbed method as it relates to a crosswind from the left:
(The emphasis is added by me.)
I would guess that the reason you see Saabs landing with a combination technique is because it is easier than a crab technique: as I said earlier, I've only ever seen one person who can reliably use a crab technique properly without it becoming a combination technique. But it is is possible, because I've seen it. Langeweische also says it is possible, and remember he is talking about tail-draggers, where getting it slightly wrong could well result in a ground-loop - so there is less need for absolute perfection in modern aircraft than there was when he wrote this.
FFF
---------------
"The landing is made with wings level, both main wheels together, before the aircraft has a chance to start drifting".
"The landing is now made with the into-wind wheel first, followed by the other main wheel, followed by the nose wheel".
A bit of a contradiction in terms?
"The landing is now made with the into-wind wheel first, followed by the other main wheel, followed by the nose wheel".
A bit of a contradiction in terms?
Why not follow your second correct statement and land with windward wind down
And it's not just me who thinks that, either. The same view was held by Wolfgang Langeweische, who I think is universally recognised as one of the experts in handling aircraft. I quote from his book Stick And Rudder, where he describes the crabbed method as it relates to a crosswind from the left:
Just before ground contact, at the very last half second, the pilot then applies rather abrupt right rudder and thus yaws the nose into the direction in which the airplane is actually traveling - that is, straight down the runway. The wings are held level during the yaw manoever.
I would guess that the reason you see Saabs landing with a combination technique is because it is easier than a crab technique: as I said earlier, I've only ever seen one person who can reliably use a crab technique properly without it becoming a combination technique. But it is is possible, because I've seen it. Langeweische also says it is possible, and remember he is talking about tail-draggers, where getting it slightly wrong could well result in a ground-loop - so there is less need for absolute perfection in modern aircraft than there was when he wrote this.
FFF
---------------