Jet Crosswind Landing Technique
Don’t forget that once on the runway the object is to stay on it. This usually means applying more rudder as speed reduces; in some types this then requires compensating roll control. There are few aircraft which require immediate use of nosewheel steering. I have seen pilots rush for the NWS, disregarding the effectiveness of aerodynamic controls which results in a short term loss of control. We must not forget that the aircraft is still aerodynamically capable immediately after touchdown and that any wind gust can overpower NWS, thus continue to fly the aircraft when on the runway.
I found some interesting observations and recommendation on crosswind from a safety report in support of ALAR:
I found some interesting observations and recommendation on crosswind from a safety report in support of ALAR:
'Recommendations with regard to safety aspects of aircraft operations in crosswind - NLR'
Reported wind velocities should include gust if the gust velocity exceeds 5 Kt, as opposed to the current value of 10 Kt.
Pilot assessment of the actual crosswind conditions in relation to the operational limits of the aircraft should always be based on the reported wind, including gust.
Separate crosswind limits for takeoff and landing could be considered since this study shows that there is a significant difference between the accident/incident probabilities in both flight phases.
Runway conditions such as wet and contaminated should be considered in a more formal way during the certification of crosswind operations of an aircraft. It is recommended to publish such information in the form of a FAA AC and JAA AMJ.
The actual crosswind for a runway should be provided to the pilot in addition to the wind direction in combination with wind speed. This avoids miscalculation of the crosswind by the pilot.
Maximum demonstrated crosswind capability should always be considered as limiting and should therefore be placed in the Operations Limitations section of the AFM.
It should not be allowed to (advise the use of) operational crosswind limitations in excess of the demonstrated capability based on simulator investigations. Simulators in general lack fidelity in modelling of turbulence phenomena near the ground, and modelling of lateral-directional control characteristics in ground-effect to provide sufficiently reliable results for this purpose. Furthermore the quality of the mathematical ground model in combination with the motion and visual cues of a simulator is usually not high enough to allow sufficient confidence in the evaluation results.
It should be more clear in both FAR and JAR how the wind is defined, e.g. as mean wind based on a 2-minute period or wind including gust. In determining the maximum allowable crosswind for takeoff and landing, all airports should formally address runway friction coefficients and gusts.
It is recommended to analyse crosswind limits in combination with low visibility conditions.
It is recommended to analyse the possibilities of landing in strong crosswind conditions in combination with good visibility using an autoland system, to explore the use of higher crosswinds than normally defined by standard FAR/JAR autoland certification.
Reported wind velocities should include gust if the gust velocity exceeds 5 Kt, as opposed to the current value of 10 Kt.
Pilot assessment of the actual crosswind conditions in relation to the operational limits of the aircraft should always be based on the reported wind, including gust.
Separate crosswind limits for takeoff and landing could be considered since this study shows that there is a significant difference between the accident/incident probabilities in both flight phases.
Runway conditions such as wet and contaminated should be considered in a more formal way during the certification of crosswind operations of an aircraft. It is recommended to publish such information in the form of a FAA AC and JAA AMJ.
The actual crosswind for a runway should be provided to the pilot in addition to the wind direction in combination with wind speed. This avoids miscalculation of the crosswind by the pilot.
Maximum demonstrated crosswind capability should always be considered as limiting and should therefore be placed in the Operations Limitations section of the AFM.
It should not be allowed to (advise the use of) operational crosswind limitations in excess of the demonstrated capability based on simulator investigations. Simulators in general lack fidelity in modelling of turbulence phenomena near the ground, and modelling of lateral-directional control characteristics in ground-effect to provide sufficiently reliable results for this purpose. Furthermore the quality of the mathematical ground model in combination with the motion and visual cues of a simulator is usually not high enough to allow sufficient confidence in the evaluation results.
It should be more clear in both FAR and JAR how the wind is defined, e.g. as mean wind based on a 2-minute period or wind including gust. In determining the maximum allowable crosswind for takeoff and landing, all airports should formally address runway friction coefficients and gusts.
It is recommended to analyse crosswind limits in combination with low visibility conditions.
It is recommended to analyse the possibilities of landing in strong crosswind conditions in combination with good visibility using an autoland system, to explore the use of higher crosswinds than normally defined by standard FAR/JAR autoland certification.
Moderator
.. John, I am interested to know exactly how you go about this! Thanks for any help ..
Fireflybob .. not entirely sure to what your question refers .. ?
Acknowledging the vast number of pilots with manipulative skills superior to mine and emphasising that the AFM/FCM/etc guidance is persuasive ..
.. the points which appeared important to me ..
(a) 727/737 (which were the toys with which I was permitted to play) were not comfortable aligning with the runway during the flare (.. crosswinds to around 10 kt were not a problem) .. SuperCub, at the other extreme, one could do anything with .. horses for courses, perhaps ?
(b) one needed to know what bank angles were acceptable cf the wind conditions of the day .. as it turned out I was never put in the position of having a silly situation arise .. max crosswind I can recall in airline operations was around 30-35 kts or so and that never presented any major problems.
(c) I aligned the aircraft with centreline around 50-100 ft for moderate crosswind .. increasing to 100-200 ft (or higher) for strong winds. My aim was to have the aircraft very much under tracking control prior to entering the flare. An uncomfortable feeling with the slipping approach but it worked fine. One point which appeared to catch some folk .. one needed to ease the body angle up a degree or two to allow for the bank during the final part of the approach into the flare .. lest the wee beastie fall from the heavens and smite itself upon the runway. Then it was just a matter of modulating the controls to keep the fuse pointing down the centreline and the aircraft locked to the desired approach angle .. and then likewise fly the craft onto and along the runway until the wind ceased to be a problem. On a few occasions the palms of the hands became a tad humid but that is part and parcel of the game in my view ..
I have a feeling that many pilots are a bit "uncomfortable" in crosswind conditions .. I had the benefit of flying quite a few hundred hours (SuperCub, Callair, and Pawnee) in glider towing ops as a youngster and having to cope with plenty of limiting (and worse) crosswinds on landing following launch (with a glider glued to the tail .. which kept the tug straight). More than once did we chaps have to put the bird down obliquely (or such) to the strip ..
If the conditions are outside the box ...
(a) go someplace else
(b) if (a) is not available, then the situation becomes an emergency. Faced with this, I suspect my technique (considering AFM/FCM guidance) would be
(i) flare normally but minimally
(ii) roll the nose down and bank off simultaneously as the aircraft comes onto the ground to minimise time in the flare and risk of flap/pod strike .. also minimises time available for the wind to get the aircraft moving downwind
(iii) anticipate very sweaty palms ...
Fireflybob .. not entirely sure to what your question refers .. ?
Acknowledging the vast number of pilots with manipulative skills superior to mine and emphasising that the AFM/FCM/etc guidance is persuasive ..
.. the points which appeared important to me ..
(a) 727/737 (which were the toys with which I was permitted to play) were not comfortable aligning with the runway during the flare (.. crosswinds to around 10 kt were not a problem) .. SuperCub, at the other extreme, one could do anything with .. horses for courses, perhaps ?
(b) one needed to know what bank angles were acceptable cf the wind conditions of the day .. as it turned out I was never put in the position of having a silly situation arise .. max crosswind I can recall in airline operations was around 30-35 kts or so and that never presented any major problems.
(c) I aligned the aircraft with centreline around 50-100 ft for moderate crosswind .. increasing to 100-200 ft (or higher) for strong winds. My aim was to have the aircraft very much under tracking control prior to entering the flare. An uncomfortable feeling with the slipping approach but it worked fine. One point which appeared to catch some folk .. one needed to ease the body angle up a degree or two to allow for the bank during the final part of the approach into the flare .. lest the wee beastie fall from the heavens and smite itself upon the runway. Then it was just a matter of modulating the controls to keep the fuse pointing down the centreline and the aircraft locked to the desired approach angle .. and then likewise fly the craft onto and along the runway until the wind ceased to be a problem. On a few occasions the palms of the hands became a tad humid but that is part and parcel of the game in my view ..
I have a feeling that many pilots are a bit "uncomfortable" in crosswind conditions .. I had the benefit of flying quite a few hundred hours (SuperCub, Callair, and Pawnee) in glider towing ops as a youngster and having to cope with plenty of limiting (and worse) crosswinds on landing following launch (with a glider glued to the tail .. which kept the tug straight). More than once did we chaps have to put the bird down obliquely (or such) to the strip ..
If the conditions are outside the box ...
(a) go someplace else
(b) if (a) is not available, then the situation becomes an emergency. Faced with this, I suspect my technique (considering AFM/FCM guidance) would be
(i) flare normally but minimally
(ii) roll the nose down and bank off simultaneously as the aircraft comes onto the ground to minimise time in the flare and risk of flap/pod strike .. also minimises time available for the wind to get the aircraft moving downwind
(iii) anticipate very sweaty palms ...
