Airline First Officer Crosswind Limitation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Age: 35
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline First Officer Crosswind Limitation
Hello,
So I searched a bit and can't seem to figure out the answer. My company's policy is a first officer may land if "Surface crosswind component does not exceed 15 kts;"
Surface crosswind component.. I can't seem to find a precise definition.. is it the tower wind? (i.e. wind on the runway/wind sock/touchdown zone) or can the wind in the final from 1500ft AGL down be used as a limitation aswell? (i.e. the wind increases during the last 1500ft-1000ftAGL but at the rwy its the reported wind which is lower than the wind during final)
So I searched a bit and can't seem to figure out the answer. My company's policy is a first officer may land if "Surface crosswind component does not exceed 15 kts;"
Surface crosswind component.. I can't seem to find a precise definition.. is it the tower wind? (i.e. wind on the runway/wind sock/touchdown zone) or can the wind in the final from 1500ft AGL down be used as a limitation aswell? (i.e. the wind increases during the last 1500ft-1000ftAGL but at the rwy its the reported wind which is lower than the wind during final)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GPS L INVALID
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that one airline uses the aircraft indicated wind at 50ft to record a FODA event when the FO is flying and the crosswind exceeds 15 knots... Sucks when the first officer knows how to slip 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Age: 35
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My airline says whats posted above.. I interpret as tower reported.. during final we have indicated wind higher than the first officers limitation? Should I just follow the tower's observation?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GPS L INVALID
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say if its reported grossly above 15 knots cross the captain should fly the approach... If its close, maybe wait for the wind reported together with the landing clearance.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's the cruise wind component
Seriously? Your manual is quite clear: SURFACE WIND COMPONENT
How else do you get the actual surface wind other than the tower report?
But how can we know for sure, we don't even know which airline you work for. Ask your chief pilot.
Seriously? Your manual is quite clear: SURFACE WIND COMPONENT
How else do you get the actual surface wind other than the tower report?
But how can we know for sure, we don't even know which airline you work for. Ask your chief pilot.
If the first officer is considered legally as second in command then presumably he would be certified competent at the end of his type rating to take off and land up to the aircraft limiting crosswind component. After all he has a command type rating - not a co-pilot type rating.
If the airline has a crosswind limitation for copilots, beyond which the captain must land, then clearly the airline does not trust the copilots training to type rating competency. Yet, in event of incapacitation of the captain, the second in command takes charge. Does that now mean he can safely land up to the maximum recommended cross-wind component? Methinks some inconsistency here.
So now lets face the real truth. Either the type rating provider is not training the candidate on enough max component crosswind take off and landings to be safe but nevertheless slyly ticking the required box to keep the syllabus moving along. This is usually a cost aspect involved with extra simulator sessions. That is the most likely scenario.
Or, the candidate simply is unable to consistently demonstrate the skill in the simulator to land in max crosswind components. If that is the case, the instructor could be sorely tempted to tick the box anyway rather than making waves by scrubbing the candidate as unable to reach required skill level. Especially if the candidate is self funding his own type rating.
If the airline has a crosswind limitation for copilots, beyond which the captain must land, then clearly the airline does not trust the copilots training to type rating competency. Yet, in event of incapacitation of the captain, the second in command takes charge. Does that now mean he can safely land up to the maximum recommended cross-wind component? Methinks some inconsistency here.
So now lets face the real truth. Either the type rating provider is not training the candidate on enough max component crosswind take off and landings to be safe but nevertheless slyly ticking the required box to keep the syllabus moving along. This is usually a cost aspect involved with extra simulator sessions. That is the most likely scenario.
Or, the candidate simply is unable to consistently demonstrate the skill in the simulator to land in max crosswind components. If that is the case, the instructor could be sorely tempted to tick the box anyway rather than making waves by scrubbing the candidate as unable to reach required skill level. Especially if the candidate is self funding his own type rating.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never understood why FO's would have different wind limits. On the western edge of the Atlantic, FO's are only restricted for the first 100hrs. After that, you're allowed to use the full demonstrated crosswind.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman, I understand that your airline has no limits for FO's in the forst 100 hours, But when you fly with an FO who has 101 hours on type, do you allow him to land in a 38 knot crosswind? Or any other FO for that matter? When WOULD you take the landing fom an FO, if at all?
It's easy to say 'we don't have limits for FO's' but that puts responsability squarely on the shoulders of the captain. Some FO's I'd trust with any crosswind, purely because I have watched them land before in challenging conditions and know their abilities. Others...let's say I am happy that my airline wants me to take over at anything beyond 20 kts. I have no interest in finding about out my FO's talents during limiting conditions.
It's easy to say 'we don't have limits for FO's' but that puts responsability squarely on the shoulders of the captain. Some FO's I'd trust with any crosswind, purely because I have watched them land before in challenging conditions and know their abilities. Others...let's say I am happy that my airline wants me to take over at anything beyond 20 kts. I have no interest in finding about out my FO's talents during limiting conditions.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penko: Does a Captain with 1 hour in command automatically have a better ability to land in a crosswind? He has to get experience SOMEWHERE!
When the wind is above the FCOM or FOM limits, follow the rules. When within limits, make a reasoned decision based on current information.
I've let FOs land in 30+ kt crosswinds, because I recognized their experience and abilities. That doesn't mean I didn't guard the controls, give a helpful hint or 2 on the way down, or have a hair trigger on a "Go around" command...
For the OP, "surface wind" is that reported by AWOS, ATIS, or Tower. However, you also have to realize that if winds on the approach are significantly higher, you WILL run into a shear somewhere on the approach.
When the wind is above the FCOM or FOM limits, follow the rules. When within limits, make a reasoned decision based on current information.
I've let FOs land in 30+ kt crosswinds, because I recognized their experience and abilities. That doesn't mean I didn't guard the controls, give a helpful hint or 2 on the way down, or have a hair trigger on a "Go around" command...
For the OP, "surface wind" is that reported by AWOS, ATIS, or Tower. However, you also have to realize that if winds on the approach are significantly higher, you WILL run into a shear somewhere on the approach.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that's exactly my point. You say you respect their experience and ability but how do you know they have that experience and ability in the first place if you just met him or her for the first time in the crew room?
Surely you agree there is one big difference between a 1 HR captain and a random FO.
Surely you agree there is one big difference between a 1 HR captain and a random FO.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I just met him in the crew room for the first time, I would keep the PF role for the flight if there was adverse weather forecast.
There may or may not be a difference between a 1-hr Capt and a random FO. An FO may have just come to the company from another company where he flew the same airplane as a 1000-hr Captain...
There may or may not be a difference between a 1-hr Capt and a random FO. An FO may have just come to the company from another company where he flew the same airplane as a 1000-hr Captain...
There may or may not be a difference between a 1-hr Capt and a random FO
If it goes pear shaped it is his/her career on the line if no other consideration.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: new jersey
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think that the brief prior to the first flight would take care of the experience issue. Other side of the Atlantic might be different but as a U.S. legacy fo I've never had a captain take a leg based on conditions. Then again, to get hired here I was a captain at a previous airline with LCA experience and now close to 8000 hours on my type. Brief prior to flight pretty much covers all of that.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penko,
If either crewmember has a concern about the conditions, it will be discussed. If one person isn't comfortable, the other will fly. Pretty simple. That said, the prevailing attitude here is that there's only one way to get comfortable landing in a 38kt xwind. (Hint, giving away those landings isn't it)
I'm a new A320 FO (200hr on type), and I'm yet to see 38kt. The last time I had a reasonable xwind, the CA and I discussed techniques for xwind landings as part of the approach brief.
At a prior company I flew with CA's who'd never seen a strong crosswind before, as they were new to the type. What would you do in that situation?
I can assure you that even though the CA is responsible, if it goes pear shaped, the FO is going to be doing a carpet dance as well!
Perhaps we come from airlines of different sizes. Your theory is sound, but at most airlines here, it simply is not practical to do that, as it's quite likely that you've never flown with your FO before, or your last flight with him/her was a long time prior, and you have no recollection of the trip.
If either crewmember has a concern about the conditions, it will be discussed. If one person isn't comfortable, the other will fly. Pretty simple. That said, the prevailing attitude here is that there's only one way to get comfortable landing in a 38kt xwind. (Hint, giving away those landings isn't it)
I'm a new A320 FO (200hr on type), and I'm yet to see 38kt. The last time I had a reasonable xwind, the CA and I discussed techniques for xwind landings as part of the approach brief.
At a prior company I flew with CA's who'd never seen a strong crosswind before, as they were new to the type. What would you do in that situation?
Well one difference is that the Captain is responsible for the operation.
If it goes pear shaped it is his/her career on the line if no other consideration.
If it goes pear shaped it is his/her career on the line if no other consideration.
Some FO's I'd trust with any crosswind, purely because I have watched them land before in challenging conditions and know their abilities.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: France
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a prior company I flew with CA's who'd never seen a strong crosswind before, as they were new to the type. What would you do in that situation?
If the first officer is considered legally as second in command then presumably he would be certified competent at the end of his type rating to take off and land up to the aircraft limiting crosswind component. After all he has a command type rating - not a co-pilot type rating.
That suggests to me that it was not required under JAR/EU OPS and is not required under EASA.
Moderator
Sideline point - tower wind may be at various heights above ground. Further there is a reasonably pronounced shear gradient in the lower levels approaching the runway for a typical aerodrome.
A problem arises with the definition of where the wind is measured.
One would prefer to see something along the lines of the operator's limit specifying "reported aerodrome wind" or similar.
A problem arises with the definition of where the wind is measured.
One would prefer to see something along the lines of the operator's limit specifying "reported aerodrome wind" or similar.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the ASOS (Automated Surface Observing System) Users Guide, Sec 3.2:
Point to Ponder: Why are airport wind socks at 5 meters above the ground and airport anemometers at 10 meters above ground level?
Before ASOS, airport wind sensors were generally exposed 20 feet above ground level. With modern, highperformance aircraft, this standard no longer applies. Now, current federal standards for siting meteorological equipment specify (with some variance permitted) a height of 10 meters (32.8 feet). Typical ASOS wind sensor heights are 33 feet or 27 feet, depending on local site-specific restrictions or requirements.