Cross Wind T/O and Landings
JT et al,
None of my comments were directed at "relatively recent" narrow runway activities by CASA.
Maybe we are "divided by a common language", and no, my very old and obsolete ARB test pilot approval was NOT experiment test and development, but only "post production and maintenance", nevertheless, the British treatment of (for want of a better way of describing it) of Vmcg limited V1 was very different to SFAR 422b/FAR 25.
What always had me intrigued was that, "back in the day", UK CAA didn't issue a new "AFM" if an aircraft had first been certified somewhere else and later imported to the UK and entered on the G- register, so the limitations I operated to in a mixed fleet of B707-300/320, none of which were first registered in UK, so that the "Limitations" for a BOAC/BEA/BA B707 were very different. All this is well pre EASA.
With reference to the multitude of ACs to go with FAR 25, hence my comment about the agreed flight test guide for a new type (or variant if required).
As for the original purpose of the thread, Galdian is on the money --- fly the aeroplane.
Tootle pip!!
PS1: "Back in the day", the general and specific ARB courses I had to do were, to a then very new and inexperienced pilot, an experience for which I was very grateful, even if I disagreed with some D.P. Davies fundamentals. As to "Handling the Big Jets", there are some real howlers, but at least by the time he got around to the B747 certification in the UK, he finally admitted that the yanks might actually know something. Some of the modifications required for a British registered B707 were demonstrably dangerous, as were his demands for 1G stalls in large transport aircraft.
PS2: An example of a case where full thrust could not be used, due Vmcg limited V1 ---- Qantas B747SP at Wellington, NZ. Limited to Rating 1 thrust, the reduced Vmcg was the key to accommodating an accelerate/stop balanced field length V1.
None of my comments were directed at "relatively recent" narrow runway activities by CASA.
Maybe we are "divided by a common language", and no, my very old and obsolete ARB test pilot approval was NOT experiment test and development, but only "post production and maintenance", nevertheless, the British treatment of (for want of a better way of describing it) of Vmcg limited V1 was very different to SFAR 422b/FAR 25.
What always had me intrigued was that, "back in the day", UK CAA didn't issue a new "AFM" if an aircraft had first been certified somewhere else and later imported to the UK and entered on the G- register, so the limitations I operated to in a mixed fleet of B707-300/320, none of which were first registered in UK, so that the "Limitations" for a BOAC/BEA/BA B707 were very different. All this is well pre EASA.
With reference to the multitude of ACs to go with FAR 25, hence my comment about the agreed flight test guide for a new type (or variant if required).
As for the original purpose of the thread, Galdian is on the money --- fly the aeroplane.
Tootle pip!!
PS1: "Back in the day", the general and specific ARB courses I had to do were, to a then very new and inexperienced pilot, an experience for which I was very grateful, even if I disagreed with some D.P. Davies fundamentals. As to "Handling the Big Jets", there are some real howlers, but at least by the time he got around to the B747 certification in the UK, he finally admitted that the yanks might actually know something. Some of the modifications required for a British registered B707 were demonstrably dangerous, as were his demands for 1G stalls in large transport aircraft.
PS2: An example of a case where full thrust could not be used, due Vmcg limited V1 ---- Qantas B747SP at Wellington, NZ. Limited to Rating 1 thrust, the reduced Vmcg was the key to accommodating an accelerate/stop balanced field length V1.
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Sep 2018 at 07:54. Reason: PS2 added
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm based at an airport on a cold, windy island in the middle of the Atlantic, frequently used by manufactures of airliners during crosswind limit testing. Therefore lot of our take-offs and landings are in crosswind close the certified limits of the aircraft we operate (737, 757 and 767)
I've flown with captain's that have spend 25-30+ years in these conditions, most have mastered the art and some haven't.... I have observed the proficient one's to try and improve my own technique and they all pretty much use the same method:
T.O.: As soon as the ac starts rolling, a dash of aileron into the wind, then adjusted as needed to keep wings level, sometimes that includes spoiler deployment, sometimes not, but they all prefer some spoiler deflection if needed to keep wings level and the aircraft tracking straight on rwy heading rather than having the upwind wing lifting and risking a engine strike on the downwind side. Once airborne (in a cross controlled state) a dab of rudder in to the wind to help the aircraft find its crab angle and simultaneously roll the ailerons towards neutral (but of course still adjusting to keep wings level). When done correctly, 30 gusting 40 knots across the runway looks like a walk in the park.
Landing: Hold the crab angle and de-crab late in the flare, aileron into the wind to both compensate for the increased lift on the outboard wing when de-crabbing and to keep the aircraft from drifting from the centreline. If de-crabbing is done before or early in the flare the a/c will obviously start drifting downwind and the required bank to keep tracking the centreline could cause the upwind engine to strike the ground (I am now talking about 30+ knots crosswind). Touchdown is always on the upwind wheels in a slight bank with a very slight crab.
We are aware of the FCTM and what it says about spoiler deployment but sometimes actual conditions require a lot of aileron (and spoiler) to keep things smooth and civil. To quote Mr Joe Patroni: "That's one nice thing about [Boeings]. It can do everything BUT read"
I've flown with captain's that have spend 25-30+ years in these conditions, most have mastered the art and some haven't.... I have observed the proficient one's to try and improve my own technique and they all pretty much use the same method:
T.O.: As soon as the ac starts rolling, a dash of aileron into the wind, then adjusted as needed to keep wings level, sometimes that includes spoiler deployment, sometimes not, but they all prefer some spoiler deflection if needed to keep wings level and the aircraft tracking straight on rwy heading rather than having the upwind wing lifting and risking a engine strike on the downwind side. Once airborne (in a cross controlled state) a dab of rudder in to the wind to help the aircraft find its crab angle and simultaneously roll the ailerons towards neutral (but of course still adjusting to keep wings level). When done correctly, 30 gusting 40 knots across the runway looks like a walk in the park.
Landing: Hold the crab angle and de-crab late in the flare, aileron into the wind to both compensate for the increased lift on the outboard wing when de-crabbing and to keep the aircraft from drifting from the centreline. If de-crabbing is done before or early in the flare the a/c will obviously start drifting downwind and the required bank to keep tracking the centreline could cause the upwind engine to strike the ground (I am now talking about 30+ knots crosswind). Touchdown is always on the upwind wheels in a slight bank with a very slight crab.
We are aware of the FCTM and what it says about spoiler deployment but sometimes actual conditions require a lot of aileron (and spoiler) to keep things smooth and civil. To quote Mr Joe Patroni: "That's one nice thing about [Boeings]. It can do everything BUT read"
Makes me wonder what D P Davies howlers actually were.
What is so bad about B707 stall characteristics which make it dangerous to stall at 1g.
How did it get certificated?
What is so bad about B707 stall characteristics which make it dangerous to stall at 1g.
How did it get certificated?
edit: I have never flown the B737, but my wife does, so I know a little and have access to the manual.
Last edited by hans brinker; 10th Sep 2018 at 16:45. Reason: add edit
Moderator
None of my comments were directed at "relatively recent" narrow runway activities by CASA.
Now you have me scratching my head. I can't recall any Vmcg certification consideration directly linked to operational runway considerations ? I doubt that I still have any of the older Oz rules which predated the 101 series but I can't recall anything from that lot, albeit that it is many years since I had any copies of those documents.
Perhaps you might expand on your earlier comments ?
Now you have me scratching my head. I can't recall any Vmcg certification consideration directly linked to operational runway considerations ? I doubt that I still have any of the older Oz rules which predated the 101 series but I can't recall anything from that lot, albeit that it is many years since I had any copies of those documents.
Perhaps you might expand on your earlier comments ?
