I need a Wind component chart please...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Twilight Zone
Age: 57
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I need a Wind component chart please...
Can anyone tell me somewhere on the net or send me a graphics file of a good quality of a Wind Component Chart please.
Many thanks in advance.
Many thanks in advance.
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
Sorry, can't help. But it shouldn't really be necessary, since the CRP1 and CRP5 both have a tool which will do this. And if you don't have one to hand, any scientific calculator can be used (headwind = WcosA, crosswind = WsinA, where W is the wind velocity and A is the number of degrees off the runway heading).
FFF
---------------
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened to just doin it in your head? Many times our young FOs start jumpin around at 1000ft because of sudden reported 150* wind changes on the ground and he suddenley reckons it exceeds the max tailwind componant! I use the Sine method too. I mean theres only 3 numbers to remember (30* and 45* and 60* and take a linear cut for inside and outside angles). After a few seconds Ill calm the kid down by sayin its a good 4 to 5 knots under our limit. If we need exact knots to the poofteenth value Ill drag out my old trustey plastic Jepp wizzwheel (complete with my ancient ATPL-exam formulas scrawnched in the front) and have the result instantley before my fully-computerised offsider even discovers his hand-held FlightPlanner wondertoy batterys have gone flat.
I know each generation of pilot says "they sure dont fly like we did!" about the next bunch down, but the gap these days is bloodey frightening in my opinion.
I know each generation of pilot says "they sure dont fly like we did!" about the next bunch down, but the gap these days is bloodey frightening in my opinion.
Moderator
.. a very valid observation and one which is not limited to flying.... with the advent of extensive computerisation in matters near and far over the past 30-40 years, we now have the problem of the younger set's having been brought up with PCs from kindy time on.
Immediate problems -
(a) if the battery goes flat/screen goes blank, what do you do ? .. how many tales in glass ships echo this concern ? .... more than one incident/accident has been associated with ill-considered design or use of electronic displays.
(b) if the intellectual/mental skills are neither developed or, for that matter, not maintained, then how do we guard against the GIGO factor when using either electronics or graphs etc. ?
(c) if the operator is skilled only in gadgetry, then is this going to depress (or destroy ?) the operator's inherent thinking, logic, and research development skills ? ... ie do we run the risk of ending up with a bunch of uncritical automatons ? Is this a desirable trend for piloting ? ... I hear many tales from older pilots regarding such deficiencies in present training and operational philosophies ...
As an aside .. for the wind thoughts ... the AFM figures (limiting or demonstrated) will refer to wind reported at a nominated height .. often 50 ft ... how many of us know the anemometer height at the airport and correct for it using the 1/7 relationship ? Slasher would probably recall approaches into Cooma or King in decades gone by where these matters were of interest ... but it did provide a fine view of the runway out of the side window .... for the pilot on that side ...
Hands up all those under 40 who have even SEEN a scientific slide rule ......
.... of course, all this is easy for me to say ... I'm an outed dinosaur after all ....
Immediate problems -
(a) if the battery goes flat/screen goes blank, what do you do ? .. how many tales in glass ships echo this concern ? .... more than one incident/accident has been associated with ill-considered design or use of electronic displays.
(b) if the intellectual/mental skills are neither developed or, for that matter, not maintained, then how do we guard against the GIGO factor when using either electronics or graphs etc. ?
(c) if the operator is skilled only in gadgetry, then is this going to depress (or destroy ?) the operator's inherent thinking, logic, and research development skills ? ... ie do we run the risk of ending up with a bunch of uncritical automatons ? Is this a desirable trend for piloting ? ... I hear many tales from older pilots regarding such deficiencies in present training and operational philosophies ...
As an aside .. for the wind thoughts ... the AFM figures (limiting or demonstrated) will refer to wind reported at a nominated height .. often 50 ft ... how many of us know the anemometer height at the airport and correct for it using the 1/7 relationship ? Slasher would probably recall approaches into Cooma or King in decades gone by where these matters were of interest ... but it did provide a fine view of the runway out of the side window .... for the pilot on that side ...
Hands up all those under 40 who have even SEEN a scientific slide rule ......
.... of course, all this is easy for me to say ... I'm an outed dinosaur after all ....
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 14th Feb 2003 at 04:30.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh I wasnt gettin on BHBs case. Probabley wanted the chart for exam purposes (but the chart suggested above is virtualy a back-end of a Jepp wheel anyway).
Of course theres nothing inherentley wrong with computerisation. Once they are mastered and there limitations fully comprehended, they are very useful tools of trade in modern day flying. FMC database info saves a lot of time and workload and I find the LNAV function MAP display a virtual easey-read BP road map. When I first started flying EFIS I knew then how a dog must feel when he first watches TV!
Where I wonder about the future of aviation saftey is for example when asked by ATC to suddenley enter and fly 1 published holding pattern located 5 miles ahead, while we got 320 knots on our clocks at the time of the instruction. Easey! Bug down to holding IAS, select VOR/LOC [raw data] on the EHSI, select heading mode and enter the hold alowing for drift (double or triple) needles abeam timing, DME limits etc etc. By the time Im turning inbound Ive found shaggey has spent the entire bloodey hold stuffing all the data in the FMC and is askin me do I want LNAV now!
This over-reliance on the wonderboxes is what Im on about. Sure if theres plenty of time we can plug the hold in the box and I can give more time to important operational matters or continue readin the FOs porn mag he snaffled in Bangkok last Tuesday. And if we arrive at our 737 aircraft to find the FMC has gone tits up and MEL'ed, the wizzbang wonderboys are only too happy to get you to do the whole bloodey days 6 or 7 sectors!
Your right too about training. We are all a raw product of it especialy in the early years of our commercial flying. So the kids arent really to blame. Its this "thats all ancient outdated crap. These computers do it so much better!" attitude I find disturbing when trying to suggest piloting techniques instead of computer over-reliance. Then again its true that East Asians tend to rely more on this fancey stuff then there Western counterparts.
On a humorus note on this "you dont fly the way we did!" crack I made earlyer, I remember goin in one night as a new FO in the TN 20-ton dogwistle to do a Hobart VAR! I read it all up but despite that I still managed to cock the whole bloodey thing up. Skipper said "yeh you modern day kids with your poofter ILSs and weather radars! You jokers arent even a pilots bootlace! Give you an approach where you have to THINK and you all turn to piss. Hell you try crackin a PH NDB in a DC-4 on a windy and stormey night. I cry for the future of this airline! Bunch of friggin wimps you all are!"
PS outdated dinosaur John? Nah ya not! Only if you get in my little computer-packed jet and complain you cant find the blue-right switch!
Of course theres nothing inherentley wrong with computerisation. Once they are mastered and there limitations fully comprehended, they are very useful tools of trade in modern day flying. FMC database info saves a lot of time and workload and I find the LNAV function MAP display a virtual easey-read BP road map. When I first started flying EFIS I knew then how a dog must feel when he first watches TV!
Where I wonder about the future of aviation saftey is for example when asked by ATC to suddenley enter and fly 1 published holding pattern located 5 miles ahead, while we got 320 knots on our clocks at the time of the instruction. Easey! Bug down to holding IAS, select VOR/LOC [raw data] on the EHSI, select heading mode and enter the hold alowing for drift (double or triple) needles abeam timing, DME limits etc etc. By the time Im turning inbound Ive found shaggey has spent the entire bloodey hold stuffing all the data in the FMC and is askin me do I want LNAV now!
This over-reliance on the wonderboxes is what Im on about. Sure if theres plenty of time we can plug the hold in the box and I can give more time to important operational matters or continue readin the FOs porn mag he snaffled in Bangkok last Tuesday. And if we arrive at our 737 aircraft to find the FMC has gone tits up and MEL'ed, the wizzbang wonderboys are only too happy to get you to do the whole bloodey days 6 or 7 sectors!
Your right too about training. We are all a raw product of it especialy in the early years of our commercial flying. So the kids arent really to blame. Its this "thats all ancient outdated crap. These computers do it so much better!" attitude I find disturbing when trying to suggest piloting techniques instead of computer over-reliance. Then again its true that East Asians tend to rely more on this fancey stuff then there Western counterparts.
On a humorus note on this "you dont fly the way we did!" crack I made earlyer, I remember goin in one night as a new FO in the TN 20-ton dogwistle to do a Hobart VAR! I read it all up but despite that I still managed to cock the whole bloodey thing up. Skipper said "yeh you modern day kids with your poofter ILSs and weather radars! You jokers arent even a pilots bootlace! Give you an approach where you have to THINK and you all turn to piss. Hell you try crackin a PH NDB in a DC-4 on a windy and stormey night. I cry for the future of this airline! Bunch of friggin wimps you all are!"
PS outdated dinosaur John? Nah ya not! Only if you get in my little computer-packed jet and complain you cant find the blue-right switch!
Last edited by Slasher; 14th Feb 2003 at 08:15.
Moderator
Indeed, buddy .... I think the only VAR letdown I ever did was for the initial issue ..... playing with the 300 in recent times, I have had to put the 200 stuff away and try and figure out how the FMC works after a long time away from it ... hopefully I can stay just far enough ahead not to make too much of a fool of myself .....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Twilight Zone
Age: 57
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slasher,
I wanted the chart for a mate, who is on 777s. I believe that the reason he wanted it was because he works in 'that' type of enviroment. The other reason, quite reasonably IMHO, is that hes always scratching around for the last kilo of performance out of the perf manual, - which does not have a wind chart in it.
Personally I subscribe to the 'clock face guess work method', (most certainly on the approach) and for some reason its always within limits, - like you suggested.... (but I did fail primary school maths)
I wanted the chart for a mate, who is on 777s. I believe that the reason he wanted it was because he works in 'that' type of enviroment. The other reason, quite reasonably IMHO, is that hes always scratching around for the last kilo of performance out of the perf manual, - which does not have a wind chart in it.
Personally I subscribe to the 'clock face guess work method', (most certainly on the approach) and for some reason its always within limits, - like you suggested.... (but I did fail primary school maths)
