Crosswind Landings / "Impossible Landing" TE / Crosswind landing advice
-
…yeah, they just crash.
Real pilots don’t land. They flare until reaching an altitude of about 3ft and wait for earth lifting up to them.
-
There is the letter, and the spirit of the letter!
From the beginning you seems to not understand the spirit of the letter…Lost me, what letter? Sounds like a bad thing. What am I being flamed for this time?
Yes, instructor commends to do some things, but explanations comes after. And one day, you try your own way, and most of the time, you realise that Chappy was right mate.
Maybe simply because it is an error from the beginning to think that you are smarter than another guys how has about ten times more flight hours than you. So my point is: you will not live long enough to do all the mistake yourself, so take benefits of other ppl’s mistakes to grow faster and live longer.Check out this landing.
When the CH-46 was first delivered, pilots were not trained to do this type of landing. They were trained to do a straight conventional approach. The story goes they where losing too many ship, w/15 boots, to sniper fire because twin main rotor design took to long to transition from forward flight to hover. Once on the ground the jungle provided cover. It was front line combat pilots not manufacture test pilots that develop this landing profile. My friend who flew the CH-46 in the 60’s say thier Vertol representative couldn’t believe what they could do with their a/c.
Sometimes school training and manufacturing instructions is not good enough. Front line combat soldiers have be changing procedures that conflict with initial training to improve weapon effectiveness and survivability since the beginning of war.
The thing is we are not talking about a combat maneuver. I’ve been talking about increasing approach speed to decrease the amount yaw and bounce in a crosswind and to prevent stalls form a micro burst. I’m saying to touch down at these speed. You seem to be scoped-locked on flying by the number. What if you are on a 5nm final, and the ATC say to increase your speed to 220kts (for a/c spacing), what are you going to say “NO”
My F4 roots come from F4AF, a sim that tries to kill you. Most of my “funny own person technique” come from other F4AF vpilots. You could say we were saving virtual lives.
Is www.benchmarksims.org your own VFW domain? If not maybe you should start one. I get it you want to cater to newbies.
-
…. Check out this landing.
When the CH-46 was first delivered, pilots were not trained to do this type of landing. They were trained to do a straight conventional approach. The story goes they where losing too many ship, w/15 boots, to sniper fire because twin main rotor design took to long to transition from forward flight to hover. Once on the ground the jungle provided cover. It was front line combat pilots not manufacture test pilots that develop this landing profile. My friend who flew the CH-46 in the 60’s say thier Vertol representative couldn’t believe what they could do with their a/c. ……
There is a marked difference in developing a teachable tactical approach profile (in addition to the standard approach) and doing ‘just whatever’ to land.
In sim we can do ‘just whatever’ if we want to. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it works sometimes and fails sometimes. Maybe you can do it, but you can’t teach it to others.
I think what Dee-Jay and others are saying is, ‘use the standards that have been developed because they are teachable, reliable and have a proven high probability of success across a broad cross-section of (v)pilots’.
-
Lost me, what letter? Sounds like a bad thing. What am I being flamed for this time?
Check out this landing.
When the CH-46 was first delivered, pilots were not trained to do this type of landing. They were trained to do a straight conventional approach. The story goes they where losing too many ship, w/15 boots, to sniper fire because twin main rotor design took to long to transition from forward flight to hover. Once on the ground the jungle provided cover. It was front line combat pilots not manufacture test pilots that develop this landing profile. My friend who flew the CH-46 in the 60’s say thier Vertol representative couldn’t believe what they could do with their a/c.
Sometimes school training and manufacturing instructions is not good enough. Front line combat soldiers have be changing procedures that conflict with initial training to improve weapon effectiveness and survivability since the beginning of war.
The thing is we are not talking about a combat maneuver. I’ve been talking about increasing approach speed to decrease the amount yaw and bounce in a crosswind and to prevent stalls form a micro burst. I’m saying to touch down at these speed. You seem to be scoped-locked on flying by the number. What if you are on a 5nm final, and the ATC say to increase your speed to 220kts (for a/c spacing), what are you going to say “NO”
My F4 roots come from F4AF, a sim that tries to kill you. Most of my “funny own person technique” come from other F4AF vpilots. You could say we were saving virtual lives.
Is www.benchmarksims.org your own VFW domain? If not maybe you should start one. I get it you want to cater to newbies.
…
Calm down man…
We are not talking about brand new procedure for a new AC here, we are talking about procedures tested in around 30 years of F-16 flights.
AF had the old flight model, so anything you can extrapolate from there has little value. I mean, you needed to put forward pressure on the stick to keep your glide scope, the exact opposite of the real F-16…
With the AFM, the best techniques are indeed the RL ones.Let me continue on what you suggest : if you touchdown with too much speed, what happens ?
- you are just fine on the ground, sure ! but you need to slow down the AC.
- so you try to aerobrake. But you are too fast : if you try to keep the nose up, you can takeoff again.
- so you dont aerobrake yet, you use your wheel brakes. But you cant do it all the way, you risk damaging your brakes now in BMS.
- so you brake only a little, and then pull the nose up to aerobrake. Why not, but you lose time (and thus space on the runway), and you risk a tail strike if you dont control well your pull up.
All in all, its manageable, but this IS more dangerous than an approach at regular speed.
With F4AF, once you were on the ground, you were somewhat “locked” to it. So you could aerobrake no matter the speed. Plus, you didnt have hot brakes either.
So sorry to say, but your idea is not a good one in BMS, nor it is RL.
-
What if you are on a 5nm final, and the ATC say to increase your speed to 220kts (for a/c spacing), what are you going to say “NO”
I know you are just giving an example and don’t mean this literally, so I’m just posting this as general (and not entirely off-topic) information/knowledge:
“4.6.3.7 Speed control should not be applied to aircraft after passing a point 7 km (4 NM) from the threshold on final approach.” (PANS-ATM)As such, a (significant) speed restriction within 6-7NM would most likely get the ATC an “unable” response. By the time the pilot has time to understand, reply and act to the instruction and for the aircraft to actually do it, he’d be at 4NM and would have to start reducing to final approach speed again. It would only increase fuel use and workload, and have almost zero effect on spacing.
-
ok, what if the ATC says:
RUNWAY 27 ARRIVAL, MICROBURST ALERT, 35 KT LOSS 2 MILE FINAL, THRESHOLD WIND 250 AT 20.
And what happen if you are landing at an airport that is not equipped with microburst detection?
-
…
Calm down man…
We are not talking about brand new procedure for a new AC here, we are talking about procedures tested in around 30 years of F-16 flights.
AF had the old flight model, so anything you can extrapolate from there has little value. I mean, you needed to put forward pressure on the stick to keep your glide scope, the exact opposite of the real F-16…
With the AFM, the best techniques are indeed the RL ones.Let me continue on what you suggest : if you touchdown with too much speed, what happens ?
- you are just fine on the ground, sure ! but you need to slow down the AC.
- so you try to aerobrake. But you are too fast : if you try to keep the nose up, you can takeoff again.
- so you dont aerobrake yet, you use your wheel brakes. But you cant do it all the way, you risk damaging your brakes now in BMS.
- so you brake only a little, and then pull the nose up to aerobrake. Why not, but you lose time (and thus space on the runway), and you risk a tail strike if you dont control well your pull up.
All in all, its manageable, but this IS more dangerous than an approach at regular speed.
With F4AF, once you were on the ground, you were somewhat “locked” to it. So you could aerobrake no matter the speed. Plus, you didnt have hot brakes either.
So sorry to say, but your idea is not a good one in BMS, nor it is RL.
airframes are old but the a/c weapon systems and anti-aircraft systems change.
-
ok, what if the ATC says:
RUNWAY 27 ARRIVAL, MICROBURST ALERT, 35 KT LOSS 2 MILE FINAL, THRESHOLD WIND 250 AT 20.
And what happen if you are landing at an airport that is not equipped with microburst detection?
if the ATC tells you that you are going around.
-
airframes are old but the a/c weapon systems and anti-aircraft systems change.
I dont see how its relevant. The AC flies the same way, no matter the avionics changes.
And that does not change the fact that most flying reflexes you had in F4AF are not applicable anymore in BMS.
-
Lost me, what letter? Sounds like a bad thing. What am I being flamed for this time?…
Sorry for the story of “the letter vs the spirit of the letter” it is maybe a bad translation. I should have said : the book vs the “spirits” of the book meaning that deviations are acceptable if they are justified by a specific situation not covered by standard procedures.
Whatever.
You are talking about microburst and wind-shear which is totally different.
Procedure are defined in flight ops book for each a/c … On my a/c, we have to add i e half of the burst to the computed final approach speed if the burst if above 10kts.
But this has nothing to do with WCA (wind angle correction) … This speed increase is to prevent stall at low speed, not to reduce the crab angle on final …Do not confuse two totally different things.
What if you are on a 5nm final, and the ATC say to increase your speed to 220kts (for a/c spacing), what are you going to say “NO”
If I can, I will. But if I can’t or do not want for any reason (ex: me captain with a young copilot in command who needs to practice to standard approach like in the book …) of course I will say “NO”
Especially 5nm on final full configured for landing. (Not a prob on my a/c since I can initiate the speed reduction from 240 to 110kts at 2nm from threshold … But some a/c can’t and once they are on final, it is very painful to change the speed especially the one which are not equipped with airbrakes like commercial liners …)Well Caper, sorry if you are taking what I am saying in the bad way,
Do what you want … There is no prob for me at all. Just, expect from me such reaction and answer anytime you (or anybody) will give such advices to newbies who wants to enhance their flying skills and knowledges of real flight. (Except if it is clearly justified associated to factual example other than “snowflake’s” preferences of isolated “examples” coming from YouTube or other …)Otherwise, if we do not care about procedures and real flight “doctrines” at all … considering that it is only a simulator, ppl can do what they want including landing upside-down if they like this way.
I think that most ppl understood my point and what I am trying to explain about speed increase methods to minimise WCA … And if you still didn’t understood … I am sorry Caper, but I will not spend my life on this subject.
Sincere regards.
-
I’m still interested in the Nordic F-16 procedure that differs from the well-known one. What they do, what difficulties occur, and what benefit there is.
-
Sorry for the story of “the letter vs the spirit of the letter” it
Dee-Jay, I think the English equivalent is ‘The letter of the law vs the spirit of the law’.
-
Procedure are defined in flight ops book for each a/c … On my a/c, we have to add i e half of the burst to the computed final approach speed if the burst if above 10kts.
But this has nothing to do with WCA (wind angle correction)I does not have anything do with WCA (wind angle correction) until it stalls the a/c. If airspeed is lost, for what ever weather condition, and the a/c with stalls the amount of WCA could determined if one or both wings stall. If one wing stall before the other it called a tip stall. Impossible to recover from at approach altitude. I’m surprise there is not an approach WCA limits for the F-16 because of its relax Longitudinal static stability design.
… This speed increase is to prevent stall at low speed, not to reduce the crab angle on final …
I agree and see many benefit to adjust approach airspeed for bad weather… smoother approach, less WCA, less yaw gyration, fpm active, stall prodection. Increase approach maybe dangerous to a cadet, but a seasoned pilot that as survived over-head-brake training I don’t thinks so.
anyway, forgive me for when my knowledge of aerodynamics, what little flight time I have collides with r/l procedures. It seem like you got personal without trying to grasp a concept…
-
Did you also notice that his jet was almost aligned with the runway before he flared? I see small banking and possible rudder before he gets to the threshold. Hmmm. When he finally touches down, there is little need to de-crab. Looks about right to me.
P.S. I do not think you are a snowflake. I do not think others here believe you are a snowflake. Now, a cornflake, well that’s a different story. :lol:
It’s a known fact that the r/l f-16 will fall like a rock if rudder is used at landing speeds. If you still want to look for video that show decraping it will be done just before touchdown. Like when the wheels are ~1 foot off the runway, jmo. I still looking bty. And I if find one, it will be a trophy to post. Good luck
-
For wind-corrected approach there is no beta angle so no change in stall airspeed. From wings’ point of view everything is very symmetrical. It is the ground that is going sideways!
-
Maybe the Norwegians had trouble during winter with icy runways and low friction coefficients? I don’t know if it’s it, it just crossed my mind right now.
-
For wind-corrected approach there is no beta angle so no change in stall airspeed. From wings’ point of view everything is very symmetrical. It is the ground that is going sideways!
If the a/c is in a xwind induce crab and the xwind stops blowing at rate that the yaw stability augmentation system can’t counter……
-
If the a/c is in a xwind induce crab and the xwind stops blowing at rate that the yaw stability augmentation system can’t counter……
So back to your wind shear argument. This is getting more and more contrived…
I does not have anything do with WCA (wind angle correction) until it stalls the a/c. If airspeed is lost, for what ever weather condition, and the a/c with stalls the amount of WCA could determined if one or both wings stall. If one wing stall before the other it called a tip stall. Impossible to recover from at approach altitude. I’m surprise there is not an approach WCA limits for the F-16 because of its relax Longitudinal static stability design.
I agree and see many benefit to adjust approach airspeed for bad weather… smoother approach, less WCA, less yaw gyration, fpm active, stall prodection. Increase approach maybe dangerous to a cadet, but a seasoned pilot that as survived over-head-brake training I don’t thinks so.
Okay. Care to tell me the stall speed for snl flight for the F-16 then?
Oh thats right, there’s an AoA limiter in the jet that prevents you from letting that happen… you cannot stall the jet.
-
It’s a known fact that the r/l f-16 will fall like a rock if rudder is used at landing speeds. If you still want to look for video that show decraping it will be done just before touchdown. Like when the wheels are ~1 foot off the runway, jmo. I still looking bty. And I if find one, it will be a trophy to post. Good luck
Small rudder input will not make the f-16 fall like a rock at landing speeds (i.e. at around 180knts.). And, you do not use any rudder input once you reach the threshold and flare. Your jet will still crab slightly (depending on the amount of crosswind). I land like that in bms all the time. The videos I see where the r/l pilots are landing in crosswinds with their nose aligned towards the runway. That means they are adjusting the jet with slight bank and rudder. By the time they flare, they are no longer adjusting the jet. They don’t need to. If they are not using any rudder, then they are adjusting by slight banking through there decent. Either way, when they flare, they are well aligned already during touch down. The current videos show that.
P.S. I did not know the f-16 de-crapped or de-craping? I guess next time I will have to check my jets shorts! :fart:
-
Small rudder input will not make the f-16 fall like a rock at landing speeds (i.e. at around 180knts.). And, you do not use any rudder input once you reach the threshold and flare. Your jet will still crab slightly (depending on the amount of crosswind). I land like that in bms all the time. The videos I see where the r/l pilots are landing in crosswinds with their nose aligned towards the runway. That means they are adjusting the jet with slight bank and rudder. By the time they flare, they are no longer adjusting the jet. They don’t need to. If they are not using any rudder, then they are adjusting by slight banking through there decent. Either way, when they flare, they are well aligned already during touch down. The current videos show that.
P.S. I did not know the f-16 de-crapped or de-craping? I guess next time I will have to check my jets shorts! :fart:
Some ppl say that decrabbing will cause the F-16’s fuselage will block airflow to down wind wing causing it drop. It makes since because the F-16 is a mid wing a/c.
I’ had an RC a/c that had adverse yaw issue and programed an ARI to make it easier to fly. It was a little J-3 cub with under camber wings that I added ailerons to do flat turns in a small gym. When I input rudder i had to input opposite ailerons to correct for roll coupling. When I input ailerons I had to increase the throttle because the adverse yaw created abnormal drag. So when ever you make an roll correction you have to make a throttle correction. I was fun to fly, required a lot of stick work. Sometimes is it would drop out of the sky because It was changing the control, you have to fly ahead of it.