Crosswind Landings / "Impossible Landing" TE / Crosswind landing advice
-
Real Pilots don´t land :mrgreen:
-
-
I’m getting different numbers and I use different numbers.
Energy is not a problem until it correctly converted into heat.
The impact of a facepalm can vary depending on it angle it is applied.I don’t understand. Landing energy and momentum matters for brake energy and landing roll length. A pilot cares what is going to happen 30 sec into the future too!
There no reason to use drift co on touchdown if you are in crosswind limits. Unless there is some other reason you want to degrade your instruments.
You can see flight path angle comparing FPM against pitch ladder in the center of the HUD if it might go off the side due to large xwind. Lateral position is wrong but if it’s known then not too much a problem. I don’t land with C/O but I can understand its use.
I don’t think you have to use all acronyms. I’m a little tire up looking them up and nobody is going make you their daddy for using them.
I don’t use terms to alienate. It is just my normal vocabulary. If it is esoteric to follow along I’m sorry; it’s not on purpose.
Why did this pilot land at 165-170kts, less than AoA 11* and 2.5* glideslope….I can make a list.
It looks a little gusty and I see almost exactly 11 AoA and 2.5 right at threshold for approach. It’s a little too much speed but only a little due to bumpy air. It would be nice to touchdown at 13 AoA but rough air can overshoot 13 AoA. It was a little hot on the flare and the pilot would probably say so too. An imperfect landing without pilot comment is different than a bad landing and attitude “so what I do what I want” comment.
-
I don’t think you have to use all acronyms. I’m a little tire up looking them up and nobody is going make you their daddy for using them.
I’m an out of work Comanche helicopter weapon system designer who enjoy the technical side of the f-16. I do try to be respectful be helpful in some of the gray areas and don’t use a bunch of acronyms to try to make ppl feel stupid. In the process I’ve learn a few thing (for fun).
So now on a flight simulation forum with the name being that of a literal benchmark for realism, you are trying to belittle someone for using MLAs?
Check six mate, and while youre at it, reread your forum rules.
Bloody hell.
Pro tip, some of us are not going to start typing out 10 times as much so as to save you from having to look up commonly used initialisms.
The whole point of an abbreviation is to save time - if you think the purpose of brevity is to make you personally feel stupid, then you have another think coming.
-
The whole point of an abbreviation is to save time - if you think the purpose of brevity is to make you personally feel stupid, then you have another think coming.
Calm down, man…
Acronyms are useful indeed, but you have to admit these can be deceiving or get in the way of proper undertanding. Remember GCSC ?
There no reason to use drift co on touchdown if you are in crosswind limits. Unless there is some other reason you want to degrade your instruments.
DJ needs to do what ever his instructors command.
I don’t think you have to use all acronyms. I’m a little tire up looking them up and nobody is going make you their daddy for using them.I’m an out of work Comanche helicopter weapon system designer who enjoy the technical side of the f-16. I do try to be respectful be helpful in some of the gray areas and don’t use a bunch of acronyms to try to make ppl feel stupid. In the process I’ve learn a few thing (for fun).
Nobody is trying to make you feel stupid. All I (and DJ, and Blu3wolf) am trying to do is point you the F-16 RL procedures and why they are applied. Sometimes, what you “feel” you have to do in the sim is not the best way, neither in the sim itself than IRL.
What is always true, though, is that :
- being at the proper approach speed is more important than seeing your FPM.
FYI, in an F-16, the HUD is not a “primary flight instruments”, ie : if its not available, you are supposed to know how to fly and land anyway. Im not saying its not useful though.
-sometimes the Drift CO is useful when you land, because the FPM is away from the HUD permanently or jumping too much to be reliable in the horizontal plane. Better a degraded FPM than no FPM at all.
About the video you posted :
We dont really know what did this pilot tried to do and he is not here to comment either.
As Blu3wolf said, he was probably a bit high in AOA to avoid being “pushed” at more than 13°, both for stall and for tail scraping reasons. But he most certainly didnt do it just to see his FPM.DJ and all sudent pilots do as their instructors said, because what their instructors said is the product of test flights and experience. So I feel that what he has to say is probably a bit more valuable than what I can “guess” from my experience in BMS. This is not “do as I say”, its “you should do as I say because of this and this reasons”.
Very honestly, I am a bit tired of this eternal Crosswind topic. So to any people reading this, see advices in the pages before, and land as you see fit.
- being at the proper approach speed is more important than seeing your FPM.
-
FYI, in an F-16, the HUD is not a “primary flight instruments”
… I think it is on most of latest F-16 varients. (Not on M2000 for sure)
-
Yes the HUD is FAA certified.
BTW there are specific exercises in rl for landing with the HUD off.
-
wind is much less strong in the vicinity of ground……
That’s fine, but I still see small adjustments made before the flare. Small banking, ect.
-
-
…yeah, they just crash.
@Admiral:
You know, I’ve personally flown over 194 missions and I was shot down on every one. Come to think of it, I’ve never landed a plane in my life.
-
…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.