That’s an interesting plan for landing in a crosswind. I think I’m going to stick with the way I learned: minimum flaps for runway length, forward slip and adjust bank angle to stay on centerline, opposite rudder to align fuselage with runway, flare, land first on upwind main gear, then other main and nose wheel as you slow, appropriate flight control deflection for wind direction all the way to the tie down.
But what do I know? I’ve never flown a taildragger.
Umm… That’s not a good way to land in a crosswind. Why do you need to come in high?
Standard crosswind technique is to fly final in a crab such that you are maintaining the centerline of the runway. Then just before you land you kick the aircraft straight with rudder, lowering the windward wing if necessary to keep you from drifting as you touch down.
Trying to do a full flap, full stall landing from a high approach in a crosswind sounds like a recipe for getting blown off the centerline or worse. I prefer to fly the plane all the way onto the runway to maintain max control authority.
In my Grumman I could drop the flaps for additional stability, because they were about the size of a stick of gum. In a Cessna 172 or other plane with large flaps I’d only use them if it wasn’t gusty. I can’t remember the POH procedure, but I seem to recall half flaps or something as a recommendation.
As you slow down, add aileron into the wind to keep the wing down, and as you are taxiing make sure you keep doing that. Full aileron deflection into the wind at all times.
Keep flying the plane until it’s tied to the ground. Especially if it’s a taildragger.
Some long-winged planes cannot be easily flown wing low onto the runway without risking a tip strike, so kicking the airplane straight has to be timed well, or in some cases the plane is designed to be landed crabbed. The B-52’s landing gear can actually be cranked to match the runway direction while the plane is crabbed, and you can just land it that way.
Don’t land with even a bit of crab if you are flying a taildragger, unless you like spinning in circles. And aileron management is even more critical.
You can also fly the approach in a sideslip to maintain the centerline, at the cost of a higher sink rate or more power needed. Maybe that’s where you are getting the idea of flying a higher than average approach?
If there is a crosswind, wake turbulence isn’t as much of a problem as it will get blown sideways from the runway along with the air mass. If there are parallel runways, the controllers will have to work out the separation for wake turbulence, but I actually don’t know if the wake from one heavy blowing onto a parallel runway is an issue.
The cheatiest way of landing an airliner is to just leave it crabbed. It’s not particularly comfortable/pretty but it works. The nice way of doing it is essentially the same as any other aeroplane, approach on the normal approach path at the normal approach speed and as you flare squeeze in some rudder to line the nose up with the runway. Underslung pod engines and a low wing means that using some bank into wind to prevent any downwind drift needs to be done cautiously if at all.
Because of the distance from the pilot’s seating position to the main gear, you need to position yourself on the upwind side of the centreline so that the main gear are on the centreline.
Speaking to airliners generically, we fly crosswind landings about like smaller airplanes. The good news is we’re a lot less of a chip in a windstorm; we’ve got a lot of inertia. The bad news is that inertia turns into lag, both between the wind and the airplane reaction, and between control inputs and the airplane reaction. It’s easier to get into a PIO in a big airplane. When real light, such as a ferry flight, there’s a lot less inertia and the thing feels like a Cessna being tossed about like a kite. The good news is that because our approach speeds are much faster compared to the wind speed than with a lightplane, the amount of crab or slip required is proportionally less.
IMC we fly crosswinds as pure crab. In VMC or after breaking out above, say 300 feet there’s time to establish a slip in preference to a crab. The goal is to touch down on centerline, tracking the centerline with no side-to-side vector, and with fuselage aligned. It’s easier to make that happen from an established slip than from a crab that you’re removing in the flare.
We’ll carry a little extra speed for either high headwinds or gusts so as not to get caught short in the flare. Plus a couple knots for a big crosswind. The vertical flightpath should be identical to a normal no-wind approach; neither steeper nor shallower, and with the same aimpoint down the runway.
Some airplanes, especially the 737, can’t stand much bank angle at touchdown or you’ll drag a winglet, flap, or engine. For them we can use pure sideslip in low crosswinds but for crosswind components over about 15 knots the advice is skip the slip, fly the crab to impact or just short of impact. Better to touch down crabbed than kick it all out, start drifting and land while drifting. The gear can take a hell of a beating; the comparatively flimsy sheet metal or composites of cowlings & winglets against pavement, not so much.
As Richard says, in a long airplane you need to remember the gear is not where your face is. So aim your face to impact upwind 10-20 feet of the centerline and the gear will be on the centerline. Plus maybe a few more feet to allow for uncorrected drift.
You’ll notice in the many YouTubes about airliners landing in major crosswinds at infamous airports, they’re using the crab technique. Slips are for days rewarding finesse, not days you’re using your axe to hack and slash your way to the ground.
Kicking out the crab is not without its own issues; In a (non-FBW) swept wing airplane, that induces a lot of roll into the wind. But after a short and unpredictable delay. So as rudder is coming in, opposite=downwind aileron is right behind. But not too much. Then once the wheels are on, you need opposite opposite = upwind aileron to keep the wings level as you’re slowing.
Many of the roll excursions at 5-20 feet that you see in the high wind YouTubes are the pilots muffing managing the delayed roll reaction from them taking out that crab. The fact it’s stupid turbulent in the bottom 30 feet of the atmosphere on on a windy day doesn’t help.
As @Sam_Stone says, crosswinds (and headwinds) reduce the significance of wake turbulence. Right now the ATC separation standards assume no wind and don’t take any credit for crosswinds. There’s research afoot now to be able to quantify that effect so they can (what else?) squeeze more airplanes per hour onto a runway.
The parallel runway thing is managed by runway spacing versus longitudinal separation of airplanes. Runway pairs far enough apart are treated as independent, runway pairs too close together are managed as one, and runway pairs of intermediate spacing are used alternately to give wake time to drift away.
More typically, intermediate- & close-spaced runways are used as one for takeoffs and one for landings which pretty well eliminates wake as an issue. The concern then becomes making sure a go-around doesn’t end up wingtip-to-wingtip with a takeoff on the near-adjacent runway.
higher approach with less power creates a higher angle of attack to maintain speed. you still crab into the wind. Nothing else changes much.
The effect is similar to heavy buffeting winds when you’re flying straight and level. Pull back the power and raise the nose to maintain altitude. It reduces the amount of buffeting.
50 passengers vs the Concord’s 92-128 seats. Should be an interesting marketing plan.
I’m sure I asked something similar years ago, but what would the impact of flight at these speeds be on turbulence? Would passengers feel it more or less than in current aircraft of similar size?
I am also assuming, but don’t know, that supersonic aircraft are flying at higher elevations, which might also reduce turbulence? Is that accurate?
Yes, as a general rule turbulence decreases with altitude. On a clear day it is greatly reduced as soon as you’re above the haze layer. That would be low altitude crud. the airline pilots can chime in on the name of high altitude turbulence but stuff generated by rising thermals will be marked to a great extent by the cloud layer.
Supersonic planes are going to fly higher than conventional jets.
IIRC, above about 60,000 ft. there simply is no wind or turbulence. Or t least darn near zero.
And yes, any of these seriously fast airplanes will be between 60K & 100K feet. SR-71 altitudes, not conventional airliner altitudes. To be sure, they still need to climb through everything from ground level up.
Separately from altitude is th issue of wing loading, the ratio of weight to wing area.
A Cessna is light but has a big wing for its size and so the wing loading is small. It bounces all over the place in a light breeze. An airliner is much heavier and has a much larger wing. But it’s more heavier than it is bigger and so turbulence is less felt; loosely speaking you punch through (some of) it rather than riding along (all of) it. Fighters are lighter, but have smaller wings. They punch through turbulence much better than airliners do.
SSTs will be more like overgrown fighters than like fast 737s. Which will be true whether it’s bizjet sized or small airliner sized.
That precise experience is what brought my flying lessons to an end, sadly.
As someone who is very susceptible to motion sickness, that is the scale I use to judge turbulence. There have been a few times I’ve felt a little bit queasy on big airliners when there was some turbulence during the approach, but the only time I’ve ever actually thrown up was on a small twin engine Piper. That was on a sightseeing flight around Denali where there was some pretty significant turbulence. But even on a DeHavilland Beaver float plane in pretty much completely calm air I felt a little queasy. It was like even the slightest breeze would make that plane move a little.
Just a quick note for anyone interested – I’m sure all you professional aviation aficionados know all about these – but there are a couple of YouTube channels that I’ve found interesting and have been watching lately. I know there are probably hundreds of them, but VASaviation is good for annotated and illustrated ATC conversations – some are really entertaining – and Mentour Pilot is excellent for in-depth incident analysis. Mentour Pilot is hosted by Captain Petter Hornfeldt who comes across like the kind of professor who takes a genuine interest in making sure his students understand the subject. Here he is talking about the Gimli Glider, for instance. A couple of other good ones: the Atlantic glider, and the seemingly inexplicable crash of Air France 296 at an airshow.
Sadly you have to put up with (or fast-forward through) a minute or so of annoying “paid promotions”.
Watching that I learned angle of attack is not the same thing as pitch angle.
Flight school never really taught what to do if you’re being pummeled by wind. I discovered that by accident one day when I flew into really rough weather. I pulled up to try and climb out of it. Instant relief with the nose-up change and again when power was reduced when I leveled out.
I often wondered if airline pilots trimmed power back (at lower altitudes) when subjected to turbulence.
Based on a recent event, it appears they may just as often increase power to get out of the turbulence faster, which was central to this recent engine failure story:
Every airplane, even lightplanes, have a best speed to fly in turbulence. It’s usually slower than your normal cruising speed. So it’s common to slow to the turbulence speed once things get bumpy enough. It’s not strictly necessary until the turbulence gets worse than anything you’ve ever ridden through, but there’s no point in beating up the airplane or the people unnecessarily.
Whether that involves adding or subtracting power depends on what you’re doing. In a climb you slow down by leaving full climb power and increasing pitch. In a descent at idle power, slowing down involves shallowing pitch and/or adding drag via speedbrakes. In level flight of course, reducing power is the way to slow down.
Once below 10,000 ft we’re generally limited to 250 knots which is already below any jet’s best turbulence speed. At that point speed is more driven by the rest of where we are in process of departure or arrival. Once actually slowed for landing, or equivalently immediately after lift-off, it’s normal to carry a few knots more speed in turbulent or gusty conditions. Enough so that when the gust/bumps briefly / intermittently reduce your speed, you’ve still got some margin above the minimum desirable speed.
As to UAL, it’s a commonplace that jet engines fail either during max power takeoffs or when the throttle is moved. The apparent reason being that whatever is about to fail is holding together by a thread in the existing steady-state combo of vibrations, temps, centripetal forces, etc. When you power up or down, a lot of normally minor transients occur in all those parameters. Those transients are the straw that breaks the weakened camel’s back.
Further on UAL, it’s common that we take off with less than full takeoff power. That saves engine life and is quieter. And, as noted above, greatly reduces the likelihood of a takeoff engine failure.
We also typically climb out at less than full climb power, at least for the first 10-20,000 feet. This too reduces noise and increases engine life. If for whatever reason, be that turbulence, traffic, or terrain, there’d be an advantage to switching to full climb power, it’s completely ordinary to do so.
As I’m reading that article written for a lay audience, that’s probably what they did; push the button for full rather than reduced climb power. The engines duly throttled up 10% or so, and BANG! they were off to the races. It would be a mistake to read that as implying that the engines were oversped, overtemped, or overstressed versus their normal operating limits.
Even small increases in wing loading can make a big difference to turbulence sensitivity. Our Grumman AA1 had a wing loading of 15lbs/sq ft. A Cessna 150 is 10 lbs/sq ft. When I had to ferry a 150 after flying my Grumman for a while, the difference was like night and day. The 150 got tossed all over the place in turbulence, while the little Grumman handled it much better.
I loved that plane. Miss it every day.
For comparison, and supporting my earlier contentions with actual numbers …
At max takeoff weight the wing loading of a 737 is roughly 130 #/sf. At very light weights, like landing an otherwise empty ferry flight it’s about 75 #/sf. And in gusty winds feels comparatively like a Cessna being batted about like a moth in a hurricane.
Big difference between those numbers and the lightplane numbers @Sam_Stone helpfully provided.
Yeah, the AA1 was a fun little critter. I only flew one a couple times with another guy who owned one. But it had a real nice feel.
To the extent that I can say I’ve flown, the airplane in question was a Piper Cherokee. After countless touch-and-gos, crosswind landings, and stall recovery practice, I can honestly say I actually knew how to fly that thing. It’s kind of sad that considerations of time and money kept me from pursuing it further. In a better world, I’d own one today.
Hear here! You and me both. In a better world, GA wouldn’t have become prohibitively expensive.
My Dad bought a new loaded C150 in 1966 for US $10K. Per the official consumer Price Index (CPI), that’s about $83K in today’s money. The closest corresponding current product is the Diamond DA20. Which sells for about $190K new. So a bit over double.
Costs of operation are a similar multiple of the old days. We made money like mad renting that C150 out for $9/hour fuel included. Some Googling shows DA20s renting for $140/hr fuel included. So 15x as expensive to rent. Which is ~8x for inflation and ~2x real increase.