I've always found Newark to be by far the fastest for getting in and out of Manhattan. Hop off the plane, hop on a train, and you're right in the middle of it.
Taking transit to and from JFK was a joke.
Depending on the time of day and your destination in Manhattan JFK is actually probably just as easy, if not easier. The JFK Sky Train runs into Jamaica station in Queens where you can either link to LIRR to get into Penn Station or the subway (the only bad part there is dragging bags down stairs and weekend or late night maintenance). Newark is pretty similar, Sky Train to Newark Airport station and then NJ Transit. The issue with Newark is that NJ Transit trains aren't as frequent and you have a few stops before Penn Station. There's also no alternative as the NJ PATH train doesn't run out there. LGA is pretty much a taxi only trip, fortunately it's typically the easier drive of the 3.
At what point would the pilot know he is not landing? Is the conversation with the tower 'panicky' or calm as always?
In a plane that big is he simply able to push the throttle and pull back on the stick and regain altitude? I had heard that they land at a speed that they can go back up if needed. Is tha just fighters on carriers or does it apply to these big guys too?
Depending on different company SOP's, it really is a judgement call.
When you start to talk about things like decision height or minimum descent altitude, those are all IFR terms related to Instrument approach procedures. Basically if you don't see the runway at your decision height, you initiate a "Go Around"
In the case of these crazy winds, there isn't any decision height or anything like that. It is mostly pilot judgment. I have initiated a go-around at probably 30 ft due to getting caught in what I thought was wake turbulence. It was my only choice at the time.
As far as speeds and such go, a low speed or energy go around is certainly possible and not unsafe at all.
Most large aircraft use speeds such as V1, VR, V2, VYSE and VREF
Most aircraft use VREF speed for landing. Basically your Vref speed is what you are targeting to touch down at or close to.
Also some aircraft will climb with one engine out at their V2 speed, so they certainly will with all engines running. And it just so happens that in many cases your Vref speed is very close to your V2 speed, not to mention your Vr speed (The speed when you pull up to take off, or "rotate")
The above is a long confusing way of saying that the aircraft will climb at a speed close to what you land at, so you are not committed to land as early as you think.
I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, and there are many different types of aircraft with different performance numbers and speeds, but that is the gist of it.
As far as the "Go around" vs "Missed approach" go, I agree, they are essentially interchangeable. Some even call it a "Balked landing" or "Balked Approach." If I can think of a difference, it would be that a go around is more present tense and a missed approach is past tense or the name of the procedure. ATC will instruct a go around or pilot will call "go around." And the missed approach is the name of the procedure.
In essence, the go around is the act of doing it. Missed approach is the name of the procedure. But that is more semantics than anything.
Last edited by sa226; 11-29-2011 at 10:20 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to sa226 For This Useful Post:
With all the talk of that Lufthansa crosswind landing video I thought I'd pull up a couple that show touchdowns at much greater angles than that, like these two from Hong Kong's old Kai Tak airport:
Or this one from Hamburg, which ended up as a wing strike and go around:
The second be of the vids is a good example of what can go wrong with trying to input crosswind technique.....if he had landed crab on it would've been much better. Instead he tries to kick it straight at the last second, causing more lift on the upwind wing and the downwind wing to drop, contacting the runway.
Landing crab in isn't a common occurrence, but it is a good tool in certain situations. Most of the time in a lighter crosswind putting in slip as sa226 described gives a smoother landing, as well as less stress on the gear.
When I was young I was in air cadets and got my glider pilot's licence.. Gliders obviously can't do go arounds so when you have to land, you land.
That was a long time ago but I do recall being talked through doing a "kick it straight at the right time" landing by my instructor (in the glider, but hands off), but I can't remember if it was actually in a cross wind that had kicked up or if it was contrived (i.e. I was flying uncoordinated to simulate).
I do remember where we had one day where we got a strong wind and had to stop flying, and the last one to come in looked almost like it was landing vertically.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I *think* I get the difference between a crab landing and a slip landing. However, I've never taken a flying lesson, and my only time in a cockpit (well while flying) it was a clear day, no wind, so I didn't get to see the pilots do anything too crazy other than land the plane.
Since we have a couple pilots on here I figured I'd ask.
Also aside from crab & slip, what other landings are typically used?
Do you use different landing techniques for different airports? For example, is it easier to land at YYC with a crab landing, whereas YHZ tends to yield better results with a slip?
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Do you use different landing techniques for different airports? For example, is it easier to land at YYC with a crab landing, whereas YHZ tends to yield better results with a slip?
I would say no, you use the different techniques depending on the conditions you are landing in (and the type of aircraft), not where you are landing.
Just a brief comment on that Lufthansa A340 crosswind landing. First of all, great footage and nice to see the skill of their crew in action.
One of my family members seemed to think that variable engine thrusts would have been used to combat crosswinds like that. I begged to differ and claimed that a 'crabbing' technique was likely used. Any CPL+ rated aviators want to shed some light on this? I'm unaware that variable engine thrust is used in any procedure and seems like it would just create a host of problems with asymmetric thrust. In winds like that it would seem that crabbing is the preferred technique and it appeared to be what he did.
Thoughts CP?
__________________
''The Phaneuf - Regehr pairing reminds me a lot of when I'm having sex with a new partner'' -malcomk14
''Not only is he a good player, but I enjoy his company'' -Pierre Mcguire on Phaneuf
"I'm only watching now for the chance to see brief close-ups of White's moustache." - rockstar</br>
Depending on different company SOP's, it really is a judgement call.
When you start to talk about things like decision height or minimum descent altitude, those are all IFR terms related to Instrument approach procedures. Basically if you don't see the runway at your decision height, you initiate a "Go Around"
In the case of these crazy winds, there isn't any decision height or anything like that. It is mostly pilot judgment. I have initiated a go-around at probably 30 ft due to getting caught in what I thought was wake turbulence. It was my only choice at the time.
As far as speeds and such go, a low speed or energy go around is certainly possible and not unsafe at all.
Most large aircraft use speeds such as V1, VR, V2, VYSE and VREF
Most aircraft use VREF speed for landing. Basically your Vref speed is what you are targeting to touch down at or close to.
Also some aircraft will climb with one engine out at their V2 speed, so they certainly will with all engines running. And it just so happens that in many cases your Vref speed is very close to your V2 speed, not to mention your Vr speed (The speed when you pull up to take off, or "rotate")
The above is a long confusing way of saying that the aircraft will climb at a speed close to what you land at, so you are not committed to land as early as you think.
I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, and there are many different types of aircraft with different performance numbers and speeds, but that is the gist of it.
As far as the "Go around" vs "Missed approach" go, I agree, they are essentially interchangeable. Some even call it a "Balked landing" or "Balked Approach." If I can think of a difference, it would be that a go around is more present tense and a missed approach is past tense or the name of the procedure. ATC will instruct a go around or pilot will call "go around." And the missed approach is the name of the procedure.
In essence, the go around is the act of doing it. Missed approach is the name of the procedure. But that is more semantics than anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Just a brief comment on that Lufthansa A340 crosswind landing. First of all, great footage and nice to see the skill of their crew in action.
One of my family members seemed to think that variable engine thrusts would have been used to combat crosswinds like that. I begged to differ and claimed that a 'crabbing' technique was likely used. Any CPL+ rated aviators want to shed some light on this? I'm unaware that variable engine thrust is used in any procedure and seems like it would just create a host of problems with asymmetric thrust. In winds like that it would seem that crabbing is the preferred technique and it appeared to be what he did.
Thoughts CP?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to THE SCUD For This Useful Post:
Just a brief comment on that Lufthansa A340 crosswind landing. First of all, great footage and nice to see the skill of their crew in action.
One of my family members seemed to think that variable engine thrusts would have been used to combat crosswinds like that. I begged to differ and claimed that a 'crabbing' technique was likely used. Any CPL+ rated aviators want to shed some light on this? I'm unaware that variable engine thrust is used in any procedure and seems like it would just create a host of problems with asymmetric thrust. In winds like that it would seem that crabbing is the preferred technique and it appeared to be what he did.
Thoughts CP?
Well I can't speak to it on large transport aircraft, as the only multi-engine I flew was the Piper Twin Comanche. However we never used variable thrust on the engines in a crosswind situation, that's a lot of finger juggling to keep sorted, I can't imagine it would be worth the hassle on a 4 engine jet like the A340.
It would appear to be much easier to just crab the approach and conduct the crosswind landing technique as specified by the operators SOPs.
Edit: Now that I think about it we may have talked about using variable engine thrust while taxiing to help with a crosswind that wants to keep pushing the plane around (in addition to aileron and elevator inputs). However that is a much simpler matter than trying to juggle the throttle just before landing the plane.
I can quite honestly tell you, it is quite a sight.
Landing at Kai Tak is a challenge on it's own already. Considering that you only had a really short final. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to try and land that in a crosswind.
I watched it from the ground near by when I lived in HK 13 years ago, but it would have been great to be able to watch it from the "checkerboard"
Just a brief comment on that Lufthansa A340 crosswind landing. First of all, great footage and nice to see the skill of their crew in action.
One of my family members seemed to think that variable engine thrusts would have been used to combat crosswinds like that. I begged to differ and claimed that a 'crabbing' technique was likely used. Any CPL+ rated aviators want to shed some light on this? I'm unaware that variable engine thrust is used in any procedure and seems like it would just create a host of problems with asymmetric thrust. In winds like that it would seem that crabbing is the preferred technique and it appeared to be what he did.
Thoughts CP?
No, differential thrust is not used in a cross wind landing, it serves no purpose in that case. Typically the autothrottles are off below 100' and the flying pilot is running the thrust, so they can make rapid changes if needed during the flare.
As for types of x-wind landing techniques q-scout, they have basically been covered here; slip (most common), last second kick, crab on, and combination technique (some slip, some crab). You don't use different techniques at different airports specifically, but based on different aircraft and conditions.
A canadair rj has low wing tips, so very little bank can be in or else they will strike the runway. So last second kick is more common on that.
The 737 can do slip up to approx. 20 kts of direct x wind ( depending on flap setting ) before there is a risk of contact wing tips, engine fairings, or flap track fairings.
On a dry runway landing crab on is more uncomfortable as it straightens out more aggressively. On a wet runway it is quite comfortable as it straightens out more slowly.
On a low visibility approach, landing crab on is more desirable as inputting slip is destabilizing (as you bank you change the lift vector, the slip increases drag, all as you are flaring in unstable air).
My point is there are several issues that are weighed when deciding what technique to use. Having said that, most of the time in average winds it is a slip that will be used on most aircraft, and certainly on 737s.
I hope that all wasn't too confusing, just trying to illustrate some of the factors that we are considering when landing.
Would have been awesome to see.
