It is still somewhat important to realize that the technique used by the Lufthansa pilots isn't the one and only crosswind landing technique available.
What I mean is if Joe Blow with his Private License who hasn't flown in awhile goes and rents a 172 and ends up planting it in a crosswind the Lufthansa guys did, because he saw a youtube video, he is probably going off the runway.
The above technique is more for the heavies, and is a bit of a physics lesson, even though the nose is pointed at a significant angle off the runway, the forward momentum of the plane is such that once they touch down on a dry hard runway the plane will straighten, with some help from the rudder.
If a large 4 engine aircraft attempts the sideslip technique in a strong crosswind, the bank angle required to keep the aircraft aligned with the runway is so much that a wing or engine strike is possible.
The most common technique is to crab into the wind to a suitable height, then prior to the flare, kick the rudder to straighten the nose and use opposite aileron to counteract drift. Then touchdown the upwind main gear first and let the opposite gear down easily and maintain inputs on the rollout.
And yes I agree, that was a nice job by the Lufthansa dudes (or ladies)
The Following User Says Thank You to sa226 For This Useful Post:
No, no, no...not 25, 28 - very big difference there.
25 is rarely, (if ever), used anymore. When I was taking flight lessons way back in the day, I made a special request to use it and it even felt small in the small aircraft we flew.
Uh Madman, 25 was being used for commercial jets on Sunday. I saw it with my own eyes and listened to ATC vector arrivals for it. Here is a quote from cyeg66 who is a YYC arrivals controller and posts on SSP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyeg66
Yeah, we had 5 or 6 straight go-arounds for 28, wind shear of +35 kts at 500', so planes started opting for 25 and things started going a little better.
LH was the first to try 28 for a while but by then, the wind had dissipated from 240@46G58 to 230@27G42, still quite a difference. 737's and the like were only going about 80 kts inside the markers.
When I did all my training and instructing at YYC from 1999-2004 we would use 25/07 all the time if the winds and traffic permitted it. It was hardly shunned for use and it was plenty wide and long for many aircraft types.
Great post by sa226 on the different crosswind techniques based upon the type of aircraft you are flying. Here is an old video showing the 777 undergoing crosswind landing tests, note how they land without kicking in some rudder before touchdown, testing the ability of the landing gears to take the force:
Uh Madman, 25 was being used for commercial jets on Sunday. I saw it with my own eyes and listened to ATC vector arrivals for it. Here is a quote from cyeg66 who is a YYC arrivals controller and posts on SSP:
When I did all my training and instructing at YYC from 1999-2004 we would use 25/07 all the time if the winds and traffic permitted it. It was hardly shunned for use and it was plenty wide and long for many aircraft types.
I stand corrected, my apologies and thanks for the heads up Bigtime.
I haven't seen an aircraft use 25 in so long, I figured it was no longer in main stream use.
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?
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?
Well i am not an professional pilot so anyone feel free to correct me, but for a missed approach the pilot has something called decision height at which he must intiate a missed approach if he feels for whatever reason, runaway not insight, runway conditions are not met for a safe landing. The ATC talk would be just the pilot informing ATC of the missed approach and than the pilot will follow the missed approach procedure for that runway and ATC may augment if required.
Although was the Continental a missed approach or a go around?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
The Following User Says Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
I am sure it would be calm as always. If it is panicky then he wouldn't and shouldn't be doing it. Not that it wouldn't have your spidey senses a little more on edge as those are winds we just don't see often, but it is not some crazy procedure. More than anything you would be ready for a windshear warning, which is very likely in these severe winds, which requires a maneuver similar to a go-around.
And yes large jets are able to go around at basically any point--lots of thrust there, and at a safe flying speed. A little different from carrier landings where they add power as they touch down on every landing, so if they miss an arrestor cable they are already on the go. For commercial jets we don't need to do that, there is enough runway ahead that there is time for the engines to spool up and go flying again. On Boeing product the only limitation is that once you have begun to deploy reverse thrust, you are then committed to land (comes from a PWA accident in Cranbrook years ago).
As well, in the sim we regularly do training for 'low energy' go-arounds---low altitude and low speed (well below normal approach speed).
So if you didn't like the way things were coming together on a windy day like that, you certainly reserve your right to go-around at basically any point.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
Depends on aircraft, type of approach,approach limits, airline rules etc. If the PIC feels he will not be able to land safely, he will throttle up and go around. The pilot not flying will call ATC to tell them. With big aircraft it takes a small amount of time to get full power to climb again. Sometimes you will an aircraft touchdown before going around.
Fighter jets are at full throttle upon landing in case the hook does not get hooked. Airliners idle back on flare.
#avgeek
The Following User Says Thank You to KelVarnsen For This Useful Post:
Mel, what do you consider to be the difference between a missed approach and a go around? The terms are generally interchangeable, but was curious what you believe the difference to be.
Mel, what do you consider to be the difference between a missed approach and a go around? The terms are generally interchangeable, but was curious what you believe the difference to be.
Well in my uneducated opinion i always thought if there was a difference that a missed approach would be declared by the pilot, who does not believe he is landing in safe conditions. A go around was usually requested by ATC if there was traffic on the runway or debris etc..
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
The Following User Says Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
Well i am not an professional pilot so anyone feel free to correct me, but for a missed approach the pilot has something called decision height at which he must intiate a missed approach if he feels for whatever reason, runaway not insight, runway conditions are not met for a safe landing. The ATC talk would be just the pilot informing ATC of the missed approach and than the pilot will follow the missed approach procedure for that runway and ATC may augment if required.
Although was the Continental a missed approach or a go around?
Essentially these are just different phases of an aborted landing. The PIC deems the approach/landing unsafe at any point above decision altitude (missed approach) and then executes the published missed-approach procedure to safely climb out, get off of runway heading and get back to the top of the ILS approach(going around).
The Following User Says Thank You to Flacker For This Useful Post:
Mel, what do you consider to be the difference between a missed approach and a go around? The terms are generally interchangeable, but was curious what you believe the difference to be.
I am imagining that a missed approach will always require a go around while a go around is not always indicative of a missed approach.
I was on a flight once where we were on final approach but there was still traffic on the runway and we had to go around. (Yes, the pilot informed the cabin that it was traffic that prevented the landing.)
But of course, I'm no pilot, so anyone else could chime in here.
Well in my uneducated opinion i always thought if there was a difference that a missed approach would be declared by the pilot, who does not believe he is landing in safe conditions. A go around was usually requested by ATC if there was traffic on the runway or debris etc..
A go around is the result of a missed approach OR a controller request. The pilot/FO will and does initiate the call "going around" on a missed approach. When they get passed to departure they will announce themselves as missed approach on runway XX and get merged back into approach traffic for runway XX or an alternate.
If I were to try and narrow it down, I suppose that a go around is the inital part of a missed approach procedure. But really, the two terms are used virtually interchangeably.
