Crosswinds with flaps

[TDTURBO]

There seems to be some debate on this subject, I never use flaps in direct crosswinds in excess of 12 kts, I have seen too many planes get squirrely using them. I am mainly referring to high wing aircraft like Cessnas. I never have a problem with higher winds and I think the reason is not using flaps, what do you guys/gals think?

 

[Singlecoil]

Less flaps = faster approach speed = more rudder effectiveness.

Works well in the 207.

 

[Deftone45075]

I think it works pretty well in all aircraft. In light airplanes I always used less flaps in high winds, especially crosswinds.
In the J31, if the crosswind component exceeds 15, i'll land without the last notch. And regardless of wind direction if it is gusting above 30, i'll do the same.

Would much rather use up more runway and keep control, than come in slow and get blown off on the rollout.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There seems to be some debate on this subject, I never use flaps in direct crosswinds in excess of 12 kts, I have seen too many planes get squirrely using them. I am mainly referring to high wing aircraft like Cessnas. I never have a problem with higher winds and I think the reason is not using flaps, what do you guys/gals think?

...and aileron effectiveness.

I have seen see this sibject debated also. Haven't looked myself, but I've heard a number of people claim that if you look at landing accidents where crosswinds were a factor, there are more involving a faster approach speed than a lower one.

 

[tarp]

If I can't land an airplane fully configured inside the demonstrated envelope (crosswinds/gusts/etc) then there might be something wrong with me. When I go outside these parameters, I'm a test pilot anyway, so I might change the configuration.

If you take those flaps away from a C-182 won't it land flat?

Do you want to land flat in an airplane that has a whole history of nose wheel collapses on landing due to "heavy nose" characteristics? (That's not me - that's the conclusion of AOPA)

And just for a final argument - I operate out of a 5,000ft runway where one notch, two notches or the whole barn door really doesn't matter. But I also take my students to an 1800' runway for short field practice. Even if the x-wind is 15 knots, I'm using all those flaps - it helps if I'm well practiced for such an event.

My .02

 

[Deftone45075]

Speed control is important. Outside of light airplaes, there should be a published Vref speed for different flsp settings.

We use TOLD cards, and for a flaps 20 approach, you add 4 knots to the Flaps 35 Vref speed. Thus you target ref + 15 on the approach. Your control of the airspeed needs to be as good as it would any other time. Use the published figures for the appoach.

I would not advocate landng with NO flaps, unless there was a reason they could not be extended. And there are published speeds for those occasions too. In strong crosswind conditions, I don't tink it's a bad idea to leave out the last flap setting. I have been tought this in each airplane I have flown, including when I was in training for the J31. I know ACA teaches it as well.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Originally posted by tarp

I absolutely agree with you that

>If I can't land an airplane fully configured inside the demonstrated envelope (crosswinds/gusts/etc) then there might be something wrong with me.

But not with

>When I go outside these parameters, I'm a test pilot anyway, so I might change the configuration.

You're hardly a test pilot when you land an airplane hat has a POH that says to land with 0 to 30º flaps with 0º flaps. And as the AOPA ASF notes in the report you mention:

Section 4 of the POH suggests procedures for taking off and landing in crosswinds. Both should be performed with the minimum flap setting necessary for the field length.

>If you take those flaps away from a C-182 won't it land flat?

Not unless the pilot lands it flat.

>Do you want to land flat in an airplane that has a whole history of nose wheel collapses on landing due to "heavy nose" characteristics? (That's not me - that's the conclusion of AOPA)

Actually, the AOPA ASF said that these firewall accidents are for the most part the result of poor pilot technique:

Note: Improper speed control and a forward CG (full fuel and two occupants) results in bent firewalls being very common during 182 landings, especially for pilots transitioning from lighter airplanes. Hard landing forces are transmitted through the gear and engine support structure to the firewall. ASF recommends a full load checkout as part of your Skylane familiarization.

My experience is that the biggest culprit seems to be the transitioning 172 pilot pulling power to idle during the flare the way you can do in a 172, rather than carrying some power into the touchdown, reducing power to idle before beginning the flare, or bleeding power during the flare v-e-r-y slowly.

 

[ksu_aviator]

If I can't land an airplane fully configured inside the demonstrated envelope (crosswinds/gusts/etc) then there might be something wrong with me.

I agree. High wing airplanes should actually be better than low wings in crosswinds. The reason being low wings can wash out the rudder and elevators.

The way I figure my configuration is per the POM. It knows all. I follow its procedures and it has always worked out so far. Knock on Wood.

 

[tarp]

Midlife - you said:

"You're hardly a test pilot when you land an airplane that has a POH that says to land with 0 to 30º flaps with 0º flaps."

I was not referring to flap settings - I was rather talking about things like 19kt xwinds and gusts >20kts. When exceeding the max demonstrated x-wind, you have to get very creative to make a safe landing.

And as to the AOPA report, I guess we're just reading it differently - my case is that a C-182 has a great history of nose gear collapses due to poor pilot technique (one of the problems is speed control during landing). Ergo, increasing the speed (as you would have to do with less flaps in a x-wind) demands even a more deft touch from the pilot.

I've also found that when landing the C-182 without full flaps, most people unconsciously lower that big nose just enough to see the end of the runway over the top of the cowling - this creates a "flat" profile and a lot of 3-pointers at best and some wheelbarrowing at worst.

I understand your point - RESPECT and FLY the airplane. My experience is about 25% of the people out there understand that concept and so we have to build "failsafes" or "limits" to protect people from themselves.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Side Question: Pitch Attitude

tarp, you said:

>And as to the AOPA report, I guess we're just reading it differently - my case is that a C-182 has a great history of nose gear collapses due to poor pilot technique

>I've also found that when landing the C-182 without full flaps, most people unconsciously lower that big nose just enough to see the end of the runway over the top of the cowling

It seems we agree far more than we disagree.

You're right about trying to look over the nose. In fact, now that you mention it, I've never asked this question in this forum. This might be the appropriate discussion to raise it.

My theory about nose position is simple: In a tricycle gear airplane, your pitch attitude when you touch down should be the same as when you take off. When airplanes take off, their nosewheel leave the ground before th mains. If you touch down in the same attitude, you will not hit the nose first. Airplanes that tend to takeoff with a view over the nose (many low wings) land that way. And vice versa.

Using the 182 as an example, it's nose heaviness also means that the nose is a bit higher than you can see over when you takeoff. And, as tarp points out, you really need to have it stay up there when it lands.

I only fly single engines, but I've found it true in all that I have flown or ridden in - Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Cirrus, Diamond, Tigers, Bonanzas, maybe a couple of others - and it's been a big help to me when I learn how to fly something new.

Have you folks found this to be the case as well? I'm really curious about twins and whether its also true for the bigger aircraft.

 

[TDTURBO]

Oddly enough, Plane and Pilot just came in the mail today. I know it's a rag with mostly useless info but it does state unequivocally not to use flaps in a crosswind for a variety of reasons. At least they got that right.

 

[bobbysamd]

Crosswind landings

I dunno about large airplanes but I can tell you that most lightplanes do better with partial or zero flaps in crosswinds. Especially 172s. I tried and tried and tried to land them in crosswinds with flaps. I always did better with zero flaps and about 70 kts on final. Same with 182s (which seem to require a magical ability beyond the realm of most pilots to not land flat, unless someone's sitting in the back!).

One of the best crosswind landings I ever made was in a 172 with crosswinds howling across the runway in OKC (Sundance, actually). Maybe 20 kts direct. Carried about 20 kts extra of airspeed and landed zero flaps. Of course, it helped that I had a long runway.

To answer Midlife's question about multis, at least with Seminoles you land them just like any other low-wing Piper. Very friendly airplane to land. I tried the trick with leading a little with the upwing engine, but it wasn't worth the brain damage. I remember that the Barons I flew were also just fine in crosswinds. Just don't chop the power until you're near touchdown.

 

[phishn@daves]

Another point.

I think we should also mention the fact that in a 172 or any other aircraft, using full flaps limits your airspeed, higher speed equals more rigidity.

If you fly at a higher approach speed you will also have more control effectiveness, rudder and otherwise.

However, you still need to consider the skill of the pilot, I taught my students this method, but they also need to know their own limitations.

 

[phishn@daves]

Let me be the first to say that this has already been said.

I guess I should have read the post's!!!!!!!!!!

Fine work gentlemen and ladies.....carry on, just wanted to say good luck we're all counting on you.

 

[gopherflight]

I know of many ERJ pilots who use 22 flaps for landing in gusty winds. It has come to the point of check airman actually teaching new pilots this technique. But the only place in the POH that says you can land like this is the Abnormal Checklist for flap failure. Sure you still have plenty of runway to work but if a Fed came up to you and asked, "how did you determine your landing distance?", are you going to quote him numbers from the QRH? At this point you better have a write up in the can for the flaps not going all the way to 45!

 

[Mickey]

I watched a pilot almost crash because he decided to land with flaps 0. There was a six to seven knot crosswind and he learned that it was easier to land in a crosswind with less flaps, well he decided to go all the way with less and use 0. As we watched him float down the 3500' runway we all started yelling go around(I doubt he heard us , he finally added power and started a go around at the far end near the trees and then almost stalled it, we now were all yelling get your nose down. He made it, came around and did a landing with flaps that was uneventful. I feel pilots should learn how to properly control their airplanes in the first place before they have to start using "tricks" that make flying easier. I agree that there are times when landing with less than full flaps are desireable, however, going all the way to flaps 0 makes the landing longer and the length of time that the pilot has to apply correct crosswind correction longer too. This I have witnessed prolongs the time for the pilot to screw up. Without gusts I have found it easy to land quite a few different airplanes at their max. demonstrated crosswind components with full flaps. On very gusty days I like to use one notch less than full. A lot of the Cessnas do great in gusty crosswinds with flaps 20. If you have have to go with less, that is probably one of those days your passengers probabley didn't want to go in the first place.

In the ERJ it is quite normal to land with flaps 22 when you are heavy and there are gusts. This has nothing to do with crosswinds. If you add 1/2 the gust factor to your ref speed which will also raise your approach speed and this is higher than Vfe45 than you are REQUIRED to land flaps 22. This is not in the QRH but, in the SOP. We have speeds and performance for landing flaps 22. I'm not a test pilot but, one of my friends actually is.

Good luck and take care.

 

[Mickey]

Three pointers. There is a flying club here with a C182 and one of their instructors seems to be professing the 'land with with less flaps' is easier ideology. I tought several privates in C182s and would always tell them to watch when the club C182 was landing. They had smooth touch downs but, usually at high speeds and we saw quite a few three pointers, wheel barrows and skids as they made the same turn off the Citations used. It's harder to get a smooth landing with full flaps because of the steeper approach angle but, skill prevails. Practice properly and fly properly. I've had a lot of instrument students who flew worse than my pre solo students. They all seemed to stop trying after they passed their private check ride and started to find "tricks" to make flying easier.
Take care.

 

[Deftone45075]

not necessarily.

Bad technique makes your landing longer. An I would hardly consider using less flaps in high winds a "trick". It is approved and recomended. Plus the increased wind will slow your ground speed considerably making up for an increase in approach speed, so actually flying a little faster will give you the benefit of increased control effectiveness without increasing your lading distance.

I agree. High wing airplanes should actually be better than low wings in crosswinds. The reason being low wings can wash out the rudder and elevators.

Only if you flare the sh!t out of a low wing airplane. Otherwise you won't come anywhere near washing out the tail. And the win will be lower to the ground allowing less room for wind to get underneath it on the rollout. High wings are worse for this reason. Again, i would't necessarily use NO flaps, but having full flaps out on a windy day with a strong gusty crosswind will spell problems on the roll out.

 

[172driver]

Why would a no flap landing be flatter than a full flap landing? Seems to me that no flaps would allow a higher pitch attitude to get the same AOA out of the airplane. Thus, less flaps equals less flat.

Think of it this way...is the nose higher in slow flight with or without flaps?

Anyone can land flat in any configuration if they just set it down. It all comes down to technique.

 

[IAHERJ]

30 knots of x-wind on the ERJ is tough with 45 (full) flaps. I've used 22 plenty and the max speed for 22 is 200 KIAS meaning you can fly the beast pretty fast right down to the #'s. You just need to know what you've got under your wheels when you hit. 160 KIAS on the touchdown is dooable in an ERJ but you will need full reverse and brakes to get it stopped in less than 6,000 feet. My company is getting pretty worked up about this 22 degree landing stuff and for good reason. The important thing to think about is length of runway and condition of runway along with the X-wind and gust factor when determining the flap setting for landing.

This goes for the Cessna's as well. Gusty winds might make lining up on final and keeping it on centerline a bit easier at flaps 10 or no flaps. However you might have a 2500 foot runway with trees on both ends and you might float too much if you carry too much speed in at flaps 0. Get to know your plane regardless of size and try new tricks now and then. Just be sure you have the margain of error to play with. Especially if my family is on board.