Crosswinds with flaps

[bobbysamd]

Cessna crosswind landings

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.

Frankly, I don't believe that seven knots of crosswind is much at all. It's not enough to warrant landing a Cessna with zero flaps. 20 degrees max works just fine with a 7-kt crosswind.

If you have 10-15 kts straight across the runway you use zero flaps in a Cessna. And make sure your runway is long enough. No, I would not consider landing the airplane in that configuration on a 2500-foot runway.

 

[Jet_Dreamer]

All the ideas posted here seem reasonable. But the main thing to worry about during a crosswind landing would be a better use of rudder control. Sure less flaps can be used, but i would not recommend 0 flaps. In my opinion it would be wise to think about how much rudder you are using during a xwind landing and not just your flap setting.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Jet_Dreamer said
In my opinion it would be wise to think about how much rudder you are using during a crosswind landing and not just your flap setting.

"Thinking" about "how much" rudder (or aileron) to use is not a particularly good idea.

For me. the "thinking" for crosswind landings comes down to two items:

1. As I flare and touchdown*, I must keep the centerline between my feet using aileron and my chest square with the centerline using rudder.

2. As I touchdown, I must release rudder pressure (assuming a steerable nosewheel) so that when the nosewheel touches, I don't turn, and bring in my full aileron taxi correction.

* I take no position on any particular point for the transition to the crosswind slip position ("slip all the way down" v. "crab & kick").

 

[DoinTime]

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!

Wasn't the use of flaps 22 one of the contributing factors to that COEX ERJ going off the end of the runway in EWR awhile back? Doesn't sound like such a great technique to me.

 

[IAHERJ]

We've never had an ERJ go off the runway at EWR. Your comment lost all credibility after that inaccurate statement.

 

[DoinTime]

Was it CLE then? I don't remember and I don't really care. The only thing that matters is that your line pilots have adopted an abnormal procedure for normal operations and it resulted in hull damage. I didn't see anyone else go off the runway that day.

 

[gopherflight]

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.

This is the menatality that forms the weakest link the the proverbial accident chain. Touchdown at 160 KIAS and the reversers don't work, then what? The ERJ landing performance was certified with brakes only. You've just become a test pilot. If it's too much crosswind, GO AROUND! Unless you are out of gas or N1 on both engines = 0, you don't have to land there! This falls in the same category of pilots high-speeding it to 300-400 ft then loading up about 2g on the airplane to bleed off airspeed dropping everything out then dive back down towards the runway! Forget the concept of a stabilized approach!

 

[JRSLim]

Conditions and experience.

Crosswind landings are, to a point, going to depend on the situation/pilot/aircraft. I go by the POH first, next by my training and then by the situation. I make standard approaches with regular flap setting in most crosswinds, and I haven't had any issues with this so far. In much higher winds in general I use half flaps. Although I rarely use 0 flaps I don't see where this would cause a flat landing - that is up to the pilot. And, as mentioned, you need to take into consideration the field situation.

Shaun

 

[A Squared]

OK, I got curious about this alleged overrun and had a look at the NTSB database.

Continental Express did indeed put one off the end at Cleveland. Here's the link:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20030109X00039&key=1


According to the brief, they touched down at 150 knots with 1800 feet remaining of a 6800 foot runway. Ok, if it takes full reverse, full brakes, and 6000 feet to get stopped from 160 knots, what exactly did this guy have planned at 150 knots and 1800 feet of pavement in front of him?

Hmmmmm..... maybe this 200 kt to the numbers, 160 kt, 22 flap touchdown isn't such a nifty idea after all.

regards

 

[TDTURBO]

Generally, flaps aren't used in crosswind landings since they make the aircraft more difficult to handle with crosswind control inputs. Also, on touchdown, extended flaps give the wind a chance to pick up the plane again and push the aircraft sideways because of the increased lift. Less flaps means more weight transfer to the gear and better breaking.

With regard to high wing, it's easier for the wind to get under the wing, making it less stable than a low wing. You have more rudder effectiveness do to the higher approach speeds enabling higher crosswind components.

The flight characteristic of a high wing aircraft is to float-the low wing settles more quickly. The more you float, the greater the chance of losing control.

Generally, the farther spaced apart the landing gear, the higher the demonstrated crosswind component. The landing gear in high wings is attached to the fuselage making it narrower than the wing mounted low wing gear. Also, once on the ground, the long spring gear generally used on high wings is less stable than short, fixed gear.

There shouldn't be a debate about flap usage in high wing airplanes, using flaps10 or less is proven accepted practice. Any other way should be done with past confidence in your skills, ability, experience and the type of aircraft you’re flying.

I rarely use flaps in my 182 and never land flat or long, but that’s what I do all the time and it works for me.

 

[Deftone45075]

Comes down to technique

I rarely use flaps in my 182 and never land flat or long, but that’s what I do all the time and it works for me

It's all about good technique. If you fly the plane right, less flaps will not result in a longer landing roll, or a flat touchdown. The increased headwind will make up for your extra speed as far as groundspeed is concerned, thus not adding to the rollout. And if you don't abuse the extra speed (ie. carrying too much) your pitch attitude will be higher with less flaps.

Hmmmmm..... maybe this 200 kt to the numbers, 160 kt, 22 flap touchdown isn't such a nifty idea after all.

Again, technique. Probably not what he planned, however 200 to the numbers than pulling it back is a bit too much. A little less flaps will not cause you to come in with that much extra speed.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Deftone45075 said:
It's all about good technique. If you fly the plane right, less flaps will not result in a longer landing roll, or a flat touchdown.

What a concept! And, of course, this applies to landing with full flaps in a crosswind.

Interesting how this thread has progressed, with each side's advocates pointing out something terrible that will happen if you do it the other way... with poor piloting technique!

When I first learned to fly, I was taught the "dangers" of full flaps in crosswinds. One of my personal minimums became, "If I'm heading to an airport with a short runway and there's a substantial crosswind, I'd go somewhere else" rather than attempt the dreaded full-flap crosswind landing! I couldn't imagine ever doing such a stupid thing.

Then, when I was working on my CFI, I managed to forget how to land altogether and had to be re-taught. One day, my CFI and I were working on my landings yet again (I felt like a pre-solo student). The winds were a nice steady 12-15 KTS straight across the runway. Mike asked me for a short field landing.

"What!!!???" I exclaimed. "You want me to set up with FULL FLAPS in THIS crosswind?"

"Yes," said Mike (unlike me, he's a man of few words)

So I did it. Landed on the centerline, airplane properly aligned. I was shocked! But we did it a few more times and it was no fluke.

Personally, I prefer landing in a crosswind with less flaps. Even the extra 5 KTS means more control effectiveness, so smaller deflections of the controls will produce changes more quickly. It's just more comfortable, especially for passengers. But to blame the flaps, one way or another, for a bad pilot?

 

[DoinTime]

It's all about good technique. If you fly the plane right, less flaps will not result in a longer landing roll, or a flat touchdown. The increased headwind will make up for your extra speed as far as groundspeed is concerned, thus not adding to the rollout.

Less flaps will always result in a longer landing roll. More airspeed = more runway. This increased distance is expressed as a percentage of normal landing distance so the shorter the normal rollout the shorter the difference. Increased headwind is not a guarantee and will be nonexistant in a direct xwind.

Again, technique. Probably not what he planned, however 200 to the numbers than pulling it back is a bit too much. A little less flaps will not cause you to come in with that much extra speed.

This is dependent upon the design of the wing/flap and normal landing speed of the airplane. The CRJ has a Vref (flaps 45) of 142 kts at max landing weight. If you reduce the flaps to 20 your Vref just became 154 kts. Your landing distance just became a minimum of 18% longer, or about 500 feet, assuming hydroplaning isn't a factor.


I think what this has turned into is people referring exclusively to small aircraft with straight wing and other people exclusively referring to large aircraft with swept wings. I have never used less flaps in any aircraft for xwind landings and I don't believe it is necessary. Maybe people that have poor aircraft control can justify the tradeoffs more than I can.

 

[A Squared]

Re: Comes down to technique

It's all about good technique. If you fly the plane right, less flaps will not result in a longer landing roll, or a flat touchdown. The increased headwind will make up for your extra speed as far as groundspeed is concerned, thus not adding to the rollout. And if you don't abuse the extra speed (ie. carrying too much) your pitch attitude will be higher with less flaps.

Less flaps will result in longer rollout, unless you have a headwind component which exceeds the additional speed you are carrying. Remember, we're talking about *crosswinds* which may have a very small headwind component. You're right about the pitch though, assuming your speed is matched to your flap setting, less flaps is higher pitch

Again, technique. Probably not what he planned, however 200 to the numbers than pulling it back is a bit too much. A little less flaps will not cause you to come in with that much extra speed.

Right, probably not what the captain who ran off the end of the runway planned, but I was referring to the comments of IAHERJ. He *is* proposing landing in this manner. In his own words, he recommends:

"fly the beast pretty fast right down to the #'s."
"160 KIAS on the touchdown", and
"full reverse and brakes to get it stopped in less than 6,000 feet."

sounds like a recipie for a disaster to me

 

[ReportCanoa]

The effect of the crosswind is less as your TAS increases, if you are approaching at a higher speed, the crosswind does not affect you as much. You don't have to use as much rudder travel. It is all relative. Normally, below the max demonstrated xwind limit, there is plenty of rudder effectiveness. No need to gain more by going faster. That is what the max demonstrated number is all about.

Now check airmen are trying to translate this falsehood to the ERJ at 160 knots on final. Please don't try this with my family on board, just to make a smoother touchdown. Unless you have runway data that says it is safe. Thanks....

 

[IAHERJ]

The maximum demonstrated x-wind component for the ERJ is 30 knots for a dry runway. Maximum flap speed for flaps 45 is 145 in the old ones and 160 on the XRJ. Maximum flaps 22 speed is 200. Touching down around 160 when you have plus or minus 15 knot gains and losses on a visual day with a dry runway that has plenty of length is not unsafe. The response above asking what I'd do if the reversers failed was answered in his next sentance. Reverse is not part of the landing distance calculations anyway.The few times I have actually touched down at a speed like 160 we had the required runway length, I just use reverse in order not to have to heat up the brakes. A recipe for disaster? I don't think so. When the conditions are within the limitations of the aircraft, you operate the flight to the destination. I have never suggested breaking a limitation and would not do so myself. I just feel that the ERJ, the airplane I fly 80 hours a month in, handles bettter in windy conditions at a higher airspeed. If you put the aircraft down in the touchdown zone(not with 1800 feet remaining), it will stop on a dime. We're an airline, passangers pay our company good money to get them from point A to point B. If the conditions at an arrival airport are out of the limitations range for the aircraft, we go somewhere else. X-winds are a reality and X-winds up to 30 KTS are a reality in many of the cities we frequent all Winter. I think a few of the posters above seem to think that I advocate landing fast on snow covered runways and the CLE incident has somehow caused a thread drift because I happen to fly an ERJ. I refrain from making comments on DC-6's and CRJ's as I have no idea as to the techniques used to fly these airplanes, nor the limitations of either aircraft. I guess others are experts on all fleet types, I'm not.

The incident in CLE speaks for itself. I won't comment on it except to say that it was our first in CLE and out of the past 5 years, 3 MD-80's have gone off the longer parallel 6R. That's a pretty lame justification I know but it's true.

I try not to make it a habit to question or make judgement calls on another pilot's abilities or decision making process. I know this is a forum but some of us should concentrate on flying our own aircraft and not worrying about policing others.

IAHERJ

 

[ReportCanoa]

Pilots can't use arbitrary numbers for approach. Landing limits are calculated for the following: 50 feet' and Vref (not factored) over the threshold.

The airplane landing distance must be 60% or less of the available runway. This is a planning issue.

If it is necessary to land on a contaminated runway, or a failure enroute precludes use of some particular systems (anti-skid, flaps, ground spoilers, etc.), then the QRH provides ACTUAL landing distance information. This is an acceptable use of that data.

However, if people are using that data with no actual need for it, that is blatantly non-standard, and unsafe.

Is it SOP to land with less than full flap config? It very well may be, I'm just curious, and not trying to judge anyone.

Thanks...

 

[IAHERJ]

So let me ask you a question. You depart for an airport that is reporting MVFR and winds60 degrees off centerline at 12-15 Knots. You get close and ATIS reports gusts to 30 knots and +-1--15 knots at 800 feet. You could just fly full flaps at your Vref for your weight. I think it would be a wild ride and the landing could be pretty rough. Or you could fly a faster approach speed and (if your company allows) use a lower flap setting thus allowing the airplane to be more stable requiring less throttle jockying on short final. I'm not saying that you plan around actual landing distance. Very few airports we serve have runways that are short enough to even look at those numbers anyway. The point is you as the pic have a choice once airborn to fly a faster than normal approach and put the airplane on the first 1000 feet of the runway on one of those days (10 percent of your landings at the most) when the conditions warrant some consideration regarding landing speeds.

Maybe I'm 180 degrees wrong here. Will have this discussion this week on my 4 day out of EWR.

 

[fulcrum]

flaps increase the tendency of the airplane to point into the wind , also in some airplanes they interfere with the flow of air over the tail surfaces , so control is compromised in a x-wind , so if you are using flaps , in a strong- x-wind , come in with a little extra power and speed ........ if the runway allows that and you will have so much more control over your airplane.
fulcrum

 

[logolight]

What I've learned in the Cessna is that using full flaps in high winds creates what I call the "parachute effect". If you take a toy parachute and hold it in your hand on a breezy day, you will see the parachute whip around from side to side in the wind. In comparison, what happens is when the flaps are down, a pocket is created in the area between the wing and the extended flap that in theory resembles the dynamic shape of the parachute. ( even though the flap is slotted ) When a wind gust hits the aircraft, the "parachute" shape of this area causes the aircraft to be more susseptible to turbulence and harder to control. The use of less flaps will allow for better contolability.



Snooch to the Nooch!