Crosswinds with flaps

[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!

 

[northmountain]

Full flaps/no flaps

As far as light singles such as Pipers and Cessnas here is where most people make a mistake. They add way too much airspeed, float like heck, try to put it on the ground, 3 point it and get all sorts of nasty control issues. SOLUTION: With you and your mut in the aircraft you're flying way, way below max weight. Dang, that 172 stalls in the mid 30s with flaps...and even lower if you are well below MTOW. Heck, now you're approaching at 60-70 knots! Now I gotta bleed off 30 knots of airspeed...float...float...float....problems, problems...

In short, aerodynamics in a very lightly loaded single: it makes no sense to add 10 knots to a plane with zero flaps (assuming we just have a good solid x-wind; not a gusty situation).

 

[A Squared]

IAHERJ,

You seem to think that the comments you have posted should not be subject to comment by other forum readers, particularly ones who don’t fly the ERJ "80 hours a month". That’s an interesting stance, but it begs the question; What exactly is a forum, if participants are not allowed to comment on what has been posted?

Yeah, I haven’t flown the ERJ, haven’t ever flown a jet, probably never will. That’s really not too relevant, as my comments are based entirely on what you have said yourself .... oh, yeah, and on physics which is pretty much the same for the DC-6 and the ERJ and ultralights and the SR-71.

Now, I don’t know what the ERJ’s normal landing speed is, but all we have to do is look at your statement about the landing distance, to wit: " (when landing at 160 kt. touchdown speed) ......... you will need full reverse and brakes to get it stopped in less than 6,000 feet."

All right, let’s think about this. Under Part 121, you won’t be dispatched to any runway on which you can’t come to a full stop using only brakes, no reverse, and still have 40% of the runway left (if you fly the airplane like it’s supposed to be flown). If you’re using full reverse and full brakes to get stopped before the end, you’re doing something seriously wrong.

The question was asked, what are you going to do if the reversers fail? And no, the question was not "answered in his next sentance (sic)". That was part of the question, and you seem to have missed it. His point was that the certification and dispatch criteria is based on brakes only, yet you are advocating an operating technique which in your own words *requires* brakes *and* reverse thrust to get stopped in the available runway. The question still stands; If you need full reverse and brakes to get stopped in less than 6000 ft, what do you do when your reversers fail?

Hey, you’re the one who said: ".......fly the beast pretty fast right down to the #'s" and " .......you will need full reverse and brakes to get it stopped in less than 6,000 feet."


>>>>>The incident in CLE speaks for itself.

Yes, it does. The tragic part is that you’re not hearing what it says. Suffice to say, a pilot who normally computes the correct landing speed for the conditions, including gust factor, and flies that speed, to the best of his ability, all the time, is not going to suddenly find himself touching down 10-20 knots fast, with over 70 % of a contaminated runway already behind him. On the other hand, developing a tolerance for being significantly faster than the performance charts call for and cultivating the habit of throwing a in few extra knots (or 10, or 20)and getting comfortable with using most of a runway which is substantially longer than your minimum may not serve you well some day when things aren’t going well, and localizer antenna is looming large in the windscreen.


regards

 

[metrodriver]

Asquared, well said. I would like to know what normal Vref is on the ERJ max flaps, max landing weight. Touching down at 160?.
For other planes: In cessna's I wouldn't use more or less than 20' for 2 reasons:less would make the airplane float and somewhat more susseptible to turbulence. More than 20 would increase drag to such an extend that the airplane would be slow to respond to increased power in case of gusts/ downdrafts, and the flaps start blanking out the rudder. 20 degrees seemed to give the right combination of drag and controllability. In low wing planes I didn't go beyond 20-25 degrees either (2nd notch in a piper) I got this advice from a 55000 hour pilot (30000 in small planes) and in my 1600 hrs of teaching it worked well. On the metro's and 727 there was one setting: full flaps.