The only reason I can think of, is to see exactly where the gauge needle sits when there is no usable fuel remaining.
-Skip
1 hour to empty - crosswind landing
- Thread starter skidoo
- Start date
-Skip
alfadog
Final Approach
Most pilots are taught to consider 60d as full xwind. I use a rule of 6ths from 0d to 60d to figure xwind. So it is an 18kt xwind. If someone wants to set their personal minimum at 15kt xwind, who are we to tell them they are a crap pilot?
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,869
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Kim that is an excellent way to get comfortable with ATC.( sitting right seat) Since you were essentially a pax on that angel flight it affords you the opportunity to work radios and not have to worry about actually flying the plan. A few trips like that and it will start to come naturally when your PIC.
I don't fly highwings mainly cherokees and I slip in an X-wind all the time, that would really concern me that I'd
only have 30 seconds for the slip.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Only with one tank dry, which unless you purposely did that for whatever reason doesn't happen in a high wing with a BOTH selection.
In practice it really is a non-issue, just verify your fuel status before final among the other pre-landing checks.
I was holding about a 40 degree WCA coming into 1L at IAD (this was before they built the new 1L) and asked tower if I didn't move any further east could I just land on 30. It was approved. As I'm turning off the runway I hear a united 767 that was on approach to 1R ask the same thing. I guess I started a trend.
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,365
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,183
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Gardner
You can ask the tower for anything, and unless safety is compromised you will get what you asked for. Using a taxiway for takeoff or using a runway other than the one everyone else is using gets the "at your own risk" warning.
Bob Gardner
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,365
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
There is still considerable fuel in many tanks when you're at the unuseable fuel level. It all depends on the outlet geometry. The older Cessnas had one outlet on the inboard end of the tank, near the middle point between front and back of the tank, and the unusable fuel level was the fuel that wouldn't flow out if the airplane was in the most extreme pitch attitude expected during normal operations. This might be a power-off glide with full flaps, or it might be a Vx climb. The fuel will slosh to the front or back of the tank and unport when below the unuseable fuel level.
Later models have two outlets, one front and one rear, whose lines run down the respective doorposts and meet near the front post. This reduces the amount of unusable fuel.
The TCDS lists unusable fuel for most models. It's the difference between the amount shown on the airplane next to the filler and the amount shown on the fuel selector. The fuel gauge must read zero when the unusable fuel level is reached. FAR 23.1337 (b)(1):
"(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read “zero” during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under §23.959(a);"
Good luck with that on the Cessna gauges...
Dan
Last edited:
Captain
Final Approach
I've never liked the term 'Crab and Kick'. It implies an aggressive rudder movement.
I just fly a crab to the flare and then apply rudder pressure to line up. As rudder pressure is applied aileron pressure is applied as well to hold center line. As long as you're below your max XWind limitation (demonstration) you should be fine. 18kts from 60 degrees should be a problem at all.
I just fly a crab to the flare and then apply rudder pressure to line up. As rudder pressure is applied aileron pressure is applied as well to hold center line. As long as you're below your max XWind limitation (demonstration) you should be fine. 18kts from 60 degrees should be a problem at all.
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 20,703
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
Ordinarily the tower makes ATIS runway assignments based on the winds. I've heard people request an inactive runway for crosswind practice, but to have to ask the tower for a more favorable runway would be a first for me.
Sometimes though the tower might offer other than the active runway if traffic is light and the approaching aircraft is already lined up for it.
N747JB
Final Approach
I had the same fear of towers when I started in 1984, my son is learning at a towered airport and has a tough time with uncontrolled fields.
It's all a matter of what you get used to, you'll get used to the towered fields and learn to like them more than using CTAF.
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 20,703
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
I had the same fear of towers when I started in 1984, my son is learning at a towered airport and has a tough time with uncontrolled fields.
That was my deal! I learned at a towered airport and was alway based at a towered airport. I had a tough time with non towered fields at first too!
azure
Final Approach
KPTK and KDET both have a runway that has no instrument approaches and is too short and/or narrow for big iron to use. Typically they only assign one of the "main" runways regardless of the wind direction, unless you ask for the crosswind runway. For example, at PTK with 34015G20KT reported, you will get either 27L or 27R unless you ask for 36. (Actually, if it's variable and has been mostly from the NE, you might even get assigned to 9L or 9R.)
At DET the crosswind runway is 7/25. Both that one and 18/36@KPTK are NOTAM'd for day VFR use only.
By the way, I'd have that plane looked at. The usable fuel should be available in all flight regimes. Either your idea of how much usable fuel you have is crocked, or there's something wrong with your airplane.
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,869
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
My greater concern would not be running a tank dry but the unporting that was mentioned above. Wouldn't that have the same effect as having an empty tank?
Alexb2000
En-Route
No because you have the header tank to buffer it. I believe the concern is having one tank absolutely bone dry (not just indicating empty). Then slipping and unporting the other tank with remaining fuel so long that the header tank empties, then you'll suck some air. The whole thing is just far fetched if you look at the restart fuel tanks with their low point dual inboard/outboard pickups. Given the numbers in the fleet we would have seen this problem before if there was a problem to be found.
Of course just straight running out of gas... well no ones solved that yet.
alfadog
Final Approach
That would be personal "maximum" and I didn't say he was a crap pilot, you did.
Usually lumped in with "personal minimums. As far as the other, no, it was you. Mean what you say and own what you mean.
Last edited:
Skylane81E
Final Approach
I had the same fear of towers when I started in 1984, my son is learning at a towered airport and has a tough time with uncontrolled fields.
I still have fear, but I'm at millionair at IND right now so I'm getting over it!
I didn't say or mean crappy; inexperienced and poorly trained doesn't make him crappy, it makes him ill trained and overly timid.
Most pilots are taught that?
Really?
I must not be most pilots.
Where did you pick up this tidbit?
Yep, that's my point. -Skip
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
Plan to land with more fuel.
Not so, and this is the case for many aircraft; below certain values, one may have fuel on board, but may not be able to use all of it. Clearly attitude can affect the ability to use the fuel. Try rolling inverted and staying there for any length of time.
Who teaches this? Ninety degrees is a "full crosswind," or more accurately, a direct crosswind.
The 200 series fuel systems are not the same. The same reasoning can apply, but the design and function of the fuel systems is different.
This is not the case, and in fact I'm flying an aircraft right now which has this very warning written into the flight manual, about the risk of losing power if one tank is allowed to run dry.
Inverted is NOT an approved flight regime for most aircraft. A slip is. Unless there is an explicit warning (for example, my aux tank is placarded for level flight only) you should be able to get all the usable fuel in a slip.
I don't think alfadog was saying that 60 degrees is actually defined as a 'full crosswind', just that as a quick mental approximation of the crosswind component they are close.
Down the runway 0%, 30 degrees off exactly 50%, 60 degrees off close(-ish) to 100% (more precisely, 87%). So the approximation is also a conservative one.
Down the runway 0%, 30 degrees off exactly 50%, 60 degrees off close(-ish) to 100% (more precisely, 87%). So the approximation is also a conservative one.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
A direct crosswind is 90 degrees, not 87 degrees.
A direct crosswind is not 60 degrees, either.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,186
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
I believe you misunderstand the quote.
Alexb2000
En-Route
I'm not an A&P and I'm sure there are differences at that level. However, looking at page 7-42 of the 182T POH and page 7-53 of the T206H POH shows exactly the same diagram for the fuel system. Perhaps instead of just saying someone is wrong you can offer the differences and more importantly how that will make a difference with regards to slipping.
This is why I run my Auxes dry; besides, it's not that predictable on time since the rate of bypass/return is multi variable rather than fixed, and it returns to the mains.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Right, it's a handy ballpark way to determine the crosswind. There's no reason to determine it with much more accuracy. Since you are not flying in a laboratory under controlled conditions the wind will be shifting direction and velocity anyway.
I have a 172M model. Been many of times over the years ive had to divert to a alternate airport because of winds or other weather, diverting is all part of VFR flying
This is 18kts crosswind... sorry, it's long.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Sorry to digress, but it is a lot more fun reading Greg's comments now that I've met him in person. I can just hear him saying them...
(True of any PoAers I've met really, but Greg has a distinctive voice.
)
The "tidbit" is your statement that this is what most pilots are taught. How do you know what most pilots are taught?
BTW, I don't figure xwind for 19G23, I just land.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
I was taught, and teach, the "rule of thumb" that a 30 degree angle means the xwind factor is "about" 50% and that for 60 degrees or more, to treat the entire wind as xwind. I also was taught and teach how to use a computer to figure it exactly. But the only time the "exact" measurement matters is on a written test.
For a student operating under a limit on the X-wind factor, calculating it exactly might have it's use, but the rule of thumb will be safer.
When I'm flying, I use the reported winds as "advice". If I have real concerns, I'll make a low approach and make sure that I can maintain the runway centerline before coming around again for real. And the minute I can't maintain lateral position I abort the landing.
Oh, and to the original topic, In that situaton I tend to crab on the approach and kick into a slip just before the flare. The time spent in the slip is relatively short.
For a student operating under a limit on the X-wind factor, calculating it exactly might have it's use, but the rule of thumb will be safer.
When I'm flying, I use the reported winds as "advice". If I have real concerns, I'll make a low approach and make sure that I can maintain the runway centerline before coming around again for real. And the minute I can't maintain lateral position I abort the landing.
Oh, and to the original topic, In that situaton I tend to crab on the approach and kick into a slip just before the flare. The time spent in the slip is relatively short.
Last edited:
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
It's not really something you'll need to worry about unless you're going to get checked out in a 205, 206, 207, or 210.
The most significant difference in the fuel system operationally, not to do with slipping, is the incorrect fuel flow fluctuation procedure spelled out in the Cessna AFM for the 200 series piston models. When large fuel flow fluctuations occur, Cessna would have you apply boost pressure to stabilize the flow, and this is more likely to cause an engine failure, often an unrecoverable one, than it is to fix the problem. Unless one understands the fuel system, one wouldn't understand why, and this could be a fatal misunderstanding.
One doesn't need to be an A&P: if one flies the airplane, one should understand the systems as well as any A&P. It may just save your life. I've always encouraged pilots to get the maintenance manual and study it, because it provides a lot more systems information understanding than the pilot operating handbook or aircraft flight manual.
The fact is that there are significant differences, and one shouldn't simply make the mistake of thinking that because both airplanes look roughly the same, they're alike. They're not.
This is somewhat mystifying. Poster after poster has talked about fuel flow, low fuel, and slipping, because of a crosswind. When one flies to the runway crabbed into the wind, the airplane has no idea whether it's pointed this way or that (the airplane has no idea of anything, of course, as it has no ideas). The fuel flow is unaffected. This is no different than flying cross-country, crabbed with a wind correction angle. The only difference is that during landing your immediate destination is a runway and you're descending toward the runway. Otherwise, the airplane might as well be sitting on the ramp, or at 10,000' in cruise. Fuel flow isn't affected, and flying in a crab toward the runway because of a crosswind doesn't cause any change in fuel position in the tanks.
We don't say we're slipping when we apply a wind correction angle in cruse. We're not doing anything different when applying a wind correction angle during the approach to land. If you fly the entire approach with a wing low, holding rudder to align the long axis of the airplane with the runway, then certainly the potential is there to have a problem, but why would anyone do that? It's foolish.
When we see someone flying landings like that at the airport, it's a sure sign that they're very inexperienced, that they don't fly much with passengers, and that they don't fly much at all. It's unnecessary. Instead, keep the wings level, fly to the runway using whatever crab is necessary, and you'll know well in advance about wind strength by observing the crab that's necessary.
Why bother? It's a stiff right crosswind. Manageable. If you're not comfortable with 23 knots of gusty crosswind, then go somewhere else. If you are, then land, and know it's from the right. Fly the procedure crabbed into the wind. If it's a lot of crab, then you know it's a lot of wind. If it's a little bit of crab, you've got a little bit of wind. Done.
If you really need to know how much rudder you've got to kick out the crab, do it once during the approach and see. This may change, of course, because wind changes during the descend to lower altitude. Wind will usually be stronger at higher altitudes, excepting certain cases during inversions, meaning if you can align the airplane higher during the approach, then you can do it at the surface.
There are some locations that notoriously have significantly different winds on the surface from the approach. Kabul springs to mind, where a 30 knot difference and up to a 180 degree wind direction difference may exist in some cases. It's not uncommon to have a 30 knot tailwind during the approach but to have a 10 knot crosswind or headwind on the surface, due to an inversion. There, the issue is the windshear more than the issue of a crosswind, although a stiff crosswind is sometimes also the issue.
I've never taught a student to gauge the crosswind component. In fact, I do the opposite. Plan for the full value as a full crosswind. Anything less is gravy. If the wind is gusting 23 knots from the right, then it's 23 knots from the right. If you're not comfortable with that, look to plan B.
Alexb2000
En-Route
We are talking about restart 182's and 206's powered by Lycomings, not Continental birds. Two aircraft that I have owned and studied. My comment about the A&P level is that the part numbers are certainly different for certain items, however the functional aspects of the systems appear to be identical.
The only thing that is relevant to the conversation is the fuel system as it relates to side slips in a crosswind landing. I stand on my earlier comments.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
The fuel systems are not identical. Refer back to my previous comments.
You should know your systems. Because the airplane look alike does not make it so.
alfadog
Final Approach
Yeah, heaven forbid someone should say something. Everything I express is my opinion and my experience. YMMV. So you do not care to know the crosswind? Well, I feel pretty safe in saying that is not how folks are taught. So what is your point regarding how folks are taught? Other than that I am wrong, of course.
Last edited:
alfadog
Final Approach
And how are you going to know if you have a 23 kt xwind if you do not make some mental calculation??
I see that as a contradiction. So if the wind is gusting 30 kt at 30 degrees and your student is not comfortable with anything over 20 kt xwind component then they fly somewhere else because you want them to figure the 30 kt as direct?? Makes no sense. Oh, you say, your student can land in 30 kt crosswind? Well, I don't think he should be but make it any number you like. Your statements don't work together.
Remember this mini-hijack started with someone saying they are not comfortable with 18 kt at 60d. That is their personal limit. Make it 20 kt or 24 kt, if you think 18 is too low. You guys that do not figure xwind have nothing useful to tell that person.
Last edited: