Landings in wind

If I may add as a student pilot ... practice - practice - practice. I live in NC and the springtime weather can at best be considered bi-polar :D. Most of my lessons this year have been in what most people would call challenging wind, especially for a student. I still went up and worked it out with my CFI and the pay off is now that the weather is turning nicer (and hotter - bummer) the wind is better and my landings are on center-line and soft touch downs. All that pattern work in the "bad" wind paid off. My vote would be schedule time with your CFI on "bad" wind days and work it out.
 
In theory, it should be simple: rudder to keep the nose aligned with the runway, aileron for lateral movement to stay on the centerline. But since each affects the other, while as speed is decreasing the amount of control input necessary increases, it can be pretty difficult to master all the varying variables!

Here’s an exercise that I found helps - carrying enough power to just practice the rudder and aileron coordination without having to worry about actually landing:


I’d often introduce this by flying along a road at about pattern altitude, slipping the plane left and right while keeping the nose straight.

Don’t worry It will eventually become automatic.
 
Doesn't have to be a crosswind to practice this, hold some aileron in, then hold it straight w/the rudder and land on one main. If this is difficult on a calm day, it will be really difficult on a windy day.
 
Mxfarm said:
Doesn't have to be a crosswind to practice this, hold some aileron in, then hold it straight w/the rudder and land on one main. If this is difficult on a calm day, it will be really difficult on a windy day.
Click to expand...

That will put side load on your gear. Better to find a cross runway on a windy day and practice the real thing. I had an instructor who would do that on flight reviews if the wind was blowing down the runway. Most towers will give you a crosswind runway if you ask and it's not too busy.
 
PaulS said:
That will put side load on your gear. Better to find a cross runway on a windy day and practice the real thing. I had an instructor who would do that on flight reviews if the wind was blowing down the runway. Most towers will give you a crosswind runway if you ask and it's not too busy.
Click to expand...
So you're saying the crosswind negates the side load?
 
RyanB said:
As long as the drift is corrected before the wheel touches, there won’t be any side load.
Click to expand...
If there's no crosswind and you land on one wheel, you'll be crabbed to compensate for the wing down so there will indeed be side load on the wheel.
 
Dana said:
If there's no crosswind and you land on one wheel, you'll be crabbed to compensate for the wing down so there will indeed be side load on the wheel.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m not understanding the situation, but if the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is aligned with the runway and there’s no drift, I don’t see how there can be any side load.
 
RyanB said:
Maybe I’m not understanding the situation, but if the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is aligned with the runway and there’s no drift, I don’t see how there can be any side load.
Click to expand...
If there's no crosswind, the airplane is aligned with the runway, and the wings are not level then there will be drift. It might be small if there's not much bank, but it's there if the conditions are really met. This describes a slip, and in a slip the relative wind (in this case the flight path over the ground since no crosswind) is not aligned with the longitudinal axis of the airplane.

Nauga,
and a free-body diagram
 
My take is, if I can't land in a no wind situation, without side loading the gear in a slip, I sure can't do it w/a crosswind. YMMV
 
If you watch my video, I think it’s the momentum of the plane down the runway that precludes any significant side loads, even when alternating wheels. IOW, you can roll the wheel on before any significant drift occurs - hence, no side load.
 
Mxfarm said:
My take is, if I can't land in a no wind situation, without side loading the gear in a slip, I sure can't do it w/a crosswind. YMMV
Click to expand...

I don't think you are accounting for what a side slip does. If you are aligned with the runway, wing low, slipping you have lateral movement to the centerline of the runway if there is no crosswind to counter your slip.
 
PaulS said:
I don't think you are accounting for what a side slip does. If you are aligned with the runway, wing low, slipping you have lateral movement to the centerline of the runway if there is no crosswind to counter your slip.
Click to expand...
Just having trouble how one could fly straight down the runway and move laterally ( side to side ) @ the same time.
 
Pilawt said:
View attachment 107752

View attachment 107753

There are a handful of airplanes that are designed to be landed level in a crosswind, which means some crossways motion when touching down.
Click to expand...

They are rare, yet I got the treat to have been assigned to two of them (B-52H and T-38C). In the former case, the crosswind crab system took care of the extra side load, by pilot-selected castering the trucks to the expected crab angle (it's a range, but close enough) at touchdown. In the latter, we just scoff the living shiaaaatzu massage out of those ludicrous-psi inflated teenie 5 inch wide shopping cart tires we slam on for a living lol. And we go through a metric ton of them. After all, tires are our ordnance in the land of the AETC warrior.

I often get the question from students, especially in my UPT days as they transitioned out of the Tex2, as to why we don't use wing low method to land the -38. I take them up to the MOA and demo the reason why. Usually they get it when we're sitting with three green and handle down...at 179 degrees of bank. :D
 
Mxfarm said:
Just having trouble how one could fly straight down the runway and move laterally ( side to side ) @ the same time.
Click to expand...

If there is no wind, and you have the axis of the airplane aligned with the runway plus a wing low, the airplane will be moving laterally unless you are also in a crab (forward slip). So landing in a crab, or landing while the airplane is moving laterally will result in side load on the airplane. You can usually feel this when the wheels touch, your butt will jerk sideways as things straighten out.
 
In the vernacular, I was trained w/a crab is not a slip. But I understand now what you're saying.
 
I'm trying to imagine how this "landing misaligned with the runway to simulate a crosswind landing" technique would work in a tailwheel aircraft. I could be wrong, never tried it, but think it wouldn't end well. I'm certain it wouldn't explain well if you cartwheeled the aircraft.

Why not just practice crosswind landings using an actual crosswind landing? That seems like it would be lot more productive.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I take them up to the MOA and demo the reason why. Usually they get it when we're sitting with three green and handle down...at 179 degrees of bank. :D
Click to expand...
I don't get it. Are you saying the airplane flips upside down with the gear down in a sideslip? o_O
 
Done it lots in a tailwheel... no issue at all. It’s a wheel landing, so you still have flying speed and lots of rudder.

As you slow down you have no choice but to get aligned and work it all out to straight, at which point it’s like a regular 3 pt landing.

The concern is the extra drag caused by the tire “skidding”, which it is. Turns out to just not be that big a deal. Disclaimer, never tried it with tundra wheels...
 
Albany Tom said:
I'm trying to imagine how this "landing misaligned with the runway to simulate a crosswind landing" technique would work in a tailwheel aircraft. I could be wrong, never tried it, but think it wouldn't end well. I'm certain it wouldn't explain well if you cartwheeled the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Not recommending it to this extreme, but one can fast-forward to about 6 minutes in to see it done as part of a “drunk pilot” routine:

 
Mxfarm said:
So you're saying the crosswind negates the side load?
Click to expand...
It depends on how you view the world. The lateral vector of the airplane can null the wind or it can be the other way around. I always looked at it from the perspective of “side load negating the wind” because I control the “side load.”
 
Thinking about it, if you’re moving down the runway at 50 kts at touch down, and drifting laterally at maybe a couple kts, side load would be minimal in this exercise.

IMHO, of course.
 
dtuuri said:
I don't get it. Are you saying the airplane flips upside down with the gear down in a sideslip? o_O
Click to expand...

Yes, with most people at the controls.

It is possible to sideslip the aircraft, but the roll coupling and hydro boosted nature of the rudder at higher angles of attack ,(such as those encountered during the touchdown phase of a landing) is so dramatic that the preponderance of pilots out there are incapable of not over controlling and flipping over, or get into a self induced "saber dance" and have to eject anyhow.

Northrop test pilots recognized this aerodynamic quirk of the airplane and modified the gear and procedures in order to accept full crabbing touchdowns, at the expense of the tires.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yes, with most people at the controls.

It is possible to sideslip the aircraft, but the roll coupling and hydro boosted nature of the rudder at higher angles of attack ,(such as those encountered during the touchdown phase of a landing) is so dramatic that the preponderance of pilots out there are incapable of not over controlling and flipping over, or get into a self induced "saber dance" and have to eject anyhow.

Northrop test pilots recognized this aerodynamic quirk of the airplane and modified the gear and procedures in order to accept full crabbing touchdowns, at the expense of the tires.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Now, after a pilot gets experience in other airplanes is this still a problem? The T-38 is, after all, a trainer. Maybe it's simply too slippery for that experience level? I can see, in the civilian world for example, putting a pilot with only a hundred hours or so (whatever it is) in, say a Lear 23 (same engines basically — IIRC), would be asking for trouble too.
 
Last edited:
For me the solution was to stop crabbing and instead side slip, using rudders all the way down to keep lined up. Works like a charm, and easier IMHO.
 
dtuuri said:
Very interesting. Now, after a pilot gets experience in other airplanes is this still a problem? The T-38 is, after all, a trainer. Maybe it's simply too slippery for that experience level? I can see, in the civilian world for example, putting a pilot with only a hundred hours or so (whatever it is) in, say a Lear 23 (same engines basically — IIRC), would be asking for trouble too.
Click to expand...

Quipping "it's just a trainer" misses the point in this case. It was a trainer designed to emulate the road runner interceptors of the century series, not anything else with more mild manners and the wing area for it. All 4th gen follow on fighters are easier to fly; they have to be, otherwise most pilots couldn't run sensors/fire single pilot. Or alternatively, crash it on landing after a successful employment sortie.

IOW, unless that experience was a tour in f104s or TPS, they came back as instructors facing the same problems as anybody else without prior t38 IP experience. In the end this question is moot and a solution looking for a problem. Northrop long ago fixed the issue by designing a gear that could handle crabbed touchdowns. Nobody is getting ego points for trying to wing low land a 38, though you will probably get a commander directed Q3 and a formal reprimand for fancying yourself a chuck Yeager by ad hoc'ing landing procedures in a non emergency.

Back to the trainer quip, an F-5 would be a safety margin upgrade for us, and easier to fly to boot. We were losing tons of people between the 60s and early 80s to the T38, both in lives and program attrition. People who would have otherwise been successful for an entire flying career in crew airplanes. The introduction of SUPT and the T1 was a godsend for AF flight training.

These days the air force has for a while realized that we spend a ton of time teaching students how not to get killed in a t-38, and less time developing the fighter fundamentals that are more germane to their B course follow on. Additionally the t38 is a poor 4th gen sensors integration and BFM emulator, but that has long been stipulated. As such, the t-7 will be a relative putty cat to fly in the transition phase, and most of the training hours will be spent teaching to the employment basics, which is a win win for the AF, and my wife's emotional sanity lol.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Quipping "it's just a trainer" misses the point in this case.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that, which is why you missed MY point: Since the T-38 is a trainer and requires an experienced touch, assuming it is possible for a more advanced pilot to handle in a crosswind without landing in a crab, maybe the USAF should have used something better suited. Landing while crabbed seems to me to be teaching exactly the wrong lessons at that stage of flight training. Law of primacy and all that..
 
Landing while crabbed is common in the fighter world. The viper lands the same way. In their case it's the flcs interconnect switch disconnecting on wow switch actuation that gets their attention if they try to touch down wing low (some argue their outboard missile stations become exposed to strike, i haven't heard of that one happening with much frequency), but the procedure is to land in a crab. No negative transfer. Heck even the buff, for which I would say i had zero need to fly a t38 as a trainer for it, has the landing as the one thing it doesn't have negative training for lol.

Your point about negative transfer does stand on every other aspect of follow on training however, which is why the t-7 can't come (sts) soon enough. Folks adapt for sure, but i agree we could have been doing this training thing with more effective hardware a long time ago if our capitalization priorities weren't as captured, but that's for another day. Cheers!
 
FastEddieB said:
Not recommending it to this extreme, but one can fast-forward to about 6 minutes in to see it done as part of a “drunk pilot” routine:

Click to expand...

I've seen a routine like that. The "flying farmer", flying a J-3, Stanley Segalla from CT. He passed away in 2016. One heck of a pilot.

https://m.facebook.com/Stanley-Segalla-The-Flying-Farmer-579128792118742/

To me that's impressive flying, but stunt flying. I was thinking 3-point, which I can't see working without crosswind, but even wheel it still seems like a stunt. Maybe it isn't, and I just don't have the skill. I've done two wheel taxis on calm days, which some people believe are reckless, so I can respect there are varying perspectives on it. Still doesn't seem like reasonable training for crosswind to me, though.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Landing while crabbed is common in the fighter world.
Click to expand...
That's true in the airline world, too, where it wouldn't take much of a bank angle on touchdown for en engine to touch the pavement.

Different airplanes require different techniques. For a taildragger, a slip works best. I'd argue that in most light tricycle gear airplanes, a slip works best, too, and what pilots learn from flying taildraggers transfers very well.

Jets are a different story, but their landing gears are designed to take the abuse of touching down in a crab.

Doug and I discuss crosswind landings in this taildragger video. Again, this is helpful and valuable for most tricycle gear airplanes, too.

- Martin

 
hindsight2020 said:
Quipping "it's just a trainer" misses the point in this case. It was a trainer designed to emulate the road runner interceptors of the century series, not anything else with more mild manners and the wing area for it. All 4th gen follow on fighters are easier to fly; they have to be, otherwise most pilots couldn't run sensors/fire single pilot. Or alternatively, crash it on landing after a successful employment sortie.

IOW, unless that experience was a tour in f104s or TPS, they came back as instructors facing the same problems as anybody else without prior t38 IP experience. In the end this question is moot and a solution looking for a problem. Northrop long ago fixed the issue by designing a gear that could handle crabbed touchdowns. Nobody is getting ego points for trying to wing low land a 38, though you will probably get a commander directed Q3 and a formal reprimand for fancying yourself a chuck Yeager by ad hoc'ing landing procedures in a non emergency.

Back to the trainer quip, an F-5 would be a safety margin upgrade for us, and easier to fly to boot. We were losing tons of people between the 60s and early 80s to the T38, both in lives and program attrition. People who would have otherwise been successful for an entire flying career in crew airplanes. The introduction of SUPT and the T1 was a godsend for AF flight training.

These days the air force has for a while realized that we spend a ton of time teaching students how not to get killed in a t-38, and less time developing the fighter fundamentals that are more germane to their B course follow on. Additionally the t38 is a poor 4th gen sensors integration and BFM emulator, but that has long been stipulated. As such, the t-7 will be a relative putty cat to fly in the transition phase, and most of the training hours will be spent teaching to the employment basics, which is a win win for the AF, and my wife's emotional sanity lol.
Click to expand...
As a maintainer at the ENJPT base, I’ve heard the T-7 has been pushed back a few years. Reminds me of the KC-46 that is replacing the -135 that I’m also a maintainer on. I’m hoping by the time both these birds roll out that I’m flying for a living instead of doing NDI inspections on them.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... you guys do realize I’m a jet carrier guy... I don’t even understand that weird, uh, what do you call it? Hesitation, last second attitude... nope. Um, oh ya, F L A R E. That’s it.

All this other stuff REALLY has me confused. Say again?
 
Tools said:
Hmmm... you guys do realize I’m a jet carrier guy... I don’t even understand that weird, uh, what do you call it? Hesitation, last second attitude... nope. Um, oh ya, F L A R E. That’s it.
Click to expand...
:D

You probably don't deal with crosswinds much, either?

- Martin
 
Cross what? Hehe

with zero natural wind you had that 14 degree thing. Caused constant little check rights... we called them some weird little term, angular winds or something.
 
Tools said:
Hmmm... you guys do realize I’m a jet carrier guy... I don’t even understand that weird, uh, what do you call it? Hesitation, last second attitude... nope. Um, oh ya, F L A R E. That’s it.

All this other stuff REALLY has me confused. Say again?
Click to expand...


So, uh, what exactly are you teaching in that school of yours? Do you start ‘em out with carrier landings in a 172?

;)
 
As stated above, I'm more of a no crab, just drop the wing into the wind approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top