Short Final and Wind Gusts

R

rt4388

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
192
Display Name
Display name:
rt4388
So the other day, while doing a series of touch and go's with the instructor a wind gust grabbed the plane and gave me a decent scare. It wasn't particularly windy, but there was a storm that was beginning to approach the field (30 - 45 minutes or so out). The gust forced a lot of left bank--to the point where the instructor made a remark about getting quite the scare.
Although I stayed calm throughout the ordeal and immediately added right aileron, I'm a bit nervous about what could have happened if we had less altitude. Any advice on how to handle/avoid this situation? Looking back, it probably would have been smart to not have full flaps and to come in with a little extra airspeed. Also, flying in bad weather is never a good idea in my opinion, but in this instance I wouldn't have considered the weather "bad."
Thanks for the help everyone!
 
Did you ask your CFI this question? Hard to give a good answer not having been in the airplane with you.

A little extra speed/partial flaps can help controllability in gusty wind conditions, however, be careful about arbitrarily adding speed to your approaches - you don't want to avoid the gusts only to damage the airplane touching down too fast or running off the runway.
 
The only thing you can do is be prepared, and the only way to be prepared is to fly on windy days.

Yesterday was a good example. We flew home from San Antonio a day early because of predicted nasty weather (which is, in fact, happening today). With a scattered to broken layer at 4500', and tops to 8500', I stupidly opted to park myself at 3500' for the 45 minute flight to the coast.

We got the snot beat out of us. Without our 5-point Hooker harnesses, we would have hit our heads on the canopy multiple times. It was hot, bumpy, and generally a miserable flight, topped off by a landing with winds gusting to 30 on the surface.

Luckily, it was pretty much down the runway, but final approach took forever -- the EFIS showed a gusting quartering headwind at 38, at 1000' AGL -- with plenty of action required to keep our RV-8 aligned with Rwy 13 at TFP.

Touchdown was firmly on the mains, emphasis on firmly. I had to fly it all the way to the pumps, whereupon the wind actually blew the plane backwards away from the pumps before we could chock it. It was impressive.

What would I do different? For sure I will take the time to climb into the flight levels before subjecting ourselves to that kind of beating again. Parking our butts at 12,500' and sniffing O2 was the better option, in hindsight, even on such a short flight.

The landing was as good as it gets, given those conditions, and I attribute this to lots of windy day flying over the last couple of decades. I've had some real doozies, over the years, though, (nothing broken, thankfully!), and we learn from each one of them.

You will, too. It's just part of learning to be a pilot.
 
Last edited:
I routinely get blown around on short final if it's hot because of the trees.

You'll find that things tend to settle about 20 feet above even if you had turbulence and gusts coming in. So don't let it rattle you and hold your approach through it.

As for what to do if you are low and get blown off? I'd go missed if you don't have enough runway to safely realign. But ask your CFI.

Another general rule is use less flaps.
 
Last edited:
When its windy 1.3 VSO+5 knots should do the trick most of the time but really you shouldnt need to add more than about 10kts in very windy conditions..if you do pick another RW if able .....

less flaps will help lower your lift/drag profile and keep things from floating around so much...just be ready to promtly add corrections that are needed and FLY THE PLANE.
 
For some reason these things always seem to work out in the flare. It can be max bouncing all the way down, and it just settles out in the flare. YMMV.
 
What were you flying?

In my old Cherokee 140 with a Hershey bar wing, I was better off keeping full flaps in gusty cross winds. It was a more stable approach, and with full flaps even with a couple extra knots that plane had very little tendency to float. Once planted on the runway, that stubby little wing tended to want to stay that way. Just needed to slip a little to keep the upwind wing a little low and touch the upwind wheel down first. Use the rudder to keep aligned with the runway.

Cessna trainers are a little less forgiving, IMHO. Those big sails tend to catch the wind.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What were you flying?

In my old Cherokee 140 with a Hershey bar wing, I was better off keeping full flaps in gusty cross winds. It was a more stable approach, and with full flaps even with a couple extra knots that plane had very little tendency to float. Once planted on the runway, that stubby little wing tended to want to stay that way. Just needed to slip a little to keep the upwind wing a little low and touch the upwind wheel down first. Use the rudder to keep aligned with the runway.

Cessna trainers are a little less forgiving, IMHO. Those big sails tend to catch the wind.
Click to expand...

Yea, I was in a 172.
 
Typically in my STOL 172 I stay at 60 and full flaps with 'most' landings. The stall speed is low that even if it drops me 10 knots by losing a gust then I can easily correct it and I won't drop out of the sky.

The only time I don't use full flaps is if the crosswind component is 11-15 AND it's gusting higher. In that case I leave it about 65 and come down with 2 notches and let it bleed down the airspeed and get close to setting down before I kick it out.

It took me well over 100 hours and probably 100 landings to figure all this out...
 
My experience has been kind of like Jay's. When you want to go fly, just do it. Don't cancel because it is windy unless you are pretty sure the wind exceeds your (or the airplane's) capability. The more you do this, the better you will get in the wind. Just ask the guys in Oklahoma and Kansas :).

The main thing (I think) is to keep on top of the airplane. Stay after it until you get it parked. If you need full aileron or rudder, use full aileron or rudder.
 
Gusty swirling winds are the norm for much of my flying. I favor being higher on final and flying a steeper approach. Having the wind upset the plane is less a factor when your rate of descent is greater. Not faster speed. I do not subscribe to that on the final leg.
 
Many people fly final too fast to begin with. Couple that with gusting conditions and you have recipe for a scare.

I fly final at 60, full flaps +1/2 gust factor, and guess what?!?!!! I should fly SLOWER than that for most weights that I fly. Go up in your airplane and figure the indicated stall speed and fly it to PTS of no more than 1.3 times that. Do the same thing every time and do not forget to work those things at your feet.
 
My answer would be to go around. I see every landing as optional and in my mind I am going around every time. It doesn't make you any less of a pilot if you go around.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Many people fly final too fast to begin with. Couple that with gusting conditions and you have recipe for a scare.

I fly final at 60, full flaps +1/2 gust factor, and guess what?!?!!! I should fly SLOWER than that for most weights that I fly. Go up in your airplane and figure the indicated stall speed and fly it to PTS of no more than 1.3 times that. Do the same thing every time and do not forget to work those things at your feet.
Click to expand...

Flying 1.3 times indicated stall speed is an error, especially in a 172SP. There is a lot of ASI error near stall, and not much at 1.3 times stall. Use CAS.
 
MAKG1 said:
Flying 1.3 times indicated stall speed is an error, especially in a 172SP. There is a lot of ASI error near stall, and not much at 1.3 times stall. Use CAS.
Click to expand...

The error is known and predictable. You can't use BOOK speed for this, which is why I said to do it in that aircraft. It will stall at the same speed at that same weight. Multiply by 1.3
 
Jaybird180 said:
The error is known and predictable. You can't use BOOK speed for this, which is why I said to do it in that aircraft. It will stall at the same speed at that same weight. Multiply by 1.3
Click to expand...

Convert to CAS first or you are NOT at 1.3 times the stall speed. Quite a bit slower, actually, in a 172SP. Yes, the conversion is predictable (well, as long as you're coordinated -- in a slip, there is an additional error up to 10 knots). It is NOT ignorable You do need to use it.
 
MAKG1 said:
Convert to CAS first or you are NOT at 1.3 times the stall speed. Quite a bit slower, actually, in a 172SP. Yes, the conversion is predictable (well, as long as you're coordinated -- in a slip, there is an additional error up to 10 knots). It is NOT ignorable You do need to use it.
Click to expand...

Is this your argument:

I go in my airplane and perform a series of power-off stalls and note the IAS, then attempt a landing using 1.3 x IAS, that at that airspeed I do not have sufficient stall margin?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Is this your argument:

I go in my airplane and perform a series of power-off stalls and note the IAS, then attempt a landing using 1.3 x IAS, that at that airspeed I do not have sufficient stall margin?
Click to expand...

Not really. You do not have 1.3 times stall speed. That's CAS. Look at the conversion in your POH. It's not small, particularly for the 172SPs. You aren't really stalling below 40 knots.

It's possible to make safe approaches below that speed with power, but it's not a great idea for a student pilot. You'll be behind the power curve. An experienced pilot can handle that, but a student can get trapped into a stall.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not really. You do not have 1.3 times stall speed. That's CAS. Look at the conversion in your POH. It's not small, particularly for the 172SPs. You aren't really stalling below 40 knots.

It's possible to make safe approaches below that speed with power, but it's not a great idea for a student pilot. You'll be behind the power curve. An experienced pilot can handle that, but a student can get trapped into a stall.
Click to expand...

Okay, so are you saying:

My final approach at 60 is ABOVE 1.3 Vs0 - BTW I agree already, which is why I said it's still too fast.

The book recommends 65+ (65-75 IIRC), don't have POH handy at the moment, which is WAAAAY too fast.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Is this your argument:

I go in my airplane and perform a series of power-off stalls and note the IAS, then attempt a landing using 1.3 x IAS, that at that airspeed I do not have sufficient stall margin?
Click to expand...
Because the CAS/IAS differential can vary considerably at slower speeds vs higher, simply multiplying the IAS that you stall at by 1.3 is not necessarily going to give you the correct airspeed for 1.3 Vso
 
Fearless Tower said:
Because the CAS/IAS differential can vary considerably at slower speeds vs higher, simply multiplying the IAS that you stall at by 1.3 is not necessarily going to give you the correct airspeed for 1.3 Vso
Click to expand...

Correct is only useful on an academic test. I am only interested in sufficient stall margin. Is it provided in the above?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Okay, so are you saying:

My final approach at 60 is ABOVE 1.3 Vs0 - BTW I agree already, which is why I said it's still too fast.

The book recommends 65+ (65-75 IIRC), don't have POH handy at the moment, which is WAAAAY too fast.
Click to expand...

The book recommends 61 knots in the short field procedure, and if you go through the math in CAS for max gross, you'll find it's quite close to 1.3*Vs0. If you want to minimize float, the short field procedure is where to look. You can float for a while on a 6000 foot runway.

It also says Vs0 is 38 KIAS. 38*1.3 is 49 KIAS, not 61. 10+ knots error is a lot.

For lighter than max gross, a better bit of math is to scale the short field approach with sqrt(GW). The SP has a 2550 lb max gross. If you're very light at 2000 lb, that gives you Vref of 54 knots. You can get away with using IAS here because the CAS correction is very small around 60 knots. If you want a simpler way to think about it, you can halve your fractional margin below max gross; for instance, 2000 lb is about 20% below max gross, so the stall goes down by 10% (you can prove this is nearly equivalent to the square root with the binomial theorem if you want).

5 knots slow is enough to put you behind the power curve. And in less than perfect conditions, you can mush or stall quite easily.
 
Last edited:
So why not fly it the way the book SAYS to fly it? Why reinvent the wheel?
 
MAKG1 said:
The book recommends 61 knots in the short field procedure, and if you go through the math in CAS for max gross, you'll find it's quite close to 1.3*Vs0. If you want to minimize float, the short field procedure is where to look. You can float for a while on a 6000 foot runway.

It also says Vs0 is 38 KIAS. 38*1.3 is 49 KIAS, not 61. 10+ knots error is a lot.

For lighter than max gross, a better bit of math is to scale the short field approach with sqrt(GW). The SP has a 2550 lb max gross. If you're very light at 2000 lb, that gives you Vref of 54 knots. You can get away with using IAS here because the CAS correction is very small around 60 knots. If you want a simpler way to think about it, you can halve your fractional margin below max gross; for instance, 2000 lb is about 20% below max gross, so the stall goes down by 10% (you can prove this is nearly equivalent to the square root with the binomial theorem if you want).

5 knots slow is enough to put you behind the power curve. And in less than perfect conditions, you can mush or stall quite easily.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...so basically 60 KIAS is a good recommendation.;)
 
Jaybird180 said:
Hmmmm...so basically 60 KIAS is a good recommendation.;)
Click to expand...

For max gross.

Your advice was to go measure stall speed and fly no faster than 1.3 times the reading. In a 172SP at max gross, that would be 49 KIAS, and would be slower for lower weights. Your advice was wrong.
 
Vs0 on the 180C I fly is 49 knots (57 MPH). I took the family to Savannah over the 4th of July, was a nice trip, pretty darn hot though and between the thermals and the gusts it was challenging.

Had some serious gusting on landing and kept the speed up a bit, but came in too fast and started to porpoise..immediate go around. Also had full flaps which was also not too smart.

Got my speed right on the second approach, only one notch of flaps and landed just fine. Did some crosswind practice about a month after all that to get myself back up to speed on landing in gusty conditions, which helped tremendously on a few landings.

Sarasota airport has an area on runway 14 when you are coming in for an approach where the wind can change literally 25-50' off the ground due to a slight rise in the ground off the west side of the airport (which blocks wind). So you get a nice crosswind correction in and then suddenly that all goes away and comes back again RIGHT before touchdown. It's super fun for practice that's for sure.
 
MAKG1 said:
For max gross.

Your advice was to go measure stall speed and fly no faster than 1.3 times the reading. In a 172SP at max gross, that would be 49 KIAS, and would be slower for lower weights. Your advice was wrong.
Click to expand...

Ah! You're right! I mixed FAA lingo in there and that's the source of the bad advice . Good catch.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Inconsistent results flying it by the book? I submit the inconsistent results are from inconsistent flying.
Click to expand...

True, but I think the book speed would land itself to porpoising and puckers in gusty conditions, hence the (poor) band-aid advice to reduce flaps. If you slow down then flaps help you, not hurt you.
 
Jaybird180 said:
True, but I think the book speed would land itself to porpoising and puckers in gusty conditions, hence the (poor) band-aid advice to reduce flaps. If you slow down then flaps help you, not hurt you.
Click to expand...

the faster you go, the more authority you will have. Reducing flaps is not a bad idea at all. In some wind (35+across) I will come in fast, with 10 degrees of flaps, and touch down on the upwind wheel still going speedily, and then bring out the 10 degrees of flaps to "stick" myself to the runway. It works quite well, the only problem is once you bring the downwind wheel down the plane WILL crab into the wind and side load the gear a little bit, but I mosty fly on gravel so it's not a big deal.
 
Last edited:
eventually it will become second nature to react immediately when the airplane does something you don't want it to do. It will come with time, and more flying. Just keep the greasy side down
 
DavidWhite said:
the faster you go, the more authority you will have. Reducing flaps is not a bad idea at all. In some wind (35+across) I will come in fast, with 10 degrees of flaps, and touch down on the upwind wheel still going speedily, and then bring out the 10 degrees of flaps to "stick" myself to the runway. It works quite well, the only problem is once you bring the downwind wheel down the plane WILL crab into the wind and side load the gear a little bit, but I mosty fly on gravel so it's not a big deal.
Click to expand...





I don't know if 208's behave like C-180's, but I've been trying to go tell it on the mountain that you don't approach with full flaps especially in a bad x-wind every landing. Not in Cessna's of the high wing variety at least. Not mine specifically.

This is a good video about the use of flaps hosted by Tod Peterson of the King Katmai group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQFXHEmmHUM

"The moral of the story is, you don't need full flaps every landing." -- Tod P.


I agree with Tod, but I fly a STOL aircraft which turns me biased because I have flaps out the wazoo. :tongue: So I can't really comment on fast movers with less flaps.
 
I use full flaps for every landing. Slower is always better. If the winds are crossing that bad? Land diagonally. Or at my cabin strip that's 15' wide and short and lined by trees? Learn how to plant it on. Doing that requires the least forward energy. Thus the earlier comments about steep approaches. The airplane is much more controllable against being blown off course when you drop it in steep. It works way better than going too fast when there's no room for landing fast.
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
It works quite well, the only problem is once you bring the downwind wheel down the plane WILL crab into the wind and side load the gear a little bit, but I mosty fly on gravel so it's not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Why does this sound like it's going to lead to a really bad day at some point?
 
Flying "fear" is caused by not having the skills or "tools" in a particular situation. Build your "tool chest" so these gusts and down drafts become routine to handle.

Yesterday, I flew 2 hours in a low level "wind shear" advisory. There were light down drafts and turbulence below 6,000 MSL. Nothing the AP couldn't handle, but I switched it off on descent because it got interesting.

Mechanical turbulence near hangars, trees, etc., is something to watch for and be prepared for also.
 
It's been a while, so I might have this wrong, but...

At some point in the 1970's, did not all POH's get standardized? And I recall one nice change was airspeeds were now shown as IAS to avoid needing to convert and possible conversion errors.

Just looked at a 172SP POH, and as far as I can see, airspeed indicator markings and most of the speeds given are given in IAS, and sometimes CAS as well.

But as long as IAS is given, can't you just use that? Allowing for different speeds at lighter weights, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top