This isn't an IFR topic, but I figure there might be a heavy iron pilot
or two reading this. There's a thread on the FS group about landing
747/777 class airplanes. I've read that they typically kick out the
crab right before touchdown much as some lighter airplane pilots do.
Slips are out because of the risk of dragging an engine. However, a
number of folks there claim that the airliners are simply landed with
the crab angle held during the approach.

I know that the B-52 has gear designed to align for a crab landing and I
think one or two models of the 747 may have this as well, but everything
I've read always said that standard procedure with airliners was to
remove the crab before touchdown. And this is certainly what has been
done on almost all airline flights I've made.

Any '47 or '77 or similar pilots here who can comment on the generally
accepted technique for crosswing landings in the heavy machines?

I searched around this evening and found a number of sources that
claimed both methods are the "right" method, but no source that I'd
consider authoritative.

Matt

I can't speak to the 747 or 777, but I can the 767 and L-1011. There is
always controversy about it, but the truth is in watching the autopilot do
an auto-land. It's all crab until about 150 feet, HAT, where the autopilot
goes into align mode; that is it transitions from crab to wing down into the
wind with a slight amount of upwind rudder. This last throughout the flare
to touchdown.

Good pilots manually land those models using the same technique. So long as
the certificated cross-wind limits are observed and the technique is done
correctly you won't scrape an engine.

The most critical airplane with which I was familiar for scrapping an
outboard engine was the 707. There, you had to observe a 5-degree bank angle
limit, so in a 30 knot cross-wind some combination slip and crab became
necessary. If it is just crab it is really tough to "kick it out" at the
last moment without it becoming a spectacular event.

Matt Whiting wrote:

> This isn't an IFR topic, but I figure there might be a heavy iron pilot
> or two reading this. There's a thread on the FS group about landing
> 747/777 class airplanes. I've read that they typically kick out the
> crab right before touchdown much as some lighter airplane pilots do.
> Slips are out because of the risk of dragging an engine. However, a
> number of folks there claim that the airliners are simply landed with
> the crab angle held during the approach.
>
> I know that the B-52 has gear designed to align for a crab landing and I
> think one or two models of the 747 may have this as well, but everything
> I've read always said that standard procedure with airliners was to
> remove the crab before touchdown. And this is certainly what has been
> done on almost all airline flights I've made.
>
> Any '47 or '77 or similar pilots here who can comment on the generally
> accepted technique for crosswing landings in the heavy machines?
>
> I searched around this evening and found a number of sources that
> claimed both methods are the "right" method, but no source that I'd
> consider authoritative.
>
> Matt

wrote:

> I can't speak to the 747 or 777, but I can the 767 and L-1011. There is
> always controversy about it, but the truth is in watching the autopilot do
> an auto-land. It's all crab until about 150 feet, HAT, where the autopilot
> goes into align mode; that is it transitions from crab to wing down into the
> wind with a slight amount of upwind rudder. This last throughout the flare
> to touchdown.
>
> Good pilots manually land those models using the same technique. So long as
> the certificated cross-wind limits are observed and the technique is done
> correctly you won't scrape an engine.
>
> The most critical airplane with which I was familiar for scrapping an
> outboard engine was the 707. There, you had to observe a 5-degree bank angle
> limit, so in a 30 knot cross-wind some combination slip and crab became
> necessary. If it is just crab it is really tough to "kick it out" at the
> last moment without it becoming a spectacular event.

Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
retired "heavy" captain.

I searched on Avweb and found an article about this by Deakin. He also
advocates kicking out the crab on all airplanes up to and including the
747, unless they have gear designed to be landed in a crab (B-52 and a
few others). However, I don't think the folks on the simulator group
believe it.

Why would kicking out the crab become a spectacular event?

Matt

The spectacular event would be touching down with the crab still in...


Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Student Mooney Owner

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> I can't speak to the 747 or 777, but I can the 767 and L-1011. There is
>> always controversy about it, but the truth is in watching the
>> autopilot do
>> an auto-land. It's all crab until about 150 feet, HAT, where the
>> autopilot
>> goes into align mode; that is it transitions from crab to wing down
>> into the
>> wind with a slight amount of upwind rudder. This last throughout the
>> flare
>> to touchdown.
>>
>> Good pilots manually land those models using the same technique. So
>> long as
>> the certificated cross-wind limits are observed and the technique is done
>> correctly you won't scrape an engine.
>>
>> The most critical airplane with which I was familiar for scrapping an
>> outboard engine was the 707. There, you had to observe a 5-degree bank
>> angle
>> limit, so in a 30 knot cross-wind some combination slip and crab became
>> necessary. If it is just crab it is really tough to "kick it out" at the
>> last moment without it becoming a spectacular event.
>
>
> Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
> what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
> retired "heavy" captain.
>
> I searched on Avweb and found an article about this by Deakin. He also
> advocates kicking out the crab on all airplanes up to and including the
> 747, unless they have gear designed to be landed in a crab (B-52 and a
> few others). However, I don't think the folks on the simulator group
> believe it.
>
> Why would kicking out the crab become a spectacular event?
>
> Matt
>

Jon Kraus wrote:

> The spectacular event would be touching down with the crab still in...
>
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student Mooney Owner
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't speak to the 747 or 777, but I can the 767 and L-1011. There is
>>> always controversy about it, but the truth is in watching the
>>> autopilot do
>>> an auto-land. It's all crab until about 150 feet, HAT, where the
>>> autopilot
>>> goes into align mode; that is it transitions from crab to wing down
>>> into the
>>> wind with a slight amount of upwind rudder. This last throughout the
>>> flare
>>> to touchdown.
>>>
>>> Good pilots manually land those models using the same technique. So
>>> long as
>>> the certificated cross-wind limits are observed and the technique is
>>> done
>>> correctly you won't scrape an engine.
>>>
>>> The most critical airplane with which I was familiar for scrapping an
>>> outboard engine was the 707. There, you had to observe a 5-degree
>>> bank angle
>>> limit, so in a 30 knot cross-wind some combination slip and crab became
>>> necessary. If it is just crab it is really tough to "kick it out" at
>>> the
>>> last moment without it becoming a spectacular event.
>>
>>
>>
>> Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
>> what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
>> retired "heavy" captain.
>>
>> I searched on Avweb and found an article about this by Deakin. He
>> also advocates kicking out the crab on all airplanes up to and
>> including the 747, unless they have gear designed to be landed in a
>> crab (B-52 and a few others). However, I don't think the folks on the
>> simulator group believe it.
>>
>> Why would kicking out the crab become a spectacular event?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>

I suspect there is more to it than that, but we'll have to wait for
Tim's reply.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
>
> Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
> what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
> retired "heavy" captain.

I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going to collapse.

Matt Whiting > wrote

> Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact?

YES

> This is what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group
> who says he is a retired "heavy" captain.

Quoting from my PanAm B-707 Flight Manual

" CROSSWIND LANDINGS

Make a normal approach. Maintain runway alignment by
crabbing. Before touchdown, gradually remove as much
of the crab as possible with rudder. It may be necessary
to land with some crab angle if the crosswind is high.
This presents no problem if the angle is not excessive
and the flightpath is aligned with the runway.

CAUTION

Touchdown with a large crab angle and the wings level
may result in a rapid rising of the upwind wing and may
cause an engine nacelle to drag on the runway.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)
17 years in the grand old 707
6 years as 707 instructor/check airman

wrote:

>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
>>what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
>>retired "heavy" captain.
>
>
> I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going to collapse.
>

He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
heavies so all I know is what I read.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
>>> what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
>>> retired "heavy" captain.
>>
>>
>>
>> I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going
>> to collapse.
>>
>
> He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
> for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
> contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
> heavies so all I know is what I read.

Typo: I meant "saying." His references appeared completely legitimate
so it appears that landing in a crab is acceptable technique in at least
some airplanes (he referenced the F-16 and a couple of others).

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
> >>what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
> >>retired "heavy" captain.
> >
> >
> > I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going to
collapse.
> >
>
> He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
> for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
> contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
> heavies so all I know is what I read.
>
>
> Matt

I flew, as a qualified pilot/instructor pilot, the T-38, B-52 and B-1B in
the AF. The T-38, hardly a heavy, was landed fully crabbed into the wind.
As has already been mentioned, the gear was turned in the B-52 to align with
the rwy so that effectively had the aircraft crabbed into the wind, and in
the B-1B, you crabbed until short final, approaching the over run, where you
aligned yourself with the rwy hdg in a wing low attitude and landed on the
upwind truck, just like in a 172.

JB

>Typo: I meant "saying." His references appeared completely legitimate
>so it appears that landing in a crab is acceptable technique in at least
>some airplanes (he referenced the F-16 and a couple of others).
>
>Matt

It's a fact F16 can be crab landed with a max crosswind of 25 knots

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
> >>what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
> >>retired "heavy" captain.
> >
> >
> > I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going to collapse.
> >
>
> He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
> for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
> contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
> heavies so all I know is what I read.
>
> Matt

He sounds like a phony to me.

yupyupxav wrote:

> >Typo: I meant "saying." His references appeared completely legitimate
> >so it appears that landing in a crab is acceptable technique in at least
> >some airplanes (he referenced the F-16 and a couple of others).
> >
> >Matt
>
> It's a fact F16 can be crab landed with a max crosswind of 25 knots

An F-16 is a very different beast than an air transport jet.

wrote:

>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
>>>>what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
>>>>retired "heavy" captain.
>>>
>>>
>>>I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going to collapse.
>>>
>>
>>He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
>>for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
>>contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
>>heavies so all I know is what I read.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> He sounds like a phony to me.
>

He's no phony. He's the founder of this organization:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm

I still disagree with him IN GENERAL (several exceptions have been
discussed) about landing airplanes, especially heavies, in a crab,
however he seems to have impressive credentials.


Matt

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...

> CROSSWIND LANDINGS
>
> Make a normal approach. Maintain runway alignment by
> crabbing. Before touchdown, gradually remove as much
> of the crab as possible with rudder. It may be necessary
> to land with some crab angle if the crosswind is high.
> This presents no problem if the angle is not excessive
> and the flightpath is aligned with the runway.

I had an interesting experience about a year ago when I went for a week of
IFR training in the BE76 Duchess. Most of my flying has been done on the
M20J ("Gear? Nah we just glued wheels on...") and the PA30, which, though
better than the M20J in crosswinds, still has its vices.

The BE76 was, by comparison, a complete no-brainer from landing #1. You
just point it in roughly the right direction and a combination of its
momentum and the trailing link gear does the rest. By the end of the week
I'd even forgotten all the one-liners I use with my passengers to laugh away
bad landings... ;-)

It strikes me that the technique used in any aircraft type is likely to be
dependent on how much residual crab angle you can get away with. With no
other considerations, you'd always land an aircraft with no crab angle: but
when some crab angle is acceptable, you might as well use that capability to
manage down any other risks, like kicking off the crab too early.

In a sense it's a bit like the question of why airliners fly wings level
even under asymmetric power. The best answer I heard was :"because they
*can*".

Julian Scarfe

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
>>>>> what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
>>>>> retired "heavy" captain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going
>>>> to collapse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
>>> for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
>>> contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
>>> heavies so all I know is what I read.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> He sounds like a phony to me.
>>
>
> He's no phony. He's the founder of this organization:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm
>
> I still disagree with him IN GENERAL (several exceptions have been
> discussed) about landing airplanes, especially heavies, in a crab,
> however he seems to have impressive credentials.

Here's an explanation by a highly qualified (F-4G, F-16, and B-52) USAF
pilot:

" In landing the B-52 with its very long wings, it is imperative to
have the wings level through touchdown, the landing "trucks" aligned
with the runway, and the aircraft fuselage crabbed in to the wind.

On final approach, the crew notes the wind speed and direction
and, using a handy "crosswind landing chart," computes the number of
degrees that the landing "trucks" must be offset to ensure they are
aligned down the runway on landing. Then the pilot or copilot reaches
down to a mechanism sitting between the pilots and "dials in" the
appropriate number of degrees of offset for the trucks. This procedure
is accomplished for EVERY landing.

As I recall, normal (non wartime) procedures routinely allowed
for 20 degrees of offset. More offset is possible but slightly
uncomfortable for the new pilot making such a landing as he will not be
looking straight ahead at touchdown but rather he will be looking toward
his left or right shoulder."

wrote:

> I can't speak to the 747 or 777, but I can the 767 and L-1011. There is
> always controversy about it, but the truth is in watching the autopilot do
> an auto-land. It's all crab until about 150 feet, HAT, where the autopilot
> goes into align mode; that is it transitions from crab to wing down into the
> wind with a slight amount of upwind rudder. This last throughout the flare
^^^^^^
downwind rudder, surely.
CV

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This
>>>>>is what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he
>>>>>is a retired "heavy" captain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going
>>>>to collapse.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
>>>for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
>>>contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
>>>heavies so all I know is what I read.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> He sounds like a phony to me.
>>
>
> He's no phony. He's the founder of this organization:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm
>
> I still disagree with him IN GENERAL (several exceptions have been
> discussed) about landing airplanes, especially heavies, in a crab,
> however he seems to have impressive credentials.
>
>
> Matt
>

Just cause the guy signed his name Dudley Henriques doesn't mean he is
Dudley Henriques...

Judah wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This
>>>>>>is what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he
>>>>>>is a retired "heavy" captain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going
>>>>>to collapse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
>>>>for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
>>>>contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
>>>>heavies so all I know is what I read.
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>He sounds like a phony to me.
>>>
>>
>>He's no phony. He's the founder of this organization:
>>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm
>>
>>I still disagree with him IN GENERAL (several exceptions have been
>>discussed) about landing airplanes, especially heavies, in a crab,
>>however he seems to have impressive credentials.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> Just cause the guy signed his name Dudley Henriques doesn't mean he is
> Dudley Henriques...

True. The rest of that ng thinks he is and I have no significant reason
to think otherwise, but you are correct in that I don't know for certain
who is behind the keyboard.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Matt Whiting wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Did you ever intentionally land with the crab angle intact? This is
> >>>>what is advocated by a gentleman on the MSFS group who says he is a
> >>>>retired "heavy" captain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I saw it done once in a 707 and I thought the landing gear was going to collapse.
> >>>
> >>
> >>He posted a bunch of references daying that landing with crab was SOP
> >>for airlines and the military. I find it hard to believe and it
> >>contradicts most everything I've read on the subject, but I don't fly
> >>heavies so all I know is what I read.
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > He sounds like a phony to me.
> >
>
> He's no phony. He's the founder of this organization:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/ifpf_history.htm
>
>

Well, he *is* a phony as to claiming that he understands how to fly transport category
civil jets.

Mr. Moore from Pan Am stated it exactly right and I was at TWA, where we did the same.
And, I have ridden the jump seat of many airlines in my commuting days and they all do
it the same.

Mr. Moore added a caveat that applied to the 707 in particular about accepting some crab
in a strong cross-wind, but that caveat does not apply to most airliners. The 707 had
about the lowest pods in the business, if not the lowest.

"William W. Plummer" wrote:

>
> Here's an explanation by a highly qualified (F-4G, F-16, and B-52) USAF
> pilot:
>
> " In landing the B-52 with its very long wings, it is imperative to
> have the wings level through touchdown, the landing "trucks" aligned
> with the runway, and the aircraft fuselage crabbed in to the wind.
>
> On final approach, the crew notes the wind speed and direction
> and, using a handy "crosswind landing chart," computes the number of
> degrees that the landing "trucks" must be offset to ensure they are
> aligned down the runway on landing. Then the pilot or copilot reaches
> down to a mechanism sitting between the pilots and "dials in" the
> appropriate number of degrees of offset for the trucks. This procedure
> is accomplished for EVERY landing.
>
> As I recall, normal (non wartime) procedures routinely allowed
> for 20 degrees of offset. More offset is possible but slightly
> uncomfortable for the new pilot making such a landing as he will not be
> looking straight ahead at touchdown but rather he will be looking toward
> his left or right shoulder."

But, the B-52 is very, very different than civil jet transport aircraft. It
has crosswind landing gear.

> In a sense it's a bit like the question of why airliners fly wings level
> even under asymmetric power. The best answer I heard was :"because they
> *can*".
>
> Julian Scarfe

I believe that is true for any aircraft certified under Part 25.

CV wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > I can't speak to the 747 or 777, but I can the 767 and L-1011. There is
> > always controversy about it, but the truth is in watching the autopilot do
> > an auto-land. It's all crab until about 150 feet, HAT, where the autopilot
> > goes into align mode; that is it transitions from crab to wing down into the
> > wind with a slight amount of upwind rudder. This last throughout the flare
> ^^^^^^
> downwind rudder, surely.
> CV

Correct, downwind rudder and upwind aileron. If I am landing on Runway 27 and the
wind is from 360 at 25, the left foot will be on the rudder and the control wheel
will be to the right. ;-)