Landing in high winds

[Frode Berg]

Hi!

The other day I was flying in to Haugesund Karmoy (ENHD) on the west coast
of Norway.
The wind was 17 kts with 27 kts gust 30 degrees down the runway.
I was flying an Arrow 180 with the old herskey bar wings. Normally final
approach is done at 90 mph. However, in this wind I put on between 10-15
extra knots for safety.
It worked out well, although the long final was interesting to say the
least....the plane was jumping around madly, but never too scary, just glad
I was alone in the plane without any scared passenger....
About 50 feet over ground, the riot calmed down, and landing was a non
event. However, the crosswind component was still evident, so I landed in a
slip to compensate.

What do you other guys do in such a situation? Just put son some more speed
and fly "normal", or do you still keep the numbers? (not such a good idea
considering the gusts...)

Frode
P28R-180
LN-LMR

[H. Adam Stevens]

Hi Frode
Add airspeed for gusts. Otherwise just nail the appropriate numbers.
Get the aircraft's momentum pointed right down the center of the runway; it
wants to stay that way.
Coordinated flight in the approach, slip in the flare.
Since I've been driving a P Baron (120 knot approach, 105 knots over the
numbers) it doesn't matter much.
But I have flown a 172 in 35 knot winds without incident. Or much pleasure.
Blue skies.
H.
N502TB


"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> Hi!
>
> The other day I was flying in to Haugesund Karmoy (ENHD) on the west coast
> of Norway.
> The wind was 17 kts with 27 kts gust 30 degrees down the runway.
> I was flying an Arrow 180 with the old herskey bar wings. Normally final
> approach is done at 90 mph. However, in this wind I put on between 10-15
> extra knots for safety.
> It worked out well, although the long final was interesting to say the
> least....the plane was jumping around madly, but never too scary, just
glad
> I was alone in the plane without any scared passenger....
> About 50 feet over ground, the riot calmed down, and landing was a non
> event. However, the crosswind component was still evident, so I landed in
a
> slip to compensate.
>
> What do you other guys do in such a situation? Just put son some more
speed
> and fly "normal", or do you still keep the numbers? (not such a good idea
> considering the gusts...)
>
> Frode
> P28R-180
> LN-LMR
>
>

[Maule Driver]

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> The wind was 17 kts with 27 kts gust 30 degrees down the runway.
>
> What do you other guys do in such a situation? Just put son some more
speed
> and fly "normal", or do you still keep the numbers? (not such a good idea
> considering the gusts...)
>
I add a gust factor, reduce the flaps, and aim for the centerline. Flying a
taildragger, I get 'pumped' or 'psyched' for the approach. In other words,
I try to be extra alert, quick on the controls, and extra vigilant.

I normally try to fly in a slip starting on short final. Perhaps not the
optimal technique but it allows me to get comfortable with the slip picture
and to 'warm up' the cross controls required.

> About 50 feet over ground, the riot calmed down, and landing was a non
> event. However, the crosswind component was still evident, so I landed in
a
> slip to compensate.

By flying short final in a slip, it allowed me to discover what you seemed
to have discovered too. While 30 knots at 90 degrees exceeds my ability to
keep it straight with the rudder, once I descended to within 10 feet or so
of the runway, the wind often decreases enough for my rudder authority to
catch up and allow me to get it straight. The 2 times that happened, I was
a second away from an abort and a trip to another airport.

While I work hard to keep it on the centerline while landing, I will use the
width of wider runways to reduce the xwind component on takeoff.

[Peter Duniho]

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
> What do you other guys do in such a situation? Just put son some more
speed
> and fly "normal", or do you still keep the numbers?

Your approach sounds typical, though with a little more airspeed than most
people would use (normal final approach as well as your gust correction).

A standard procedure, one I use, is to add half the gust to your approach
speed (in your case, 17G27 means a 10 knot gust, so add 5 knots to your
airspeed...you're flying mph, but 5 knots is close enough to 5 mph for this
purpose :) ).

Stay on top of things, but don't fight the plane too much. More often than
not, if a gust tips the plane one way, another gust will come along shortly
to put you back where you were. I'll give the plane at least a half-second
to a second before making any large corrective actions, though I will still
make minor adjustments to keep the airplane aligned with the runway, on
centerline.

It's a bit of an art, controlling the plane to keep yourself in the right
place without controlling it so much that you are fighting the airplane the
whole way down. Generally speaking though, the less work you do, and the
more work you let the plane do, the better off you'll be.

In a C172, I use less flaps in a strong headwind. The reason being that
flaps and a headwind both steepen your approach. I like my descent angles
on final to be as "normal" as possible (i.e. same way every time), so in a
headwind, you can either add power or reduce flaps. I prefer reducing flaps
and flying my usual gliding approach.

One note about airspeed on final: if you do find yourself in a similar
situation with passengers, a consideration, assuming no other priorities
conflict (such as a very short runway, for example), you might consider
flying final at a higher airspeed than normal, so as minimize the time spent
on final. A nervous passenger may well be just that much worse in gusty,
bumpy conditions when they've got 50% longer on final to think about it.
Obviously, you wouldn't do this all the way down to the runway, but maybe up
to a half-mile final or so would be okay, IMHO.

Pete

[John Galban]

(Dylan Smith) wrote in message >...
>
> I guess the FBO staff there were used to this kind of thing. Two of them
> ran out to my plane, grabbed a strut each, and helped me taxi to the
> tiedown spot. Good job too, because there was no way I could
> taxi crosswind in that sort of wind.

Having the FBO guys act as mobile tiedowns is a fairly regular
occurance at for high-wing pilots at some of the windier airports out
west. It used to happen to me all the time when I was flying Cessnas.
Since I started flying a Cherokee, it hasn't happened once. There's
something to be said for a low center of gravity and a wide gear
stance.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dylan Smith]

On 15 Aug 2003 15:00:58 -0700, John Galban > wrote:
> Having the FBO guys act as mobile tiedowns is a fairly regular
>occurance at for high-wing pilots at some of the windier airports out
>west. It used to happen to me all the time when I was flying Cessnas.
> Since I started flying a Cherokee, it hasn't happened once. There's
>something to be said for a low center of gravity and a wide gear
>stance.

If you compare a C172 with a Cherokee, you'll find the gear track is
actually pretty similar. There's nothing to grab hold of on a low
wing so they just leave you to it. Also, the Cherokee has
steering system better suited to high winds. (I believe the C172
has springs/bungees linking the nosewheel steering, the Cherokee
has a 'solid' linkage).

My problem was that with the wind strength plus a tailwheel, the
weathervaning tendency is just too strong. My tailwheel steering
was provided by springs up to a certain limit, and then it goes
into free castor if you jab the brake. Trouble is, this system
doesn't work terribly well taxiing crosswind in a high wind, since
the weathervaning tendency will overcome the power of the springs
(and might even cause the tailwheel to come out of the detent and
castor, at which point you're basically buggered from a steering
point of view!)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dave Stadt]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message >
> If you compare a C172 with a Cherokee, you'll find the gear track is
> actually pretty similar. There's nothing to grab hold of on a low
> wing so they just leave you to it. Also, the Cherokee has
> steering system better suited to high winds. (I believe the C172
> has springs/bungees linking the nosewheel steering, the Cherokee
> has a 'solid' linkage).
>
> My problem was that with the wind strength plus a tailwheel, the
> weathervaning tendency is just too strong. My tailwheel steering
> was provided by springs up to a certain limit, and then it goes
> into free castor if you jab the brake. Trouble is, this system
> doesn't work terribly well taxiing crosswind in a high wind, since
> the weathervaning tendency will overcome the power of the springs
> (and might even cause the tailwheel to come out of the detent and
> castor, at which point you're basically buggered from a steering
> point of view!)

If you have effective brakes differential braking works if the tailwheel is
free to caster or locked.

> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
>

[John Galban]

(Dylan Smith) wrote in message >...
>
> If you compare a C172 with a Cherokee, you'll find the gear track is
> actually pretty similar. There's nothing to grab hold of on a low
> wing so they just leave you to it.
<snip>

The gear track sure looks a lot wider on my Cherokee. I believe
it's close to 20 ft. Actually my point was that the combination of
the wider track, and more importantly, the lower CG means there's no
need for anyone to grab hold of anything. Where my topheavy 172 used
to start rocking on its wheels turning into a stiff crosswind, the
Cherokee doesn't even budge.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Snowbird]

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message >...
> Hi!
>
> The other day I was flying in to Haugesund Karmoy (ENHD) on the west coast
> of Norway.
> The wind was 17 kts with 27 kts gust 30 degrees down the runway.
> I was flying an Arrow 180 with the old herskey bar wings. Normally final
> approach is done at 90 mph. However, in this wind I put on between 10-15
> extra knots for safety.

Caveat:
I don't fly an Arrow with hershey bar wings.

AFAIK, I fly a plane whose stall speed is *higher* than an Arrow's.

90 mph sounds quite high for normal final approach esp. w/ just you
in the plane, assuming your stall speed is similar to or lower than
mine.

I target final approach at 80 mph, 75 if it's just me and partial
fuel. I add 1/2 the gust factor as a rule of thumb ie 17 g 27
would add ~5 kts.

JMO, but I don't think it adds to safety to put on too much extra
speed. If it's really nasty and swirly near the ground, it just
extends the time you have to spend in ground effect bleeding off
extra speed.

Why do you feel it's necessary, or safer, to add 10 to 15 kts to
an approach speed which already sounds rather fast?

Cheers,
Sydney

[john smith]

Snowbird wrote:
> AFAIK, I fly a plane whose stall speed is *higher* than an Arrow's.
> 90 mph sounds quite high for normal final approach esp. w/ just you
> in the plane, assuming your stall speed is similar to or lower than
> mine.
> I target final approach at 80 mph, 75 if it's just me and partial
> fuel. I add 1/2 the gust factor as a rule of thumb ie 17 g 27
> would add ~5 kts.
> JMO, but I don't think it adds to safety to put on too much extra
> speed. If it's really nasty and swirly near the ground, it just
> extends the time you have to spend in ground effect bleeding off
> extra speed.
> Why do you feel it's necessary, or safer, to add 10 to 15 kts to
> an approach speed which already sounds rather fast?

Note thaty the original poster stated airspeed in MILES PER HOUR not
knots.
90 MPH is about 75 kts, which is okay.
The Arrow has a healthy sink rate the requires some extra speed
initially to keep the sink rate below 500 fpm.

[Robert Moore]

john smith wrote
> The Arrow has a healthy sink rate the requires some extra speed
> initially to keep the sink rate below 500 fpm.

Sink rate (and rate of climb) is a function of power not
airspeed. Excess power...you go up, more excess power
and you go up faster. Same for a deficiency of power, the
greater the deficiency, the faster you go down. A 500 fpm
rate of descent can be flown at "almost" any airspeed by
using an appropriate power setting.

Bob Moore

[Dylan Smith]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:49:11 GMT, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>If you have effective brakes differential braking works if the tailwheel is
>free to caster or locked.

The trouble is the wind was so strong, I'd have needed so much brake
it would have taken almost takeoff power to taxi :-)

Much easier to have two eager linemen grab a strut each <g>

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:29:14 GMT, john smith >
wrote:

>Snowbird wrote:
>> AFAIK, I fly a plane whose stall speed is *higher* than an Arrow's.
>> 90 mph sounds quite high for normal final approach esp. w/ just you
>> in the plane, assuming your stall speed is similar to or lower than
>> mine.
>> I target final approach at 80 mph, 75 if it's just me and partial
>> fuel. I add 1/2 the gust factor as a rule of thumb ie 17 g 27
>> would add ~5 kts.
>> JMO, but I don't think it adds to safety to put on too much extra
>> speed. If it's really nasty and swirly near the ground, it just
>> extends the time you have to spend in ground effect bleeding off
>> extra speed.
>> Why do you feel it's necessary, or safer, to add 10 to 15 kts to
>> an approach speed which already sounds rather fast?
>
>Note thaty the original poster stated airspeed in MILES PER HOUR not
>knots.
>90 MPH is about 75 kts, which is okay.

That's still faster than I land a Bonanza or Debonair.
and I think its considerably faster than I used to Land the Cherokee
180. And I did make the distinction between knots and MPH.

>The Arrow has a healthy sink rate the requires some extra speed
>initially to keep the sink rate below 500 fpm.

OK...why do you want to keep the sink rate below 500 fpm? I'm used to
seeing 800 in the Deb and can easily manage a descent up to 1100 fpm.
Actually I can come down a lot faster than that, but I can do a more
or less normal descent at 1100.

"As I recall" power off in the old Cherokee 180 was also around 800
with full flaps.

As a comparison, a power off "best glide" in a Glasair III is about
1500 fpm.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Snowbird]

john smith > wrote in message >...
> Snowbird wrote:
> > AFAIK, I fly a plane whose stall speed is *higher* than an Arrow's.
> > 90 mph
<....>
> > I target final approach at 80 mph, 75 if it's just me and partial
> > fuel.

> Note thaty the original poster stated airspeed in MILES PER HOUR not
> knots.

Yes. Note that so did I.

> 90 MPH is about 75 kts, which is okay.

Well, I've never flown an Arrow -- as I said up-front.

I calculate 90 MPH as 78 kts.

What is Vso in a Hershey-bar Arrow? www.risingup.com gives
one 180 hp model as 53 kts. Using the 1.3xVso rule of thumb,
that suggests an approach speed of 69 kts or about 80 mph,
which is my target.

Note that the original poster also said he was adding 10-15 *kts*
of extra speed to compensate for 10 kt gust.

> The Arrow has a healthy sink rate the requires some extra speed
> initially to keep the sink rate below 500 fpm.

Well, like I said, I've never flown one, but it looked to me
like it had the same wing as the comparable PA28-180 or Archer
of its year. Why would it have such a high sink rate vs. these
planes?

Cheers,
Sydney

[vincent p. norris]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 20:38:02 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote:

>john smith wrote
>> The Arrow has a healthy sink rate the requires some extra speed
>> initially to keep the sink rate below 500 fpm.
>
>Sink rate (and rate of climb) is a function of power not
>airspeed. Excess power...you go up, more excess power
>and you go up faster. Same for a deficiency of power, the
>greater the deficiency, the faster you go down. A 500 fpm
>rate of descent can be flown at "almost" any airspeed by
>using an appropriate power setting.
>
>Bob Moore

Ahh, words of wisdom from a fellow Naval Aviator.

(They don't seem to teach that anywhere else, Bob.)

vince norris

[Rick Durden]

John,

Your words sound overly confident enough to remind me of an
acquaintance who bragged about handling strong winds in his Cherokee
as opposed to high wing nose gear airplanes. He forgot that the
extensive dihedral makes up for the very minor difference in vertical
center of gravity between the airplanes, did not use aileron
deflection on a gusty day and his wonderful low wing Cherokee got
flipped.

All airplanes are subject to upset in very high winds. Appropriate
aileron technique when taxiing, taking off and landing is far more
important than where the wing is mounted or the width of the gear.
Your 172 bobbed in the wind more than your Cherokee because of the
spring steel gear on the 172 having more "give" to it than the oleo
stuts on the Cherokee. They provide you with what can be a false
sense of security.

All the best,
Rick

(John Galban) wrote in message >...
> (Dylan Smith) wrote in message >...
> >
> > If you compare a C172 with a Cherokee, you'll find the gear track is
> > actually pretty similar. There's nothing to grab hold of on a low
> > wing so they just leave you to it.
> <snip>
>
> The gear track sure looks a lot wider on my Cherokee. I believe
> it's close to 20 ft. Actually my point was that the combination of
> the wider track, and more importantly, the lower CG means there's no
> need for anyone to grab hold of anything. Where my topheavy 172 used
> to start rocking on its wheels turning into a stiff crosswind, the
> Cherokee doesn't even budge.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Greg Esres]

<<As such, Bob's comments were right on the money. >>

I was just quibbling about his comment about airspeed being unrelated
to excess power. That was indeed wrong, and if it went unchallenged,
some readers might think it was right.

<<However you slice it, the original comment ("The Arrow has a healthy
sink rate the requires some extra speed initially to keep the sink
rate below 500 fpm") is just plain wrong.>>

True.

[EDR]

rethinking previous postings...
with power...
- fly the numbers or faster with shallower approach
without power...
- fly the numbers with normal rate of descent
- fly faster with steeper rate of descent