There is an “over controlling” thread here
Regarding the approach technique, I fly wings-level (i.e. crab method) until the flare and then use the rudder to aling the plane laterally, and use the ailerons into wind to stop it drifting off.
Using the rudder at the last moment has the advantage that the wind shear works in your favour, creating a turning moment which partly aligns the plane by itself, so less rudder is needed.
S-turns are also a very good technique, and safe unless you are going way too slow.
Regarding approach methods, I don’t see what all the fuss it about. There are two different methods, crab & wing down. Both work, both need practice. The only difference worth nothing is that you can’t land in the crab method, so you need to stop that before landing.
There are some aeroplanes which have limitations that prevent the wind down method.
One reason why many airlines use that method is because their engines hang low under the wings, so using a wing down method risks scraping it on the ground.
I think it’s a crutch.
That I don’t get. Most people find the crab method easier to do, so I’m not sure how the wind down method would be a crutch.
What people were thought really comes down to who their instructor was, and what school they attended and in what country. Personally I was shown both during my training and it was left up to me to decide which method I wanted to use.
Whichever method you choose, you should available of every opportunity you get to safely practice crosswind landings. It doesn’t take a lot of practice to be able to do good safe landings in much stronger crosswinds that you might have perviously thought, but it’s a skill that will be lost through lack of practice. (And lack of practice comes from a lack of confidence to go flying in strong crosswind conditions, which comes from a lack of practice! A viscious circle!).
Regarding the over controlling, I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this. I remember when I used to follow Formula One racing you could divide the drivers into those who constantly made huge control inputs while cornering and those who did really smooth inputs. There was no clear division over which was better, and these guys were at the peak of machine handlings.
At the end of the day, the aircraft was at approach speed, so well below manouvering speed, so full control inputs were possible without causing damage. The aircraft didn’t deviate very much from wings level, and he almost tracked the centreline. However he did it, things were safe and worked out well.
I find it easier to start the wing down earlier because you can settle into it. You discover early (say 100’) how much rudder is required to get the nose straight, and how much aileron is required to counteract that. You can then fly the two controls independently,but with rather little input, all the way to the ground, into the flare and landing. That way, you are always pointing straight down the runway, so there is never any possibility of sideways force on the undercarriage.
When I learned this technique, I was taught to land on one wheel, keeping the other off the ground, apply power, take off again, land again on that wheel and so on. I am not sure that I could still do it, but it certainly develops coordination early on.
Personally, I think that adopting wing down early is the easiest of the three techniques (the other two being to kick off drift and to go into wing down in the flare) because it requires much less timing and finesse. You set up a stable situation and stick with it.
I have heard people say that you can land with stronger crosswinds using the kick-off technique, because of limits of control authority, but I have never reached the limit of the wing down technique, despite landing in some very strong crosswinds (40kts in the Aztec, 35kts in Robin etc.)
I can pretty much guarantee to nail a gentle, centreline landing in any crosswind in the normal (non-hurricane). I do not put that down to great skill, but to applying technique, which is why I advocate wing down from 100’.
While I agree that pax find it a bit of a worry, they also find crabbing a bit disconcerting if they are looking forward. That is all a matter of briefing. I always talk pax through the crosswind before we get there so they know what to expect and that we are under control.
I find it easier to start the wing down earlier because you can settle into it. You discover early (say 100’) how much rudder is required to get the nose straight,
That’s very true i.e. it offers you the opportunity to find out that you have too much crosswind for your rudder authority, well before you reach the runway.
However, it results in an overly pessimistic approach (no pun intended) because wind shear normally works in your favour i.e. you need less rudder close to the ground than say at 100ft.
Then there is the turning moment (again due to wind shear) which occurs at the very end (a change in the wind vector).
dublinpilot wrote:
Personally I was shown both during my training and it was left up to me to decide which method I wanted to use.
I guess I did too, since I can’t remember having learned one or the other. With the wing down method, you always get the aircraft roll axis parallel to the runway. This feels more comfortable with a tail wheel aircraft landing on tarmac in a strong cross wind.
Timothy wrote:
Personally, I think that adopting wing down early is the easiest of the three techniques (the other two being to kick off drift and to go into wing down in the flare) because it requires much less timing and finesse. You set up a stable situation and stick with it.
I agree, you get the feel of the strength and the gusts early on also, and have more time to adapt.
Alexis wrote:but the crab is the easier to fly and more efficient method until short final where you start your transition to “wing low”
I don’t get it. This means you have to accelerate on short final when you transition to wing down. Depending on the strength of the cross wind component, you have to accelerate a lot. The only way to do that is to push the stick, you have to increase the sink rate rather dramatically or you run out of speed. Starting with the wing down on “longer” final, also the speed is established. Sideslipping (in a flapless Cub for instance) with no cross wind component, is harmless due to this (for the opposite reason). You can always straighten the plane up and stop the sink rate in a fraction of a second.
Depending on the strength of the cross wind component, you have to accelerate a lot. The only way to do that is to push the stick, you have to increase the sink rate rather dramatically or you run out of speed
Sure, I have to push, a little, in the transition to low wing, but in real life that’s no big deal. The lower stall speed while crabbing is more important, IMHO, and a forward slip is simply an aerodynamically inefficient way to fly. And speed and sink rate are not connected in this way. You cann accelerate by reducing the AOA and still arrest the sink rate with a little more power.
In the end: It’s a matter of persoanl preference, which I find completely ok.
I guess it’s time to talk about where you actually align yourself with the centerline by kicking the rudder and going wing low. What I find really bad is these videos on Youtube where they fly down the whole approach and final in a sideslip, really a long way, after turning final, even from further out when on direct approach.
But of course there’s a lot of variance in where you actually turn from crab to wing low once you’re sufficiently close to the runway. You can do it at 10 feet and you can do it 100 feet. Depends on the airport, the wind and gusts, airplane, and other factors. And there may be planes where you don’t have another choice. And there may be pilots who established it as their preferred method and they’re fine with it. So be it. Whatever works.
But as a general method for a student to learn ? I would always advocate for the crab approach, followed by wing low pretty late. Any side slip is an inefficient way to fly. And why should I learn any two different general basic methods ? Look at it from an IR perspective. If you ever do your IR rating, you won’t be sideslipping any more. Because, forget flying any approach in IMC in a sideslip. It renders all your instrument readings useless. You just don’t have a correct situational awareness – speed, vertical speed, attitude, pitch angle, bank angle, ball, descent rate as a function of power and pitch – all useless. Imagine one or more instruments fail while in IMC. You won’t be able to control the plane any more.
And, you can’t trim the plane correctly in a side slip and the plane doesn’t fly stable. A sideslip is not a stable attitude. You lose your concentration for one second, and bang, missed approach, or worse.
LeSving wrote:
I don’t get it. This means you have to accelerate on short final when you transition to wing down. Depending on the strength of the cross wind component, you have to accelerate a lot.
Why on earth would you need to accelerate? In a normal approach, you are about 30% above stall speed when you pass the threshold, which is plenty. We’re not talking about extreme short-field landings here.
Given that you’re also likely to have extended great boards from the wings to stir up the air and waste energy so you come down faster, efficiency of slipping is really not the issue. Aerodynamic inefficiency is quite often the primary goal of slipping.
The instruments becoming ‘useless’ when slipping is one reason students benefit from being taught to slip: they learn to fly by looking at the attitude and feel of the plane itself, and not become unduly focused on the panel.
Each plane has to be flown on any given day in a way that works for that type of plane, on that day. You should not fly any plane on any day using a single procedure, and to me that fact is half the fun of flying. If you’re not interested in that, I think you need to very much limit your flying activity.
I don’t accept the IFR approach thing.
For 99.9% of IFR pilots on this particular forum, and (I think) 100% of light aeroplane pilots, the instrument part of the approach ends at 200’. If you transition to wing down between there and 100’ that has nothing to do with the IFR/IMC approach.
Also, most IFR approaches go visual much higher than 200’. Most are visual by 1000’. So you could mostly go wing down at 1000’ if you wanted to (though I personally wouldn’t.)
Also, strong crosswinds are rarely associated with very low RVRs. The only circumstance I can think of is in a white-out CB blizzard. That, thankfully, is rare enough not to form part of our SOPs. Under those circumstances, so many other bets are off (not least reduced crosswind limits on a contaminated runway) that we can put it to one side.
