After several failed attempts, I'm finally sitting in the plane copying my ATC clearance to Daytona Beach. I'm pretty excited about going Daytona, since it's the site of the main Embry Riddle campus. For the uninitiated, ERAU (or "Riddle") is pretty much the best known flight school in the US; It may also be the biggest.
I'm the PNF on the first leg. As I'm programming the GPS on the way to the runway, I make a note (for the nth time) to find out how to enter airways in the unit so I don't have to program each waypoint manually. The first point in the flightplan is the Palm Beach VOR, which is maybe 60nm away. In theory, we can just take off and turn north and fly directly to Palm Beach. The South Florida airspace is way too busy for that though, so instead, the skilled controllers of the Miami TRACON keep the traffic flowing by making us zig-zag around the airspace until we're handed off to Palm Beach Approach, where we'll be told to proceed directly to some point down-route. Becausse of the zig-zags, the most expedient way to get someplace is to depart VFR then pick up the IFR clearance once you're well on your way. I don't do that since it puts extra stress on the controller who has to issue my clearence.
Shortly after being handed off to Miami Center, the PF suggests that since we got off to a late start, we should land at Vero Beach instead. Daytona Beach is still a far way off and he has to fly early tomorrow. I have to go to work in the morning too, so I get an ammended clearance from the controller. I'm concerned about the time. Our ETA is 8:10pm, and last time I visited the FBO closed at 8. If they're closed, we won't be able to get fuel. That was a Sunday, so hopefully they'll be open a bit later today. We request a visual approach in order to save time.
In no time, we've been vectored for a visual approach to Vero Beach. Turning final, there's a crosswind from the right, and the PF corrects for it. Now there are two methods for handling a crosswind. My preferred method is to crab the nose into the wind and maintain the airplane in coordinated flight. Just before touchdown, you align the nose with the runway so there's no side load on the gear. My PF prefers the wing low method, where you bank the plane into the wind, then use rudder to keep the nose on runway heading. This uncoordinated configuration is maintained until touchdown. I dislike the method for 2 reasons:
1. It stresses the airframe.
2. It's EXTREMELY uncomfortable. It's just about the most uncomfortable feeling you can experience in an airplane. I'm a pilot and I hate the feeling- I can only imagine what a non-pilot would feed like.
We fly a 2 mile final like this and my stomach turns. I'm trying my best not to feel sick. I look to my left and the PF is smiling boradly and cheering himself on. He's having the time of his life. He's trying for a greaser, so he keeps the power on as we float down the runway. For a second, I'm tempted to ask what the hell he's doing, and chop the power, but that would be both unprofessional and dangerous. We finally run out of airspeed and the plane settles onto the runway. A fairly smooth touchdown for sure, but we were way past the touchdown zone, so it almost doesn't count. I still compliment his touchdwon though.
We taxi to the ramp and find the FBO is still open. That's good. We grab a bite to eat and start preparing for the trip home. This time, it will be my turn to fly through the night sky.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love hearing GA pilots discuss the "wing low" versus "kick out" methods of crosswind correction. Few realize that they're talking about two phases of the exact same technique, and the only disagreement is over when the transition between the phases should take place: a ways out, or right over the runway. At the moment of touchdown, either method should result in the aircraft touching down on runway heading, upwind wing slighly lowered, with zero side-drift. The so-called "wing low" method simply transitions to that state earlier so the pilot has to make fewer last-minute corrections. Yes, it's uncomfortable for passengers unaccustomed to uncoordinated flight. It does NOT, as you state, stress the aircraft. The airplane is happy to fly that way all day. What DOES stress the airframe is landing with sidedrift, which can happen using the kickout method if you don't use just the right inputs of rudder and aileron. I'm not saying one is better than the other. When first teaching students crosswind landings, I'd have them use the wing-low technique all the way down final so they could get used to controlling heading with the pedals and eliminating sidedrift with the ailerons. Once they were used to making the correct inputs, I'd have them apply those inputs much closer in.
ReplyDeleteAt the airlines we actually use a hybrid of the two methods. Crosswind correction is typically applied at around 50 feet above the ground, and you fly the last 10 seconds or so before landing uncoordinated. Aircraft geometry precludes this in some aircraft (ie B747); these aircraft have landing gear that is designed to be landed with side drift.
Thanks for stopping by Sam. I guess I was too general when saying that the airframe is stressed. In the 172, slips are to be avoided with flaps extended, and since most landings are done with flaps extended, I presume that the airframe doesn't like a 3 mile final with Flap 30 in a slip. I could be wrong though, so standing by for correction.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a while since I've flown the C172, but if I recall correctly the POH of the 1977 C172M I flew prohibited extended forward slips with Flaps 40. This was partially due to a history of people undershooting the runway in this very-high drag configuration, and partially because an extended forward slip can uncover the fuel port on the "down wing" if you're low enough on fuel. Most sideslips for crosswind purposes aren't nearly that extreme, though, unless we're talking about crossing components at or above the demonstrated crosswind limit.
ReplyDeleteErm make that "crosswind components."
ReplyDelete