Crosswind Landings

[GAHorn]

That just goes to show you that a CFI license is not "the force"!(as in "use the force,Luke") A year ago,an experienced CFI at my field was giving dual in a borrowed 170 and managed to put it on it's back while demonstrating an unintentional groundloop! He's an ex-USAF jet jockey and charter operator with lots of hours. I guess he figured his credentials automatically made him proficient in a taildragger. The real shame is that the airplane & him were both uninsured,and the 170's owner ended up paying the price for the CFI's inadequacies. Amazingly enough,he's still flying borrowed airplanes. Turns out it wasn't his fault,the airplane apparently crashed itself. Some people just don't learn.
Another horror story--a couple years ago, the new owner of an FBO at a nearby field decided he'd better give a customer's Super Cub a test flight after some maintenance work had been done on it. He's another ex-militairy hot shot. Well,from what I heard,he pushed the stick forward as he cobbed the throttle starting the takeoff roll,and the Supercub immediately made a hard left turn off the runway & into the ditch. Wiped out one main gear pretty good. He musta watched that short takeoff contest video one too many times. Owner wasn't too happy.

Eric

A fresh-water fish shouldn't try to swim in the ocean. And vice-versa.
At the state of Tx flight dept., we'd occasionally get an ex-military pilot who was waiting to get on with an airline, and needed to stay current. The Dir. of Ops would allow them to ride along as copilots with us, and most of us would let them have an empty leg or so until we could determine if they could be trusted when passengers were onboard.
When conditions were good, they were usually OK. But the fact is that most of them were not trained/qualified for passenger operations. The classic example would be an ex-F-16 pilot in a crosswind. The F-16 apparently is so smart it won't perform a manuever the pilot requests/attempts until the speed/attitude/etc. is right. For example, apparently it won't let a pilot inadvertently get into an accelerated stall, ...and apparently it has no rudder feedback/authority as virtually all the F-16 pilots that I flew with had no idea what the rudder was for. At any given time during a flight, I could look over there and their feet would be flat on the floor, regardless of flight conditions. The only reason they'd put their feet on the pedals was when they wanted to steer on the ground or apply brakes. Consequently, I'd simply never let them land in a crosswind. Even calm wind conditions would sometimes result in a slow drift across the center-lines and touchdowns with side-loads.
They also had difficulty in planning descents. This was especially troublesome in the unpressurized piston airplanes like the Cessna 402's we sometimes operated. The King Airs were almost as bad, but at least you could flight-idle them and let them plummet when necessary. (Once I gave the controls to another pilot, I was reluctant to take control again. I didn't want to 1: embarrass the other pilot and 2: admit in front of everyone that my judgement to trust them with the airplane had been in error.)
In general, the military pilots I've flown with were largely out of tune with the requirements of light aircraft operations, especially with regard to passenger operations. They were insensitive to the passenger's ride.
But how would I have fared in an F-16? I'm sure I'd get my rear end in trouble fast! My civilian flight training would serve me very poorly in the military operational environment. I'd doubtless abuse the airplane even on a calm day, and would only survive a combat encounter by pure dumb luck!
Those military pilots may not be the coolest in a civilian environment at first....(ask any civilian-trained Southwest pilot who flys with all the F-16 jocks employed there)...but they eventually learn enough to get by in a 737 with huge numbers of ground support. And a few of them actually acquire a love of light planes and "real" flying. But I sure wouldn't want the country to have to depend on me or any of my civilian-trained buddies if we ever get ourselves into a defensive position!
It's not true in all cases. A few pilots do well in the cross-over.
A great many of WW-2, Korea, and VN aviators have transitioned well into Gen. Av. tho'. Maybe it has something to do with the sense of humility that training in tail-wheel aircraft brings.
In any case, I respect immensely the knowlege and skills military pilots bring to the profession. I've always learned from them and I've always enjoyed flying with them.

[N170BP]

A friend of mine showed me a tip on cross wind landings and take offs especially on asphault runways. Don't try to land or take off straight down the runway but angle into the wind, kind of across the runway so to speak.
It helps if it is a wide runway.
Bob

Thanks Bob,

I had been given that same tip. For what it's worth, I used whatever
runway was there (all of it, width-wise that is!).

Bela P. Havasreti
'54 C-170B N170BP

[superpilot_75965]

Having been on both sides of the fence, 30 years military 50 years civilian, PILOTS are Pilots: I have been an Instructor in both capacities for about 40 of those years. I have flown with good and bad individuals with attitude problems. Military pilots are professionals. Many civilian pilots are also professionals. I have never had a problem teaching a good pilot the proper ways in flying or looking after his passengers. To qualify my self I have flown Tankers, fighters, cargo, and O-1 and 2 with a few trips to the war zones. I have also flown several thousand hours of Multi engine Charter. I have operated in every continent in the world. If a newby is properly brought along, he can normally be brought up to speed. If an owner allowed someone unqualifed in his aircraft, thats his fault. Most pilots are full of BS and a good filter is sometimes required. Enough said Bill

[wa4jr]

It was always fun to get a new pilot to train when I flew with Critical Air Medicine in the southwest US. We got a lot of Navy guys coming out of the service and all were excellent pilots for the most part as soon as they got used to the idea that you could actually fly without someone controlling you at all times...VFR and after getting them to flare for landings. Evidently the Navy teaches its pilots to just assume an attitude near the ground and let the aircraft "crash" into the runway. Our C-421s did not like this even with their trailing link gear! But then there was the guy just out of the Navy that insisted on putting a cast iron automotive exhaust manifold up in the nose compartment to keep the CG in the envelope "as shown in the book". Some pilots are just so "by the book" that you can't get them to loosen up and use their noggin to reason things out. What damage that unsecured manifold would have done to the nose of the Cessna in a turbulence encounter or quick stop...not to mention taking a chunk out of the useful load. We all knew the 421 would fly just fine with CG a bit out in front or back of the envelope, but this fellow viewed it as instant death when you got out by only a fraction! But as you point out...with the tables turned I'd quickly get screamed at by flying some of the military hardware "civilian" style using the book as a "rough draft" so to speak.

[hsjrev]

Hey John, when were you with CAM? I was one of those military guys who went direct from my last AV-8B sortie on a Friday afternoon to Cessna 421 ground school on the following Monday a.m. I was in Eagle Pass from Sep '96 to Feb '98. I realized how great that trailing link gear on the 421's was when we had to use the 414 with straight legs for a while. Flight nurses aren't shy about critiquing landings.

Steve Jackson
N7MXX

[David Laseter]

It seems that ever since we got into this X-wind topic, I've found myself in a X-wind. Yesterday, landing on Petit Jean, there was a X-wind flowing over the woods beside the runway. These are the ones I don't like. Wind - No wind - Gust - Wind. I wiggled 87B down on the right main (sortof) and went in to find out if this was a good flyin spot. 100LL is $2.10 there - Morrilton Aviation. Anyway, thanks flyer170 & Bela, when I back taxied 03, I noticed how wide the runway was. So I put 87B almost on the grass, left of the runway, aimed about 600ft down to the right side of the runway. That little bit of improved upwind angle made a big difference to me. Wish I had of noted the degs in directional change.

[wa4jr]

Hey Steve, I was with CAM from May '95 to June '97 when I left to go back to regional flying with ACA in Dulles. Last post with CAM was at SAT. Loved the flying but the pager bit didn't work well with a new girlfriend (now wife). Something about being in the middle of "under cover operations" at night and getting the page to go fly....or always going out to eat in two cars as you KNOW just after the order is placed the pager is going to go off. I'll have to say though, that CAM flying is the most fun flying I ever did (aside from my 170) and if I ever left airline flying I'd go back to CAM or a similar air ambulance outfit. Send my a PM if you want to carry on and we'll not bog down the thread here....

[4-Shipp]

The classic example would be an ex-F-16 pilot in a crosswind. The F-16 apparently is so smart it won't perform a manuever the pilot requests/attempts until the speed/attitude/etc. is right. For example, apparently it won't let a pilot inadvertently get into an accelerated stall, ...and apparently it has no rudder feedback/authority as virtually all the F-16 pilots that I flew with had no idea what the rudder was for. At any given time during a flight, I could look over there and their feet would be flat on the floor, regardless of flight conditions. The only reason they'd put their feet on the pedals was when they wanted to steer on the ground or apply brakes. Consequently, I'd simply never let them land in a crosswind. Even calm wind conditions would sometimes result in a slow drift across the center-lines and touchdowns with side-loads.

Yes, there is a great deal of difference between military and civilian flying and training. In the USAF, once a fighter type leaves the striaght-winged T-37, his view of crosswinds and landings changes for ever, and if he never goes back to flying a staight-winged bird, his feet quickly forget what they had learned in the Tweet.
George, you are partly correct wrt modern fighter flight control systems. The computers in F-16s, F-15s and the like will actually use all three control surfaces, aileron, elevators and rudder, at the same time to ensure coordinated flight. If you move the stick to the side, the ailerons, rudders and those huge stabilators will all move to give you the turn. Consequently when you try to use your feet in a simple turn, they usually just get in the way. The flight control computer will aslo try to keep you out of trouble by limiting AOA, yaw rates and max Gs. The F-16 has one of the more complex and limiting computers, often reffered to as "Hal" of2001 - a Space oddissy. Debriefs often go like this..."I tried to put my nose on you with 130 knots, but Hal took over...". The system does allow you to over-ride the computer, however. If you are in a 6-7 g turn, the computerwill give you the required rudder but if you want to put the opposite pedal to the flor, you can and the plane will respond accoringly.
This still doesn't explain the feet on the floor in the flare...that is again a holdever from the fighter training. Delta wing aircraft - yes, modern fighters are considered deltas even though they are not true tail less deltas like the F-106 - are not slipped for touchdown. They are designed to be landed in a crab. The T-38 has a 135-145 knot touchdown and a max crosswind component of 25 knots. Get out your whiz-wheel and do the math - that's about 10 degrees of crab at touchdown. Because of their design, they respond to yaw at high angles of attack with roll - a lot of roll! This is great when you are scissoring with a guy 500 feet away at 150 knots, but not so great over the under-run. And yes, it is hard on tires with most lasting less than 20 landings or so...Cha Ching!

Bruce