Flying windy approaches

[Barb-SAN]

This video is on FlightAware, and shows a number of planes on final approach in gusty wind conditions (note trees swaying too). Some planes land, some go around, and try again.
http://bazonline.ch/videotv/?video_id=24667

It's interesting to watch them from OUTSIDE the plane, to see how much they tip and sway...then try to imagine yourself inside the plane, and what you might THINK is happening. I found it reassuring to see that if the pilots didn't appear to be satisfied with the approach, they did a go-around, so they could try again.

I'm wondering if they communicated anything to their passengers as to what they might experience during the approach and landing?

Capt. Hutch (and Falcon)... how often have you had landings in this amount of wind? Do you do go-arounds very often? What do you tell your passengers, and when? Any comments about the video and pilot technique?

[CAflyer]

Wow! those are some bad winds! I don't think I would want to stand there and film that cause I would be worried one would crash on me! I am sure the pilots are too busy to think about telling the passengers what is going on. who knows.

[Captain Hutch]

Barb-SAN

Those are some pretty good gusty conditions there. Most of the pilots were using the "crab" technique, keeping the wings level but pointed into the wind so as to keep the ground track straight, which is an approved method for the delta wing jet aircraft. Just before touch down the trick is to align the fuselage with the runway. I have discussed these landings in detail somewhere in one of these threads. My plan with these approaches, which happen "every so often", is that if I feel good about it, I continue the approach. If I don't, I go-around, which is what the pilots in the video seemed to ascribe to. Prior to the approach I usually make an announcement that with gusty winds the approach will be "bumpy" and to make sure their seatbelts are fastened. If I have to go-around, I will just say that the winds are too gusty for landing.

Thanks for bringing up an interesting series of approaches in gusty conditions--experience is the best teacher for handling these approaches.

Hutch :tiphat:

[Barb-SAN]

Barb-SAN
I have discussed these landings in detail somewhere in one of these threads. Hutch :tiphat:
Thanks, Capt. Hutch.
Perhaps in this thread?...http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?t=8164

[CAflyer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X_7Xt2ga-s&NR=1

[Barb-SAN]

Well, I've been waiting for YEARS for these weather conditions, to watch and try to photograph planes landing on Runway 9 (which is rare...usually the wind comes in off the ocean, so planes land on 27), AND a strong direct crosswind. The METAR when I left my house showed winds from the south (180) at 26, gusting to 35. SAN only has one runway, 9/27 (E/W). This is what the radar looked like on FlightAware.

When I got to the "viewing spot" ;) there were strong gusty winds, but no rain. I tried to take a video, but the wind was blowing too strong to hold the camera steady. :cry: So I mostly took still photographs. It was quite exciting to watch the planes, and I kept thinking of Capt. Ray and wondered if he'd call those "sporty" landings. :cool: I was also thinking of Capt Hutch and his comments,
Most likely you were landing in a crosswind, flying in a "crab" down final approach so as to keep the aircraft ground track aligned with the runway, then the pilot using the rudder (accomplished with his foot, sometimes called "kicking the rudder") to align the wheels with the runway just prior to touchdown. It's a bit of a finesse maneuver since you need to perform this alignment literally within inches of the runway so as to not let the upwind wing lift up and consequently have the aircraft slide to the downwind side. (See bad example of a landing in Germany a month or two ago). I always enjoy this little challenge to the flight and appreciate when experienced passengers notice (assuming a nice landing!) and make a comment.
I'd love to hear if the pilots were having fun today...

[Barb-SAN]

So, here is an example of "crabbing". Those tall poles are the approach lights, and they are in a direct line with the runway. The white wall way off in the distance is at the far (east) end of the runway (it's a mural with two apes from the San Diego Zoo, on the side of a parking structure).

So you can see that the plane is skewed...the nose is to the right of the center of the runway (pointing a bit more into the wind, which is coming from the south (right), perpendicular to the line of light poles and runway).
I wonder if it was strange to be looking out the window on the left side of the plane, watching the plane approach the runway in a somewhat sideways direction? :eek: The planes all held this angle until almost down on the runway, where they straightened out. It was hard to tell from my vantage point exactly what happened in the last few seconds before touchdown, but it looked like the wings stayed fairly level all the way down. I watched about a dozen planes, and all of them seemed quite stable except for one which had a "wobble" to the left, then right, then stablized (caused by a wind gust?)

Question for Capt. Hutch...how do you know how much to crab? What is the crosswind limit for the 737?
I heard a couple different ATIS reports, one reported wind gusts to 35, then a later report said 31 (both from 180).
Also, I was surprised to see a couple planes taking off on 27 in the midst of most of the planes landing on 9 (not simultaneously). I'm wondering if there was a slight shift in the wind when that happened? They seemed to fly more parallel to the approach lights on the takeoff (not crabbed), though it looked like the wind was pushing the planes a bit sideways.

[Barb-SAN]

Then the rain began to fall, in torrents, along with gusty winds that bumped my car. I sat in my car awhile watching the planes (almost right underneath them, as you can tell from the angle of the plane). You can see the plane is still crabbing, and the heavy rain didn't seem to be a problem.

I found this a useful excursion, having had "issues" with flying in stormy weather in the past. It's very reassuring to watch the planes handle windy & rainy weather "routinely", one plane after another. Also builds confidence to sit below them...;)

[Barb-SAN]

For comparison, here's a photo of one of the planes that was taking off on 27 this afternoon. You can see it is more lined up parallel with the approach lights (i.e. not crabbed).
Also note seagull flying along. There were quite a few birds in the air (maybe coming more inland ahead of the storm). They seemed to stay lower than the planes though...I didn't see any bird strikes.

[tusphotog]

Barb:

That's not San Diego. We all know it NEVER rains in San Diego! :D

And yes, conditions like SAN had today, approaches would qualify as "sporty." Here's a cool crab photo (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirates/Boeing-777-31H/1641492/L/) from Athens.

SPECI KSAN 182259Z 17026G35KT 2SM RA BR SCT020 OVC028 16/12 A2977 RMK AO2 PK WND 17034/2258

A possible reason for the reverse departures has to do with weight and climb gradient/obstacle clearance. If you launch on 09, you point at the buildings and mountains. I forget what the required climb gradient is, but it's steeper going east than it is going west. There's nothing really in the way to the west except a lot of water and a few trees by the airport fence.

[Barb-SAN]

Hey, Tusphotog...love the crab photo from Athens. Yes, that's the angle I'd like for photographing SAN...where you can see the plane crabbed in reference to the runway. I printed out that photo, and the 2nd one of mine, and it looks like the angle of plane-to-runway is similar. I hope the Athens photo will help people visualize what the SAN planes would have looked like from a higher vantage point.

I'm going to keep exploring for new spotter locations.;). The light poles give some point of reference, but it requires an understanding of aerodynamics, and visual imagination, to understand what you are looking at.

The Athens photo is just plain scary if you don't understand crabbing. :eek:

How did you find the METAR (and guess the correct time?). I'm impressed. :tiphat: The 1st photo was taken at 14:38PST, the 2nd at 15:10, and the 3rd at 14:18. (2259Z would be 14:59PST)

As far as the departures, I only saw 2 planes take off on 27 in the 1 1/2 hrs. that I was there. I guess I could look through the FlightAware archives of afternoon arrivals and departures between 2PM and 3:30PM, and see what's there, also if any planes diverted or were in holding patterns, which I couldn't tell from the ground. I've been wondering about taking off to the east...thinking it's "uphill". Also wondering how ATC decides which way to land the planes if there's a direct crosswind. The advantage of landing on 9 is that there's an ILS in case the visibility drops in stormy weather. The thought of "microbursts and windshear" did cross my mind as I sat in my car under the flight path with all that rain and wind...and decided maybe it was time for lunch...elsewhere... :rolleyes:

As far as it "never" raining in San Diego, that's about right. I thought it would be good practice to drive in the heavy rain...for a few blocks, until I found somewhere to park and eat lunch. :D On the way home I got to drive through some flooded intersections, and on Pacific Hwy found someone driving on the wrong side of the road in my lane (in spite of a concrete dividing median) because the water was too deep on their side. No CHP yet on the scene to set up barriers or close the roads.

All and all, an exciting afternoon to be outside roaming around. ;)

[tusphotog]

How did you find the METAR (and guess the correct time?). I'm impressed. :tiphat: The 1st photo was taken at 14:38PST, the 2nd at 15:10, and the 3rd at 14:18. (2259Z would be 14:59PST)


Easy: Wunderground.com has a fantastic archive of weather data for a ton of sites around the US, and probably the world. They run their forecasts off the NWS ones, which I find a bit more reliable than the Accuweather/Weather.com folks. In any event, you can pull up the METAR and other goodies. It's a really cool site. As you see from the image below, you can also pull up storm tracks etc. This one from SNA has a tornado vortex signature (see below)

Here's a METAR from when I flew thru SAN in 2006. The airport was a mess.

METAR KSAN 022151Z 19016KT 1/2SM +RA FG OVC007 14/13 A3000 RMK AO2 PK WND 17028/2113 PRESRR SLP159 P0010 T01440133

As for elevation, there really isn't much elevation change rwy 09 is 13.8 ft at the departure end, and rwy 27 is 16.4 ft at the departure end, so a loss of less than three feet. It probably had to do with climb performance.

One other thing, I just got a severe weather alert for Anaheim/Long Beach: a tornado warning. This is southern California! Check out the radar images. For reference, the METAR for SNA (located just outside Newport Beach, to the upper left of the R3 cell)

SPECI KSNA 192130Z 22016G33KT 1 1/2SM +TSRA BR FEW008 BKN016CB OVC039 13/11 A2954 RMK AO2 PK WND 17036/2056 SFC VIS 3 TSB30 FRQ LTGICCG SE MOV NE TS AT AP MOV NE P0033. Basically it reads wind 220 (or out of the SE) at 16 G 33kt (~20 something mph), vis is 1.5 miles, heavy thunderstorm rain, mist, few clouds 800 feet, broken 1600 CB (Cumulonimbus or thunderstorm clouds) overcast 3900 ft. Temp 13 (55 F) dewpoint 11. The rest is peak wind 17036 (direction/speed)/time (2056 = 1256p PST) 3 miles of surface visibility, thunderstorm began at 30 mins past the hr (1230p), frequent lighting In Cloud (IC) and Cloud to Ground (CG) Southeast of the apt, moving north east (as the radar picture shows). Thunderstorm at the airport moving NE. What a mouth full.

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2337/wunidsmap.gif (http://img705.imageshack.us/i/wunidsmap.gif/)
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1117/screenshot20100119at226.png (http://img156.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20100119at226.png/)

[Barb-SAN]

Thanks...I'll add that to my "favorites".

Heh heh...like minds...awhile ago I was looking at the SNA weather myself on FlightAware and marveling at the HUGE chunk of red on the radar. There was a tornado warning up briefly on weather.com, but then it disappeared. I didn't check Long Beach/Anaheim though. I guess the planes will be avoiding the area with hail then.

Rain is really coming down here in San Diego. I do have a little project that requires a drive, but there's no rush. Waiting to see if the rain tapers off in a bit...not too keen to find myself in "urban street flooding" again. I see on FlightAware the planes are landing on 9 again at SAN...

When I was referring to flying "uphill" at SAN when taking off on runway 9, I didn't mean the runway itself, but rather the "hill" to the east of the airport. I believe the take-off angle is steeper than the landing, but I haven't seen it myself yet. I've been waiting for the opportunity to watch...but visibility isn't so good at the moment (nor is it when fog forces planes to land on 9).

Comparing the take-off on 27, and landing on 9...the planes are much higher, quicker, after take-off than they are for landing (see photo comparison above).

[Barb-SAN]

O.K., I'm hopelessly weather obsessed...:rolleyes: but the wind is really blowing right now (so much of the year we have bland weather...it's exciting to have "real weather" once in awhile).

[Barb-SAN]

Lots of planes taking off and landing at SAN, and lots of rain.
Update from weather.com:
weather.com: We have been talking about the parade of Pacific storms marching into california and the Southwest both here on weather.com and The Weather Channel.
The atmosphere is so unstable in southern California that these overall large, synoptic storms can go on to trigger individual thunderstorms - even severe thunderstorms.
Strong-to-severe thunderstorms rolled into Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties in SoCal around 12:35pm PT Tuesday.
The storms indicated some rotation on radar and tornado warnings were issued.
The warnings expired at 1:15pm PT for LA County and was cancelled at 1:54pm PT for Orange County.
An additional tornado warning was issued at 2pm PT Tuesday for both Orange and San Diego counties.
The only report of damage was that of a flipped car on Pacific Coast Highway and Anderson in Seal Beach in Orange County.
As the next rounds of Pacific storms crash into southern California, it's weather like this that will become common this week. Stay alert!

[Barb-SAN]

The jetstream is involved...look out, Tusphotog...looks like you're in line...

[Captain Hutch]

BarbSAN,

Yes, I would say you are a hopeless weather addict! However, I think that is a very neat exercise, to watch the planes landing in a crab. Our limit in the 737 is 35 knot gust and 29 knots steady state cross wind.

I dare say that Athens plane looks out of limits to me. At that point, I don't care if the controller says the winds are in limits, I'm goin' around 'cause it looks like at least a 30 degree angle and that is pretty excessive, and I'd be wondering if I would be getting the correct speed indications anyway.

Hutch :cry:

[Barb-SAN]

However, I think that is a very neat exercise, to watch the planes landing in a crab. Our limit in the 737 is 35 knot gust and 29 knots steady state cross wind. Hutch :cry:
So, then, I was watching the planes right about at their limit. I was wondering, as I remembered tracking some awhile ago on Flightaware, which diverted and the crosswind was gusting, I believe, to around 40.

There were only a couple other people there yesterday where I was watching, and we agreed that the pilots were probably finding the landings "exciting". :D Not so sure about the passengers. I think an explanation of why the plane was flying sort of sideways would probably help...but then again probably not everyone is actually paying attention or looking out the window.

I think one of the benefits of an "exercise" like going to watch planes is that it is experiencing "reality" and not "imagination". You also get an outside perspective of how much the plane is moving in turbulence and wind gusts. There may be some shifting and "adjusting", but the plane isn't falling thousands of feet when it hits a bumpy gust (even though you might have a "falling" sensation inside the plane in turbulence). At least...that's what I got out of watching the planes yesterday...and also the sense that crabbing is a routine procedure that all the planes can do in certain wind conditions.

[tusphotog]

It's cool landing in a crab and looking out the window only to see the plane flying sideways! It's a bit disconcerting at first.

ps. Barb, saw a Tornado Warning up for San Diego as well. All of this fun comes at us tonight/tomorrow. It was nice and sunny here about 9am after some morning rain, but by noon it was cloudy. There is a rocking jetstream pointing at the west coast now. 200+ mph out in the Pacific.

Dare I say it: I can't wait for early summer. Hot and sunny. :D

[Barb-SAN]

There is a rocking jetstream pointing at the west coast now. 200+ mph out in the Pacific.
And here it is, pointed right at us...:eek:

[Barb-SAN]

We're getting more rain & wind in San Diego this afternoon, though it looks like the heavier rain is up around LAX. Here's a current screenshot of airport activity at LAX. The turquoise planes are landing or taking off from LAX, the green ones are just "in the vicinity" of LAX.
From AirNav http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLAX, runways at LAX are 7L/25R, 7R/25L, 6R/24L, 6L/24R. Hmmm, winds are from 160, at 14 gusting to 22 knots...so maybe there is some crabbing going on at LAX today too, though that wind isn't as strong as it was the other day at SAN. I wonder if there are any photographer-spotters out today at LAX?

METAR text: KLAX 202318Z 16014G22KT 2 1/2SM RA BR BKN016 BKN024 OVC060 13/11 A2949 RMK AO2 P0023 $ Conditions at: KLAX (LOS ANGELES, CA, US) observed 2318 UTC 20 January 2010 Temperature: 13.0°C (55°F) Dewpoint: 11.0°C (52°F) [RH = 88%] Pressure (altimeter): 29.49 inches Hg (998.7 mb) Winds: from the SSE (160 degrees) at 16 MPH (14 knots; 7.3 m/s)
gusting to 25 MPH (22 knots; 11.4 m/s) Visibility: 2.50 miles (4.02 km) Ceiling: 1600 feet AGL Clouds: broken clouds at 1600 feet AGL
broken clouds at 2400 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 6000 feet AGL Weather: RA BR (rain, mist)
SOME DATA ABOVE MAY BE INACCURATE!!!
"$" is an indication the sensor requires maintenance

[Barb-SAN]

Capt. Hutch...looking at this information, what would you be expecting if you were flying into SAN this afternoon? Potential for "extremely sporty"??

San Diego's runway is 9/27, and the forecast shows winds from the SSE (160 degrees at 17 MPH gusting to 40MPH).

During the same time period, for less than half of the time, the winds are forecast to be from the SSW (200 degrees) at 29 MPH gusting to 57 MPH.

Is that "iffy" enough to consider closing the airport for awhile? Which direction would you prefer to land, given the choice? (ILS is only on 9)

I guess we will see, for anyone who wants to watch airport activity on Flight Aware. http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KSAN

[Barb-SAN]

Here's the FlightAware map...hmmm...that's quite an extensive line of red there...:eek: Wonder if it will come ashore...?? It's already quite windy with a little rain (and I'm in my house today where it's warm and dry, not roaming around. :cool:) You can see that for now, the planes are landing and taking off on 9.

[Barb-SAN]

Indeed...that line is getting closer, and there was a severe thunderstorm warning posted for a bit north of San Diego, where you can see the red over land. Planes are still flying into SAN, landing on 9, not going into the red areas.

[Barb-SAN]

Well, I was surprised to see this...it appears that the planes needed to cross that red line in order to be lined up to land on 9 at SAN.

[Barb-SAN]

45 minutes later, the line has passed the airport, and now the planes are landing on 27.

[MathFox]

Well, I was surprised to see this...it appears that the planes needed to cross that red line in order to be lined up to land on 9 at SAN.
You should realise that the flightaware map only gives the two dimensional picture. You don't know the altitude of the top of the clouds, but I guess that the pilots flew above the showers there.

[Barb-SAN]

You should realise that the flightaware map only gives the two dimensional picture. You don't know the altitude of the top of the clouds, but I guess that the pilots flew above the showers there.
Agreed about the two dimensional aspect...we don't know the heights of the cells. However...the planes were getting ready to land, so would have been at a relatively low altitude. There are also "rules" about flying under and over thunderstorms.

There is also the (very good) possibility that the radar picture on FlightAware is not accurately coordinated with the position shown of the planes. With a fast-moving line of thunderstorms we could be seeing an inaccurate view of what was actually happening.

I'm most inclined to believe what I've heard over and over from commercial pilots, that they have onboard radar that shows where the thunderstorm cells are, and they avoid them, ESPECIALLY when they are landing the plane. The planes have the option to do a holding pattern until the cells move away from the airport, and it is safe to land.

[tusphotog]

There is also the (very good) possibility that the radar picture on FlightAware is not accurately coordinated with the position shown of the planes. With a fast-moving line of thunderstorms we could be seeing an inaccurate view of what was actually happening.

I'm most inclined to believe what I've heard over and over from commercial pilots, that they have onboard radar that shows where the thunderstorm cells are, and they avoid them, ESPECIALLY when they are landing the plane. The planes have the option to do a holding pattern until the cells move away from the airport, and it is safe to land.

Bingo. There's also the possibility that the "red" was just a band of heavy precip with no thunderstorms in them. Looking at yesterday's METARs doesn't show any VCTS, TS, TSRA or lightning remarks, so I'm inclined to believe it was just a band of heavy precip.

[Barb-SAN]

Bingo. There's also the possibility that the "red" was just a band of heavy precip with no thunderstorms in them. Looking at yesterday's METARs doesn't show any VCTS, TS, TSRA or lightning remarks, so I'm inclined to believe it was just a band of heavy precip.
Hmmm...well, I was intrigued enough by the weather yesterday that I grabbed a screen shot of this warning...
(though, once again, I don't know if the radar is accurate to the minute of when it is posted). The Local Radar Map indicates it was updated at 5:05PM, the text says at 4:52 PM Doppler Radar indicated a line....
So does it show the 4:52 radar or the 5:05 radar? It's not clear to me...but I will believe there were thunderstorms out there somewhere!

Edited to add...I was watching when "red" was over my house, and I didn't see any lightning, but there was a lot of wind and heavy rain. I regret to say I didn't take notes as to the intensity of the rain at my house in relation to red/yellow/green, and where it was when on the radar map. ;)

[Barb-SAN]

Today is supposed to have the strongest storms of the week here in San Diego, and indeed we did have a "severe thunderstorm warning" around noon.
Due to wet and windy weather conditions, Southwest Airlines has announced that it is temporarily suspending all flights out of San Diego International Airport ...

Southwest announced similar suspensions at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport. More airports across the southwest region could do the same if weather conditions worsen.

Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-01-21/local-county-news/southwest-suspends-flights-at-lindbergh-field#ixzz0dHonRo2M (http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-01-21/local-county-news/southwest-suspends-flights-at-lindbergh-field#ixzz0dHonRo2M)

Here's the current radar from FlightAware, and you can see that there are still some planes landing and taking off from KSAN .

[Barb-SAN]

Here's the aviation weather...similar to yesterday, with the addition of possible hail associated with thunderstorms for a couple hours. Also the wind is from the WSW, so they can land on 27. However, that "temporary" forecast shows possible wind gusts to 52MPH (45KTS) from the south (180), so that is a direct crosswind for KSAN, and would exceed the limits Capt. Hutch told us for the 737 (35KT gust).

[Barb-SAN]

Caution...it's a GOOD THING...:D
SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) -- The pacific storm that has hit the West Coast on Thursday is impacting air traffic in Southern California and Arizona. Southwest Airlines said flights out of Burbank Airport have been suspended as of 1 p.m. because of unfavorable wind conditions. The airlines is hoping to resume services by 6 p.m. Thursday evening.

The cancellations are having a ripple effect across the country and right here in the Bay Area. 24 Southwest flights out of Oakland, 22 out of San Jose and 15 out of SFO have all been scrapped so far.
Other airlines have also been impacted and flyers to and from Southern California and parts of Arizona are advised to call their airlines beforehand.
Southwest has also suspended travel to and from Ontario, Orange County, Phoenix, San Diego and Tuscon Airports.
http://www.kcbs.com/Southwest-Suspends-Flights-to-and-From-SoCal-Arizo/6173530

[tusphotog]

As much as I love KCBS (only radio I listen to in SF), they need to spell check. T U C S O N.

Now that that's out of my system, we've been getting diversions from PHX all evening. Winds are forecast to hit 69mph here for several hours overnight. Goody!

Here's our TAF:
KTUS 212324Z 2200/2224 19030G40KT P6SM BKN040
TEMPO 2200/2204 4SM -RA BKN030
FM220400 19030G40KT P6SM -RA BKN030
TEMPO 2207/2209 19035G60KT 3SM TSRA BKN020CB
FM220900 24018G28KT P6SM -RA SCT020 BKN040
TEMPO 2209/2211 21030G60KT 3SM TSRA BKN020CB
FM221200 26020G30KT P6SM -RA SCT020 BKN040

[Barb-SAN]

Winds are forecast to hit 69mph here for several hours overnight. Goody!

Woohoo! Are you heading out to see if you can find something to photograph? Hang on to your hat...;)

My neighbor went out for awhile this afternoon, and reported back seeing several palm trees down, one on a house, another on a car. He seems to be content to spend the rest of the evening at home. :tongue:

[Barb-SAN]

So, Tusphotog, are you still there? ;)
Here's a San Diego update from this morning's local news:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/22/drenching-isnt-done/
(Related to yesterday's storm)
At Lindbergh Field, the barometric pressure at 12:22 p.m. fell to 29.15 inches of mercury — the lowest reading ever recorded in the city. The lower the pressure, the greater the potential for extreme weather.
Reliable pressure records in town date to 1880; the previous low was 29.37 inches.
Lindbergh Field spokeswoman Diana Lucero said Southwest Airlines suspended nearly all of its departing and incoming flights through last night. A Federal Aviation Administration (http://signonsandiegotopics.daylife.com/topic/Federal_Aviation_Administration) spokesman said it was up to each airline to determine whether to change flight activity.

[tusphotog]

So, Tusphotog, are you still there? ;)
Here's a San Diego update from this morning's local news:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/22/drenching-isnt-done/
(Related to yesterday's storm)

Yeah, I'm still here. It was an interesting night. Tornado watches, warnings, severe tstms, wind, rain etc. Just another night in paradise, I guess. My "severe weather alert" app on my phone was going crazy all night. Now they're calling for snow as low as 3,500 feet. I'm at 3,000 feet, so we'll see if there's any that mixes down to the surface.

[Barb-SAN]

From AVWebFlash:
PILOTS PULL RANK, DECLARE EMERGENCY AT JFK (WITH AUDIO) (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1627-full.html#202510)
The crew of American Airlines Flight 2, a Boeing 767 out of Los Angeles for New York, ultimately declared an emergency while trying to land in strong crosswinds at JFK, May 4, after apparently being denied their runway of choice. Speaking for the JFK Controller union, Steve Abraham told ABC news the pilot "had no choice. He couldn't land 22L, it would have been illegal for him," due to the crosswind. Wind was 320 at 23 gusting to 35, at the time. JFK's main runway, 31 Left, has been closed for upgrades for about eight weeks, and controllers say that maintaining the flow of traffic at the airport has led to some less than ideal clearances. FAA spokesman Arlene Sarlac told AVweb Thursday that the agency studied the situation "for over a year" prior to closing the runway and worked with airlines who "agreed to reduce their schedules during this closure time." The FAA says the situation at JFK is safe. After receiving their clearance, the crew of American Flight 2 said, "We can't land on 22," adding, "We're breaking off approach and if you don't give us to Runway 31R, we're going to declare an emergency." The controller responded "alright, I'll pass it along, fly runway heading for now." At that point, things got more serious. (MP3 file Audio here: http://www.avweb.com/other/jfkemergencygo.mp3)

AVWEB INSIDER BLOG: TRUMPED-UP JFK EMERGENCY?
Under what authority did the Captain of an American 767 reject a runway assignment and take the runway he wanted? Command authority, says Paul Bertorelli in the latest installment the AVweb Insider blog — and, like it or not, it was the PIC's call to make. http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_EmergencyAtJFK_202513-1.html

[Captain Hutch]

Folks,

Concerning the incident at JFK, let me put this into perspective before it gets out of hand. I have listened to the audio several times so I believe I can give a decent synopsis with a few educated guesses.

JFK has two sets of parallel runways at 90 degrees to each other, i.e. the runways are perpendicular. From what I have experienced at Miami, Chicago, and JFK, the controllers will use one set of parallel runways for takeoffs and the other set, although not necessarily parallel, for landings. This works well when winds are not too high. However, when you get up into the high twenty and mid-thirty knot range, you approach the either the aircraft limit for crosswind or that airline company crosswind limit. Now you have some aircraft that can land and some can't, which creates a nightmare for the controllers. At some point they may have to shut down the operations on one set of runways and go to the runway or runways that are more aligned with the winds. Even with an occasional gust close to or over the limits, the controllers are reluctant to change their entire operation.

The operation that day at JFK must have been that the controllers were using Runway 31 Right (31R) for takeoffs, since Runway 31 Left (31L) was closed, and Runways 22 Left (22L) and 22 Right (22R) for landings. The fact that one of the 31 runways was closed was really not a direct factor in this situation. Even though the closed runway, 31L is extremely long, 14,500 feet, the open runway, 31R is 10,000 feet long, quite adequate under most situations. Operations for quite a while had already been based on this scenario.

I do not know what American's crosswind limits were. Tower cleared American to land on 22L, and then shortly after stated the winds were 320 degrees at 23 knots gusting to 35 knots--meaning that American had a strong direct 35 knot right crosswind. American's response was that he couldn't land on 22L and if he couldn't get runway 31R then he would have to declare an emergency. Either the crosswind was too high for the pilots preference or over the aircraft/company limit. Landing when the crosswinds were over aircraft/company limit could mean a violation to the pilots. At this point an emergency actually had not been declared yet, and the controller, not quite alert to the situation, stated that he would "pass this along" --to another controller who would sequence American back into the landing pattern, which would probably incur another 10-20 minutes.

American really wanted the controller that he was talking to at that time to allow him to land on runway 31R. The pilots absolutely had to land right away. Why? Based on their normal conversation with the controller when turning off the runway, my guess is that they were low on fuel. They probably discussed this situation among themselves during the approach and decided that under the normal amount of time spent in traffic sequencing, they could safely operate with the fuel on board that they had. Normally pilots will declare "minimum fuel" in this situation, which means they can take normal vectoring but if they experience any undue delay prior to landing then they will be in an emergency fuel situation. It is possible that they mentioned this situation to the prior controller, but I don't know this for a fact.

Upon realizing that the controller was not seriously considering their situation, they stated they were declaring an emergency. This is where the pilots really need to be forceful and state in a loud and clear manner, "American Heavy 2 is declaring an emergency and requires immediate landing." At this point the red flag should have gone up for the controller and he should have said "State your intentions" to the American flight.

Judging by the approximately 2 minutes that passed between the pilots declaring an emergency and their radio transmission on runway turnoff, they were about 6 miles from the end of either Runway 22R or 31R, whose ends are very close together. (Check JFK runway diagram). This distance is adequate for safely making a 90 degree turn to the left and then another one back to the right in order to land on runway 31R.

The main lesson to learn here is that the pilots had to land immediately, and this they accomplished. It's unfortunate that the situation developed as it did, but I am sure it wasn't just about runway preference and the pilot exercising his emergency authority merely to land on a preferred runway. And although it did take a little extra on the pilots part, they did finally get their point across to the tower controller, even as they were maneuvering their aircraft. Also fortunately the weather was nice and they were operating under visual conditions so they could maneuver safely for landing.

Hutch :tiphat:

[Barb-SAN]

Judging by the approximately 2 minutes that passed between the pilots declaring an emergency and their radio transmission on runway turnoff, they were about 6 miles from the end of either Runway 22R or 31R, whose ends are very close together. (Check JFK runway diagram). This distance is adequate for safely making a 90 degree turn to the left and then another one back to the right in order to land on runway 31R.

Ah....looking at the runway diagram does make it easier to visualize....;)
Thanks for your very clear explanation/discussion.

I do not know what American's crosswind limits were. Tower cleared American to land on 22L, and then shortly after stated the winds were 320 degrees at 23 knots gusting to 35 knots--meaning that American had a strong direct 35 knot right crosswind. American's response was that he couldn't land on 22L and if he couldn't get runway 31R then he would have to declare an emergency. Either the crosswind was too high for the pilots preference or over the aircraft/company limit. Landing when the crosswinds were over aircraft/company limit could mean a violation to the pilots.

I read through the comments below Paul Bertorelli's article (linked above),
and Mark Anderson stated " The crosswind limit for the 767 in the American Airlines Operating Manual is 29 knots Max Demonstrated. It doesn't matter what it says in the Boeing, Delta, United, or MS Flight Sim manual. The Captain is required to follow the American 767 Operating Manual."

[Captain Hutch]

Barb,

Thanks for posting that American 767 29 knot crosswind limit. Yes, most likely the pilots had talked about this possibility prior to landing because they were very prepared on their plan of action once hearing the winds from the controller. They already knew that requesting a different runway than the one in use would result in a lengthy delay and much more fuel being used, which as I have already stated, I'm sure they didn't have. As soon as a controller clears an aircraft to land he gives the wind reading. Most savvy pilots listen for the landing winds to all the aircraft in front of them, especially in gusty conditions. Although the tape only had one prior transmission of 23 knots, I imagine preceding transmissions had some higher figures. And looking at the runway diagram and mentally extending the runway centerlines back out from the runway, you can picture the 767 on final approach to runway 22L, and then at about a point 6 miles out he turns to the left approximately 90 degrees and then prior to reaching the extended centerline of 31R he turns back to the right to line up with 31R. Most likely the pilots had already configured the aircraft for landing, i.e. the gear and flaps down, and all they had to do was turn the aircraft left, then right, a basic and safe visual maneuver and then land. Plus communicate to the controller who hadn't quite grasped the gravity of the situation.

Listening to the urgency in the voices of the pilots tells you they had to land immediately, and runway 31R gave them the safest option with a direct headwind. They didn't have to worry about other aircraft on approach to runway 31R because this runway was only being used for takeoffs and 31L was closed, solving that problem. The pilots' main concern was making sure that the tower controller had cleared any aircraft off of runway 31R who were getting ready to takeoff, and also make sure that aircraft behind them on approach to runways 22L or 22R weren't going to conflict with them just prior to their touchdown on 31R.

Listening to the tape of the one transmission of the controller giving taxi instructions to American after landing, one notes that the urgency has left the pilots voices, and although they are somewhat still peeved at the previous controller, they are happy to be on terra firma.

All in all, given the situation, the pilots exercised their only option under the captain's authority and did it safely.

Hutch :thumbsup:

[Captain Hutch]

Rereading my reply I see I need to clarify the maneuver of American just prior to landing. A full 90 degree turn to the left from his approach on 22L would require a full 180 degree turn to the right to line-up with runway 31R. With the strong wind from his right he may not have needed to turn quite this far, and in any case the strong wind would have given him more time to align with 31R.

[aerobat]

Thank you very much :), Hutch and Barb-SAN, for all the detailed information. Before coming to TF I had read Bertorelli's analysis hurriedly on AvWeb and didn't have an airport diagram to look at, so was confused about the situation. I didn't (at first) quite realize that there were two parallel runways 31L and R. What the pilots chose to do was the perfect--and only--solution.

I liked the way the captain said "get everybody out of our way" :thumbsup:. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, and anybody out there--and especially other pilots--who claims he had no good reason to declare an emergency had better think again. The captain knows the status of the aircraft and everybody else needs to hop-to in a situation of urgency (obviously present before he used the e-word) or emergency.

One also wonders whether that flight from LAX took longer than projected, putting them closer still to a low-fuel situation.

Bertorelli had also reported (incorrectly) a "40-knot maximum recommended crosswind limit" for the 767. The term is maximum demonstrated, and since it's 29 knots, then 35 is absolutely not acceptable. Kudos to the pilots who made the right decision, :tiphat::tiphat: given a controller who seemed unprepared to meet them halfway. One also has to wonder whether other pilots that day (or on other days) felt pressured to push the limits. My hope is that ATC at JFK responds to this by having an alternative flow pattern for arrivals and departures when the winds are like this. Direct crosswinds don't usually pop up unannounced in my experience. Around here, they tend to forecast them 12 or more hours in advance.

[Barb-SAN]

Somewhere in the comments someone posted that ATC isn't expected to know the crosswind limits for every airplane. It's up to the pilots to know that information, which is specific to their airline and model of airplane. Someone there also mentioned that having winglets can affect the allowable crosswind.

[Barb-SAN]

One also wonders whether that flight from LAX took longer than projected, putting them closer still to a low-fuel situation.
Ah....there's been a discussion on PPRuNe for a few days http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/414573-aa-crew-fed-up-jfk-atc-declares-emergency.html, and someone posted the FlightAware link for that flight.
Here's a screen shot, zoomed in for the last part of the flight (note holding pattern...) Though the FlightAware information does show that they arrived just 2 minutes later than scheduled.

[scottr0829]

Interesting flight track. I am sure the holding pattern for awhile didn't help with the fuel situation. By law, they need to land with 45 minutes of fuel left, correct? Are there any situations where they are allowed to half less than 45 mins?

[Pilothelp]

hello all, those are very gusty conditions and I am suprised the plane was not diverted to an airport with less wind. you have to remember that the plane is hardly moving in the slightest when you look from the outside but when inside it feels like a rollercoaster

[Barb-SAN]

Here's an listening podcast from AVWeb:
"AVweb's Glenn Pew speaks with veteran American Airlines pilot Jason Goldberg about his experience flying into often-congested JFK International Airport, his insights regarding the May 4 "emergency" and the state of controller/pilot interactions." http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/JasonGoldberg_AmericanAirlines_JFKEmergencyLanding _202882-1.html?kw=self

[Barb-SAN]

This was linked on FlightAware: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/09/video-boeing-787-crosswind-landing-testing-in-iceland/?mbid=wir_ob_ppc_rss_683
Video: Boeing 787 Crosswind Testing (good explanations of crosswind landings)

Of the 1,800-plus hours Boeing 787 test pilots have flown so far, few are as dramatic as the recent trip to Iceland for crosswind testing. The 787 team flew to Keflavik airport after weather forecasts indicated conditions most pilots try to avoid — wind across the runway.
Boeing pilots made several takeoffs and landings on Runway 02 with winds of 30 knots, gusting to 39 from a heading of 120 degrees. This gave the 787 Dreamliner (http://www.wired.com/autopia/tag/boeing-787-dreamliner/) flight test team what it was looking for — nearly perpendicular winds at or exceeding speeds most airlines consider the limit for landing.
Keflavik is becoming the go-to location for crosswind testing, as Airbus tested the A380 in Iceland.
Link to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nKFGQCAg3c&feature=player_embedded

[Barb-SAN]

Just saw this posted on PPRuNe, check out the video of the aborted landing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14898746
From the perspective of the photographer, it looks a little "bouncy" to me...but evidently some passengers were scared enough to scream.

Layla Jane Marks, who was on the flight with her 10-month-old son Owen, said she was "quite scared" as she was told by staff to keep a "tight grip" on her child.
"The plane kept dropping and going from side-to-side. The pilot did very well," she said.
I assume that was a "lap baby" rather than a "buckled safely into his own car seat" baby.
Hate to imagine what would happen if the Mom lost her grip and the kid went airborne.:(

[Captain Hutch]

Barb-San,

Nice video. I would say the pilot did an excellent job with this aborted landing. There is a bit of a lag time between decision time for the go-around and when the engines deliver full power, and it's possible the wheels may contact the runway, which may be a little disconcerting to the passengers. The winds just prior to touchdown can be very tricky especially under gusty conditions, and if a pilot does not think he can handle that then the best decision is to go around. With less experience, the pilot tends to try to continue the landing, and the problem here is that he is more at the mercy of the winds and a little less in control.
Any go-around is usually a first-time experience for many flyers and thus a little scary, but it usually is the indicator of the safer action.

Hutch :tiphat:

[Barb-SAN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6UFVgBG7HM&feature=g-all-u&context=G2d04f2eFAAAAAAAAAAA
View from the cockpit of a crosswind landing at LHR.
The wind is coming from the left side of the plane, so the pilot has to point the nose a bit to the left of the center of the runway, because the cross-wind will keep pushing the plane to the right. The pilot lines the plane up straight with the runway at the very end before touch-down. :tiphat:
Further comments from Capt. Hutch and any of our professional pilots most appreciated.