2R wrote:The biggest crosswind i have experienced in a 172 and landed without any concern was 50 knots in St.George,Utah.
They came out to watch a crazy canuck crash.What they got was a free lesson on a perfect x-wind landing
The biggest wind straight down the tube was 70 knots in Courtenay in the 172.Crossed the fence at 120 in the 172 in an attempt to control the attitude for landing.Did i mention that Courtenay is not that long 1800 ft.With the right wind a 172 can be safely landed in about 150 feet.
The scariest crosswinds are never the constant blow ,it is the gusts that will challenge you.As the gusts will steal your lift and make attitude control difficult.Adding a gust factor of about half the gust helps maintain effective control.Although when it is blowing hard you may just have to fly it on at cruise speed and hope that some people are their to help walk the wings in off the runway so it does not flip over in the gusts.
A small gusting crosswind can catch a fella napping.I always watch out for the nasty little choppy gusts that are more dangerous than big constant cross-winds.
What is that thing they call wind shear again, i think i flew through some in the Bow Valley late one afternoon.Thinking about it makes me want to go to the bathroom for some reason.
A superior airman uses his superior judgement to avoid situations requiring him to use his superior skill.....
square wrote:Slips shouldn't be necessary, no -- unless you're talking about the actual cross-wind landing attitude. What I'm pretty sure the examiner meant by that is that the airplane should not be so high as to require the pilot to make a slip on final to regain the appropriate approach profile. Idle power with full flaps is already an excessive descent rate. I haven't slipped an airplane in years. A crosswind approach on final should be made crabbed, on the extended centerline, with a transition to a slipping attitude just short of the runway threshold to line up the longitudinal axis of the airplane with the centerline. But slipping way back from the threshold.. no. You get inaccurate airspeed readings, scare the jesus out of your customers, are completely unstabilized and descending at an excessive rate. Unless I'm misunderstanding you but yeah I totally agree with the examiner a slip should never be necessary and in any 704 or 705 airplane the SOPs would more than likely dictate you execute a missed approach if you're that high, rather than make the airplane go sideways at the ground.
Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth. I want to add that forward slips are used if you "mess up" and need to get down quickly. They are not planned during the approach. I remember I had to do a checkout once, and the pilot would forward slip on every landing. He said that its how he always lands.
The side slip technique is used for crosswind landings. I like to teach crab during approach, and transition to side slip just before touchdown. Some people like to do a side slip when they turn for final, which is ok i guess but you will get tired quickly (legs)..
767 wrote:
Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth. I want to add that forward slips are used if you "mess up" and need to get down quickly. They are not planned during the approach. I remember I had to do a checkout once, and the pilot would forward slip on every landing. He said that its how he always lands.
I take it you've never flown an Aeronca or Taylorcraft or something without flaps that pretty much requires you to slip.
Slipping to salvage a bad approach is sloppy, but purposefully coming in steep and planning on using the slip there should be no problem with (unless you have sensitive passengers).
iflyforpie wrote:
I take it you've never flown an Aeronca or Taylorcraft or something without flaps that pretty much requires you to slip.
I second that! Couple something fairly efficient like a T-craft or Luscombe with a cruise prop and/or a high idle, you'd better be happy slipping to nearly ground level.
Also if I'm on a high approach and lose an engine I will still make the numbers. If you're dragging it in on the engine 500'gal 9 miles out, not so much. Finally ATC used to love to bring me in at 1000' up until short final. Pour on a nice forward slip and land where I want to snag the closest taxiway to the FBO in the warriorII.
robertsailor1 wrote:50 knot cross wind in a 172, sorry mate but unless it was a very mild cross wind your getting into the religious category (as in not believable)
Perhaps i was not as accurate as you might like.Landing KDXZ Rwy 19 with the wind 270/50 is actually closer to 45 knots than fifty only a madman would attempt to land in anything stronger
They CHAIN the airplanes down on the apron because of the winds at that airport.Just like most taildraggers you are flying it until it is tied-down.
A nice constant x-wind (mild as you might call it) is very easy to fly in,the gusty winds are the real challenge.
A low level jet such as those you might find falling out of the North Atlantic can create some very interesting approaches going into place Like Yarmouth.Ninety knot tailwind from Halifax to Yarmouth at low altitude got my attention.I would have set a record on the ground speed that day, but i wanted to slow it down in case i hit any speed bumps coming out of the low level jet.
Tough choice on airspeed choice as to slow and it can make you vulnerable to a stall ,too fast and you could wrinkle the wings or worse.The Pax were happy to get home so quick.
Keep it smooth
iflyforpie wrote:
Slipping to salvage a bad approach is sloppy, but purposefully coming in steep and planning on using the slip there should be no problem with (unless you have sensitive passengers).
Ill agree with you, but only when the aircraft which you are flying "requires" you to forward slip for approach/landing. A 172 does "not" require you to slip, you use flaps instead. " " back to you
A little while ago I was flying a Cessna 170, you know the airplane they put a nosewheel on the create the 172, when I was faced with the predicament of an obstacle landing into 1500' of grass. It was one of the more challenging things I've done in a while, but not a huge problem, I did this crazy thing where I slipped the airplane and had flaps down once I cleared that powerline on the approach. I guess what I did was probably wrong and a mark of unprofessionalism on my part - I guess the guy who paid me to do it was happy enough since he has since continued to hire me to fly his airplane for him.
But then again, I've been repeatedly told I don't know what I'm doing.
I do find it unfortunate that in this world I encounter more 767 type instructors, than I do any other type. I'm starting to realise that the aviation I love of flying small airplanes, for those simple joys of finding the secret places of the world, to see the hills, the sky, the lakes and the trees is disappearing. Those doing the teaching are almost always more interested in playing big airplane games and assume that everyone wants to be jetliner captain. They revel in procedure and checklists. The natural runway surface of grass will be alien to their polished shoes. Starting to think I should just go hide out at the nearby glider commune.
hz2p wrote:Into the pattern comes a 172. Flies long, long legs. Overshoots on final, declaring that "there's too much crosswind for a fully loaded 172!" and he gives up on trying to land on the only runway, with 5 or 6 knots of crosswind.
While kudos for the guy not to force it and become a statistic, it sure sounds like he was blaming the equipment and not acknowledging his inexperience. Sad that he'll probably cancel future flights due to this "equipment limitation" rather than get some more training.
The bottom line is if a commercial pilot can not land a Cessna 172 with a five or six knot X/wind he /she is unemployable in the charter flying industry.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat Driver wrote:The bottom line is if a commercial pilot can not land a Cessna 172 with a five or six knot X/wind he /she is unemployable in the charter flying industry.
iflyforpie wrote:
Slipping to salvage a bad approach is sloppy, but purposefully coming in steep and planning on using the slip there should be no problem with (unless you have sensitive passengers).
Ill agree with you, but only when the aircraft which you are flying "requires" you to forward slip for approach/landing. A 172 does "not" require you to slip, you use flaps instead. " " back to you
Could you not think of an instance where it might be preferable to slip a 172 rather than use flaps? And would you not want to be proficient in slips should that instance happen to occur?
Why do we teach Ex 15 again?
I have to drop a coworker off at another airport tonight and I think that just for the hell of it I am going to use nothing but slips for approach in our 172.
[...] "I don't think slips are safe manuvers for private pilot level students". [...]
Haha -- ok then that is completely outrageous -- did you show him a copy of the PRIVATE PILOT flight test guide and reference the section labelled "Ex. 15 Slipping" ??
If that's really what happened I would strongly consider registering some kind of complaint with TC.
iflyforpie wrote:
Could you not think of an instance where it might be preferable to slip a 172 rather than use flaps? And would you not want to be proficient in slips should that instance happen to occur?
Did I mention that slips should not be taught?
iflyforpie wrote:
Why do we teach Ex 15 again?
So that in the event of a forced approach you are able to lose altitude quickly if you need to get down fast!! That is if you "accidentaly" come in too high. Forced approaches is another topic, so i wont discuss here.
We dont teach (or, I dont teach) that when you turn final, i need you to be at 1000'AGL and then get ready to perform a forward slip. Also, ex 15 is taught so the student knows what he/she must do in a crosswind "landing"
Would you let a doctor operate on you who cannot seem to make a proper incision? Could be 14 inches or , hell they may just cut your thing off? Its a toss up every time ! Don't think so . This situation is completely fucked up - and I hope you link said individual to this thread.
The same person probably thinks they will be flying 744s at Cathay next year
BTW : What did ever happen to that "college of pilots"
iflyforpie wrote:
Could you not think of an instance where it might be preferable to slip a 172 rather than use flaps? And would you not want to be proficient in slips should that instance happen to occur?
Did I mention that slips should not be taught?
iflyforpie wrote:
Why do we teach Ex 15 again?
So that in the event of a forced approach you are able to lose altitude quickly if you need to get down fast!! That is if you "accidentaly" come in too high. Forced approaches is another topic, so i wont discuss here.
We dont teach (or, I dont teach) that when you turn final, i need you to be at 1000'AGL and then get ready to perform a forward slip. Also, ex 15 is taught so the student knows what he/she must do in a crosswind "landing"
I don't know where you fly, but I assume it is ZBB or some other beehive of purely light aircraft activity.
I learned to fly in Kelowna, where you have to learn to mix big jets with light aircraft pretty much right away. My first landing ever was a 'keep your base in tight, 737 on final' kind of landing. Sure I could have extended, and by the time I waited for wake turbulence from the landing 737, then the departing 737 (because they sure aren't going to wait two minutes when I am miles away), I might have logged a .5 circuit.
But put a ton of slip in there (which I had been taught) and when the picture looked right just roll and control and you are back to doing a normal zero-flap landing!
How many degrees of flap did you use for your first landing?
iflyforpie wrote:
I don't know where you fly, but I assume it is ZBB or some other beehive of purely light aircraft activity.
I learned to fly in Kelowna, where you have to learn to mix big jets with light aircraft pretty much right away. My first landing ever was a 'keep your base in tight, 737 on final' kind of landing. Sure I could have extended, and by the time I waited for wake turbulence from the landing 737, then the departing 737 (because they sure aren't going to wait two minutes when I am miles away), I might have logged a .5 circuit.
But put a ton of slip in there (which I had been taught) and when the picture looked right just roll and control and you are back to doing a normal zero-flap landing!
How many degrees of flap did you use for your first landing?
If the situation is such that a slip is required, by all means go ahead and do it. I am not saying that it should be avoided. However, it should not be the primary method of landing (unless its only you in the airplane, or if your pax dont mind, and you dont give a damn)... There are a million situations that would require you to slip, but if its possible to avoid, then avoid it!!
I cant remember when i did my first landing. But when i did my first solo, i used full flaps, no slip.
767 wrote:Did I mention that slips should not be taught?
Well I have to disagree, years back when I did my float rating on a PA-11( They don't have flaps) I used to side slip that bugger all the time, it was just the norm. I might add though that once I moved on to the Cessna's and DeHavilland birds I no longer side slipped, reasons why? I don't know. I think it is still taught in schools and if not they should bring it back.DHC
I want to add that forward slips are used if you "mess up" and need to get down quickly. They are not planned during the approach. I remember I had to do a checkout once, and the pilot would forward slip on every landing. He said that its how he always lands. 
