"Tim C." wrote in message
news:lltss3ttu4k3c66cd9hntbfk95s5i1rd8r@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:09:40 +0100, Martin wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:38:46 +0100, Tim C. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:03:17 -0000, "nightjar"
>>>here>.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This illustrates the problem of landing an aircraft when there is a
>>>>significant component of the wind across the runway. The reported wind
>>>>speed
>>>>was 155mph, although I've not found the relative angle to the runway, so
>>>>don't know what the crosswind component was.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z42fchrzhHY
>>>
>>>
>>>I heard a lot less, around 90km/h gusts about 70° to the runway.
>>
>>I saw the same speed reported as Colin did.
>>
>>The plane eventually landed on a runway that was aligned with the wind.
>>
>>I assume there will be an investigation into why he tried to land in such
>>a
>>strong cross wind.
If you look at the forecast, below, he probably expected a lot less wind.
However, it really should have been obvious from the angle he had to
maintain that the wind was higher than forecast.
> Der Spiegel says gust up to 90km/h during the landing - no value for
> the estimated size of the gust just as it tried to touch down.
> 155mph is 250km/h, a figure that is higher than the record speed of
> 222kmh recorded on a peak in the Bavarian Alps. It doesn't rule such a
> gust out, but I find 90kmh easier to believe.
I've now got hold of the forecast for the time and the 155 mph must be a
reporting error. The forecast was for 28 knots, gusting to 48 knots, at
about 60 degrees to the runway, with short term winds of 35 knots gusting to
55 knots. The steady winds would have given a crosswind component of about
20-25 knots, which would probably be on or possibly even above the
demonstrated crosswind limits for the aircraft. 90kph would have been well
above what it had been tested for.
Colin Bignell
|