On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:51:16 -0000, "nightjar"
surname here>.me.uk> wrote:
>
>"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.
While the crosswind was obivously quite strong, it should be
noted that the movie was taken through a telephoto lens that
would exaggerate the apparent angle.
Back when I was flying light aircraft I recall a couple of
crosswind landings that scared me a bit. But as pilots say, any
landing you walk a way from is a good landing.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |