Originally Posted by
Vito
Ugleeual,
To a degree, I understand your rational for not landing on 29 in a heavy. . But what if a crew refuses the RNAV 29, and subsequently went off the runway on 22 due to the crosswind? What if the landing distance calculations are more restrictive on 22 with a large crosswind and anpproach speed additives, than the 29 approach with a 30 kt headwind? Would you still land on 22?
I’m not trying to question your skills, as I’ve said before, I have a good friend at Delta who also refuses the 29 approach.
I’ve never had a problem using auto brakes at 3 on the 767-300/400 with a high crosswind that’s gusty… using F25. Nor have I ever seen landing distances being an issue on 04/22 except during heavy snow events… but wouldn’t be using 29 in those conditions anyway. Captain needs to also decide who will land in these wx conditions… I personally always look at wx forecasts when picking legs to fly… not saying I’m better than the FOs, but I’ll generally fly the more challenging wx legs for sure… and don’t want the FO to lose a landing due to wx (low vis, winds, etc). Risk management.
Your example, If a crew departed the runway due to high crosswinds and misapplication of controls during and after touchdown then it’s on them… maybe should have went around or diverted. But if a known steady state crosswinds were out of limits, or gusting out of limits, on 04/22 then I’d land on 29… but other than 04/22s being closed or unusable due to winds I’d say “unable” and request the straight in on the longer runway. I’ve refused 29 a handful of times and ATC never flinched… just said expect ILS 22.