Shdw, respectfully, I disagree. There are MANY things in a FAA approved flight manual which, if not adhered to, could kill you. For example, engine loss after V1, go-around, windshear warning, or GPWS warning. These procedures ARE NOT in the limitations section. I assure you, if the FAA knew you were deviating from these, they would be involved.

For example, I was unfortunate to receive an no-notice FAA checkride. While landing in ATL, the aicraft in front of us failed to clear the runway. I had to perform a manual go-around (No ATS or AP). I pushed the power up to roughly 85% N1 ... the flight manual says go-around TRT thrust. The go-around was controlled, smooth, and quite honestly, uneventful.

Upon engine shutdown, the FAA examiner asked me to recite the go-around procedures and I did just that. He questioned why I only used 85% N1. At the time, I did not realize I only used 85% N1, besides it was more than enough thrust right? WRONG! Moral to the story, it wasn't a limitation and I was expected to fly the "FAA approved" way. So I am sorry to say, you and the FAA differ. An I'm fairly certain that any employer would be very interested in knowing that you feel that you can take liberty with the flight manual of the of airplane for which you are hired to fly.

You quoted me before as saying that I "finally understand" your technique, as to suggest that I finally get it. If you go back and look, previous to my statement you failed to properly define your technique as you left out a crucial piece of the puzzle.

Can your technique work, yes. Do I like it, NO, for a variety of reasons I spelled out in previous posts.

Jungle pointed out another reason why I don't like this technique. On some aircraft, the spoilers will not deploy if one or more throttles are above idle upon mainwheel spinup. In fact, in a DC or MD-10 -11, there's a caution about landing with a throttle not in idle because the spoilers will deploy but then instantly retract (go-around protection). It's a lot of fun when you slam that nose gear on the runway. Anyhow, the caution came from an accident and the FAA issued an FAA Advisory Circular which prompted a change in the flight manuals.

Where am I going with this? Most people think the hardest part about a crosswind landing is getting the jet to the runway. The reality is, the hardest part is keeping the aircraft on the runway as you transition to land and ROLLOUT. You stated that you wouldn't be using differential thrust while on the runway, which is good for a number of reasons (one is listed above in previous paragraph). You completely failed to understand how reverse thrust could be your enemy in a crosswind landing (you went on some diatribe about ship rudders). Again, another caution in a flight manual of mine for which you don't understand.

If you needed that asymmetical thrust to get you to the runway, what happens after you land? Good luck with that.

I'm sticking with, if we need to be test pilots in order to make a crosswind landing, then we probably failed in the decision making process by even trying to land there.

You see you proved my point bud. I claimed it was only a recommendation and not a limitation or a regulatory writing in any way. Had you busted airspace or decided to throw the gear down 50 knots over speed I am quite sure you would have had a different result than a simple questioning. The point is, these procedures are recommendations, period. However, this doesn't mean you should run out and do whatever the heck you want which I believe some here have read that into my remarks in regards to this.

Chances are you won't get hired if you choose not to fly by their procedures, but you shouldn't limit yourself to such absolute thinking as they are the end all be all. They are not, they are and always will be a recommendation which you can choose to follow or to toss out the window if it is in the interest of safety. By that I mean, when the **** hits the fan you do whatever you have to so you can land that plane safely and your studying of unpracticed procedures may prove very useful one day.



A differential thrust senario:

You have flown to an airport with only one runway, the crosswind was not a problem when you took off but winds got increasingly strong and are now near limits. Something happened at the airport and you found yourself in a holding pattern till you were in a low fuel situation. Winds are forecast to slightly decrease but for the most part remain strong but still within limits, nothing you haven't done 100 times before. Just before you are allowed to proceed in due to your low fuel situation a new ATIS is released showing the winds are now right at aircraft limits and now forecast to get worse.

You make your first attempt and loose control similarly to that video and have to execute a go around, now you have one shot left. Luckily you are not an absolute thinking pilot, you have studied other unusual cross wind landing techniques and executed them in the sim just for a situation like this. You use what you have learned and land safely.

Stuck or partially stuck rudder could be another situation where you might want to understand how the application of this technique can be helpful.



By the way if anyone was wondering the source of my "recommendation claim" he is Thomas Teller a retired US navy engineer who was responsible for performance calculations and procedural writings during his 20 years of service. He said the limitations is the only part you are bound to and when reading any other section you should consider three things:

1) Do you trust the person publishing the material
2) Can you perform the technique to attain that performance
3) Can your aircraft perform that technique or accomplish published performance

Obviously in 99.9999999 percent of cases for 121/135 ops number 1 is a certain yes. The other two however are the reason why these sections are recommendations, not regulator or limiting.

Mr. Shdw:

Obviously you are a person who has to have "the last word". That's fine if it helps sooth your ego. But why not take about a minute and a half and actually read what KC10 FATboy wrote. Why?, because he is right on target and what he said is true.

I'm not going to waste my time writting a short essay disproving your thought process. Any intelligent reader who has flown for a 14 CFR Part 121 or 135 carrier can see all kinds of holes in your logic. Obviously, you haven't because you would know, as KC10 FATboy correctly states, the entire FAA approved manual system for operating an aircraft under 135/121 is limiting. PERIOD. I fail to understand why you have such difficulty understanding that fact. You're basing your premise on the writing of Mr. Thomas Teller, whom you seem to believe is the "know all, end all" expert on aviation aerodynamics. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons a little. What type of civilian transport category aircraft is Mr. teller an authority on ? Maybe you're under the mistaken idea that performance calculations and procedures in the U.S. Navy are the same as under FAR Parts 135/121. Frankly, Mr. Teller is wrong and not because I think he's wrong, federal regulations and the legal branch at the FAA know his statements are incorrect.

"Stuck or partially stuck rudder".....never heard of one on a military jet or transport A/C (A-4, F-4, C-130, OV-10) or a civilian transport category aircraft. PERIOD. Maybe a general aviation small aircraft but you're the expert on those types of aircraft.

No more time to waste on this subject. I apologize to the other readers in taking an excess amount of time and wasted electrons in responding to an inaccurate an ill informed posting.

Now Mr. Shdw, you can have the floor to prove that everyone else on this forum is wrong and that you and Mr. Teller are the only enlightened ones.

Have a fabulous day Mates:)

Teller would be ashamed
 

I have been watching this thread with interest, but the mention of Teller kind of ticks me off. I have met this person and he is very knowledgably when it comes to aerodynamics (particularly for GA aircraft). He is the type of person who asks thought provoking questions to get you to understand the meaning behind procedures. I am sure he probably did suggest that asymmetrical thrust could be used for a crosswind landing; however, this was probably just to get his students to talk about the aerodynamic forces at play. He understands that procedures in the 121/135 world are as good as regulations. He also would have realized the ability to use asymmetrical thrust to line up with the centerline would no longer be useful when on the ground, and also that in certain aircraft, this technique could be dangerous.

He also teaches a CRM course I believe and I think he would fully agree that in the 121 environment your ability to avoid a situation where there is only one illegal way out is certainly more important than your ability to land an aircraft outside of its limitations with untested techniques. So if in the future you have enough fuel for one approach into an airport with one runway with winds that are too high for proper procedures, and you somehow make it to the runway and don’t ding the plane up too bad as it slides off the runway, I suggest that you don’t call up Teller and let him know what you did, because I am sure he would not be impressed that your poor decision making skills got you into such a horrible situation.

You misread, or I misrepresented it. He was the one who specifically said they are "recommendations." He was the one who said "the only limiting factor in a POH is the limitations section." Copied right from my notes out of his class. I didn't claim, or at least didn't mean to claim that he talked about asym thrust as a procedure. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think you are missing a very important concept. He is right, everything other than limitations in the POH are recommendations. The problem is when you get blown off a runway; the FAA is going to want to know why you ignored the recommendations in the POH. Talk to an aviation lawyer when you get the chance. They will tell you that acting outside of the POH puts you in peril. The FAA is not run like a courtroom. They have the ability to interpret their own regulations as they see fit. There are some important NTSB reports of pilot landing a plane outside the demonstrated crosswind capabilities for their plane. As you surely know, that is not a limitation, but the FAA still violates pilots and blames them for accidents that result when they try to land outside of the demonstrated crosswind component.

Also, the fact that aside from the limitations, the rest of the POH is just a recommendation is only true for part 91. For 121/135, each company submits the FAA a list of all their procedures from how the company is structured to how the aircraft are flown. When the FSDO approves it, it forms a contract between that company and the FAA. The FAA expects every pilot to abide by the procedures in the OpsSpec, and if they don’t and get caught, the pilot or company will be violated. The reason the FAA does this is so that some pilot doesn’t here about some new way to land a plane “X” in a crosswind and try it out in plane “Y” full of innocent passengers who expected to buy a ticket from a company they believe the FAA is making sure operates safely.

So if you still think every pilot who does not believe your way of landing a Seneca can be applied to a 737 just mindlessly follows every procedure without question and never thinks about other ways to get out of a dangerous situation, you are wrong. I think everyone has run into a poorly constructed procedure, or has found a better or safer way to do something. Instead of arguing our points to death, we talk to others who have more experience, try it out in the simulator, and think of every possible way that new procedure can go wrong. If it still seems good, then you take it to the CP. If your new procedure certainly is better, then the company you work for will see the benefits and change their OpsSpec and you can now fly that new procedure legally. If however, others with more experience point out critical flaws, then stop and rethink.
It is clear this procedure will not help once the main wheels touchdown. Now that you know it will not work for transport category aircraft that have interconnected systems, you should modify this procedure and apply to aircraft only you personally know will work and only talk about this subject again to promote a thoughtful discussion and nothing more.

I am glad to hear that. Next time you are in class, ask him about this idea.

Shdw, if you did this, and if you flew for my company, I woud fire you. Why didn't you spend the time in holding setting up for a divert situation? Why did you fly yourself into a corner? And the biggest question is, if my landing technique didn't work, how in the world is yours?

Seriously, I could care less about what technique you want to use. When I was a check airman, if someone did what you proposed, I would have failed them -- rightfully so. It didn't matter if someone goofed up, everybody does. The grade I gave a person was all about one thing, are they safe? Could I trust them to fly my family? Your decision making process scares the you know what out of me.

This brings up a story ... Titus (my co-pilot), if you're out there, get off F-lough soon buddy. Titus and I were flying a B1900 to Okinawa, Japan, which is a remote island destination for us. Crosswinds were a concern before takeoff, so we did everything humanly possible to make sure we had a piece of concrete to land on once we left Korea. Upon our arrival into Okinawa, the crosswinds were out to lunch. We tried to shoot an approach but the crosswinds were well out of limits once we arrived to the runway. At this point, we had an obligation to the 12 passengers in the back ... all of who were other military pilots. We decided to perform a go-around, declared an emergency, and we landed at Naha International, a divert field that had a runway into the wind. You see Shdw, I never would have proceeded to an island destination if I didn't have a back up ... a what if. And just as Murphy's law goes, he proved himself right that day. Always plan for the worst and hope for the best. I'm sure the 12 pilots who were passengers on that flight, were grateful that I didn't try to perform something "outside of the box" just to get them to their destination. Instead, we stayed ahead of the jet, ahead of the weather, and we safely landed the aircraft. The passengers had to catch a bus from one side of the island to the other. I'm sure that is a much preferred outcome over being a smoking hole at the end of the runway.

Kass said it better than anyone has to date. His remarks are a grandslam in my opinion. Shdw, if you don't learn from what he is saying, you are severely missing an excellent training opportunity in making yourself a safer and better pilot.

I am done with this thread. There are some that will never learn even if you beat it into them.

Just playing the devil's advocate...

You are flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog**** out of Hong Kong, middle of winter, nopac route. Shemya, Adak, Cold bay, King Salmon all reporting 60+ kts cross in BLSN but you are in a quad so it's all legal.

Halfway between Chitose and Anchorage, your lovely cargo catches on fire. Discuss.

If you are flying for a reputable company who has access to a telephone or the internet, you should never get caught in a situation where everywhere you go there is a 60 knot crosswind. The forecasted weather would let you know about the high winds. Even if the forecast was only for a 40 knot crosswind, that should be enough to cancel the flight. But I will ignore this flaw in the story and assume the forecasted winds were way off.

Unfortunately, there is another flaw with this hypothetical situation. I cannot think of any situation where all the airports in your vicinity only have runways oriented in a way where they all have 60 knot crosswinds. There would surely be some runway that is more closely aligned with the wind. But again, I will ignore that flaw.

So now we took off either without checking the weather, or the weather forecasts were grossly inaccurate. We happen to be over an area where every airport we are near only has runways that create a 60 knot crosswind. Even under these conditions, do you really think asymmetrical thrust can double or even triple an aircraft’s crosswind capabilities? Even if that were true, as soon as I touch down and reduce all engines to idle, that 60 knot crosswind would blow me off the runway while I am still at a high speed.

If you are going to play barroom pilot, than I am going to answer your question with an equally amount of fantasy. Let’s say the aircraft I fly has a landing speed of 80 knots. If I were to use asymmetrical thrust, my crab angle would be so excessive I am sure (even though you may think modern landing gear can take any amount of crab) my gear would collapse. Even if it doesn’t, I will be blown sideways upon touchdown while I am traveling at 80 knots. Instead of trying out a questionable technique that I only study in class or tried on flight sim or tried with a crosswinds around 25 knots, I would use a technique I had practiced many times before. I would perform an off airport landing INTO the wind. With a 60 knot headwind, I should be able to land on top of the terminal.

If you want to add to this scenario that it is mountainous terrain and there is no place to land but a single runway with a 60 knot crosswind, then it does not matter what you do, you are f*#?ed.

Well that was fun. Now let’s say that you are descending through 11,000 feet and your captain suddenly becomes blind and you suddenly lose the ability to control your limbs. Now describe how you will tell the captain what they need to do to land the plane safely. Oh yeah, the auto pilot broke, the FAs are delivering a passenger’s baby, and both yokes break so you must control the airplane with thrust and rudders only.

Discuss…..

Interestingly enough, minus the bs added before this, this situation has happened. Luckily there was a 3rd long time pilot in the back of the aircraft to help and they landed safely using differential thrust for directional control and thrust in general for pitch. This was all due to a complete hydraulic failure, no rudder either. Anyone know the name of that flight off the top of your head, I can't remember but recall discussing it. It was an impeccable demonstration of CRM and a use of completely non standard procedures for a completely non standard event.

Saying it can't happen and won't happen is a fairly narrow minded approach to any situation. Accidents have happened from fires starting in cargo bays that couldn't light on fire, engines ripping off of wings that shouldn't ever rip off, and complete loss of all control surface use when that shouldn't happen either. Limiting your study to absolutes limits your ability to handle these unpredictable situations.

IMO can't and won't should be removed from every pilots vocabulary and if it hasn't than that pilot needs to spend more time here: Aviation Accident Database Query.