"Interesting" Landing

[Unisaw]

Here is a video of an interesting landing (on second try), compliments of Bayou Renaissance Man:

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2016/10/another-interesting-landing.html

Here's a question for the pilots on this board: was it unusual that the pilot didn't retract the landing gear during the go around?

[French G.]

In naval aviation it is SOP to leave the gear down. In fact in my 8 hours of flight time experience :D I can't imagine retracting the gear unless the plane refused to fly with it out. You're already having a bad day, but down and locked gear is a sure bet, why retract gear you just bounced hard only to find out that it no longer likes you? Leave it down, think about flying.

[Fly320s]

Yes, the gear should be retracted on a go-around, but it isn't a big deal if it doesn't happen.  The plane flies fine with the gear down.  The gear might have been retracted after the pilots pulled the seat cushions out of their butts.

BTW, that wind was stronger than 13 knots.  It might have been a typo, because that wind looks more like 31 knots.

[Hawkmoon]

Was it an optical illusion caused by the rise between the camera and the runway, or did the left wing strike the ground on the first attempt?

[BobR]

First  and foremost is to establish a positive rate of climb and to maintain control. After that the gear and flaps can be raised as needed, yet the plane will fly just fine with them hanging out in the breeze. When we waved off in the P3 once we got a decent climb established we would bring the gear up and then raise the flaps to the Take Off/Approach position and just go around the pattern if it was VFR. If not and we had to go back to the controllers we would eventually get cleaned up and try again.

bob

[Fly320s]

Was it an optical illusion caused by the rise between the camera and the runway, or did the left wing strike the ground on the first attempt?

Looks like the wing hit.

[K Frame]

Anyone notice the chemtrails it was spewing during the landing?

 

[Hawkmoon]

Anyone notice the chemtrails it was spewing during the landing?

Yes, and I was surpised to see them at low altitude.

[Fly320s]

Anyone notice the chemtrails it was spewing during the landing?

 

Shhhh, that is classified.

[Jamisjockey]

In my experience if the pilots don't expect the re-sequence to be a very long final they will often leave the gear down. 
The video, however, is cut.  They likely pulled gear on the downwind. 
And like Tony said, that's more than 13 knots of wind.  You can hear it howling over the microphone.  Probably 20knots plus.

[Scout26]

Anyone notice the chemtrails it was spewing during the landing?

 

Probably forget to turn them off in all the excitement....

[BobR]

In P3s we taught to raise the gear after a positive rate of climb, even if staying in the pattern. We also taught to lower the gear abeam midfield and do the landing checklist, each and every time. We didn't have any fancy "your gear is up" warnings so we taught through "do it this way every time" over and over again. It still didn't stop all of the wheels up landings but it sure decreased them to just a few a decade. I was always amazed how that could happen with 3 (sometimes 5) sets of eyes in the flight station, but it did. 

bob

[230RN]

Speaking as a groundlubber, it strikes me that after a hard touchdown and go-around, I would not trust the gear to come up and then go back down and lock again because of possible damage.

It would seem my best bet would be to leave them down if the plane were flyable with them down and not risk the possibility of damage preventing them from coming down and locking again, as I think French G. noted as Naval practice.

Those <ahem> chemtrails off the outboard flaps or aelerons seem to be fairly common in the bunch of aeronautical vids I've watched.  Seems like the air gets compressed in front of the flaps or aelerons, then as it slides off the outside end, the pressure suddenly drops below the dew point, causing the trailing cloud formation out there.

Now y' unnerstand, I are not a pilot nor uh aireonautikel  engineer, so I'm not even clear on what's a flap versus an aeleron, but I've seen a lot of videos where that cloud trail off those surfaces occurs in planes landing.  And it's not off the wingtips (although that can happen too), it's off the outboard edges of the flaps/aelerons.

I think it's more of a question of local atmospheric conditions than altitude per se.

I think.

Groundlubber Terry, watcher of many plane videos from his cushy living room couch.  <Not to be construed as a "qualification," 230RN

[Fly320s]

Yes, after a hard landing bounce it might be prudent to leave the gear down, but that landing wasn't hard.  It was just crappy.

As for the chemtrails, they are chemtrails.  Dimmer skies are safer skies.

[Scout26]

<-------Proud member and fundraiser for the International Chemtrail Association.  (Like us on Facebook !!!)

My question is that since the ATC's know there's a crosswind, why don't they switch the pattern to different runways that are more or less parallel to the winds.

Aren't planes supposed to take off and land into the wind?  (Although I can imagine that it might be prudent for those landing to land with the wind, simply to avoid mid-air collisions....)

[BobR]

<-------Proud member and fundraiser for the International Chemtrail Association.  (Like us on Facebook !!!)

My question is that since the ATC's know there's a crosswind, why don't they switch the pattern to different runways that are more or less parallel to the winds.

Aren't planes supposed to take off and land into the wind?  (Although I can imagine that it might be prudent for those landing to land with the wind, simply to avoid mid-air collisions....)

It is somewhat difficult to turn the runway into the wind when it is laid out on the ground instead of a boat.

They just do the best they can with regard to runways and winds.

bob

[Scout26]

It is somewhat difficult to turn the runway into the wind when it is laid out on the ground instead of a boat.


bob

No, I understand that.       But don't most larger commercial airports have more than one runway?  (Maybe not like ORD or MDW, but at least two or three at various angles ?)  Even some GA airport have more than one runway.

And I do understand that heavy aircraft will need the longest runways.  (I did work freighter operations at both ORD and MDW on DC-8's and DC-9's.  A fully loaded DC-8 needed every inch of 28R-10L and then some top get airborne....and to stop.) 

MDW:


ORD:


Aurora Municipal Airport:


Dupage Airport:

[Jamisjockey]

It's not that simple.  Some airports have the pavement to sustain operations with pretty much any wind condition, some do not.  And many large airports are in cities where growth is difficult, landing patterns are pushed around for noise abatement, and budgets are stretched tight as it is.
Many large airports are pushing arrivals and departures at the same time as well.  The old hub and spoke system isn't as consistent as it used to be with the number of low cost carriers there are now.
You gotta maximize the usage of that pavement. 
Approaching storm fronts often dictate arrival flows, pushing aircraft around bad weather and encouraging arrivals to crosswind runways.
It is a mix of factors.

[Scout26]

Thanks that makes sense. 

But given all those factors, one would think that safety would be the prime consideration.   (or does it take a plane or two cartwheeling down a runway to make that happen with the FAA?)

[K Frame]

It's my understanding that lowering the landing gear quite a ways out is another method of helping bleed off speed.

It's not unusual to see the big'uns coming into Dulles with the gear down five miles from the runways.

That said, were I pulling out of a trouser shitting incident like that, I'd want all the airspeed I could muster, so I'd be raising the gear ASAP.

[K Frame]

It is somewhat difficult to turn the runway into the wind when it is laid out on the ground instead of a boat.

They just do the best they can with regard to runways and winds.

bob

Bullshit. All modern airports are mounted on large turntables.

It's kept a secret from most people, though, because they only time they really want to turn the airport into the wind is when they're doing a low-level takeoff chemtrail disbursal.

That way the wind REALLY helps get those neurotoxic thought control agents to the little chillruns who need them the most...

[BobR]

Hopefully the pilot knows the crosswind limits of his particular airframe and has the skill to land within those limits. If not (either one) he can always divert to a more favorable field. I doubt the FAA would get involved until the NTSB was done and gave their recommendations.

In the P3 we had a 35 knot crosswind limit, but that is @ 90 degrees, every degree off of a 90 degree crosswind will decrease the effective crosswind. That is where the Flight Engineer (me) would be plugging the charts to see if we could make the landing. Now days they have computers to do that I imagine. So we could land in much higher winds depending on the wind direction. Very seldom did we have a 90 degree crosswind, the prevailing winds are a big thing when putting the concrete down for a runway.

As an aside observation, a lot of .mil fields do not have intersecting runways, parallel yes but I don't recall that many intersecting ones. Or maybe it was because of the areas we operated in (near oceans) the prevailing winds were pretty much constant.

bob

[Fly320s]

Thanks that makes sense. 

But given all those factors, one would think that safety would be the prime consideration.   (or does it take a plane or two cartwheeling down a runway to make that happen with the FAA?)

"Safety third" as Mike Rowe might say.  Landing with crosswinds is safe enough.  Like Jamis said, due to operational constraints, airports don't always use the most favorable runway.  JFK and LGA are great examples of that.  If LGA is arriving and departing on certain runways, that forces JFK to use certain runways, and neither airport may be using the best runway for the wind conditions, but they are "safe enough."

[Fly320s]

It's my understanding that lowering the landing gear quite a ways out is another method of helping bleed off speed.

The gear certainly add drag, but that is not why the gear are extended 5 miles out.  We drop the gear so that we can be fully configured for landing and on speed by a set point.  My company's SOPs say we have to be in that configuration no later than 1,000 feet (roughly 3 miles) about the airport. 

Bullshit. All modern airports are mounted on large turntables.

It's kept a secret from most people, though,

Expect a visit from one of Hillary's staff.

[Hawkmoon]

Thanks that makes sense. 

But given all those factors, one would think that safety would be the prime consideration.   (or does it take a plane or two cartwheeling down a runway to make that happen with the FAA?)

Anyone else old enough to remember Shelley Berman? "Flying is the safest way to fly."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hht9ghuKHc8