Airliners.net

NRT/RJAA often gets a bad rap for variable and gusty crosswinds, and this video recently posted by air-clips is a case in point. This National B744F crew does a great job getting her down as the speed tape goes wild on final.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7RjAl39l-Y

Same landing with more camera angles here:

https://youtu.be/0hrAy8ZYhc4?t=1824

That was fun and Casie helps with the optics. Love watching the wing flex on the 747's.

The Pilot was not having a lot of fun with that one. Great Vid

Great video, thank you!

And hats off to the Boeing structural dynamicists!

travaz wrote:

The Pilot was not having a lot of fun with that one. Great Vid

Actually I bet he was having a ton of fun! Those are the approaches and landing that make the job fun. That was a typical NRT approach!

CriticalPoint wrote:

travaz wrote:

The Pilot was not having a lot of fun with that one. Great Vid

Actually I bet he was having a ton of fun! Those are the approaches and landing that make the job fun. That was a typical NRT approach!

Yeah, tons of fun, try 4 hours of touch and goes in a C-5 with winds like that; the engineer chiming, “1/2 knot within the crosswind limit, sir”. And teaching new Lts how to land in those conditions.

Wow, that must have been both frightening and exhilarating for the pilots. Kudos to them and a true testament to the Queen's performance.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

travaz wrote:

The Pilot was not having a lot of fun with that one. Great Vid

Actually I bet he was having a ton of fun! Those are the approaches and landing that make the job fun. That was a typical NRT approach!

Yeah, tons of fun, try 4 hours of touch and goes in a C-5 with winds like that; the engineer chiming, “1/2 knot within the crosswind limit, sir”. And teaching new Lts how to land in those conditions.

Yeah that would get exhausting…..i never really liked it as an LCA either especially for new hires.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Wow, that must have been both frightening and exhilarating for the pilots. Kudos to them and a true testament to the Queen's performance.

Frightening? Surely not. Exhausting is the right word.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Wow, that must have been both frightening and exhilarating for the pilots. Kudos to them and a true testament to the Queen's performance.

If it is frightening for the pilots, they should be elsewhere—this is standard stuff. Not everyday stuff, but conditions a pro shouldn’t be frightened of.

170 Vapp, that was fast. Looked like a flap 20 or 25 landing. Is that normal in gusting winds like that? Seems like it would be, less drag than flap30 and more control surface authority at a higher airspeed

r6russian wrote:

170 Vapp, that was fast. Looked like a flap 20 or 25 landing. Is that normal in gusting winds like that? Seems like it would be, less drag than flap30 and more control surface authority at a higher airspeed

Not flaps 20 for normals but Flaps 25 is a landing flap setting and it can help in really gusty winds.

If that 747 was a max landing weigh and Flaps 25 they were probably in the high 140s for Vref. And then you add a knot for each not of steady state crosswind and all the gust up to 20 KTS (I’m not sure if Boeing changed all aircraft to +15) and you are looking at a speed close to 170.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

travaz wrote:

The Pilot was not having a lot of fun with that one. Great Vid

Actually I bet he was having a ton of fun! Those are the approaches and landing that make the job fun. That was a typical NRT approach!

Yeah, tons of fun, try 4 hours of touch and goes in a C-5 with winds like that; the engineer chiming, “1/2 knot within the crosswind limit, sir”. And teaching new Lts how to land in those conditions.

Waiting for a gusty day for 4 hours of TNG? There’s a teaching job nobody wants!

r6russian wrote:

170 Vapp, that was fast. Looked like a flap 20 or 25 landing. Is that normal in gusting winds like that? Seems like it would be, less drag than flap30 and more control surface authority at a higher airspeed

The 747 has plenty of control authority but you always want extra airspeed margin with that kind of 15 knot gain/loss under 1000 AGL. Just gotta watch for ballooning on the gains - at one point in the video he notes their VS briefly enters climb.

Here's an oldie, but a goodie from NRT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AW--9_F6OU

This is a very good one too. Those look like some extreme inputs but you'd never know it as a passenger.

https://youtu.be/EObSLuvKVMg

graceintheair wrote:

This is a very good one too. Those look like some extreme inputs but you'd never know it as a passenger.

https://youtu.be/EObSLuvKVMg

Sometimes passengers can tell - another great one on a UA 744 at NRT...from about 4:30 on

https://youtu.be/fVPxpPBJcgc

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Actually I bet he was having a ton of fun! Those are the approaches and landing that make the job fun. That was a typical NRT approach!

Yeah, tons of fun, try 4 hours of touch and goes in a C-5 with winds like that; the engineer chiming, “1/2 knot within the crosswind limit, sir”. And teaching new Lts how to land in those conditions.

Waiting for a gusty day for 4 hours of TNG? There’s a teaching job nobody wants!

Luck of the draw on the weather. We didn’t cancel until the winds were out of limits, did four hours of 200-3/4 touch and goes, too. Rotate and instantly be in cloud for 4 hours. My last flight was a HQ S/E check pounding out a local in heavy rain. Evaluator, who knew I was leaving, just asked if I wanted a debrief. “If, must, Chuck, Ok.”

This is how every landing was when I was learning to fly... But I was even more calm, cool, and collected JK But really It can be Nerve-racking but still not too difficult. This crew looks on point.

Must have been challenging for the crew as the CPT had been on the 747 for only 5 months and the FO for only 7 months (in the interview, the CPT said that he had been with QR on 787s before and the FP had been flying Embraer 145s in the US)..

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Wow, that must have been both frightening and exhilarating for the pilots. Kudos to them and a true testament to the Queen's performance.

If it is frightening for the pilots, they should be elsewhere—this is standard stuff. Not everyday stuff, but conditions a pro shouldn’t be frightened of.

Maybe it would have been frightening for them if they had 2 big macs and fries only a few hours prior?

Aaron747 wrote:

NRT/RJAA often gets a bad rap for variable and gusty crosswinds, and this video recently posted by air-clips is a case in point. This National B744F crew does a great job getting her down as the speed tape goes wild on final.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7RjAl39l-Y

Same landing with more camera angles here:

https://youtu.be/0hrAy8ZYhc4?t=1824

Where are the WoW sensors located on the B744? Looks like the speedbrakes deployed right after the MLG touched down? I'd always thought that they were on the nose gear?

On all gear in most planes, different sensors required for different services. Spoilers should be on the mains.

Couldn’t you see both of them chomping on unlit cigars, doing their best Joe Patroni impersonation?

Aaron747 wrote:

r6russian wrote:

170 Vapp, that was fast. Looked like a flap 20 or 25 landing. Is that normal in gusting winds like that? Seems like it would be, less drag than flap30 and more control surface authority at a higher airspeed

The 747 has plenty of control authority but you always want extra airspeed margin with that kind of 15 knot gain/loss under 1000 AGL. Just gotta watch for ballooning on the gains - at one point in the video he notes their VS briefly enters climb.

I saw around +30 below 500 ft, that would be a mandatory go around for us.

zeke wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

r6russian wrote:

170 Vapp, that was fast. Looked like a flap 20 or 25 landing. Is that normal in gusting winds like that? Seems like it would be, less drag than flap30 and more control surface authority at a higher airspeed

The 747 has plenty of control authority but you always want extra airspeed margin with that kind of 15 knot gain/loss under 1000 AGL. Just gotta watch for ballooning on the gains - at one point in the video he notes their VS briefly enters climb.

I saw around +30 below 500 ft, that would be a mandatory go around for us.

Didn’t catch that, but will have another look. Does that mandatory apply to both direct x-wind and a variable vector?

Aaron747 wrote:

Didn’t catch that, but will have another look. Does that mandatory apply to both direct x-wind and a variable vector?

Have a look at the indicated speed, it goes over 190 kts.

Quite a bit of pilot induced oscillation in there imo.

zeke wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Didn’t catch that, but will have another look. Does that mandatory apply to both direct x-wind and a variable vector?

Have a look at the indicated speed, it goes over 190 kts.

Only for a brief moment and he announced correcting and made the corrections. In my opinion he was chasing the flight director too much at the end there and should used the control inputs to maintain his wind correction and it would have been much smoother. This is one of my pet peeves, pilot induced oscillation. Makes things seem more rough than what they really are.

r6russian wrote:

170 Vapp, that was fast. Looked like a flap 20 or 25 landing. Is that normal in gusting winds like that? Seems like it would be, less drag than flap30 and more control surface authority at a higher airspeed

Naw, he was Flaps 25 for sure with his ref speed. Looks like they were about 280 plus tons on the gross weight based on the program ref speed. He would have gotten flap load relief if they used flaps 30.

bigb wrote:

Only for a brief moment and he announced correcting and made the corrections. In my opinion he was chasing the flight director too much at the end there and should used the control inputs to maintain his wind correction and it would have been much smoother. This is one of my pet peeves, pilot induced oscillation. Makes things seem more rough than what they really are.

The airspeed was more than VREF + 20kts indicated speed, go around.

zeke wrote:

bigb wrote:

Only for a brief moment and he announced correcting and made the corrections. In my opinion he was chasing the flight director too much at the end there and should used the control inputs to maintain his wind correction and it would have been much smoother. This is one of my pet peeves, pilot induced oscillation. Makes things seem more rough than what they really are.

The airspeed was more than VREF + 20kts indicated speed, go around.

That’s because the wind pushed his speed up there and he was living in the 190 range. He had wind additive bugged and was bracketing the bug for the most part. I say he was stable to continue.

bigb wrote:

zeke wrote:

bigb wrote:

Only for a brief moment and he announced correcting and made the corrections. In my opinion he was chasing the flight director too much at the end there and should used the control inputs to maintain his wind correction and it would have been much smoother. This is one of my pet peeves, pilot induced oscillation. Makes things seem more rough than what they really are.

The airspeed was more than VREF + 20kts indicated speed, go around.

That’s because the wind pushed his speed up there and he was living in the 190 range. He had wind additive bugged and was bracketing the bug for the most part. I say he was stable to continue.

This is part of why aviation is so safe anymore. Rules are written in blood. Sure, a quick spike to Vref+20 for a quick second is probably ok, but what if that spike to Vref+20 is followed by Vref-10 just as you as the PF closed the throttles to make up for being Vref+20. Too close to stall at a low altitude with no power, not a good place to be in. "we could've made it if we tried" has cost alot people their lives, thats why "try it, see if you make it" isnt an option in aviation. Im more impressed by the fact that at CX, Vref+20 is an automatic go around, but at National, its not. Seems like a rule like that should be a blanket rule put out by the governing agencies, not by the airlines

r6russian wrote:

bigb wrote:

zeke wrote:

The airspeed was more than VREF + 20kts indicated speed, go around.

That’s because the wind pushed his speed up there and he was living in the 190 range. He had wind additive bugged and was bracketing the bug for the most part. I say he was stable to continue.

This is part of why aviation is so safe anymore. Rules are written in blood. Sure, a quick spike to Vref+20 for a quick second is probably ok, but what if that spike to Vref+20 is followed by Vref-10 just as you as the PF closed the throttles to make up for being Vref+20. Too close to stall at a low altitude with no power, not a good place to be in. "we could've made it if we tried" has cost alot people their lives, thats why "try it, see if you make it" isnt an option in aviation. Im more impressed by the fact that at CX, Vref+20 is an automatic go around, but at National, its not. Seems like a rule like that should be a blanket rule put out by the governing agencies, not by the airlines

If you have that kind of sudden spike from the wind +20 to -10 ref with your airspeed, it’s going to trigger a Windshear warning in which the windshear recovery procedure is initiated . But looking at the situation as a whole, I feel like they met the Stable approach criteria for the conditions they were landing in. He wasn’t living in fast speed for long and he didn’t have to make a big thrust change either.

Stable approach criteria at airlines cover the follow items, on course, on path, descent shouldn’t be excessive (1000 FPM of less unless weight and/or outside air, or published approach path dictates otherwise and should be briefed), engines spooled, ref -0/+10. On windy days, sometimes the airspeed will spike and corrections be made within reason.

bigb wrote:

If you have that kind of sudden spike from the wind +20 to -10 ref with your airspeed, it’s going to trigger a Windshear warning in which the windshear recovery procedure is initiated . But looking at the situation as a whole, I feel like they met the Stable approach criteria for the conditions they were landing in. He wasn’t living in fast speed for long and he didn’t have to make a big thrust change either.

Stable approach criteria at airlines cover the follow items, on course, on path, descent shouldn’t be excessive (1000 FPM of less unless weight and/or outside air, or published approach path dictates otherwise and should be briefed), engines spooled, ref -0/+10. On windy days, sometimes the airspeed will spike and corrections be made within reason.

That is your opinion, I can respect that, it is however not in agreement with the Boeing 744 FCTM stabilised approach recommendations. FYI in Japan, following aircraft incidents such as a runway overrun like many countries in Asia police arrest the crew, it is a criminal matter. It is a very different culture to the US.

zeke wrote:

bigb wrote:

If you have that kind of sudden spike from the wind +20 to -10 ref with your airspeed, it’s going to trigger a Windshear warning in which the windshear recovery procedure is initiated . But looking at the situation as a whole, I feel like they met the Stable approach criteria for the conditions they were landing in. He wasn’t living in fast speed for long and he didn’t have to make a big thrust change either.

Stable approach criteria at airlines cover the follow items, on course, on path, descent shouldn’t be excessive (1000 FPM of less unless weight and/or outside air, or published approach path dictates otherwise and should be briefed), engines spooled, ref -0/+10. On windy days, sometimes the airspeed will spike and corrections be made within reason.

That is your opinion, I can respect that, it is however not in agreement with the Boeing 744 FCTM stabilised approach recommendations. FYI in Japan, following aircraft incidents such as a runway overrun like many countries in Asia police arrest the crew, it is a criminal matter. It is a very different culture to the US.

I am very aware of what the Boeing 744 FCTM says and what is also put out from my companies current and previous stable approach criteria. I am not stating a opinion in regards to stabilized approach criteria and I am also aware of matters of what happens in event of incidents and accidents internationally as well as I fly mainly internationally and currently on the 74 as well.

r6russian wrote:

bigb wrote:

zeke wrote:

The airspeed was more than VREF + 20kts indicated speed, go around.

That’s because the wind pushed his speed up there and he was living in the 190 range. He had wind additive bugged and was bracketing the bug for the most part. I say he was stable to continue.

This is part of why aviation is so safe anymore. Rules are written in blood. Sure, a quick spike to Vref+20 for a quick second is probably ok, but what if that spike to Vref+20 is followed by Vref-10 just as you as the PF closed the throttles to make up for being Vref+20. Too close to stall at a low altitude with no power, not a good place to be in. "we could've made it if we tried" has cost alot people their lives, thats why "try it, see if you make it" isnt an option in aviation. Im more impressed by the fact that at CX, Vref+20 is an automatic go around, but at National, its not. Seems like a rule like that should be a blanket rule put out by the governing agencies, not by the airlines

Interesting comment but this opens up the can of worms where FAA/CAA/EASA/JCAB etc share many regulatory features yet still allow individual operators some leeway to determine specific minima. I don't see a way of leaving that grey zone without a complete retooling of the global regulatory sphere.

bigb wrote:

I am very aware of what the Boeing 744 FCTM says and what is also put out from my companies current and previous stable approach criteria. I am not stating a opinion in regards to stabilized approach criteria and I am also aware of matters of what happens in event of incidents and accidents internationally as well as I fly mainly internationally and currently on the 74 as well.

I am not current on the 744, however I have flown them previously. My recollection of Boeings stabilised approach recommendations in the 744 FCTM were based on VREF, not commanded speed. Commanded speed shouldn't be greater than VREF+20 in normal circumstances.

Being current on the 744 you should be able see VREF is 155, and commanded speed 165. At around 400 ft (540 on the altimeter as NRT elevation is around 140 ft), I saw in excess of VREF+35, and in excess of VREF+25 at around 100 ft. In the last 1000 ft the pitch attitude seemed to vary by 6 degrees, briefly saw a negative pitch attitude below 500ft.

The ND wind when they were around 5-600 ft on the altimeter, was around 220/30-35 (around 60 degrees off), which in my head is only about 15 kts of headwind.