Windy Approach - Would you have decided the same as I?

MAF wrote:

Do have any hints for rookies like me?

No criticism whatsoever. But since you asked for hints, here’s mine! It’s probably worth what you paid for it…nothing. I’m not an instructor, just a PPL like yourself.

You didn’t have a cross wind really….just turbulence. In these conditions, I like to take a steeper approach (not a dive bomb approach, but a bit steeper than normal, and steeper that you seem to be), and not carry any extra speed.

If I suddenly need extra speed, that can be solved by pushing forward, and I’ll get instant speed.
If I need to postpone landing that can be done with a bunch of power.

What a steeper approach does for me, is that it means once I flare, I’ve got to stop a steep descent, so it saps the energy from the aircraft and I’m ready to land. So no float in turbulent conditions. You had to do a lot of flying in turbulent conditions just above the runway surface, while you lost speed. This is difficult (and can be dangerous if you get a nasty gust). So being able to shorten this period is really useful.

At least that’s my approach to such conditions.

Some people vary this by carrying some power through the flare, so that they can choose their landing time easier by just removing the power when needed.

In either case, you don’t carry any extra speed, so no unnecessary float in difficult conditions.

Seems like the right decision, you apparently were ready for the go-around anytime, so why not try the landing. Plus the 172 is very forgiving (although I think the earlier 172s handle nicer, the newer 172s feel like a wet sponge…)

You are very fast on the approach, around 80 KIAS if I read the ASI right. Your speed drops one or two times by little less than 10 knots, so the normal approach speed of 60 KIAS (I assume you were lightly loaded) or 65 KIAS would have been sufficient and still give you plenty margin to stalling the aircraft, especially the 172. Usually just add 1/2 of gusts to normal approach speed and no more. (Unless, of course, the POH says otherwise. I have been informed some Airbus Manuals prescribe higher speeds in even calm winds).

With that high speed your flare took almost 20 seconds until you dissipated all the excess energy, all in close approximity to the ground holding the aircraft straight for touch down. Flying the correct approach speed is way easier, especially if you approach on shorter fields.

In such a wind it doesn’t need to be a full stall landing either. It might be easier to land with partial flaps and a higher touchdown speed. (Partial flaps because it allows to hold the nose wheel above the ground.) Sometimes the landings just needs to be safe, not beautiful :-)

You seem to be on the flare for ever. When it’s turbulent, it’s far better (IMO) to get the wheels on the ground ASAP. Staying 1 feet above the runway in gusty conditions is great practice, but could easily become very expensive. I agree with the others, too fast, too shallow and way to long in the flare.

Answer to your Q: yes, of course, would have landed

Critique: I would have made the approach steeper and slower and have tried to make a firm landing, raise flaps asap and dissipate the energy quickly. For my taste you were concentrating a bit too much on a nice centerline landing with a really nice and soft arrival. Not necessarily the best strategy under the circumstances, as you are floating along close to the ground with very little – if any – room for maneuver. For the record: I’m no CFI, just a PPL.

Yes, Way too much float. Nothing wrong with the conditions and you cope fine but in those conditions you want to get the plane on the ground ASAP.

I agree you obviously were much too fast. No safety issue on such a long rwy, but still not good style. You were beautifully on centerline OTOH .

I would echo the other inputs.

You flew a really nice accurate approach. No messing about off-centreline. That’s really good, and from what I see around here, really unusual.

However it was too low. That has several negatives:

• reduced obstacle clearance on final
• increased exposure to low level turbulence
• increased exposure to wind shear (anytime there is wind, there is wind shear)
• more power is needed to fly a shallow approach, which reduces power available to deal with surprises
• a go-around is harder because you are doing it from lower down
• if you find yourself landing on a runway which has a tall cliff under the start of it – example – the downdraught could kill you

So I would fly a steeper approach; one which looks more like this

BTW, if you aim for the numbers (as we in light GA normally do) you will get more than two reds on the PAPIs on final. That’s why I didn’t photoshop the above pic

As regards the speed, my view is that flying the final too fast is OK so long as you can bring it to the right number just before the flare

As regards flaps, one should land with the setting in the POH. I always use the full landing flap. If one day you find yourself in a retractable, using half flap will remove one of the gear-up landing protections.

I am not an instructor.

It’s hard to judge from a video, but to me your approach and landing looked safe.

As a general tip: when flying low to the ground, keep the wings level. Use rudder (not aileron) for corrections. A wing dip on final will ruin your day

With winds 20G30 on the runway I would also have flown the approach with a higher speed. The rule is to add half of the wind gust factor to your approach speed.

Peter wrote:

increased exposure to wind shear (anytime there is wind, there is wind shear)

Actually that is the one thing where the steep approach is increasing exposure, because if you increase the rate of descent, the gradient of wind change will increase.

Peter wrote:

a go-around is harder because you are doing it from lower down

I tend to disagree, go-arounds can be performed perfectly safe even a couple of millimeters from touchdown. In fact, that is part of PPL training. For a go-around you have to arrest descent, fly V_Y, reconfigure to climb configuration and climb out, while on a more shallow approach this is comparatively smooth, it can be harder on steeper approaches. Depends a lot on the aircraft used, though. lenthamen wrote:

As a general tip: when flying low to the ground, keep the wings level. Use rudder (not aileron) for corrections. A wing dip on final will ruin your day

Every proper crosswind landing requires either a low wing or a crabbed touchdown on tricycle aircraft. If you keep your windward wing low you don’t rist dropping a wing anyway. For any correction you need aileron and rudder, just as in every turn. If you rely only on rudder, you promote the rudder-roll moment and ontop of that being often quite noticeable, it might leave you with the lee wing down.

If you hold your wings level, you need to crab for crosswinds for touch down. That is much more uncomfortable to passengers than touching down with the windward main gear first.

So as a general tip: train yourself to be able to touch down with the wheel of your desire, first. You can teach crosswind technique even on calm days if you perform a wing-low-landing and keeping the roll-axis of the aircraft aligned to the runway. Try a couple of wing-low low-approaches first, it will show you how much rudder and aileron input is needed.