Talk:Crosswind landing

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

I am not a pilot, but is the final technique a recognised procedure? It appears to touch down with a lateral velocity component, which must stress the undercarriage, except in fairly light cross winds. If it isn't a standard technique for which a reference can be given, it should not be included.

Also, could I ask any US English speakers out there to convert my UK English spellings back to the US English in which the article was originally written. Gordon Vigurs 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative technique is not a recognised procedure. But i have seen some captains attempt it. Its very dangerous because if the wind stop blowing he would never recover. I’m sorry but there is no reference for that technique. I guess you are right, ill bring the fourth article down. Owh, thanks for correcting a lot of my sentence. This is my first article in wikipedia --Fydamnit 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the technique section it does not make sense to refer to "thrust", "drag" or "lift" as being primary relevant concept in crosswind landings. For instance, the reference in the text about a pilot having to balance thrust and drag to stay in position should be removed as it is has little to do with how you control crosswind landings. A proper explanation could be based on a description of the velocity vector (speed and direction) for the wind relative to the ground and for the aircraft relative to the wind (see for instance Wind triangle for details), and how the pilot keep the aircraft on the centerline by changing heading (during crab) or heading and roll (during sideslip) in responses to change in wind (see for instance http://www.aopa.org/training/articles/2008/080417crosswind.html). Also "thrust" and "lift" in the diagrams should be relabelled "wind". Filip Larsen (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove box that says not enough articles link here[edit]

There are some articles linking here now. Think it's okay to remove this notice, so I will. Dw290 12:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Actually, I think the tone of the article seems fine too. If there is agreement, perhaps the warning about that can be moved too? Dw290 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed mergers from Crab landing and Slip landing[edit]

Support: These are closely related techniques, and should be covered in a single article. Dhaluza 13:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Support: Same reason as above --Natrajdr 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

This article should have a picture of a plane in crab walk for a landing. Anyone want to try and get one of those? Maybe US military picture? 129.170.241.9 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links rotted[edit]

The Airbus A380 'Crosswind landing test' video is no longer available as the Youtube account has been removed due to multiple copywrite takedown requests. 122.59.1.210 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]