Using the windsock

[Jaybird180]

After reflecting on my performance yesterday and asking myself 'what could I have done better', I realized the need for a basic piece of information, wind.

On the 45 approach, I felt I needed to get close enough to see the flow of traffic. I correctly assumed there was traffic but somehow missed hearing any radio calls to include active runway direction. After seeing an aircraft on climbout, I ascertained that Rnwy 18 was active.

I began my setup for Rnwy 18 left base, but didn't account for the strong winds from the east (nearly direct, as I saw the how strongly the national ensign blew as I walked to my car from the FBO).

CONFESSION: I should have known and accounted for this important piece of information. I now realize that I am not yet in the habit of using the windsock during my approach and landing phases.

At what point in the approach should I look for and be able to gain windsock information? The 45? Downwind? Also, how can I use the windsock to read windspeed? How about at night?

Thanks.

 

[steingar]

For me it depends on the situation. I will usually try and brief the approach before I ever enter the pattern environment. Most airports will have an ASOS, AWOS, ATIS, someone who can read wind speed and direction in the FBO, or someone who will tell me in the pattern. I want to know what I'm doing well before I have to do it.

On the very, very rare occasion all that fails, I start thinking about the situation. Long runway or short. Most of the runways at which I land are sufficiently long that I could land with an appreciable tail wind if I got it wrong. If the runway is shorter, then I think further. As I approach I look for smoke, or cloud movement, or anything else that will give away wind direction. I look at the GPS if I have one. Is the wind at my back? What is my course relative to my track? Am I crabbed into the wind? The wind at the surface will be similar in direction unless there are surface features like trees, that can affect it.

If I am on a local flight, odds are the winds are similar in direction and strength to where I came from. If I am on a cross country flight, and all that stuff I talked about failed, I dial in the AWOS/ASOS/ATIS of a nearby airport, and use that wind information.

I glance very quickly at the windsock as I enter the pattern for confirmation. At that point I am far more worried about other aircraft in the pattern than the wind direction. I have never gotten it wrong.

 

[Jaybird180]

Thanks for the reply, but here's a little more information:

Winds were significantly increased between TO and Ldg on the local flight with a small-ish runway and the DC SFRA/FRZ nearby (as well as other obstructions).

No answer from UNICOM when I requested wind advisory.

About 2-3 airplanes in the pattern and 1 headed to where I departed (practice area), rightly so, my mind is on traffic see and avoid.

Nevertheless, I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN the wind.

 

[jsstevens]

For me it depends on the situation. I will usually try and brief the approach before I ever enter the pattern environment. Most airports will have an ASOS, AWOS, ATIS, someone who can read wind speed and direction in the FBO, or someone who will tell me in the pattern. I want to know what I'm doing well before I have to do it.

On the very, very rare occasion all that fails, I start thinking about the situation. Long runway or short. Most of the runways at which I land are sufficiently long that I could land with an appreciable tail wind if I got it wrong. If the runway is shorter, then I think further. As I approach I look for smoke, or cloud movement, or anything else that will give away wind direction. I look at the GPS if I have one. Is the wind at my back? What is my course relative to my track? Am I crabbed into the wind? The wind at the surface will be similar in direction unless there are surface features like trees, that can affect it.

If I am on a local flight, odds are the winds are similar in direction and strength to where I came from. If I am on a cross country flight, and all that stuff I talked about failed, I dial in the AWOS/ASOS/ATIS of a nearby airport, and use that wind information.

I glance very quickly at the windsock as I enter the pattern for confirmation. At that point I am far more worried about other aircraft in the pattern than the wind direction. I have never gotten it wrong.

The only thing I would add to this excellent advice is look at bodies of water and trees. They also give clues to wind direction and to some extent speed.

John

 

[steingar]

Thanks for the reply, but here's a little more information:

Winds were significantly increased between TO and Ldg on the local flight with a small-ish runway and the DC SFRA/FRZ nearby (as well as other obstructions).

No answer from UNICOM when I requested wind advisory.

About 2-3 airplanes in the pattern and 1 headed to where I departed (practice area), rightly so, my mind is on traffic see and avoid.

Nevertheless, I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN the wind.

If you have traffic in the pattern, follow. Once you are assured of separation (your primary objective) look. If you can't see it quickly, don't worry about it. You should be able to feel the wind on downwind and final. Are you crabbed on downwind? How fast are you being pushed? Your control inputs on final aren't going to depend on you knowing the speed of the wind. They're going to be to keep your airplane traveling and pointed in the correct direction.

If you really can't get what you need and are uncomfortable, land elsewhere. Sunday I was on approach to a local airport for a currency flight. There was another airplane in the pattern, and I couldn't see him at all. White airplane on snow, glare, who knows? I just decided to go elsewhere instead. Plenty of other airports at which I could land (did a good one too). All this is part of ADM.

The landing at the Winwood gathering was one of my most scary. High density altitude, lots of terrain, and winds whipping around like crazy. I told my passenger (Mrs. Steingar) that if the second approach didn't work, we were going elsewhere. I was very serious. We had a really good time at Winwood, but it wasn't worth pranging the airplane or us. As it was, had the runway been 2900 feet instead of 3000, I would have had a little excursion.

So the best advice I can give is you don't have to make the landing. I've only ever HAD to make the landing once in ten years, to duck out of storms.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

This summer, I joined on the 45 and announced downwind runway 08 at CQA, finaly got a good look at the wind sock and announced that I was upwind for 26...

 

[stagecoachco]

This summer I was approaching the Meeker Airport (EEO). The AWOS was reporting the winds as "Missing". Due to terrain surounding the airport, it was pretty difficult to guess the wind direction. Two calls to the FBO were unanswered, and there was no traffic in the pattern on the radio. I ended up overflying the runway 500' above pattern alt. to get a look at the windsock, then turned outbound to loose altitude and make a pattern entry. Of course all the while I made position reports on CTAF.

 

[dmccormack]

In a tailwheel I will *always* land into the wind (90 degree wind, go with traffic).

More than once I've orbited 5 miles out until knucklehead who asks for "wind advisories" lands downwind.


Flying light and low, you become bery in tune where the wind is.

We have several powerplants nearby -- the plumes tell me plenty about where, how strong, and overall stability.

 

[ejensen]

Windsocks can give a rough estimate of wind speed. Manufacturers will often state what the wind speed is when the sock is at various angles with straight out often being 15 mph or knots. Again I say rough estimate. There was a great, hilarious thread on the old AOPA board where a technical document writer (I forget her handle) wrote manual on windsock calibration standards.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Windsocks can give a rough estimate of wind speed. Manufacturers will often state what the wind speed is when the sock is at various angles with straight out often being 15 mph or knots. Again I say rough estimate. There was a great, hilarious thread on the old AOPA board where a technical document writer (I forget her handle) wrote manual on windsock calibration standards.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5345-27D/150_5345_27d.pdf

3.5 Windsock Movement. The windsock must move freely about the vertical shaft it is
attached to and when subjected to wind of 3 knots (5.6 km/hr or 3.5 mph) or more and indicate

the true wind direction within +/- 5 degrees.

​

​

​

4.2.6 Windsock Extension. Test the windsock to assure that it extends fully when subjected

​

to a wind of 15 (+2,-1) knots (+3.7, -1.8) km/hr or (+2.3, -1.2 mph) ).

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Sac Arrow]

And there is nothing wrong with orbiting the field at 500 - 1000 feet above TPA to assess the situation for both traffic and wind, if all else fails. Then just do a teardrop entry into the pattern once you've figured it out.

 

[Jaybird180]

Windsocks can give a rough estimate of wind speed. Manufacturers will often state what the wind speed is when the sock is at various angles with straight out often being 15 mph or knots.

I had heard this before but don't recall the numbers. This is along the lines of what I was looking for.

There was a great, hilarious thread on the old AOPA board where a technical document writer (I forget her handle) wrote manual on windsock calibration standards.

Funny.

 

[ejensen]

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5345-27D/150_5345_27d.pdf

That's the claimed calibration standards that set off the lengthy and funny thread some years back. How to meet those specs..........

 

[somorris]

There are various sizes of socks made. Most you see are 15 knot or 20 knot. Fully extended, you can bet the wind is near the sock design. I always land upwind. If direct crosswind (fairly rare) I follow traffic. Don't be too hard on yourself. Often, it is difficult to see the sock unless you overfly the airport.

 

[Doggtyred]

The only thing I would add to this excellent advice is look at bodies of water and trees. They also give clues to wind direction and to some extent speed.

John

And flags... and tethered balloons at car sales lots... banners.. There are lots of things you can use before you even get into the landing environment that you can use to gather intel on the prevailing wind.

 

[bbchien]

Jaybird180, if you don't get any other clues from the things the other guys suggested, try ATIS at the large neighboring metro. Or, you can fly the whole pattern, timing from end to end in both directions. The difference between the times, in seconds, divided by the sum of the times, is seconds, is the proportion of your TAS that is wind speed.

 

[rottydaddy]

When I was less experienced, I used to get the cold sweats when I couldn't get wind info before committing to a pattern entry... then one day when I asked on the CTAF for an advisory and some wag said "why dontcha come over and look at the sock?" I realized there was no good reason not to.
I also started looking more carefully at my airplane's drift (remember that one?), trees and grass, flags, waves, smoke, and sometimes low clouds (or, more specifically, their shadows). Getting runway wind data on the radio is a luxury, not a necessity, there are usually other cues before you can see the sock, and in the end,you really won't know until you come over the fence if you are going to be able to land acceptably.

In the absence of info on the radio or visual cues when the sock is still not in sight, my practice is to make an assumption based on the nearest and most recent reported surface wind reports or forecasts, and weigh that against the winds aloft (which I should know, having just been up there).

Then, if it's still not obvious by the time I'm on my chosen downwind (socks are not always there and sometimes they're damaged, and tetrahedrons are often inaccurate and don't show velocity), I'll just try to land, and go around if it's not going to work for me.

Not the most convenient way to realize that you have to land the other way (or land somewhere else!), but it is the most accurate way, and the whole process doesn't take all that long.

Sometimes it's possible, if you're flying slowly enough, to figure out at least the direction, and sometimes guesstimate the velocity, by simply watching for drift as you descend to TPA, just as you might do at cruise altitude to fine-tune your wind correction.

Now, in the gliders I'm flying these days, "making a pass" is not an option... and even on those shorter flights, the wind can change up. I can't assume it will be the same as when I launched, or the same as the winds aloft.

But I don't always go soaring with a radio, there isn't always telltale traffic, and I usually can't read the sock when I would most like to.

So I rely heavily on checking my drift on my final glide towards the airport and looking for any other visual cues. In a low-performance glider, you really need to have a good estimate of surface winds before you commit to a pattern (although at my home field, it's not the end of the world to have to land downwind). It really hones the wind-divining skills, I'll tell ya.

Anyway, it doesn't seem all that tricky to me- I'm not boasting, but I've never landed "the wrong way" by accident- with power or without- and I haven't always had the luxury of a sock or other device on the field, or a report or advisory over the radio.

 

[steingar]

I landed wrong way once, just bulloxed the pattern. Came in with a ten knot tailwind. No problem at all. THe ILS at my airport only goes one way. Those who use it are landing that runway irregardless of the wind.

To this day I still have to carefully brief what I'm going to do several miles out, which is why I don't like waiting until I'm near the airport to decide which way to land.

 

[elmetal]

I landed wrong way once, just bulloxed the pattern. Came in with a ten knot tailwind. No problem at all. THe ILS at my airport only goes one way. Those who use it are landing that runway irregardless of the wind.

To this day I still have to carefully brief what I'm going to do several miles out, which is why I don't like waiting until I'm near the airport to decide which way to land.

tell me you didn't

 

[RyanShort1]

If you fly a squared off pattern, and pay attention to what you should have learned in ground reference maneuvers, you should be able to assess fairly quickly if you have a significant wind, and the approximate direction, although there are times when the surface winds can be surprisingly different in cases where there are hills, ridges, etc...

Ryan

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

If you fly a squared off pattern, and pay attention to what you should have learned in ground reference maneuvers, you should be able to assess fairly quickly if you have a significant wind, and the approximate direction, although there are times when the surface winds can be surprisingly different in cases where there are hills, ridges, etc...

Ryan

KOSC

Remarks:
DURG DALGT HRS TAILWINDS MAY EXIST OVER APCH ENDS RY 06 & 24 SIMULTANEOUSLY

 

[elmetal]

KOSC

Remarks:
DURG DALGT HRS TAILWINDS MAY EXIST OVER APCH ENDS RY 06 & 24 SIMULTANEOUSLY

That's gotta be fun

 

[steingar]

tell me you didn't

Long time ago early on in my training. Nobody but me in the pattern. Realized my mistake as I was blown down the runway, but still stopped with plenty of room to spare. I brief carefully aways out to avoid a repeat of that particular mistake.

 

[Jaybird180]

KOSC

Remarks:
DURG DALGT HRS TAILWINDS MAY EXIST OVER APCH ENDS RY 06 & 24 SIMULTANEOUSLY

Only if there's a hurricane at midfield (LOL)

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Only if there's a hurricane at midfield (LOL)

I think there us just enough stinking concrete stuck in the middle of the woods that you typically find a big thermal sitting in the middle of the field sucking in air from all directions.

 

[dmccormack]

Long time ago early on in my training. Nobody but me in the pattern. Realized my mistake as I was blown down the runway, but still stopped with plenty of room to spare. I brief carefully aways out to avoid a repeat of that particular mistake.

I think he was referring to the use of "irregardless"

(ouch!)


As far as an ILS, the wind is less of a concern with an ILS runway -- as a precision approach runway is typically nice and long.

 

[steingar]

I think he was referring to the use of "irregardless"

(ouch!)


As far as an ILS, the wind is less of a concern with an ILS runway -- as a precision approach runway is typically nice and long.

Frakking grammar police. But yeah, unless I'm landing something like WV62 or smaller, I don't think it's as big a worry as running into other airplanes that may be in the pattern. Personally, I don't think a student pilot should be landing anything shorter if it isn't necessary. Better to do a short field landing on a long runway than a short one. If you overrun, the damage is to your ego, and not to your airplane (or body).

 

[dmccormack]

Personally, I don't think a student pilot should be landing anything shorter if it isn't necessary. Better to do a short field landing on a long runway than a short one. If you overrun, the damage is to your ego, and not to your airplane (or body).

Eventually the student pilot should be landing on shorts and softs.

I 'm glad my CFI took me to Smoketown, Reigle, and Keller Brothers.

It taught me what the airplane -- and I -- was capable of. A good thing to know after you've been issued that shiny new certificate.

 

[elmetal]

Frakking grammar police. But yeah, unless I'm landing something like WV62 or smaller, I don't think it's as big a worry as running into other airplanes that may be in the pattern. Personally, I don't think a student pilot should be landing anything shorter if it isn't necessary. Better to do a short field landing on a long runway than a short one. If you overrun, the damage is to your ego, and not to your airplane (or body).

I kind of disagree to an extent.

as a student pilot my instructor made it a point for me to practice on turf fields for soft, and a 2000 foot runway for short. It gave me a lot of confidence, but at the same time it made it a hell of a lot easier to judge how short or long my landing was. on a 5000 foot runway you may think you landed short at 2000-2500 feet, but on a 2000 foot runway you have the real feeling of the end getting near and you having to be precise.

with that said, I have met at least 10 privates in the past 2 months who have never landed below 3500 feet and never touched a turf field. Do you really think they could execute a soft field or short field?

I'll tell you from my experience flying with them, that no, they can't. Not everybody is the same obviously, but I don't care how many times you practice short, until you see a short runway, it's not the same.

2000 feet isn't even really short for a 172, but as a student pilot back then I had no idea how the heck I was supposed to do such a stunt.

I am glad as hell I learned those 2 things before my ticket.

 

[steingar]

I learned to do short field landings on long runways just fine, and do them routinely today. One can easily determine the extent of one's landing roll (and should be able to easily do so). The CFIs who trained me omitted having me land turf, unfortunate in my opinion. I learned that on my own. My CFIs might have possibly felt turf would be too hard on my aircraft, which sported wheel pants. I rarely land turf in my current aircraft, as it has rather nice wheel pants that are not coming off. I've already taken a good sized chip out of the nosewheel pant operating off a turf strip.

Landing a 2k turf or asphalt strip with a CFI next to you is a far different thing than doing it solo, to which I think the OP was referring. Sorry, landing short on a long runway involves the same procedures as landing short on a short one. Landing turf it different though.

 

[elmetal]

Landing a 2k turf or asphalt strip with a CFI next to you is a far different thing than doing it solo, to which I think the OP was referring. Sorry, landing short on a long runway involves the same procedures as landing short on a short one. Landing turf it different though.

I never said it wasn't the same procedure.

What I said was, the feeling you get when you know the runway is actually short is different. There's no room for error. It's completely different and you know that since you land on short strips.

To do it solo, I hope you've done it with someone experienced, which is definitely a must in my book. Can you land a 172 in 2000 ft on your first try alone? sure you can.

Are you a lot more likely to be successful if you've done it with an instructor time after time? you bet.

after I did it enough times with my instructor, he let me go out there on solo XC and whatnot and everything was fine, you can easily land a 172 in 1000 feet as a low time pilot anyway if it's light enough (no pax).

As far as turf, all turf places are different but I think as a student pilot you should land at least a few times at an airport with no so great runways whether it's old pavement or dirt or turf. Of course aircraft allowing and CFI agreeing.

I don't know, all CFIs are different but I think the amount of privates out there who have never landed on a turf field is pretty astonishing to me because their CFIs all shunned the practice and they will literally tell me we're not allowed to land on turf or short runways and I ask why?

I am not even joking you I have gotten this answer from a private before:
"You need your commercial ticket to land in turf with a 172"

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I kind of disagree to an extent.

as a student pilot my instructor made it a point for me to practice on turf fields for soft, and a 2000 foot runway for short. It gave me a lot of confidence, but at the same time it made it a hell of a lot easier to judge how short or long my landing was. on a 5000 foot runway you may think you landed short at 2000-2500 feet, but on a 2000 foot runway you have the real feeling of the end getting near and you having to be precise.

Make up your mind. Are you talking about short fields or big, long, 2000 foot fields?

 

[dmccormack]

I don't know, all CFIs are different but I think the amount of privates out there who have never landed on a turf field is pretty astonishing to me because their CFIs all shunned the practice and they will literally tell me we're not allowed to land on turf or short runways and I ask why?

Because many, many FBOs and leasebacks forbid turf landings.

 

[denverpilot]

I don't know, all CFIs are different but I think the amount of privates out there who have never landed on a turf field is pretty astonishing to me because their CFIs all shunned the practice and they will literally tell me we're not allowed to land on turf or short runways and I ask why?

I have rented from clubs who's insurance didn't allow landings off of "improved" runways, which they deemed were concrete, asphalt, etc. It may not really be the student's or instructor's fault at some clubs.

Insurance companies run Aviation... the FAA regulations are just so the insurance companies can subrogate.

 

[markb5900]

And there is nothing wrong with orbiting the field at 500 - 1000 feet above TPA to assess the situation for both traffic and wind, if all else fails. Then just do a teardrop entry into the pattern once you've figured it out.

IMHO, about the best advice so far.

Over fly it, look around, circle well above TPA and make your decision as to what you are going to do.
Unless you are running out of fuel, enjoy staying up a few minutes longer.

 

[bigred177]

IMHO, about the best advice so far.

Over fly it, look around, circle well above TPA and make your decision as to what you are going to do.
Unless you are running out of fuel, enjoy staying up a few minutes longer.

Just make sure your traffic pattern is the only one. I think that at some airports the bigger/faster planes have their own pattern 1000' above the little guys. I remember being told this a long time ago so don't hold me to it, but something to be aware of if it's true.

 

[markb5900]

Just make sure your traffic pattern is the only one. I think that at some airports the bigger/faster planes have their own pattern 1000' above the little guys. I remember being told this a long time ago so don't hold me to it, but something to be aware of if it's true.

More than likely, if it is big enough for the jets to come into, they would have an AWOS etc..

 

[jsstevens]

Just make sure your traffic pattern is the only one. I think that at some airports the bigger/faster planes have their own pattern 1000' above the little guys. I remember being told this a long time ago so don't hold me to it, but something to be aware of if it's true.

Traffic patterns for big iron will be posted in the AFD and (at least for the ones around central Florida tend to be 500' above. But don't assume! Check before you go!

John

 

[ejensen]

I have rented from clubs who's insurance didn't allow landings off of "improved" runways, which they deemed were concrete, asphalt, etc. It may not really be the student's or instructor's fault at some clubs.

Insurance companies run Aviation... the FAA regulations are just so the insurance companies can subrogate.

When I rented I had to get prior permission for any unpaved airport even if it was public.

 

[whifferdill]

IMHO, about the best advice so far.

Over fly it, look around, circle well above TPA and make your decision as to what you are going to do.
Unless you are running out of fuel, enjoy staying up a few minutes longer.

Why not just enter the downwind for whatever runway you think might be right, and if you don't like what you see once on downwind, just do a midfield crosswind entry for the other downwind?

So all you end up doing is entering an upwind for the runway you eventually landed on. As long as you use your eyeballs and listen, I don't see a need to hang out over the pattern trying to figure out what's going on, and then depart the pattern, descend and re-enter. Seems needless, not to mention the potential higher traffic conflicts already stated.