Narrative:

The captain and I were flying back to ZZZ. We were initially assigned the zzzzz arrival and loaded this up for the approach. It was visual conditions but the ATIS indicated gusty crosswinds landing RWY26R of 340/20-24 kts.; a strong north-westerly with lots of updraft and downdraft turbulence. While tracking to ZZZZZ1 the STAR was changed to ZZZZZ2 arrival with direct tracking to ZZZZZ3. We were already FL230 and 280 kts. In cruise and despite low initial workload we failed to properly brief up and prepare for the approach. I did not realize that I had not properly tuned up 26R ILS [frequency]. I had the course correctly set but the frequency was apparently on something else. I began my descent as per the ZZZZZ2 meeting the altitude and speed restrictions however the plane began to get high after ZZZZZ4 and it required a higher rate of descent to meet the ZZZZZ2 waypoint altitudes of 13000 to 16000. I elected to use the speed brakes and increase rate of descent. The plane misbehaved and began to pitch up rather than hold its attitude and slow. I pressed the tcs button and forcibly had to hold the yoke forward in the descending attitude; but it wanted to fight against me badly out of trim confusing me. I had one hand on the yoke while the other adjusted the vs to where I wanted it. This caused some slightly jerky movements which I felt would be unpleasant for passengers. The captain did not intervene but rather allowed me to continue with what I was doing. I felt I was struggling with the pitching tendency of the airplane in a phase of flight where I was trying to regain profile for the STAR without busting speed or altitude. This happened at least a couple of times between ZZZZZ4 and ZZZZZ5 while I tried to get back with the STAR profile as I was 2.5 dots high on the vpi. Things seemed to stabilize by the time I was approaching ZZZZZ6 and we made the turn for ZZZZZ7 trying to slow to 210 kts. But at about 9000. ATC then gave an instruction to slow to 190 kts. And descend to 5000 (from memory) and subsequently to 3000. It was very difficult to slow and descend as I was getting rather ubrupt uplift from the convection and turbulence.really we should have been allowed by ATC to slow first in level flight and then descend (because we were faced with a lot of convective uplift and the associated turbulence in the circuit area below 10;000). So with flaps 9 and the boards open the plane was still increasing in speed back up to 213 kts. After initially slowing to about 203 kst. The autopilot was pitching badly also and after giving consideration to what effect it would be having on the passengers I elected to disconnect the ap and hand fly. Unfortunately the plane was out of trim initially and the turbulence was making it hard to come onto the correct altitude. Before I had a chance to properly trim out and maintain level flight ATC gave me '[callsign]; turn right heading 180' which I did manually hand flying. The plane initially began to climb with the uplift and I had to forcibly nose the aircraft down to maintain 3000. It got up to I think 3200 and then was level at 3000. I was then assigned heading 240 to intercept for visual approach runway 26R but while on the base leg due to the turbulence and still hand flying I passed below 3000 to be around 240 ft. Low. I recovered my altitude but my speed was now up to 205 kts. And I needed to reduce to 190 as originally assigned because of traffic ahead. They instructed 170 kts. And I again tried to slow but it was at this point that it was observed by me that the ILS frequency was not correct because I could see us heading through the runway 26R centerline but the localizer was not moving. I instructed the ca (captain) to quickly tune me up to right frequency while I fairly aggressively turned northwards to avoid drifting further south. ATC instructed me to '[callsign] turn right now' however I was already very positively doing this and the ca got the 26R ILS tuned up. We were south of the centerline for 26R but had not infringed 26L at the point of recovery. By the time the localizer was tuned up and presented I estimate I would have deviated probably one third-scale deflection left of course. The strong crosswind blowing me south (it was probably more northerly at 3000 than the 340 degrees it was at ground level); coupled with the turbulence; disconnected ap and wrong frequency; instruction of ATC to descend at a rate and speed in adverse ambient conditions all combined to cause the altitude and speed excursions but most significantly the drift south of the 26R centerline. I immediately re-engaged the ap when the right frequency was in my rmu. Even with the ap re-engaged and now in level rather than descending flight it was still a struggle to remain level and stable for configuring for the gp. ATC instructed 160 KT because we were closing on the traffic ahead which must have been on a slow approach speed. I commanded flaps 18 and then approaching gp capture gear down flaps 22. As soon as it was possible I requested flaps 45 landing check. It was again very difficult to fly the approach to 45 flap speeds and not overspeed due to the gusty conditions. Likewise the plane wanted to get too slow and was getting uncomfortably low towards but not at the vref speed. This required me putting in extra power to combat the sink and I was in the classic power - pitch battle that occurs in turbulence with over/under power applications outside a desirable 63% N1 benchmark to the point I was apparently between 75% and 45% N1 at times. This exacerbated the speed alterations which were rolling quickly in either direction due to the rapidly changing gusts and turbulence. It was very difficult to get stable and while battling hard like this I actually managed to get stable by the FAF but all the way to touchdown was challenging. I managed to reduce the range of thrust increase and decrease and pulled off a sound crosswind landing despite the rather tardy; over-controlled STAR and runway approach that preceded it. The flight attendant later commented within earshot of passengers that 'you guys caused chaos back here' as a young boy onboard near the rear of the aircraft vomited apparently on touchdown. She further mentioned that she was 'in the brace position'. I think her remarks were unprofessional and over-dramatized the real situation. That stated I would definitely agree that the approach was certainly not the smooth; perfectly stable approach I intended nor my finest moment in aviation either. The turbulent conditions; ATC instructions; my error in setting up the rmu frequency; the autopilot disconnecting; etc. As explained above were the prime contributors. The lack of real assistance from the ca with my high workload when the STAR was getting high left me operating with an almost single-pilot IFR workload up to the point where the correct frequency was tuned up. I over-controlled and had the height excursions. That was my fault. The uas that resulted first above and then below 3000 was a result of me struggling in difficult ambient conditions without the autopilot assistance because I judged that it was not helping me when in fact it probably was. I re-engaged it and kept it on until about 500 ft. This helped me but it still wanted to pitch up and down in an over-controlling manner itself like a bucking bronco. I had to provide control resistance to prevent undesired pitch changes either way depending on the sink or lift from the shear and turbulence that was present. It was just very difficult conditions and was made worse by being in the wrong configuration of flaps 45 rather than 22 for the visual with ILS guidance. Definitely it was a blunder not having the right frequency in when it was to be relied upon for lateral and vertical guidance in support of the visual observance of the runway / glide path with the instruments (PAPI vs ivsi; asi; FD; N1; etc).I think be prepared to use the autopilot and minimize control oscillations. Be prepared for changes in STAR or changes in runway. Brief the approach better and make mention of the conditions and how I would be best assisted by the PNF (pilot not flying). A better plan; recognition of the threat would have helped me here but it has already helped me subsequently. This leg was the first one of me flying on day 6. I may have had fatigue creeping in and like alcohol; you do not recognize your own performance deterioration until too late. Nevertheless; I had a following leg from ZZZ and with the same turbulent conditions and strong crosswind (but coming from the opposite side) whereby I was able to fly a much more normal approach having learned from the ZZZ experience the flight before. It would have been much better to fly the ZZZ approach and probably the ZZZ2 one also flap 22 rather than flap 45 as the aircraft was an lr. I did not think the crosswind would be such an issue (up to 14 kt.) but the real problem was the gustiness and the turbulence. That caused me to over-control somewhat on final after I had lost my scan efficacy badly on the base leg and had the associated height excursions first one way then the other. It was not pretty and it will stay with me for some time as I make very sure it is not repeated again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier First Officer reported encountering turbulent; windy conditions as well as incorrect LOC frequency; causing fault in the autopilot; difficulty maintaining altitude and airspeed and a course deviation.

Narrative: The Captain and I were flying back to ZZZ. We were initially assigned the ZZZZZ arrival and loaded this up for the approach. It was visual conditions but the ATIS indicated gusty crosswinds landing RWY26R of 340/20-24 kts.; a strong North-westerly with lots of updraft and downdraft turbulence. While tracking to ZZZZZ1 the STAR was changed to ZZZZZ2 Arrival with direct tracking to ZZZZZ3. We were already FL230 and 280 kts. in cruise and despite low initial workload we failed to properly brief up and prepare for the approach. I did not realize that I had not properly tuned up 26R ILS [frequency]. I had the course correctly set but the frequency was apparently on something else. I began my descent as per the ZZZZZ2 meeting the altitude and speed restrictions however the plane began to get high after ZZZZZ4 and it required a higher rate of descent to meet the ZZZZZ2 waypoint altitudes of 13000 to 16000. I elected to use the speed brakes and increase rate of descent. The plane misbehaved and began to pitch up rather than hold its attitude and slow. I pressed the TCS button and forcibly had to hold the yoke forward in the descending attitude; but it wanted to fight against me badly out of trim confusing me. I had one hand on the yoke while the other adjusted the VS to where I wanted it. This caused some slightly jerky movements which I felt would be unpleasant for passengers. The Captain did not intervene but rather allowed me to continue with what I was doing. I felt I was struggling with the pitching tendency of the airplane in a phase of flight where I was trying to regain profile for the STAR without busting speed or altitude. This happened at least a couple of times between ZZZZZ4 and ZZZZZ5 while I tried to get back with the STAR profile as I was 2.5 dots high on the VPI. Things seemed to stabilize by the time I was approaching ZZZZZ6 and we made the turn for ZZZZZ7 trying to slow to 210 kts. but at about 9000. ATC then gave an instruction to slow to 190 kts. and descend to 5000 (from memory) and subsequently to 3000. It was very difficult to slow and descend as I was getting rather ubrupt uplift from the convection and turbulence.Really we should have been allowed by ATC to slow first in level flight and THEN descend (because we were faced with a lot of convective uplift and the associated turbulence in the circuit area below 10;000). So with Flaps 9 and the boards open the plane was still increasing in speed back up to 213 kts. after initially slowing to about 203 kst. The Autopilot was pitching badly also and after giving consideration to what effect it would be having on the passengers I elected to disconnect the AP and hand fly. Unfortunately the plane was out of trim initially and the turbulence was making it hard to come onto the correct altitude. Before I had a chance to properly trim out and maintain level flight ATC gave me '[Callsign]; turn right HDG 180' which I did manually hand flying. The plane initially began to climb with the uplift and I had to forcibly nose the aircraft down to maintain 3000. It got up to I think 3200 and then was level at 3000. I was then assigned HDG 240 to intercept for Visual Approach RWY 26R but while on the base leg due to the turbulence and still hand flying I passed below 3000 to be around 240 ft. low. I recovered my altitude but my speed was now up to 205 kts. and I needed to reduce to 190 as originally assigned because of traffic ahead. They instructed 170 kts. and I again tried to slow but it was at this point that it was observed by me that the ILS frequency was not correct because I could see us heading through the RWY 26R centerline but the LOC was not moving. I instructed the CA (Captain) to quickly tune me up to right frequency while I fairly aggressively turned northwards to avoid drifting further south. ATC instructed me to '[Callsign] TURN RIGHT NOW' however I was already very positively doing this and the CA got the 26R ILS tuned up. We were south of the centerline for 26R but had not infringed 26L at the point of recovery. By the time the LOC was tuned up and presented I estimate I would have deviated probably one third-scale deflection left of course. The strong crosswind blowing me south (it was probably more northerly at 3000 than the 340 degrees it was at ground level); coupled with the turbulence; disconnected AP and wrong frequency; instruction of ATC to descend at a rate and speed in adverse ambient conditions all combined to cause the altitude and speed excursions but most significantly the drift south of the 26R centerline. I immediately re-engaged the AP when the right frequency was in my RMU. Even with the AP re-engaged and now in level rather than descending flight it was still a struggle to remain level and stable for configuring for the GP. ATC instructed 160 KT because we were closing on the traffic ahead which must have been on a slow approach speed. I commanded Flaps 18 and then approaching GP capture Gear Down Flaps 22. As soon as it was possible I requested Flaps 45 Landing Check. It was again very difficult to fly the approach to 45 Flap speeds and not overspeed due to the gusty conditions. Likewise the plane wanted to get too slow and was getting uncomfortably low towards but not at the VREF speed. This required me putting in extra power to combat the sink and I was in the classic power - pitch battle that occurs in turbulence with over/under power applications outside a desirable 63% N1 benchmark to the point I was apparently between 75% and 45% N1 at times. This exacerbated the speed alterations which were rolling quickly in either direction due to the rapidly changing gusts and turbulence. It was very difficult to get stable and while battling hard like this I actually managed to get stable by the FAF but all the way to touchdown was challenging. I managed to reduce the range of thrust increase and decrease and pulled off a sound crosswind landing despite the rather tardy; over-controlled STAR and RWY approach that preceded it. The Flight Attendant later commented within earshot of passengers that 'You guys caused chaos back here' as a young boy onboard near the rear of the aircraft vomited apparently on touchdown. She further mentioned that she was 'In the brace position'. I think her remarks were unprofessional and over-dramatized the real situation. That stated I would definitely agree that the approach was certainly not the smooth; perfectly stable approach I intended nor my finest moment in aviation either. The turbulent conditions; ATC instructions; my error in setting up the RMU frequency; the autopilot disconnecting; etc. as explained above were the prime contributors. The lack of real assistance from the CA with my high workload when the STAR was getting high left me operating with an almost single-pilot IFR workload up to the point where the correct frequency was tuned up. I over-controlled and had the height excursions. That was my fault. The UAS that resulted first above and then below 3000 was a result of me struggling in difficult ambient conditions without the autopilot assistance because I judged that it was not helping me when in fact it probably was. I re-engaged it and kept it on until about 500 ft. This helped me but it still wanted to pitch up and down in an over-controlling manner itself like a bucking bronco. I had to provide control resistance to prevent undesired pitch changes either way depending on the sink or lift from the shear and turbulence that was present. It was just very difficult conditions and was made worse by being in the wrong configuration of Flaps 45 rather than 22 for the visual with ILS guidance. Definitely it was a blunder not having the right frequency in when it was to be relied upon for lateral and vertical guidance in support of the visual observance of the runway / glide path with the instruments (PAPI vs IVSI; ASI; FD; N1; etc).I think be prepared to use the autopilot and minimize control oscillations. Be prepared for changes in STAR or changes in RWY. Brief the approach better and make mention of the conditions and how I would be best assisted by the PNF (Pilot not Flying). A better plan; recognition of the threat would have helped me here but it has already helped me subsequently. This leg was the first one of me flying on Day 6. I may have had fatigue creeping in and like alcohol; you do not recognize your own performance deterioration until too late. Nevertheless; I had a following leg from ZZZ and with the same turbulent conditions and strong crosswind (but coming from the opposite side) whereby I was able to fly a much more normal approach having learned from the ZZZ experience the flight before. It would have been much better to fly the ZZZ approach and probably the ZZZ2 one also FLAP 22 rather than FLAP 45 as the aircraft was an LR. I did not think the crosswind would be such an issue (up to 14 kt.) but the real problem was the gustiness and the turbulence. That caused me to over-control somewhat on final after I had lost my scan efficacy badly on the base leg and had the associated height excursions first one way then the other. It was not pretty and it will stay with me for some time as I make very sure it is not repeated again.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.