Consequences of hard landing
Discussion
Just pondering really.
I've just got back from an epic 3 week wander around India (travelogue/pics to follow) including 11,000 air miles. Flown quite a bit in the past.
Landed at LHR this afternoon (QR076) and it was genuinely the hardest landing I've seen in years. Really slammed the 777 onto the Tarmac. Cabin crew member opposite me on jumpseat looked really concerned and commented it was a 'very bad landing' so it's not just me.
Would this be logged anywhere? Or lead to additional checks for fatigue? Just wondering how much of a b
king the pilot might receive for crunching a newish aircraft!
I've just got back from an epic 3 week wander around India (travelogue/pics to follow) including 11,000 air miles. Flown quite a bit in the past.
Landed at LHR this afternoon (QR076) and it was genuinely the hardest landing I've seen in years. Really slammed the 777 onto the Tarmac. Cabin crew member opposite me on jumpseat looked really concerned and commented it was a 'very bad landing' so it's not just me.
Would this be logged anywhere? Or lead to additional checks for fatigue? Just wondering how much of a b
king the pilot might receive for crunching a newish aircraft!carreauchompeur said:
Yeah, I don't know why they went manual either. Weather seemed alright and no odd buffeting etc on way down...
And that is probably WHY they took the opportunity to do a manual landing. Pilots need to carry out manual landing on a regular basis to keep their skill levels up.
From the 757 maint manual:
The inspections are divided into two phases, Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 has 5 inspection
groups (Main Landing Gear and Support Structure, Nose Landing Gear, Fuselage, Wing, and
Nacelle) and Phase 2 has 6 (the same 5 inspection groups as Phase 1 plus a Flight Control
Inspection).
(a) Do the Phase 1 Inspection before the next flight if one or more of the above defined
conditions occurred.
(b) Do the Phase 2 Inspection before the next flight if damage is found in the Phase 1
Inspection.
The inspections are divided into two phases, Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 has 5 inspection
groups (Main Landing Gear and Support Structure, Nose Landing Gear, Fuselage, Wing, and
Nacelle) and Phase 2 has 6 (the same 5 inspection groups as Phase 1 plus a Flight Control
Inspection).
(a) Do the Phase 1 Inspection before the next flight if one or more of the above defined
conditions occurred.
(b) Do the Phase 2 Inspection before the next flight if damage is found in the Phase 1
Inspection.
Pretty sure nowadays the aircraft would have sent a message to its head office mentioning the hard landing, if it detected it..
If so, or the pilots reported a hard landing, local maintenance staff would have had to inspect it before next flight to check for damage.
Might have just "felt" heavy though.
If so, or the pilots reported a hard landing, local maintenance staff would have had to inspect it before next flight to check for damage.
Might have just "felt" heavy though.
FurtiveFreddy said:
Why isn't the auto landing capability of an aircraft like the 777 used more? Wouldn't this ensure a smoother landing and mean less wear and tear?
My father was one of the first 3 Captains to be cleared for autoland on Tridents.He hated using it because it was such hard work for the crew and I suspect it is still the same.
To explain...The system is using data from all over and will, at some point, decide that something does not compute. When this happens it just hands the problem back to the pilot and shuts down. May be different now but the principle is the same. Even though the system is doing all the work the pilot has to be ready to take over and this 'trying to keep up' is harder work than actually flying it himself.
Steve
How a landing feels is very subjective - what passengers are rarely aware of is the necessity to get the aircraft on the ground at the expense of a smooth touchdown.
Good example of this is on a wet runway where a firm touchdown is required to 'break through' the layer of water built up on the runway. I've been in an aquaplaning aircraft as a result of a smooth touchdown on a wet runway and it's not pleasant for the few seconds it lasts . . .
Crosswinds are always a challenge too, particularly gusting ones. Landing distance calculations are based on the aircraft touching down at a certain point, so if you stretch the flare during landing, in order to make a smooth touchdown, you're calculations are pointless. Fine if you're in a small aircraft on a long runway, but not so good in a large aircraft on a short runway - hence the need to do away with finesse and put the aircraft down exactly where you want it. Obviously the trick is to marry everything up - well flown approach, leading to a smooth touchdown in the right spot, but occasionally not everything comes together!
You'll be surprised just how hard a landing an aircraft can take, but I've heard of a couple of examples amongst colleagues that recently two aircraft have had such heavy landings that they've been grounded needing new landing gear and detailed inspection of wing spars. So the ultimate consequence would be an aircraft written off. . . . but don't be too quick to assume someone at the front has made a hash of the landing because it's hard - there's probably good reason for it!
Good example of this is on a wet runway where a firm touchdown is required to 'break through' the layer of water built up on the runway. I've been in an aquaplaning aircraft as a result of a smooth touchdown on a wet runway and it's not pleasant for the few seconds it lasts . . .
Crosswinds are always a challenge too, particularly gusting ones. Landing distance calculations are based on the aircraft touching down at a certain point, so if you stretch the flare during landing, in order to make a smooth touchdown, you're calculations are pointless. Fine if you're in a small aircraft on a long runway, but not so good in a large aircraft on a short runway - hence the need to do away with finesse and put the aircraft down exactly where you want it. Obviously the trick is to marry everything up - well flown approach, leading to a smooth touchdown in the right spot, but occasionally not everything comes together!
You'll be surprised just how hard a landing an aircraft can take, but I've heard of a couple of examples amongst colleagues that recently two aircraft have had such heavy landings that they've been grounded needing new landing gear and detailed inspection of wing spars. So the ultimate consequence would be an aircraft written off. . . . but don't be too quick to assume someone at the front has made a hash of the landing because it's hard - there's probably good reason for it!
carreauchompeur said:
Actually, probably the hairiest/swift landing was into ZNZ 15 years ago, angle of approach seemed really steep both times.
It wasn't a hard landing. This was a hard landing:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/aeroposta...
And this was harder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU
Edited by Brother D on Thursday 18th October 16:29
It would be entered into the tech log and then engineering would carry out an inspection. Flight data would be looked at and if above a certain criteria they would then look for more stress levels etc until it flies again.
Some of the heavier landings I have made have been in great weather! It's odd I know.
Some of the heavier landings I have made have been in great weather! It's odd I know.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff