Hard landing during recurrent line check

[catpinsan]

Anyone enlighten me on whether this necessarily means an "Unsatisfactory" (fail) report in the case of a recurrent line check of an experienced captain? In the opinion of the line instructor/checker it was a one-off, the rest of the flight being satisfactorily conducted and the approach stabilised, the weather unremarkable, etc. Both agreed that the landing should be rated as 'hard'.

It would be interesting to know the different policies (there must be some, right?).

[RTO]

Not easy to assess anything when one isn't there. However we encourage firm landings in wintertime as we operate on a few short contaminated runways. It would be wrong to hold that against anyone in our ops.

A good flight with a hard landing would be a pass in my book. However if hard means the masks and galley ceiling fall down, g limits are exceeded then it would be another case rather than the landing being a firm "Boeing" landing.

[Slasher]

Depends on what your definition of a hard landing is.

If it exceeded the max G limit (which would've necessitated a
Tech write-up) he'll be in for a right bollocking. If it was just
within the limit he'll just get maybe a 6/10 iso 8-9.

If he simply "banged it on" it means he ain't perfect just like
the rest of us.

In certain circumstances, what RTO called firm might be
misinterpreted as "hard".

If you could give a G readout or sink rate at touchdown it would
provide for a more informed reply, and runway condition at the
time even better.

[catpinsan]

Dear RTO and Slasher,

Nowhere near mask drop or aircraft bending intensity. In days of yore, this particular landing would possibly not got written. The pilots rated it as just the wrong side of firm, possibly generating some 'bad FDAP numbers'.

As far as measured numbers go, we have evolved to follow Boeing's "sink rate" parameter rather than the VGTD. Capt's judgement is 'final' but still arbited by the measured numbers, so there is always a tendency to write it up in case the figures prove otherwise.

The most apt description of the situation (apologies to Slasher):

If he simply "banged it on" it means he ain't perfect just like the rest of us.
The RW and WX were fine on this occasion. The highest sink rate value was just over 8fps and LW about 4 tons under max (code D/E aircraft).

This becomes a philosophical question when it's a checkride.

Please elaborate, if you can, on the "6/10 iso 8 or 9" scale and it's usage. Our's is rather binary in outlook.

This ought to be of interest to all - to quote a Boeing study:

"Boeing reviewed 200 in-service landings to gain a greater understanding into the hard landing accuracy issues and to develop resolutions.
1. There is not a strong correlation between measured touchdown load factor
(g’s) and sink rate due to the forward location of the accelerometer.
2. Sink rate is a more accurate and reliable indication of landing severity.
. . . . .
4. The current acceleration thresholds in the AMM are considered conservative and may continue to be used without risk of missing a hard landing.
5. A large percentage of the landings above 1.9g’s appear to be firm or hard,
based on touchdown sink rate.

SINKRATE vs Vertical Speed and Vertical G:
All Boeing airplanes, including the 777 have been designed to withstand a
landing with a maximum sink rate of 10 ft/sec at the Main Gear (with the Aircraft Gross Weight at or below the Maximum Landing Weight). The ADIRU does not output a sink rate, but it does compute a Vertical Speed, based on measured air pressure. The ADIRU Vertical Speed is affected by Pitch angle, Pitch Rate, airframe flexibility, and by the 'ground effect' during landing. Specifically, the 'ground effect' during landing makes the Vertical Speed unusable for determining the sink rate during landing.
Vertical G is the most commonly used measurement to aid in the investigation of hard landings. The Vertical G is usually measured by a dedicated accelerometer in the Main Gear Wheel Well, providing a reliable measure of a hard landing.
However, on 777 the Vertical G is measured internally to the ADIRU, which is
located in the EE-bay, far forward from the Main Gear. This location subjects the Vertical G measurements to the effects of Pitch, Pitch Rate, Airframe Bending Characteristics, making it much less reliable to aid in the investigation of a hard landing. The CoG Body Normal Acceleration output by the ADIRU is based on the Vertical G and is corrected to represent the value at the Center of Gravity (for the -200 airframe). However, this correction is not perfect, and during landing the effects of Pitch, Pitch Rate, and flexibility are more significant than during steady flight. On the -300 airframe these issues are even more severe as the distance from the ADIRU to the Main Gear is greater than on the -200 airframe and the Airframe Bending Characteristics are different."I thank you for your inputs.

[Kirks gusset]

If the touchdown was at the correct speed at the correct position, the " firmness" of the landing is not an issue. Obviously if the approach was " unstable" and the sink rate excessive, this is another issue that may require training input. I would more likely consider " training input!" for someone for trying to "grease it on" and eating up RW for sure. It makes no sense to ground an experienced cockpit manager for a one-off hard landing, they know they did it and we should avoid a punishment culture.

[Slasher]

The highest sink rate value was just over 8fps and LW about
4 tons under max

Call it 400-500fpm and 4 tons under MLW - ok then he just
banged it on harder than what he would've felt comfortable
with. Its more the embarrassment factor than any safety or
fit-for-command issue.

No limits blown. Check passed. Job safe.

It makes no sense to ground an experienced cockpit manager
for a one-off hard landing, they know they did it and we should
avoid a punishment culture.

Yeh, like some bloody outfits in China. :*

[Pitch Up Authority]

A hard landing that develops in a bounced landing and a drop on the nose means you are faced with an emergency evacuation. If the weather is fine and you **** up your landing then that simply means you do not know how to land. The only excuse would be that at least you know why, if not then it’s back to the simulator.

[zerozero]

Smooth landings are overrated.

Former check airman here, and my three sole criteria were (and still are):

--In the touchdown zone.
--On speed.
--On centerline.

Any smoothness is nice, artful and earns extra credit.

:8

[misd-agin]

8 fps?? That's 480 FPM at touchdown. :eek:

Sorry, that's ugly.

[PJ2]

Sorry, that's ugly.
As a rate of descent at touchdown, yes, it is. The limit for an overweight landing for the A330/A340 is 350fpm; anything greater requires a hard-landing check.

Apropos catpinsan's comments above in re the B777, the article quoted is correct; the 'g' parameter is unreliable on the B777-200ER due to its location, (cockpit). The rate-of-descent method is used to determine exceedences. Further, the AMM specifically states that the pilot is the judge of the firmness of the touchdown. Unless it's written in the log, it didn't happen.

As for failing the ride, like someone said early on, we don't know enough to pass judgement. Generally rides aren't failed for only one thing, unless that thing is an outright violation or something clearly unsafe. Usually its a series of things gathered together. It's never easy.

Best to leave it in the judgement of the one(s) who was/were there.

[Patty747400]

If you for no other reason than misjudgement (i.e. no windshear or other external factors) land in a way that requires a "Hard landing" write up in the log I would consider it a failed line check.

[Slasher]

The limit for an overweight landing for the A330/A340 is 350fpm

That isn't the question here. The question was about a normal
landing on a check ride, and whether that banged-on touchdown
in itself could constitute a check failure. As I mentioned before,
8fps wouldn't be a Line failure in itself.

If you're flying a modern aircraft - be it Airbus or Boeing -
chances are you'll know that it was in fact a hard landing
by the time you reach the terminal gate.

ACARS will have automatically sent a report to your OPS
and ECC. The head of Engineering will be the guy with a
real angry look on his face waiting to greet you - and a
despatcher with a memo from the fleet captain asking you
to drop by his office as soon as you're done.

[PJ2]

Slasher;
That isn't the question here. The question was about a normal landing on a check ride.
I know what the question was. I also understand your other points re ACARS and flight data.

Sometimes information helps to define a question and delineate a suitable response. As with other posts, the information was by way of a sidebar, as it is not always easy to determine whether a landing was hard or merely firm, and there are different ways of assessing it.

Directly to this point which relates to your comments re ACARS, Aibus and Boeing, while the Airbus will send a report via ACARS and also print it out for the crew if that pin is set, the Boeing will not do so.

FYI, I concur with your previous comment:
If you could give a G readout or sink rate at touchdown it would
provide for a more informed reply, and runway condition at the
time even better.

PJ2

[TopBunk]

ZerozeroFormer check airman here, and my three sole criteria were (and still are):

--In the touchdown zone.
--On speed.
--On centerline.

I think there is a fourth criteria:
--Pointing in the right direction:8

[Wizofoz]

Former check airman here, and my three sole criteria were (and still are):

--In the touchdown zone.
--On speed.
--On centerline.

Sorry, current instructor here- and you'd HAVE to include "Aircraft not written off"!!

It's quite possible to meet your criteria and break the fuselage in two!

there is certainly too much emphasis on smooth touchdowns, and a firm touchdown meeting you criteria is ideal, but the ROD HAS to be reduced to an acceptable level.

[blind pew]

Does he know what he did wrong?

If yes then no problemo - pass him.

If no then he needs retraining.

Which leads to the question is the company training what it should be - which I suspect it might not be otherwise this thread would never had started!

[aviatorhi]

Seems to me that a line check should be no different than standard line flying, no "higher" or "special" standards, if it's not something that would be of concern after a non check flight then it should not be of concern after a check flight. It's a check not an exam/test.

[catpinsan]

all,

ok, quick -

answer with hand on heart:

how many hard landings, self proclaimed, have you done over the few/many years in the cockpit? how do we view these figures in the spirit of the discussion?

[catpinsan]

dear misd-agin,

(also PJ2, zerozero and Kirks gusset, for their words),

there was unanimous agreement in the cockpit that this landing was not a thing of beauty:

"Both agreed that the landing should be rated as 'hard'."

'both' here being the crew operating. there was no debate and it was unhesitatingly written up, it did happen.

the same event occurring on a regular line flight (no checkride) would probably not have lead to an immediate grounding.

here's a hypothetical scenario:
1. the pilot under check is an experienced captain who has flown more than one widebody in command totalling between 4000 to 5000 command hrs.
2. he's just your regular captain of the line undergoing his 6 monthly renewal, with no recorded history or reputation of any significant handling or landing problems.
2. the individual's last 100 landings when checked by FDAP analysis do not identify any occurrences of this nature. possibly, it's been a few years since he 'banged one on'.
3. the only reason the ride was 'failed' was the landing and the fact that the report has to be filled in without delay (and external analysis/input). the report has only yes/no type options, but no 'yes with qualification/comment' option.

let me quote PJ2's pragmatic statement:

"As for failing the ride, like someone said early on, we don't know enough to pass judgement. Generally rides aren't failed for only one thing, unless that thing is an outright violation or something clearly unsafe. Usually its a series of things gathered together. It's never easy."

once again, zerozero says:
"Former check airman here, and my three sole criteria were (and still are):

--In the touchdown zone.
--On speed.
--On centerline."

and to quote Kirks gusset:

"It makes no sense to ground an experienced cockpit manager for a one-off hard landing, they know they did it and we should avoid a punishment culture."

many might say "these things happen". this could apply either way -

these things happen as a 'normal' (statistical) part of the operation when men/women with stripes on shoulder fly aluminium tubes at high velocities, sometimes close to the ground,

or,

these things happen to pilots and the pilot in question should take it in her/his stride - it comes with the territory.

which?

[aviatorhi]

It comes down to the company and managements thinking, everyone's made them, I've banged everything on in every outfit I've flown with, even a silly little 207 when I was trying to land on the threshold and found the wrong bump in the gravel. The thing is that if you're willing to crucify a pilot for something as small as one "rough" landing in (as far as you said the company can tell) several years I would (personally) rather pack my bags and go work somewhere that focuses on the big picture rather than a single occurence, it just happens to be his back luck that it was during a line check. How would the company have acted if it wasn't during a check and only saw a writeup for a rough landing and signed off with finding no discrepencies?

In my opinion a good D/O or C/P would simply say ":mad: happens, move on". On the other hand if this was a chronc problem (which you seem to show that it wasn't) a good D/O or C/P would say "too much :mad: is happening, let's see what's going on here".

[zerozero]

Sorry, current instructor here- and you'd HAVE to include "Aircraft not written off"!!

It's quite possible to meet your criteria and break the fuselage in two!

there is certainly too much emphasis on smooth touchdowns, and a firm touchdown meeting you criteria is ideal, but the ROD HAS to be reduced to an acceptable level.

Well, I was trying to be reasonable. There's nothing reasonable about a hull loss.

That said, if the landing was indeed hard enough to obviate a write up in the log book, then I would probably have a second thought about the "passability" (to coin a word) of the line check.

After all, the point of being professional is to leave the airplane serviceable for the next guy.

Let's take another example: experienced Capt with no prior incidents but during a line check he taxis off the paved surface, runs over a couple blue lights and gets stuck in the mud. It's a nice day, good weather and good pavement markings. He just had a lapse in judgment and the result is a slightly damaged airplane that is now GROUNDED.

Sorry, but I'm afraid this is going to be bad news for the Capt.

[catpinsan]

"The pilots rated it as just the wrong side of firm, possibly generating some 'bad FDAP numbers'."

The pilots were confident that it was unlikely to be a damage causing touchdown.

The mechanic's inspection did not find anything.

BTW:

My understanding of the 'sink rate' parameter is that it is not simply the vs, but involves a more sophisticated calculation - it is a measure of the landing gear's rate of closure with the ground and resolves both the translationary motion of the airplane (= ~vs) and also the angular velocity of the ldg gr, i.e. rotation about lateral axis, due to the landing flare.

[misd-agin]

What's the corporation culture/standards?

Apparently the check airman had to make an immediate 'yes' or 'no' answer. Perhaps he decided on 'no' because he didn't have the capability to evaluate the last 100 landings as apparently further investigation actually did. Apparently further review showed it to be a random event.

[Feather #3]

Indeed, I had this very problem on a check flight.

I found the candidate "unsatisfactory", not because of the hard landing, but his thrust management on late final left an energy deficit which was inadequate to sustain the flare properly. It was this lack of judgement which needed attention [and was solved!], not necessarily a landing issue.

G'day ;)

[aviatorhi]

I don't think that (in the US regulation anyway) there is a prescribed amount of time in which one has to make a decision, "traditionally" the pass/fail is assigned at the end of the flight. But in an unusual circumstance I don't think anyone in their right mind would hold it against a check airman who is unsure of something to ask their peers/superiors, and if still unsure to discuss the matter.