Trainee pilot lands plane without wheel

[jkveenstra]

BBC News - Trainee pilot lands plane without wheel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20933243)

A trainee pilot has performed an emergency landing in Australia after one of his wheels fells off.

The man had only 120 hours of flying experience when he brought it safely down at Mangalore Airport.

Pia Harold reports.

[stevef]

Trainee pilot with 120 hours experience? A commercial aviation flight school perhaps. Whatever, a good result. :ok:
I'll bet next week's beer that the missing wheel (and strut) was due to cracked torque link lugs. Not the first time that's happened to a PA28.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

What an appalling landing for someone with 120 hours! Not even an attempt to hold off to minimise touchdown speed, never mind a bit of refinement like landing on the left main and keeping the right wing high for as long as possible!

He just plonked it down level, the left main, right leg, and nosewheel all touching down together. :rolleyes:

I know Cherokee pilots usually land like that, but didn't he know the right main wheel was missing?

[B2N2]

'Even pointing in the right direction at the end' :}
Back to Journo school I'd reckon.
Think the school charged him for the 4 hours?
Why is he skidding to the left with the right wheel missing?

[Halfbaked_Boy]

I know Cherokee pilots usually land like that, but didn't he know the right main wheel was missing?

When you really think about it, it's not as if you'd see it! :p

[Torque Tonight]

Why is he skidding to the left with the right wheel missing?

Because the brakes work better when they're attached to a wheel. Coefficient of friction between rubber and concrete versus metal and concrete.

[Contacttower]

The analysis of various videos of emergency situations does seem to be the flavour of the month...

I'm guessing the guy knew he was missing the wheel judging by the fire engines.

I think the fair thing to say is this...

It wasn't a great landing as SSD states. I've got a few hundred hours on the PA28 and one can make the touchdown practically imperceptible if one is careful. He looked like he was doing quite well until the very end - then he seemed to flare a bit high, lost momentum and fell quite quickly... had he just kept a bit of power on and flared a little later he would have done a bit better.

However, if I think back to my 120hrs self, or indeed myself now, my landings weren't always perfect and while I generally land well most of the time I think even experienced pilots will slam it on from time to time, maybe unfortunately this was one such moment for the guy in question? Under the pressure and anticipation of a situation like that I wouldn't say hand on heart that I could have done better, although I'd certainly try. So I guess at the end of the day he got down uninjured...as the old saying goes reusing the plane is not necessarily a qualification for a good landing...all that mattered was that he walked away...:)

[strake]

He walked away...end of.

Well actually, he seemed to be sort of hauled away..almost like he was being arrested..by a fireman :)

[maehhh]

I'm actually the last one to criticize a pilot in an emergency situation... especially when everybody is able to walk away from the aircraft after the incident... but in this case i've got to agree that was definitely one ****ty landing for a 120hrs pilot... even with all 3 wheels it would have been poorly executed.

Because the brakes work better when they're attached to a wheel. Coefficient of friction between rubber and concrete versus metal and concrete.

In a situation like this why would you use the brakes at all on a 2000m runway in a PA28...

[Torque Tonight]

Exactly. :ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

He walked away...end of.

What utter bollox! He'd have had to do something very stupid indeed to end up not walking away.

That would have been merely an appalling landing had it not been an emergency, but not a lot worse than one sees from Cherokee drivers at any GA airfield any weekend you choose (3-point un-held-off high speed plonk-on). He seemed to have a fair old handful of power on as well! Even after he'd stopped!

But I'd have thought the missing wheel might have concentrated the mind enough to at least hold off properly. With the power right back.

Or maybe he was never taught to.....?

Perhaps at those low hours aileron to hold the wing up might have been too big an ask.

[007helicopter]

At about the same hours I had the front nose wheel fail to lock down on a PA28R, it was due to the Hydraulic Ram literally cracking in two, Fire Engines out at Manston etc.

I did not know the reason but it locked into place due to gravity when I slowed right down on base to final turn (thankfully) but lets just say I was well out of my comfort zone, performed a pretty crap landing not to be proud off.

I say well done to a Pilot who would have been under considerable stress!!

[vulcanised]

Rather neat one from student (short video)

BBC News - Trainee pilot lands plane without wheel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20933243)

[doobs115]

As a ppl I imagine panic with such a situation. It seems to me that a lot of power was still on during the roll out / landing. I just wondered if you guys / gals would knock the throttle off and mixture to lean on touchdown?

Regards

[NutLoose]

He's not just lost the wheel but the complete lower wheel strut, on a Piper the torque link bolts hold the leg strut together, there is no retaining ring, if one bolt fails the lower strut blows out of the bottom of the main strut, normally the brake line would keep it dangling below, but looking at that it has separated.

[broadreach]

SOP being led away from the aircraft arm in arm with a fireman/firewoman? Is that in case the pilot just might decide to run back to the aircraft and take off again?/ Stub his toe on a runway light and be in a position to sue the airport operator? / any other reason.....

[funfly]

I think that if you were a low hours pilot who had just landed sans a wheel then maybe you would appreciate a steady arm:ugh:

[broadreach]

Yes Funfly I probably would appreciate a supporting arm in similar circumstances. Never been there and don't care to be. The 100+hr student pilot looks calm after his over four hour ordeal. I just can't escape an impression that the fireman/woman has commandeered him and that that is part of the shoreside sorry groundside SOPs. Have no problem with that, just seems funny sometimes how SOPs smother clearheaded initiative when it's needed.

If the above comment tosses a few firecrackers into the firepit so be it. Gives us - well maybe some of us - narcissistic alphas something to $&^DISCUSS$%#@& in a gentlemanly manner of course.

[fujii]

The posts on the Australian thread are all congratulatory. Just as we'll we have so many northern hemisphere experts able to do a full accident investigation based on TV footage and set us right. As for the fire service conduct, they have their procedures to comply with. Don't knock them, it may be you one day.

[VH-Cheer Up]

The armchair critics have evidently never flown on Australia in summer. It was around 40 degrees and quite a gusty day, so the thermal updrafts off the different surfaces would have meant a roller-coaster ride on final. Also, the pilot had been airborne for over four hours and might well have been dehydrated and a tad disorientated after the scratchy ground roll. Hence the emergency personnel leading him away.

To put the conditions in Australia in perspective, during a 90-day check flight in an identical aircraft one hot morning the instructor looked at me as we were climbing at 500 feet per minute on final in approach config, nose down and idle RPM and said - "if we ever get back to earth, what say we call it a day and try again tomorrow?"

[Pilot.Lyons]

Wow.... Maybe thats why it could take 120+ hours to train in those conditions

[VH-Cheer Up]

Wow.... Maybe thats why it could take 120+ hours to train in those conditionsHe was a China Southern Airline cadet, I would imagine he would have completed his PPL and be well established in the CPL syllabus at 120 hours.

Airlines often choose Australia for pilot training because we can fly almost every day with much less than eight oktas of clag obscuring the horizon.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

the instructor looked at me as we were climbing at 500 feet per second on final in approach config

That would be the Saturn V PA28, on steroids, then?? :E

120 hours is not skygod but it's not beginner experience, either. Stop making excuses for him. That landing was bad in every aspect from short final onwards.

No, it wasn't bad.... it was APPALLING!

NO attempt to hold off.

Far too much power (it should have been at idle in the non-existant hold off).

Flat attitude on touch down, with no attempt to minimise ground speed.

NO attempt to hold up the wheel-less wing.

Stomped on the brakes and held them on even as the aeroplane departed the runway (due heavy one-wheel braking!) and did a 180 onto the grass putting loads of strain onto the RH u/c/ leg!

The feckin power on hard even after he'd stopped!

My cat could not have done it worse!

[A and C]

I totaly agree, with four hours to think about it you would have thought he would have had a better plan than that.

[Good Business Sense]

Wow, you must be really something in a cockpit... read your comments on engine out in a Caravan recently, ....I'm learning quite a bit here from you ......quick question how many engine failures have you had? How many times have you landed with one wheel having fallen off your aeroplane ?

[VH-Cheer Up]

the instructor looked at me as we were climbing at 500 feet per second on final in approach config
That would be the Saturn V PA28, on steroids, then??

Yes, well spotted typo, that's obviously the hallmark of a really good pilot.

[Contacttower]

Far too much power (it should have been at idle in the non-existant hold off).

I agree it does look from the engine (the sound in the background is a helicopter so nothing to do with his power setting) like he has a bit of power on. But judging by the flare...which was there, but just too high, would suggest he was actually at or close to idle. With hardly any fuel in the tanks and any significant power a PA28 (Cherokee/Warrior at least, not the heavier ones) will just float and float even if you come in at 60-65 over the fence and is difficult to slam on like that.

With a long runway (no idea how long the runway was in this case...) it could be advantageous to keep power on though...would have given more control authority to keep the wing with the missing wheel off the ground.

Might also have been a idea to cut the engine once full contact with the runway had been made...just in case another wheel had collapsed and brought the prop into contact with the ground.

I don't think there is anything wrong with passing comment on these videos...no point in just saying "oh what a rubbish landing" but thinking about and illustrating what a pilot may have done better in an emergency situation is constructive to the forum and the general debate on here. One day someone might just remember something they read on PPRuNe...it might just improve their flying or help them out in a difficult spot.

[Contacttower]

Actually having looked at a slighty higher res video (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/small-aircraft-preparing-to-make-emergency-landing-at-mangalore-north-of-melbourne/story-e6frf7jo-1226548780973) of the incident I think he did a bit better than I initially thought. Yes the touchdown was quite firm but if you look carefully he actually manages to hold the landing gear strut off the runway for most of the landing role on the hard, only letter it drop once on the grass. The braking does seem quite severe but could have been a deliberate attempt to get onto the grass quickly so the strut wouldn't scrape on the runway.

[BackPacker]

In a situation like this, would you aim for the grass or the hard runway for the final bit of your landing "roll"?

The grass will obviously cause less damage to the wingtip, but if the wingtip digs into the grass (instead of sliding over it) it may put severe strain on the spar in just the wrong direction (horizontal instead of vertical). And if the aircraft yaws through 90 degrees, you are also putting a severe sideways load on the remaining wheel and wheel attachment, which may cause damage there as well.

Obviously being able to walk away is priority number 1, but if you do have time to think about priority 2 (limiting further damage to the airplane)...?

NO attempt to hold off.

I wonder if this was maybe done deliberately. Not just because of the thermal conditions that have been commented on earlier, but because of something else as well. If you do a lowest-speed-possible, fully held-off landing it is relatively hard to 'grease' it on. With just a tad more speed and power, a greaser is easier.

If you happen not to grease it on (and we all know we don't grease it on all the time) and you have one wheel missing, you might not be quick enough, or not have enough aileron authority at low speed, to pick up the wing where the wheel is missing. By keeping a tad more speed and power on, it's easier to pick up the wing with the ailerons and bring things into a stable situation, before you pull the power and try to keep the aircraft under control for as long as you can with aerodynamics only.

One other thing I noted when looking at the video, and which has not been commented on before, is the way the door opened automatically when the aircraft yawed to the left. He clearly made good use of that four hours and remembered to unlatch the door before touching down.:ok:

[jas24zzk]

I totaly agree, with four hours to think about it you would have thought he would have had a better plan than that.

You're right. he had 4 hours to think about what could possibly go wrong :ugh:

SSD is quite nicely critical of the successful efforts of a low time pilot to save his own ass. I don't know the philosophy in mother england, but over here, once it turns to crap like that, who cares! The insurer owns it, all you gotta do is make sure you can stagger to the pub.

SSD You clearly have a somewhat limited knowledge of human factors, and how they may affect a persons performance in a time of critical need.

Lets have a look at that in some detail shall we.

1. Initial Bodily reactions.
The emergency raises blood pressure, heart rate, energy consumption and stress. This will happen in any emergency regardless of your experience. However experience may reduce the extent of the reaction.

With this reaction the body produces a lot of heat, which the body tries to lower via sweating....i.e it starts dumping fluid. This is an important point for you to recall later.

2. Environment.
On the day in question, the temperature in the area ranged from 42 - 45 degrees centigrade, (107 - 113 Farenheit) at ground level. ( i should know, i was only 40 nm away on the day)
Now if we consider that he would have stayed local, and probably about 2000' agl and applied the ELR to the eqaution and round it up to 2 deg per thousand, the lowest ambient temperature you'd see is 38c (100.4 F)
It was a cloudless day, if the the ambient temperature isn't enough, the aussie sun will roast you! I know of englishmen that have come here and not lasted 30 minutes in the aussie sun. Leeson 1..how to spot an englishman...look for the lobster walking down the road.
Actually thinking about it...does your thermometer even go that high?

3. Flight plan.
This one is a bit of an unknown, as no-one has commented on it.
I doubt with the conditions of the day, a long flight was not planned for, probably 30-60 minutes local/circuits. You body/mind will tolerate the environment for that long. As an aussie trained glider pilot, one thing your instructors push is re-hydration. The rule of thumb is 2 litres drank every hour...and trust me, at that, after 6.5 hours you have never thought about taking a leak...2 litres per hour is not enough.
So our lil pilot in this instance has taken off for a short flight, certainly not carrying the water to fly for 4 hours under stress that probably required 4 litres per hour replacement.

4. Result.
Said pilot, heavily stressed (4 hours to think about it), heavily dehdyrated with impaired motor skills that go with that condition makes a less than perfect (in your opinion) landing, in an aeroplane that the insurer know owns, which at best was only ever capable of a controlled crash, walked away.

Maybe SSD, we should set up an aeroplane with the same fault and see how you perform, without the environmental issues this pilot had to deal with. Surely you can show us how it should be done :ok:

I see no reason to denigrate this guy on his performance, just pat him on the back and get him airborne again to continue the passion that fuels so many of us.

Cheers
Jas

PS...looked in my book...got time in that aircraft. Never have flown a warrior with air-con..so don't even mention it.

[fujii]

jas24zzk
Dead right. I flew from Evans Head to Riddell the day before and was drinking all the way. High 30s at YPMQ and 42 degrees at YBTH and YSWG and that was with all wheels. Long day.

[kms901]

I have been in exactly that situation in a Cherokee, and it is surprising how long you can hold the wing up. Mine was on grass and ended in a graceful groundloop.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Said pilot, heavily stressed (4 hours to think about it), heavily dehdyrated with impaired motor skills that go with that condition makes a less than perfect (in your opinion) landing, in an aeroplane that the insurer know owns, which at best was only ever capable of a controlled crash, walked away.


Exactly. :ok:

I bet the next time that pilot urinated it still would have looked like concentrated radiator coolant. Four hours in that aircraft he would have been long past dehydration and well into dessication.

[ZuluPapa]

You dont say! :}

Jokes aside, He was obviously panicking and just wanted to get it down... he could have done far more to minimise the damage to the aircraft but it wasn't his, he walked away, fair play.

[fujii]

Quote:

kms901

I have been in exactly that situation in a Cherokee, and it is surprising how long you can hold the wing up. Mine was on grass and ended in a graceful groundloop.


Exactly that situation? Four hours holding, windy, 40+ degrees!

[Contacttower]

I see no reason to denigrate this guy on his performance, just pat him on the back and get him airborne again to continue the passion that fuels so many of us.

Yes I agree we shouldn't denigrate the pilot's performance and I agree the situation would not have been conducive to the pilot being in great physical shape by the time in the landing! I have not flown in Australia but Florida in August with 35 degrees and insane humidity can't be far off...it does definitely affect one's performance.

That doesn't mean people can't constructively opine though about situations like that in general, what might have been tried alternatively, what might have been done differently...just food for thought that's all. Just because I can't say (as I said at the start) hand on heart that I could do better doesn't mean I can't sit here and wonder about how it might have been done better.

The grass will obviously cause less damage to the wingtip, but if the wingtip digs into the grass (instead of sliding over it) it may put severe strain on the spar in just the wrong direction (horizontal instead of vertical). And if the aircraft yaws through 90 degrees, you are also putting a severe sideways load on the remaining wheel and wheel attachment, which may cause damage there as well.


Interesting question...I actually think what the guy in the video may have been trying to do had good logic behind it...I'm no engineer but my perception of these things would go like this...

The hard is probably initially better because if you can keep the bad wing elevated then you have a better surface to maintain directional control. Although in the video he appears to strike the wing with the missing wheel on touchdown he quickly picks it up and maintains the aircraft straight on the runway for a few hundred metres after that. I would have thought that once you lose control authority to hold the wing up...that is the time to exit onto the grass. Hopefully by that time the speed would have been reduced to not put too much strain on the spar; I notice from the video that once on the grass the aircraft pivots around the landing gear stub (as one would expect). Provided the remaining wheel did its job of rotating as the aircraft spun around I wouldn't have thought there was that much strain on the spar if the speed of rotation was low.

So perhaps in a perfect world he would have not braked so aggressively and waited for a lower speed before exiting the runway...again just thinking out loud...not trying to criticise as such...

By keeping a tad more speed and power on, it's easier to pick up the wing with the ailerons and bring things into a stable situation, before you pull the power and try to keep the aircraft under control for as long as you can with aerodynamics only.

Yes I think that is the strategy that I would try to adopt if this happened to me tomorrow. I'm not going to claim that I would achieve a level of success acceptable to the court of PPRuNe though...:E Maybe this is something that we should be practicing from time to time?

Just looking at the POH for a slightly larger aircraft that actually gives some guidance on this issue. It just says to keep the weight (using the controls) on the good wheel, lower nosewheel immediately for steering, mixture to ICO and land towards the side of the runway with the good wheel to allow space for turning towards the bad one.

[jas24zzk]

ContactTower said....

With a long runway (no idea how long the runway was in this case...) it could be advantageous to keep power on though...would have given more control authority to keep the wing with the missing wheel off the ground.

Not sure which of Mangalores (code YMNG) runways this was on, but one is 1461 metres, and the other is 2027 metres. You can convert that to feet yourself if needed. Plenty of room on either.

Might also have been a idea to cut the engine once full contact with the runway had been made...just in case another wheel had collapsed and brought the prop into contact with the ground. It was probably one of the things discussed with the PIC, given my previous post, restricted performance probably erased it. That is not to say any of us could perform any better. Its amazing how much of a well laid plan the human brain can forget.

I don't think there is anything wrong with passing comment on these videos...no point in just saying "oh what a rubbish landing" but thinking about and illustrating what a pilot may have done better in an emergency situation is constructive to the forum and the general debate on here. One day someone might just remember something they read on PPRuNe...it might just improve their flying or help them out in a difficult spot.

I agree with you in most part of this statement, except this bit...
but thinking about and illustrating what a pilot may have done better. The real point is how did the pilot get themself into a position to make these basic errors? That is where the real lesson lies. Remember the truth to an accident is not the item that makes itself apparent first. That is usually the item that happened last.

[jas24zzk]

Yes I agree we shouldn't denigrate the pilot's performance and I agree the situation would not have been conducive to the pilot being in great physical shape by the time in the landing! I have not flown in Australia but Florida in August with 35 degrees and insane humidity can't be far off...it does definitely affect one's performance.

Very similar, but 100% different.

Florida, 35 degree's ( i can still wear long pants and drink hot coffee) 100% humidity. You are soaked through. Despite the clear visibility of moisture on your body, you actually lose less moisture. The air around you is already saturated, therefore it cannot remove the moisture off your body, and the cooling begins. Think about basic met if you need and heat transfer.

Mangalore on the day in question. 42 degrees and zero humidity. you sweat and the atmosphere sucks it straight off you, so you sweat more to no avail.

Surprisingly, the 42c 0% humidity is a lot more comfortable than 35c and 95% humidty but it will kill you oh so much faster

[Contacttower]

The real point is how did the pilot get themself into a position to make these basic errors? That is where the real lesson lies.

True, although what are you referring to (apologies for perhaps not completely understanding what you are saying)? Environmental/human factors as you posted about previously? The quality of the training he received? Other factors that lead to the accident playing out the way it did?

Asking how did the accident get to this point/outcome and what could have been done better are not mutually exclusive by any means! All I'm saying is that if this (or indeed any other emergency that has been disscussed on here before) happened to me tomorrow, which it could, I might remember something I read on PPRuNe and it might help me.

[Contacttower]

Surprisingly, the 42c 0% humidity is a lot more comfortable than 35c and 95% humidty but it will kill you oh so much faster

Yes I was wondering about what sort of humidity level there would be in that part of Australia. I know exactly what you mean though about hot humid vs. a dry heat...you don't necessarily realise what the dry heat is doing to you.

[Contacttower]

Just one final thought on the video itself...

The outcome could have been a lot worse, if he had plonked the wing on and just left it there without lifting it again or trying to maintain directional control the plane would probably have pivoted towards the missing wheel and departed the runway at much higher speed in the other direction. Would have resulted in more damage to the plane and ended up further away towards the trees on the other side of the runway.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's true, you never know if you're going to panic in an emergency until it happens. My worst (and there've been a few in my 30 plus years of tailwheel strip and aeros flying, all of which I'd have gladly swapped at the time for this guy's non-threatening predicament) was a partial engine failure at 300' off a short runway (engine nearly jumping off the aeroplane, instruments unreadble due the vibration, radio inaudiable due the banging and backfiring) expecting the engine to sieze at any moment, with nothing but real estate in front of us and the aeroplane just barely flying albeit downhill a bit. Don't turn back? I had to, and we made the runway, just.

Flying mostly old aeroplanes, I've had others that I'd call 'mis-fires' rather than the real partial failure that this one was.

I was gratified to discover that when it happened the training kicked in immediately, so me and my pax are still around. Everything seemed to happen very slowly, and we both had time to notice three beautiful white swans flying past the other way - serenity in the midst of that cacophony.

I know people who have dealt with far worse than that. And my mate did indeed land a high-wing taildragger with the whole main gear missing from one side, not just the wheel so it needed some effort to keep right-side-up on landing (it had hit a rock on T/O from a strip). He conformed it was no big deal.

So really, although this guy 'only' had 120 hours (to put it in perspective that's about 3 times what most of us took to get our PPLs back in 1978 - by 120 hours most of us were flying aeros and tailwheel aeroplanes into farm strips - so he's no neophyte) he really didn't do very well at all in a situation that wasn't particularly threatening and alot of time to plan his landing.

[taxistaxing]

I will reserve any judgement on the flying. As a low timer myself I'd be pretty happy with that result after flying around for 4 hours, burning off fuel, stewing about the upcoming controlled crash!

As a general point, in this type of situation, wouldn't it be better to aim for a grass strip? The additional friction of the grass might help deceleration and presumably less risk of sparks than an asphalt-on-metal landing.

I appreciate presence of emergency equipment and space are probably the overriding considerations in this type of situation.

[jas24zzk]

I agree with you mate, reading analysing without finger pointing might just be helpfull to one of us one day. Finger pointing serves no purpose to anyone other than a lawyer.

True, although what are you referring to (apologies for perhaps not completely understanding what you are saying)? Environmental/human factors as you posted about previously? The quality of the training he received? Other factors that lead to the accident playing out the way it did?

My original post came from SSD's post about the pilots 'poor' ??? performance in the landing phase of this incident. As he say's at 120 hours as a CPL student with china southern, a poor performance is not tolerated and they get cut from the course. A china southern student does not get to 120 hours with landings like that. I'm not agreeing with SSD, but if it had all 3 feet still on, that landing would be well below acceptable standard.

So for me, i accepted SSD's assessment that the landing was substandard, and then asked myself the question of what could have produced such. The only answer I came up with was that the student was in some way impaired, and then i looked at the possibilities of impairment. The only answer I had was dehydration.............dessication..i still gotta get the book back out on that one.


Humour me and say that de-hydration was the cause of the lowered performance (in SSD's view). If i was put in exactly the same situation, would I fly for four hours to burn off fuel? or fly long enough to let the emergency services get into place and then have a go?

I'm not exactly sure atm, but i am leaning towards having a go earlier than later whilst my motor skills are still in place. heck i might even be able to pull the mix 2 foot of the deck and save the insurer some money :yuk:

[Contacttower]

I'd be interested to know whether the pilot made the call to stay up for four hours or whether the chief pilot effectively told him to. It would be a difficult call though either way. There could have been a lot of sparks in a situation like that and while it looks like the wings stayed intact I would have thought there was a significant risk of fuel getting out somewhere with the stress on the wings.

[jas24zzk]

As a general point, in this type of situation, wouldn't it be better to aim for a grass strip? The additional friction of the grass might help deceleration and presumably less risk of sparks than an asphalt-on-metal landing.

In short NO.

Sparks first. Very real risk of them occuring. Risk of fire? only exists if you have a fuel leak really. (only considering the a/c type in this incident)

Grass vs bitumen. The imminent risk with either is groundloop. If that is going to happen, you want it at the lowest speed. (you cannot predict it, therefore must assume it will happen) The only way this is going to happen is the leg without the wheel penetrates the surface and digs in. I think on that you can work out for yourself which is the better surface....if not ask your cfi.

Cheers
Jas

[BabyBear]

The only answer I came up with was that the student was in some way impaired,

Maybe it was the stress of thnking about paying for a 4hr flight.:p

BB

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

And of course holding the brakes on as the aeroplane yawed left off the runway forced the right gear leg harder into the runway, and sideways, with a real danger of starting a fuel fire especially had the leg failed due the sideways forces.

Why didn't he release the brakes as the yaw started, to stay on the runway? Panic?

And if staying airbourn for 4 hours in the Oz heat lead to him becoming dehydrated or otherwise incpacitated so his performance was seriously affected, then that again shows poor judgment of how to handle the situation. He's the captain, he makes the descisons!

[jas24zzk]

Maybe it was the stress of thnking about paying for a 4hr flight.

BB


Thats almost funny you know...until you realise the guy is a fully funded cadet that will be flying an A380 or similar long before you stop flipping burgers to pay for your PA28R upgrade.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

..until you realise the guy is a fully funded cadet that will be flying an A380 or similar long before

Crikey, I hope he learns a bit of stick and rudder piloting technique before that happens. Mind you, with AF 477 and the Colgan Dash 8 accidents in mind, perhaps this incident is demonstrating a flaw in modern airline training?

[jas24zzk]

Now i know you are truly a ****...and the post you just made since i began this isn't even worthy of a response!


And of course holding the brakes on as the aeroplane yawed left off the runway forced the right gear leg harder into the runway, and sideways, with a real danger of starting a fuel fire especially had the leg failed due the sideways forces.


You are right, its going sideways. AND BACKWARDS AWAY from the tank which hasn't, and nor will it present a danger of splitting and offering fuel to the equation. Know a lot about PA-28's you do.

Why didn't he release the brakes as the yaw started, to stay on the runway? Panic?

I'll offer you a question mark on that....possibly, but maybe the instruction he was given was to stand on the left brake....they did have some time to discuss a plan.

And if staying airbourn for 4 hours in the Oz heat lead to him becoming dehydrated or otherwise incpacitated so his performance was seriously affected, then that again shows poor judgment of how to handle the situation. He's the captain, he makes the descisons!

Given what I have presented as reasons for poor performance, I will back down to you here conditionally. Low time pilot, on the radio, receiving instructions. Where he trains, they are under full oversight, there was plenty of time to consider and take appropriate action. The advice given to him to stay airborne may not have been appropriate.

I think you need to read my posts a lil more carefully, and take the time to consider what is going on. Your responses may have been different at that level of experience, but i doubt it. at 120 hours someone gets on the radio and tells you what you should do...you won't question it.

[jas24zzk]

Crikey, I hope he learns a bit of stick and rudder piloting technique before that happens. Mind you, with AF 477 and the Colgan Dash 8 accidents in mind, perhaps this incident is demonstrating a flaw in modern airline training?

do you walk around with blinkers on?

you can now be right seat on and a380/747 with ZERO command time!!!!!!!!!!


look up the mpl you muppet!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I see jas has reverted to insult, always the last resort of those can't argue their corner. He also completely misses the points:

at 120 hours someone gets on the radio and tells you what you should do...you won't question it.
If you think that, you are not a pilot. At 120 hours (indeed at any time you are flying as a qualified pilot) YOU are CAPTAIN! YOU make the decsisions, not some guy on the ground! If you don't understand that you don't understand what being a pilot is about.


you can now be right seat on and a380/747 with ZERO command time!!!!!!!!!!
look up the mpl you muppet!

I think you'll find that was the point I was making. I refer you again to the basic lack of pilot skills demonstrated by AF 477 and the Colgan Dash 8. And before you call me a 'muppet', perhaps you should consider that the airline industry, in the light of those two pilot-induced disaters and some others as well, realise they have a problem.

But hey, you sound like some sort of expert. maybe you know best? :ok:

[BackPacker]

nor will it present a danger of splitting and offering fuel to the equation.

Agree. The PA28 tank (at least the -161 I know) is a separate unit that is bolted/riveted into the inboard portion of the wing, in front of the spar. Aerodynamically it's part of the wing, but structurally it isn't.

You would have to grind the wing off all the way to the tank, or have a catastrophic failure of the wing spar at the tank location, for the tank to have any chance of rupturing. (Or hit an external object, or something like that.)

But this is information that's not (or not very clearly) written in the POH and I would not assume your average PA28 pilot to know about it. It could just as easily have been a wet wing or bladder tank.

So unless proven otherwise, I would assume that a fuel leak would be possible in such a situation, and make sure all mitigation measures are taken to prevent fire.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

SSD,

Although I must disagree with your general consensus on how the pilot performed under the circumstances (due to reasons given by other posters), there is absolutely no denying that your thoughts regarding training and the airline industry are correct and I wholeheartedly agree.

And to take it a notch further, it is mildly frightening when you learn that this pilot was an airline cadet who was presumably selected against the majority due to certain attributes.

I've attended them airline assessments, they're a load of bollocks (no bitterness here, I passed them) and can never determine who will snap and who will stay still like a rock under pressure.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

So you thought he did OK? I can't see how he could have done it much worse! As I said, my cat wouldn't have done worse (better actually, as although she wouldn't have flared, niether did he, and she wouldn't be able to stomp on the brakes like he did!).

Are you a pilot?

PS - if you want to see how a light aircraft should be landed, take a look at the vid in the next thread, about the Luscombe. Could you do that?

[studentaviator]

120 Hours ?! Im not sure if he was a student. But a good landing anyway! Wish I had that many hours as a studednt....

[jas24zzk]

SSD,
i'm glad you fly in another country where everyone is perfect., if it wasn't for the Chesire location next to your name, i would have assumed you were a frenchman.

My pillow calls, and in the 'morrow i will address your responses.

What I would like you to think about, is how you expected a pilot to perform perfect execution in a situation of duress, and how you really think you would perform.

I have gone about it a long winded way, but i doubt you or I could have done any better. Admit that much and our relationship may improve.

Cheers
Jas

[packo1848]

At 120 hours (indeed at any time you are flying as a qualified pilot)

I think you may be missing the point, even with 120 hours this guy will not be a qualified pilot, he will not hold a licence (unless he got it elsewhere beforehand). He is in a similar situation to a PPL student on their solos, albeit with more experience. I would think it fairly reasonable to assume that in this situation he may be being advised by an instructor from the ground, and as he will have had no experience of being truly on his own I would also think it fair of him to heed the advice of that instructor, correct or incorrect.

As a low hours pilot myself, I would be more than happy with walking away from that. However, as has been said before, maybe having read this I might remember at least one of the points raised and handle the situation better should I be unfortunate enough for it to happen to me.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Like I said, my cat couldn't have done it worse. Perfect execution isn't expected, but basic pilot skills are.

If you are saying you could not have done better, then fine. Please accept that some pilots might have, though. In fact of all the pilots I know I can't think of one that wouldn't have done it better than that - which, in all honesty, isn't saying a lot.

I know quite a few guys who know the PA28 well and would have demonstrated perfect technique. That is:

Have that PA28 back to minimum possible speed on short final, right wing high so in a slight left slip, then flared to grease the left main on at minimum touchdown speed with the power at idle. Then used course left aileron and opposite rudder to hold the right wing up while keeping straight. Eventually, with full back elevator and full left aileron the right leg would have touched down followed by the nose wheel at the slowest possible speed. If the aircraft looked like departing the right side of the runway they'd use a touch of brake to keep it straight until it stopped.

That's perfect technique, and I wouldn't be expecting that at 120 hours. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I couldn't do that either as most of my time is in types other than PA28 so I don't know that aeroplane type well enough to fly it to those limits.

I have a lot more than 120 hours, so I'd expect to do it better than that guy did. At 120 hours I'd have expected to do it a lot better than he did.

I don't know how many hours and what sort of experience you have, but if you have any post PPL experience to speak of and you don't think you could have done better than that you need to question how you'd cope when you are faced with a requirement for some real piloting skill - because if you fly for long enough, one day you will be.

[A and C]

There was a danger of a fuel leak albeit a small one because the landing gear leg is attached to the front of the main spar web by eight bolts, if the leg had dug into the dirt at a higher speed and the spar become deformed this would have resulted in a twisting moment on the tank, this would have more than likely deformed the tank causing it to rupture, also there is a small chance of damaging the flexible fuel line that runs from the rear of the tank in the area of the leg.

This sort of damage demonstrates why you should make every effort to keep the aircraft on the Tarmac were it will slide rather than on a soft surface were it is likely to dig in.

The reason for the failure is most likely to be poor maintenance, there are two AD's that require inspection of the area, one requires the NDT of the casting on the lower part of the leg were the torque link attaches, the other the replacement of the mid bolt in the torque link based on flying time, both of these are dependent on the S/N of the aircraft and the S/N of the leg.

I have replaced both the legs on my PA28 due to cracks found during the NDT inspection, it is a most unpleasant job because access to the lower bolts is almost imposable if you have normal size hands, if I ever have to do the job again I will give my nine year old grandaughter two months supply of chocolate to fit the four bolts in the lower spar web.

[riverrock83]

So you thought he did OK? I can't see how he could have done it much worse!

So, how about:
He could have landed not on the runway.
He could have not declared an emergency, and so not had the ground staff prepared.
He could have panicked.
He could have not flared.
He could have turned it upside down by landing on grass and the trailing support could have dug in.
He could have landed not controlled.
He could have not tried to keep the weight on the working wheel.
He could have not tried to keep the plane straight by not using the rudder.
He could have not landed in the middle of the runway.
He could not have unlatched the door before landing.
He could not have turned the engine off at all.
He could have not used the brakes and so run off the end of the runway.
He could have messed up the approach (since he knew everyone was watching and was under pressure).
He could have ballooned (the plane would have been light).


Training and the airline industry is, I suggest, nothing to do with this. He has never likely flown anything bigger than a PA28. He has probably had professional Aussie instructors who don't have a bad reputation.

Looked to me that he was coming in on the slow side, which was perhaps his plan, so when he flared (what - 3 feet off the ground?) he didn't have much energy left for the hold off and so the plane stopped flying early and it plonked down.

No injuries, plane can be used again, I'd be happy with that outcome.

[BackPacker]

A&C, appreciate your points.

How much clearance is there between the rear of the fuel tank and the front of the spar/spar web/landing gear attachment points?

I have only seen the tank once it was removed, but not the removal/installation process itself. But my gut feeling tells me you have to have some significant deformation of the spar and surrounding structure before the tank deforms to the point of rupturing.

[taxistaxing]

I have a lot more than 120 hours, so I'd expect to do it better than that guy did. At 120 hours I'd have expected to do it a lot better than he did.



Are you sure?

SSD, I'm assuming from your other posts that you're a few thousand hours in. I have around 150 hours. Do I think I could do better than this guy did? Yes. Do I think I would, in the heat of the moment? I don't know, but I wouldn't like to bet my life on it, which is what he was doing.

On that basis I certainly wouldn't criticise him for his flying or decision making - particularly as he was presumably advised to burn off the fuel by someone with far more experience. He may well be P1 but if I was in an emergency and someone with 000s of hours advised me to do something over the radio, I'd probably listen.

At the end of the day he was a low hours pilot who got the aircraft down in an emergency situation, and was able to walk away from it. I think that's pretty good going. Not to say there aren't things he could have done better, but I think comments like


my cat couldn't have done it worse.


are a bit over the top.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, lets assume the 4 hours flying was to use up all the fuel in the right tank.

There would still be a residual unusable fuel of about 1 gallon, and the rest as fuel vapour. If the wheel leg shears into the tank and sets it on fire it is still quite a good bonfire. So take your pick; 1 gallon fire or 20 gallon fire.

[Mark1234]

I don't know, but I wonder what the cultural considerations are here - the native Aussies and the euros are quite familiar with having command authority, but from the impression I'm getting of the china eastern program (entirely from implications in this thread), and the fact that someone was conversing with him in his 'native language', I can't help wonder how authority and individual decision making plays out.

For myself, I would not have spent the 4/whatever hours emptying the tanks (from memory, 4hrs is a lot more than just one side - I think total endurance is about 5, plus most places only fill to the tabs 'cos that way W&B is a bit of a non-event). In *my* opinion, that's a mistake. I'd have used the right tank exclusively pre-landing, given the ground as much time as they needed to sort their end out, and as much time as I needed to think things through, request any advice/information, (and possibly do/have a flyby to assess the damage) and get the i's dotted, then come in on the left tank while I was still fresh and sharp. Oh, and stuff shutting down the engine until it stopped moving, insurance companies problem/an unnecessary distraction.

I've lived and flown in Aus, 4hrs at low alt on a 40deg day is no picnic, either comfort wise, or bumps wise. I'm of the opinion that a/c are far less likely to burst into a ball of fire than Hollywood would have you believe, even if the fuel is spilled, which (IMHO) is unlikely. I wouldn't have made a minimum speed approach, I'd opt for control, and tarmac, and no braking. Lots of runway/LDA most places in Aus.

Can't really see why there's so much aggression in this thread, from either side. Perfect - No, but what is. Worst handling possible - hardly. Very little is ever black or white, most things are shades of grey.

[A and C]

Without looking at the aircraft I would guess the outboard edge of the leg is about four inches inboard of the tank, as I said it is only a small chance that the tank would rupture but this chance would me minimized by keeping the aircraft in the runway, digging in to soft ground at high speed would increase the chances of structural damage and make a fuel tank rupture more likely.

One of the guys I worked with in BA engineering had this type of leg failure happen to him at White Waltham back in the late 70's back then it didn't result in much fuss and he was a solo student with about 15 hours in the book.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

He could have landed not on the runway. He departed the runway pronto when he lost control though agressive braking.

He could have panicked. Are you sure he didn't? I'm not.

He could have not flared. He didn't. L. Main & nose wheel, and right leg touched down together.

He could have landed not controlled. He did just that.

He could have not tried to keep the weight on the working wheel. He made no such attempt.

He could have not tried to keep the plane straight by not using the rudder. He lost control completely once on the ground, with no attempt to stay straight.

He could not have turned the engine off at all. What? Not ever?

He could have not used the brakes and so run off the end of the runway. He stomped on the brakes causing the aeroplane to depart the runway immediately. If he'd left them alone he would probably have stayed on the runway.

He could have messed up the approach (since he knew everyone was watching and was under pressure). The approach looked OK. It went pear shaped after that.

He could have ballooned (the plane would have been light). You have to flare to balloon. He didn't.

[smiling monkey]

Like I said, my cat couldn't have done it worse.

Are you for real? You've just destroyed any credibility youhad by making such a ridiculous statement. :rolleyes:


I have a lot more than 120 hours, so I'd expect to do it better than that guy did. At 120 hours I'd have expected to do it a lot better than he did. ]

So please do tell us how many hours TT you have, champ? Sounds like you consider yourself God's gift to the aviation world. :rolleyes:

[maxred]

Deja Vu...........:\

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Indeed. :\

[Pilot.Lyons]

The news headline "trainee pilot" is what makes it sound a bit strange at 120 hours but we all know what the paps are like

[packo1848]

As has been said, yes, with a similar amount of hours I could most definitely do better in theory. Who is to say what's actually happening inside that cockpit. As has already been pointed out, its almost certain the bloke was dehydrated, this along with the thought of an abnormal (I won't say difficult, I might be accused of incompetence...) landing may well have turned theory and reality into two completely separate entities.

Yes, it wasn't theoretically perfect, but kudos to the bloke for walking away from it in the end.

[packo1848]

The news headline "trainee pilot" is what makes it sound a bit strange at 120 hours

A 120 hour trainee is the norm on an integrated course, candidates go from ab-initio straight to CPL with no PPL in the middle.

[vetflyer]

:\

Pilot survived - Excellent :D

Could he have done better? - yes

Could I have done better? Don't know BUT an informed reasoned discussion may help me in the future

So can we have that discussion without people wanting to lynch SSD or give pilot a medal

It all worked ok and pilot can tell his grand kids how not to land a PA 28 on two wheels ;)

Valid points have been made and I am sure the pilot does not give a toss what is said on pprune !!!!!

[mad_jock]

Its a pretty standard arrival for a magenta line borg who has been taught to fly 3 degree glides in everything.

They get to the bottom and pull the power off and the thing drops out of the sky.

You guys forget that they arn't being taught how to fly light aircraft. They are being taught the minimum required to then go and fly around using automatics.

Yes a PPL that got taught by one of the instructors on here saying that landing was a pile of poo after 120 hours would more than likely have done a better job of it. But the chap didn't most of his training will have been done with everything being supervised quite a bit of his PIC time will have been supervised with an instructor in the RHS.

You can't expect one of these zero to heros to do what you expect would be normal. They just have never been trained to fly a SEP properly.

He walked away from it with only his pride damaged only fault was it was caught on camera.

Yes some of us here would have driven it onto the runway holding the damaged wheel off then not touched the brakes and the whole thing would come trundling to a halt. A few of us would have a good shot at doing a one wheeler round to the front of the hanger as well. You can taxi a PA28 at less than 20knts on one main wheel. Most of us will have done that demonstration to students when they insist on landing to fast. Easier in a Cessna I will admit but you can do it with a piper as well.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Thank you mad jock. I hope a few on here read and digest that.

[taxistaxing]

It's a shame this thread has turned into a mass b*llocking of a low hours pilot in very difficult circumstances, rather than a "here's how we could learn from it"... But there we go!

[mad_jock]

Its not really. Bit of willy waving but thats about it.

Also most private fliers don't have a clue how commercials are trained outside the modular method which they will meet when they are doing their PPL and hour building.

Some of these guys come out with 145 hours and no SEP rating and go straight into the RHS of a 737-800. And speaking to Captains that have to fly with them its quite a marmite subject if they think its a good idea or not. But the accountants like it and thats the way the industry has gone for good or for bad.

Now all the PPL's who fly similar hardware have a good think about what you would do in similar circumstances.

I will throw some ideas out.

Engine off for the landing.

Fast approach

Slow approach

Flat appoarch and a drive on at above stalling speed.

Forced landing glide approach

Land on the stall nose high.

Burn fuel off or not.

run a tank empty or not.

What control inputs would you expect.

What problems would you have faced getting out afterwards if the AFS wasn't waiting.

Land on tarmac or grass?

If like you can chuck your ideas on here and if the instructors promise not to be to condersending we can bash out a couple of methods. Remember though that what might be good for me won't be good for a new PPL.

To be honest the bloke got it on the ground and walked away from it. Even if it wasn't pretty and the plane was a bit more dented than it really needed to be he did OK in my book. Hell I have seen and been onboard worse landings with all the wheels on and done them myself. Would I have done any better at his stage of training? Well by that stage I had had a tyre go flat on me (no I didn't have the brakes on it was on a old PA28 with only hand brakes) and the torque link go on the nose wheel and a full elelctrical failure. Maybe that was his first sphincter clencher, the first one is always the worst.

[riverrock83]

I'm not an instructor - I'm not used to watching landings from the ground. However I still don't think you're being entirely fair. Yes he started to flare high. Yes using the brake on one wheel caused him to ground loop. I don't know about that one but many PA28s have a single brake handle so he may not have encountered differential braking.
The rest can be debated. Might be easier to see in the higher res version of the video here (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/small-aircraft-preparing-to-make-emergency-landing-at-mangalore-north-of-melbourne/story-e6frf7jo-1226548780973). My times below relate to it.

I've responded in Blue for clarity.

He could have not flared. He didn't. L. Main & nose wheel, and right leg touched down together.
Perhaps your definition of flare is different from mine? I'm a student - happy to be corrected. He started arresting his descent at 7 seconds, and remains level until about 10 seconds. If you pause at 10 seconds he is nose high, in the touch down attitude. He is in ground affect until 11 seconds when he sinks quickly, presumably after the plane stops flying (or perhaps he dumped the power). You can see in this version of the video he appears to touch down main wheel only first (only just) in a level attitude.
As a PPL student I'd have been disappointed / told off but there are many worse examples!

He could have landed not controlled. He did just that.
His touchdown was poor due to the high flare, but it appeared initially controlled.
This is where I'm coming from. I had been landing what to me felt like "greasers" (main wheels first, stick still coming all the way back at touch down with little sink at the end to a smooth roll out) most of the time with my instructor, but I then had a lesson with the chief at our school. He told me I wasn't holding off enough and should be higher before touchdown. His demonstration had us sink just before touchdown from what felt like 4 feet from the surface (I'm sure it wasn't). You know the feeling in the pit of your stomach you get when you start to sink... But that is what he wants. If this person touched down with a nose higher attitude, it would therefore be pretty close to how I have been taught. I'm not saying he did it well - but its very possibly not all his fault.

He could have not tried to keep the weight on the working wheel. He made no such attempt.
You will see in the higher res video that between 11 and 17 seconds, after the initial heavy touchdown, the wing and the support strut are kept off the ground.

He could have not tried to keep the plane straight by not using the rudder. He lost control completely once on the ground, with no attempt to stay straight.
I can look at this two ways.
Option 1: You can see that the rudder and nose wheel are fully to the right between 13 sec and 15 sec before he applies the brakes. At 15 sec he is straight on the runway. He then (presumably) applies the brake which starts to pull him off the runway. He is then applying full right again until 17 sec, after which he has lost control.
Option 2: On touchdown, the plane yaws left due to the friction from the wheel. He over corrects with his right foot. At about 15 sec he appears to briefly use his left foot. This, (probably along with the brakes) may have contributed to his left uncontrolled yaw, which he was unable to correct despite full right rudder.

He did attempt to stay straight, but he wasn't successful.

He could not have turned the engine off at all. What? Not ever?
The engine was fully stopped after 6 sec of being stationary. This at least suggests lack of panic, doing the shutdown sequence (bet you he also turned off the fuel...).

He could have not used the brakes and so run off the end of the runway. He stomped on the brakes causing the aeroplane to depart the runway immediately. If he'd left them alone he would probably have stayed on the runway.
Agreed that he used the brakes inappropriately. Runways are 2,027m and 1,461m. He would have had to stop eventually but as you say - probably didn't need the brakes...


SSD - I hope you see this as trying to be constructive rather than confrontational! I agree he could have done better but with the video we can try and learn something without slagging him off.

[Richard Westnot]

Come on guys, he did ok for a 120 hr trainee. I think everyone is still learning until they start approaching the 500hr threshold and even then lessons/ratings/etc are still being learnt.

He walked away which is the main thing :ok:

How many of us here have seen and read the reports of multi thousand hour ATPL's F**k it up ?

[172driver]

SSD, congratulations of turning this into one of the nastiest threads I've ever read on Pprune. I sincerely hope never to meet you in real life, let alone in the air :yuk:

[vetflyer]

you missed quite a few then !;)

[mad_jock]

You never stop learning to be honest.

And just because your an ATPL doesn't mean you don't sometimes pull off a truely awful landing.

And I suspect he had just started doing a bit of twin flying and left a bit of power on realised that he wasn't decending as he would in the twin, took it off and arrived.

The brake application was just panicking.

He would have proberly done alot better without some gimp on the ground nattering in his ear all the time when he was burning fuel off.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Now all the PPL's who fly similar hardware have a good think about what you would do in similar circumstances.


The most important thing for me would be to have a definite plan, and to use the time in the air to rehearse that plan until it was second nature.

Most folks have their own particular way of flying the approach & landing, and I think you'd get the best outcome by sticking as closely as you can to what you'd usually do. For example, I tend to fly a high approach with the power almost back to idle on short final with a pronounced flare, whereas a student on an integrated course may be more accustomed to approaching at a shallower angle with more power and driving it onto the runway. The less you have to do that is different, the less you will have to think about in the heat of the moment, so perhaps it's not so much about finding the 'best' way as finding the way that will work best for you.

Watching the footage, maybe that's what this guy actually did. And he walked away from it. If he'd tried to do something which was less natural for him, the outcome might not have been so good.

This guy was training to be an airline pilot, and I sure as heck wouldn't want the handling pilot on my next holiday jet to 'revert to ab initio training' in an emergency and fly the way I fly a PA28!

[strake]

"He walked away...end of".


"What utter bollox! He'd have had to do something very stupid indeed to end up not walking away.

Poor form SSD. In most of the flying bars I've frequented, I think you might find yourself drinking on your own with that sort of attitude.

[mad_jock]

The handling pilot for landing gets changed quite quickly if required after a wheel falls off. ;)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

at 120 hours someone gets on the radio and tells you what you should do...you won't question it.
I would have done.

"Question it" not as in "you're talking crap, I'm going to do something different" but as in "why are you suggesting this, why won't that work, what are the odds on such-and-such happening" and so on, until something I was happy with had been negotiated. It's the pilot's life at stake FFS, not the guy on the ground's; any pilot who doesn't understand that he has the last word in such circumstances has no business being sent solo.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD, congratulations of turning this into one of the nastiest threads I've ever read on PPRuNe. I sincerely hope never to meet you in real life, let alone in the air

172 driver, a word in your shell-like....

If I'd, by posting here, pi55ed off someone unpleasant enough to post what you posted above I'd be well chuffed.

But I haven't, of course posted anything unpleasant. You might not agree with what I posted, but if so you are always free to argue against it rather than descend to where you went with that deeply unpleasant and unsupportable observation.

You posted what you did because you get off on making nasty posts. Period.

[Armchairflyer]

FWIW, no injuries, just insurance, is good enough in my book. And I don't give a hoot how perfectly or badly anyone here (including me) would land a one-wheeled plane from his armchair or who is single-wheel-aerobatic-landing-stick-and-rudder top dawg.

But I absolutely crave for a video of SSD's cat landing an airplane! With or without complete undercarriage. Cockpit footage please!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Your wish is my command, Armchair. She's actually an instructor and in this vid is conducting the final minutes of a biennial review. Of course physical constraints prevent her actually manipulating the controls (which was my point if you think about it), but she knows her stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86fVoioExE4

[Pilot.Lyons]

Haha legendary :)

[packo1848]

Haha! Brilliant, I guess a cat can land a plane better!:ok:

[Good Business Sense]

Never been there, never got the tee shirt - big gob !

[Armchairflyer]

Knew that vid but was so far unaware that this is your cat during a flight review. Respect! Wonder whether she'd comment with "my can-opener couldn't have done it worse", too ;).

[fujii]

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/504593-spitfire-incident-east-mids.html

How about some ill informed armchair analysis on this one. It hasn't been fully investigated yet or is it too close to home?

[jas24zzk]

Given you handily neglected to link in the thread, i'll bite :O


Its a spitfire...they do that. :ugh:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Spitfire Incident at East Mids

How about some ill informed armchair analysis on this one. It hasn't been fully investigated yet or is it too close to home?

Go ahead, be my guest. Who am I to doubt your ability to provide 'ill informed armchair analysis'. Given that there's no video of the Spit landing to analyse, unless you were there and witnessed it any comment on what happened and why would be, for sure, ill informed.

I will say it's very sad to hear of this mishap. It'll no doubt have resulted in a damaged prop and shock-loaded engine, neither of which are cheap on a Spit.

[jas24zzk]

If the report is to be believed, the engine damage shouldn't cost too much, the aircraft is owned by rolls-royce after all.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

That's good news. I was unfortunate enough to witness the fatal crash of Rolls Royce's previous Spitfire at the Woodford Air Show many years ago. Is this the same one rebuilt or a different aircraft?

[sapco2]

I'm not sure Its very constructive to tear a strip off someone who has walked away from an accident! Some valid points have been made about touch down technique though but these should be relayed constructively because aggressive criticism will have a hugely counter productive effect IMHO.

On some check flights I have noted a few pilots not being able to consistently land in the right place at the right speed, and on the centre line, particularly in crosswind conditions. It seems to me those students who have perfected the discipline of landing consistently on the centre line even in crosswinds will be very well equipped in handling this type of emergency.

[abgd]

Now all the PPL's who fly similar hardware have a good think about what you would do in similar circumstances.

I will throw some ideas out.

Engine off for the landing.

Forced landing glide approach

Yes, and probably before I started the round out because I think I would have enough to think about during the landing, and would want a few seconds to adjust to the handling without power.

Oddly, many of my best landings have been from glide approaches, so I would consider this after I was absolutely sure that I would make the runway.

Fast approach

Slow approach

Flat appoarch and a drive on at above stalling speed.

Land on the stall nose high.
Theoretically I would want to land with a minimal rate of descent at touchdown, possibly with the starboard wing somewhat raised.

I could understand why someone may not want to land at absolute minimum speed, as this risks stalling in from a foot or two over the runway. This may be enough to ram the damaged leg into the ground, snatching and causing a ground-loop. I had wondered whether this was the concern that led the pilot to land flatter than he might normally have done.

To be honest, I think I would try not to do anything too clever. Most of my landings on a PA28 were fairly smooth (much better than my landings on a C152) and to me, trying to do something new sounds like asking for trouble. After touchdown I would try and maintain the horizon horizontal by gradually turning the wheel to the port, and I would try to get the nosewheel on the ground before the damaged wheel. But I think that as a relatively low airtime pilot I would do better trying to do something normal, well, than trying to do something theoretically better but outside my capabilities.

I would use all 3 stages of flap (not certain whether the pilot in question did so or not) because though I worry the flaps may catch on the ground and get damaged - possibly causing severe damage to the aircraft - the landing speed could be so much lower that the risk of a catastrophic accident with serious injury etc. would be lower.

Burn fuel off or not.
run a tank empty or not.

I liked the suggestion about burning fuel off just from the starboard tank. Partly because I know how tired I can get after 4 hours in the air, and partly because that's the side without undercarriage, partly because this would lighten the wing and make it easier to hold off, and lastly because that's the side where the door is and I would prefer not to have a fire there!

Another consideration is that the gauges on the tanks aren't terribly reliable and I would rather burn off one tank completely but still retain a fair amount of fuel in the other, than aim to land with minimal fuel.

What control inputs would you expect.

What problems would you have faced getting out afterwards if the AFS wasn't waiting.

Land on tarmac or grass?

Plenty of time to divert to a big airport with a well equipped fire service, but may not offer the option of grass. Even if it did, I think I would prefer tarmac, and I would try to land on the port side of the runway so that if the plane swung to starboard it would have further to slide. On grass I would worry about the gear catching and flipping the aircraft onto its back.

I did wonder whether flying at a higher altitude to burn off fuel would be more or less fatiguing than flying at a lower level. 10,000 feet with the window open could be more bearable in terms of temperature than flying lower, but has other drawbacks. I don't have enough experience to know where the balance lies.

I would talk thoroughly to people on the ground prior to landing, but would ask for silence during the approach and landing. I once crashed a hang glider because I listened to my instructor telling me to perform S-turns which in retrospect really weren't necessary. I also once nearly flew into the hillside, and talking to people who had watched from the ground, it was interesting to see how different their impressions about what had happened were, and what their assumptions about my thought processes had been.

So there we go... Comments appreciated.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi abgd, there was one more factor that you missed... Land on tarmac or land on concrete. As it would be impossible to bury the leg in concrete, I would go for that option. (but maybe more sparks?)

[Mark1234]

I am of the understanding that the hard/grass debate is pretty much a no-brainer: I.e. hard every time, largely because you can slide on it. I'd also throw in the consideration that every grass strip i've landed on has been somewhat bumpy, and that the grass around the runway probably isn't maintained as a strip.

WRT sparking, most of a PA28 is aluminium. That doesn't spark when you put a grinder to it, so I can't see why it would spark on a runway. Granted there are some components that might.

Altitude wise, yes(ish!) Only time I chose to fly on a 40deg day in that part of the world it was +20 at 9500, and turbulent through 8000.

Silence - you could always turn the radio (and the rest of the avionics) off, justified on the grounds of reducing the fire risk :E

I've already given my prescription, but basically I reckon keep everything as 'normal' as possible about the arrival - less chance of messing it up, who cares about the damage-on the ground stuff like stopping the prop. If you normally fly a flapped, powered approach, doing a flapless glide is likely to result in a worse arrival. Overall I think a little too much is made of it - so long as it gets flown on in reasonable shape, under control, and doesn't have anything to hit, it should only be scary for the insurance company, rather than a 'thank god everyone survived'.. but maybe I'm wrong - they did see fit to stick up a restricted area, fly around for 4hrs, etc.

[taxistaxing]

Anyone know anything about the recent incident at Stapleford where a 172RG had to land without its nose gear deploying? I heard about it second hand but I gather fire brigade and paramedics were called, though thankfully not required. Not sure if its been reported yet. Happened in mid December.

I remember thinking when I heard about it, why didn't they divert to EGSX which is about 5nm away and has 2000m of tarmac? Hence wondering if there was a preference for landing on grass in these situations.

[dont overfil]

they did see fit to stick up a restricted area,

Flying rubberneckers cause serious problems when they stop to gawp:O

D.O.

[172driver]

Hence wondering if there was a preference for landing on grass in these situations.

Nope. The preference is landing on hard surface. Ideally with engine off and prop positioned horizontally.

[BackPacker]

Ideally with engine off and prop positioned horizontally.

Have you ever tried to stop the prop on a fixed-pitch prop aircraft in-flight? I did (in an R2160) and it required a half-G pushover so that I could fly well below stall speed. It would not stop windmilling even in a fully developed 1G stall with the mixture at ICO.

So although stopping the prop sounds nice in theory, in practice it's not going to work in such a scenario. The maneuvers required are too complex, especially if you've never done this before. And then you're faced with the challenge of making an engine-off approach and landing.

Furthermore, due to the aerodynamic forces the prop will stop at the position where it is building up compression in one of the cylinders. On a four-cylinder engine this means that the prop will stop at exactly the same orientation every time (plus or minus a few degrees). If it stops vertically, then you can blip the starter or try anything else, but next time it will stop vertically again. Only on a six-cylinder would you have a chance that the prop would get a different orientation at the next try.

Personally I'd make a normal, powered approach and pull the mixture just before or in the flare. Anything more than that is just greatly increasing the risk of a bad outcome.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally I'd make a normal, powered approach and pull the mixture just before or in the flare. Anything more than that is just greatly increasing the risk of a bad outcome.

Six pages of mostly Bo*llocks before we get to a sensible summation of what to do in this scenario.:D

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Six pages of mostly Bo*llocks before we get to a sensible summation of what to do in this scenario.
Possibly because it was so obvious to most of us (it was to me) that nobody thought it worth the effort of typing?

[BackPacker]

Thanks for the compliment.

However, in the back of my mind I cannot not get rid of that picture, made somewhere in the '60s, of a light aircraft (maybe a P28R) with a gear problem. They flew at low speed over the runway, with a pickup truck speeding underneath, and somebody reaching up from the back and pulling the wheel out.

How long would it take an engineer to reattach the PA28 wheel that had fallen off? He had four hours of fuel. That's maybe 40 passes over the runway. If you do it properly you could have about one hour of effective working time. Would that be enough?



Just trying to get the Bo*llocks back on track. It's been a good laugh so far.

[JEM60]

SSD. Someone reliable has informed me that it is the same Spitfire.

[Armchairflyer]

Mean that one?
Awesome rescue action for a plane - YouTube
Not sure though if the overall risk, especially for bodily harm, isn't much greater with this approach. (Even though the risk for PPRuNe criticism concerning airplane handling is probably much smaller.)

[BackPacker]

Yeah, that's the one.

BTW to what extent do you need to worry about static electricity in such a scenario? I know this is a big issue with helicopters doing winching and such.

[mad_jock]

Oh BTW

I reckon a plan while in the air and tell anyone thats talking to you and destracting you to standby.

And doing everything as you would do normally, unlatch the doors before the approach and pull the mixture in the flare and master switch off.

Land on a hard surface if possible.

But to be honest as much as SSD came across a bit harsh. The likelyhood of you coming to grief is quite remote. Especially if the fire service is waiting for you to land.

As for the static I don't have a clue the car will be insulated from earth by the tyres but I would presume there would be a difference in PD between aircraft and the person. How much of a belt that would give you I don't know.

[jas24zzk]

A couple of things.
Trying to work backwards.....

BAckpacker...nice theory on the ute ride to re-attatch a new wheel. Whilst it worked on a P28R, what you propose is a whole lot more complex. It's hard enough to do with the aircraft on jacks...i have done it yes.

Also on backpackers comments, forgetting airflow, if you take note of aircraft shut down, of the propellor position, you can actually pick a Pa-28 151 from a 161 simply from the propellor stopped position...theres about 20 degree of difference on a correctly rigged aircraft.


------------
Concrete Vs bitumen.
Most airports in australia with sealed surfaces RARELY utilise concrete. The only concrete and Mangalore where this happened, is in the beer garden.

Mangalore is big enough that it actually qualifies as an EMERGENCY alternate for aircraft as big as a 747. You can't taxi anywhere on it in something that big, but at least you can stop

-----------------------

Burning fuel off prior to a 'controlled crash'

Some food for thought there....had a discussion up at the aero club tonite about this incident, with a lot of feedback from our highly experienced CFI.

Do you A.. burn the fuel off or B land tanks full.

After the discussion i think i might opt for B.

Its not the fuel that causes the bang, its the vapour. If you burn the fuel off, then your tanks are full of vapour.
Think about what you should know about a stoichimetric mixture.

------------------------------

172 driver said..........
Nope. The preference is landing on hard surface. Ideally with engine off and prop positioned horizontally.

First part i agree with 100%
Second part I also agree with....if only to save the insurer money.
Where i lose consensus, that how hard it is it to get that prop stopped horizontally.

Next time you go play with an aeroplane, try doing exactly that on the ground. when you realise how hard it is, then take into account what backpacker said about windmill effect and what is needed to actually get the prop stopped.

I will go with my CFI, forget cutting the engine, it is an OWT. You cut the engine you remove an option of going around for another go at the last second. Going with the stop the prop...you kill the engine at the last second, you won't get it stopped anyway, prop makes contact, and its still a bulk strip. The only thing you have done is, increase your workload and reduce your options. Remember, once it all goes pear shaped, the insurer owns it, give yourself the best options....and a live engine has more options than a dead one.

-----------------------------
Restricted Area around Mangalore During the incident.

Mangalore is a very busy training drome, it is also heavily utilised by pilots heading north from melbourne as a waypoint to avoid nearby military airspace. On that particular day, a total fire ban was in place. The whole region is tinder dry and ripe for another firestorm like we had in 2009. The airspace was closed for 2 reasons. 1. to give the pilot unhindered space to manouver, and 2. to allow space for airborne firefighting assets to position should they be needed for an early strike should the unthinkable happen.

Cheers
Jas

[stevef]

A flash fire from an almost empty tank would certainly be spectacular for a moment but maybe not as much as 20 gallons of avgas and its subsequent vapour escaping from a punctured wing. :)

[Echo Romeo]

SSD. Someone reliable has informed me that it is the same Spitfire.

I thought the Rolls Royce Spitfire in that accident was completely destroyed.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I thought the Rolls Royce Spitfire in that accident was completely destroyed.

I thought that too when I saw it happen, but apparently large parts of the structure were recovered.

[tecman]

It's been entertaining reading some of the more thoughtful analyses - always good to think about formulating our own emergency plans. There's no doubt that this could have turned out much, much worse, particularly with the atrocious weather conditions we've been experiencing across much of Australia recently. I give credit to a relatively low-time pilot for walking away from what's probably a salvageable aircraft (maybe). However, most of us would have hoped we could have done better.

What surprises me is how many writers are unfamiliar with the characteristics of airline trainees as a group. I'm a moderately experienced PPL and have flown quite a bit on both the east and west coasts. Whatever future attributes these guys may develop, the sausage factory approach to training (often international) airline pilots here in Aust produces some pretty marginal low-time operators. Flying around Perth these days I observe very regular examples of poor stick and rudder skills, poor judgement, marginal situational awareness and plain poor communication. Local pilots can be guilty of all of these things and more, but I'm frequently amazed at how much trouble some 'professional' airline trainees seem to have in simple matters such as arriving at an uncontrolled aerodrome, assessing the prevailing weather and traffic situation, joining the circuit in a safe and convenient fashion, conveying their intentions, and so on.

I disregard the more extreme urban myths - of which there are many - about trainee airline pilots but my own observations make me think that the Mangalore outcome is pretty much as I'd expect or, in truth, a bit better. I don't think that being a professional ATPL precludes a love of aviation and a mastery of basic flying and judgement skills (!) The game is littered with examples of great flying by people I, for one, would aspire to emulate. Sadly, my own observation of, and conversation with, some of the airline trainees makes me wonder if the sausage factories will ever produce such pilots.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I Agree whole heartedly with tecman, being a CPL student especially one in a nothing to ATPL environment, does not equate to good airman ship or skill. I have seen some pretty ropey aviating from chaps (and chapettes) who have more hours on me. Whole field landings, 16 mile downwind legs, and turns which look like side slips to name a few... not even mentioning some of the most incompetent RT i have ever heard .. position reporting being the worst culprit. That landing was terrible but i'm not sure i'd have done that much better,...