Really Hard Landing 3.5g
If the thrust levers are still in the CLB detent after a bounced landing the Ground Spoilers will deploy fully and result in a very hard second touchdown. SOP is an immediate TOGA + 10 in this situation.
Only half a speed-brake
NSTP: on an Airbus (since you're using the lingo) it would be a very unconvential thing to have TLs in CLB after a bounce (non-autoland). Would the trust not come up automatically to maintain VLS as the spoliers extend?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only 3.5 g
'g' is not the best way of determining a hard landing. The limits actually depend on weight, vertical descent rate, and vertical accelleration.
http://essi.easa.europa.eu/ecast/wp-...d-landings.pdf
A hard landing requiring a check is often considered to be over 450 ft/min, but that does not mean much if you are well under MLW. Normal certification limit is 600 ft/ min at MLW, without airframe deformation (equating to 2.5g, I think ??).
But since most pilots cannot tell a 2g from a 3g landing, it is difficult to know when to report. And even the aircraft g-meters do not tell the truth. When Boeing fitted more accurate additional g-meters they showed much less g than the max g. (I think these g readings are in addition to normal 1 g.)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...onal_fig1.html
The rule of thumb used to be that if the rubber jungle did not come down, she was good to fly.... ;-)
http://essi.easa.europa.eu/ecast/wp-...d-landings.pdf
A hard landing requiring a check is often considered to be over 450 ft/min, but that does not mean much if you are well under MLW. Normal certification limit is 600 ft/ min at MLW, without airframe deformation (equating to 2.5g, I think ??).
But since most pilots cannot tell a 2g from a 3g landing, it is difficult to know when to report. And even the aircraft g-meters do not tell the truth. When Boeing fitted more accurate additional g-meters they showed much less g than the max g. (I think these g readings are in addition to normal 1 g.)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...onal_fig1.html
The rule of thumb used to be that if the rubber jungle did not come down, she was good to fly.... ;-)
@FlightDetent, True very unconventional but I've seen it done 
.The Thrust Levers are in the CL detent until the RETARD prompt, at which time you should be moving the levers to IDLE, if you don't and you bounce the SEC logic will deploy the ground spoilers fully and down you go 
.The Thrust Levers are in the CL detent until the RETARD prompt, at which time you should be moving the levers to IDLE, if you don't and you bounce the SEC logic will deploy the ground spoilers fully and down you go
Guest
Posts: n/a
My Post 8 and
In our case (744) most of the rubber jungle came down, many ceiling panels, and luggage flew out of lockers which had burst open. People complained of sore necks, knees, backs and other parts.
People were demanding that the cabin crew have an announcement made from the flight deck. The response brought back from the flight deck was:
"It would not be British to comment on the operation of the aircraft". Cue considerable anger and ire directed against the Company, the cabin crew and the flight deck crew. With my very limited knowledge of the aircraft I suggested that the Captain be advised that a check of the airframe would not be out of order.
Nothing heard.
The flight continued to Philly, some people left the flight, it departed on schedule and arrived safely.
In hindsight I should have got off with my family too.
...if the rubber jungle did not come down, she was good to fly
People were demanding that the cabin crew have an announcement made from the flight deck. The response brought back from the flight deck was:
"It would not be British to comment on the operation of the aircraft". Cue considerable anger and ire directed against the Company, the cabin crew and the flight deck crew. With my very limited knowledge of the aircraft I suggested that the Captain be advised that a check of the airframe would not be out of order.
Nothing heard.
The flight continued to Philly, some people left the flight, it departed on schedule and arrived safely.
In hindsight I should have got off with my family too.
The relationship between descent rate and g isn't as straightforward as that - it's basically a function of the bits that squash and bounce (tyres, oleos, etc)..
and there was me thinking that g was an acceleration [or a negative acceleration]. Its units are "distance per time per time" ie a rate of change.
Surely when landing the value of g is derived by the change from final descent rate to zero in the time for the squashy bits to squash?
Surely when landing the value of g is derived by the change from final descent rate to zero in the time for the squashy bits to squash?
A bit late on the round out (flair) Hoskins…
Any pilot reading this post who says they haven't ever planted it are lying or haven't been flying long enough… IMHO.. Nobody is infallible.
Altho, the wrinkling of the fuselage skin aft of the reg mark might well require a touch of body filler.
Nobody hurt I'm very glad to say.
Out of interest, I did what I considered a very firm landing a few years ago into a Greek island. landing distance/wind/weather was not a factor, I was just very tired, and the RADALT CALLOUT didn't call out! Glad to say the FO shouted out!
Late flair, and not too bad, but enough to make me ask the FMGC about a load 15.
Any pilot reading this post who says they haven't ever planted it are lying or haven't been flying long enough… IMHO.. Nobody is infallible.
Altho, the wrinkling of the fuselage skin aft of the reg mark might well require a touch of body filler.
Nobody hurt I'm very glad to say.
Out of interest, I did what I considered a very firm landing a few years ago into a Greek island. landing distance/wind/weather was not a factor, I was just very tired, and the RADALT CALLOUT didn't call out! Glad to say the FO shouted out!
Late flair, and not too bad, but enough to make me ask the FMGC about a load 15.
Last edited by fokker1000; 5th Sep 2016 at 17:14. Reason: extra comment
Surely when landing the value of g is derived by the change from final descent rate to zero in the time for the squashy bits to squash?
langleybaston is offline Report Post
langleybaston is offline Report Post
I remember reading a story years ago about a US heavy jet crew who hammered it in good and proper at a local airport, after taxing off the runway they came across a small homebuilt being taxied out. "Hey, that's a funny looking airplane, d'ya build it yourself?" they transmitted. "I did" came the reply "and if you do a few more landings like that I'll have enough bits for another one"
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always include that bit about flaring in the approach briefing.
Since we all know men can't multi-task, I ask my colleague whether he prefers me to flare or de-crab, since I can't do both at once.
Good for a few giggles usually. Until I
it up and they think I did it on purpose.
Since we all know men can't multi-task, I ask my colleague whether he prefers me to flare or de-crab, since I can't do both at once.
Good for a few giggles usually. Until I
it up and they think I did it on purpose.
'' and the less safe, though most economic, decision was made to make the return flight with passengers. ''
says it all really.......
says it all really.......
Actually the report doesn't just say that. It's even more blunt:
"The decision made after the event to continue to operate the airplane with passengers was risky and unsafe"
"The decision made after the event to continue to operate the airplane with passengers was risky and unsafe"
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 20th Dec 2017 at 08:53.
Only half a speed-brake
TRI does not know how to pull REP15. MCC does not know how to interpret it. Hmmmm, 2x.
There's not much what the individual pilot can learn from this report, which is a huge organizational elephant and actually poses more questions than answers.
Except this one: "the bus" needs to be flow THROUGH 50 FT with proper pitch (2-3 deg) and stick released. Other than that, i.e. any active lateral input at the 50 stab trim freeze gate and your're for an unexpected ride in the flare.
With a heavy A321 and a nose-down input, it is one of those experiences that you try hard for the rest of your life to make sure once was enough.
There's not much what the individual pilot can learn from this report, which is a huge organizational elephant and actually poses more questions than answers.
Except this one: "the bus" needs to be flow THROUGH 50 FT with proper pitch (2-3 deg) and stick released. Other than that, i.e. any active lateral input at the 50 stab trim freeze gate and your're for an unexpected ride in the flare.
With a heavy A321 and a nose-down input, it is one of those experiences that you try hard for the rest of your life to make sure once was enough.
There is no question that the pilots would have known that they'd had a heavy landing
However, in this Germania case - it clearly was a hard landing with that level of damage.
BTW: Germania had one lemon A321. Don't now if it is this one. The one I mean was acquired second hand from Tunisia IIRC. Lot's of pains with repairs and cancelled flights when it was "new". (Before that incident)
Thanks for clarifying.