Overweight landings and aircraft checks

[QuEsT147]

Hi all

had a discussion with a coleague recently regarding overweight landings and following aircraft checks. AFAIK you dont need to send the aircraft for the inspection if vertical speed at touchdown is less than 360 ft/min at MTOW, no matter how many overweight landings you make.

But he said, that even if this is true, no limit values exceeded, you still have to send the aircraft for inspection after certain number of overweight landigs, regardless of how low the touchdown vertical speed was.

Who is right?

Thanks for your opinions, gentlemen:ok:

QuEsT147

[Rigga]

Heavy Landing checks are VERY specific to type.

I've never seen that parameter before - So I assume you can define that level of force after the event?

[QuEsT147]

Hi Rigga

Which parameter do you mean? The number of OW landings before inspection?

Rgds

QuEsT147

[BigJoeRice]

The particular aircraft A.M.M. Chapter 5 (Conditional Inspections) will spell out what constitutes a hard landing and an overweight landing and the inspections that are required. You're usually sent to pull the DFDR readouts by the crew reporting a hard or overweight landing. For those aircraft that lack sophisticated DFDR's the crew's report is about all you have to go on and that's always worked for me.

For example the B777-200 AMM says:

"An indication of a hard landing on the main landing gear is a peak recorded vertical
acceleration that exceeds 1.9 G (incremental 0.9 G). This vertical accelerometer data must be measured by the flight data recorder accelerometer at a data sampling rate of at least eight (8) samples per second. This vertical acceleration G-level threshold is valid for a conventional landing with impact with no more than two (2) degrees of airplane roll, main landing gear touchdown first and normal rotation onto the nose gear".

And for an overweight landing, the same manual says;

"When the airplane lands at a weight that is above the maximum-design-landing weight (MLW), it is an overweight landing".

There are no caveats for accumuluation or deferrals of inspections in the B777 manual and I can't say I've ever seen one, but then I don't know everything; as far as I know one hard landing equals one hard landing inspection, with the same constraint for overweight landings.

[Tinwacker]

BigJoe,
I agree with that statement and will add that my companies aircraft will auto print a report if the parameters are exceeded.
An OW aircraft is easy to determine but a Hard Landing is just how your bottom fits into the seat and is very individual when being reported.
With an auto report the engineers have the correct vert speeds at touchdown and can carry out the ATA 5 phase inspections accordingly.

We carry a QAR disc that will be removed at mainbase for deeper analysis as routine monitoring.

Not read any accumalation of events and certainly no deferals.

TW

[QuEsT147]

Hi all

Thanks for your answers, much appreciated

QuEsT147

[ernie blackhander]

According to one of our tech reps said (in a texan drawl)"If you have popped a G switch it probably was a hard landing, if you popped both it was def a hard landing" This only came about after a conehead contacted the rep about losing a channel on the dfdr when one of these switches popped. If in doubt contact your rep, thats what they get paid to do.

[h3dxb]

Gents

Boeing had it already and Airbus also change the AMM now.
Regardsless of the Hard LDG Report on Boeing and Loadreport 15 on AB.

It is a Pilot Decision to report a Hard/ or Overweight LDG. No entry no work :ugh:

Even with a report auto print out or downlinked our hands are tighten.....

[mono]

h3dxb,

With all due respect Bo##ocks.

If a report 15 is generated or DFDR/QAR data shows a hard landing then you HAVE to do the inspection unless you can prove it is spurious. pilots have been known to cover their errors and not report hard landings.

I know of several instances when report 15's were generated with no crew entry including 2 where the gear wouldn't retract due to MLG damage resulting in oleo overextension (the torque links were the only thing holding the inner cylinder in place). These were subject to an AIB investigation.

Ignore a report 15 at your peril. Remember (in my company at least) a check of cfds printouts is a transit requirement and if you certify .........:=

[bvcu]

The 777 manual leaves it to the crew to report a hard landing , so the aircraft will trigger a report which we have automatically downlinked to MCC. If the crew dont report it then it didnt happen......... Think its down to the operator as if the report is triggered it means it has landed hard. The Airbus 330/340 tells you to do an inspection if the report is triggerred. Guess this is only an issue if you're going to a transit station with no LAE present !! Seen a few on both types but have never found any evidence of damage on inspection . Only bad one i've seen was an unreported one on a 757 a few years ago which caused a fuel leak on spar line of inboard wing , when QAR was read it was hard and overweight . The giveaway was movement of 'pins' on undercarriage withe sealant and paint cracked where everything had moved !!

[h3dxb]

Excuse me Mono.

I work in a MCC of a big carrier. No Pilot Entry in techlog no hard landing. What You do is yr thing, AMM states : The Pilot has to make the decision. I don't wanna see You in trouble ,when You prove a flying ballerina had a hard impact :eek:

Keep discovering

[IFixPlanes]

Boys keep cool.
If you clarify the type of aircraft we are talking about, then we can talk about the solution.
I.e. :
A340-300 the AMM say:
After a flight crew report of a hard/hard overweight landing, you must do the inspection that follows before the subsequent flight.

A340-600 the AMM say:
After a flight crew report of a hard landing/hard overweight landing or when a load report 15 is generated with trigger code 4XXX other than 4000, you must do the inspection that follows before the subsequent flight.

MCC :D

[h3dxb]

Mr. IfixPlanes,

B777 AMM states:
(2)

The pilot must make a decision if a structural examination is necessary.

(a)

The AMM thresholds are intended to aid the flight crew in making their decision, not replace the flight crew's judgement of a hard landing. Boeing has no objection if an operator, at the operator's discretion, chooses to use the AMM values and FDR data to trigger a hard landing inspection in addition to flight crew judgement.


A330 AMM states:

1.
Reason for the Job

After a flight crew report of a hard/hard overweight landing, you must do the inspection that follows before the subsequent flight.

AND

e)
Load report 15:
-
As stated in 3.B.(1), the primary source to identify a suspected hard landing is the flight crew







Questions ?? Ofcourse the final decision is with the carrier how to handle it, I worked for a carrier where pilots got fired due to loadreports. So this is a sensitive issue.

Near EDDF sounds like HAHN ?? Heavy Crosswind and some hard landings ???

[IFixPlanes]

Why are you so harmful?
My location is near EDDF not EDFH. I have nothing to do with FR.

To the topic:
I give only an example in conjunction with the A340 and wrote that it depends on the aircraft and its configuration.
If you can, check the A340 AMM for my quotes. The red text belongs to "Config 02" aircrafts.

[Fargoo]

h3dxb Gents

Boeing had it already and Airbus also change the AMM now.
Regardsless of the Hard LDG Report on Boeing and Loadreport 15 on AB.

It is a Pilot Decision to report a Hard/ or Overweight LDG. No entry no work

Even with a report auto print out or downlinked our hands are tighten.....

Then may I respectfully suggest that you have allowed to develop a situation in your MCC which is not conducive to flight safety.

If the crew are fearful of reporting hard landings in case they're "released from contract" and you and your colleagues in MCC are fearful of taking action on hard data from the aircraft who exactly has the passengers safety and airworthiness of the aircraft in mind?? Not a good situation by any stretch :ugh:

[Tinwacker]

As stated in 3.B.(1), the primary source to identify a suspected hard landing is the flight crew

True, as the first course of action but there is more to that paragraph as the following was added after my company discovered to it's cost.

2 weeks after an event with no crew report, and analysing what was a random report 15 data sheet which was not clear at first hand.
Got an understanding how to translate the code 4xxx after sending the data to Airbus. We discovered that particular aircraft was grounded and required both main gears to be replaced - hey what a shock for us...

'Therefore, triggering of a load report 15 does not necessarily mean that a hard landing has occurred.
A single parameter in the data will cause a trigger but that is for you to explore if coded 4xxx. my words.
Nevertheless, there have been cases on which load report 15 has triggered without pilot report and subsequent investigation has confirmed the hard landing. Hence Airbus recommends that whenever load report 15 is generated with trigger code 4XXX other than 4000, it should be systematically investigated and handled as a suspected hard landing and classified as detailed in subtask 05-51-11-941-056 B.(3) "Action following a confirmed hard/overweight landing".'

Added and amended to the AMM after my companies finding....

TW

[glhcarl]

No competent pilot would ever let a hard landing go unreported. After all it maybe his a$$ sitting in the left hand seat when the damage he caused, decides to make itself known.

[ivor toolbox]

No competent pilot would ever let a hard landing go unreported. After all it maybe his a$$ sitting in the left hand seat when the damage he caused, decides to make itself known.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case, for the reasons outlined
already (job fears etc), and not all aircraft are Airbus or Boeing
either.

In my last outfit ,one aircraft was grounded for 'heavy' landing checks
(ie over Max Landing Weight) some two weeks after the event when the JAR-OPS QA audit turned up a loadsheet discrepancy.

With regard to 'hard' landings (excess vertical speed at touchdown)
many of these events went away after a programme of regular DFDR d/loads was introduced.

In all cases, as said earlier, follow the AMM!!

ttfn

[muduckace]

It is a Pilot Decision to report a Hard/ or Overweight LDG. No entry no work

Yeah, when a 747 has one and the crew does not to admit it, you end up with crunched flaps as they often shift on a hard landing and crew are supposed to leave them extended, I can only speak of Classics.

The hard landing indicator on the dc-10/md-11 is the positive pressure relief valves, a hard landing knocks them open over the flapper every time.

But unfortunately you are correct for most cases, unless you end up with a random DFDR dump that would reveal the hard landing, a DFDR read is the only definitive way to determing the ft/second impact.

[TURIN]

It is a Pilot Decision to report a Hard/ or Overweight LDG. No entry no work

Not necessarily. :=

Depends on airline policy and their interpretation of the AMM. As has been said, the A330/340 AMM recommends to carry out the checks if the Load Report 15 is generated. However some airlines 'choose' to opt for the pilot decision process. Others insist that an investigation is conducted to determine if an inspection is required based on the Load report 15. If the data sheet is not printed out on the flightdeck (or it is mysteriously lost:suspect:) Then on occasion the airline's Maint Ctl Ctr will call and ask the LAE on duty to perform the investigation. Usually about 5 mins before departure time...:rolleyes: