Overweight landings and aircraft checks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overweight landings and aircraft checks
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
QuEsT147
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
QuEsT147
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minneapolis Mn USA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: CGK to HKG
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard
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
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
Join Date: May 2007
Location: nt
Age: 43
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Middle East
Age: 52
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .........
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 .........
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 !!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Middle East
Age: 52
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Keep discovering
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
Keep discovering
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Middle East
Age: 52
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
After a flight crew report of a hard/hard overweight landing, you must do the inspection that follows before the subsequent flight.
AND
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 ???
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 ???
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
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
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: CGK to HKG
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harder landing
As stated in 3.B.(1), the primary source to identify a suspected hard landing is the flight crew
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
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No competent pilot would ever let a hard landing go unreported. After all it maybe his a$$ sitting in the left hand seat when the damage he caused, decides to make itself known.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cardiff
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No competent pilot would ever let a hard landing go unreported. After all it maybe his a$$ sitting in the left hand seat when the damage he caused, decides to make itself known.
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
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a Pilot Decision to report a Hard/ or Overweight LDG. No entry no work
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.
It depends.....
It is a Pilot Decision to report a Hard/ or Overweight LDG. No entry no work
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
) 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...
