blaming pilots for heavy landings?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: wales
Age: 35
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blaming pilots for heavy landings?
Out of the different factors that can contribute to a heavy landing, what are the ones that contribute significantly and what is the extent of the impact of pilot error. Ive been told that it can be the prime factor sometimes.
Also are there any contributory factors which can result in lightning strikes?
Also are there any contributory factors which can result in lightning strikes?
The term "pilot error" I hate with a vengeance - nobody aims to screw up, and it makes it easy to punish somebody who was trying to do their best.
Why might a hard landing occur? I can think of several potential factors:
- Insufficient pitch-up during landing flare.
- Incorrect (too high, or too low) approach speed.
- Incorrect (too high, or too low) rotate height.
Why do these things happen? Insufficient recency, incorrect calculation of landing weight, or approach speed from landing weight, distraction during the approach and landing causing an error.
I disagree with Matkat about incorrect altimeter settings. On anything without autoland, the final flare should be visual, whilst anything with autoland will be using radalt to trigger roundout and flare.
G
Why might a hard landing occur? I can think of several potential factors:
- Insufficient pitch-up during landing flare.
- Incorrect (too high, or too low) approach speed.
- Incorrect (too high, or too low) rotate height.
Why do these things happen? Insufficient recency, incorrect calculation of landing weight, or approach speed from landing weight, distraction during the approach and landing causing an error.
I disagree with Matkat about incorrect altimeter settings. On anything without autoland, the final flare should be visual, whilst anything with autoland will be using radalt to trigger roundout and flare.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: wales
Age: 35
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@alber yeah dude 15,000 words dissertation this one. 
Ideas here give me topics to research in detail since im expected to produce a piece of work with little help from people who actually get paid to help
Thanks guys for the replies. I agree with u GTE. Same term is used for engineers as well. I guess its because of the lack of a better term,that is the only term that can be used since it has an element of "unaware", better then mistake for instance which would imply a deliberate error.
Anyhow thanks for the ideas.
I have heard some aircraft use LSS (lightning strike sensor ?) to avoid lightning strikes. Can anyone elaborate on the functions if any such system exists?
Ideas here give me topics to research in detail since im expected to produce a piece of work with little help from people who actually get paid to help
Thanks guys for the replies. I agree with u GTE. Same term is used for engineers as well. I guess its because of the lack of a better term,that is the only term that can be used since it has an element of "unaware", better then mistake for instance which would imply a deliberate error.
Anyhow thanks for the ideas.
I have heard some aircraft use LSS (lightning strike sensor ?) to avoid lightning strikes. Can anyone elaborate on the functions if any such system exists?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Carry be Anne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gross weight is a critical factor when handling big jets. They carry a lot of inertia.
The crew only know how heavy their aircraft is, because somebody at load control has told them. These figures in reality can be miles off. I'm not sure what the exact figures are, but there is a predetermined figure for a man and a woman. I bet if everyone was weighed prior to boarding, there would be a huge difference between estimated and actual weight.
If the GW is wrong, then the landing speed is wrong, which could result in a hard or heavy landing.
A "Heavy landing" which is when the a/c exceeds landing weight. Usually in non-standard situations such as a diversion or emergency with too much fuel on board. They should be prepared for this and fly accordingly, so you can't really "blame" them for a heavy landing
A hard landing is when they land with a bump!
Airbusses love to tell tales and spit out a LOAD 15 landing report after a hard or heavy landing.
Here's an example Air Accidents Investigation: Download PDF document
The crew only know how heavy their aircraft is, because somebody at load control has told them. These figures in reality can be miles off. I'm not sure what the exact figures are, but there is a predetermined figure for a man and a woman. I bet if everyone was weighed prior to boarding, there would be a huge difference between estimated and actual weight.
If the GW is wrong, then the landing speed is wrong, which could result in a hard or heavy landing.
A "Heavy landing" which is when the a/c exceeds landing weight. Usually in non-standard situations such as a diversion or emergency with too much fuel on board. They should be prepared for this and fly accordingly, so you can't really "blame" them for a heavy landing
A hard landing is when they land with a bump!
Airbusses love to tell tales and spit out a LOAD 15 landing report after a hard or heavy landing.
Here's an example Air Accidents Investigation: Download PDF document
Last edited by winglit; 13th Dec 2010 at 21:11.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Carry be Anne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightning strikes are in reality are difficult to avoid. Obviously, the avoidance of storm clouds is taken as read. However, to avoid embedded CBs you are solely reliant on your WX radar.
Radar technology and interpretation is taken on "best guess" principles. Weather prediction is not an exact science.
This is where engineers come into play. To realise the importance of airframe bonding. I have seen first hand the result of a poorly bonded elevator on a B757. The aircraft was hit by lightning on short final to landing, probably about 200 or 300 ft high. A lightning strike this low causes more damage, especially if the lightning hits the ground, which it did in this case. It exited through the wicks on the tail and blew them all off. On a close inspection of the one of the elevators, the hinge bearings (qty 9 in total) five of them had completely disintegrated.
Radar technology and interpretation is taken on "best guess" principles. Weather prediction is not an exact science.
This is where engineers come into play. To realise the importance of airframe bonding. I have seen first hand the result of a poorly bonded elevator on a B757. The aircraft was hit by lightning on short final to landing, probably about 200 or 300 ft high. A lightning strike this low causes more damage, especially if the lightning hits the ground, which it did in this case. It exited through the wicks on the tail and blew them all off. On a close inspection of the one of the elevators, the hinge bearings (qty 9 in total) five of them had completely disintegrated.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: everywhere
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
Probably the most common cause of hard landings seems to be being ignored here.
Heavy landings in a high percentage of cases are actually caused by external factors and the pilot's ability to react to them, or indeed anticipate them, which itself can be related to such things as experience or even fatigue levels and the available met information.
For example, a quick swing of wind direction on short final can affect the airspeed relative to a particular engine thrust setting.
A change from a relative tailwind to a relative headwind on short final will require an increase in engine thrust to arrest the resultant airspeed decay associated with maintaining a given glide path. Failure to do so in a timely fashion will result in a loss of airspeed and hence lift, thus increasing the aircraft's sink rate. My last "firm" arrival was just this scenario.
The reaction time required in such a situation is so small that a certain degree of anticipation is required. This only comes with experience. However experience does not guarantee you will see it coming. I'm sure I have plenty more firm ones left in my career. Having a landing that requires an inspection is something I hope to continue to avoid however!
Aircraft design is also a factor. Some aircraft are more speed stable than others and react a lot more benignly to changes in external conditions.
For example, stretched NG models of the 737 require more active speed/thrust control than some of the classic models. It is noted that the -300 is probably the optimum model in terms of airspeed stability.
Handling errors are also a factor. They can happen across the experience spectrum but a graph would show a reduction in frequency among pilots with higher hours . Handling errors can include either early flare or early thrust retardation or indeed both.
Interesting topic.
Probably the most common cause of hard landings seems to be being ignored here.
Heavy landings in a high percentage of cases are actually caused by external factors and the pilot's ability to react to them, or indeed anticipate them, which itself can be related to such things as experience or even fatigue levels and the available met information.
For example, a quick swing of wind direction on short final can affect the airspeed relative to a particular engine thrust setting.
A change from a relative tailwind to a relative headwind on short final will require an increase in engine thrust to arrest the resultant airspeed decay associated with maintaining a given glide path. Failure to do so in a timely fashion will result in a loss of airspeed and hence lift, thus increasing the aircraft's sink rate. My last "firm" arrival was just this scenario.
The reaction time required in such a situation is so small that a certain degree of anticipation is required. This only comes with experience. However experience does not guarantee you will see it coming. I'm sure I have plenty more firm ones left in my career. Having a landing that requires an inspection is something I hope to continue to avoid however!
Aircraft design is also a factor. Some aircraft are more speed stable than others and react a lot more benignly to changes in external conditions.
For example, stretched NG models of the 737 require more active speed/thrust control than some of the classic models. It is noted that the -300 is probably the optimum model in terms of airspeed stability.
Handling errors are also a factor. They can happen across the experience spectrum but a graph would show a reduction in frequency among pilots with higher hours . Handling errors can include either early flare or early thrust retardation or indeed both.
Interesting topic.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis, several years ago I was in the cockpit of a DC8-73 landing at Bru, we did indeed experience I hard landing due to incorrect altimeter setting IIRC the crew forgot to set the altimeter to transition level therefore giving incorrect height for flare it was at night and we hit so hard the FEs glasses fell of and I could hardly walk due to jarred back.
Mistrust in Management
Matkat
I agree with Genghis on this. The flare is judged visually (with prompts given aurally from Radio Altimeter information on certain types}
Failure to set QNH should make no difference to the outcome of the landing touchdown - sounds to me if the crew were having a bit of a 'bad day'.
Regards
Exeng
Failure to set QNH should make no difference to the outcome of the landing touchdown - sounds to me if the crew were having a bit of a 'bad day'.
Regards
Exeng
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: wales
Age: 35
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that they are synonyms ?
In the United States, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) coding manual defines hard landing as “stalling onto or flying into a runway or other intended landing area with abnormally high vertical speed.”
According to Boeing any contact with a landing surface or otherwise (ditching etc) with a G load in excess of 2.0G's constitutes a "Heavy landing”.
so i guess i mean both
In the United States, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) coding manual defines hard landing as “stalling onto or flying into a runway or other intended landing area with abnormally high vertical speed.”
According to Boeing any contact with a landing surface or otherwise (ditching etc) with a G load in excess of 2.0G's constitutes a "Heavy landing”.
so i guess i mean both
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I remember reading a RFC WW1 board of enquiry report into a crash at the time and the conclusion was that the accident occured due to a "lack of lift in the air" 
I agree with u GTE. Same term is used for engineers as well. I guess its because of the lack of a better term,that is the only term that can be used since it has an element of "unaware", better then mistake for instance which would imply a deliberate error.
Mistakes are are an error sub type (Actions go as planned,but the plan was inadequate).No such thing as a deliberate 'error',by their very nature they're unintentional.
Stating the cause of a mishap is 'Human Error" is meaningless.If the causes of the error arn't fully investigated ,the players are often unfairly treated & the causal factors remain hidden (latent) & can lead to a similar error.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A late flare on an aircraft with gear aft of the center of lift created a bounce high enough to hear 30 on the RA call out a 2nd time as we stalled back towards the runway. I forget which landing was harder the first or 2nd.
Type was DC10-30, is this a common factor in many other type aircraft?
To add this bit as well, the PPRV is a fine indicator of this type aircraft, they will open most times. The 747 classic was known for the fowler flaps to shift, seen twice where the pilot did not feel the landing was hard or not want to admit it and raised the flaps causing significant damage.
Type was DC10-30, is this a common factor in many other type aircraft?
To add this bit as well, the PPRV is a fine indicator of this type aircraft, they will open most times. The 747 classic was known for the fowler flaps to shift, seen twice where the pilot did not feel the landing was hard or not want to admit it and raised the flaps causing significant damage.
In this scribe's view there is nothing inheritantly wrong with the term "Pilot Error". A late flare and subsequent hard touchdown by an experienced captain or a inexperienced first officer for example. Incorrect use of radar tilt control by the pilot which results in flying through a thunderstorm top and causing mayhem down the back, is pilot error. Taxiing too fast for the conditions causing a FA to be thrown to one side is pilot error. The reason for taxiing too fast may be because the pilot is late for a party that night. Still makes it pilot error.
Let's not be coy about this term. Political correctness has no place in this game. On the other hand there were many incidents/accidents in the old days conveniently labelled as pilot error when they were not.
Let's not be coy about this term. Political correctness has no place in this game. On the other hand there were many incidents/accidents in the old days conveniently labelled as pilot error when they were not.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not be coy about this term. Political correctness has no place in this game. On the other hand there were many incidents/accidents in the old days conveniently labelled as pilot error when they were not.
Pilot error Is PC. Fact is often it is a result of a failure of prepardness. The term "flying ahead of your aircraft" is often key, this is not a factor when the PF encounters a flight environment he can not prepare for. Complacent behavior in the cockpit is probably a common mindset, hours after hours of monotinous duty then the expectation to react (out of this state) is a tall order. To me it is a acceptable factor. How many passengers could ask themselves to be allert after being confined to a seat performing menial tasks for 8 hrs then be expected to have a sharp mindset diring the last 15 minutes of a flight. Or the short haul driver that does the same route/routine day in day out. Often this all results in an over confident mindset/human factors.
Only EGO will argue differently.....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perfectly good landings can be made without instruments and anybody who uses a barometric altimeter to judge when to flare really ought to change jobs. However, assuming we have a serviceable aircraft, a normal landing is the result of a stabilised approach flown (for the last 500' to 1,000') in the correct configuration at the correct airspeed with the appropriate power setting. The moment we have an unstablised approach, we increase the chances of having shall we say, an untidy arrival. Once we have flown a stabilised approach, all we have to do is flare at the correct height and allow the aircraft to land.
I'll leave it to others to come up with factors that can turn a stabilised approach into one that isn't - the list is too long.
PM
I'll leave it to others to come up with factors that can turn a stabilised approach into one that isn't - the list is too long.
PM
I'd say that pilot error, as a term, is not so much PC/non-PC, as it is a gross and misleading over simplification.
Almost any accident is caused by some complex relationship between conditions, procedures, equipment design, crew training, crew decisions. Any action or inaction of crew can only be one factor within that complex relationship. There is also the blindly obvious fact that bar a few terrorist atrocities, nobody ever sets out to cause an accident, and nobody who has had an accident wants it to happen again to themselves or anybody else.
If you don't try to understand any accident or incident from that perspective, you'll never reach a half decent understanding of it. In my opinion, the use of the term pilot error, just gets in the way of a full (enough) understanding of accident cause.
G
Almost any accident is caused by some complex relationship between conditions, procedures, equipment design, crew training, crew decisions. Any action or inaction of crew can only be one factor within that complex relationship. There is also the blindly obvious fact that bar a few terrorist atrocities, nobody ever sets out to cause an accident, and nobody who has had an accident wants it to happen again to themselves or anybody else.
If you don't try to understand any accident or incident from that perspective, you'll never reach a half decent understanding of it. In my opinion, the use of the term pilot error, just gets in the way of a full (enough) understanding of accident cause.
G