Skyservice damage
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ageing brain seems to recall that the BA 737-400's (with ACARS) could be prompted to produce landing 'g' if asked.
I would have thought that 11g would exceed the design limit for a nosegear, but perhaps someone could comment - was this covered in the report on the Britannia 757 accident in Spain? 11g on the mainwheels would probably produce some pax and crew injuries.
I would have thought that 11g would exceed the design limit for a nosegear, but perhaps someone could comment - was this covered in the report on the Britannia 757 accident in Spain? 11g on the mainwheels would probably produce some pax and crew injuries.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine that the impact force can be calculated or at least estimated from the FDR data. However, I question how someone can make this 11G claim so soon after the incident; probably before the FDR data has even been read. If the FDR data has even been read as of today, has this data been released to the public by the TSB or whoever is doing the investigation. I doubt that it has.
The question remains: How can you substantiate this 11G claim?
The question remains: How can you substantiate this 11G claim?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: At a desk
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear what folks are saying and i apologise for the poor wording of my post, i didn't mean that the force felt on landing would be sustained and actually i worded it pretty crap so i apologise. Also understandably a large amount of force would be sustained by the nosewheel etc so the force felt by the pax and crew would be reduced.
However 11g is still pretty big even if it is partially aborbed and it's illegal for theme park rollercoasters all of which carry health warnings etc to exceed 4g and that's rarely sustained for more than a few secs so if the 11g claim is accurate and even if over half is absorbed by the gear that is still a pretty big force to slam into someone so i still think that some injury could be expected.
However 11g is still pretty big even if it is partially aborbed and it's illegal for theme park rollercoasters all of which carry health warnings etc to exceed 4g and that's rarely sustained for more than a few secs so if the 11g claim is accurate and even if over half is absorbed by the gear that is still a pretty big force to slam into someone so i still think that some injury could be expected.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: A home for the bewildered
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit confused, and I'd appreciate some clarification from someone with more grey matter than I possess. (Note: I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm just asking questions out of curiosity!)
The shape of the wrinkles in Admiral Ackbar's photo is certainly consistent with a heavy nosewheel-first impact. But nonickname reports
Just how hard could the nosewheel have impacted on a second contact, after a first (main gear) impact which appears not to have caused any buckling of the fuselage?
One other small (pedantic?) point: egsc_h17 suggests
Would not the deformation of the airframe only have tended to protect those pax and crew who were aft of the point of deformation?
JC
The shape of the wrinkles in Admiral Ackbar's photo is certainly consistent with a heavy nosewheel-first impact. But nonickname reports
Landed main gear first, bumped back in the air, then landed nose gear first. 11 G on impact
One other small (pedantic?) point: egsc_h17 suggests
In any case I believe it was stated that the 11G shock was sustained by the nose gear. The tyres, dampers and deformation of the airframe would all have reduced the force experienced by the pax and crew.
JC
Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of us seem to be asking the same question - how can the 11g claim be substantiated?
Any g-meter fitted is not going to be fitted to the nose gear, I wouldn't think. If the figure comes from the FDR, I'm pretty sure that has a g-switch, which I'm also pretty sure would operate way below 11g and isolate the device. We had to brief our handlers to load freight carefully because the FDR was fitted inside the freight compartment, and it was not unknown for the switch to be triggered accidentally. And the freight I'm talking about is of the order of toolbox size, easily loaded by one person.
I hadn't got as far as thinking of the passengers, I'm afraid, my second name being Schardenfreude. No I was thinking of the airframe, and there are still questions arising from that figure of 11g. At what sort of loading would the tyres be expected to burst, for instance?
11g seems to me to be an awful lot of g's.
Any g-meter fitted is not going to be fitted to the nose gear, I wouldn't think. If the figure comes from the FDR, I'm pretty sure that has a g-switch, which I'm also pretty sure would operate way below 11g and isolate the device. We had to brief our handlers to load freight carefully because the FDR was fitted inside the freight compartment, and it was not unknown for the switch to be triggered accidentally. And the freight I'm talking about is of the order of toolbox size, easily loaded by one person.
I hadn't got as far as thinking of the passengers, I'm afraid, my second name being Schardenfreude. No I was thinking of the airframe, and there are still questions arising from that figure of 11g. At what sort of loading would the tyres be expected to burst, for instance?
11g seems to me to be an awful lot of g's.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Barrie, ON Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We (the passengers of flight 5G560) have been paying a great deal of attention to your site. Many of us are starved for answers, and I think this has been the most interesting discussion thread so far.
We've set up a web site for ourselves to to exchange information: http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/
I think we'd welcome input on our site from a professional pilot.
Thank you.
Richard Savage
We've set up a web site for ourselves to to exchange information: http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/
I think we'd welcome input on our site from a professional pilot.
Thank you.
Richard Savage
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard. I am a professional pilot who flies the same type of aircraft as the incident aircraft. Can I respectfully suggest that the best course of action is to wait for the report that will be produced by the accident investigators. It is they (and only they)that will have full access to the flight and voice recorders as well as any other "contributory factors" that may be relevant. There are literally dozens of possible factors that the investigators will want to examine/eliminate prior to publishing a report. I appreciate that you will be keen to get answers, but accident investigation is a long and thorough process and it will be some time before a report is produced.
Whilst many professional pilots will have theories surrounding what happened, the hard facts need to be established and this can only happen after a full and thorough investigation.
Whilst many professional pilots will have theories surrounding what happened, the hard facts need to be established and this can only happen after a full and thorough investigation.
From the site Robert mentionned, this picture shows the damage better than the one I posted before 
As 763 jock states, the Canadian TSB has a very good reputation at getting to the bottom of things. It will take a while as these investigations are very thorough, but you will get the whole picture eventually.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience.
BTW, I am not a pilot, just a very frequent flyer who likes aviation. Out of respect to the professionals on the board, I don't engage in speculation or theories.
As 763 jock states, the Canadian TSB has a very good reputation at getting to the bottom of things. It will take a while as these investigations are very thorough, but you will get the whole picture eventually.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience.
BTW, I am not a pilot, just a very frequent flyer who likes aviation. Out of respect to the professionals on the board, I don't engage in speculation or theories.
Not an airline pilot - just and engineer with a scrappy piece of paper...
The 'g' seen by the nosewheel could be a lot different from the aircraft as a whole. 'G' is a measure of acceleration (or in this case, deceleration). The vertical velocity of the nosewheel at touchdown comprises both the rate of descent and the pitch rate.
Some guesses:
Rate of descent = 10ft/s
Pitch rate = 5deg/s nose-down
Nosewheel is 70ft ahead of the point of rotation (not necessarily the CG)
would give a nosewheel vertical velocity of about 16ft/s. If this is arrested on contact with the runway in 0.1s, that's a 5g deceleration (160ft/s/s); if it only takes 0.05s, it would give 10g.
Comments anyone?
The 'g' seen by the nosewheel could be a lot different from the aircraft as a whole. 'G' is a measure of acceleration (or in this case, deceleration). The vertical velocity of the nosewheel at touchdown comprises both the rate of descent and the pitch rate.
Some guesses:
Rate of descent = 10ft/s
Pitch rate = 5deg/s nose-down
Nosewheel is 70ft ahead of the point of rotation (not necessarily the CG)
would give a nosewheel vertical velocity of about 16ft/s. If this is arrested on contact with the runway in 0.1s, that's a 5g deceleration (160ft/s/s); if it only takes 0.05s, it would give 10g.
Comments anyone?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Barrie, ON Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks gentlemen. I think that's great advice.
We'll continue to monitor what you folks have to say. You are doing some good thought experiments (I'm not mistaking them for fact).
We'll continue to monitor what you folks have to say. You are doing some good thought experiments (I'm not mistaking them for fact).
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admiral Ackbar wrote:
"As 763 jock states, the Canadian TSB has a very good reputation at getting to the bottom of things."
Actually Admiral if you read 763 Jock's post again, he makes no comment on the reputation of the TSB. Thorough, yes, but its reports have produced some very questionnable conclusions, the most notable recent one being the Swissair 111 crash.
Still, his advice is sound - lets' wait for the report.
"As 763 jock states, the Canadian TSB has a very good reputation at getting to the bottom of things."
Actually Admiral if you read 763 Jock's post again, he makes no comment on the reputation of the TSB. Thorough, yes, but its reports have produced some very questionnable conclusions, the most notable recent one being the Swissair 111 crash.
Still, his advice is sound - lets' wait for the report.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Oh, Canada. Eh ?
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said in the Canada forum, Richard Savage and his fellow passengers should await the results of TC TSB's report, and use those factual conclusions as the basis for whatever path they wish to pursue, and not get involved in wanton and needless speculation. TC TSB will publish the truth, and will either produce recommendations or directives as a result of the investigation.
Some of the other passengers on the service who have also chosen to post on this forum, are extremely childish, and I would respectfully suggest they refrain from doing so in future.
As another contributor has indicated, the associated alleged lack of care of the airline towards the passengers is the seemingly biggest issue, and it is turning into a bit of a PR nightmare - with the correct one-on-one from Skyservice Management, a lot of this tittle tattle could have been avoided.
PS Most of us who read any incident report TSB, AAIB or whatever, might disagree with the conclusions. In the absence of hard evidence on Swissair 111 or any other incident where we are not directly involved, it's speculation - and not directly related to this topic of a hard landing.
Some of the other passengers on the service who have also chosen to post on this forum, are extremely childish, and I would respectfully suggest they refrain from doing so in future.
As another contributor has indicated, the associated alleged lack of care of the airline towards the passengers is the seemingly biggest issue, and it is turning into a bit of a PR nightmare - with the correct one-on-one from Skyservice Management, a lot of this tittle tattle could have been avoided.
PS Most of us who read any incident report TSB, AAIB or whatever, might disagree with the conclusions. In the absence of hard evidence on Swissair 111 or any other incident where we are not directly involved, it's speculation - and not directly related to this topic of a hard landing.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the passengers felt the aircraft was going too fast.
I wonder which runway they landed on and also what the wind direction and speed was at the time of the accident.
I wonder which runway they landed on and also what the wind direction and speed was at the time of the accident.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WELL?
Lots of conjecture, but is the a/c going to fly or is it a write-off? That is the most important issue for the airline right now, accident report comes later.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Merry old England
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the passengers felt the aircraft was going too fast.
