Trainee pilot lands plane without wheel
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
backpacker
There was a danger of a fuel leak albeit a small one because the landing gear leg is attached to the front of the main spar web by eight bolts, if the leg had dug into the dirt at a higher speed and the spar become deformed this would have resulted in a twisting moment on the tank, this would have more than likely deformed the tank causing it to rupture, also there is a small chance of damaging the flexible fuel line that runs from the rear of the tank in the area of the leg.
This sort of damage demonstrates why you should make every effort to keep the aircraft on the Tarmac were it will slide rather than on a soft surface were it is likely to dig in.
The reason for the failure is most likely to be poor maintenance, there are two AD's that require inspection of the area, one requires the NDT of the casting on the lower part of the leg were the torque link attaches, the other the replacement of the mid bolt in the torque link based on flying time, both of these are dependent on the S/N of the aircraft and the S/N of the leg.
I have replaced both the legs on my PA28 due to cracks found during the NDT inspection, it is a most unpleasant job because access to the lower bolts is almost imposable if you have normal size hands, if I ever have to do the job again I will give my nine year old grandaughter two months supply of chocolate to fit the four bolts in the lower spar web.
This sort of damage demonstrates why you should make every effort to keep the aircraft on the Tarmac were it will slide rather than on a soft surface were it is likely to dig in.
The reason for the failure is most likely to be poor maintenance, there are two AD's that require inspection of the area, one requires the NDT of the casting on the lower part of the leg were the torque link attaches, the other the replacement of the mid bolt in the torque link based on flying time, both of these are dependent on the S/N of the aircraft and the S/N of the leg.
I have replaced both the legs on my PA28 due to cracks found during the NDT inspection, it is a most unpleasant job because access to the lower bolts is almost imposable if you have normal size hands, if I ever have to do the job again I will give my nine year old grandaughter two months supply of chocolate to fit the four bolts in the lower spar web.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He could have landed not on the runway.
He could have not declared an emergency, and so not had the ground staff prepared.
He could have panicked.
He could have not flared.
He could have turned it upside down by landing on grass and the trailing support could have dug in.
He could have landed not controlled.
He could have not tried to keep the weight on the working wheel.
He could have not tried to keep the plane straight by not using the rudder.
He could have not landed in the middle of the runway.
He could not have unlatched the door before landing.
He could not have turned the engine off at all.
He could have not used the brakes and so run off the end of the runway.
He could have messed up the approach (since he knew everyone was watching and was under pressure).
He could have ballooned (the plane would have been light).
Training and the airline industry is, I suggest, nothing to do with this. He has never likely flown anything bigger than a PA28. He has probably had professional Aussie instructors who don't have a bad reputation.
Looked to me that he was coming in on the slow side, which was perhaps his plan, so when he flared (what - 3 feet off the ground?) he didn't have much energy left for the hold off and so the plane stopped flying early and it plonked down.
No injuries, plane can be used again, I'd be happy with that outcome.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C, appreciate your points.
How much clearance is there between the rear of the fuel tank and the front of the spar/spar web/landing gear attachment points?
I have only seen the tank once it was removed, but not the removal/installation process itself. But my gut feeling tells me you have to have some significant deformation of the spar and surrounding structure before the tank deforms to the point of rupturing.
How much clearance is there between the rear of the fuel tank and the front of the spar/spar web/landing gear attachment points?
I have only seen the tank once it was removed, but not the removal/installation process itself. But my gut feeling tells me you have to have some significant deformation of the spar and surrounding structure before the tank deforms to the point of rupturing.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a lot more than 120 hours, so I'd expect to do it better than that guy did. At 120 hours I'd have expected to do it a lot better than he did.
SSD, I'm assuming from your other posts that you're a few thousand hours in. I have around 150 hours. Do I think I could do better than this guy did? Yes. Do I think I would, in the heat of the moment? I don't know, but I wouldn't like to bet my life on it, which is what he was doing.
On that basis I certainly wouldn't criticise him for his flying or decision making - particularly as he was presumably advised to burn off the fuel by someone with far more experience. He may well be P1 but if I was in an emergency and someone with 000s of hours advised me to do something over the radio, I'd probably listen.
At the end of the day he was a low hours pilot who got the aircraft down in an emergency situation, and was able to walk away from it. I think that's pretty good going. Not to say there aren't things he could have done better, but I think comments like
my cat couldn't have done it worse.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, lets assume the 4 hours flying was to use up all the fuel in the right tank.
There would still be a residual unusable fuel of about 1 gallon, and the rest as fuel vapour. If the wheel leg shears into the tank and sets it on fire it is still quite a good bonfire. So take your pick; 1 gallon fire or 20 gallon fire.
There would still be a residual unusable fuel of about 1 gallon, and the rest as fuel vapour. If the wheel leg shears into the tank and sets it on fire it is still quite a good bonfire. So take your pick; 1 gallon fire or 20 gallon fire.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know, but I wonder what the cultural considerations are here - the native Aussies and the euros are quite familiar with having command authority, but from the impression I'm getting of the china eastern program (entirely from implications in this thread), and the fact that someone was conversing with him in his 'native language', I can't help wonder how authority and individual decision making plays out.
For myself, I would not have spent the 4/whatever hours emptying the tanks (from memory, 4hrs is a lot more than just one side - I think total endurance is about 5, plus most places only fill to the tabs 'cos that way W&B is a bit of a non-event). In *my* opinion, that's a mistake. I'd have used the right tank exclusively pre-landing, given the ground as much time as they needed to sort their end out, and as much time as I needed to think things through, request any advice/information, (and possibly do/have a flyby to assess the damage) and get the i's dotted, then come in on the left tank while I was still fresh and sharp. Oh, and stuff shutting down the engine until it stopped moving, insurance companies problem/an unnecessary distraction.
I've lived and flown in Aus, 4hrs at low alt on a 40deg day is no picnic, either comfort wise, or bumps wise. I'm of the opinion that a/c are far less likely to burst into a ball of fire than Hollywood would have you believe, even if the fuel is spilled, which (IMHO) is unlikely. I wouldn't have made a minimum speed approach, I'd opt for control, and tarmac, and no braking. Lots of runway/LDA most places in Aus.
Can't really see why there's so much aggression in this thread, from either side. Perfect - No, but what is. Worst handling possible - hardly. Very little is ever black or white, most things are shades of grey.
For myself, I would not have spent the 4/whatever hours emptying the tanks (from memory, 4hrs is a lot more than just one side - I think total endurance is about 5, plus most places only fill to the tabs 'cos that way W&B is a bit of a non-event). In *my* opinion, that's a mistake. I'd have used the right tank exclusively pre-landing, given the ground as much time as they needed to sort their end out, and as much time as I needed to think things through, request any advice/information, (and possibly do/have a flyby to assess the damage) and get the i's dotted, then come in on the left tank while I was still fresh and sharp. Oh, and stuff shutting down the engine until it stopped moving, insurance companies problem/an unnecessary distraction.
I've lived and flown in Aus, 4hrs at low alt on a 40deg day is no picnic, either comfort wise, or bumps wise. I'm of the opinion that a/c are far less likely to burst into a ball of fire than Hollywood would have you believe, even if the fuel is spilled, which (IMHO) is unlikely. I wouldn't have made a minimum speed approach, I'd opt for control, and tarmac, and no braking. Lots of runway/LDA most places in Aus.
Can't really see why there's so much aggression in this thread, from either side. Perfect - No, but what is. Worst handling possible - hardly. Very little is ever black or white, most things are shades of grey.
Last edited by Mark1234; 8th Jan 2013 at 13:43.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
backpacker
Without looking at the aircraft I would guess the outboard edge of the leg is about four inches inboard of the tank, as I said it is only a small chance that the tank would rupture but this chance would me minimized by keeping the aircraft in the runway, digging in to soft ground at high speed would increase the chances of structural damage and make a fuel tank rupture more likely.
One of the guys I worked with in BA engineering had this type of leg failure happen to him at White Waltham back in the late 70's back then it didn't result in much fuss and he was a solo student with about 15 hours in the book.
One of the guys I worked with in BA engineering had this type of leg failure happen to him at White Waltham back in the late 70's back then it didn't result in much fuss and he was a solo student with about 15 hours in the book.
Last edited by A and C; 8th Jan 2013 at 13:46.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He could have landed not on the runway. He departed the runway pronto when he lost control though agressive braking.
He could have panicked. Are you sure he didn't? I'm not.
He could have not flared. He didn't. L. Main & nose wheel, and right leg touched down together.
He could have landed not controlled. He did just that.
He could have not tried to keep the weight on the working wheel. He made no such attempt.
He could have not tried to keep the plane straight by not using the rudder. He lost control completely once on the ground, with no attempt to stay straight.
He could not have turned the engine off at all. What? Not ever?
He could have not used the brakes and so run off the end of the runway. He stomped on the brakes causing the aeroplane to depart the runway immediately. If he'd left them alone he would probably have stayed on the runway.
He could have messed up the approach (since he knew everyone was watching and was under pressure). The approach looked OK. It went pear shaped after that.
He could have ballooned (the plane would have been light). You have to flare to balloon. He didn't.
He could have panicked. Are you sure he didn't? I'm not.
He could have not flared. He didn't. L. Main & nose wheel, and right leg touched down together.
He could have landed not controlled. He did just that.
He could have not tried to keep the weight on the working wheel. He made no such attempt.
He could have not tried to keep the plane straight by not using the rudder. He lost control completely once on the ground, with no attempt to stay straight.
He could not have turned the engine off at all. What? Not ever?
He could have not used the brakes and so run off the end of the runway. He stomped on the brakes causing the aeroplane to depart the runway immediately. If he'd left them alone he would probably have stayed on the runway.
He could have messed up the approach (since he knew everyone was watching and was under pressure). The approach looked OK. It went pear shaped after that.
He could have ballooned (the plane would have been light). You have to flare to balloon. He didn't.
Are you for real? You've just destroyed any credibility youhad by making such a ridiculous statement. 
]
So please do tell us how many hours TT you have, champ? Sounds like you consider yourself God's gift to the aviation world.
So please do tell us how many hours TT you have, champ? Sounds like you consider yourself God's gift to the aviation world.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hole somewhere
Age: 46
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trainee pilot lands plane without wheel
The news headline "trainee pilot" is what makes it sound a bit strange at 120 hours but we all know what the paps are like
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Newark UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said, yes, with a similar amount of hours I could most definitely do better in theory. Who is to say what's actually happening inside that cockpit. As has already been pointed out, its almost certain the bloke was dehydrated, this along with the thought of an abnormal (I won't say difficult, I might be accused of incompetence...) landing may well have turned theory and reality into two completely separate entities.
Yes, it wasn't theoretically perfect, but kudos to the bloke for walking away from it in the end.
Yes, it wasn't theoretically perfect, but kudos to the bloke for walking away from it in the end.
Last edited by packo1848; 8th Jan 2013 at 14:52.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Newark UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The news headline "trainee pilot" is what makes it sound a bit strange at 120 hours
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yet again....
Pilot survived - Excellent
Could he have done better? - yes
Could I have done better? Don't know BUT an informed reasoned discussion may help me in the future
So can we have that discussion without people wanting to lynch SSD or give pilot a medal
It all worked ok and pilot can tell his grand kids how not to land a PA 28 on two wheels
Valid points have been made and I am sure the pilot does not give a toss what is said on pprune !!!!!
Last edited by vetflyer; 8th Jan 2013 at 14:58.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a pretty standard arrival for a magenta line borg who has been taught to fly 3 degree glides in everything.
They get to the bottom and pull the power off and the thing drops out of the sky.
You guys forget that they arn't being taught how to fly light aircraft. They are being taught the minimum required to then go and fly around using automatics.
Yes a PPL that got taught by one of the instructors on here saying that landing was a pile of poo after 120 hours would more than likely have done a better job of it. But the chap didn't most of his training will have been done with everything being supervised quite a bit of his PIC time will have been supervised with an instructor in the RHS.
You can't expect one of these zero to heros to do what you expect would be normal. They just have never been trained to fly a SEP properly.
He walked away from it with only his pride damaged only fault was it was caught on camera.
Yes some of us here would have driven it onto the runway holding the damaged wheel off then not touched the brakes and the whole thing would come trundling to a halt. A few of us would have a good shot at doing a one wheeler round to the front of the hangar as well. You can taxi a PA28 at less than 20knts on one main wheel. Most of us will have done that demonstration to students when they insist on landing to fast. Easier in a Cessna I will admit but you can do it with a piper as well.
They get to the bottom and pull the power off and the thing drops out of the sky.
You guys forget that they arn't being taught how to fly light aircraft. They are being taught the minimum required to then go and fly around using automatics.
Yes a PPL that got taught by one of the instructors on here saying that landing was a pile of poo after 120 hours would more than likely have done a better job of it. But the chap didn't most of his training will have been done with everything being supervised quite a bit of his PIC time will have been supervised with an instructor in the RHS.
You can't expect one of these zero to heros to do what you expect would be normal. They just have never been trained to fly a SEP properly.
He walked away from it with only his pride damaged only fault was it was caught on camera.
Yes some of us here would have driven it onto the runway holding the damaged wheel off then not touched the brakes and the whole thing would come trundling to a halt. A few of us would have a good shot at doing a one wheeler round to the front of the hangar as well. You can taxi a PA28 at less than 20knts on one main wheel. Most of us will have done that demonstration to students when they insist on landing to fast. Easier in a Cessna I will admit but you can do it with a piper as well.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame this thread has turned into a mass b*llocking of a low hours pilot in very difficult circumstances, rather than a "here's how we could learn from it"... But there we go!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not really. Bit of willy waving but thats about it.
Also most private fliers don't have a clue how commercials are trained outside the modular method which they will meet when they are doing their PPL and hour building.
Some of these guys come out with 145 hours and no SEP rating and go straight into the RHS of a 737-800. And speaking to Captains that have to fly with them its quite a marmite subject if they think its a good idea or not. But the accountants like it and thats the way the industry has gone for good or for bad.
Now all the PPL's who fly similar hardware have a good think about what you would do in similar circumstances.
I will throw some ideas out.
Engine off for the landing.
Fast approach
Slow approach
Flat appoarch and a drive on at above stalling speed.
Forced landing glide approach
Land on the stall nose high.
Burn fuel off or not.
run a tank empty or not.
What control inputs would you expect.
What problems would you have faced getting out afterwards if the AFS wasn't waiting.
Land on tarmac or grass?
If like you can chuck your ideas on here and if the instructors promise not to be to condersending we can bash out a couple of methods. Remember though that what might be good for me won't be good for a new PPL.
To be honest the bloke got it on the ground and walked away from it. Even if it wasn't pretty and the plane was a bit more dented than it really needed to be he did OK in my book. Hell I have seen and been onboard worse landings with all the wheels on and done them myself. Would I have done any better at his stage of training? Well by that stage I had had a tyre go flat on me (no I didn't have the brakes on it was on a old PA28 with only hand brakes) and the torque link go on the nose wheel and a full elelctrical failure. Maybe that was his first sphincter clencher, the first one is always the worst.
Also most private fliers don't have a clue how commercials are trained outside the modular method which they will meet when they are doing their PPL and hour building.
Some of these guys come out with 145 hours and no SEP rating and go straight into the RHS of a 737-800. And speaking to Captains that have to fly with them its quite a marmite subject if they think its a good idea or not. But the accountants like it and thats the way the industry has gone for good or for bad.
Now all the PPL's who fly similar hardware have a good think about what you would do in similar circumstances.
I will throw some ideas out.
Engine off for the landing.
Fast approach
Slow approach
Flat appoarch and a drive on at above stalling speed.
Forced landing glide approach
Land on the stall nose high.
Burn fuel off or not.
run a tank empty or not.
What control inputs would you expect.
What problems would you have faced getting out afterwards if the AFS wasn't waiting.
Land on tarmac or grass?
If like you can chuck your ideas on here and if the instructors promise not to be to condersending we can bash out a couple of methods. Remember though that what might be good for me won't be good for a new PPL.
To be honest the bloke got it on the ground and walked away from it. Even if it wasn't pretty and the plane was a bit more dented than it really needed to be he did OK in my book. Hell I have seen and been onboard worse landings with all the wheels on and done them myself. Would I have done any better at his stage of training? Well by that stage I had had a tyre go flat on me (no I didn't have the brakes on it was on a old PA28 with only hand brakes) and the torque link go on the nose wheel and a full elelctrical failure. Maybe that was his first sphincter clencher, the first one is always the worst.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not an instructor - I'm not used to watching landings from the ground. However I still don't think you're being entirely fair. Yes he started to flare high. Yes using the brake on one wheel caused him to ground loop. I don't know about that one but many PA28s have a single brake handle so he may not have encountered differential braking.
The rest can be debated. Might be easier to see in the higher res version of the video here. My times below relate to it.
I've responded in Blue for clarity.
He could have not flared. He didn't. L. Main & nose wheel, and right leg touched down together.
Perhaps your definition of flare is different from mine? I'm a student - happy to be corrected. He started arresting his descent at 7 seconds, and remains level until about 10 seconds. If you pause at 10 seconds he is nose high, in the touch down attitude. He is in ground affect until 11 seconds when he sinks quickly, presumably after the plane stops flying (or perhaps he dumped the power). You can see in this version of the video he appears to touch down main wheel only first (only just) in a level attitude.
As a PPL student I'd have been disappointed / told off but there are many worse examples!
He could have landed not controlled. He did just that.
His touchdown was poor due to the high flare, but it appeared initially controlled.
This is where I'm coming from. I had been landing what to me felt like "greasers" (main wheels first, stick still coming all the way back at touch down with little sink at the end to a smooth roll out) most of the time with my instructor, but I then had a lesson with the chief at our school. He told me I wasn't holding off enough and should be higher before touchdown. His demonstration had us sink just before touchdown from what felt like 4 feet from the surface (I'm sure it wasn't). You know the feeling in the pit of your stomach you get when you start to sink... But that is what he wants. If this person touched down with a nose higher attitude, it would therefore be pretty close to how I have been taught. I'm not saying he did it well - but its very possibly not all his fault.
He could have not tried to keep the weight on the working wheel. He made no such attempt.
You will see in the higher res video that between 11 and 17 seconds, after the initial heavy touchdown, the wing and the support strut are kept off the ground.
He could have not tried to keep the plane straight by not using the rudder. He lost control completely once on the ground, with no attempt to stay straight.
I can look at this two ways.
Option 1: You can see that the rudder and nose wheel are fully to the right between 13 sec and 15 sec before he applies the brakes. At 15 sec he is straight on the runway. He then (presumably) applies the brake which starts to pull him off the runway. He is then applying full right again until 17 sec, after which he has lost control.
Option 2: On touchdown, the plane yaws left due to the friction from the wheel. He over corrects with his right foot. At about 15 sec he appears to briefly use his left foot. This, (probably along with the brakes) may have contributed to his left uncontrolled yaw, which he was unable to correct despite full right rudder.
He did attempt to stay straight, but he wasn't successful.
He could not have turned the engine off at all. What? Not ever?
The engine was fully stopped after 6 sec of being stationary. This at least suggests lack of panic, doing the shutdown sequence (bet you he also turned off the fuel...).
He could have not used the brakes and so run off the end of the runway. He stomped on the brakes causing the aeroplane to depart the runway immediately. If he'd left them alone he would probably have stayed on the runway.
Agreed that he used the brakes inappropriately. Runways are 2,027m and 1,461m. He would have had to stop eventually but as you say - probably didn't need the brakes...
SSD - I hope you see this as trying to be constructive rather than confrontational! I agree he could have done better but with the video we can try and learn something without slagging him off.
The rest can be debated. Might be easier to see in the higher res version of the video here. My times below relate to it.
I've responded in Blue for clarity.
He could have not flared. He didn't. L. Main & nose wheel, and right leg touched down together.
Perhaps your definition of flare is different from mine? I'm a student - happy to be corrected. He started arresting his descent at 7 seconds, and remains level until about 10 seconds. If you pause at 10 seconds he is nose high, in the touch down attitude. He is in ground affect until 11 seconds when he sinks quickly, presumably after the plane stops flying (or perhaps he dumped the power). You can see in this version of the video he appears to touch down main wheel only first (only just) in a level attitude.
As a PPL student I'd have been disappointed / told off but there are many worse examples!
He could have landed not controlled. He did just that.
His touchdown was poor due to the high flare, but it appeared initially controlled.
This is where I'm coming from. I had been landing what to me felt like "greasers" (main wheels first, stick still coming all the way back at touch down with little sink at the end to a smooth roll out) most of the time with my instructor, but I then had a lesson with the chief at our school. He told me I wasn't holding off enough and should be higher before touchdown. His demonstration had us sink just before touchdown from what felt like 4 feet from the surface (I'm sure it wasn't). You know the feeling in the pit of your stomach you get when you start to sink... But that is what he wants. If this person touched down with a nose higher attitude, it would therefore be pretty close to how I have been taught. I'm not saying he did it well - but its very possibly not all his fault.
He could have not tried to keep the weight on the working wheel. He made no such attempt.
You will see in the higher res video that between 11 and 17 seconds, after the initial heavy touchdown, the wing and the support strut are kept off the ground.
He could have not tried to keep the plane straight by not using the rudder. He lost control completely once on the ground, with no attempt to stay straight.
I can look at this two ways.
Option 1: You can see that the rudder and nose wheel are fully to the right between 13 sec and 15 sec before he applies the brakes. At 15 sec he is straight on the runway. He then (presumably) applies the brake which starts to pull him off the runway. He is then applying full right again until 17 sec, after which he has lost control.
Option 2: On touchdown, the plane yaws left due to the friction from the wheel. He over corrects with his right foot. At about 15 sec he appears to briefly use his left foot. This, (probably along with the brakes) may have contributed to his left uncontrolled yaw, which he was unable to correct despite full right rudder.
He did attempt to stay straight, but he wasn't successful.
He could not have turned the engine off at all. What? Not ever?
The engine was fully stopped after 6 sec of being stationary. This at least suggests lack of panic, doing the shutdown sequence (bet you he also turned off the fuel...).
He could have not used the brakes and so run off the end of the runway. He stomped on the brakes causing the aeroplane to depart the runway immediately. If he'd left them alone he would probably have stayed on the runway.
Agreed that he used the brakes inappropriately. Runways are 2,027m and 1,461m. He would have had to stop eventually but as you say - probably didn't need the brakes...
SSD - I hope you see this as trying to be constructive rather than confrontational! I agree he could have done better but with the video we can try and learn something without slagging him off.