Hard landing? Or Crash?
Moderator
Thread Starter
Hard landing? Or Crash?
Air Canada recently had an unhappy event at Halifax, which resulted in a damaged airplane, and headlines. The headlines read "Hard Landing". In short order, photos appear, which show a very badly damaged airbus, not standing on its landing gear, and with an engine ripped off.
Since the initial event, the details fill in.... The aircraft contacted the ground some 1000+ feet short of the runway, and did a lot of infrastructure damage as it plowed its way to the runway. Since then, the headlines have been changed to report a "very hard landing".
As a local volunteer firefighter, I've been called to several "hard landings" at our local airport and aerodromes. In common, none of these were ever an aircraft still on the runway, and none were an aircraft which would ever fly again. In one case, when I arrived, and could not see the plane at all, I asked where it was... up side down between trees in a forest, a quarter mile off to the side of the runway! I instructed the airport management that in the future, they should categorize such an event as a "crash".
This recent event has got me to wondering, where is the line between "hard landing" and "crash"?
I think a "hard landing" would, at worst, result in an aircraft stopped on, or very close to the intended landing area, with at least some of the landing gear undamaged. A "hard landing" aircraft would be expected to be repairable. A crash would be anything worse.
Thoughts?
Since the initial event, the details fill in.... The aircraft contacted the ground some 1000+ feet short of the runway, and did a lot of infrastructure damage as it plowed its way to the runway. Since then, the headlines have been changed to report a "very hard landing".
As a local volunteer firefighter, I've been called to several "hard landings" at our local airport and aerodromes. In common, none of these were ever an aircraft still on the runway, and none were an aircraft which would ever fly again. In one case, when I arrived, and could not see the plane at all, I asked where it was... up side down between trees in a forest, a quarter mile off to the side of the runway! I instructed the airport management that in the future, they should categorize such an event as a "crash".
This recent event has got me to wondering, where is the line between "hard landing" and "crash"?
I think a "hard landing" would, at worst, result in an aircraft stopped on, or very close to the intended landing area, with at least some of the landing gear undamaged. A "hard landing" aircraft would be expected to be repairable. A crash would be anything worse.
Thoughts?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France wrote off one of their Concordes in a 'heavy landing' at Dakar. No pax hurt, nothing fell off (AFAIK), but the airframe was bent. I'd class that as a very heavy landing.
Hitting the ground well short of the runway and hitting stuff on the way to the runway, seriously damaging the aeroplane, is undoubtedly a crash.
I think the difference is, if it lands on the runway, can taxy clear, and no-one is hurt, it's a landing. If it lands off the runway, and/or collides with stuff, and/or pax are hurt, and/or can't taxy it's a crash.
Hitting the ground well short of the runway and hitting stuff on the way to the runway, seriously damaging the aeroplane, is undoubtedly a crash.
I think the difference is, if it lands on the runway, can taxy clear, and no-one is hurt, it's a landing. If it lands off the runway, and/or collides with stuff, and/or pax are hurt, and/or can't taxy it's a crash.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 30th Mar 2015 at 14:36.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like the difference between a ship and a boat. Hard to describe except a boat will fit on a ship but a ship won't fit on a boat.
In the initial landing phase, you can have a heavy landing which isn't a crash but you can't have a crash without a heavy landing.
In the initial landing phase, you can have a heavy landing which isn't a crash but you can't have a crash without a heavy landing.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the plane hits ground well before the runway, I would treat this as it qualifies as a "crash", because it was not supposed to do that. The difficulty arrises when it hops on the runway thereafter, where it should have been in the first place. It crashed in the flora, but the remains hard-landed on the runway ;-).
Meldex,
No, I think it is Air Canada PR at work. Here's part of a press release describing it as an "incident", when they must have already known that it was an "accident" i.e. crash.
http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=865
No, I think it is Air Canada PR at work. Here's part of a press release describing it as an "incident", when they must have already known that it was an "accident" i.e. crash.
MONTREAL, March 29, 2015 /CNW Telbec/ - Air Canada provides the following update on flight AC624, an Airbus A320, that was involved in an incident upon landing at Halifax International Airport, Nova Scotia. The incident occurred at approximately 00:43 AT Sunday March 29 (23:43 ET March 28).....
Moderator
Thread Starter
Ah yes, the Buffalo crash at Farnborough. Yup, that was a crash. There was a lot more to that event than was made public. Without going into detail, this event was much less the fault of the pilot than was suggested. The pilot was quietly retired with pension and benefits as a compromise. Following that crash, it was noted that the fuselage was intact, and the rear loading ramp operated normally - tough plane!
I flew to England in that plane, to participate in the airshow. I rode through that demonstration flight, in the jumpseat, two days before that crash. Incredibly exciting ride!
I flew to England in that plane, to participate in the airshow. I rode through that demonstration flight, in the jumpseat, two days before that crash. Incredibly exciting ride!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are always some greyish areas in categorizing landings - this i.e. is thought to be "almost" normal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYdV7xY9Qgo
Moderator
Thread Starter
no slight was intended on any Canadians!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, Bill was killed in a Dash 7 accident 14 years later.
Air Accidents Investigation: DHC 501970
Air Accidents Investigation: DHC 501970
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kernow
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A heavy-landing is very often the same event as a light-crash, the difference being the person recounting the incident. Pilots seem to defer to the heavy-landing descriptor; expert witnesses the latter. ;-)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic but, I was once told the difference between a boat and a ship was that ships always have lifeboats.
Following up on my previous post, Air Canada were clearly trying to play things down. Further on in the press release they stated:
Here's the definition of an accident in Canada:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r...age-1.html#h-4
I think the pictures clearly indicate that this was an "accident", never mind any injuries.
All passengers and crew deplaned the aircraft. Air Canada can confirm that 23 passengers and crew sustained non-life threatening injuries and have been transported to local hospitals for observation and treatment.
... must report the following aviation occurrences to the Board if they result directly from the operation of an aircraft
a) in the case of an accident
a) in the case of an accident
- (i) a person is killed or sustains a serious injury as a result of
- (A) being on board the aircraft,
- (B) coming into direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts that have become detached from the aircraft, or
- (C) being directly exposed to jet blast, rotor down wash or propeller wash,
- (ii) the aircraft sustains structural failure or damage that adversely affects the aircraft’s structural strength, performance or flight characteristics and would normally require major repair or replacement of any affected component, except for
- (A) engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories, or
- (B) damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennae, tires, brakes, fairings or small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft’s skin, or ...
I think the pictures clearly indicate that this was an "accident", never mind any injuries.
I think a "hard landing" would, at worst, result in an aircraft stopped on, or very close to the intended landing area, with at least some of the landing gear undamaged. A "hard landing" aircraft would be expected to be repairable. A crash would be anything worse.
There's a term that's been around for a while that seems perfect for this incident - "Crash Landing". To me it fits between a heavy landing and an out-and-out crash, implying an element of control, however tenuous.
The Sioux City DC10 was a crash landing, the BA 777 that came down just short of the runway at Heathrow a couple of years ago was a crash landing - and they touched down a heck of a lot closer to the threshold than the Air Canada!
All passengers and crew deplaned the aircraft.
FBW
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what the Canadian TSB call it...
Collision with terrain involving an Air Canada Airbus A320 at Stanfield International Airport, Halifax, Nova Scotia
