Really Hard Landing 3.5g
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really Hard Landing 3.5g
Did they get a proper inspection prior to the return flight.
Accident: Germania A321 at Fuerteventura on Jul 16th 2016, hard landing at +3.5G
Accident: Germania A321 at Fuerteventura on Jul 16th 2016, hard landing at +3.5G
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hold
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3.5g and the plane flew back on schedule....what about a tech log entry and inspection. Plus what on earth was going on with the walk around after.........
Cracking decision making.....
Cracking decision making.....
Gender Faculty Specialist
It isn't always obvious to pilots if a heavy landing has occurred. This is due to the de-rotation affecting the amount of 'g' felt forward of the centre of gravity.
Still...
Still...
I don't understand "de-rotation" please.
Is this no rotation, reduced rotation, or rotation in the opposite sense?
Is this no rotation, reduced rotation, or rotation in the opposite sense?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3.5 Gs ?
I have not seen a g meter since the old flying fighter days. I stand corrected there was one in a Pitts that I flew years ago.
The rotation effect? I think, I need to wave the Red Bull flag here.
A hard landing is a hard landing and needs to be entered in the log, with the data to include landing weight and other conditions. The item needs to be cleared by the tech's. First the tech does a quick visual of the gear and fuselage. If further inspection is needed, panels start coming off.
Many moons ago, operating DC-9's we had one airframe that had some nice wavy creases just forward of the engine mounts. Research showed it was several years old and had been cleared.
Some where on the web is a short video of a DC-9 or maybe MD-9 on a text flight that after touch down the airframe breaks aft of the wing.
I think there will be some retraining of this crew.
The rotation effect? I think, I need to wave the Red Bull flag here.
A hard landing is a hard landing and needs to be entered in the log, with the data to include landing weight and other conditions. The item needs to be cleared by the tech's. First the tech does a quick visual of the gear and fuselage. If further inspection is needed, panels start coming off.
Many moons ago, operating DC-9's we had one airframe that had some nice wavy creases just forward of the engine mounts. Research showed it was several years old and had been cleared.
Some where on the web is a short video of a DC-9 or maybe MD-9 on a text flight that after touch down the airframe breaks aft of the wing.
I think there will be some retraining of this crew.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
)
Germania says it was inspected after the landing, no damages found, inspected again after return flight, QAR data taken, no damage found, also say 3.5G is not confirmed by QAR data.
Touchdown apparently happened while rejecting the landing.
Aircraft will get a new landing gear now which would have been due in winter anyway.
Touchdown apparently happened while rejecting the landing.
Aircraft will get a new landing gear now which would have been due in winter anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chesty Morgan
It is obvious on an Airbus, you get an automatic Load 15 report, which tells you that you have just F***** up your landing. 
Aircraft should not depart until that Load 15 report has been verified.
Aircraft should not depart until that Load 15 report has been verified.
There is no question that the pilots would have known that they'd had a heavy landing - the de-rotation idea is nonsense.
Too much simulator time worrying about headshrinker horse**** CRM and not enough real aircraft handling, plus the current attitude of throw it on, brake hard and get off the RW fast, rather than the 'BOAC' landings required from RAF air transport pilots of the past - and which we taught our students.
Apart from 'line training' U/T pilot landings, the worst CAT landings I've experienced as a passenger were in the earlier times of the A321 when it was clear that the Airbus figures for Vref were too low. I spoke with a colleague who told me why - and that in his company they normally add at least 5 knots to the Airbus figures for the A321, which improved things significantly.
Smooth landings seem to be a thing of the past, but no amount of routine 'firm' landings could insulate pilots from knowing when they've had a very heavy landing.
Too much simulator time worrying about headshrinker horse**** CRM and not enough real aircraft handling, plus the current attitude of throw it on, brake hard and get off the RW fast, rather than the 'BOAC' landings required from RAF air transport pilots of the past - and which we taught our students.
Apart from 'line training' U/T pilot landings, the worst CAT landings I've experienced as a passenger were in the earlier times of the A321 when it was clear that the Airbus figures for Vref were too low. I spoke with a colleague who told me why - and that in his company they normally add at least 5 knots to the Airbus figures for the A321, which improved things significantly.
Smooth landings seem to be a thing of the past, but no amount of routine 'firm' landings could insulate pilots from knowing when they've had a very heavy landing.
Only after landing in Dusseldorf substantial damage to the landing gear as well as creases in the fuselage, indicative of substantial structural damage, were found.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Beagle, they may suspect but they won't know. Suspicion would be enough for me to book it, but not for everybody.
The de-rotation thing is not an idea nor is it nonsense.
By the way it's hard landing not "heavy".
The de-rotation thing is not an idea nor is it nonsense.
By the way it's hard landing not "heavy".
The de-rotation thing is not an idea nor is it nonsense.
It helps to sit far forward or far back as the flex of the fuselage greatly diminishes the G's felt there
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok if you don't believe youtube, here is a short report. No fatalities.
https://www.fss.aero/accident-report...report_key=169
https://www.fss.aero/accident-report...report_key=169
Ut Sementem Feeceris
They all died? Really? In my experience, most hard landings come as a result of flaring too little / too late. A float can be moderated by easing back pressure on the column/sidestick - tweaking AOA - .....NOT PUSHING! I do find it hard to believe that they didn't think 3.5G was "firm". I've experienced 1.8 which was very noticeable.........
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If memory serves me correctly. This https://www.fss.aero/accident-report...report_key=489 was "only" 2.8g
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does matter where you sit
For those sceptics who doubt the 'derotation' theory, please refer to http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/files/FOCUS%2...Focus%2064.pdf for a fuller explanation of the centre of percussion and its effect on the perception of any landing (that link takes you to a pdf of the whole issue 64 of the UKFSC Focus magazine, the relevant article is on page 4). Really good landings feel good everywhere, but some bad ones feel OK at the front but even worse at the far back. Never dismiss the cabin crew's opinions, they are often better placed to judge. The article also explains why the effect is more evident the faster you are relative to Vref. Sad but true.