For engineers -- When a bad landing a heavy landing ??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For engineers -- When a bad landing a heavy landing ??
Hi guys - just out of interest, on my gizmobus we can print out every landing trace with touchdown G - At what point is it deemed to be a heavy landing requiring a check ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According the Airbus AMM Chapter 5, a hard landing means, for aircraft greater than 240T,:
- Nz is greater than 1.6g
or
- descent rate equal to or greater than 9ft/s
Note that a hard landing is different to a heavy landing.
- Nz is greater than 1.6g
or
- descent rate equal to or greater than 9ft/s
Note that a hard landing is different to a heavy landing.
Only half a speed-brake
Not an engineer.
My hardest so far was 1,89 g and sure it was positive. Company limit for having a talk (no biscuit served neither tea here
) is 1,9 
. However I've been told once the tech limit would be 2,4g.
On the other side, for overweight landing, a pound extra is already too much and checks are required.
Fly safe,
FD.
My hardest so far was 1,89 g and sure it was positive. Company limit for having a talk (no biscuit served neither tea here
) is 1,9 . However I've been told once the tech limit would be 2,4g.On the other side, for overweight landing, a pound extra is already too much and checks are required.
Fly safe,
FD.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies, let me correct one of the values quoted in my earlier reply.
A hard landing is defined as:
- a landing with Nz of more than 2g at the CG, not 1.6g
An overweight landing is defined as a landing at more than the MLW with Nz of more than 1.6g, or a landing at more than the MLW with Nz of more than 6 ft/s.
A hard landing is defined as:
- a landing with Nz of more than 2g at the CG, not 1.6g
An overweight landing is defined as a landing at more than the MLW with Nz of more than 1.6g, or a landing at more than the MLW with Nz of more than 6 ft/s.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Its also at the captains discretion.
Heard of one skipper reporting a heavy landing to the engineers who said it was beneath the g requirement for a heavy landing check. But, surely the guy who felt it should have some say?
Maybe just OOOOOOFFF!!!
Heard of one skipper reporting a heavy landing to the engineers who said it was beneath the g requirement for a heavy landing check. But, surely the guy who felt it should have some say?
Maybe just OOOOOOFFF!!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heavy/Hard Landing
Our company proceedures reflect the Aircraft Maintenance Manual for the B737NG in that The Captain will decide if a hard landing Phase 1 inspection is required.If any damage is found by the engineer the PHASE TWO inspection is to be carried out which includes a DFDR download to see how hard it hit the ground,depending on the G`s what is inspected.
Heavy landings inspection require the captain to inform of normal/medium/heavy sink rate with possible DFDR download to confirm the extent of inspections
Heavy landings inspection require the captain to inform of normal/medium/heavy sink rate with possible DFDR download to confirm the extent of inspections
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it Hard or Firm? Decide for yourself....
We had to work this one out for ourselves when one of our customers seriously bent a B767 fuselage in what the pilot, when challenged, described as a "firm touchdown". The pilot had declined to make a tech log entry despite the evidence of a severely distorted fuselage.
In the subsequent argument, conducted while Boeing carried out seven million dollars worth of repairs, we were asked to get the touchdown 'G' from the DFDR. The recorded vertical acceleration was a mere 1.98G so we asked Boeing for a clear definition of a hard landing in terms of 'G'. Boeing replied that, as the peak value is a spike of very short duration compared to the sampling rate of vertical acceleration, there is no way of determining actual vertical acceleration at impact from a DFDR readout. Boeing therefore define a hard landing as a landing which, in the opinion of the crew, is a hard landing. Signs of damage may also help in determining the classification.
In view of the extent of the damage we therefore had no hesitation in re-classifying the reported firm touchdown as a hard landing, despite the relatively mild 'G' figure. The fact remains that there is no known method of extracting the true peak value of vertical acceleration from a DFDR readout and such readouts cannot be relied upon to determine the need for a full hard landing check i.a.w. the Maintenance Manual.
Engineers and aircrew are obliged to use their judgement.
In the subsequent argument, conducted while Boeing carried out seven million dollars worth of repairs, we were asked to get the touchdown 'G' from the DFDR. The recorded vertical acceleration was a mere 1.98G so we asked Boeing for a clear definition of a hard landing in terms of 'G'. Boeing replied that, as the peak value is a spike of very short duration compared to the sampling rate of vertical acceleration, there is no way of determining actual vertical acceleration at impact from a DFDR readout. Boeing therefore define a hard landing as a landing which, in the opinion of the crew, is a hard landing. Signs of damage may also help in determining the classification.
In view of the extent of the damage we therefore had no hesitation in re-classifying the reported firm touchdown as a hard landing, despite the relatively mild 'G' figure. The fact remains that there is no known method of extracting the true peak value of vertical acceleration from a DFDR readout and such readouts cannot be relied upon to determine the need for a full hard landing check i.a.w. the Maintenance Manual.
Engineers and aircrew are obliged to use their judgement.
Back in "the good old days" the DC8 50 series had a little Al strip clamped to the bottoms of the main gear shock struts, pointing up. If said strip was bent, there had been a heavy landing - end of discussion. Very useful for us LAMEs doing a transit check. We nicknamed the strips lie detectors 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrinkles tell the tale...
Back when I was driving a bug-smasher out of Miami International I used to gawk at the heavy iron that was coming in for maintenance at a facility next to my ramp.
One that caught my attention was a 727 with such a set of wrinkles along the lower fuselage behind the nose gear that they were quite obvious to the naked eye from a distance of about 20 feet. The aircraft belonged to a military-operated civil airline from South America and I was told it had been flown in for a routine check when some sort of 'Wrinkles? What wrinkles?' conversation ensued. Turns out someone was late on the round-out but didn't bother making a report. They ended up scrapping the aircraft as uneconomical to repair.
And in Nigeria (where else?) a BAC 1-11 had been slammed back on the runway when the stickshaker actuated after liftoff, going deep into the over-run on 19L and then being simply dragged out of the bundu, cleaned off and put back in service. Some time later they found a rather large crack in a wing spar so that the airplane was scrapped.
One that caught my attention was a 727 with such a set of wrinkles along the lower fuselage behind the nose gear that they were quite obvious to the naked eye from a distance of about 20 feet. The aircraft belonged to a military-operated civil airline from South America and I was told it had been flown in for a routine check when some sort of 'Wrinkles? What wrinkles?' conversation ensued. Turns out someone was late on the round-out but didn't bother making a report. They ended up scrapping the aircraft as uneconomical to repair.
And in Nigeria (where else?) a BAC 1-11 had been slammed back on the runway when the stickshaker actuated after liftoff, going deep into the over-run on 19L and then being simply dragged out of the bundu, cleaned off and put back in service. Some time later they found a rather large crack in a wing spar so that the airplane was scrapped.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: prime meridian
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in our outfit the captain reports what he thinks is a hard landing - engineering then checks the data readout to detirmine the actual 'g' value and v/s at touchdown, dependind on these the actions (or lack of) are given in the maintainance manual
if not reported, 1.5g and above throws up a flag during routine dfdr analysis, 1.8 is cause for a chat. mitigating factors such as a well stabilised approach maybe taken taken into account before calling for a chat.
in my experience, anything much over 1.5g can definitely be felt as unusual and should be reported for the good of the next crew.
if not reported, 1.5g and above throws up a flag during routine dfdr analysis, 1.8 is cause for a chat. mitigating factors such as a well stabilised approach maybe taken taken into account before calling for a chat.
in my experience, anything much over 1.5g can definitely be felt as unusual and should be reported for the good of the next crew.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this a heavy landing?
I was on an Indian Airlines 737 (100 or 200) out of Bombay that landed at Poona. On landing the damn thing bounced back in the air only to come down firmly to stay on the ground. A/c was almost full. Was this a hard landing?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard Landings
Very interested in the definition of a hard landing - seems that Boeing does not define it in terms of G. On the B737 at MTOW the landing limit is 6'/sec and at MLW it increases to 600'/min. Thus hard landing is weight dependant. For FOQA purposes and in terms of G, how do you define a hard landing?
Greetings
Greetings
Only half a speed-brake
I'm interested in the 737, can you elaborate on the numbers? What would it be for our -500s that have MTOW (reduced) 52.999kg LW 49.895kg. I understand that -500 do not need HGW provisioning and thus the very airframe can go as high as 62 tonnes or so. Would there be any diffrence in the limits?
Our FOQA stands at 1.9g as stated above. And it is ugly!
Cheers,
FD.
Our FOQA stands at 1.9g as stated above. And it is ugly!
Cheers,
FD.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK NE Scotland
Age: 59
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr, you haven't flown the 146 into Scatsta obviously.....landing gear has a fantastic ability to cushion most heavy landings but I've still bounced at least twice before landing properly....if the overhead consoles pop out you know you had a 'spirited' landing.
That said the guys from Flightline do a fantastic job in pretty grim weather conditions.
That said the guys from Flightline do a fantastic job in pretty grim weather conditions.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landing gear has a fantastic ability to cushion most heavy landings but I've still bounced at least twice before landing properly
1) Any landing you walk away from is a good one.
2) Any landing which allows you to use the plane afterwards is a brilliant one.
