Hard landing with a Boeing767

[piisfish 135]

flight ANA965 of All Nippon Airways landing HARD, fuselage shows signs of torsion...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pXjQ16f5c

Wonder how the landing felt from the inside

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Remster 24]

So, Mr Mitchell, Boeing all the way? ;-)

Remster

[piisfish 135]

my WAG is that such a hard landing could damage any plane. At least you can easily see that the frame was bent, don't know how it would show on a "fiber" plane

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

That's not a hard landing.

THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU

... is a HARD landing!

[ryoder 1,381]

Quote

That's not a hard landing.

THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU

... is a HARD landing!

I hate it when parts fall off on landing.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

That's not a hard landing.

THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU

... is a HARD landing!

I hate it when parts fall off on landing.

Me too...but not nearly as much as when parts fall off on TAKE-OFF!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's not a hard landing.

THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU

... is a HARD landing!

I hate it when parts fall off on landing.

Me too...but not nearly as much as when parts fall off on TAKE-OFF!

No worries... That will buff right out!

Remster

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

So, Mr Mitchell, Boeing all the way? ;-)

Hell yeah! That was the pilots' fault, not the plane. The plane held together and everybody lived. That's a good landing. A great landing is when you can use the plane again.

Here's what happens when you let computers control the plane.

Warning: it's not pretty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEH7OpnA-I4

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

That's not a hard landing.

THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU

... is a HARD landing!

I hate it when parts fall off on landing.

I fly a hang glider. I hope parts falling off on landing are the glider's and not MINE.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

The first video didn't look that bad to me. I would have expected the landing gear to absorb that and prevent structural damage. Clearly I would have been wrong.

The second video was clearly wrong from the beginning. I knew he was going too fast at too great an angle from the start. Neither video showed any flare at the end. Not sure what that was about.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

So, Mr Mitchell, Boeing all the way? ;-)

Yes. That was pilot error.
I'd much rather have a plane that doesn't mask piloting errors with "all powerful" computers.
Because sooner or later ther will be a pilot who will find a situation that the computers cannot handle, and that will become a tragedy. Because the pilot didn't have the basic ability to "Do that pilot shit."

The Air France crash last year is a really good example of this.

Edit to add:

Quote

The first video didn't look that bad to me. I would have expected the landing gear to absorb that and prevent structural damage. Clearly I would have been wrong.

The plane was damaged more by how it hit than by how hard it hit. It bounced off one main and then onto the nose gear. The mains can take quite a lot of force, but very few planes can take that hard of a hit on the nose gear without damage.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

So, Mr Mitchell, Boeing all the way? ;-)

Hell yeah! That was the pilots' fault, not the plane. The plane held together and everybody lived. That's a good landing. A great landing is when you can use the plane again.

Here's what happens when you let computers control the plane.

Warning: it's not pretty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEH7OpnA-I4

And then there was the one a few years ago where the airbus computer wouldn't go off the circling pattern mode over the UK. The almost ran her dry before the AB engineers came up with a quick in flight re-boot that allowed manual flight again.


If it's not Boeing...I ain't going!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

And then there was the one a few years ago where the airbus computer wouldn't go off the circling pattern mode over the UK. The almost ran her dry before the AB engineers came up with a quick in flight re-boot that allowed manual flight again.

I hadn't heard of that one 'til now but I've seen to many other very scary incidents. If that system is so great, shouldn't we have computers flying our parachutes?

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's not a hard landing.

THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU

... is a HARD landing!

I hate it when parts fall off on landing.

Me too...but not nearly as much as when parts fall off on TAKE-OFF!

AA191 (DC10), Chicago, 1979. 270 fatalities.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DougH 270]

Quote

flight ANA965 of All Nippon Airways landing HARD, fuselage shows signs of torsion...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pXjQ16f5c

Wonder how the landing felt from the inside

DAMN! I hope that wasn't one of my clients' airplanes, they are going to be PISSED.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Quote

So, Mr Mitchell, Boeing all the way? ;-)

Hell yeah! That was the pilots' fault, not the plane. The plane held together and everybody lived. That's a good landing. A great landing is when you can use the plane again.

Here's what happens when you let computers control the plane.

Warning: it's not pretty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEH7OpnA-I4

The computers weren't to blame in that crash, it was pilot error/stupidity.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[ryoder 1,381]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's not a hard landing.

THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU

... is a HARD landing!

I hate it when parts fall off on landing.

Me too...but not nearly as much as when parts fall off on TAKE-OFF!

AA191 (DC10), Chicago, 1979. 270 fatalities.

Especially parts like that:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/photo.shtml

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

The computers weren't to blame in that crash, it was pilot error/stupidity.

The industry term I've read is "automation confusion". Sure, the pilots did something the computer didn't want and lost the argument. My position is that planes should be simple to fly, not complex. The computer systems on the Airbus aircraft are like very unsafe crew members: they operate very autonomously and are uncommunicative. That is something to be avoided on the flight deck (or air traffic control room, for that matter.)

On a Boeing aircraft, when on autopilot, the yoke and trim wheels still move as the autopilot does its job. The pilots can tell what's going on just by watching the movements. When they take the controls manually, they have feedback in the form of "feel" of control pressures.

In the Airbus, trim and control surface movements go unnoticed on autopilot. When the pilots start flying the aircraft, the only feedback is the spring load in the joystick, exactly like a video game. The two sticks move independently, so the pilots can make contradictory inputs. I believe from there the computer either ignores one stick or uses an averaging algorithm, possibly depending on the mode.

Would you like a parachute system that, if you had a canopy collision at 1000', would say "NO, you're in the landing mode. You are not allowed to cutaway and pull your reserve!"? When the shit hits the fan, I don't want to be scanning the screen for software prompts.

[wmw999 2,117]

Automation can help mediocre pilots perform in situations where they might otherwise wash out. That maximizes availability of air service, because all of a sudden your pool is hugely increased.

Automation does, in fact, prevent some crashes. However, it introduces new ones. In quantifying the new ones, we tend to ignore old failure modes that have gone away. Consider cars -- we all decry all the expensive computers and impossibilityof fixing your own car any more, but we accept uncomplainingly that 100,000 miles is no longer a really long time for a car to last.

I don't know what the numbers are in the case of fly-by-wire commercial planes, so I'm not trying to say one way or the other. And I really hate black boxes that isolate you from what's actually happening (like idiot lights on the car). But how many of us use slide rules any more?

No, I wouldn't want to have been on one of those Airbus crashes. But studies have been done saying that 60-80% of air accidents are due ot human error(here's one). But once you eliminate most of the low-hanging error fruit (things like altimeters, artificial horizon, etc), the errors become more sophisticated and situation-dependent. Computers are made for that, but man-rated computer programs are a whole different animal.

OK, enough pontification . I'll fly on any of the aircraft, and base my choices more on other factors. I like Southwest's keep-it-simple approach of focusing on the 737, and their commitment to fast turnaround. Why the second? Well, you can't turn it around fast if it's not in good shape, can you.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Quote

The computers weren't to blame in that crash, it was pilot error/stupidity.

The industry term I've read is "automation confusion". Sure, the pilots did something the computer didn't want and lost the argument. My position is that planes should be simple to fly, not complex. The computer systems on the Airbus aircraft are like very unsafe crew members: they operate very autonomously and are uncommunicative. That is something to be avoided on the flight deck (or air traffic control room, for that matter.)

On a Boeing aircraft, when on autopilot, the yoke and trim wheels still move as the autopilot does it's job. The pilots can tell what's going on just by watching the movements. When they take the controls manually, they have feedback in the form of "feel" of control pressures.

In the Airbus, trim and control surface movements go unnoticed on autopilot. When the pilots start flying the aircraft, the only feedback is the spring load in the joystick, exactly like a video game. The two sticks move independently, so the pilots can make contradictory inputs. I believe from there the computer either ignores one stick or uses an averaging algorithm, possibly depending on the mode.

Would you like a parachute system that, if you had a canopy collision at 1000', would say "NO, you're in the landing mode. You are not allowed to cutaway and pull your reserve!"? When the shit hits the fan, I don't want to be scanning the screen for software prompts.

The pilots put the airplane into a situation which required the airplane to accelerate before it could climb, since A320's don't have afterburners there wasn't enough time for the plane to accelerate and climb above the trees. The flight computers kept the pilots from stalling the plane which would have been the likely result of such a foolish stunt with a non-fly-by-wire aircraft.

The pilot was flying the airplane the same way that the Blue Angel solo pilots do during the "Section High Alpha Pass," which is to level off and attain maximum angle of attack to fly at minimum speed. There are only three ways to recover from this situation:

A) drop the nose to accelerate (like a stall recovery),
B) add power to accelerate the airplane so that the AOA can be reduced, or
C) hit the afterburners and unload the wings with engine thrust.

Option A is not available during a low pass, option C is never available to an Airbus, and there wasn't enough time for option B to work before the airplane flew into the trees.

Here's a video of the Blue Angel solo pilots demonstrating options B and C.

High Alpha Pass

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Automation does, in fact, prevent some crashes

True. There are times where human error is more like human ommision, in that the pilot is not aware of a situation and the computer intervenes before it becomes an 'incident'.

However, that automation should also have an 'easy' button that will over-ride the automation a return traditional stick and rudder control to the pilot. The catch is that the pilot has to push the button, meaning that the pilot is aware of the circumstances, and for one reason or another needs a different action then the computer is trying to provide.

It wouldn't be tough to make the 'easy' button both literally and figurativly hard to push. Literally, simple filp-up button guard with a twist of safety wire would prevent accidental pushing of the button. Figuratively, make pushing the button the equivalant of declaring an emergency. Not as far as the FAA is concerned, but in terms of the company's internal processes. If you hit the 'easy' button, be ready to explain yourself and the circumstances to your bosses and fill out a stack of paperwork.

[sacex250 0]

What you're describing is exactly what brought down Air France 447. The computers lost the ability to control the airplane when the pitot tubes iced over, so the computers gave full control to the pilots. The problem was the first officer didn't realize that the flight computers weren't providing stall protection anymore, so he just kept pulling back on the stick instead of nosing over to recover from the stall that he was causing.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

What you're describing is exactly what brought down Air France 447. The computers lost the ability to control the airplane when the pitot tubes iced over, so the computers gave full control to the pilots

No, that's different. What I described was a system where the pilots would have to enable the switch from automation to full manual. That step is critical in that is ensures the pilots know the current configuration of the AC.

If the automation shuts itself off, even with a light or chime to indicate the switch, there's no guarantee that the pilots will pick up on that. You have to figure that the shit is hitting the fan is the computers give up, so there's a chance that the pilots might not see the indication of the change.

If the pilot has to take action to make it happen, there's no chance that they'll be uninformed.

[wmw999 2,117]

Quote

No, that's different. What I described was a system where the pilots would have to enable the switch from automation to full manual. That step is critical in that is ensures the pilots know the current configuration of the AC.

If the automation shuts itself off, even with a light or chime to indicate the switch, there's no guarantee that the pilots will pick up on that.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

What you're describing is exactly what brought down Air France 447. The computers lost the ability to control the airplane when the pitot tubes iced over, so the computers gave full control to the pilots. The problem was the first officer didn't realize that the flight computers weren't providing stall protection anymore, so he just kept pulling back on the stick instead of nosing over to recover from the stall that he was causing.

Thanks for the great example of automation confusion.