Jump to content

A (Cautionary) Tale Of Two Landing Accidents


FastEddieB

Recommended Posts

In another thread, its been put forth that both landing too fast and landing too slowly each have their own set of risks.

 

I responded that even if that were so, the risks were far higher when extra speed is involved.

 

Please take time to review these two crashes at Mountain Air. One was a Columbia that was obviously too fast. The other is a Cirrus that one could argue was too slow - had it had extra speed it may have had more control authority to fight the downdraft.

 

Columbia: http://www.aopa.org/...nyc07fa126.html

 

Cirrus: http://www.aircrafto...00702X94829.asp

 

Summary: Columbia - too fast, bounced landing, loss of control, 3 fatals

 

Cirrus - too slow (maybe), downdraft, bounced landing, damaged plane, no injuries

 

Of course, one can always "cherry pick" data to support one's conclusions. But based on my experience as a pilot and a flight instructor and the review of a LOT of landing accidents, I will still hold that the consequences of a poor landing with too much speed are far more dire than those with too little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hi Eddie,

 

I'm still on the other side of the coin. You haven't said or posted any landing incidents from being too slow. In the CT this was the largest contributing factor for bent gear and not extra speed. Most here do not use full stall landings in their CT to land. It has caused far too many issues.

You mention speed as a bad landing factor, but haven't listed any too slow full stall problems that may manifest. They are definetly there and I would be surprised if some one that advocates full stall landings could list the problems that could arise and you didn't list a single crash on landing from going to slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some important distinctions:

  1. Too slow vs not knowing where the ground is; If the runway is made but the pilot bleeds all the speed off without getting below 4' what was the issue? Was he too slow? Did he have a judgement failure? The answer is judgement failure followed by failure to then arrest the sink by advancing the throttle or increasing the aoa or both.
     
  2. Undercarriage damage isn't an incrimination of full stall landing technique. It is an incrimination of training people to fly it on. When you train someone to fly it on, one of the things you are saying is that you don't have to know where the ground is, you can simply descend in a landing attitude until your contact. This is bad because the landings become pretty passive, just let it land. Add in the problem of unwanted rapid sink and the let it land mindset backfires, the rapid sink begins, the student freezes and the hard contact happens. The more active full stall landing has an adjusting angle of attack already, the freeze and drop is less likely.

Until most CT pilots are doing full stall landings you will not be able to blame undercarriage damage on the full stall landing pilots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

 

I believe I cited the one accident I could think of offhand where a bit of extra speed on the approach might have helped.

 

If a pilot drops it in from 10' and breaks something, speed has nothing to do with it. The proximate cause would be inability to judge height, combined with not taking appropriate action (FULL POWER and GO AROUND!)

 

You can't end up at 10' without having first climbed back through 1', then 2', then 3', etc, all without either seeing the problem (in my experience the most common issue) or not being assertive enough to nip the climb in the bud.

 

Beyond that let me just echo CharlieTango's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a pilot flys it to the runway with 5-10 over stall then it should never be dropped. No flare, no stall, no going to slow, no round out 10' off the deck. Just and easy descent right to the runway. The only thing that would need to be done is transition from the approach and round out parallel to the runway and let it settle with or without power. This really has far less chance of a drop or mushy controls in winds and gives much better flight control stability. Who cares if you are going 5 over stall on touch and roll. Just roll or use the brake if you need extra stopping power. 5 knots should not make a difference after you are on the ground. 5 knots is close to half the speed a person can run, compared to the 40-50 knots on touch. If 5 knots makes you have an issue once on the ground it wasn't the 5 knots extra, but some other screw up that caused you what ever problem.

 

With most people's lack of depth perception off the ground in their LSA you're more likely to drop it hard with a full stall than flying it to the ground. Call FD, Lockwood, Airtime Aviation and Lone Mnt. And ask what the most common issue has been for damaged planes. (Dropped hard) flying the plane to the ground lessens that chance.

 

9 years ago I let a CFI talk me into full stall landings with a tail dragger. It weighed 60 lbs less than an SW and we had 20+ cross winds. Full stall on the ground no problem. It was the big wind gust that lifted us back in the air with no flying speed and total lack of control because of the stall speed that pretty much crushed the right gear leg. From then on I always landed with power and over stall and now I can land in much higher cross winds with absolute control over my flying surfaces and I have enough speed, control and available power to get out of tough spots. When I went to Apple Valley, Ca. a couple years back the other aircraft grounded them selves because they thought winds of 28-34 were to high, but that little CTSW cruised in and cruised out without an issue.

 

 

By the way bouncing doesn't come from a high landing speed, it comes from trying to put it down before it's ready or failing to arrest your approach descent. You could land at 90 mph and not bounce.

 

It's all about having more than one tool in the toolbox and knowing enough when to use each tool and not be so muscle trained from the exclusive use of that one tool that causes issues with everything else. Saying I always use full stall landings or I always pull the stick all the way back isn't could.

 

Never say never and there is never an always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

 

You now argue for 5kts over stall at touchdown yet the difference between the 'slow' and 'fast' guys is greater than 5kts. Contacting at 43kts is more in the 'full stall' camp than the fly it on camp.

 

In GA over the years slow landings have proven safer than fast landings and while that happened bent gear from hard landings dropped in has always been a major cause of damage. Damage happens on landings more than in other phases, just a fact of life. Excess speed does not guarantee vertical speed control, awareness and correct and timely control inputs will do it.

 

Much better to fly the plane to the runway than to drop it in, true but that issue is dealt with by controlling your vertical speed, no need for excess energy. Adding risk in order to control risk is not as good as reducing the risk through training and building skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually touch on calm 15 flap day around 45-48 (maybe as high as 50 some days depending on what I'm doing) with the real stall around 38. I don't see landing with an extra 5+ knots as adding extra risk. I see it as better control. I see being too slow with mushy controls as extra risk.

 

See we are like Chevy's and Ford's. We tend to like one, but not both and that saying that there is more than one way to skin the cat is all part of our discussion. I'm not against different style landings I'm only against that there is only one best way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a pilot flys it to the runway with 5-10 over stall then it should never be dropped. No flare, no stall, no going to slow, no round out 10' off the deck. Just and easy descent right to the runway. The only thing that would need to be done is transition from the approach and round out parallel to the runway and let it settle with or without power.

 

This is opposite of everything I've ever been taught. And I can't believe the CT is so radically different that it needs a new landing method.

 

BTW, I have about 1500 landings, 800 as a student, in my CTSW. My wife has about 100 landings as a student in our plane. We've never had any issues with broken landing gear components, broken wheels, broken nose gear, etc. We haven't even changed out the nose gear spring with the foam dampener. I strive, every time, to touch down gently on the mains, bleed off speed and gently ease the nose down. The nose touches the runway when I say it touches the runway.

 

I'd also point out that you don't have to choose between a full-stall landing and flying it onto the deck. You land the aircraft on the verge of stall. Like when the horn goes off on a Cessna. Not a full stall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't replace that nose spring you'll end up with a wobbling front nose wheel and may be replacing the nose strut. It has to much movement up and down wears the pin and groove out on the strut. Most have done the upgrade. It's easy enough. I have repaired many a front end because of this spring setup. Several have had expensive repairs around the country ($2500+). The spring also allows the front end to bottom and slam the top on the rebound. If you have more that 1/4" it has already started. Push the tail down and move the front wheel side to side. Once started it continues to get worse and as it wears it will increase in wear damage fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't replace that nose spring you'll end up with a wobbling front nose wheel and may be replacing the nose strut. It has to much movement up and down wears the pin and groove out on the strut. Most have done the upgrade. It's easy enough. I have repaired many a front end because of this spring setup. Several have had expensive repairs around the country ($2500+). The spring also allows the front end to bottom and slam the top on the rebound. If you have more that 1/4" it has already started. Push the tail down and move the front wheel side to side. Once started it continues to get worse and as it wears it will increase in wear damage fast.

 

Another excellent heads up from Roger!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mechanic checks the nose gear for play or damage every annual. There's no problem. I remember people having to fix the nose gear issue within 6 months of taking delivery of their aircraft. I've had mine for 6 years. Maybe it has something to do with the way I land my airplane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed's been landing light aircraft for many years and I doubt he'll have any issues and he does it in more turbulence than we normally have to do ours because of his mountains and winds, not to mention really high DA's to deal with in the warmer months. Ed's a good pilot and I have known him for about 6.5 years. I don't necessarily agree with full stall landings all the time, but that's just a personal choice for me and him. If it works for you then it works no matter what way you accomplish the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily agree with full stall landings all the time...

 

To the best of my recollection, no one in this thread or any other thread has ever promoted or recommended full stall landings all the time.

 

Not me. Not the other Ed.

 

I've gone so far as to list some conditions and aircraft where I think full flaps would be inappropriate.

 

I keep pointing this out, yet you keep saying it.

 

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0 flap landings are a definite must in high wind. and they are easier to do than slow near stall landings. Tango can wreck all the gear he wants in his plane. the rest of us are gonna protect our investments and land with appropriate speed and safety.

 

How many high wind landings have you done in a CT to date?

 

I have never damaged the gear in my plane, why do you say that I can wreck all the gear I want?

 

Why do you see your recomended approach speed of 1.55 VSo as appropriate and mine as 1.3 not?

 

You say that 0 degree landings are easier to do in high winds/ why is easier better?

 

You compare zero flaps to 'slow near stall' why are they different? configuration and stall are different concepts. Landing at zero can be done 'slow near stall' while landing with 30 can be done with a lot of margin. They are 2 different things yet your argument makes them mutually exclusive.

 

Why don't you take delivery of your CT, then learn to fly it then make statements on what techniques make sense and are safe. With zero hours in your CT your opinions lack credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you take delivery of your CT, then learn to fly it then make statements on what techniques make sense and are safe. With zero hours in your CT your opinions lack credibility.

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0 flap landings are a definite must in high wind. and they are easier to do than slow near stall landings. Tango can wreck all the gear he wants in his plane. the rest of us are gonna protect our investments and land with appropriate speed and safety.

 

So bigs, its now you and everyone else vs me? Guess you are just a natural born leader? My guess would have been that you would not have been able to convince everyone else that appropriate speed is 1.55 VSo or that easy=safe but you say so.

 

Everyone,

 

Congrats on following bigs! As well as landing fast but still stopping short do you all:

  • advocate: [o]n a downwind taxi you definitely dont want the elevator down because that would lift the tail and puke the prop.
  • believe that the luggage area is within the CG envelope?
  • agree that 30 degree landings are a 'mess'?
  • agree that additional power is needed to remain aloft if there is wind?
  • agree that wind is resistance and a crosswind will 'stop' you without additional speed?
  • believe that [t]he ONLY time to do a stall landing is in an emergeny?
  • beleive that there is no downside to deploying your BRS ( only a repack since it exits through a fabric panel )?
  • believe that bigs plane will go 20% faster ( 147 kts ) ?
  • believe that the 912iS has more power?

I better go fix my wrecked gear, while all you guys and girls are out having fun flying with appropriate speed and safety. I do keep several extra gear legs in my hangar but I'm afraid they are all wrecked too. Maybe I can just rotate the bent gear legs 180 degrees? That way I will be riding high instead of squatting low :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I officially ignore bigs and then see all the reposts and comments on him. The guy has no clue. It makes me wonder if he is a pilot or a troll. Some of these things have to do with a basic understanding of flight.

 

I agree 100%.

 

Has anyone met him face-to-face or spoken with him personally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rotate at 48K?? Might as well drive to where you are going! I'd have to double check but I think Vx with flaps 15 in my bird is 51K. I wouldn't recommend that early on in student pilot training but that's what I would expect to have demonstrated in the check ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the CT-LSA Flight Training Supplement for the CTSW:

  • As soon as the airplane accelerates, gently pull back on control stick – keep the
    nose wheel slightly elevated until the airplane takes off.

Seems to roughly correspond to my very general practice in light planes. That is, to begin gentle back pressure as the airspeed touches the bottom of the white arc, lifting the nose just off the runway and allowing the plane to fly when its ready. Gusty winds may call for a more positive rotation at a slightly higher speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Ed' may be a swell guy doing stall landings in his plane, but to give new pilots the idea that stall landings are a preferred or common way to go is what I object to. This thread began with a student pilot asking an innocent question about landings etc. And as I mentioned. the more sophisticated FD CT schools are not teaching stall landings. In fact, they require students to rotate at 48kts with 15 degree flaps and transition to 0 and -6 flaps at 78kts while in the pattern turning base and then final no slower than 62kts and no more than 15 degree flaps. crossing the threshold at 62kts EVERY TIME. This lessens the impact of gusts and crosswind AND it's a best practice and easier on the gear. So the real question is, why stall land at all unless you are making an emergency landing? the answer is obvious.

 

bigs :to give new pilots the idea that stall landings are a preferred or common way to go is what I object to.

 

Ever heard of the rule or law of primacy? The FAA requires that students and pilots be taught not to retract flaps while still on the runway because they may advance to retractable designs and mistake the gear for the flaps. What your learn 1st is likely what your will practice for your aviation career.

 

Full stall landings are in fact preferred and common, add the rule of primacy and the student is clearly better off learning that landings are safer if done at minimum speed.

 

Consider that the average member on this Forum has more than a thousand hours and you are apparently a student with some problems understanding basic aviation and aerodynamic concepts. You very naturally assume the role of information giver yet you lack the experience to even grasp the subject matter in this case. I repeat you would be best advised to listen as opposed to instruct.

 

Terming your school 'sophisticated' means nothing. Few schools if any are both sport pilot and LSA oriented and Flight Design specialized and have any amount of experience.

 

The schools in Carson City and Las Vegas certainly lack LSA experience and IMHO if they require the speeds that you claim are only making things harder and less safe. Have you ever ballooned on one of your 62 kt round outs? Too fast presents more safety issues than too slow.

 

You continue to ask why [full] stall landings? The answer is easy, safety. A landing is essentially a controlled collision with the runway, more speed/energy means more risk of damage and more wear on the tires.

 

You worry about gear damage at the expense of human injury or worse.

 

Minimum speed for the conditions is what is safe. You don't have the experience or knowledge to counter that yet you do, continually.

 

Its really a pretty simple thing to move the stick back to the aft stop, in order to achieve the minimum landing speed that you don't know but the plane does. Its a safety thing and to advocate the opposite is a new direction in aviation that can only be justified with laziness.

 

It is a good practice to stay deep within the envelope but a landing is necessarily a maneuver that transitions beyond the boundaries of the envelope, all of the extra speed simply transitions the time when you have to deal with diminished control authority.

 

What is so bad about mushy controls? Nothing really changes, you still need to input control until the desired result is achieved. When you slow the controls need more travel and that's ok.

 

With experience you will learn that you fly differently, it takes time to build time and learn.

 

Speed=safety only up to a point, beyond that in terms of landings it becomes your enemy.

 

The speeds you are advocating make landings less safe and more challenging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...