And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Wednesday, July 19, 2023
Extreme Hard Landing - Cessna 441 Conquest II. But no prop strike - lucky!
One year I had a checkride for recurrency with a high time corporate pilot. He held multiple jet type ratings, his flying was predominately in the high flight levels on international flights. A new C-206 was the aircraft we used.
He was very upset with me that I dropped the nose lower than +5 degree pitch on final. And he insisted on long finals.
Before the flight, I told him that I'm somewhat a cowboy; much of my flight time is in indian country in mountainous terrain. That was the *only* reason he signed off on me. He is a fantastic pilot and bestest person one could ever hope to know. He was experienced enough to understand the diverse types of flying. But as CFI, he was rigid about his type of flying. The lesson we both acknowledged is there are different ways to skin a cat. Our flight reintroduced him to low and slow. Our flight reinforced my understanding of flight strictly by the numbers. Both are correct (in context).
I let a friend fly my WWII birddog with me as pax. The smallest aircraft he flew was a North American T-28 (his hobby). Most of his flying was heavy cargo jets. Only the last of five landings was smooth. Three of five were bone jarring such I thought something got broke. The sight picture of sitting so low to the tarmac was foreign to him.
My basic instruction included the instructor putting two Xs in grease pencil on the windscreen; one for level flight, the other for putting the touchdown point on the X.
That meant a negative deck angle to drive to the numbers.
That is an airport in Canada, I forget the name. Apparently it is a difficult approach. This pilot failed in energy management; he landed with too much speed. The tailwind was negligible but with everything else going wrong, was not helpful. The owners will be lucky if structure wasn't crumpled. Whether the pilot keeps his job is another thing. Very likely a '702 ride' is in his future once the FAA sees this video.
And, despite having flown daily before, hasn't flown since/ Reports are that they swapped out a prop at Nelson.
This was a failure in energy management. Not too much speed, but a failure to manage energy on short final and flare(what there was of one). I would suspect nose gear damage at least, and possibly wing skin stretching due to the really hard hit. The main gear probably handled things fine.
Take a look at the terrain on google maps. The airport is on the shore of a river. If he had come in from the east, into the wind, he would have had a normal approach over the Walmart. Or he could have flown in from the west in the river valley with no need for the steep approach at all. Regarding the damage, go full screen, freeze the video at 3m00 and look at the blade at 1 o'clock, it has a divot missing from the tip and the 4 and 7 o'clock blades should have round tips. I suspect the nose gear drag brace or actuator is damaged, airplanes (excepting trainer and carrier aircraft which have very heavy, rugged gear) aren't designed to land on the nosewheel like that. The pilot won't be in trouble from the FAA for the landing, but taking off again without having a licenced A&P mechanic, or Canadian AME, inspect the plane and sign it out as airworthy is a huge violation of the rules. Every engine manual I've read says "prop strike - no further flight, send engine to approved facility for inspection". Al_in_Ottawa
Cessna twins have very unforgiving nose gear and many a 310 have collapsed one while landing. I personally witnessed an event at a grass strip as a kid. I later read it was attributed to "PIC: Insufficient time in type." Luckily no injuries. - WDS
Anon 7:12. Nope, the nose gear strut is like any other, and isn't particularly weak....but you can't land on it. Mains, then nose gear. If you are trimmed right and (even close to) on speed at landing, you'll land on the main gear just as the you run out of energy to fly. IF you manage your speed poorly (as in the example above) then you'll flare late and hit with all three. This was a particularly bad example of that. You can fix that with the application of power to keep flying, but a turboprop takes time to spool up. This is an example of "Getting behind the aircraft" . I own and fly a C340....310's, 340s and all of the 400 series are all pretty similar in flying characteristics.
Looking at Trade-A-Plane a Conquest is worth $1.5M or more so it is economically sensible to repair it. Oddly enough the hourly rate for fixing an airplane is less than what your Ford or Chevy dealership charges. I've helped repair aircraft that have been hit by a forklift hard enough to bend the rear fuselage, been flipped over on their back by high winds and the nose wheel well structure so distorted the strut was 10degrees off vertical when viewed from the front due to a runaway baggage cart. It won't be quick, you can't order aircraft parts like you can car parts. Al_in_Ottawa
Look at the nose wheel wobble when he finally gets it on the ground......Jesus.
ReplyDeleteProbably blew the shimmy dampener completley apart
DeleteHesus had nothing to do with it!
DeleteThat's not, technically, true. ;-)
Delete- macxcool
Assume the pilot got a remedial course in landing an airplane?
ReplyDeleteDoubt it. Power off landings that go that well are wonderful!
ReplyDeleteJohn h
Smacked that one down good. Looked like a combat approach without the flare.
ReplyDeleteNaval aviators don't flare.
DeleteThey perform a controlled crash
Deletewhy do I get the (mistaken?) impression that the pilot is landing downwind
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I thought was he's coming in hot, then I saw the windsock. Sure looks to me like he's landing with the wind.
DeleteMy instructor said "Don't dive at the runway."
ReplyDeleteOne year I had a checkride for recurrency with a high time corporate pilot. He held multiple jet type ratings, his flying was predominately in the high flight levels on international flights. A new C-206 was the aircraft we used.
DeleteHe was very upset with me that I dropped the nose lower than +5 degree pitch on final. And he insisted on long finals.
Before the flight, I told him that I'm somewhat a cowboy; much of my flight time is in indian country in mountainous terrain. That was the *only* reason he signed off on me. He is a fantastic pilot and bestest person one could ever hope to know. He was experienced enough to understand the diverse types of flying. But as CFI, he was rigid about his type of flying. The lesson we both acknowledged is there are different ways to skin a cat. Our flight reintroduced him to low and slow. Our flight reinforced my understanding of flight strictly by the numbers. Both are correct (in context).
I let a friend fly my WWII birddog with me as pax.
The smallest aircraft he flew was a North American T-28 (his hobby). Most of his flying was heavy cargo jets. Only the last of five landings was smooth. Three of five were bone jarring such I thought something got broke. The sight picture of sitting so low to the tarmac was foreign to him.
My basic instruction included the instructor putting two Xs in grease pencil on the windscreen; one for level flight, the other for putting the touchdown point on the X.
DeleteThat meant a negative deck angle to drive to the numbers.
That is an airport in Canada, I forget the name. Apparently it is a difficult approach.
ReplyDeleteThis pilot failed in energy management; he landed with too much speed. The tailwind was negligible but with everything else going wrong, was not helpful.
The owners will be lucky if structure wasn't crumpled.
Whether the pilot keeps his job is another thing. Very likely a '702 ride' is in his future once the FAA sees this video.
July 18, 2023. Nelson airport in British Columbia.
ReplyDeleteReported is the right engine did suffer a prop strike. That makes sense after watching him fiddle with the right engine after landings.
Also reported is three hours later the aircraft was flown to Alberta province. It could have been a ferry flight to a repair station.
And, despite having flown daily before, hasn't flown since/ Reports are that they swapped out a prop at Nelson.
DeleteThis was a failure in energy management. Not too much speed, but a failure to manage energy on short final and flare(what there was of one).
I would suspect nose gear damage at least, and possibly wing skin stretching due to the really hard hit. The main gear probably handled things fine.
Did we land or were we shot down?
ReplyDeleteLooks like a heck of an approach, deep in a tight valley and some power lines to deal with.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the terrain on google maps. The airport is on the shore of a river. If he had come in from the east, into the wind, he would have had a normal approach over the Walmart. Or he could have flown in from the west in the river valley with no need for the steep approach at all.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the damage, go full screen, freeze the video at 3m00 and look at the blade at 1 o'clock, it has a divot missing from the tip and the 4 and 7 o'clock blades should have round tips. I suspect the nose gear drag brace or actuator is damaged, airplanes (excepting trainer and carrier aircraft which have very heavy, rugged gear) aren't designed to land on the nosewheel like that. The pilot won't be in trouble from the FAA for the landing, but taking off again without having a licenced A&P mechanic, or Canadian AME, inspect the plane and sign it out as airworthy is a huge violation of the rules. Every engine manual I've read says "prop strike - no further flight, send engine to approved facility for inspection".
Al_in_Ottawa
Cessna twins have very unforgiving nose gear and many a 310 have collapsed one while landing. I personally witnessed an event at a grass strip as a kid. I later read it was attributed to "PIC: Insufficient time in type." Luckily no injuries.
Delete- WDS
Anon 7:12. Nope, the nose gear strut is like any other, and isn't particularly weak....but you can't land on it. Mains, then nose gear. If you are trimmed right and (even close to) on speed at landing, you'll land on the main gear just as the you run out of energy to fly. IF you manage your speed poorly (as in the example above) then you'll flare late and hit with all three. This was a particularly bad example of that. You can fix that with the application of power to keep flying, but a turboprop takes time to spool up. This is an example of "Getting behind the aircraft" .
DeleteI own and fly a C340....310's, 340s and all of the 400 series are all pretty similar in flying characteristics.
Thanks B
Delete- WDS (anon 7:12)
My knowledge of damage to air frames causing a write off of the air plane is limited. I wonder if the pilot just totaled the Cessna?
ReplyDeleteLooking at Trade-A-Plane a Conquest is worth $1.5M or more so it is economically sensible to repair it. Oddly enough the hourly rate for fixing an airplane is less than what your Ford or Chevy dealership charges.
DeleteI've helped repair aircraft that have been hit by a forklift hard enough to bend the rear fuselage, been flipped over on their back by high winds and the nose wheel well structure so distorted the strut was 10degrees off vertical when viewed from the front due to a runaway baggage cart.
It won't be quick, you can't order aircraft parts like you can car parts.
Al_in_Ottawa
Navy pilot, lookin for that 3rd wire....
ReplyDelete