Of course the worst hard landing at Jazz was when they were trying to get pics of the AF A340 crash in YYZ on short final and then plonked it on really hard. Collapsed both main gear. I heard they then tried to taxi in(according to someone in the know).
I knew that captain. Probably one of the best guys to fly with. He made a dumb mistake and paid for it. He's still at Jazz as far as I know. The FO went to WJ.pelmet wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:48 pmhttp://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 5#p1023193
Of course the worst hard landing at Jazz was when they were trying to get pics of the AF A340 crash in YYZ on short final and then plonked it on really hard. Collapsed both main gear. I heard they then tried to taxi in(according to someone in the know). Not sure where they work now. AC?
The Captain from what I heard was quite experienced. Everyone that throws stones, we'll see how you cope when you one day are the one to make a mistake.
But I don't know much about the type, perhaps some keener on type could explain about the history of gear collapses on type and the actual robustness of the of the aircraft. Prior to reading this thread, I was under the assumption that it has a gear that collapses fairly easily but this incident may prove otherwise.
To compare the data, it is important to know where the G sensor is located: below or above the strut. Below the strut ("ground level") will usually (always?) be higher than the g felt in the cabin. 2-3 g does not hurt anyone. You'll notice it is harder than usual, but it is not an extreme event. To have really damaging effects, the g needs to be sustained for a longer period of time. A landing/touchdown is a short event.rigpiggy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:19 amI think if they landed with 5.7g there would be lots of casualties, I think the navy landings are around 2.2 g "youtube carrier landing hud" with about 800-1000 fpm plonk'er on which is about 12-15 fps with those big, long undercarriage oleos. I don't think navy airplanes would take it let alone a dash 8
G-force is really hard to judge. A slap on the face could easily give you 50-100g locally, for a short period, and not "damage" you. A rollercoaster with only 5 g's could black you out because it takes longer.
So, you are suggesting that the TSB engineers got it wrong?
It's fun to think things.
Have you read the report?
It wasn't wrong, its a mechanical latch sensor located under the floorboard and was tested at the TSB lab and functioned correctly. The gear manufacturer also conducted a tear down and the type of damage to the orifice tube was consistent with a 5G+ force. The TSB report details cover that.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 7o0243.pdf
"Certified to" is different than "destroyed if exceeded". Just like "max demonstrated crosswind" or "G limit". There is a safety factor added to these certifications and lots are exceeded every day accidentally, (turbulence penetration speeds, etc) and only need a quick maintenance inspection to verify no damage.
5.7g is a lot though, and I'm not recommending overstressing aircraft, just saying that if it's certified to 3.3 I wouldn't be surprised if the gear could take double that.
We know that the landing was enough to cause damage yet according to the report, "neither pilot considered the landing to have been firmer than others previously experienced". Does that sound realistic?
If the pilots decided to consider this a hard landing, a maintenance inspection would be required but that would take a while as the maintenance was at YYZ and they would not be able depart before the curfew. So they departed and then wrote up that there was a suspected hard landing. Not exactly legal.
The FDR Caution annuniator illuminated(indicating failure of the unit) at the time of the hard landing. However the crew were assured by their Maintenance Control Centre that this was unrelated to the hard landing. They were allowed to depart using an MEL as long as the CVR was deemed to be serviceable(which was no longer the case). But no one bothered to even check to see if it was serviceable and relied on a test earlier in the day. Would it not make sense to do the CVR test again? In my experience, it is a simple test taking less than 5 seconds.
From a regulatory point of view, an MEL should be entered prior to the next departure. Same with the hard landing log entry. While Jazz may be providing extra training about this, it is difficult to believe that every pilot working there was not already aware of this requirement. Of course, we all have entered a snag into the logbook on the flight back to main base where maintenance is located, there is usually no way for any outside person to prove that the failure didn't happen on that last leg. But there was no way to hide this. I'm surprised they actually did it. They could have claimed that they did not feel the landing was hard, as they actually did to the TSB and they would have been technically legal. But to enter a suspected hard landing on a subsequent leg is.......unusual.
One would think TC would be all over this case?
Looking at the damage that happened to the fuselage, it is a good example of how damage from a hard landing can happen at a location that is not neccesarily where you might expect it to be. One might be more inclined to check the landing gear area more carefully as compared to other areas.