Steep approach gone bad

TangoWhiskey

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name
Display name:
3Green
Wondering why the instructor didn't get "more involved". I'm presuming the incessant "fingers tapping the glareshield" is the instructor suggesting to "pitch up til the nose of the airplane / glareshield touches the end of the runway". But I didn't see any pitch corrections on this VERY steep approach, and it didn't end well.

 
55 kts to touch any wheel(a) is WAYYY to fast for a Remos. 50 indicated would be about right, and you can see that they were at 60, flat pitch when he banged it on

"Dive and drive...."
 
I've seen this video before and every time I see it, I'm convinced that there is something amiss with the pitot system on the plane. There is no way that thing stalls where the airspeed indicator showed when the plane appeared to stall.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I've seen this video before and every time I see it, I'm convinced that there is something amiss with the pitot system on the plane. There is no way that thing stalls where the airspeed indicator showed when the plane appeared to stall.
Click to expand...


*If* that's true, it's also yet another reason to be able to fly the airplane and be able to sense when something's amiss.


As far down as they touched down -- I probably would have said "I see a deer on the runway -- go around..."
 
dmccormack said:
*If* that's true, it's also yet another reason to be able to fly the airplane and be able to sense when something's amiss.
Click to expand...

Yeah, by no means do I know that for sure to be the case. I just can't think of much else that would cause a problem that the airplane would stall that far above the stall speed. But who knows, could have been something else amiss too.

The good news is, with a prop strike on a Rotax, you don't have to do nearly as much work on the engine.
 
Yeah, it is weird... even without the ASI close-ups, they seem to be hot, and when he does pick the nose up a bit at the prompting of the CFI, it's not so abrupt as to induce an accelerated stall. Doesn't look like a wind-induced problem either- the bottom just drops out.

At first I though nobody was on the throttle ( not a good practice in any airplane), but it looks like somebody's hand is on the right-seater's throttle. But it does not seem like any attempt was made to add power as the bottom dropped out, or after the first impact. I wonder if that might have helped.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I will give my opinion of what happened from what I can see in the video.
I haven't flown the Remos but have flown the Flight Design CT which seems like it is a similar design.

I don't think the plane stalled. It would help if I could see a normal landing sight picture of one, but it looks to me more like they encountered a bit of wind shear causing the aircraft to drop. They failed to raise the nose and landed hard on the nose wheel as well as the mains. The mains may have been able to take this hit, but the nose wheel obviously was not. I suspect the nose wheel may have been damaged on the 1st bounce and then failed on the second which acutally looked softer to me than the 1st hit.

For those of you that haven't flown some of these light sports they are built light and the landing gear does not seem as robust to me as it is on say a Cessna 150. Also the sight pictures and control pressures are not what many pilots expect after flying Cessnas and Pipers. The occasionally have some unusual systems such as the flaperon system on the Challengers. Something for flight instructors to be wary of before they just jump into one thinking it is just another airplane. I suspect that same landing in the 150 would have not damaged it at all.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Edit: in response to rottydaddy, I do think adding power may have helped but it dropped pretty quickly I am not sure they or the engine could have responded in time.
 
Last edited:
brcase said:
I suspect that same landing in the 150 would have not damaged it at all.


CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...
This is true... I can personally vouch for that. :D
But there is an equivalent sort of "nose prang after bounce" arrival that will definitely compromise 150/172 nose gears... but you pretty much have to drive it onto the runway nose-low and wheelbarrow it a bit, first. :D
 
I watched the video a couple of times and didn't see anything I recognized as a stall. I think he just flew it into the ground and broke the nose gear during the resulting PIO.
 
brcase said:
Ok, I will give my opinion of what happened from what I can see in the video.
I haven't flown the Remos but have flown the Flight Design CT which seems like it is a similar design.

I don't think the plane stalled. It would help if I could see a normal landing sight picture of one, but it looks to me more like they encountered a bit of wind shear causing the aircraft to drop. They failed to raise the nose and landed hard on the nose wheel as well as the mains. The mains may have been able to take this hit, but the nose wheel obviously was not. I suspect the nose wheel may have been damaged on the 1st bounce and then failed on the second which acutally looked softer to me than the 1st hit.
Click to expand...

Having flown both a Remos G3 and a CTSW, I don't remember the sight pictures being very similar at all. If anything, the Remos was very much like a 172 to me, but the CTSW was a foreign concept, with a crazy low sight picture. I could consistanly get decent landings after no more than an hour of dual, whereas it took nearly 5 to get to the point that I could get more than one decent landing in a row with the CTSW.

But yes, I'd confirm what you said about the landing gear on the LSA's. They aren't built quite a durably, due to the necessity of keeping the structure light.

Edit: After watching it in full screen, 720p, I don't see a stall either. He flared, but then failed to maintain the back pressure as the speed bleed off, and drove it in the ground.
 
Last edited:
To me that sure does not look like a stall at all. It looks like he had a decent going and slammed it into the runway. He levels off and then drops the nose a bit. When his main first hit hard he bounces up and then dives into the runway breaking the nose gear.

I gotta blame the CFI for letting that landing continue. The student was not set up for the approach very well at all. It should have been a go around.
 
At 051 he lets the nose down. The profile looks like the landing picture from a light twin.
 
Last edited:
Given the length of that runway, the steep approach or his speed weren't the problem at all.

There was more than enough time and space to make a nice landing out of this. To me, it looks like he flared way too high, then he realized that he had flared to high and tried to correct, flying the plane into the runway in the process. If he had just corrected by flaring again a little bit lower, he would have been fine.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
Given the length of that runway, the steep approach or his speed weren't the problem at all.

There was more than enough time and space to make a nice landing out of this. To me, it looks like he flared way too high, then he realized that he had flared to high and tried to correct, flying the plane into the runway in the process. If he had just corrected by flaring again a little bit lower, he would have been fine.

-Felix
Click to expand...

Sorry -- a LSA flying over 2500' of pavement?

Two words: Go Around.
 
dmccormack said:
Sorry -- a LSA flying over 2500' of pavement?

Two words: Go Around.
Click to expand...
Why? It's good practice to learn to salvage bad approaches.

It obviously wasn't a good approach. But there was no reason it couldn't still have been a good landing....
 
dmccormack said:
Sorry -- a LSA flying over 2500' of pavement?

Two words: Go Around.
Click to expand...

Why, I wasn't aware there was some rule stating you have to land on the numbers or touchdown zone, especially on a longer runway? He had more than enough runway remaining to get the thing stopped, for sure. Nothing wrong with a long landing.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Why, I wasn't aware there was some rule stating you have to land on the numbers or touchdown zone, especially on a longer runway? He had more than enough runway remaining to get the thing stopped, for sure. Nothing wrong with a long landing.
Click to expand...

Well, my flight training self-imposed technique-only not-a-rule for students is if you haven't touched down by the first third, go around.

Why?

Well, if you're so hosed up you're still flying 3000 feet down the runway, you are most likely going to compound the problem by diving or floating or stalling 10' above the pavement.

The reason we're talking about this "landing" is there was insufficient control and air discipline 1 mile from the pavement that was only exacerbated as the pavement flew underneath.

IMHO, where you place the airplane is important, right from the get-go.

Anytime I've let a "landing long" scenario continue, it's ended up badly -- hard landing, screeching brakes, or some other bad habit.

Touchdown by first third or go around -- makes it simple. :wink2:

You don't like it?

Fine -- don't do it. :dunno:
 
sba55 said:
Why? It's good practice to learn to salvage bad approaches.

It obviously wasn't a good approach. But there was no reason it couldn't still have been a good landing....
Click to expand...


See my response above, but....

The logic about "Learning to salvage a bad landing" just makes me wonder...

Why not learn to do it right to begin with so "salvaging" isn't required?
 
dmccormack said:
See my response above, but....

The logic about "Learning to salvage a bad landing" just makes me wonder...

Why not learn to do it right to begin with so "salvaging" isn't required?
Click to expand...

I was at the airport once when an instructor friend of mine walked in after turning a student solo. His comment to me was the student couldn't do a descent landing at all, however the student had been doing bad landings for so long that the student was better at recovering from bad landings the the instructor was.

I am sure he said with some degree of Jest, However I thought his point was good. I am much more comfortable soloing a student who routinely messes up landing and recovers than the student that does a perfect landing every time. The problem with the latter is it difficult to know if he will recognize a bad landing and recover from it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Edit: I occasionally land at a 15,000 foot runway with the parking at the far end. Landing in the 1st 3rd results in a very long taxi in the planes I fly (Scout, Arrow, 172)
 
I don't think I heard a stall warning device going off. Maybe that plane doesn't have one?
 
The airplane didn't stall - the pilot simply quit pulling back/shoved the stick forward and let the nose slam into the ground. It had PLENTY of lift left.
 
Nose wheels are for looks...thats about it.
 
taters said:
Nose wheels are for looks...thats about it.
Click to expand...
And taxiing...don't forget taxiing; gotta get out to the runway and back in.
But that's about it. Nose wheels shouldn't be on the ground past fast-taxi speed. That's all they're good for. And designed for.
 
The commentary says they knew they were fast and the instructor was using the time they spent floating to teach about watching the horizon to judge position. And i do see him pointing off to the right.

From that, I would guess they both had their attention on whatever the CFI was saying. The CFI was busy explaining something and wasn't ready to respond when the student, distracted trying to understand what was being said, stopped focusing on holding the pitch. I think that's more plausible than the high speed stall theory.
 
dmccormack said:
See my response above, but....

The logic about "Learning to salvage a bad landing" just makes me wonder...

Why not learn to do it right to begin with so "salvaging" isn't required?
Click to expand...
I don't think we're really in disagreement there. I also do think that you should learn to land correctly.

That said, not _all_ of my landings have been perfect. In those cases, I do value the ability to recognize the problem and either land or go around, depending on what makes the most sense.

-Felix
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Why, I wasn't aware there was some rule stating you have to land on the numbers or touchdown zone, especially on a longer runway? He had more than enough runway remaining to get the thing stopped, for sure. Nothing wrong with a long landing.
Click to expand...

And every year there are fatal accidents with people trying to salvage landings. I fully agree though that there is nothing wrong with landing long, especially at big airports when landing at the numbers will cause a 1/2 hour taxi session. However, you should always land within a reasonable tolerance of where you intend to land, be that on the numbers of halfway down the runway. Learning to recognize when NOT to try to salvage a landing and just go around is every bit as critical in one's training as learning how to salvage a bad approach. BTW, Salvaging a bad approach should be completed before the flare, not while floating down the runway.
 
The airplane never stalled, the nose just sank as the elevator authority decreased and he drove it on for a bounce then pushed the nose down. The instructor is right to blame himself (as everyone else does). There was no slip or other energy management technique employed during the approach, and as soon as he saw the nose coming down he should have been on the stick. I will also wager that the student wasn't taught to use the trim during the landing which would have likely prevented this.

As an aside, that is on weak a$$ed nose gear to collapse from that landing.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Wondering why the instructor didn't get "more involved". I'm presuming the incessant "fingers tapping the glareshield" is the instructor suggesting to "pitch up til the nose of the airplane / glareshield touches the end of the runway". But I didn't see any pitch corrections on this VERY steep approach, and it didn't end well.

Click to expand...


Yeah, that really is the question isn't it. I wonder if he got a 709 out of that... As soon as the nose started to lower he should have been on the stick adding back pressure while telling him what he was doing and why. What's saddest is that the student still didn't understand what happened, which means he still didn't get any learning value out of the accident. He thinks it stalled.
 
Last edited:
rottydaddy said:
Yes, it really folded without much of a fight, didn't it? :D
Click to expand...

Good chance it would have happened to me on my second solo..., but at least I knew what went wrong, I just wasn't quick enough at correcting. The 152 forgave me without a complaint.
 
kyleb said:
I watched the video a couple of times and didn't see anything I recognized as a stall. I think he just flew it into the ground and broke the nose gear during the resulting PIO.
Click to expand...
Concur. I've been flying a Flight Design CTsw this week, and my experience in that plane is consistent with Kyle's observation. The final approach attitude with landing flaps in these LSA's is rather more nose-low than we're used to in most "normal" light singles, and if you don't get the nose up as you reach 2-3 feet above the runway, you'll drive the nosewheel into the ground. The good news is that if you're on speed to start with, the airplane decelerates so fast when you do that, it's less prone to ballooning.
 
sba55 said:
Why? It's good practice to learn to salvage bad approaches.
Click to expand...
I remember a Navy flying safety poster from about 35 years ago showing the bits and pieces of what had once been an A-4 Skyhawk laid out neatly on the hangar floor in the shape of the airplane, all in their correct positions relative to each other. The caption was:

THERE'S NO APPROACH WHICH CAN'T BE SALVAGED.
 
I have not been near a Remos so do not know anything about them. I watched the video and did not see anything which should have buckled the nose gear like that. I cannot believe it passed certification testing if that is all it takes to buckle the nose gear. I think it may have had prior damage and was ready to fail.

Several have posted that the approach was so bad. Any of you that have not been that far out of whack on any approaches, say with a strong gusty crosswind component? If so did your nose gear collapse like that?

Just my thoughts, Rick
 
B2Soar said:
I have not been near a Remos so do not know anything about them. I watched the video and did not see anything which should have buckled the nose gear like that. I cannot believe it passed certification testing if that is all it takes to buckle the nose gear. I think it may have had prior damage and was ready to fail.

Several have posted that the approach was so bad. Any of you that have not been that far out of whack on any approaches, say with a strong gusty crosswind component? If so did your nose gear collapse like that?

Just my thoughts, Rick
Click to expand...

Remos is light sport so the certification is the manufacturer's statement that it complies with consensus standards whatever those are.

I've flown and bounced a Remos. It bounced higher than anything else I've bounced. No big deal (after the fact - at the time my eyes were pretty big), just keep the nose up. Do not dive for the deck. Heck, the darn thing is part glider anyway...
 
Henning said:
And every year there are fatal accidents with people trying to salvage landings. I fully agree though that there is nothing wrong with landing long, especially at big airports when landing at the numbers will cause a 1/2 hour taxi session. However, you should always land within a reasonable tolerance of where you intend to land, be that on the numbers of halfway down the runway. Learning to recognize when NOT to try to salvage a landing and just go around is every bit as critical in one's training as learning how to salvage a bad approach. BTW, Salvaging a bad approach should be completed before the flare, not while floating down the runway.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. The only point I was trying to make with the long landing statement was the people who say things like "You must always land in the first 2000 feet of the runway". I'm not a big fan of people with rules of thumb and sayings that include "always" and "must".


Ron Levy said:
Concur. I've been flying a Flight Design CTsw this week, and my experience in that plane is consistent with Kyle's observation. The final approach attitude with landing flaps in these LSA's is rather more nose-low than we're used to in most "normal" light singles, and if you don't get the nose up as you reach 2-3 feet above the runway, you'll drive the nosewheel into the ground. The good news is that if you're on speed to start with, the airplane decelerates so fast when you do that, it's less prone to ballooning.
Click to expand...

I think the CTsw has the worst sight picture on landing of any of the S-LSA's I've flown. Couple the very low panel with the 30 degree's of flaps plus drooping ailerons and low approach speeds, and it has a massive nose down pitch on final. When I fly them, I don't use more that 15 degree's of flaps on final, unless its operationally required. And for them to be operationally required, I'd say I would be looking at a field that is less than about 1,500 feet.
 
sba55 said:
I don't think we're really in disagreement there. I also do think that you should learn to land correctly.

That said, not _all_ of my landings have been perfect. In those cases, I do value the ability to recognize the problem and either land or go around, depending on what makes the most sense.

-Felix
Click to expand...


Well of course! :yesnod:

But, I assume the case here was an instructional flight. A key skill is being able to place the airplane where you intend. It's one thing to intentionally land somewhere down the runway to save a long taxi or make a certain taxiway. It's something altogether different to be so hosed up you aren't quite sure where you are going to touch down.

This case was clearly the latter.
 
The hardest thing about primary instruction is determiningg just how long to let the student hang the rope....w/o hanging himself. I might not have been able to save that one but my hands would not be up on the glareshield.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top