What makes a safe landing?

kimberlyanne546

kimberlyanne546

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
7,726
Location
California
Display Name
Display name:
Kimberly
I've read it a lot on POA and mostly thought it was to make me feel better:

You landed, nothing broke, therefore you had a good flight.

But seriously, what does it take to cause damage? For example, I went off to one side after touching down on Saturday and it is something I've never done before (not like that). It seemed dramatic, I inspected the plane later and couldn't see anything, the other landings were better. Also, in a different landing, I came back off the ground, but not a balloon, more like a small bump, then settled back down. No banging or anything. On a recent flight we heard a HORRIBLE noise in another plane but that was just a loose bolt / screw due to a recent wheel repair where the mechanic forgot to tighten everything up.

I wonder if my CFI was on the controls for so long, if I ever really got to see anything bad?

I wonder if I would know what bad was and go around? Obviously when I veer to one side I'm not going to add full power since I'd end up in the grass.... so that was one I needed to fix on the runway and not in the air.
 
As long as it doesn't look like this:

ChinaAirMD-11HK.jpeg
 
Oh for God's sake. On Saturday I had my airspeed on final under control and was lined up so I guess it was OK. I'm sure everyone is hard on themselves but I will admit I had more greasers closer to the checkride and the less I fly the less I land. Even when I do fly I never think "hmmm I should do a few laps around the pattern."
 
A good landing is a slow landing. Also, centerline is for pros - be there.

I understand that you can plant cessnas on the mains pretty damn hard (like set off the ELT hard)...the nosegear, not so much. That won't stand up to nearly as much abuse. I know of a 172R that had a very large hangar door fall on it, flattened the mains right out. Once they pulled the door off, they sprung back, apparently with little or no damage to the attach points. /shrug
 
Safety is in the way you control your energy. Safety and damage while related are not linearly equivalent. In a crash, the damage IS safety, it is energy the surrounding structure absorbed to keep your aorta under 50Gs and things from intruding into your body. Safety comes from controlling your rate of deceleration, consequently so does not doing damage.

As far as what it takes to do damage, it depends.
 
Safe landings come from safe approaches. Hit your speeds, correct for wind in the pattern and be on glide slope. If you don't then go around and set it up better for the next attempt.

What does it take to damage a Cessna? Hit nose first, don't correct for crosswind, depart the runway and hit something, etc...

Low time guy here, so take it with salt. ;)
 
Arbiter419 said:
Also, centerline is for pros - be there.
Click to expand...
Ah, there....you said it.......not entirely true. While that is generally very good advice to follow, there are some pro techniques to landing (particularly in tailwheels) that do not involve the centerline.

Dan Mac will be around shortly to school ya:D
 
Fearless Tower said:
Ah, there....you said it.......not entirely true. While that is generally very good advice to follow, there are some pro techniques to landing (particularly in tailwheels) that do not involve the centerline.

Dan Mac will be around shortly to school ya:D
Click to expand...

I've set up diagonally many times and even did one perpendicular to the center line.:D
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
But seriously, what does it take to cause damage?
Click to expand...


In 172s and the like I suspect the most common landing-related damage is caused by prop strikes, with nosewheel crunches next in line. I've never heard of anyone damaging the mains, either. I confess to landing about a foot short of the pavement once. Heck of a bump, but didn't blow tires or bend the main gear. OTOH I've seen a number of 172s in the shop with bent props and firewalls.

- jkw
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Oh for God's sake. On Saturday I had my airspeed on final under control and was lined up so I guess it was OK. I'm sure everyone is hard on themselves but I will admit I had more greasers closer to the checkride and the less I fly the less I land. Even when I do fly I never think "hmmm I should do a few laps around the pattern."
Click to expand...

As little as you fly, you should end every flight with 2-3 laps around the pattern.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Ah, there....you said it.......not entirely true. While that is generally very good advice to follow, there are some pro techniques to landing (particularly in tailwheels) that do not involve the centerline.

Dan Mac will be around shortly to school ya:D
Click to expand...

Was waiting for that...should've added a TW disclaimer :rolleyes:
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
But seriously, what does it take to cause damage?
Click to expand...
Depends alot on the airplane and what you do to it.

Some planes handle bad technique better than others. Some are simply built with stouter undercarraiges. As others have mentioned, the Cessna nose gear/firewall design tends to be a weak link if you like to land nose wheel first. At the opposite end of the spectrum are Navy carrier based aircraft that are desinged to be landed by guys who do not flare:D

Cherokees tend to handle bad technique better than others....but even Cherokees are not immune to really really bad technique...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMmHYWjEmkY&feature=related
 
Arbiter419 said:
Was waiting for that...should've added a TW disclaimer :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Not just TW... Think about it for a minute and get out your whiz wheel.

Runway 36 150' wide, wind 275 27G35. Now draw a rectangle with 10:1 aspect ratio to represent the 1500' you want for a small plane on that 11,000 runway. Next draw a diagonal line and measure the angle and recalculate your crosswind component. What result did you get?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Depends alot on the airplane and what you do to it.

Some planes handle bad technique better than others. Some are simply built with stouter undercarraiges. As others have mentioned, the Cessna nose gear/firewall design tends to be a weak link if you like to land nose wheel first. At the opposite end of the spectrum are Navy carrier based aircraft that are desinged to be landed by guys who do not flare:D

Cherokees tend to handle bad technique better than others....but even Cherokees are not immune to really really bad technique...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMmHYWjEmkY&feature=related
Click to expand...

Anybody that wants the toughest pressurized turboprop they can get, the Jetstream (BAe 3100/3200) is way at the top of my list. That plane was designed to be a Royal Navy COD.:eek:
 
A safe landing is one you can be proud of. Its cliche' to say every landing you walk away from is a safe landing, I hate that saying. There is no such thing as the perfect landing, but if you fly with control, precision, safety and grace, it should make the landing pretty darn nice. Keeping the head on a swivel, observing your surroundings to make the necessary adjustments to power, altitude, airspeed and directional control are all things that make a landing safe.

I used to tell my students, if you can pretend you have your mom on board, even when you are solo, and you would be proud to have her sit through your landing, and if it didn't scare the beejesus out of her, then it was probably a pretty safe landing.
 
Inverted said:
A safe landing is one you can be proud of. Its cliche' to say every landing you walk away from is a safe landing, I hate that saying. There is no such thing as the perfect landing, but if you fly with control, precision, safety and grace, it should make the landing pretty darn nice. Keeping the head on a swivel, observing your surroundings to make the necessary adjustments to power, altitude, airspeed and directional control are all things that make a landing safe.

I used to tell my students, if you can pretend you have your mom on board, even when you are solo, and you would be proud to have her sit through your landing, and if it didn't scare the beejesus out of her, then it was probably a pretty safe landing.
Click to expand...

I know I hate the walk away saying too. I like the Mom measurement better. Thanks.
 
There are no such things as "safe" landings, they are all pure blind luck.
Walking away from any of them is about as close to a miracle as you will ever get.
Just thinking about them makes my skin crawl.

Hurtling toward a long strip of asphalt or concrete at close to a hundred miles an hour with absolutely no guarantees of a successful outcome pushes to the limit any of the participants sanity.

Safe landing indeed. What is the matter with you people anyway? Oh, OK, your pilots, now I understand.

-John
 
Inverted said:
A safe landing is one you can be proud of. Its cliche' to say every landing you walk away from is a safe landing, I hate that saying.
Click to expand...


I think the saying is normally a 'good' landing is one you can walk away from, and I agree it's trite and cliche`. However, you changed the word from 'good' to 'safe'.

I agree with your initial statement if you also make that change from 'safe' to 'good'; "A good landing is one you can be proud of; a safe landing EVERYBODY walks away from." seems to be more fitting and generally accurate.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
OMG I unintentionally started a nit picking thread.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused: No, you intentionally started one. You bring up safety and it will get nit picky by nature. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase, "The Devil is in the details", right? Well, you opened a thread combing the biggest devils in aviation. With that level of detail going around, nit picking is inevitable because the nits matter in this, it's the nits that save you or kill you when you're trying to pull a save out of your arse.
 
Inverted said:
I used to tell my students, if you can pretend you have your mom on board, even when you are solo, and you would be proud to have her sit through your landing, and if it didn't scare the beejesus out of her, then it was probably a pretty safe landing.
Click to expand...

My mom is terrified of airplanes. I'm an accident waiting to happen :)
 
dell30rb said:
My mom is terrified of airplanes. I'm an accident waiting to happen :)
Click to expand...

Me too she told me a story of getting invited into a Lear jet and the captain was her client. He invited her up front and she declined. She was so scared to be on that plane. He called her a white knuckle flyer.

Though I do not believe her, she says if I do this flying thing long enough she may one day get in a plane with me. Her health is not the best right now and she is in some pain so I doubt this will happen.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Me too she told me a story of getting invited into a Lear jet and the captain was her client. He invited her up front and she declined. She was so scared to be on that plane. He called her a white knuckle flyer.

Though I do not believe her, she says if I do this flying thing long enough she may one day get in a plane with me. Her health is not the best right now and she is in some pain so I doubt this will happen.
Click to expand...


There is hope Kim, it took 6 years, but I finally took my mom for a flight. My dad OTOH was in it and up about 10 minutes after I flew to visit them the first time.
 
What does it take to cause damage? You'll know if it happens... and may you never find out.:D

If you're thinking of some way to avoid "that kind" of arrival, that's good thinking. But start worrying about that at the wrong time, and it could distract you. There's no point in thinking about "this will break the plane, this will not"; better to just do the conservative thing if the situation seems to be getting out of hand. If the aim is perfection, that's a pretty good starting point. But you can't get so focused on the perfect picture that you fail to see what's happening during any given landing. Just put it where it needs to be on the runway, mind your energy, be prepared to go around if your decisions don't seem to make it work. Etc, etc... stuff you already know.

But things get weird sometimes, despite your best efforts. Sooner or later we all bite off a bigger piece than we ever did before. We think we're being clever, but "dammit, how did I end up in the grass...?" But you already have the right mindset, as you proved talking about how to deal with an excursion off the runway.
Worst thing I've ever done personally was "smoke" the brakes on a 172 landing long on 01 at N07... my passenger started barfing on base and I let it rush me... tried to force the airplane onto that short runway instead of just flying the approach as always, and going around if that didn't work that time. It was stupid; I did my first solo there, in the same plane, and did better than i did that day. Inexcusable. He'd already thrown up; another circuit wouldn't have made much difference. But I wouldn't quite call that "breaking" the airplane... at least I stopped on the runway (just barely, LOL). :wink2:

But I've seen the aftermath of typical newish or student pilot problems: nose wheel collapse from porpoising that should have been fixed with a go-around, a plane totaled from pancaking short of the runway, and many variations of "hangar rash" and "ramp rash" from mishandling before or after the flight. And even very experienced pilots do inexplicably stupid things with terrible results.

Just about every mistake is allowable, though... IF you catch it and fix it in time. For example: setting up a pattern to land downwind because of runway heading dyslexia or whatever. Stupid, yes, but only worth beating yourself up about IF you don't notice something's wrong in time to go around.

Gotta be humble as well as confident. My landing mantra is " my worst landing is one I have not made yet." I think that's helped keep me safe. For me, it's never "in the bag" until I've exited the runway, and sometimes not until the airplane is tied down. I have this attitude because I know I'm potentially as bad as any other pilot. :D And the philosophy extends to all aspects of flight, including preflight planning. I know who I'm dealing with; nobody is more dangerous to me, potentially, than myself.

Knowing you can never be perfect and recognizing your own errors is healthy; thinking you can't screw up, even that one time, because you know a lot of "stuff" is very dangerous.
 
Thats a great video, either its as hard as they say, or those are horrible tailwheel instructors :p
 
Inverted said:
Thats a great video, either its as hard as they say, or those are horrible tailwheel instructors :p
Click to expand...
I've known 2 U2 pilots, from their description that plane is a stone cold ***** & Kelly Johnston knew it would be which was why he built the thing to be nearly indestructible.:rofl:

Think about this, finishing a 10+hr mission and for the last 100' or so you are flying basically a transition to a 'PAR' type LANDING with another U2 pilot chasing you in a Camaro calling the ground for you because you can't see it.
 
Oldman said:
In 172s and the like I suspect the most common landing-related damage is caused by prop strikes, with nosewheel crunches next in line. I've never heard of anyone damaging the mains, either. I confess to landing about a foot short of the pavement once. Heck of a bump, but didn't blow tires or bend the main gear. OTOH I've seen a number of 172s in the shop with bent props and firewalls.

- jkw
Click to expand...


Quick question, have you seen any 172s with bent props and straight firewalls due to landing mishaps?

You will bend the firewall before you strike the prop.
 
Henning said:
I've known 2 U2 pilots, from their description that plane is a stone cold ***** & Kelly Johnston knew it would be which was why he built the thing to be nearly indestructible.:rofl:

Think about this, finishing a 10+hr mission and for the last 100' or so you are flying basically a transition to a 'PAR' type LANDING with another U2 pilot chasing you in a Camaro calling the ground for you because you can't see it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it can't be easy, those guys are some of the top sticks in the AF. But on the up side it's daylight, it's not raining, the runway is more than 38X70ft , and it's not moving up and down 10-15 feet and rolling back and forth.
 
Skylane81E said:
Quick question, have you seen any 172s with bent props and straight firewalls due to landing mishaps?

You will bend the firewall before you strike the prop.
Click to expand...


Well, that would depend on angle of impact as to which got bent first.:lol:;)

BTW, 182 has the easiest to damage nosewheel out of all the Cessnas and GA planes I'm around. Avalon used to have a speed bump about 1/3 way up the runway. Not normally a problem but people would land long because they're afraid of the cliff off the approach end, then they get on the runway and it looks less than half its length due to the hump it's on. Immediate reaction to this for the unfamiliar is to stand on the brakes, this was right about time for the speed bump. In 2 years I got 3 182s back up and over to Long Beach for repairs. The 182 was the only plane I saw lose its nose gear on that speed bump and we used to sit around grading landings and watch people hit all the time.
 
First yeah, but the angle that bends the prop first will also get the firewall.

I hear you on the 182 firewalls, with the later refinements they are probably of very similar strength to 172 firewalls, but have an O470/540 and a CS prop hanging off the front. Add in the heavier nose and a little poor technique...
 
Why were they putting handcuffs on that U2 pilot at the end of the video?
Can't say I've ever seen one of those... seems a bit off to have it configured like that.
 
Jeanie said:
Why were they putting handcuffs on that U2 pilot at the end of the video?
Can't say I've ever seen one of those... seems a bit off to have it configured like that.
Click to expand...

....boys will be boys....It's funny, because he cocked up the airplane...
 
Henning said:
I've known 2 U2 pilots, from their description that plane is a stone cold ***** & Kelly Johnston knew it would be which was why he built the thing to be nearly indestructible.:rofl:

Think about this, finishing a 10+hr mission and for the last 100' or so you are flying basically a transition to a 'PAR' type LANDING with another U2 pilot chasing you in a Camaro calling the ground for you because you can't see it.
Click to expand...

I have 2 friends that flew U-2s as well. They did describe it as a handful thats for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top