Any Landing You can walk Away From...

[Nick N]

And keep it on the C/L too! is a good one


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/753612/ki ... p_landing/

[eno]

I watched that live when it happened .......they cut into a UK news programme to show it .... with the usual speculation from the "experts" as to what was happening. There's at least 30 mins of footage of the aircraft circling whilst attempts were made to lower the gear.

I think the "experts" were expecting something spectacular to happen and were quite disappointed when a perfect wheels up landing was made.

[Hagar]

I think the "experts" were expecting something spectacular to happen and were quite disappointed when a perfect wheels up landing was made.

Indeed. The commentary proves they have no idea of what they're talking about. It's a nice landing but I would expect the same of any competent pilot.

[C]

Interesting - quite fast, but then again as he'd cut both engines and feathered to props he would have had little control after that. Personally I'd have kept them running just a little bit longer (on the basis that the engines and props will be shock loaded in either case), probably feathering them as I came over the fence. Without the gear they would have been great at keeping the speed reasonable - looking at that video I'd say we was pushing 150kts over the threshold (on second viewing, maybe a little less, around 125ish).

Anyway, that's academic. Whatever way, it was a good landing!

[Nick N]

I agree with the engine being shut down, and I am sure he cut the fuel too. The damage to the engines themselves is minimized that way and there is no abrupt jolt when the props make contact with the runway.

You can see he put a touch of flap on that too just before touchdown which lofted him, instead of dropping them before he crossed the fence, reducing the speed and giving the craft a bit more lift at just the right time. Too soon may have caused a bit of a stall and too late would not have slowed him down or cushioned the runway contact as much.

I agree with Hagar, you would expect any good pilot would have made that landing the same. Still, it was an excellent example of how to deal with that situation  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[Jakemaster]

From my experience in FS (HAHAHA, like that makes my opinion valid ), what I'm most amazed by is the pilots ability to properly flare and let the plane float down as softly as it did especially with props feathered, I know that it would be easy to hit the ground too hard and possibly end up flipping over or then pull up too much and either overshoot the runway or stall slam down onto it.  

[Hagar]

what I'm most amazed by is the pilots ability to properly flare and let the plane float down as softly as it did

Maybe a tad faster than normal but it's actually not much different from a conventional landing with the gear extended. The idea is to hold the aircraft in the air for as long as possible, not fly it onto the runway as many people seem to think. When it's done properly it's a joy to behold. The little plane in my sig is a good example of how it should be done.

I've always thought that all pilots should learn to fly gliders before going on to power. It seems a natural progression to me. That way you learn to fly the aircraft properly & not rely on the engines to get you out of trouble. In a glider every landing is an emergency landing. Glider pilots usually convert to power without a problem but the opposite is not necessarily true.

[C]

I agree with the engine being shut down, and I am sure he cut the fuel too. The damage to the engines themselves is minimized that way and there is no abrupt jolt when the props make contact with the runway.

He rather limited any options should he have messed up the approach though; if he had been too high or hot then his only option would have been the fence at the other end of the runway, and I'd personally prefer damaged engines to that possibility. The other advantage to keeping the engines running would have been the ability to simulate the approach profile at height before trying it for real, and getting a decent idea for and approach and threshold speed in what is a very abnormal configuration (I'd imaging power on with approach flap would work, maybe even down flap without the drag of the gear).

His eggs, all of, one basket, in....

Still, it worked...

[Nick N]

I agree with the engine being shut down, and I am sure he cut the fuel too. The damage to the engines themselves is minimized that way and there is no abrupt jolt when the props make contact with the runway.

He rather limited any options should he have messed up the approach though; if he had been too high or hot then his only option would have been the fence at the other end of the runway, and I'd personally prefer damaged engines to that possibility. The other advantage to keeping the engines running would have been the ability to simulate the approach profile at height before trying it for real, and getting a decent idea for and approach and threshold speed in what is a very abnormal configuration (I'd imaging power on with approach flap would work, maybe even down flap without the drag of the gear).

His eggs, all of, one basket, in....

Still, it worked...

Look at his speed

He knew what he was doing. He left the flaps up and allowed the speed and less drag to do the work instead of the engines, then used lift and drag at just the right moment, as a bird would


As Hagar said, pilots should learn to be birds before they learn to be pilots. Understanding how air works for them is more important than knowing where the throttle is.

[C]

Look at his speed

He knew what he was doing. He left the flaps up and allowed the speed and less drag to do the work instead of the engines, then used lift and drag at just the right moment, as a bird would

I am, and as I said, I'm not criticising what he did; he was the captain, and it's his choice. Once he'd turned the engines off though he's committed to landing. My point is with the engines still operating he would have had a lot more speed control available; the drag from the props as you approach idle being an effective brake without the large amount of drag from the undercarriage, and of course he could have made his flap selection earlier. By lowering the flaps at the last moment he'd also be inducing quite a pitch change, made worse by the rapid decelleration induced by the drag increase - mind you that wouldn't be that dissimilar to the pitch change when feathering the props in my solution (due to the instantaneous loss of the propwash over the wings)

As Hagar said, pilots should learn to be birds before they learn to be pilots. Understanding how air works for them is more important than knowing where the throttle is.

Not a bad point. Sadly I don't think it would catch on. Too many people just want to go and fly airliners or fast jets.

[Nick N]

A good pilot, one that understands the air and can read the reactions of the craft, can put a lear or jet down exactly the same. The physics change a bit due to the aircraft weight and balance but the method is the same. Granted the speed needed to do it and the nature of the design increases the risk by quite a bit, but can be done none the less, and only if that pilot knows how to be a bird, or very lucky



Hagar is spot on... pilots should go through glider training before ever seeing a throttle. I think that would cut down on many of the mistakes made in over-weight, etc and last second decision mistakes by a very, very large margin.

[Nick N]

Then again, I guess that

[Hagar]

I'm not about to argue with Charlie & always respect what he has to say. He's in a position to know far more about this than I ever will. He has current experience on this type of aircraft and has probably practiced forced landings in this very situation.

My main gripe is with the news media & their typical sensationalist reporting. They seem to have a talent for choosing "aviation experts" that have very little specialised knowledge except an ability for turning a drama into a crisis. From what Eno says the pilot had plenty of time to think it through & had probably discussed it with people on the ground. He managed to pull off a very satisfactory emergency landing, presumably without hurting anyone & with minimum damage to the aircraft. I would say that's not a bad result.

[Nick N]

I learned to fly on a farm many years ago in a Piper and Cessna in which my father insisted we do dead stick training together. He was Navy. He also took me through glider training, which is where my comments were coming from in recognizing the impact that had on my understanding the art. After that, dead stick was second nature and actually fun to do in many ways.

I was not questioning an experienced pilot either, And, especially since those situations all come with different factors. In the event of head or cross wind circumstances, the engines may have needed to remain on all the way down.

[C]

I meant no disrespect to Charlie nor was I questioning his experience.

That's OK Nick, you weren't doing either, and you were fairly putting across you're opinions.

I learned to fly on a farm many years ago in a Piper and Cessna in which my father insisted we do dead stick training together. He was Navy. He also took me through glider training, which is where my comments were coming from in recognizing the impact that had on my understanding the art. After that, dead stick was second nature and actually fun to do in many ways.

Every aircraft type I have flown to date has had a taught "PFL" procedure, until I got ti the Beech. With twins, I believe the general concencus is that the assumption is that you'll only ever have one failure (and if you have a double engine failure it isn't your day, and you do the best you can; I've only ever done that in the simulator!)

I was not questioning an experienced pilot either, And, especially since those situations all come with different factors. In the event of head or cross wind circumstances, the engines may have needed to remain on all the way down.  :)

I simply think the pilot in this case made the right decisions based on the circumstances.

I do undertsand the abort/commit issue that he took on with flipping those switches.

Quite - he made a set of decisions that resulted in a decent forced landing considering the circumstances. Although this particular type of King Air isn't one I'm familiar with, it would be interesting to know what caused a full undercarriage failure. When he chose to feather the props (it's technically possible the engines were still running, which would only mean he would need to unfeather the props to go around, which would still take a fair few seconds) he was obviously happy that he was going to make a safe landing. Or at least I hope he was!

The incockpit video and humidity levels would be interesting to see though!