What happens when a 767 lands just a little bit too hard....

the video shows it at the gate

they probably had not idea of the extent damage done, there was no reason not to taxi to gate or anywhere...it quickly became obvious not to fly the plane

 

I'd be curious to see what damage was visible, if any, inside the passenger cabin.....

 

I'm guessing a few wide gaps around the stowbins and ceiling panels etc....................

 

Yahhooo. Catch the 3 wire.

 

I watched the video a few times now. It's too bad we can't see a little more of the approach before the "touchdown". As many of you know, I fly a 747 for Nippon Cargo, which used to be owed by ANA (All Nippon). In the last 13 years I've made just about every other landing in Narita. When the wind blows out of the southwest, as in this case, Narita can and usually does experience a lot of windshear. Even when the winds aren't all that strong. I believe I heard the winds mentioned here were 230/16 gusting to 29. Although that doesn't sound too bad, in Narita that would be one bumpy approach with windshear expected. I'm guessing the ATIS at the time of landing had windshear reports from previous arrivals. As the terrain around the airport is very flat, you wouldn't really expect this. I'm told by local pilots that this is the effect of wind wrapping around Mt Fuji in the distance. I'm not sure if this is true or not.

Typically on windy and gusty days, airliners such as the 767 increase their approach speed to compensate for the possible windshear and airspeed loss. The airline standard is 1/2 the steady headwind component plus all the gust. In this case, the wind was almost a direct crosswind. It's possible the crew didn't add more than the standard +5 knots above VREF because the headwind component wasn't more than 10 knots or so. I would have flown an approach at VREF + 20 (usually the max allowed). The reason I bring this up is that when an airliner such as the 767 flys an approach at VREF +20, it's a very flat approach. In the 747, a typical approach at VREF + 5 is about 2 1/2 degrees nose up. As you watch jets land, they typically approach in a nose high attitude. Some more than others. (L1011, MD11,A330) But on windy days, you'll notice jets approach at a very flat attitude. In the 747, VREF + 20 ends up being around 0 degrees pitch. Anyways, I don't know what approach speed this crew flew at. If we would have seen more of the approach, it would be easier to tell. I will say that the nose is pretty high right before ground contact.

Also, in longer aircraft such as airliners, the distance between the gear makes a big difference. For example, if this plane had windshear and a loss of airspeed as it looks like it did, the natural reaction when the plane sinks toward the runway is to pull up. If done too low, the effect is the aircraft rotated up, but still sank fast due to lack of lift. The nose gear gets further from the runway while the main gear (being aft of the CG) is driven harder into it. As the aircraft bounces, the force upward is from behind the CG, pushing the tail into the air and the nose into the ground. It's doubtful that the crew pushed forward on the yoke. You can't see the elevator position at all on this video. At least I can't.

All the above is just conjecture. I have no details other than the video you've all seen. The Air Japan (a subsidary or ANA) crew stays at the same hotel we do and I know many of the pilots. I fly SFO to Narita on Tuesday. I'll share what I learn....

Lou

 

Thanks for the input Lou.
It's nice to hear from the experts on things like this.

I've watched many cross-wind landing videos of Narita. Some pretty wild stuff once in a while.


Here's Lou in his Nippon Cargo Airlines on a bad day, [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8jqgsKQSuM&feature=relmfu[/ame]
Check out the wing flex on this one, quite choppy, [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=321vhaVKWjw&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL728D3DD0D6D2614A[/ame]

Polar -400F earning his pay, [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iXMZoBZ65U&feature=fvwrel[/ame]

 

Great videos. Thanks! I used to fly for Polar before moving on to Nippon Cargo. I flew the classic 747 back then. Looks like these are runway 16R arrivals in Narita, with a similar wind direction as the 767.

 

Thanks for your expert analysis of this landing incident. It is always better to have someone like you to fill in some of the conjectural guesses on something like this. I recall an explanation of 727 landing difficulties by a stability and control engineer with whom I worked and he said about the same thing that you did regarding elevator inputs close to the ground. In the case of the 727, the up elevator input initially puts a down movement on the main gear before lift is generated. If the plane is close to the runway it pounds the gear into the runway and the rebound will jam the nose gear into the runway and the jackrabbit runout begins. In this case it still looks to me that the pilot helped it. Those videos that Spasso posted are fun to watch and I still get little lump when I see that beautiful airplane doing beautiful things. I worked on getting number one out the door in 1967-68 and continued for several years more. Then as a contractor I worked on the 747-500-600 projects that eventually turned into the 747-8. Thanks for chiming in.
Switches

 

I've never flown the 727, so can't comment myself. However, I have flown with quite a few guys who have. First off, they say it's one of the best flying airplanes ever. But they all do mention the landing technique as being very different. Basically you fly normally until right before touchdown. Apparently, the best landings are made by then pushing the yoke forward to raise the main gear as the plane flys on. I'm sure it takes some getting used to.

As far as the 747-8, I'm all trained and ready to go. We're scheduled to get our first plane sometime in July to be in service in August. Being the chief pilot (North America), I'm hoping to pick it up in Seattle. But I'm guessing the Japanese will actually come get the first one. I can't wait to fly it. I'll post a flight report thread when I do. I believe the scheduled routes for our first airplane will be Narita-LAX-SFO-Narita and Narita-Hong Kong-Narita.

My hats off to all the men and women who design and build these beautiful machines!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Lou -
Interesting to see that your new airplane does not have the upturned wingtips....
What was changed on the wing design to eliminate them?
TIA
Tritone (who can't afford that airfreight project to Italy ;-)

 

The wing tips are raked aft instead of up. Also the tips are tapered to more of a point.
On the 787 they are the same but more pronounced and turned up slightly at the end.

 

These look more like the wingtips on the 767-400.

 

The 777 uses the raked tips as well, but with no turn-up at the tip.

 

I had a friend who was an old DC-8 pilot who transitioned to the 727 for a short time and he hated it. Not because it wasn't a good airplane to fly but because he could never brake the old habits and simply could not push forward on a landing. The airplane would ride on ground affect and there was a specific technique in landing it. I was good friends with the late Lew Wallick, Chief of Flight Test , and he had many stories about how the airplane did in initial flight tests and he said that it was a great handling bird. It had a faster roll rate than a P-51 and quick on all three axis's. I worked on that airplane many hours and ended up training over 1000 Boeing people on 727 Familiarization and more in the public sector.
The raked wing tips on the 767-300 and 747-8 are lighter and much more efficient than the winglets. They have the affect of delaying tip vortices until they are tiny out at that small tip. The air flow thinks that the raked portion is still wing and it slides along on the upper surface without separating.
When I look back over the years I worked on some great flying machines, all from the B-52 to the 777, except the737.

 

B-52 to 777....wow!

Here's a couple pics of the tips. I really like the looks of the -400. It may take awhile before the -8 grows on me. It sorta looks like a big classic. Like the big engines though..
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Wow! Talk about learn something every day!

And learn yet more! Thankyou Bob for an excellent and succinct explanation - I understood why they went to winglets, but was struggling to understand this approach.

+1 Maybe the best forum on here with you guys posting. Thanks to all.

+1 "P-o-w-e-r-!....."

Mind me asking; any preferences between GE & RR?

Also, how many folk are generally on one of your flights Lou?

Cheers,
Ian

 

I fly all cargo flights now. So based on Japanese rules, we can fly up to 12 hours with just a crew of 2! Typically, we flly SFO - Narita (Tokyo) with 2 Captains and 1 FO. It's about 11 hours depending on the time of year. We fly Narita - LAX with just 2. It's about 9 hrs or so.

The 747 is the only jet I've ever flown. I've been on it now for 17 years. Spent a year as Flight Engineer, one as FO, the rest as Captain. Lucky timing there! At Polar, I flew the 747-100 and 200's. They were Pratt & Whittney powered. At Nippon Cargo, I've flown the 200's and the 400. Both have GE powerplants. The GE's run a lot smoother in my opinion. I don't have any experience with RR.

Before, I flew turboprops, EMB-110, EMB-120 (Brasilia) and Jetstreams (J31). The Embraers had Pratts.... PT6 and PW118. GREAT motors. The Jetstream had a Garrett. Different concept, noisy, but reliable in my experience.

In all my flying, the only engine failures I've had were on the Pratts (Polar 747). An engine failure on a 4 engine airplane isn't much of a problem though. Both happened at cruise...

Lou

 

A shot of a Cargolux 747-8 that I took at Paine Field last month, which shows the tips quite well.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well maybe according to Boeing, but I'll wager that APB will dispute that. Raked tips and blended winglets are designed to do the same thing, reduce tip vortices as you stated. However the effective Spanish of the wing with winglets is greater which has beneficial effects and the raked tip will have the same or greater impact on wing loads, resulting in increased strength requirement (weight) in the wing.

Boeing is using a modified blended Winglet design on the 737Max.

 

I can't argue with you, Curry. I should qualified my statement to say that the trade offs between the winglets and raked tips gets down to the combination of cost, weight, and effectiveness. The massive size and weight of the fittings required to attach winglets on a big airplane are obviously something to consider. The winglets do alleviate wing loads with their lift but the raked tips do it in a different way by being able to decrease drag and by adding some wing area without too much penalty. I think it's a toss up. Thanks for your valuable input.

 

Thanks for that. I guess the question then becomes, do you ever carry any "passengers"? I was thinking there's gotta be plenty of room there for a real nice "First class lounge"?

I guess I'm displaying my British roots....

Again, thanks for all the insights. Brings to mind the old;

Q; Why'd they put 4 engines on a 747?
A; 'Cos they couldn't figure out where to put the 5th.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

Please pardon my ignorance, but APB?

And what the devil is "Spanish"? Dunno if I want any Spanish in my wings!

Cheers,
Ian

 

APB I think is Aviation Partners Boeing. They make new winglets to add to existing airplanes without them.

Spanish is probably an autocorrect from an iphone ipad etc. Probably meant as span length...or wingspan. Winglets effectively give a longer wingspan without really increasing the wingspan....if that makes any sense.

The upper deck on a cargo 747-400 has quite a bit of room. But not as much as the passenger version. The passenger version has an extended upper deck. But on a production cargo 747, the upper deck isn't extended as it's just wasted space (and weight). We have 6 business class seats. 2 seperate enclosed beds. A lav. A full galley.

We sometimes carry company employees.

There is a 5th "pod" on the left wing. So we can carry a 5th engine! Not a normal operation, but it's used to ferry an engine. I've never done it.

Lou

 

Correct. I have had extensive interaction with them.

Thanks. I thought I had corrected that but the ipad must have 'corrected' my correction.

Even on the 747-400BCF (pax to freighter conversion) the upper deck is reduced in size internally to allow carriage of additional 10 foot containers, although it remains larger than a production freighter which has an upper deck based on a 747-200.

 

That one had baffled me as well. I've heard of "English" applied to billiard balls, but "Spanish"??