|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : ord|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng|
|Navigation In Use||Other |
|Flight Phase||landing other|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 120|
flight time total : 16500
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : instrument
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : unable|
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
As captain of the flight, I am also qualified as a line check airman, certified to give initial operating experience to new capts and first officer's who complete appendix H training. This report concerns a firm landing made by a new first officer. The approach was stabilized and normal, following a G/south. Altitude calls were given at 50 ft, 30 ft and 10 ft. The first officer did not apply adequate 'up' elevator in the flare. The first officer was transitioning from the large transport which sits close to the ground to the widebody transport, which is quite high by comparison. I considered the landing to be firm but acceptable, a part of the pilot learning experience. 2 other pilot observers in the cockpit made no comment. However, I found out several hours later that a F/a on the aft jumpseat for the landing complained of back pain after the landing. I located one of the cockpit observers a day later. He is current and qualified on the equipment. He concurred that while the landing was firm, it was not hard. In addition, another pilot was dead heading in the first class cabin. He classified the landing as firm, but not a hard landing. The incident points to the difficulty of intervening in the control inputs of the PF, ie, the decision of how much flare input is enough. It also points to the deficiency of the simulator landing maneuver as compared to an actual airplane.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: STUDENT FO MADE FIRM LNDG INJURING FA.
Narrative: AS CAPT OF THE FLT, I AM ALSO QUALIFIED AS A LINE CHK AIRMAN, CERTIFIED TO GIVE INITIAL OPERATING EXPERIENCE TO NEW CAPTS AND F/O'S WHO COMPLETE APPENDIX H TRNING. THIS RPT CONCERNS A FIRM LNDG MADE BY A NEW F/O. THE APCH WAS STABILIZED AND NORMAL, FOLLOWING A G/S. ALT CALLS WERE GIVEN AT 50 FT, 30 FT AND 10 FT. THE F/O DID NOT APPLY ADEQUATE 'UP' ELEVATOR IN THE FLARE. THE F/O WAS TRANSITIONING FROM THE LGT WHICH SITS CLOSE TO THE GND TO THE WDB, WHICH IS QUITE HIGH BY COMPARISON. I CONSIDERED THE LNDG TO BE FIRM BUT ACCEPTABLE, A PART OF THE PLT LEARNING EXPERIENCE. 2 OTHER PLT OBSERVERS IN THE COCKPIT MADE NO COMMENT. HOWEVER, I FOUND OUT SEVERAL HRS LATER THAT A F/A ON THE AFT JUMPSEAT FOR THE LNDG COMPLAINED OF BACK PAIN AFTER THE LNDG. I LOCATED ONE OF THE COCKPIT OBSERVERS A DAY LATER. HE IS CURRENT AND QUALIFIED ON THE EQUIP. HE CONCURRED THAT WHILE THE LNDG WAS FIRM, IT WAS NOT HARD. IN ADDITION, ANOTHER PLT WAS DEAD HEADING IN THE FIRST CLASS CABIN. HE CLASSIFIED THE LNDG AS FIRM, BUT NOT A HARD LNDG. THE INCIDENT POINTS TO THE DIFFICULTY OF INTERVENING IN THE CTL INPUTS OF THE PF, IE, THE DECISION OF HOW MUCH FLARE INPUT IS ENOUGH. IT ALSO POINTS TO THE DEFICIENCY OF THE SIMULATOR LNDG MANEUVER AS COMPARED TO AN ACTUAL AIRPLANE.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.