Landed and went off runway

DaleB said:
I've been impressed with the abuse 172 mains will just shrug off.
Click to expand...

Oh, as the fleet ages there's damage on trainers that's showing up.

All 172 hear isn't built the same either. Early models had the "spring steel" whereas late models have tubes hiding under fairings to make them aerodynamic.

They will handle a significant pounding though. All the types will compress and spring back generally but on some this will crack the attachment brackets over time.
 
Would you rather a student be 10 knots fast and locked on the centerline or on speed and 10 degrees crooked?

As CFI's we should know (and teach our students when they're ready) that there will be times when target speed will vary, but I can't think of any situations where crooked will replace straight.

jesse said:
Correct but any one of the many things that can go wrong will be greatly amplified with increase in energy.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Would you rather a student be 10 knots fast and locked on the centerline or on speed and 10 degrees crooked?

As CFI's we should know (and teach our students when they're ready) that there will be times when target speed will vary, but I can't think of any situations where crooked will replace straight.
Click to expand...


Cessna 140/195 with crosswind gear, Ercoupes and large jets are all I can think of.;) I agree though, outside of those few exceptions, alignment is the more critical of the issue over small amounts (still allowing landing on mains) of excess energy.
 
In this case it sounds to me like the landing was on centerline, the airplane was aligned, but that proper crosswind inputs weren't held, and the airplane began drifting to the right. The extra energy meant that less weight was on wheels and this contributed to the reduced tire friction and the drift.

How to correct the problem:
More aggressive control input to maintain the airplane on the runway.
Go-around (assuming it's possible at that point - don't know length remaining).

How to avoid the problem:
Minimal excess energy at touchdown (slower and with full flaps).
More experience in crosswind landings and taxiing.
More familiarity with the airplane limits which should translate into more confidence using greater control inputs.

The airplane is at it's least manueverable when it's transitioning from ground to flight or from flight to ground. Lots of airplanes (including professionally flown transports) have come to grief during the transition.

To the anonymous OP - I suggest you seek out a windy day and go find a crosswind runway and work on this with your CFI, and get comfortable.
 
It sounds more to me like there was a landing with a foot too high on a pedal holding a brake locked on landing, even if the CFI immediately locks the other brake, it's still going off the side if the initial diversion is steep enough.
 
Henning said:
Cessna 140/195 with crosswind gear, Ercoupes and large jets are all I can think of.;) I agree though, outside of those few exceptions, alignment is the more critical of the issue over small amounts (still allowing landing on mains) of excess energy.
Click to expand...
You forgot the B-52
 
wabower said:
Would you rather a student be 10 knots fast and locked on the centerline or on speed and 10 degrees crooked?

As CFI's we should know (and teach our students when they're ready) that there will be times when target speed will vary, but I can't think of any situations where crooked will replace straight.
Click to expand...

I would rather a student touch down near stalled 10 degrees crooked over touching down with tons of excess energy followed by them trying to "KEEP" it on the runway by pushing forward on the yoke. That gets ugly every time.

By the time the student solos, the student won't be touching down either way until they've kept the airplane off the runway as long as they can. So if they were 10 knots fast they'll just float for awhile. They know where the yoke should be when the wheels touch. The goal is to get the yoke there slightly above the runway. The landing just happens after that.

All that said students can still make mistkaes.

To sum this all up Wayne -- her description of what went wrong certainly indicates to me that she touched down with excess energy. Touching down with excess energy is the root cause of damn near every landing I see.. After you eliminate that problem you can then improve your ability to touch down with the desired track and position.

The trainer that the AP is flying isn't a tail dragger. It's very tolerant of touching down less than straight. Had the OP been on speed they wouldn't have departed the runway.

How about we stay on topic with helping her versus nit picking my advice?
 
Last edited:
Skylane81E said:
Is that not a large jet
Click to expand...


It is, although it is specifically noteworthy among large jets as the gear rotates to runway alignment as a design feature. The others land with a side load on the gear which is the corrected for during the roll out.
 
Henning said:
It is, although it is specifically noteworthy among large jets as the gear rotates to runway alignment as a design feature. The others land with a side load on the gear which is the corrected for during the roll out.
Click to expand...

Correct
 
jesse said:
The trainer that the AP is flying isn't a tail dragger. It's very tolerant of touching down less than straight. Had the OP been on speed they wouldn't have departed the runway.
Click to expand...

That is one thing I don't agree with as it is dependent on the situation at hand. A narrow runway, on center line and on speed with a brake locked and I doubt there would be a chance of keeping it on the runway, the yank is sudden and the corrective force available is limited to basically equal to the divergent force leading to straightening but not correction.

There are multiple reasons that planes go off the side, some can be corrected, some not. I do agree fully that excess energy in any situation where it goes wrong is just going to cause even greater damage and risk of injury than if that energy was not available.
 
Henning said:
That is one thing I don't agree with as it is dependent on the situation at hand. A narrow runway, on center line and on speed with a brake locked and I doubt there would be a chance of keeping it on the runway, the yank is sudden and the corrective force available is limited to basically equal to the divergent force leading to straightening but not correction.

There are multiple reasons that planes go off the side, some can be corrected, some not. I do agree fully that excess energy in any situation where it goes wrong is just going to cause even greater damage and risk of injury than if that energy was not available.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but nothing in the OP's post indicated they had a brake locked up. In fact they indicated they weren't doing anything.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
I would rather a student touch down near stalled 10 degrees crooked over touching down with tons of excess energy followed by them trying to "KEEP" it on the runway by pushing forward on the yoke. That gets ugly every time.
Click to expand...
Only in them new fangled nose-wheel equipped aeroplanes.
 
jesse said:
Fair enough, but nothing in the OP's post indicated they had a brake locked up. In fact they indicated they weren't doing anything.
Click to expand...

Correct, I have however had a private discussion with the OP where it was determined due to the appearance of fresh skid mark on the runway people had commented on that this likely was the precipitating cause.

Again, there is a fine but vital semantic distinction here between 'not doing anything' and 'doing nothing'. The last is an action even though the action is to maintain a situation with a known negative outcome of small sufficiency rather than the action be one that would induce instability and higher degree of risk of greater damage than than maintaining.
The other indicates a lack of thought in a 'frozen' moment.
 
Henning said:
It is, although it is specifically noteworthy among large jets as the gear rotates to runway alignment as a design feature. The others land with a side load on the gear which is the corrected for during the roll out.
Click to expand...
The Buff isn't the only one. The C-5 and C-17 also have that feature, and unlike the 52, those two have INS-driven automatic alignment rather than manual. And I think they both qualify as "large jets," being (IIRC) 830,000 and 585,000 max gross, compared to the B-52's 495,000 (war load).
 
Ron Levy said:
The Buff isn't the only one. The C-5 and C-17 also have that feature, and unlike the 52, those two have INS-driven automatic alignment rather than manual. And I think they both qualify as "large jets," being (IIRC) 830,000 and 585,000 max gross, compared to the B-52's 495,000 (war load).
Click to expand...


Cool, I didn't realize they also had that feature, the only one I ever saw use it was the B-52.
 
Henning said:
It is, although it is specifically noteworthy among large jets as the gear rotates to runway alignment as a design feature. The others land with a side load on the gear which is the corrected for during the roll out.
Click to expand...

Other than the military jets mentioned, what "large jets" are you alluding to that "rotate" their gear to align with the runway??
 
RotorAndWing said:
Other than the military jets mentioned, what "large jets" are you alluding to that "rotate" their gear to align with the runway??
Click to expand...


None, that's why I said that (those including the others) was noteworthy in difference to typical large jets as operated by airlines hitting with a side load on the wheels.

Originally Posted by Henning
It is, although it is specifically noteworthy among large jets as the gear rotates to runway alignment as a design feature. The others land with a side load on the gear which is the corrected for during the roll out.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Henning, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Click to expand...


Billions and billions of things, my philosophy doesn't include limits only borders, so the natural conclusion is that I will only dream of a tiny portion of infinity, yet at the same time, I have access to all the information the universe is constructed of. The trick is to to be able to learn to consciously sort and be able to access and withdraw from that information rather than just deposit into it.

That I don't know about systems on a C-5 or a C-17 is not a philosophical issue though so your comment is a bit misconceived I think.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Correct, I have however had a private discussion with the OP where it was determined due to the appearance of fresh skid mark on the runway people had commented on that this likely was the precipitating cause.
Click to expand...

I bet there were two fresh skid marks that day and one wasn't on the runway. ;)
 
I did not go off the runway and acuually it was one of my best greasers. I landed in a 30 K direct crosswind.

The lesson learned for me and it was a good one is to always note the wind sock (sounds basic I know) and what it is doing. I kept my Comanche in a hanger on the east side of the airport. I took my nextdoor neighbors wife up for a ride. When we got to the airport I realized the wind was pretty strong, but I had promised and promised her a ride so did not want to disappoint her. Got the plane out of the hanger and the hanger sheltered us from the wind. We taxied to the runway which was only about 150 feet from the hanger. Should have, Should have Should have watched the wind sock for guidance. Didn't and took off, but maintaind runway heading until clearing the field.

We flew over area lakes for about 30 minutes and decided to return. Only then did I get an advisory and realized how strong a crosswind I had sucked myself into. Did a low wing (left wing) landing and it was smooth as silk. Ruth cooed from the right seat, "Oh, that was fun, Lets do it again." I was very relieved to be on the ground and just said, We will do it another day. The wind is really too strong to be flying here today. Unfortunately, we did not get the chance. Ruth died a couple months later.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Other than the military jets mentioned, what "large jets" are you alluding to that "rotate" their gear to align with the runway??
Click to expand...
The only one aside from B-52 that I know with this feature is Lockheed C-5. As far as I know, An-124 does not have castering bogies, despite being nearly the same size, and nor do Russian designs with bicycle gear (such as Yak-25 and its derivatives).
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top