Do not brake hard on landing

[johncarlo]

I've had my RPC for 12 months and recently started flying again after being offline due to major surgery. 1st time was with previous Instructor to make sure I remembered everything, and all went well. Did 2nd circuits a few weeks later, then did my 3rd 2 weeks ago. As I landed full stop and hit the ground, for some reason I pulled the brake full immediately, not gradually. The plane skidded beyond any controlling for about 70m into the long grass (the skid marks were somewhat like a "candy cane" shape for visual). Thankfully no damage as the long grass caught the wheels and stopped the plane before reaching any of the wire fencing a few metres away. If I had been on the other runway, I would have most certainly crashed into the parked planes which were in the same side I stopped but on the other runway (phew). My instructor got a bit annoyed (his plane) but saw there was no damage. I was so embarrassed. I also hurt my left chest as my instinct during the skid was to pull harder on the brake, so I reached across with my left hand to help my right hand pull the brake in the centre console - and with a seatbelt on I strained my chest with that reach across. I still don't know why I pulled the brake so hard, it was such a smooth, no crosswind, early runway landing. It's like driving a car, you don't go from 100km/hr and pull the handbrakes. Silly me.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

oops.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's called Human Factors; you probably won't ever do it again after that fright, but worth thinking through the process to try to find what made you do it second by second. Sometimes it relates to another piece of machinery you use, sometimes the feel, sometimes your attention wasn't 100% on the landing etc.

 

 

[nong]

Good on you for putting this up, johncarlo.

 

Something is very wrong/lacking with your theory knowledge and training, because your actions, as described, were ridiculous!

 

The concern for you is that this harmless incident is likely symptomatic of something deeper.

 

Happily, it is just a matter of discovery and correction.

 

It might pay to do some dual with a different instructor at a different school. A fresh pair of eyes on your flying would likely be of real benefit.

 

We are all more prone to having a bingle if our theory knowledge is weak/superficial. It couldn't hurt to download something like the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook.

 

Reading this in your spare time would help to deepen your knowledge of flying, generally.

 

Best of luck.

 

Fred

 

 

[pmccarthy]

In downwind checks you touch the handbrake lever and confirm brakes free. I once pulled it on, for no reason I could ever explain. Fortunately the brakes were not that good and landing was ok, though with rapid slow down!

 

 

[facthunter]

Early version of autobrake? referencing Turbo's #3 post It's probably related to something else you do where that action was normal. Call it a mental aberration. There is a reason somewhere.......... Nev

 

 

[Birdseye]

In downwind checks you touch the handbrake lever and confirm brakes free. I once pulled it on, for no reason I could ever explain. Fortunately the brakes were not that good and landing was ok, though with rapid slow down!

I recall watching a Vickers Vanguard (yes I'm that old) on a circuit detail apparently abort a 'touch and go'. Smoke and popping tyres all over the place. Seems that the handling pilot and check Captain missed that the brakes had been placed into the full-on position on downwind.

 

 

[diesel]

Learn to fly without brakes. I flew for years without them. Taildragger and no tied up tail wheel. Students knew no different and now only use them as an aid. Chas

 

 

[Deskpilot]

You obviously weren't flying a Jabiru.

 

 

[ayavner]

You obviously weren't flying a Jabiru.

true dat...

 

 

[facthunter]

Or landing on Tarmac. Nev

 

 

[diesel]

But it is on tight, hard skinny farm fields up and down hill. Speed control and no flaps. May get spoiled now as the new diesel bird has them. Still wood and fabric though. I flew that glass stuff in the seventies. Chas

 

 

[coljones]

You obviously weren't flying a Jabiru.

Are you referring to post #1. It has all the hallmarks of being a Jab LSA55 + actually a great little plane to fly. John Carlo must have muscles like a gorrilla to get it to lock up.

Gentleness in all is the success of life.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I still don't know why I pulled the brake so hard, it was such a smooth, no crosswind, early runway landing.

If any pilot (including me) tells you he's never done something in a plane where he's thought "now that was pretty bloody silly of me - I won't do that again", he's lying.

There is a very long list of people in front of you who have come unstuck by being too harsh on the brakes too early in the landing.

 

An important thing to try to wrap your mind around during the landing roll is that if you do something and the plane starts veering off somewhere, immediately undo what you just did, and you'll likely regain control of it.

 

 

[ayavner]

Are you referring to post #1. It has all the hallmarks of being a Jab LSA55 + actually a great little plane to fly. John Carlo must have muscles like a gorrilla to get it to lock up.Gentleness in all is the success of life.

I think he was having a go at the well-known poor braking abilities of Jabs

 

 

[jetjr]

Its a safety feature of early models, particularly larger ones, brakes cant lock up....... or do much else actually

 

 

[facthunter]

Brakes are for taxyiing crosswind, helping to turn sharply at almost zero speed and doing engine run ups, on our type (s) of aircraft. Oh, and holding short of a runway reliably when other aircraft are landing/taking off. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Knowing how to brake on landing is also a key short field technique

 

 

[poteroo]

Learn to fly without brakes. I flew for years without them. Taildragger and no tied up tail wheel. Students knew no different and now only use them as an aid. Chas

Right on! Students need to manoeuvre on the ground using power,(=judgement), well before brakes. On landing - use/teach 'aerodynamic braking' by arriving at stall speed and holding the nose high attitude until elevators ineffective- then use brakes only if necessary. Given that brakes are not so effective on many types, it's best they not be applied until the aircraft slows...probably well below 35-40 kts. (I think the big boys use thrust reversal plus spoilers 1st - then brakes last when they have weight on the wheels and the slower speeds avoid overheat. Same principles apply). It should become a point-of-pride to rarely ever use your brakes. happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

The ground spoilers are usually pre-armed and operate on wheel spin up in that case. Manual is manual. This destroys nearly all the lift from the wings so the brakes are effective, and the aircraft won't skip.

 

Reverse thrust is more effective at higher speeds, so best used early. The more brake you use the hotter they will be and the more they will require servicing. A significant cost.

 

In extreme usage you may get a brake fire or more likely a tyre deflation with a fuse plug blowing..

 

(abort at almost V1 on a max weight take off, short field.) or downwind landing.

 

Using minimum braking is always good airmanship. Smaller aircraft brakes are generally not designed for panic stops from high speeds in short distances. Slow touchdown speeds are the order of the day. Coming over the fence fast is a bad habit you can get into when you operate from a large airport. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

I think the big boys use thrust reversal plus spoilers 1st - then brakes last when they have weight on the wheels and the slower speeds avoid overheat. Same principles apply

We normally use all braking systems available to us. In fact, I know of one of our pilots who had one thrust reverser inop (a permissible unserviceability), one wheel brake inop (also a permissible unservicability), and automatic spoilers inop (permissible as long as they work manually) and refused to accept the aircraft in that state until one of the 3 "stopping" systems was fully serviceable. The flight with 250 passengers was delayed and the plane towed to the hangar while they found another one. Every other pilot I know would also have refused to accept it.

Where braking systems are applied automatically and are fully serviceable, we always use them in that mode. This concerns the ground spoilers and the wheel brakes.

 

Upon touchdown:

 

1) The ground spoilers extend automatically to dump lift when "on ground" (i.e., weight on wheels) logic gets applied.

 

2) Simultaneously the pilot activates reverse thrust (can only be done manually).

 

3) The wheel brakes operate automatically:

 

In a Boeing: there are 6 autobrake selections (1,2,3,4, Max, and RTO - rejected takeoff, which is equivalent to "this is going to be spectacularly violent" and only selected for takeoff). The autobrakes operate when the thrust levers are at idle and the wheels have spun up.

 

In an Airbus: there are 3 autobrake selections (low, medium, max - the "max" position is used on takeoff and will activate for a rejected takeoff much like the Boeing "RTO" setting). The autobrakes on an Airbus operate when the ground spoilers are commanded to extend, or in the case of the "max" selection which I've never seen used for landing, the nose gear is also required to be compressed.

 

The wheel brakes in both Boeings and Airbus operate to a "constant deceleration rate". So the application of reverse thrust, and the deselection of reverse thrust, affects how much brake pressure is applied to the wheels.

 

As a general rule, because the aircraft have carbon brakes and carbon brakes work better and last longer when they're applied harder, the Company prefers to use only idle reverse thrust where runway length and performance permits, and let the wheel brakes do all the work. However if there is any doubt, or particular taxiway exits need to be taken, we'll use full reverse thrust.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Just curious DR. I understand the principle behind carbon brakes and operating better when used harder but why minimise reverse thrust, is that a fuel saving concept, does it prevent engine wear or is it just to allow the wheel brakes to work better by allowing them to work harder.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Just curious DR. I understand the principle behind carbon brakes and operating better when used harder but why minimise reverse thrust, is that a fuel saving concept, does it prevent engine wear or is it just to allow the wheel brakes to work better by allowing them to work harder.

Primarily it is a "wear and tear" issue, but all of what you say above is correct.

I guess as far as wheel brakes working harder it's probably more correct if I said "using wheel brakes harder in lieu of reverse thrust is supported because it reduces wear and tear, and the brakes don't mind it either." That's the official company (and manufacturer) line.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Thank you that is what I thought you were alluding to.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

carbon fibre brakes only work better than steel brakes when hot.