A flight attendant who was in the aft jump seat during the landing, told the captain that she did not believe that the landing was hard or had resulted in a tail strike. The captain found no visible damage during a postflight inspection of the airplane. No damage was found during preflight inspections by another flight crew that conducted two subsequent flights in the airplane. Nevertheless, a routine overnight maintenance inspection revealed an

eight-inch (20-centimeter) crack in the fuselage
skin forward of the airplane’s tail skid.17
different perceptions of a landing by the flight crew
and a flight attendant were the subject of an ASRS report filed by a Boeing MD-11 first officer.
“We landed [with an] approximately five-knot tail wind,” the first officer said. “The landing was
judged to be firm but not hard. Upon return [to
the base airport] 30 hours later, a flight attendant
announced that she had a sore back due to the hard landing. It was news to us, and we did not feel that
it was a hard landing.”18

an airbus a320 captain reported to aSRS that
after a landing that he perceived as “more firm than
normal,” a deplaning passenger said that her neck
was sore from the landing. The captain directed the passenger to a gate agent. When he later went to the gate area to check on the passenger, he found that she was being attended by two paramedics.
“She seemed fine and in good spirits, and com-mented that this was a hard landing but that she
had been in harder landings,” the captain said. “i
said, ‘Yes, madam, me too.’ One of the paramedics asked about the landing, and I told him it was a little harder than usual but, in my

opinion, not injury-producing.”
The captain said that his company later told him that other passen-gers had complained about the hard landing.19

Pilots Call for Inspections
I
n a report on a hard-landing accident in Lilongwe, Malawi, on April 5, 1997, the U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch (aaiB) said that “maintenance manuals consistently state that the pilot must make the decision as to whether a
structural inspection is necessary.”20
The accident involved a B-747-400 that was flown
into a rain shower during a visual approach. The report said that the captain (the pilot flying) de-clined the first officer’s offer to activate his wind-shield wipers because he previously had found the movement of the wipers and the noise produced by the wipers to be distracting.
“It is probable that the visual references used by the captain during the landing phase were distorted
by the presence of water on the [windshield],” the
report said. “The distortion would have been sig-nificantly reduced by the use of the [windshield]
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Stabilized Approach And Flare Are Keys to Avoiding Hard Land(5)