Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

AIR5938™
AEROSPACE
INFORMATION REPORT Issued 2011-11
Reaffirmed 2016-11

Information on Hard Landings

RATIONALE

AIR5938 has been reaffirmed to comply with the SAE five-year review policy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

2. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Applicable Documents .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Definitions / Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 3

3. BACKGROUND OF LANDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 5

4. HARD LANDING EVENT SEQUENCES ...................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Civil (Part 25) Aircraft .................................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 USAF Aircraft ................................................................................................................................................ 9
4.3 USN Carrier Based Aircraft ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.4 Rotorcraft .................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.5 Others ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

5. INSPECTIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 12

5.1 Types of Damage ........................................................................................................................................ 12

5.2 Landing Gear Visual Inspections ................................................................................................................ 12
5.3 Landing Gear Non Destructive Inspections ................................................................................................ 14
5.4 Rolling Stock Inspections ............................................................................................................................ 14
5.5 Non Landing Gear Inspections ................................................................................................................... 15

6. INCIDENCE DATA ON HARD LANDINGS FOR COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTS .................................... 15

6.1 NTSB Accidents and Incidents ................................................................................................................... 15

6.2 FAA/USN Landing Parameter Surveys ....................................................................................................... 16
6.3 Summary of Hard Landing Incidence Rates ............................................................................................... 19

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely
voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of the user.”
SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be revised, reaffirmed, stabilized, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and
suggestions.
Copyright © 2016 SAE International
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.
TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) SAE values your input. To provide feedback on this
Tel: +1 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Technical Report, please visit
Fax: 724-776-0790 http://www.sae.org/technical/standards/AIR5938
Email: [email protected]
SAE WEB ADDRESS: http://www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 2 of 20

1. SCOPE

This document provides information on the current practices used by commercial and military operators in regards to hard
landings (or overload events designated as hard landings). Since detailed information on inspections would be aircraft
specific, this AIR provides only a general framework. Detailed information and procedures are available in the
maintenance manuals for specific aircraft.

Because hard landings potentially affect the entire aircraft, guidelines are listed here for non-landing gear areas. But, the
primary focus of the document is the landing gear and related systems. The document may be considered to be
applicable to all types of aircraft.

This document does NOT provide recommended practices for hard landing inspections, nor does it provide
recommendations on the disposition of damaged equipment. Refer to ARP 4915 and ARP 5600. Also, this document
does not necessarily address overloads from circumstances other than landings, such as from tow vehicles, runway
bumps, traversing cables, etc.

2. REFERENCES

2.1 Applicable Documents

The following publications form a part of this document to the extent specified herein. The latest issue of SAE publications
shall apply. The applicable issue of the other publications shall be the issue in effect on the date of the purchase order. In
the event of conflict between the text of this document and references cited herein, the text of this document takes
precedence. Nothing in this document, however, supersedes applicable laws and regulations unless a specific exemption
has been obtained.

2.1.1 SAE Publications

Available from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside
USA and Canada) or 724-776-4970 (outside USA), www.sae.org.

AIR 4566 Crashworthy Landing Gear Design

ARP 4915 Disposition of Landing Gear Components Involved in Accidents/Incidents

ARP 5600 Disposition of Damaged Wheels Involved in Accidents/Incidents

ARP 5908 Landing Gear Servicing

2.1.2 AIA Publications

Available from Aerospace Industries Association, 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3928, Tel:
703-358-1000, www.aia-aerospace.org.

AIA Pub 05-01 Best Practices Guide, Inspection Procedures Following High Load Events

2.1.3 FAR Publications

Available from Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, Tel: 866-835-
5322, www.faa.gov.

FAR 23 Federal Aviation Regulations - Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, And Commuter
Category Airplanes, para. 23.473 “Ground load conditions and assumptions”

FAR 25 Federal Aviation Regulations - Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes, para. 25.473
“Landing load conditions and assumptions”
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 3 of 20

FAR 27 Federal Aviation Regulations - Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft, para. 27.725 “Limit
Drop Test”

FAR 29 Federal Aviation Regulations - Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft, para. 29.725
“Limit Drop Test”

2.1.4 Other Publications

AS8860 Landing Gear Structural Requirements as Listed in the MIL-886X Series of

Specifications
CS 23 Certification Specifications For Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, and Commuter
Category Aeroplanes, para. 23.473 “Ground load conditions and assumptions
CS 25 Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes, para. 25.473 “Landing load
conditions and assumptions”
CS 27 Certification Specifications for Small Rotorcraft, para. 27.725 “Limit Drop
Test”
CS 29 Certification Specifications for Large Rotorcraft, para. 29.725 “Limit Drop
Test”
SAWE Recommended Mass Properties Management and Control for Military Aircraft
Practice 7
DOT/FAA/AR-97/106 Video Landing Parameter Survey- Washington National Airport
DOT/FAA/AR-00/72 Video Landing Parameter Survey- Honolulu International Airport
DOT/FAA/AR-96/125 Video Landing Parameter Survey - John F. Kennedy International Airport
DOT/FAA/AR-04/47 Commuter Aircraft Video Landing Parameter Surveys, Summary Report -
London City Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, and Atlantic City
International Airport
DOT/FAA/AR-07/53 Video Landing Parameter Survey- Summary Report, LHR Heathrow
International
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb NTSB Aviation Accident Database
/query.asp

2.2 Definitions / Abbreviations

Accident: The NTSB defines Accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes
place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons
have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft
receives substantial damage.

AIA: Aerospace Industries Association

AMM: Aircraft Maintenance Manual

Autoland: A system that fully automates the landing portion of an aircraft flight for low visibility and bad weather conditions.

CLDGW: Carrier Landing Design Gross Weight – The aircraft maximum gross weight specified for landing /
arrestment operations on an aircraft carrier.

CG: center of gravity

DLW: Design Landing Weight – The highest aircraft gross weight corresponding to the maximum required sink
rate. This definition is common for both military and commercial land based fixed wing aircraft and
rotorcraft.

EASA: European Aviation Safety Agency

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration

FPI: Fluorescent penetrant inspection

 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 4 of 20

Hard Landing: The term ‘Hard Landing’ can have multiple definitions. It can refer to the report or declaration of a landing
event, where it is suspected that the landing gear or airframe structure, were possibly subjected to
damage. Also, a ‘Hard Landing’ declaration is not necessarily limited specifically to the touchdown event.
For aircraft which rely on pilot declaration, a hard landing may be declared based on other landing-related
events such as flat tires, rolling off the runway, a heavily rolled landing, etc. ‘Hard Landing’ can also be
used to describe those relatively few events where design landing conditions were truly exceeded
resulting in damage or injury.

Incident: The NTSB defines Incident as an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an
aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.

LLDGW: Landplane Landing Design Gross Weight – This term is used in military applications and is equivalent to
the DLW. Typically, the following guidelines are used to establish LLDGW. For utility, observation, and
trainer aircraft, LLDGW = maximum flight weight minus the following: payload to be expended, all external
fuel, and 25% internal fuel. For cargo aircraft, LLDGW = maximum flight weight minus: all external fuel
and 50% internal fuel. For combat aircraft, LLDGW = maximum flight weight minus: all external fuel and
60% internal fuel.

MLG: Main Landing Gear

MLW: Maximum Landing Weight (commercial) – The term MLW, used in a commercial environment, is
synonymous with the DLW and corresponds to the highest gross weight for a 10 ft/s (3.05 m/s) landing
for transport airplanes. The limit sink rate for part 23 aircraft is 7 to 10 ft/s. It is NOT the same as the
military definition of Maximum Landing Weight.

MLW: Maximum Landing Weight (military) – The highest allowable weight for any landing. Typically, it is
established by maximum flight weight minus any droppable external fuel tanks and fuel consumed or
dumped during one go-around or 3 minutes, whichever provides the lightest aircraft weight. The military
MLW term corresponds to the highest gross weight for a 6 ft/s (1.83 m/s) or 8.5 ft/s (2.59 m/s) landing
depending on aircraft type.

MTOGW: Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight

NDI: Non Destructive Inspection

NLG: Nose Landing Gear

NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board

OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer

Overload: A condition or event which may have subjected the landing gear or airframe structure to damaging loads.

Overweight Landing: A touchdown event occurring at a landing weight above the maximum certified landing weight for
that aircraft. Other landing parameters such as the sink rate, side loads, strut servicing condition,
etc. are not factors in declaring an 'overweight landing'.

S: As used in FAR 23 sink rate equation, S is the reference wing area in units of square feet for English
units or square meters for SI units

SI: System Internationale

SAWE: International Society of Allied Weight Engineers

USN: United States Navy

W: As used in FAR 23 sink rate equation, W is the aircraft gross weight in units of lb. for English units or kg
for SI units
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 5 of 20

3. BACKGROUND OF LANDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

The table below describes the limit sink rates and aircraft gross weights used for various types of aircraft. For the land
based fixed wing aircraft, these limit sink rates are for zero roll angle, zero roll rate, and 100% lift conditions.

TABLE 1 – LANDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Limit Sink Rate,

Aircraft Type Gross Weight Limit Sink Rate, m/s
ft/s
0.902 (W/S)0.25 *
Design / Maximum Landing 4.4 (W/S)0.25
Must be ≥2.133
FAR 23 Weight Must be ≥7
Need not exceed
Need not exceed 10
3.05 m/s
Design / Maximum Landing
FAR 25 10 3.05
Weight
Max Takeoff Gross Weight 6 1.83
US Land Based DLW (Landplane Landing Design
10 3.05
Fighter / Bomber Gross Weight)
Maximum Landing Weight 6 1.83
US Land Based DLW (Landplane Landing Design
13 3.96
Trainer Gross Weight)
Maximum Landing Weight 8.5 2.59
US Ship Based Carrier Landing Design Gross
See note** N/A
Fixed Wing Weight
FAR 27 Max Takeoff Gross Weight 8 2.44
FAR 29 Max Takeoff Gross Weight 6.55 2.00
US Military Various; refer to applicable
12 (design) 3.66 (design)
Rotorcraft requirements

* Note: Gross weight (W) must be in kg and reference wing area (S) must be in m2 for this equation
** Note: landing sink rates are design values, unique to the aircraft, based on multivariate analysis accounting
for approach speed, roll rate, ship motion, etc. Typical values for design sink rate are 25 – 28 ft/s.

For commercial transport applications, landing gear design landing loads are governed by the following regulations. The
first part of FAR 25.473 states “the airplane is assumed to contact the ground 1) in the attitudes defined in 25.479 and
25.481; 2) with a limit descent velocity of 10 ft/s (3.05 m/s) at the design landing weight; and 3) with a limit descent
velocity of 6 ft/s (1.83 m/s) at the design take-off weight. This requirement and those defined for side and drag loads in
25.479, 481 and 485 establish the threshold above which hard landing events occur.

For commercial small airplane applications, landing gear design landing loads and the threshold above which hard
landings occur, are governed by the following regulations: FAR 23.471, 23.473, 23.479, 23.481 and 23.485.

On land based US military applications, the design loads are given in AS8860 (formerly the MIL-L-886X series).
Background information is also available in JSSG 2006 and JSSG 2009 Appendix A. For trainers, the limit sink rates are
13 (3.96 m/s) and 8.5 ft/s (2.59 m/s) at LLDGW and MLW respectively. All other classes of aircraft have limit sink rates of
10 (3.05 m/s) and 6 ft/s (1.83 m/s) for those same weights. Also, the landing gear design limits shall not be exceeded by
landing at 15% higher sink rates as long as the weights are 15% lower. The conventional military aircraft criteria differ
slightly from the commercial requirement in that the 6 ft/s sink rate applies at a Maximum Landing Weight and not
necessarily at the takeoff weight.

US Navy design requirements for landing loads also come from AS8860, section 3.1.4.8. For carrier based aircraft, the
analysis involves a complex multivariate check of probabilities of various factors to establish a design sink rate. The
typical sink rate is between 25 and 28 ft/s (7.62 and 8.53 m/s). Note that USN carrier applications treat landing loads as
design loads, not as limit / ultimate loads like US Air Force and commercial applications.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 6 of 20

4. HARD LANDING EVENT SEQUENCES

4.1 Civil (Part 25) Aircraft

The typical hard landing inspection sequence for commercial aircraft is shown in Figure 1.

The upper section of the figure addresses those conditions normally reported by the flight crew. One set of causes is what
is commonly thought of when referring to hard landings. They include conditions during the touchdown event: high sink
rate, high roll angle or roll rate, bounced landing, or high de-rotation rate onto the nose gear. Another set of causes listed
are secondary events which may require a hard landing inspection. They include skidding during rollout, overrunning the
end of runway, landing short, etc. These are sometimes referred to as ‘high drag / side load landings’. Another unique
source of a hard landing declaration is having a tricycle configuration airplane touchdown on its nose gear first. Often, the
aircraft maintenance manuals have separate, specialized inspection procedures for those occurrences. Although not
strictly a hard landing event, the flight crew will report instances when the maximum certified landing weight was
exceeded, known as an overweight landing. These events may result in the same damage and may have the same
inspection procedures as hard landings. There may be additional inspections required for overweight landings, such as
tires and brakes, due to the high landing speeds involved. In some cases, inspections may be waived for overweight
landings if the sink rate is low.

After the flight crew, another source for hard landing declarations is an on-board automated system to identify such
events. These systems generally rely upon processing aircraft CG acceleration, sink rate, roll data, etc. A similar system
used by the USN is described in Section 4.3. Another possible approach for an automated system is to use
instrumentation on the landing gear itself. By monitoring strut stroke, strut dynamic pressure, or calibrated strain gages, a
more accurate assessment can be made of the landing conditions. Using such instrumentation is commonplace during
flight testing. However, in fleet service, most operators recognize that additional landing gear instrumentation results in
higher maintenance requirements.

The third source of hard landing declarations comes from the maintenance personnel. If damage is found during other
routine activities, the ground maintenance crew can report the occurrence and formally call for a set of hard landing
inspections.

A final possible driver of hard landing declarations and resulting actions is the post flight review of flight data. Although
this is seldom done without one of the other causes, there are exceptions. Recently, some aviation authorities began
calling for hard landing inspections months after the actual flight following post-flight review of flight data.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 7 of 20

FIGURE 1 - COMMERCIAL HARD LANDING EVENT SEQUENCE

 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 8 of 20

As shown in Section 3, vertical sink rate and aircraft gross weight are the primary parameters driving hard landings.
However, sink rate data accurate enough to assess hard landings is not always available. As a result, most aircraft use
acceleration load factors obtained with data from inertial navigation systems. If the load factor threshold is exceeded, the
operator may choose to contact the airframe manufacturer for consultation. In most cases, the inspections are conducted
regardless. An exception to this is when an onboard hard landing indication system is used. For this case, if the
threshold(s) are not exceeded, no inspection is performed.

The accelerometer data usually comes from sensors associated with the flight data recorder, not sensors that are
dedicated to hard landing detection. But, systems with dedicated hard landing acceleration sensors are being developed.
The measured vertical load factors at which a hard landing is indicated, are generally 1.3 – 2.5g for a 2 point MLG
touchdown with small roll and crab angles. The acceleration levels depend on the specific location, filtering, and sample
rate of the accelerometer. Some models provide different thresholds dependent on the sample rate. The load factors are
usually provided in the AMM. A typical landing envelope can be described by the graph in Figure 2.

2.5
Hard Landing Threshold
Vertical Load Factor, g

1.5
Normal
Landing Overweight
1 Landing

0.5

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
DLW70000 80000
Gross Weight, lb MTOGW

FIGURE 2 - EXAMPLE OF COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT LANDING ENVELOPE

Also, some aircraft have two hard landing thresholds. Instead of load factor versus gross weight, one aircraft OEM
includes a chart of aircraft vertical load factor versus sink rate in their AMMs. This chart includes 3 regions to categorize
the severity of the landing. Using the load factor and sink rate parameters, the operator will determine where the
particular landing falls on the chart. In the lowest severity region, there is no overload and the aircraft can be returned to
service without inspections. In the middle region, a report must be made to the aircraft OEM and inspections carried out.
Then, the aircraft is released to service for 30 days while the aircraft OEM performs analysis of the data to determine the
final disposition. The third region is the most severe and requires that a report be made, inspections be carried out
immediately, and the aircraft be grounded pending analysis by the aircraft OEM to determine the final disposition. In
some cases, landing gear components could be scrapped based on analysis alone and not on inspection results.

Most major aircraft manufacturers have a dynamic aircraft model, validated by drop test and flight test measurements,
that is used to simulate the hard landing event and predict ground loads, landing gear shock absorber strokes, etc. The
hard landing event flight data is input into the model and the aircraft vertical sink rate is iterated until the aircraft
acceleration is matched. The predicted ground loads, landing gear shock absorber strokes, and other data are supplied
to the landing gear OEM for assessment of overload to allow the disposition of landing gear parts to be determined.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 9 of 20

The Figure 1 flowchart refers to two sets of inspections: Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 2 inspections are more thorough
and are usually done only if damage is found in the Phase 1 inspections or the OEM requests a deeper inspection based
on the severity of the event. For example, NDI is only performed in the Phase 2 inspections for most aircraft. Also, some
AMMs call for the aircraft to be put on jacks or even have the landing gear removed completely for the Phase 2
inspections.

Some inspections are quite unique. For example, one aircraft has a levered bogie design where the lower articulation link
is specially designed to be a hard landing overload indicator. Following a severe hard landing, the link can be subjected
to precision inspection to measure its permanent deformation. This deformation is used to confirm the landing loads.
Given the precision of the inspection and the design data required, this assessment is only carried out by the landing gear
OEM.

Also, some aircraft have used a follow up inspection of the gear to be carried out some period of time after the affected
hardware was returned to service. The purpose of this inspection was to verify that cracks did not develop afterwards in
the overstressed areas.

4.2 USAF Aircraft

Hard landing declarations within the US Air Force are generally made by the flight crew. Service information on many
tactical and transport aircraft show that hard landings have not been a significant problem for the USAF.

Figure 3 shows the typical USAF flowchart for hard landing inspections. There are just minor differences from the
commercial sequence. First, the USAF usually has only one level of inspections. Second, the USAF usually only
performs NDI if damage is found in the visual inspections or if the flight crew comments are severe, although there are
cases where NDI inspections are immediately called for. And finally, the examination of flight data from hard landings is
not usually done.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 10 of 20

FIGURE 3 - US AIR FORCE HARD LANDING EVENT SEQUENCE

 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 11 of 20

4.3 USN Carrier Based Aircraft

The USN has been particularly prone to problems from hard landings during carrier operations. Older aircraft relied upon
flight crew declaration, but carrier landings are often violent enough that an accurate differentiation is not possible. As a
result, damage to the landing gear and airframe sometimes went undetected. Parts would suffer yielding in compression
resulting in high tensile residual stresses leading to catastrophic stress corrosion cracking failures at a later time. Some
USN carrier based aircraft have implemented an automated system for detection of hard landings. This system was
developed with the goal of not adding any additional sensor hardware to the aircraft. Instead, the data from existing
accelerometers is evaluated by a sophisticated software algorithm that determines if a hard landing declaration is
warranted. The US Navy system typically has two levels of hard landing severity expressed in terms of acceleration level.
These two levels determine which series of inspections should be performed. See Figure 4. Since implementation of the
automated system, the Navy has experienced a significant reduction in latent failures from earlier hard landings.

FIGURE 4 - USN CARRIER HARD LANDING EVENT SEQUENCE

4.4 Rotorcraft

The standard landing requirements for helicopters are given in Table 1 above. Many newer US military helicopters are
also designed for stringent crash landing conditions with sink rates up to 42 ft/s. While this is an aircraft level
requirement, the landing gear designs for these aircraft are used to absorb a large portion of the total energy for these
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 12 of 20

emergency cases. They can use structural fuse type designs including honeycomb core, shear pins, etc. When failed,
these components need to be replaced to restore the crashworthiness of the aircraft. For information on crashworthiness
requirements, refer to AIR 4566. Otherwise, rotorcraft will undergo the same inspections as fixed wing aircraft, with the
addition of rotorcraft mechanisms (main rotors, rotor hubs, and tail rotors).

4.5 Others

Some international aircraft have hard landing indication systems. The Mirage 2000 employs an acceleration indicator on
the MLG. Some Mikoyan aircraft have used a small thin aluminum plate mounted so that a piece of the landing gear
structure would make an indentation in the plate if the strut bottomed. The Russian civilian aviation authorities report no
special hard landing device on any transport aircraft.

Unmanned aircraft cannot rely upon the flight crew for reporting of hard landings and frequently use a visual indicator
much like the rotorcraft. Often, a thick rubber washer or ‘donut’ is used that gets damaged or partially extruded through
an opening if the strut bottoms.

One major landing gear supplier has developed a generic hard landing detection system for determining the precise
landing conditions of an aircraft and whether a given landing event exceeds the design or regulatory limits. The system
uses high-speed inertial (6 degrees of freedom) data.

5. INSPECTIONS

5.1 Types of Damage

The following is a listing of damage looked for in both the landing gear and non landing gear series of inspections.
Although it should be noted that many AMMs are somewhat ambiguous in describing the types of damage.

Cracks

Twisted / bent parts

Paint cracked / chipped / flaking

Loose fasteners

Elongated fastener holes

Delaminations

Fluid leakage

Wrinkled skins/ webs

Misalignment

Galling

5.2 Landing Gear Visual Inspections

As mentioned above, some commercial aircraft divide the inspections into two Phases. The first Phase inspections are
typically carried out directly on the aircraft. Special NDI procedures are usually not employed. Most military aircraft
simply call out a single series of inspections.

Note: This list is an overall compilation of inspections from various aircraft. It is unlikely that any aircraft explicitly requires
all these inspections.

Axles
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 13 of 20

Shock strut leakage

Shock strut integrity

Drag braces / side braces

Jury links and lock links

Door linkages

Fusible pins (if applicable)

All a/c attach fittings

Adjoining airframe structure

Truck beams / positioners

Actuators

Bungees

Landing gear alignment

Special components designed to serve as hard landing indicators

On commercial aircraft, Phase 2 inspections are carried out if the Phase 1 inspections indicate damage. The inspections
are generally performed with the aircraft on jacks because there is usually a need to remove some components for
access. The following list is typical of the Phase 2 inspections.

Assembly dimensional checks

Gear extend / retract test

Strut fluid level check

Brake assemblies

Outer cylinder lugs

All bolts / pins

Remove and inspect NLG piston

Test performance and rigging of nose wheel steering system

Test flight control cables for proper rigging

Check joint lubrication

Note, some aircraft operators that use only a single (Phase 1) set of inspections may include dimensional checks in those
procedures.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 14 of 20

5.3 Landing Gear Non Destructive Inspections

NDI methods are not always called for in the inspection procedures. However, a number of military aircraft do specify
various NDI tests and they are sometimes included in commercial Phase 2 inspection procedures. These tests are
performed on the most critical components (pins, bolts) or high stress locations such as small radii on larger parts. The
NDI tests may include:

Component dimensional checks for yielding

Rollscan - a measurement of residual stresses and microstructure changes in common steel alloys using the magnetic
Barkhausen noise method

Fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI)

Magnetic particle inspection - used on steels only

Eddy Current testing

Ultrasonic inspection - can be required for composite airframe structure

5.4 Rolling Stock Inspections

The tires and wheels are subject to various inspections when hard landings are reported or suspected. These are often
the same inspections performed on a scheduled basis at a specified number of tire changes. These inspections are listed
below.

Tire tread

Tire sidewall

Inflation valve and threads

Pressure relief valve threads

Tie bolt visual inspection

Tie bolt FPI

Bearing cup and cone visual inspection

Wheel halves visual inspection

Wheel roundness shop inspection

Wheel halves eddy current inspection

Wheel halves FPI

Fuse plug visual inspection

Drive keys visual inspection

 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 15 of 20

5.5 Non Landing Gear Inspections

The following areas are typically inspected along with the landing gear assemblies under both Phase 1 and Phase 2
inspections. Damage types are the same.

MLG bay

NLG bay

Wing skins

Wing to fuselage fittings

Fuselage underside

Fuselage skin

Fuselage stringers

Engine struts / nacelles / cowl doors

Engine strut fuse pins

Tail bumpers

Empennage

Elevators

Stabilizers

Rudders

Cargo / cabin areas (if applicable)

Auxiliary power unit support structure

Vertical tail support structure

6. INCIDENCE DATA ON HARD LANDINGS FOR COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTS

Note, this section presents commercial fixed wing aircraft data from various sources taken during very limited timeframes.
The data are included to help provide a basic understanding of the frequency of hard landing occurrences. The data are
not intended to be used for aircraft design purposes or as planning guidance for airplane operators.

6.1 NTSB Accidents and Incidents

The first set of data on hard landings was collected from the NTSB Accident / Incident database for the period of 1997 –
2006. The data in Table 2 covers type 121 common carriers and type 135 air taxi and commuters. Data were also
gathered for overruns and overweight landings. There did not appear to be duplication of events between those reported
as hard landings and those for overruns or overweight landings. In this same period, there were 39 incidents listed as
major accidents. 6 of those were related to hard landings or landing related overloads described in Figure 1. It is noted
that these statistics only include landing events leading to damage, and do not include hard landings reported by pilots
that incurred no damage.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 16 of 20

TABLE 2 - HARD LANDING INCIDENT DATA FROM NTSB ACCIDENT / INCIDENT DATABASE

Hard Landings Overruns Overweight Overwt Ldgs

Departures Hard Landings per M Depart Overruns per M Depart Landings per M Depart

Part 121
1997 9925058 2 0.202 2 0.202 0 0.000
1998 10535196 1 0.095 0 0.000 0 0.000
1999 10860692 3 0.276 1 0.092 0 0.000
2000 11053826 3 0.271 2 0.181 0 0.000
2001 10632880 2 0.188 1 0.094 1 0.094
2002 10276107 0 0.000 1 0.097 1 0.097
2003 10227924 0 0.000 2 0.196 0 0.000
2004 10782989 1 0.093 1 0.093 0 0.000
2005 10910460 1 0.092 0 0.000 0 0.000
2006 11200000 1 0.089 0 0.000 0 0.000
Avg 0.131

Part 135
1997 1394096 0 0.000 2 1.435 0 0.000
1998 707071 3 4.243 2 2.829 0 0.000
1999 672278 1 1.487 1 1.487 0 0.000
2000 603659 3 4.970 1 1.657 0 0.000
2001 558052 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000
2002 513452 1 1.948 4 7.790 0 0.000
2003 572260 3 5.242 2 3.495 0 0.000
2004 538077 3 5.575 2 3.717 0 0.000
2005 527267 4 7.586 1 1.897 0 0.000
2006 500875 2 3.993 1 1.997 0 0.000
Avg 3.504

6.2 FAA/USN Landing Parameter Surveys

In 1994, the FAA and US Navy began conducting a series of video landing parameter surveys at various commercial
airports to acquire a better understanding of typical landing conditions. These surveys are described in Table 3.

TABLE 3 - SCOPE OF FAA/USN LANDING SURVEYS

Aircraft Aircraft Total # Airports

Type Models Landings

Narrow 978 JFK, DCA, ACY

B727 218
B737 150
B757 140
MD-90-30 190
DC-9 254
A320 26

Wide 328 JFK, LHR

B767 217
A300 81
A310 30

Heavy Wide 786 JFK, HNL, LHR

B747 376
B777 92
L-1011 73
DC-10 163
MD-11 28
A330 22
A340 32
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 17 of 20

The airports listed are John F Kennedy Intl (JFK), Washington National (DCA), Atlantic City Airport (ACY), London
Heathrow (LHR), and Honolulu Intl (HNL).

Based on examination of past data, pilots typically make a hard landing declaration at a threshold of 7-8 ft/s sink rate.
The FAA/USN surveys recorded the number of landings at or above 8 ft/s (2.44 m/s) at some of the airports used. These
results are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4 - RATES OF LANDINGS ABOVE 8 FT/S (2.44 M/S)

Airport / Aircraft Type Landings ≥ 8 ft/s Total Landings Potential ‘Hard Landing’
Declarations per M Departures

JFK Narrow 4 275 14545

JFK Wide 1 134 7462
JFK Heavy Wide 2 105 19047
DCA Narrow 4 525 7619
HNL Heavy Wide 1 332 3012
Overall 12 1371 8752

One result from the study is that the airport characteristics (altitude, climate, length of runways, surrounding terrain, etc.)
are larger drivers of hard landing incidents than the aircraft type. For example, one would expect the number of hard
landings at JFK to be many times greater than the number at HNL.

Another finding of the FAA/USN surveys showed that the Autoland feature that some aircraft have does not appear to
impact hard landings. The FAA flight loads program of the A320 found that the Autoland system was used for only 1% of
all landings. In addition, the probability of achieving 10 ft/s (3.05 m/s) is shown to be below 10-6 for Autoland certification.

Figures 5 and 6 show the statistical (Weibull) distribution of landing sink rate for the 3 aircraft types studied. Although
other statistical methods have been employed to evaluate the data, the Weibull distribution was much closer to the actual
test data. So, that is the only method included here. Using Figure 6, a 10 ft/s (3.05 m/s) landing has a Weibull distribution
probability of 3.2x10-4 on Narrow body transports, 1.3x10-5 on Wide body transports, and 1.6x10-4 on Heavy Wide body
transports. There appears to be a very slight trend that the larger airplanes have their landings more skewed toward the
higher sink rates. For reference, Figure 6 also shows the Pearson III distribution as described in AS 8860.

Several cautionary points must be made in regard to the landing parameter surveys:

• The probability estimates are extrapolations of the trends beyond where test data exists. The 10 ft/s (3.05 m/s)
probabilities must be regarded as approximations only for general information and are not to be used for design
purposes.

• After the earlier surveys (JFK and DCA), a week-long set of testing at ACY comparing the video survey techniques
with a flight test instrumented Boeing MD-90-30 showed good correlation. It was found that most conditions agreed
to within 1 ft/s (0.305 m/s), with a mean difference of about 0.3 ft/s (0.091 m/s).

• The FAA/USN data is presented here as a snapshot of one aspect of the hard landing environment, vertical sink rate.
Although the surveys did attempt to capture roll, pitch, and yaw, it was not clear how accurate those values were
recorded. And, there are other factors affecting landing loads that were not addressed by these surveys including CG
location, strut servicing, etc.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 18 of 20

Weibull Distribution of Landings

60

50

40
Narrow
Number of Landings

Wide
Heavy Wide

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Sink Rate, fps

FIGURE 5 - SINK RATE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT

 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 19 of 20

Cumulative Spectrum

Narrow Body Weibull

14 Wide Body Weibull
Heavy Wide Body Weibull
12 AS 8860

10
Sink Rate, fps

0
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Probability of Exceedance

FIGURE 6 - SINK RATE PROBABILITIES FOR TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT

6.3 Summary of Hard Landing Incidence Rates

In addition to the NTSB files and FAA/USN video parameter surveys, data was obtained for actual pilot hard landing
reports from a particular commercial carrier over a 5 year period. This data indicated a rate of hard landing declarations
of 1850 per million departures. This result and all the information described above in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 are
summarized in Table 5.

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF HARD LANDING INCIDENT RATES

Source Description Approximate Rate,

per Million Departures
FAA/USN Potential Hard Landings (>8 ft/s or 2.44 m/s) 8750
Airline Pilot Hard Landing Reports, no damage or incident 1850
NTSB Hard Landing Incidents, part 135 3.5
NTSB Hard Landing Incidents, part 121 0.13
NTSB Hard Landing Major Accidents, parts 135 and 121 0.05
 Downloaded from SAE International by Chalmers University of Technology, Friday, December 22, 2023

SAE INTERNATIONAL AIR5938™ Page 20 of 20

Table 5 ranks the occurrences according to their incident rate. The broadest, most frequent event is a landing sink rate
above 8 ft/s (2.44 m/s) which occurs at an approximate rate of 8750 per million departures. Actual declarations from
pilots (when hard landings are suspected) are made at rate of 1850 per million departures, approximately 20% of the
potential hard landings. Those hard landings that end up causing damage or injury are called incidents or accidents, and
occur at a much lower frequency.

There is clearly a vast difference between reported hard landings and the number of hard landing events that actually
cause damage or injury. When dealing with hard landings, it is critical that all parties concerned have a common
understanding of exactly which type of landing is being referred to.

These data suggest that virtually all hard landings reported by airlines do not result in any structural damage. This is due
mainly to the fact that landings at 7 to 10 ft/s (2.13 to 3.05 m/s) are uncommon enough that they feel 'hard' to the pilot, but
are in fact still well within the limit structural capability of the airplane. Limit landing conditions are generally not critical to
the design because other conditions are more severe. For those few areas where landing loads govern, it is generally
because the landing conditions are accompanied by extreme values of weight, CG, ground speed, payload/fuel loading,
altitude, temperature, etc. In light of this, it is evident that there remains an opportunity to improve the hard landing
indication methods in order to reduce the number of unnecessary structural inspections.

PREPARED BY SAE COMMITTEE A-5B,

LANDING GEAR STRUTS AND COUPLINGS