Video here: https://youtu.be/QoRlWgG5zjk

Would this require an inspection?

I would certainly think so, just to be on the safe side. Doesn't seem like there's any damage though.

That is a ropey approach that probably should have been aborted earlier (they struggled with directional stability numerous times). It does appear to be a near tail strike. However, there is no major stress or impact seen at all in the video. The airplane is probably fine. Lucky, more than anything.

Any pilots here have a guess why he had so much difficulty de-rotating?

Lot of pitch changes during the final, well above 50’. No reason to let the pitch get that high at and after touchdown. It’d be poor aero braking, if that was the intent.

Apparently they were also going off the centerline towards the left, at 0:47 the left MLG seems to be really close to the runway edge light

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk

Wow, that was quite the landing attempt. Could have been a lot worse with how far off the center line they ended up. Took a look at the aircraft's flight history and it didn't get pulled from service so everything must have been ok.

I speak as a mechanic who has done a number of hard landing inspections, NOT as a pilot who has performed them...
But to me, it's far more concerning that they nearly departed the left main off the left edge of the runway.
The touchdown is exaggerated on camera- it doesn't look that serious to me.
The alleged tail strike, I'm not sure about. It was definitely close, but from that angle I can't be sure whether there was a strike or not.

And folks being critical of the pitch changes etc etc, have you not seen all the other truly entertaining videos on YouTube?!? Look at "Troubled Turboprops" or some of the others by a variety of channels; airliners routinely make far more breathtaking approaches with far more control surface inputs that this fairly bland one.

Also, nose pitch up moments can be caused by spoiler deployment; it's hard for us to ascertain the intent of the PF by watching the exterior of the aircraft on YouTube.
See: Countless MD-11 landing issues.

It looked like the pilot was trying to abort the landing earlier and go-around, but the spoilers remained deployed preventing them from aborting the landing. Just my "rookie" observation.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Any pilots here have a guess why he had so much difficulty de-rotating?

Pretty common on jets that with increase in thrust, spoilers extending etc can result in a pitch up

Sure got close to leaving the pavement on the left side before they went around.

All I can think of is how graceful and elegant the A220 is. So happy to see that fabulous bird gracing the skies.

AA737-823 wrote:

But to me, it's far more concerning that they nearly departed the left main off the left edge of the runway.
The touchdown is exaggerated on camera- it doesn't look that serious to me.
The alleged tail strike, I'm not sure about. It was definitely close, but from that angle I can't be sure whether there was a strike or not.

Exactly my thoughts.
The touchdown itself doesn't seem bad at all, the rest is... worse than bad.

How exhilarating to be on board.

I just practiced this very situation in a simulator. Bounced landings. Thrust from underwing engines causes the nose to pitch up. I am not sure what the wind was but the creep over to to left side of the runway is very concerning. Cross wind landings are an under trained event. Landing with a crab is fine but I witness pilots drifting downwind while in ground effect. Instead of rudder and aileron input to correct the drift they put nose down pitch to get it on the ground. This case was what can happen.

Everyone should get some taildragger time to better understand the aerodynamic forces during landings. Yes this is a large swept wing jet but a crosswind is a crosswind. Side slip or forward slip can both work but really understanding the forces acting on the plane is a must. The FAA recognizes more training needs to be done in this area. It is hard to mimic the feel in a simulator.

Seems the pilot wanted to make a last second flare adjustment. Probably having the impression he flared to high. As noted earlier there is some pilot induced oscillation notable due to over controlling during the approach.

oldannyboy wrote:

All I can think of is how graceful and elegant the A220 is. So happy to see that fabulous bird gracing the skies.

Totally agree, one of the most elegant things in the sky. It would be great to hear pilot reports from the line.

If only they had gotten a wind check…..

Just for some additional context, it was a brutal day at MSP when this took place. Due to very strong, gusty winds out of the southwest, the airport was in single runway operations landing and departing on 22. This is very different than the normal configuration of three runways combining the 12/30 parallel operations and departures on 17. This configuration caused long holds aloft for some arrivals. Sky conditions were also varying drastically, from snow squalls and very limited visibility one minute to sun the next. None of this explains the difficulties they had on short final. But bottom line is that it would have been a very high workload day in the cockpit - as well as for MSP tracon, tower, and ground.

Deffo looks pilot induced pitch that caused the initial upset as you can see high elevator inputs.

I think however, the pitch was so high due to one of the pilots initiating a go around, the PF hears the engines spool up and naturally starts to rotate, but because the spoilers are still deployed it prevents lift off.

Only once the spoilers are stowed does the aircraft takeoff again.

Just my armchair opinion however

I was in the United club that day in MSP and witnessed at least 8 go arounds from the club. Was a very windy day. The UA plane to ORD was delayed an hour as the incoming plane had to make 2 go arounds.

Other case that I know off with a A220 landing mishap is this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqgARPwE6i0
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f53b9d5&opt=0

Situation looks totally different.

There must have been some screaming and hail Mary's going on.

Pi7472000 wrote:

I was in the United club that day in MSP and witnessed at least 8 go arounds from the club. Was a very windy day. The UA plane to ORD was delayed an hour as the incoming plane had to make 2 go arounds.

Yep I think that is part of why the ATC delays were so bad. One minute it would be sunny and calm and a few planes would make it in. Then a snow squall would hit and the airport would go below minimums. Then it would go back up, but the first inbound would go around because of gusts. It was just chaos. My Dad lives in Saint Paul under the approach to 22, and he said he had never seen that steady of an arrivals flow for such a long time on 22 - probably because some arrivals were on their second or third attempt.

Ehhh having seen many go arounds this isn’t really that bad of a landing attempt especially in rapidly changing conditions and gusty crosswinds.

atcdan wrote:

Ehhh having seen many go arounds this isn’t really that bad of a landing attempt especially in rapidly changing conditions and gusty crosswinds.

If that is okay I hope you aren’t a check airman. That was horrible airmanship

Super odd to see that pushing forward moment in the last few feet. I’m guessing PM called for go around the second they saw PF drop the nose. Once the mains hit I would’ve prob just taken the landing. Weird landing no doubt but things got way weirder after they hit. High AOA in those crazy winds is a bad recipe

mcdu wrote:

atcdan wrote:

Ehhh having seen many go arounds this isn’t really that bad of a landing attempt especially in rapidly changing conditions and gusty crosswinds.

If that is okay I hope you aren’t a check airman. That was horrible airmanship

No need to be a check airman to realize it's not okay...

Looks like a good recovery to me! Talk about a sudden workload for those 2 in those final seconds. Possible windshear?

LCDFlight wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

All I can think of is how graceful and elegant the A220 is. So happy to see that fabulous bird gracing the skies.

Totally agree, one of the most elegant things in the sky. It would be great to hear pilot reports from the line.

Here’s a twitter account for an Air Canada A220 first officer, he generally seems to enjoy flying it from what I’ve read https://twitter.com/mikeinthefront

F9Animal wrote:

Looks like a good recovery to me! Talk about a sudden workload for those 2 in those final seconds. Possible windshear?

Nearly went off the runway...

BoeingGuy wrote:

Any pilots here have a guess why he had so much difficulty de-rotating?

Winds at 30kts gusting to 50+ knots…

This one is pretty simple.
You can see the airplane decide to stop flying a bit too high off of the ground, that is caused by the gust dropping off.
Good call on the go-around. They were probably already into the throttles before it touched down, but it takes a couple off seconds for the power to spool up.

At 45 seconds you can see a rapid elevator movement which I’d be pretty sure would be the automatic tail strike protection kicking in.

I think it’s only that that saved them from a tail strike.

As for the initial touchdown, it’s definitely weird but not a hard landing.

zeke wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Any pilots here have a guess why he had so much difficulty de-rotating?

Pretty common on jets that with increase in thrust, spoilers extending etc can result in a pitch up

See MD-11 landing accidents.

She wouldn't come unstuck because the spoilers remained deployed dumping lift, the moment they retract, up she goes.. Its going to take an A220 pilot to tell us if this is a known quirk of the A220. Does TOGA retract spoilers on the A220?

Edit: Pugman212 got there first so I join his opinion

tallis wrote:

At 45 seconds you can see a rapid elevator movement which I’d be pretty sure would be the automatic tail strike protection kicking in.

I think it’s only that that saved them from a tail strike.

As for the initial touchdown, it’s definitely weird but not a hard landing.

The A220 has automatic tail strike protection ?

BoeingVista wrote:

Does TOGA retract spoilers on the A220?

Not the TOGA button itself. The throttle advancing above a certain Thrust Lever Angle causes them to retract. Pushing the TOGA button will cause them to advance, but it takes a couple of seconds for it all to happen.

Yes, the A220 has tailstrike protection. It's a software function of the PFCCs (primary flight control computers) when operating in normal mode.

Objectively, it looked to me like the Pilot Flying saw the plane drifting off the left side of the runway and was concerned more about a runway excursion so executed the go around maneuver and pulled the stick back, and as noted, once the spoilers retracted, the aircraft was able to fly. A little ugly in execution, but I would say the ends justified the means.

(I fly the A220)

99% of you missed the sudden and deliberate pitch down at 20 ft causing the “firm” landing…never in my 30 years of airline flying would I have or ever done that in a transport category aircraft. Remember the A380 at Oshkosh pushed then tried to catch it…broke a body gear and it did not fly for 2 days while they replaced it. I’ll freeze the pitch attitude but at that altitude….NOOOOO pushing. Not even when I flew the 727. Xwind controls? None. Spoilers automatically retract with the application of thrust. Aerobrake…. Delta doesn’t like pilots “aerobraking”. Pitch up with the deployment of speed brakes/spoilers is common in swept wing planes. 767-200 is the worst at pitch up.

Best statement is “I wasn’t in the cockpit so I do not know why they did what they did”. All safe so it’s a win. I do see pilots these days not knowing how to fly in a crosswind on Takeoff and landing. Our airline even put in a special spot moment in out recurrent on xwind which is embarrassing as some skills on these people have deteriorated but I am happy we do it and is 100% necessary.

Cheers

Airbuser wrote:

I just practiced this very situation in a simulator. Bounced landings. Thrust from underwing engines causes the nose to pitch up. I am not sure what the wind was but the creep over to to left side of the runway is very concerning. Cross wind landings are an under trained event. Landing with a crab is fine but I witness pilots drifting downwind while in ground effect. Instead of rudder and aileron input to correct the drift they put nose down pitch to get it on the ground. This case was what can happen.

Everyone should get some taildragger time to better understand the aerodynamic forces during landings. Yes this is a large swept wing jet but a crosswind is a crosswind. Side slip or forward slip can both work but really understanding the forces acting on the plane is a must. The FAA recognizes more training needs to be done in this area. It is hard to mimic the feel in a simulator.

YES YES YES…..L

reltney wrote:

99% of you missed the sudden and deliberate pitch down at 20 ft causing the “firm” landing…never in my 30 years of airline flying would I have or ever done that in a transport category aircraft. Remember the A380 at Oshkosh pushed then tried to catch it…broke a body gear and it did not fly for 2 days while they replaced it. I’ll freeze the pitch attitude but at that altitude….NOOOOO pushing. Not even when I flew the 727. Xwind controls? None. Spoilers automatically retract with the application of thrust. Aerobrake…. Delta doesn’t like pilots “aerobraking”. Pitch up with the deployment of speed brakes/spoilers is common in swept wing planes. 767-200 is the worst at pitch up.

Best statement is “I wasn’t in the cockpit so I do not know why they did what they did”. All safe so it’s a win. I do see pilots these days not knowing how to fly in a crosswind on Takeoff and landing. Our airline even put in a special spot moment in out recurrent on xwind which is embarrassing as some skills on these people have deteriorated but I am happy we do it and is 100% necessary.

Cheers

Could it be that he/she was not aerobraking but instead tried to rotate for a go-around before he/she pushed up the power? Either way-not good.

I’m genuinely befuddled here. Not sure why they shoved the nose over like that. I assume they called the go-around because they thought they bounced, which is a good call. From what I see, though, they didn’t actually bounce and could have just lowered the nose and rolled out. Secondly, a balked or bounced landing doesn’t require you to hold the nose 13 degrees in the air (which is why they almost went off the pavement: they couldnt see forward) until you hit VMU or whatever. Push the nose over, gain speed, then go.

I see this kind of ugly stuff all the time from European and Middle Eastern airlines on youtube. It’s like they don’t know how to handle crosswinds, so they just bash it on sideways and bury the rudder later. My assumption is that it’s because you’ve got kids with 500 hours and no real experience being thrown into jetliners over there. My fear is that a lower quality of airmanship may become more prevelent here, too, as the majors hire lower and lower time pilots.

reltney wrote:

99% of you missed the sudden and deliberate pitch down at 20 ft causing the “firm” landing…never in my 30 years of airline flying would I have or ever done that in a transport category aircraft. Remember the A380 at Oshkosh pushed then tried to catch it…broke a body gear and it did not fly for 2 days while they replaced it. I’ll freeze the pitch attitude but at that altitude….NOOOOO pushing. Not even when I flew the 727. Xwind controls? None. Spoilers automatically retract with the application of thrust. Aerobrake…. Delta doesn’t like pilots “aerobraking”. Pitch up with the deployment of speed brakes/spoilers is common in swept wing planes. 767-200 is the worst at pitch up.

Best statement is “I wasn’t in the cockpit so I do not know why they did what they did”. All safe so it’s a win. I do see pilots these days not knowing how to fly in a crosswind on Takeoff and landing. Our airline even put in a special spot moment in out recurrent on xwind which is embarrassing as some skills on these people have deteriorated but I am happy we do it and is 100% necessary.

Cheers

I'm wondering if it could be software induced. Certain FBW aircraft have experienced errors with erroneously thinking they are nearing a stall during landing in high winds and will push the nose down.

N766UA wrote:

I see this kind of ugly stuff all the time from European and Middle Eastern airlines on youtube. It’s like they don’t know how to handle crosswinds, so they just bash it on sideways and bury the rudder later. My assumption is that it’s because you’ve got kids with 500 hours and no real experience being thrown into jetliners over there. My fear is that a lower quality of airmanship may become more prevelent here, too, as the majors hire lower and lower time pilots.

Your assumption is totally incorrect. To start with, you’ve got no idea how many hours the pilots have on a random YouTube video - but if it’s in a crosswind above half the aircraft limit then it wouldn’t be a 500 hour cadet landing anyway, so what you’re actually watching is the Captain landing. At my operator, you won’t be flying between 2/3rds and full aircraft limit until at least 1,500 to 2,000 hours, and that’s fairly standard.

More to the point, the hours aren’t nearly as relevant as you think. There are just as many - if not more - examples of bad airmanship causing incidents in the USA as in Europe. Just read the reports of Colgan 3407, Pinnacle 3701, Atlas 3591 etc etc. In each of those you have experienced pilots displaying really poor airmanship.

I’ve flown with minimum hour pilots in Europe and 10,000 hour pilots. And guess what - some of the higher hours colleagues are the worst I’ve flown with not just in terms of CRM but also stick and rudder skills. Some of the lower hours have been the best. Yes there are some 500 hour skygod instapilots but they’re no more of a threat than a 10,000 hour, bored, tired, jaded colleague with rusty stick and rudder technique who just wants to retire.

It’s time to recognise that a good pilot has a very wide skillset and we need to stop equating airmanship just to hours.

tallis wrote:

N766UA wrote:

I see this kind of ugly stuff all the time from European and Middle Eastern airlines on youtube. It’s like they don’t know how to handle crosswinds, so they just bash it on sideways and bury the rudder later. My assumption is that it’s because you’ve got kids with 500 hours and no real experience being thrown into jetliners over there. My fear is that a lower quality of airmanship may become more prevelent here, too, as the majors hire lower and lower time pilots.

Your assumption is totally incorrect. To start with, you’ve got no idea how many hours the pilots have on a random YouTube video - but if it’s in a crosswind above half the aircraft limit then it wouldn’t be a 500 hour cadet landing anyway, so what you’re actually watching is the Captain landing. At my operator, you won’t be flying between 2/3rds and full aircraft limit until at least 1,500 to 2,000 hours, and that’s fairly standard.

More to the point, the hours aren’t nearly as relevant as you think. There are just as many - if not more - examples of bad airmanship causing incidents in the USA as in Europe. Just read the reports of Colgan 3407, Pinnacle 3701, Atlas 3591 etc etc. In each of those you have experienced pilots displaying really poor airmanship.

I’ve flown with minimum hour pilots in Europe and 10,000 hour pilots. And guess what - some of the higher hours colleagues are the worst I’ve flown with not just in terms of CRM but also stick and rudder skills. Some of the lower hours have been the best. Yes there are some 500 hour skygod instapilots but they’re no more of a threat than a 10,000 hour, bored, tired, jaded colleague with rusty stick and rudder technique who just wants to retire.

It’s time to recognise that a good pilot has a very wide skillset and we need to stop equating airmanship just to hours.

Oh, I totally agree with you; the worst guys I've ever flown with are actually 20,000+ hour guys. Yeah, come to think of it, maybe that was kind of a dumb train of thought. I just don't get how you wind up 3 feet from the grass and 2 millimeters from the tail in any circumstance.

reltney wrote:

99% of you missed the sudden and deliberate pitch down at 20 ft causing the “firm” landing…never in my 30 years of airline flying would I have or ever done that in a transport category aircraft. Remember the A380 at Oshkosh pushed then tried to catch it…broke a body gear and it did not fly for 2 days while they replaced it. I’ll freeze the pitch attitude but at that altitude….NOOOOO pushing. Not even when I flew the 727. Xwind controls? None. Spoilers automatically retract with the application of thrust. Aerobrake…. Delta doesn’t like pilots “aerobraking”. Pitch up with the deployment of speed brakes/spoilers is common in swept wing planes. 767-200 is the worst at pitch up.

Best statement is “I wasn’t in the cockpit so I do not know why they did what they did”. All safe so it’s a win. I do see pilots these days not knowing how to fly in a crosswind on Takeoff and landing. Our airline even put in a special spot moment in out recurrent on xwind which is embarrassing as some skills on these people have deteriorated but I am happy we do it and is 100% necessary.

Cheers

This could be the tail strike protection trying to reduce pitch angle at low altitude. This seems like poorly managed airspeed during landing resulting in high attitudes near ground. System kicked in, scaring the pilot, and kicked in again after landing. My guesses.

tallis wrote:

N766UA wrote:

I see this kind of ugly stuff all the time from European and Middle Eastern airlines on youtube. It’s like they don’t know how to handle crosswinds, so they just bash it on sideways and bury the rudder later. My assumption is that it’s because you’ve got kids with 500 hours and no real experience being thrown into jetliners over there. My fear is that a lower quality of airmanship may become more prevelent here, too, as the majors hire lower and lower time pilots.

Your assumption is totally incorrect. To start with, you’ve got no idea how many hours the pilots have on a random YouTube video - but if it’s in a crosswind above half the aircraft limit then it wouldn’t be a 500 hour cadet landing anyway, so what you’re actually watching is the Captain landing. At my operator, you won’t be flying between 2/3rds and full aircraft limit until at least 1,500 to 2,000 hours, and that’s fairly standard.

More to the point, the hours aren’t nearly as relevant as you think. There are just as many - if not more - examples of bad airmanship causing incidents in the USA as in Europe. Just read the reports of Colgan 3407, Pinnacle 3701, Atlas 3591 etc etc. In each of those you have experienced pilots displaying really poor airmanship.

I’ve flown with minimum hour pilots in Europe and 10,000 hour pilots. And guess what - some of the higher hours colleagues are the worst I’ve flown with not just in terms of CRM but also stick and rudder skills. Some of the lower hours have been the best. Yes there are some 500 hour skygod instapilots but they’re no more of a threat than a 10,000 hour, bored, tired, jaded colleague with rusty stick and rudder technique who just wants to retire.

It’s time to recognise that a good pilot has a very wide skillset and we need to stop equating airmanship just to hours.

Well stated. Hours don’t equate to skill.

Back on topic, I generally don’t have anything against the FBW side stick but I do wonder if it is more difficult in these circumstances. I know when I fly airplanes I really rely on the feel I’m getting in the yoke during cross wind landings, but I only fly little stuff. Does a FBW side stick without any feedback make this type of landing more challenging than it is with a yoke or a stick that is traditionally physically connected to the controls?

I visited this thread the first day it was opened and took note of the near tail strike. From the camera angle, I did not note the substantial drift on the runway afer the bounce until I read the updates through today and noticed this reference. Watching ther video again, the threat of a high speed excursion into the grass, with the potential outcome of what that would present, seems to be a much more concerning issue. The near strike may be the least of the concerns in this incident and was pssibly a result of the possibility of ending up in the grass at that speed.

kabq737 wrote:

tallis wrote:

N766UA wrote:

I see this kind of ugly stuff all the time from European and Middle Eastern airlines on youtube. It’s like they don’t know how to handle crosswinds, so they just bash it on sideways and bury the rudder later. My assumption is that it’s because you’ve got kids with 500 hours and no real experience being thrown into jetliners over there. My fear is that a lower quality of airmanship may become more prevelent here, too, as the majors hire lower and lower time pilots.

Your assumption is totally incorrect. To start with, you’ve got no idea how many hours the pilots have on a random YouTube video - but if it’s in a crosswind above half the aircraft limit then it wouldn’t be a 500 hour cadet landing anyway, so what you’re actually watching is the Captain landing. At my operator, you won’t be flying between 2/3rds and full aircraft limit until at least 1,500 to 2,000 hours, and that’s fairly standard.

More to the point, the hours aren’t nearly as relevant as you think. There are just as many - if not more - examples of bad airmanship causing incidents in the USA as in Europe. Just read the reports of Colgan 3407, Pinnacle 3701, Atlas 3591 etc etc. In each of those you have experienced pilots displaying really poor airmanship.

I’ve flown with minimum hour pilots in Europe and 10,000 hour pilots. And guess what - some of the higher hours colleagues are the worst I’ve flown with not just in terms of CRM but also stick and rudder skills. Some of the lower hours have been the best. Yes there are some 500 hour skygod instapilots but they’re no more of a threat than a 10,000 hour, bored, tired, jaded colleague with rusty stick and rudder technique who just wants to retire.

It’s time to recognise that a good pilot has a very wide skillset and we need to stop equating airmanship just to hours.

Well stated. Hours don’t equate to skill.

Back on topic, I generally don’t have anything against the FBW side stick but I do wonder if it is more difficult in these circumstances. I know when I fly airplanes I really rely on the feel I’m getting in the yoke during cross wind landings, but I only fly little stuff. Does a FBW side stick without any feedback make this type of landing more challenging than it is with a yoke or a stick that is traditionally physically connected to the controls?

A FBW yoke probably wouldn’t have any feedback either, (777,787 and Ejets).

loggat wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Does TOGA retract spoilers on the A220?

Not the TOGA button itself. The throttle advancing above a certain Thrust Lever Angle causes them to retract. Pushing the TOGA button will cause them to advance, but it takes a couple of seconds for it all to happen.

Yes, the A220 has tailstrike protection. It's a software function of the PFCCs (primary flight control computers) when operating in normal mode.

Objectively, it looked to me like the Pilot Flying saw the plane drifting off the left side of the runway and was concerned more about a runway excursion so executed the go around maneuver and pulled the stick back, and as noted, once the spoilers retracted, the aircraft was able to fly. A little ugly in execution, but I would say the ends justified the means.

(I fly the A220)

Interesting, thanks for the information


Just to be clear, is it possible the tail strike protection made that significant pitch down input prior to touchdown ? It didn’t seem necessary


I can’t tell if the tail actually made contact, it was very close if it didn’t

Max Q wrote:

loggat wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Does TOGA retract spoilers on the A220?

Not the TOGA button itself. The throttle advancing above a certain Thrust Lever Angle causes them to retract. Pushing the TOGA button will cause them to advance, but it takes a couple of seconds for it all to happen.

Yes, the A220 has tailstrike protection. It's a software function of the PFCCs (primary flight control computers) when operating in normal mode.

Objectively, it looked to me like the Pilot Flying saw the plane drifting off the left side of the runway and was concerned more about a runway excursion so executed the go around maneuver and pulled the stick back, and as noted, once the spoilers retracted, the aircraft was able to fly. A little ugly in execution, but I would say the ends justified the means.

(I fly the A220)

Interesting, thanks for the information


Just to be clear, is it possible the tail strike protection made that significant pitch down input prior to touchdown ? It didn’t seem necessary


I can’t tell if the tail actually made contact, it was very close if it didn’t

Yes thanks for the info loggat, but no, I believe the tail strike protection moment was when you can see the elevator modify the rotation. The pilot (or windsheer as wheels remained down at beginning of go around) caused the pitch down before landing.