B737-800 flight crew reported a hard landing at night in the rain.
Synopsis
B737-800 flight crew reported a hard landing at night in the rain.
Narrative
After a thorough approach briefing I was PF and flew the ILS to RWY XXL at ZZZ. The PAPI was out of service; moderate and heavy rain was present; and wipers were set to high. Once visual contact was made with the runway I turned off autopilot and continued. The runway had edge lights; but I don't recall seeing TDZ or centerline lights. It was difficult to see the runway surface as the aircraft approached touchdown. I noted that the tempo of RA callouts had increased so I initiated an immediate round out and flare. In hindsight; I did not have enough visual cues to realize that touchdown was imminent and the touchdown was firm. Post flight inspections did not reveal any irregularities and after reviewing onboard approach and pitch reports and the Hard Landing reporting requirements in the AOM we discussed that it was a firm landing; but did not warrant further action. A FOQA gate keeper later informed us that the touchdown was considered a hard landing. The gate keeper explained that he would notify Maintenance Control directly.Cause: The lack of visual cues and reduced visibility due to rain on the windshield led to a situation where the aircraft was closer to the runway surface than anticipated. Without a PAPI or TDZ lights it was difficult to judge closure rate. I would recommend that crews go around if this situation occurs to avoid misjudging the time available to round out and flare. I also recommend adding a quantitative method for pilots to use when determining if a landing is deemed a Hard Landing"."
Second reporter narrative
Hard landing in ZZZ; confirmed by FOQA data. Uneventful flight until approach through touchdown. Heavy rain and PAPIs out of service on RWY XXL led to minimal visual cues for landing. FO recognized faster than normal pace of automated verbal cues 30; 20; 10" and executed late flare; resulting in very firm touchdown. Highest VVI (Vertical Velocity Indicator) I observed was 950. We confirmed no injuries with the flight attendants and referenced FOM and available onboard landing data before deciding not to make a logbook entry. FOQA call the next day informed us of 2.5 Gs upon landing; greater than inspection limit of 2.1. FOQA rep agreed to inform Maintenance Control on our behalf. Cause: Causal factors included lack of visual cues due to heavy rain with wipers on high; no PAPIs; poor runway lighting; no verbal prompts from me and late flare execution. Recommend I speak up next time to highlight need to flare or direct go-around. With my newly calibrated internal G-meter; I will also add any similar-feeling landings to the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Logbook). It would be nice to have onboard G-meter visibility to prevent the need for subjective estimation."
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.