Gearing up an aircraft?

[Propsfullfwd]

OK here is the thing. It was not me first of all. The CFI that I'm talking about geared up one on takeoff a little over a year ago and the other last thurs. on landing. The thing is the student that he had in the plane was one of my old students. I gave him his complex end. after 4.2 hours. Could I get investigated over this? The old student now prolly has over 15 hrs in complex aircraft. And if so what would they want to see besides my logbook? As for the CFI what do you think the FAA has instore for him?

 

[Visceral]

The CFI that I'm talking about geared up one on takeoff a little over a year ago...

What do you mean he geared up one on takeoff? Did he have an engine failure on takeoff with the gear coming up, requiring an immediate landing? Anyhow, I wouldn't worry about the Feds coming for you as long as you made a legal endorsement. The CFI could be in hot water if this is his second gear up.

 

[Lead Sled]

OK here is the thing. It was not me first of all. The CFI that I'm talking about geared up one on takeoff a little over a year ago and the other last thurs. on landing. The thing is the student that he had in the plane was one of my old students. I gave him his complex end. after 4.2 hours. Could I get investigated over this? The old student now prolly has over 15 hrs in complex aircraft. And if so what would they want to see besides my logbook? As for the CFI what do you think the FAA has instore for him?

Back in the early 80's there was a CFI at the 141 school where I worked part-time that landed gear up twice, once in a Beech Sierra and once in a Duchess, in a 3 week period. It was a career ender for him. He went to to become an air traffic controller.

'Sled

 

[Propsfullfwd]

On takeoff the gear handle was in the up position. He told the student to do a soft field t.o. In the 172rg the squat switch is on the nose gear. Went it came up so did the mains. Trashed the eng. and props b/c it was it full power.

 

[Lead Sled]

On takeoff the gear handle was in the up position. He told the student to do a soft field t.o. In the 172rg the squat switch is on the nose gear. Went it came up so did the mains. Trashed the eng. and props b/c it was it full power.

My guess would be that the folks at the FSDO will take a keen interest in this incident because of what happened a year ago. I would expect, at the least, a compentency check. As far as his career goes, if he gets past the FAA without a blemish on his record (I'd be very surprised) he'll still have to deal with the insurance companies - and they're not going to take this lightly. My guess is that he'll end up finding something else to do when he grows up.

They may ask you about the training you gave him, but as long as you made the proper endorsement it's not a reflection on you. He took the appropriate checkride(s) and passed them.

'Sled

 

[Flyin Tony]

There is a guy at my local who geared his plane up. Got it fixed and had maybe 5 hours on the motor and prop, and then he did it again. Insurance picked up the bill both times. A CFI friend of mine told me his insurance is well over 6k a year for a comanche 260, and if he does it again they will not pay to fix it. I looked up the N# on his plane and its hit the ground 4 times

 

[Clyde]

OK here is the thing. It was not me first of all. The CFI that I'm talking about geared up one on takeoff a little over a year ago and the other last thurs. on landing. The thing is the student that he had in the plane was one of my old students. I gave him his complex end. after 4.2 hours. Could I get investigated over this? The old student now prolly has over 15 hrs in complex aircraft. And if so what would they want to see besides my logbook? As for the CFI what do you think the FAA has instore for him?

As far as you're concerned, I wouldn't worry about it, provided you followed the FAR's when you signed him off. However, the CFI who was in the airplane at the time will probably get looked at very closely by the FSDO. I wouldn't be surprised to see the FAA give him a checkride.

 

[FN FAL]

I gave him his complex end. after 4.2 hours. Could I get investigated over this? The old student now prolly has over 15 hrs in complex aircraft. And if so what would they want to see besides my logbook?

I signed off a guy for a BFR we did in his plane. About a month later he crashed and burned. The plane was destroyed. He didn't have insurance either, because he let his one insurance policy lapse while he was having the aircraft painted, the check for the new insurance carrier was sitting on the desk at home when he crashed.

The FEDs never asked me anything...nor did they contact me. Dale did excellent on his BFR and as far as I know, he flew pretty good for GA pilot. Also note in the NTSB report below, that after not making it off the longer runway, he attempted to take off on a much shorter runway with a tree line at the end of it. He must have been PREPONDERING that the winds would help shorten his take off roll.

One thing to keep in mind, if your ex-student is legal to PIC the airplane and he bone heads up...that's not your fault. But that doesn't mean him or other interested parties can't try to sue you. The FAA isn't going to care about you unless you lied on your endorsement regarding the training or unless you improperly documented the endorsement.

I'd be more worried about getting sued, rather than hearing anything from the FEDs. The less you talk about this incident around the airport the better...you could wind up hearing a twisted version of anything you say being repeated by some guy that put his hand on a BIBLE, who THINKS he knows what happened. Just remember, PREPONDERANCE is 51/100th's of the law!

"In contrast to criminal cases, where the reasonable doubt standard prevails, a lesser standard of proof is needed in civil cases. A finding for the plaintiff in a civil case requires only the determination that a preponderance of the evidence shows that the defendant should be held accountable. A preponderance of the evidence can mean a probability of just over 50 percent that the defendant did what is claimed. Following the criterion of the preponderance of the evidence, a judge or jury can find for the plaintiff if they conclude that it is more likely than not that the allegations against the defendant are true." ​

14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, July 01, 1994 in SHIOCTON, WI
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/25/1995
Aircraft: CESSNA 172B, registration: N7472X
Injuries: 3 Serious, 1 Minor.


THE PILOT ATTEMPTED TO TAKE OFF ON RUNWAY 36 (2,240' X 100') BUT WAS UNABLE TO GET AIRBORNE. HE THEN ELECTED TO TAKE OFF ON RUNWAY 27 (1,350' X 90', GRASS). THE PILOT REPORTED LOCAL WINDS FROM THE WEST AT 23 KNOTS. THE AIRPLANE STALLED INTO A WOODED AREA JUST WEST OF THE AIRSTRIP AND WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE. THE AIRPLANE WAS LOADED WITH FOUR OCCUPANTS AND 1/2 FULL FUEL TANKS WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the pilot's failure to maintain Vso during takeoff. Factors related to the accident was the disregard for performance data and trees.

On July 1, 1994, at 1119 central daylight time, a Cessna 172, N7472X, registered to Dale L. Storm of Black Creek, Wisconsin, collided with trees and the terrain during initial takeoff climb from runway 27 (1,350' x 90', grass) at the Shiocton Airstrip, Shiocton, Wisconsin. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a VFR flight plan was filed. The private pilot and two passengers were seriously injured. A third passenger received minor injuries. The airplane was destroyed by impact and post crash fire. The flight was departing for La Crosse, Wisconsin, when the accident occurred.

The pilot stated, the winds were westerly at approximately 23 knots and the takeoff was normal. He reported that as he neared the wooded area west of the airport "...it seemed as if the wind stopped. I had no lift, airspeed started to drop." He stated he lowered the nose to increase airspeed but that the "winds were pushing down on plane." The airplane crashed in the wooded area and was destroyed by fire. The pilot stated he made the takeoff using 10 degrees of flaps and that the stall warning horn sounded prior to impacting the trees.

Two witnesses reported seeing the airplane take off "slowly" and it was "slow getting up in the air." One of the passengers stated the pilot initially attempted to take off on runway 36 (2,240' x 100') but was unable to get airborne. The pilot then elected to take off on runway 27.

 

[English]

The FSDOs, at least in my area, don't care about incidents like this.

There is a local pilot who has had three prop strikes in the last two years, as well as an emergency landing at night (because he didn't turn on his alternator before departure and drained his battery before landing). Even though two of the three prop strikes involved a 135 aircraft and damage to airport taxi lights, the local FSDO did nothing about it. The guy paid cash on the two (turbine) engine rebuilds. No entries made into the logs. You'd think they'd care about falsifying logbooks for a 135 aircraft. Nope.

I guess they are too understaffed to care about this stuff.

 

[Propsfullfwd]

The FAA in this state has a hard-on for the flight school. There has been 5 gear up landing in the last 3 years. The first thing the chief pilot did was call him. There is going to be a meeting on friday of this week. I will know more then.

Props