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

 

[RSixer]

Im confused here, you mean to tell me that the gear handle was in the up position during th take-off roll? If that is the case the guy has no bussiness teaching, and also his ratings questioned.

 

[Propsfullfwd]

The first time it happened the gear handle was up. They made it about 600ft. down the runway before the gear came up and they did not have the airspeed to maintain flight. The second time was thurs. and they were doing engine out over an airport from 3000ft. to 180 acc. Horn was going off and the CFI did nothing. From what I have heard they had been doing 180 acc. and steep spirals to 180 acc. the whole flight.

 

[minitour]

What about the "student" in question...

If he's got his complex endorsement wouldn't that make him PIC? I'd think some s*it would be in store for him too. Maybe not?

-mini

 

[100LL... Again!]

FN FAL -

What is the mercenary position?

Is it similar to the missionary position, except that you wear camo?

 

[RSixer]

What about the "student" in question...

If he's got his complex endorsement wouldn't that make him PIC? I'd think some s*it would be in store for him too. Maybe not?

-mini

The student wont be a target in this case, usually the most qualified pilot will be considered to be at fault, plus the fact that the instructor was most likely for hire.

 

[minitour]

roger

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL -

What is the mercinary position?

Is it similar to the missionary position, except that you wear camo?

...actually, since mercinaries do it for pay...I'll leave those details up to the principal.

 

[vikaero]

I wouldnt worry too much about the feds coming to you and questioning you etc...etc.. I had a student get into a porpoise on his 3rd solo in a 172.... the blighter SHEARED THE NOSEWHEEL OFF. Nobody came to me for anything....I was prepared as all my documentation/endorsements were in order.

Another example is a CFI and student VMCed a BE76... the CFI admitted to being too slow too low with his commercial multi student... the plane was a writeoff. The CFI got a competency ride BUT no mention of anything in his FAA file... he is now with a commuter in an ERJ.

So moral of story... as long as you did everything by the books.... no sweat.

 

[UnAnswerd]

Imagine landing gear up in a twin-engine turbo-prop loaded with passengers. I bet you would not make employee of the month...

 

[100LL... Again!]

Mercenary position - you come at them out of the mud, like in Rambo- First Blood.
Emissary position - You bring the whole delegation

Ambassador position - Diplomatic immunity can't stop std's, but everyone dresses nice

Sargeant-at-arms position - think 'village people', 'cept military. brass buttons are cold

Drill Sargeant - Drill right... here, sargeant

Rear Admiral position - 'nuff said

 

[acaTerry]

What I can not believe is that nobody seemed to catch the CAUSE of the first gear-up....that the gear handle was UP on takeoff roll. This is one of the very few times I will criticize a pilot in an accident. And a CFI at that. Pathetic and inexcusable. Putting a gear handle up on takeoff roll is about as dumb as a CFI can get.
So far as other gear-up accidents, well you lknow the saying. And I believe it. So far, so good!

BTW 100LL Again: Burning avgas so you dont have to.
Love that!

 

[PropsForward]

Checklist? What's a checklist?

What I can not believe is that nobody seemed to catch the CAUSE of the first gear-up....that the gear handle was UP on takeoff roll. This is one of the very few times I will criticize a pilot in an accident. And a CFI at that. Pathetic and inexcusable. Putting a gear handle up on takeoff roll is about as dumb as a CFI can get.

Couldn't agree more. Plus there are a couple of times (at least) that this is suppose to be checked when running the checklist. Guess the instructor wasn't teaching that either.

 

[JAFI]

Props you said" 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."

And now a gear up takeoff? Do you think there maybe some problem with the teaching ability or knowledge of at least some of the CFI's there?????

Run, don't walk to a better school.

JAFI

 

[Propsfullfwd]

I'm at a regional and loving it. After the last one I was in the process of leaving. THe FAA has been all over the school even before this started happening. Now the heat is just turned up. Alot!