Nose gear up landing

[mcjohn]

I was just down at KPIE (St. Pete/Clearwater) working on my CFI and one of the school's Seneca I's had a nose gear jam. It was one of the most unbeleivable things I've ever witnessed. The MEI rated pilot was ~ 500 agl on final, cut the engines off and began to drop like a brick, I though he was dead! He went screaming into ground effect with fully feathered props and positioned them parallel to the ground with the starters and performed a perfect landing on the mains and gently set the nose down.
I was recently reading, I think it was aviation safety, about gear up landings. They suggested to never attempt to do anything like this and that it is just too dangerous. This MEI saved the owner dealing with $50,000 in prop strike damage and the plane supposedly has only $4000 in damage with a cracked nose cone.
What's up with Aviation Safety? Are they wise or not?

 

[BD King]

It has been my experience (ask AVBUG) that if you have a choice of one or two gear legs hanging down, go with that combination rather than no gear at all. I have witnessed two without one main down, a 310 and a Baron, and they suffered nil in damage. I know of a 310 with no nose gear, and again, minimal damage.

 

[garf12]

nice job, but saving the owner money would be the last thing on my mind.

 

[mainah]

nice job, but saving the owner money would be the last thing on my mind.

Agreed, f the owners money, I just want to be safely on the ground.

 

[FN FAL]

I was just down at KPIE (St. Pete/Clearwater) working on my CFI and one of the school's Seneca I's had a nose gear jam. It was one of the most unbeleivable things I've ever witnessed. The MEI rated pilot was ~ 500 agl on final, cut the engines off and began to drop like a brick, I though he was dead! He went screaming into ground effect with fully feathered props and positioned them parallel to the ground with the starters and performed a perfect landing on the mains and gently set the nose down.
I was recently reading, I think it was aviation safety, about gear up landings. They suggested to never attempt to do anything like this and that it is just too dangerous. This MEI saved the owner dealing with $50,000 in prop strike damage and the plane supposedly has only $4000 in damage with a cracked nose cone.
What's up with Aviation Safety? Are they wise or not?

Hehehe...I worked with a guy once that tried that...

I'd say if you really want to look cool, give it a shot.

CHI99LA016
On November 1, 1998, at 2001 central standard time, a Cessna 310I, N8069M, sustained substantial damage during an undershoot to runway 4 (6,701' X 150' dry/asphalt) at Rock County Airport, near Janesville, Wisconsin. The pilot said that because the nose landing gear would not extend an emergency landing was initiated. He said that during the emergency landing the engine power was reduced to zero and the landing was short of the runway. The pilot and one passenger reported no injuries, while the pilot rated passenger reported minor injuries. The personal 14 CFR Part 91 flight was operating in visual meteorological conditions. No flight plan was on file. The local flight departed at 1825.

In his written statement, the owner/pilot indicated that the pre-flight was conducted in the hangar. He said he decided to pull the airplane out of the hangar by use of a tow bar, after which using an auxiliary power unit the engines were started. The pilot was in the left seat during the engine startup. After stowing the auxiliary power unit, the other passengers boarded the airplane and the airplane departed on a local flight. During the landing gear retraction a "... loud bang was heard... ." He said that when he attempted to lower the landing gear utilizing both normal and emergency landing gear extension procedures; he was unable to obtain a safe gear down indication. After making a low pass over the airport, it was determined that the nose landing gear was not extended. He said he then decided that an emergency landing would have to be conducted. He stated that during the final approach the engines were shut down, and the fuel and electrical switches were turned off. The pilot said that it then became apparent that the airplane would touch down short of the runway. At that point the pilot/passenger in the right seat took the controls and an attempt to regain power was initiated; however, the airplane impacted the terrain 750 feet short of the runway, prior to restoration of sufficient power to avoid the undershoot.

After the accident the tow bar was found adjacent to the airplane in the field. A subsequent examination of the airplane revealed no pre-accident anomalies.

 

[mcjohn]

The statement before about the plane dropping like a brick is a factor here. I don't think many realize what'll do with no power. I saw it first hand and I'm wondering what I would do in that situation.

 

[bigD]

Let the insurance company pay for the engines and props. When I think about being safe, I'm thinking about the people in the plane, not the plane itself. No sense in increasing risk to me and the guys in back just to decrease the risk to an insured airplane.

 

[FN FAL]

The statement before about the plane dropping like a brick is a factor here. I don't think many realize what'll do with no power. I saw it first hand and I'm wondering what I would do in that situation.

I'd say do like my buddy did...shut down the engines. Maybe the worse that will happen is that you'll crash in the landing lights, kill and maim some people and get sued.

 

[mcjohn]

So I guess the main point is that it is a lot harder than it looked.

 

[FN FAL]

So I guess the main point is that it is a lot harder than it looked.

It's all fun and games until someone winds up in a burn ward. Your buddy did a fine job, but if he would have blown a main landing gear strut or a tire during a hard landing and careened off the runway into a fuel truck or another airplane, things could have got messy. Especially if it could be proven that the hard landing was a result of the pilot choosing to shut down the engines.

Follow the POH and you'll have a good defense in case you wind up getting sued.

 

[88_MALIBU]

Hell no! Thats my response. You couldnt pay me to chop the gas on short final. My life is worth a heck of alot more $ than some Lycomings. I "had" a friend try this once, and it cost alot more in hospital bills.

 

[USMCmech]

So I guess the main point is that it is a lot harder than it looked.

The point is that your buddy almost killed himself and/or totaled the plane to save the insrunce deductable.

He got lucky this time and pulled it off, but next time it may not turn out so well for everybody involved.

Anytime you are in the air, taking care fo the airplane falls a distant second to keeping yourself alive. In the example you gave, the pilot should have landed normally on the mains, then before the nose dropped pull back both mixtures to "idle cuttoff" this will kill the engines once you are on the ground.

Trying to do a dead stick landing in a twin, while messing with the starter to move the props parallel to the ground, changed a "equipment malfunction" into an extreamly dangerous emergency.

 

[mtrv]

The point is that your buddy almost killed himself and/or totaled the plane to save the insrunce deductable.

He got lucky this time and pulled it off, but next time it may not turn out so well for everybody involved.

Would you say the same thing to Bob Hoover? H'ed cut the engines, and do a roll before landing his twin Rockwell Shrike.

Since you really don't know this pilot's experience level, who's to say that he almost killed himself? From what I read, he seemed to be ahead of the game all the way down!
Even kept his airspeed up with a higher than normal decent rate, which allowed for options when nearing the runway.

It's like the flight instructors basic rule of not doing a 180 degree return to the airport after engine failure. The majority of pilots will get killed doing this. But those who have practiced from altitude in a specific aircraft, and know the altitude loss, etc ------- do survive. One rule doesn't fit all!

 

[USMCmech]

Bob Hoover is an exceptional pilot, who before he ever tried his feathered engine landing had thousands of hours in hundreds of high performance aircraft, and practiced that manuver at altitude before he ever tired this in an airshow. (it's really cool to see BTW)

He had also flown P-51s to dead stick landings on several ocasions.


For anybody else, I stand behind my statement. That intentionally landing a twin with both engines feathered is a disaster waiting to happen. You might get lucky and pull it off, but more likely you'll winf up warpped in a ball of aluminum that used to be a plane.

The deductiable on most aircaft is a few thousand dollars. Definately not woth risking your life over.

 

[mattpilot]

The deductiable on most aircaft is a few thousand dollars. Definately not woth risking your life over.

according to the guy in my class, its 20k for his baron 55

just a FYI

 

[FN FAL]

Screw the deductible on the insurance, it's the lawsuit afterwards that I'm talking about. If you follow the POH, you are most likely protected in the event of a negligence lawsuit. Make up your own procedures, you as the pilot can be sued by that owner for damage to the plane as result of your negligence.

As for Bob Hoover...he owns his own planes that he flys. He can do what he wants to them.

 

[BD King]

Screw the deductible on the insurance, it's the lawsuit afterwards that I'm talking about. If you follow the POH, you are most likely protected in the event of a negligence lawsuit. Make up your own procedures, you as the pilot can be sued by that owner for damage to the plane as result of your negligence.

As for Bob Hoover...he owns his own planes that he flys. He can do what he wants to them.

For the life of me, I cannot think of the legal term, but what it is, an additional cost to the insurance that covers the pilot in case of an accident. The last three airplanes that I flew for others had this rider. In other words, if I geared one up, and there was a question on the why, I was covered. Lawsuit was out of the question............Hoover did not own the airplanes.

 

[MTpilot]

White Scarf and derring do!

WOW! So I guess it's not OK to be a good stick anymore. I say he did well, more power to him. I myself have a wagon that I use to cart my gigantic balls around in how about y'all.

 

[cptsesso]

I had the unique opportunity of putting a C-310P model (freight dog) in twice on its nose. Same plane both times.

The first time I let the engines run until touchdown and then cut and feathered them. The props ended up spinning into the ground. I have a nice piece of one of the chewed up blades as a souvenir.

The second time, same plane and several hundred hours later, bang when retracting the gear. I let out a few choice curse words and headed toward home airport.

Watched rescue equipment get ready and decided to shut down and feather the right engine this time. Flew a nice approach, got a little cocky and decided to shut down and feather left engine over the fence. Now from my observations, plane did not drop like a brick but rather accelerated forward. I touched down on both mains and happened to look out the left window and saw the 3 blade sticking straight down. Held the nose up and tweaked the starter until the 3 blade was straight up and then the nose dropped to the ground.

Definately a lot more fun the second time around. Not near as nervous. The 2 downward blade tips just barely scraped the runway. Anyway, the boss was giving me shi*. He said I should have just let them spin into the ground because he would have collected more money from the insurance.

Needless to say that was the last flight of old 92P. I think it was trying to tell us it was tired.

 

[Fuzzy_is_Hungry]

I'd say this guy did an exceptional job. For anyone who has flown the PA-34, you know that it is one of the few twin engine airplanes that has a huge tendency to float in ground effect. I would assume that this pilot knew the limitations of the aircraft, and I hope his boss buys him a beer for his efforts to save the company money. I say good work buddy!

 

[mcjohn]

Anyway, the boss was giving me shi*. He said I should have just let them spin into the ground because he would have collected more money from the insurance.

This must explain how oddly calm the boss was of that plane as it approached.

Being in the engine out configuration 1st may explain that acceleration?

 

[Flyin Tony]

And just what happens if some little kid runs on the runway when you have no engines working for you to go around on??

 

[qmaster3]

And just what happens if some little kid runs on the runway when you have no engines working for you to go around on??

Guess, you'll have one dead little kid.

 

[FN FAL]

And just what happens if some little kid runs on the runway when you have no engines working for you to go around on??

Tony, don't waste your breath. This is same same crowd that will wind up vmc rollover an apache/aztec on a go-around after they realize they can't get the gear down in time for landing because the failed engine had the hydraulic pump on it.