Scotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 546 posts, RR: 13 Posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3673 times:
Did you see LIVE tv on CNN "Breaking News"?
I watched the last 8 minute dramatic on CNN. Cessana 172 registration N6434V had trouble with gear up and landed perfect. The pilot did an excellent job landing with one wheel.
Frank
Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5962 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3648 times:
Seems to be a recurring problem with Cutlass RG models...wonder why? A fair number of them end up on TV when someone chases the plane down on the runway (from a ground vehicle), and successfully pulls the landing gear leg that didn't retract into the down-and-locked position. BTW, I've heard that this is *EXCEPTIONALLY* dangerous...(working in close confines with the propeller).
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
YWG From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 1140 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3588 times:
I saw it on CNN aswell. Aparently they botched the first landing pretty bad which in turn lead to the gear damage. I'm assuming it was a student and instructor....because the 172 can take ONE HELL of a beating. I also noticed a couple other things during the live video that I'd like to commend the pilot on.
1) He followed the emergency procedure of unlatching the doors just prior to landing. Alot of people freeze up and just want to put it on the ground. The second the plane came to rest the door flung open; why he didn't get out and hug/kiss the ground immediatly will forever be a mystery.
2) The use of what looked like full, 30 degree's of flap really helped in his 'modified ground roll/skid'. I didn't see one spark!
Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2522 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3552 times:
Quoting T prop (Reply 1): Registration N6434V belongs to a hot air ballon...
Well then a gear up landing shouldn't be enough to make it on CNN
CRGsFuture From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 536 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3531 times:
What airport was it at if anyone would be so kind to tell me?
Flying you to your destination; your girlfriend to her dreams.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3493 times:
Quoting YWG (Reply 4): because the 172 can take ONE HELL of a beating.
Yes it can... but that doesn't really matter if there is a mechanical issue that prevents the gear from coming down. This is a 172RG (if the tail number info is correct).
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5962 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3490 times:
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 7): Yes it can... but that doesn't really matter if there is a mechanical issue that prevents the gear from coming down. This is a 172RG (if the tail number info is correct).
AKA Cutlass RG, or as many flight instructors I know call it, the GUTLESS
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Did you notice the strobe lights still flashing after the landing? Electrical should have been off. Fuel cutoff as well.
The engine should have been shut down 50 feet up and the propeller cranked into the horizontal position. By not following that procedure damage done to the prop and engine will cost much more than the belly sheet metal would have alone.
If this was a flight school aircraft, it's a poor reflection on their emergency procedures training. Checklist checklist checklist!!!
I wouldn't have traded places with the guy this afternoon, but I think there's a lot of room for review on this.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
Amazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3421 times:
Quoting T prop (Reply 1): Registration N6434V belongs to a hot air ballon...
T prop
AND the plane was a 172RG a retractable 172. A plain 172 likely would not have had this happen.
Amazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 8): AKA Cutlass RG, or as many flight instructors I know call it, the GUTLESS
Depends on how you use the aircraft and where...I have 180hours in Cutlasses and even used it almost all those hours in Denver, CO. a high altitude area and not once did I ever not have enough power even with 4 people aboard in the summer. All on how you use it and fly it. No, it won't climb out like a 210 but it does just fine if you keep it within it's limits. Took one to 17,500ft once with 3 aboard with no problem.
Futurecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3330 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 9): The engine should have been shut down 50 feet up
Where in the checklist does it quote 50 feet up? Also I think it's smart to leave it running until closer to the ground in case he had to go around as he didn't have engine trouble it sounds like.
I havn't seen the video of this, but you say the gear was damaged? Was it somehow or would it just not go down and lock?
Now I agree the 172 can take quite a beating, God knows I've had my share of hard landings. Now, I don't know what training this instructor has had, but here they tell us a way of getting gear down when it is stuck in the up position.
Slow to around 45 or 50 knots, and climb into back seat. Instructor and student can take turns flying / crawling into back. From there if you open the door you can get a pretty good grip on the gear and your airspeed is slow enough you can usually swing the gear hard enough to get it to lock.
But I don't know what kind of damage there was to the gear.
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2113 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3237 times:
Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 12): Where in the checklist does it quote 50 feet up? Also I think it's smart to leave it running until closer to the ground in case he had to go around as he didn't have engine trouble it sounds like.
It doesn't quote 50 ft. I'll give you that, and with the runway available and proper airspeed management, the engine could have been safely secured and saved along with the prop. The C172 checklist DOES call for elec and fuel OFF.
As for leaving it running in case of a go around. In a situation such as this you eventually set up for the slide and stay with it.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
YWG From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 1140 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 9): The engine should have been shut down 50 feet up and the propeller cranked into the horizontal position. By not following that procedure damage done to the prop and engine will cost much more than the belly sheet metal would have alone.
Amazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3047 times:
He didn''t say "featherable" He just said cranked or "bumped" with the starter to the horizonatal position...a 2 blade prop....so it wouldn't get damage and the engine need a crank journal run out test. Only the nose gear area cowling would get damaged
Arch89U From United States of America, joined May 2001, 188 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3017 times:
As a CFI who trained for his commercial and CFI on the Cutlass I have to say well done to the pilots involved in this.
Where were you taught
However, I have to disagree with anyone who says to stop the engine while in flight. This is NOT recommended procedure. No one since 1959 according to the NTSB database has died in a gear up landing UNLESS the pilot attempted to save the plane by stopping the prop.
Stopping the prop adds so much unnecessary risk. The aircraft is plain and simple the insurance company's aircraft in the case of a gear up landing. They will GLADLY pay for the teardown inspection/engine replacement and new prop versus trying to settle medical claims. Hull damage is small peanuts in their book. You just have to keep those incidents to a minimum.
In any case, I would recommend against stopping the prop when confronted with a gear-up landing. Don't try to be a hero. You'll be a hero if you can walk out of the aircraft (with the doors already opened, of course)
SPREE34, I would question where you were told it was best practice to stop the prop to save the engine.
Amazonphil From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
Quoting Arch89U (Reply 16): As a CFI who trained for his commercial and CFI on the Cutlass I have to say well done to the pilots involved in this.
Where were you taught
However, I have to disagree with anyone who says to stop the engine while in flight. This is NOT recommended procedure. No one since 1959 according to the NTSB database has died in a gear up landing UNLESS the pilot attempted to save the plane by stopping the prop.
Stopping the prop adds so much unnecessary risk. The aircraft is plain and simple the insurance company's aircraft in the case of a gear up landing. They will GLADLY pay for the teardown inspection/engine replacement and new prop versus trying to settle medical claims. Hull damage is small peanuts in their book. You just have to keep those incidents to a minimum.
In any case, I would recommend against stopping the prop when confronted with a gear-up landing. Don't try to be a hero. You'll be a hero if you can walk out of the aircraft (with the doors already opened, of course)
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2113 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2921 times:
Quoting Arch89U (Reply 16): SPREE34, I would question where you were told it was best practice to stop the prop to save the engine.
I was trained by "Old School" former Military test pilots who thought being Master of the craft was the way to operate. To this day I agree with their philosophies. (Yes, I believe in spin recovery training)
I don't see any airmanship in this example that a student pilot could not have accomplished. Plenty of runway available for type aircraft, make a stable approach, checklist followed, bump the prop to horizontal, noisy touchdown no braking necessary.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2908 times:
Quoting Arch89U (Reply 16): Stopping the prop adds so much unnecessary risk. The aircraft is plain and simple the insurance company's aircraft in the case of a gear up landing. They will GLADLY pay for the teardown inspection/engine replacement and new prop versus trying to settle medical claims. Hull damage is small peanuts in their book. You just have to keep those incidents to a minimum.
In any case, I would recommend against stopping the prop when confronted with a gear-up landing. Don't try to be a hero. You'll be a hero if you can walk out of the aircraft (with the doors already opened, of course)
Another from yet another CFI who suffered through his commercial in a Gutless. Very well said.
FWIW I saw a Conquest (twin turboprop) do a nose-gear-up landing a few months ago and even though the pilot feathered/shut down the engines before the props hit the runway, the aircraft STILL had a teardown of both engines.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 546 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 1140 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
