Two green, no red, one in the mirror....(long)

On 2005-02-09, Len wrote:
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
In retrospect, I've been analyzing the landing gear system. I think the
fact that we didn't get the gear warning horn and the red gear warning
light was actually an indication that the gear was down.

Many retracts have multiple independent systems that sense gear position.
You may have to get a maintenance manual and look at the wiring diagrams
to figure it all out.

For example, my Comanche has 3 switches in series to light one bulb.
There is also an independent switch on the nose gear only that is used
as part of the gear warning horn (in conjunction with a mechanical
monstrosity behind the throttle). If the green light doesn't come on,
but the gear horn doesn't sound when you retard the throttle, the gear
is probably down (it's all mechanically interconnected). You can also
see (and feel) the emergency extension handle to know if the gear is
stuck at some point.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ron Natalie" wrote

And what would that tell you. Frankly, unless there's something
dangerous
(like something in the way on the runway), it's probably safer to continue
the landing and take the possible collapse.

I would have to agree with you on that one. Bumping it may cause an
unlocked gear to become even "less locked", then collapse, the next time you
put the weight on it. On the other hand, a real greaser may not put enough
strain on the gear to cause the same unlocked gear to fold on you.
--
Jim in NC

"Icebound" wrote in message ...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m...
houstondan wrote:
reading stuff like yours is why i do the net groups. thanks for posting
that. would there have been any sense to "bumping" it on the runway??
planning not to put all the weight on it and just kinda bumping it then
pulling up to do another circuit with whatever new info you just
gained??


And what would that tell you. Frankly, unless there's something dangerous
(like something in the way on the runway), it's probably safer to continue
the landing and take the possible collapse. A gingerly executed landing
is going to be better than bumping things and taking off... I've seen
a plane land without the nosegear and I've seen one land without one of the
mains. While the first yielded a bunch of sparks and the second caused the
plane to go off into the dirt, both pilots walked away uninjured and without
too much damange to the plane either.

Half-way through the post, I thought Len was involved in this (with video):

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/u...?storyid=32215

from a day or so ago. Pretty standard 1-main-up landing.



Reminds me of the C-310 with the nose wheel unlocked. The guy did a number of flybys that confirmed that it was down but
not locked; it was just dangling there. They went off and tried 60° bank turns and other things to try and flick it
down, but no luck. They finally came in to land, a little hot, shut down the engines in the flair, sorta bounced it, and
the nose wheel flicked out, looked like it might stay, but then folded back. The nose settled down on the runway and
wore off a patch of aluminum maybe one foot long. Very minimal damage to the plane...

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:11:52 -0800, "Len"
wrote:

I definitely have to say, it was one of my most useful flights.

Apparently it's true that when you have problems like this declaring
an emergency really is a good idea. Nice to hear that the fire dept
was out there ready and waiting to come put out the plane if there was
a problem.

I know several former pilots that hung up their wings after a
particularly frightening experience. They gained a sudden
realization
of the risks involved with their activity and weren't prepared to
deal
with it.

It's even more common with family of pilots. I know a particularly
egregious example.

A good friend of mine used to own a C-177RG. He geared it up.

Of course it wasn't his fault. My friend bought the plane used. The
plane had hydraulic hoses that were original (25 years old) and he
instructed his A&P/IA to replace them at annual. The guy didn't, and
he also didn't tell my friend that he didn't. A few months later, one
of them burst. In the Cessna system, once a hose bursts you're done.
The manual extension only provides a backup for the pump.

My friend did all the right things. He tried to get the gear down by
the emergency extension procedure, shking the plane, etc. He diverted
to a major airport with emergency services. He made a flyby to confirm
gear state. He flew off most (but not all) of his fuel. He killed the
engine in the flare, over the runway. He made a perfect minimum-energy
landing and kept the wings level far into the roll. The emergency
crews actually applauded, it was so letter-perfect.

My friend's wife wouldn't fly with him after that. She gained a sudden
realization of the risks involved.

My friend sold the Cardinal and bought a Bonanza. He won't let the
same A&P/IA work on it anymore, and has begun to do much of his own
work, having learned that you can't trust a shop. He has had years of
incident-free flying. It's a MAJOR challenge to get his wife into the
airplane.

Michael

My friend bought the plane used. The
plane had hydraulic hoses that were original (25 years old) and he
instructed his A&P/IA to replace them at annual. The guy didn't, and
he also didn't tell my friend that he didn't.

My friend sold the Cardinal and bought a Bonanza. He won't let the
same A&P/IA work on it anymore, and has begun to do much of his own
work, having learned that you can't trust a shop.

I'm curious if the first A&P claimed to have replaced the hoses (and included
it in the maintenance entry).

I was wondering if the mech had told the owner of the plane that the hose
was in fact changed or not. And no matter what the case may have been....it
is always the owner/pilots responsibility to check the maint. logs for work
performed.

Patrick

I was wondering if the mech had told the owner of the plane that the
hose
was in fact changed or not.

He said nothing. He didn't log the work as having been done, and he
didn't charge for it. Had my friend gone through the paperwork line by
line, he would have figured out that the hoses were not replaced. Of
course there was no requirement to replace them. It's perfectly legal
to fly around with 25 year old flexible hydraulic lines.

And no matter what the case may have been....it
is always the owner/pilots responsibility to check the maint. logs
for work
performed.

Yeah, sure. No matter what, you can make it the pilot's fault.
Personally, I think that if you instruct the mechanic to do something
at annual, he agrees to do it, and never mentions it again, you should
be able to trust that it got done. That's how one deals with
professionals.

Of course you can pretty reasonably argue that an A&P mechanic is NOT a
professional and should not be treated like one.

Michael

Personally, I think that if you instruct the mechanic to do something
at annual, he agrees to do it, and never mentions it again, you should
be able to trust that it got done.

It would be interesting to hear the mechanic's point of view. It could easily
have just been a misunderstanding, especially if the owner didn't provide a
written list.

Another option you might like to consider for "next time" is to get another
aircraft to take a look from underneath (preferably 2 crew; 1 being an
engineer with binoculars).

Also, in many aircraft it can be "deduced" that all 3 are down and locked if
the in-transit light is OFF (after being on whilst the gear really is in
transit). "Insert usual disclaimers here etc" - but it's another clue to
help you make the best decision.

Cheers,

CC