A&P heroics

Kyle Boatright wrote:

A gear up landing has a very, very high probability of having no
injuries whatsoever, and in this case, a belly landing would have only put
two people at risk.

But they couldn't do a gear up landing.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

The issue is that the pilot is making a decision that has an immediate and
consequential impact on the probablility of several people getting hurt or
killed.

No, actually I think the decision was a joint one. The pilot had no
command or situational authority over the people on the ground. He had
situational authority over the one (mechanic) passenger, but I'll bet he
discussed it with the passenger.

In this case, how many lives were put at serious risk? - maybe a 1 in 10
chance of up to 5 people getting hurt or killed

I think you just made those numbers up. Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of
minor injury. I just made those numbers up too. Do you have any
statistics to back up your claim? The only statisitic I have is ten
tries, no injuries, success, plus another incident that was similar I
remember reading about some time ago. I have never heard of a case of
an injury from doing this.

So, maybe it's a one in a million chance of injury.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:rM9Ce.1298$ij3.888@trndny06...
Kyle Boatright wrote:

You're taking a real chance of a plane vs pickup truck accident, and
that's likely to result in fatalities. Belly the aircraft in with the
prop turning and let the insurance company deal with it.

With that ridiculous Cessna gear half down, a belly landing is a real good
way to kill everybody.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

The gear *may* have been unable to lock up or down, but the article only
says they couldn't get it to lock down. It doesn't specify if they tried to
retract it...

KB

In oups.com,
Jim slavered, and posted this:
A&P heroics in landing gear save:

http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1109870.html

-Jim


Not for nothing (and not that I am not glad that all are OK), but after
reading the article, I seriously question the pilot's decision to fly the
airplane (and the mechanic's competence on the 210) with "an oil leak from
the flaps and the gear." I can see the NTSB incident report:

Probable Cause: Improper preflight and pilot's decision to fly with known
hydraulic deficiencies in the landing gear system.
Contributing Factor: Failure of the landing gear hydraulic system.

By the way, I found this on AvWeb regarding landing gear on the C210
(http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182907-1.html):

quote
The Centurion landing gear system has a lousy reputation. Actually, the gear
system can be extremely reliable if you and your maintenance shop
understands the system thoroughly. CPA's three-day Cessna 210 Systems and
Procedures Course devotes several hours to this subject, but I will mention
a few of the highlights here.
UH OH! NO GREEN LIGHT. If you don't get a green light after extending the
gear, the first thing to do is to visually check the landing gear position.
When down and locked, the main gear tires can be seen from the cabin.
However, the nosewheel is not visible to the pilot unless you install a
convex landing gear mirror. A mirror is also necessary to observe the
position of the main gear doors (if your plane has them). CPA sells an STC'd
mirror that simply replaces one of the underwing inspection plates.

If the landing gear appears completely down but there is no green light, a
normal landing should be made. If the main gear is down but not quite
locked, the weight of the aircraft will push the main gear legs toward the
locked position. However, the nose gear retracts forward, so weight on an
unlocked nose gear will tend to make it retract. Therefore, take care to
hold the nose wheel off the ground as long as possible.

If the gear does not appear to be fully extended, try to determine the
cause. On 1971 and earlier 210s which use an engine-driven hydraulic pump,
recycle the landing gear handle to the neutral position and then back to the
down position. On 1972 and later 210s with an electrically-driven hydraulic
pump, make sure that the landing gear switch is in the down position and
that neither the landing gear motor circuit breaker or landing gear control
circuit breaker have tripped.

If the gear still is not fully extended, then it is time to use the
emergency extension system. With the landing gear handle or switch in the
down position, pull out the emergency extension pump handle and start
pumping. Continue until the handle feels like it is set in cement. Visually
determine that the gear is extended and that you have a green light, then
make a normal landing.

If the emergency extension handle won't budge, the most likely cause is a
stuck door solenoid valve (assuming you have doors). The door solenoid valve
is electrically activated to the door-closed position and spring- loaded to
the door-open position. Try turning off the master switch (VFR conditions
only!) to allow the electrical circuits in the landing gear system to cool
down. This may allow the solenoid valve to drop into place. You can also try
pulling the plastic center console cover off to expose the landing gear
power pack, and rap on the door solenoid valve to encourage it to release.
The door solenoid valve is the small silver canister assembly on the left
side of the power pack.

If the emergency extension handle moves freely but the gear does not extend,
the most likely cause is insufficent hydraulic fluid. On pre-1972 aircraft,
there's not much you can do other than verifying that this is the situation
by observing if any fluid is visible through the sight glass. On 1972 and
later models, there's a dipstick and filler port behind a removable panel on
the center console. If the dipstick shows no fluid in the power pack, you
can try pouring any available liquid into the power pack reservoir.

IF NOTHING WORKS, KEEP YOUR COOL. If a gear-up landing can't be avoided, the
important thing is not to panic. A landing with the gear up or partially
extended is not a life-threatening situation and only through panic can a
pilot turn it into one. Simply make a normal approach, touching down at as
low an airspeed as you are comfortable with while maintaining control of the
aircraft.

If you are faced with making a wheels-up landing, here are some items you
might want to keep in mind:

a.. Pavement is better than grass. Contrary to intuition, less damage will
be done touch down on smooth pavement than on grass.

b.. Pick a runway the airlines don't need. If you disturb airline
schedules, the airport management will want toclear the runway quickly,
which could result in greater damage to your aircraft. The FAA may get
upset, too. If the wind is manageable, consider using a crosswind runway at
an airport you think you might have repairs done.

c.. Don't worry about prop or engine damage. The hangar flyers will tell
you should shut down the engine and stop the prop on final to minimize
damage. Most of those guys have never done it. I have, and let me tell you
it is no easy task. Once you pull the mixture out to shut down the engine,
you will have to reduce airspeed almost to stall to get the prop stopped,
and then remain at very low airspeed to prevent the prop from windmilling
again. What's the point? At best, you'll only be saving money for your
insurance company. And that's a pretty poor reason for increasing the risk
factor during a wheels up landing

/quote

The news article doesn't say anything about whether these procedures were
attempted...

--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
Displaced Bolts fan in Detroit
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, uneqyl nalbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

"George Patterson" wrote:
With that ridiculous Cessna gear half down, a belly landing is a real
good way
to kill everybody.

Oh, baloney, George. At least a couple of high wing Cessnas land with
the gear dangling every year without harming the occupants.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Toks Desalu" wrote in message
news:Qo9Ce.1295$ij3.636@trndny06...

Maybe you got a point here. As long as those people knew the risks, I
don't see any reason to call them stupid. I wouldn't do that myself. It is
not the first time I heard about that kind of attempt. I have seen it
before on clip.

Look at this way: a fireman walk into a burning house in order to save the
house from burning down. Is it stupid? Let the house burn down?

Toks Desalu
PP-ASEL
Dyin' to Soar!



"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Jay Honeck wrote:


These guys did an excellent job.


Sorry, but I agree with Kyle. I'm glad it came out okay, but...

...those guys are dumber than a box o' rocks. A plane is nothing but a
tool, and it sure ain't worth risking lives to save -- and they put
several lives at risk with their silly stunt.

Belly the plane in, jack it up, fix it, and everyone walks away.

Nah, some things are worth doing just to see if you can do it. Your
statement could easily be said about sky diving, rock climbing or any of
myriad other activities. I'd give something like this a try in a heart
beat. If all of the participants are volunteers, then I add nothing
wrong with giving this a try. Sure, things may go awry, but that is
life.

I wouldn't do this with kids in the airplane or anyone who didn't
understand and accept the risks, but if I wasn't risking the life of
anyone other than myself and other volunteers, then I see no issue.


Matt


The issue is that the pilot is making a decision that has an immediate and
consequential impact on the probablility of several people getting hurt or
killed. I think it is fine if you skydive, do aerobatics that your airplane
isn't designed for, do nighttime acro inside the clouds in icing conditions,
etc. as long as you are certain that you're not going to take anyone else
with your if your number comes up.

In this case, how many lives were put at serious risk? - maybe a 1 in 10
chance of up to 5 people getting hurt or killed - 2 in the plane and 3 in
the truck. A gear up landing has a very, very high probability of having no
injuries whatsoever, and in this case, a belly landing would have only put
two people at risk.

Did the pilot force the folks on the ground to pull down his gear? Was
he holding their families hostage? Was he a banker threatening to
foreclose on their homes? If not, then he didn't put them at risk at
all. They put themselves are risk, probably well understanding the
risk. This is what adults do. I realize that the nanny-state advocates
don't understand this, but this is what made Americal great. Do you
think Lewis and Clark should have stayed home? After all, their journey
was rather risky and included a lot of other people...


Matt

Jose wrote:

The issue is that the pilot is making a decision that has an immediate
and consequential impact on the probablility of several people getting
hurt or killed.


No, actually I think the decision was a joint one. The pilot had no
command or situational authority over the people on the ground. He had
situational authority over the one (mechanic) passenger, but I'll bet he
discussed it with the passenger.

In this case, how many lives were put at serious risk? - maybe a 1 in
10 chance of up to 5 people getting hurt or killed


I think you just made those numbers up. Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of
minor injury. I just made those numbers up too. Do you have any
statistics to back up your claim? The only statisitic I have is ten
tries, no injuries, success, plus another incident that was similar I
remember reading about some time ago. I have never heard of a case of
an injury from doing this.

Likewise, I've seen at least a few of these attempts succeed and I've
yet to read of a fatality involving such attempts so I'd say the safety
record is 100%! Few things in life have proven to be 100% safe, so I'd
say this is something worth attempting to save the aircraft and the crew
and since the risk is proven to be zero, why not? :-)


Matt

53.8% of statistics are made up.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
snip
I think you just made those numbers up. Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of
minor injury. I just made those numbers up too. Do you have any
statistics to back up your claim? The only statisitic I have is ten
tries, no injuries, success, plus another incident that was similar I
remember reading about some time ago. I have never heard of a case of
an injury from doing this.
snip

George Patterson wrote in
news:WP9Ce.1399$xe3.213@trndny09:

Skywise wrote:

The picture clearly shows the flaps up. Is the aircraft more
controllable?

Both of my aircraft were more controllable with flaps up, especially in
ground effect. You also need more power with flaps down; that and the
effect of the flaps would make it a bit turbulent for the guys in the
truck.

Thank you, George.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

private wrote:

53.8% of statistics are made up.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
snip

I think you just made those numbers up. Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance of
minor injury. I just made those numbers up too. Do you have any
statistics to back up your claim? The only statisitic I have is ten
tries, no injuries, success, plus another incident that was similar I
remember reading about some time ago. I have never heard of a case of
an injury from doing this.

snip



Except I didn't write the above. You need more practice using your
newsreader...

Matt